Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
and you know, it's hard to understand why someone completely sane would sympathise with the "further right"
Do you mean 'far right' by this, or are you saying that everyone who sees the merits of the free market is a gibbering, bed-wetting nurse-stabber?
i'm not a communist or anything.
to the degree many people on here seem to think I do, but yes, I'd agree with this.
That said, I would say most of the people I've met and classed as 'lefties' rather than just being left-wing have been idiots; right-on because they think its the right way to be rather than having put any thought into their politics. Same way further right-wing people are just being reactionary.
I agree with danielkelly!
in no time
I've respect for anyone with the decency to challenge their own views now and again, who can listen to an opposing view point without frothing at the mouth. Both ends of the political spectrum have their fair share of morons.
it's writers and it's readers STEREOTYPED into a bunch of humorless condescending lefties.
Guardian readers yesterday
It was really interesting, worth listening to it on their website. Chuck Klosterman did a great piece on it.
At least, no more than those towards the right think that left leaning people are stupid.
That article deals with stereotypes of small town hicks and big city intellectuals, which rather reduces the whole argument to two dimensions. The truth is somewhat more complicated.
i wouldn't think someone was stupid for voting conservative. I can see why a lot of people would get fed up with the views of the left, especially because a lot of lefties are so self righteous and smug. In the same way that the right has a lot of idiots who don't really know what they're talking about advocating their viewpoint, so does the left.
heh me so funny.
they just have a different viewpoint from you. unless you're talking far right, but those people are just scary.
I'm ... I dunno what I am anymore... but I'm like "brainz!".
i hate the right, bunch of boring bore-os. Hang on, i'm just off to google what the difference between the left and the right is.
(i googled the difference at LEAST 2 months ago :P)
until about the third post it clicked
It's really fucking annoying. In my experience people on the left are just as capable of being stupid, ignorant, prejudiced, irrational and ill-informed as right-wing people can be.
I do think that they have a tendency towards selfishness, narrow-mindedness, and an unwillingness to listen to all of the arguments before forming an opinion.
I’m not saying that the left is completely free of this (witness the Independent’s ‘statement’ front covers that are Daily Mail-like in their desire to reassure their readers that they already hold the ‘correct’ view), but it’s no co-incidence that the experts in their field (i.e. criminologists, educationalists etc. etc.) tend to advocate more long-term, left-wing solutions to the problems we face, and appreciate that the world isn’t simply black and white, but a range of greys.
I disagree that the right are any more selfish or narrow-minded than the left. Certainly I know plenty of people on the left who are world-beating specialists at not listening to all arguments before forming an opinion.
I'd also say your point about educationalistss and criminologists fall apart because you give more crednece to the ones that lean to the left whereas many lean toward the right.
Lastly your view that the left see the world as grey and the right as black-and-white is also subjective and I don't doubt a right-wing person would accuse a left-wing person of the same.
How can you be certain that it isn't the knowledge that such people acquire through their profession that influences their political perspective?
It would actually suggest that people acquiring expertise of criminology and education would then learn left-wing policies are the best solution, which would be an argument for left-wing solutions to problems. As I say I think the initial point falls down because many educationalists and criminologists do not hold left-wing views (and equally one could assume people entering criminology want to understand criminals which would imply a left-wing entry bias anyway).
I think marckee's post (along with various others on the thread) shows the typical thinking trap people fall into when discussing left-wing and right-wing politics (i.e. taking all the values they don't like about people and ascribing them to being symptomatic of the other side regardless of how much they hold true). Obviously a left-wing person would see the very worst of right-wing people (and vice-versa) 'cos they'd tend to engage with them in arguments and it's in arguments people tend to show their worst qualities. But I don't think you can ascribe qualities such as narrow-mindedness, unwillingness to listen to arguments etc. as being symptomatic of one wing or the other.
And I don’t even think that they are present in every right wing person. It’s just that, in my personal experience, once an issue has been explained to someone, or they read about the subject a bit more (regardless of the source of the information), they tend to be less reactionary and more moderate in their views.
Re. the experts thing: I don’t think that I made my point clear: I’m not saying that the experts are left-wing. I am saying that as a result of their research, knowledge and experience they advocate policies and approaches that, broadly, tend to raise the hackles of those that are right-wing – well, the right-wing press, anyway.
but then that's because your paying attention to th eones that do that and not seeing the reports of the ones that advocate views that the right-wing press dn't fly off the handle.
I'd agree people who read or understand a subject more become more moderate but I think that applies to left and right alike.
and so I notice it more when it’s people from the right, as their starting position is further from my own than those on the reactionary left.
I didn’t say that what I believe is correct - I was just answering the question posed at the top of the thread. I can appreciate that I am a flawed human being that, on an internet forum, will resort to making assumptions based on my personal experience rather than spending years researching the topic.
"resort(ing) to making assumptions based on personal experience rather than spending years researching the topic."
is unacceptable and unprecedented behaviour on DiS and I'm afraid you will have to leave the board.
I just posted it to see how people would respond.
Call the UN.
...but Sarah Palin has a son called 'Track' and a daughter called 'Bristol'. Unless the latter only has one tit, her mum is just picking words out of the dictionary.
and say that I do consider a certain element of their base 'stupid'.
I'll leave aside the lengthy argument that a history of voting against their economic interest, in favour of lifestyle factors such as preventing gay marriage that do not directly affect their lives, doesn't show particular intellectual rigour.
There is a fallacy that opposing points of view should be given equal weight, which I do not subscribe to. People aren't still arguing for a flat earth, and in the same way I think global warming and evolution have enough scientific basis now to discredit, or at the very least, not give equal weight to the arguments against them.
Creationism at least has the excuse of being guided by faith, which I don't agree with but can understand, but to deny global warming when the evidence continues to pile up is increasingly ludicrous.
It's not in any way an excuse.
It's fine if someone wants to have faith in something but to have some faith in something that has been proved wrong, and to fabricate arguments against it falsely discrediting or ignoring the evidence is plain stupid.
proclaim themselves to be 'conservative' with a big or little 'c'.
Part of being conservative is discounting new ideas and favouring the traditional 'how things were done in the past'. This appears to me to be pretty close-minded. I don't think there's a massive leap from 'terminally close-minded' to 'stupid'
So yeah right wingers are stupid.
I read the Guardian by the way (it's practically compulsory for teachers)
is that you've made the same mistake in your final sentence that you accuse "the left" of making earlier. "The left" may be more prone to considering and trying new ideas, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily see everything new as "progress".
They use the word "progess" just as much.
are, whilst Labour has carried much of it out (tho' they were instigated by Thatcher), right-wing moves rather than left and are certainly termed as progress.
But, as you say this is unquantifiable so I'm happy to agree to disagree.
"progress", by definition is a good thing. It's a word that inherently suggests improvement. As you say below, how you achieve that progress is where the traditional left and traditional right tend to differ. That's not, however, the same as saying that the left think that change brings about progress - take privatisation of public transport/services, many "lefties" would argue that was change that didn't bring about much in the way of progress at all.
but anyway, people on the right are no more stupid than those on the left.
But it often feels that those who are a bit daft on the right tend to be more vocal about it in places where people might here them.
Certainly historically the left have advocated change and the right tradition but I don't think that's the case any more. Obviously there are things (action on poverty and the environment) the left calls for more than the right but the last twenty-five years in the UK have equally about the right changing things and the left trying to resist. The entire creation of "new" Labour was based on the idea of newness and change and was very much a shift to the right for the party. The free market, shutting-down of coalmines, various NHS, educations and pensions reforms of recent years, various post-9/11 terror laws and ID cards (and to extent the Iraq War) have been examples of the right breaking the status quo and the left resisting it so I'm just not sure you can argue the left is for change and the right is against change in any sense at all, in spite of CG's qualfiers,
To be honest I specifically meant third-world poverty but missed those two words out.
I mean I don't think the right don't care about poverty (third-world or otherwise) or the environment but I do think traditionally their areas where the right has been happy to leave things as they are (or, as you put it in the case of poverty, put the onus on others to sort themselves out) and it's action from the left that's raised awareness and, specifically with the environment, turned it into a mainstream-conscious issue.
But certainly I'd agree that they (along with racism and sexism, which are often wrongly seen as left-wing issues which would initially have been the case but now on the whole would be rejected by people across the spectrum - are now essentially mainstream issues and couldn't be seen as left-only issues.
I mean, I don't fully understand how sane people believe in god.
But selfish, yes.
Agreed that both ends of the political spectrum have their fair share of morons, and it does neither side any favours not to challenge their own political views and to take the general left or right stance automatically without thinking it through.