Defnitions

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Thursday, August 17, 2006 22:26
VIEWED: 2739
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:01 PM

Here are mine. Chris suggested we need not only these, but subdefs, which I agree with.

Okay, here's the updated list: This post will keep changing as things get suggested.

leftist: belief in a social safety net, universal equality, govt run services.
rightist: belief in free market capitalism, preservation of a way of life, limited govt.
libertarian: belief in strong civil liberties, unlimitled individual rights, non-interference.
authoritarian: belief in a strong central govt., security over personal freedom, top-down social structure.
Free: (Capital F) reasonable civil liberties, free to swing your arms ends where my nose begins.
Ruled: (capital R) controlled within an authoritarian structure which prevents unwanted opposition, whether Al Qaeda or fobs.
UE: Univeral Equality, a core left-wing idea
PWL: Preservation of a Way of Life, a core right-wing idea
fighter: a combatant
soldier: a uniformed international law abiding combatant
rebel: an active anti-power agent

Use with caution:

insurgent: the way the media uses it is fine I guess it's objective, but it can't be used blanketly to apply to, say, the people of Iraq
terrorist: with the restriction that actual terrorism is involved.

Remember guys, the definition of terrorism, in any dictionary prior to about 2003, was an ideology focusing on the creation of an atmosphere of fear through the perpetration of random destructive acts. This is the working definition we have to use. If an insurgent uses an IED to blow up a US military transport, they are not a terrorist, if they drive a carbomb into a market square in baghdad, they are a terrorist. Populations as a whole should never been called terrorists.

Another thing to consider.

There's been a fair amount of yelling even by me about conspiracy theories. Let's lose this term. It's not all that descriptive, it's more of a label, though not as bad as 'tinfoil hat'

Chances are, any theory someone has, is probably the result of much research, and likely has a shred of truth. I think that many of pirate news' theories are incorrect, in that they are not 100% correct. But they are certainly not 100% incorrect. Most of our history was once a wacked out fringe theory, and virtually all of our science was. The holocaust was considered a conspiracy theory until it was too late to do anything about it. So, all points of view are equally valid, doesn't mean equally true, but it's not diplomatic to deride them out of hand.flying monkeys flew planes in the WTC is "an interesting idea" "a curious possibility" but it might not be devoid of merit. What if it's true? Maybe Al Qaeda trained monkeys? is that important? [you guys know this is hypothetical, right?]

But this is just about language, and so, everything is a possibility, but when you start on the attitude of 'what a looney' you're not approaching agreement.

Really what we have is, just to lose the stigma, i'd like to go with hypothesis or thesis, or some similar words. eventually, word neutrality will come naturally, we'll know when we're spinning, and we can use it in political campaign perhaps, but right now we're not on a political campaign.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think we should skip progress because the progressives have been attempting to pre-empt it.

What kinds of progress might there be?

Science and Industry, whether stemcells or spaceships. Just call it something. Tech? Technological advancement? KH for know-how?

anyway, I'd like to hear some ideas for unambiguous term for anything key to political discussion. a new, and relatively unweighted vocab.

Right and Left, not Right and Wrong.

ODDSBODSKINS

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:06 PM

can we pick and mix?

'Utterly dedicated to the fifty bucks'

RIGHTEOUS9

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:11 PM

Your definitions are good because they aren't inflamitory, however there are positions without a definition.

I would consider myself a leftist libratarian, because I firmly believe in civil rights, but also believe in social programs.

Problem is libretarian implies no government interference, and while I don't want government interference on a personal level, I think that lack of government regulation on corporations is essentially interference - that it gives companies carte blanche to interfere in the right of the people to pursue happiness.

How should I be defined?

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

How should I be defined?

By your sterling character sir, we see eye to eye on this.
But every political POV has it's merrits.

Peace is the goal of Chrisisall

RIGHTEOUS9

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:22 PM

Thank you Chrisisall

YINYANG

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:25 PM

Here's a fun site for finding out 'what you are,' in a manner of speaking.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

And, something a little more on-topic: how many words are going to be defined?

---

Go to http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/ and vote Firefly!

CAUSAL

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Oddsbodskins:
can we pick and mix?

'Utterly dedicated to the fifty bucks'

Exactly! Enough with labels; let's mix!

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:59 PM

I need to state clearly, this is not a new moderate PC. PC is about silencing ideas. ie. it's very not PC to say that south africa was more stable before mandela than it is today. This is only about neutral words, so we can debate without killing each other.

Chris is right, every point of view in valid.

Including this one: The PoV of the "islamo-fascists" a term which definitely has to go. Also, "terrorist" has to go as it is being applied to a very large group of people who have never committed or supported the committing of a terrorist act.

I nominate the following term: rebel

The leader of an islamic rebel group is the rebel leader. He's not the radical terrorist, he's not Osama's number two (unless he's actually Zawahiri) He's the rebel leader. His soldiers are fighters, not terrorists, or insurgents, but also not freedom fighters or heros. If they're uniformed, they can be soldiers. Any thoughts?

But unlike PC the following is acceptable:

"The shiia rebel leader in iraq reminds me of mussolini."

I would disagree with that statement, but it's not slanderous spin. It's an opinion. It's less inflamatory than this:

"islamo-fascist terrorist moqtada al sadr continued his anti-semitic campaign today with his america-hating demonstration dedicated to destroying israel. He also sucks monkey cock."

And sure, people can say whatever they want, but we only have to respect those opinions, political PoVs which can be worded in neutral language.

And I'll retire "lefty-wacko" :)

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

Exactly! Enough with labels; let's mix!

'Jeet Kune Do politics' all around!

Eclectic Chrisisall

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 12:07 AM

YinYang,

No offense, but political compasses are the most nefarious form of campaignign. They are always weighted to tell you that you are one thing, so as to convince some people to join that movement.

I object to the idea in general, and didn't fill out the quiz. I to decided copy the questions and kibitz them.

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
- inevitable? I'll bite. This is a silly question, but it's slanted to make you give the left answer: ie. do you like humans or greed?

I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.
- this is a stupid question. and it does not define a political position. It's a leftists view of the right, but under a democratic admin. a majority of the left behaves the same way.

No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it.
- this isn't a political question either, many people are 'proud americans'

Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.
- racism is now a political PoV?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
- whatever

Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.
There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.
People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.
Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.
Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea.
It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.
Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
The freer the market, the freer the people.
Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal.
All authority should be questioned.
Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis.
- these are more or less political either left-right, or libertarian-authoritarian.

It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.
Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold.
- sure a libertarian might say these, but they might not. An authoritarian might say them.

- sure a libertarian might say this, but they might not. An authoritarian might say them.

The rich are too highly taxed.
The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care.
Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.
A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.
- i suspect 90% of the population says no to these, and so I assume they are state to help shift the poll-taker to the left. myself I might say yes anyway
particularly on the medical care, in a pure capitalist no holds barred chaos, this statement would still not be true, those who had no ability to pay would end up with a bill

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
- there's no way that this is a political point of view in any way. Libertarian extremist Osama Bin Laden would agree with Authoritarian Saddam Hussein that it was true, and right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan would agree with left-wing extremist Ralph Nader that it was false.

Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.
- if this is political I don't get which way. Maybe it's a libertarian issue. Maybe.

All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.
- separatism is also a political point of view in a way, but not in any of the axes that the poll is testing for. I'm sure societies of Left, Right, Libertarian and Authoritarian have all existed with this view and with the oppos

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE