The Thread of Democrats

[Forty Two]

Yeah I don't get the contention that it requires militia membership. If I said "Biscuits and gravy being necessary for a decent breakfast, the right of the people to buy and keep sausage shall not be abridged", that doesn't imply that I can only buy sausage if I'm making biscuits and gravy. What if I want a sausage biscuit?

If sausage biscuits are outlawed, only outlaws will have sausage biscuits.

[Sean Hayden]

[laklak]

I pity those poor unfortunates living in benighted countries without biscuits and sausage gravy. Brings a tear to my eye when I think about them.

[Forty Two]

I pity those poor unfortunates living in benighted countries without biscuits and sausage gravy. Brings a tear to my eye when I think about them.

I ordered them in England, and I got this...

English Biscuits and Sausage Gravy

biscuits and gravy.jpg (8.37 KiB) Viewed 3263 times

[pErvinalia]

Yeah I don't get the contention that it requires militia membership. If I said "Biscuits and gravy being necessary for a decent breakfast, the right of the people to buy and keep sausage shall not be abridged", that doesn't imply that I can only buy sausage if I'm making biscuits and gravy. What if I want a sausage biscuit?

If sausage biscuits are outlawed, only outlaws will have sausage biscuits.

You'll have to pry my sausage biscuit from my cold dead hands!

[Tero]

”In order to preserve personal or community safety, the right to bear arms...” would mean that, personal and militia use. There is no or in it. It just talks about militias.

The personal side was under state rule. The militia was a state level right. The right to keep order and keep the feds out. State right!

[Brian Peacock]

So the extreme right doesn't just have bad elements, it is bad elements?

I wouldn't put it that way, but how about - it's intellectually bankrupt, usually racist, authoritarian in its politics, distasteful, simplistic, often hateful, and often collectivist or statist in philosophy. No redeeming qualities. Good enough?

Sure, I'll accept that you wouldn't put that way, but you're reply amounts to exactly that - even given what appeared to be the hedging deployment of a conditional third-person singular tenseless indicative.

All these imagined hedgings are getting ridiculous. My only qualification was to define extreme right wing. Unless someone disagrees with my definition, we are in agreement. None of them is good. If someone wants to take issue with the definition of the group, then that's fine too. They can define it.

Well, the reason it appeared like that was because of what your wrote: "The extreme right has some bad elements." It implied that some on the extreme right are bad elements, and some are not. That's what a couple of your respondees picked up on.

What this little strand points to, at least to me, is the problem of definition, which can throw up an implication that the status of a person, group, or ideology is determined by the definition of the terms applied to them, rather than the terms applied representing a token description of who and what they are and/or stand for. In other words, and implication that uttering the term 'extreme right' is the only qualification one need to justify its own application. The problem of definition is illuminated not in simply declaring that the extreme right are intellectually bankrupt, or authoritarian, or whatever, but in trying to articulate the conditions which, when met, qualify a political ideal or philosophy as intellectually bankrupt or authoritarian etc, and therefore legitimately 'extreme right'.

I named examples - KKK, Nazi, Fascist -- that's the extreme right. There may be other examples. If a person is labeled a Nazi, they're not bad because the label is applied to them. They are bad because they meet the definition of Nazi.

On that we can agree.

... Nazism is an extreme right political philosophy. Of course the definitions matter. When someone calls a person a Nazi because they, say, support the pro-Life cause, then I think they're mislabeling the person (unless the person otherwise is a Nazi, of course). Being pro-Life is right wing. It's not "extreme right wing." Plenty of good people are pro-Life, IMO. Although I know there are plenty of people who would disagree. They're free to define good and bad how they like. Nothing is either good or bad, but that thinking makes it so. It's a value judgment.

Yeah, but it's pejoritive term with a broader use as well, like 'fascist'. Using either about someone or a group etc doesn't necessarily mean one is referring to actual members of the Waffen SS or Partito Nazionale Fascista. I'm sure you'll agree, it's sometimes used as shorthand. A sloppy, lazy shorthand perhaps, but shorthand. Like calling social democrats Communists or Fascist Liberals etc.

As you've noted already, the term 'extreme' might be considered a bit of a giveaway in itself, but it can also be misunderstood in relation to someone's views or just misapplied and therefore end up meaning relatively little - though I don't think this can be really be said of the Proud Boys.

I set forth what I consider "extreme right." That's all I can do. So far, nobody has suggested it's an unfair definition.

Yep, you were pretty clear, and you hit all the main points I reckon.

With that in mind, discussion of the 'extreme right' must entail some discussion of the bounds or borders of the term, of what constitutes the intellectual bankruptcy, authoritarianism, or collectivist nature of the kind of right-wing politics that tends towards the extreme, or, indeed, the kind of politics that's arrived there already. Yet that should not be the extent of discussion. All too often we get bogged down in bickering over the definition, and who is and isn't covered by it, and all the time we're engaged in that, and only that, we're not really examining or evaluating the content of a person, group's or ideologies vies and forming a judgment about them.

I did that.

You did.

And, if someone is going to ask a rather pointless question of "are there good people on the extreme right?" then naturally one has to define the extreme right in order to give it a yes or no answer. It's also important to recognize some issue with the term "good people." Often, the notion that people are generally neither all good and all bad is lost, and even where people may be, say, a racist, they may well be at heart a good person or at least in some ways may be a good person. Some very very good people have done some very very bad things. Watch this clip. It's short - the quip I like starts at about 1:50

Nobody is beyond redemption in that respect - but then again we don't let them off the responsibility for what they've done simply on the basis that they might be good in other areas of their life or on the possibility that they might redeem themselves later, do we?

For example, it's relatively easy to assert that Mr Whatnot is an extremist, or dispute the fact that he is, but what counts it looking at what Mr Whatnot is saying and doing and, where necessary, forming some judgment about his political ideals regardless of the definition of 'extreme views', and regardless even of whatever mellow-sounding or woolly rhetoric they might be couched in or the strength of other's disapprobation of them or Mr Whatnot personally.

Yes, key point. And, notice there you are directing the question right at Mr. Whatnot. Not an entire category of people with a mushy definition on which minds reasonably differ. At least when looking at Mr. Whatnot, we can assess his behavior. And, then, even then, I direct you to the Richard Gere quip above - is Mr. Whatnot a "good person" or a "bad person?" Or has he done, said, or thought good things and bad things? If he mistakenly thinks a bad thing is good, is he bad or good? Both? Neither?

I think it depends on what he says and does. With all of our personal experience and inner lives being essentially incorrigible what else do we have to go on?

We have a discussion where this can take place, and is taking place. A thread where not only where the bounds of the far- and extreme-right's views are being located and discussed, but where we can examine what far- and extreme-right-wingers are actually saying and doing. Perhaps we should continue that discussion over there? "Alt-right" Still Parading Ignorance, Stupidity, Malice, Etc

Maybe - but, let's not pretend the question on this thread was posed with an honest intent to spark a discussion. It was posed to trap someone into suggesting that far right extremists are really just good people. Certain folks here are out to go "aha! you think they're good!" That's why I answered the question by first defining what I meant -- I think it's pretty safe to say that people who, these days, ascribe to the KKK or Naziism --- it's pretty darn unlikely that they are at heart honestly trying to be good.

For my part I just wanted to find out what you really meant by it, given it's ambiguity.

I won't go so far, however, as to say that never was the case. I have little doubt that many people in history joined the KKK, for example, thinking they were good and fighting evil by doing so. Does that make them good? Bad? Both? Again - this is a value judgment. Is a child who is brought up in a KKK family "bad" because of how he was raised? Maybe at some point, but when?

I guess we make those judgments about people who we consider responsible for their actions. Children don't fall into that category for me. Some jurisdictions disagrees with me on that. Yeah, we know that behevior and attitudes are complex things influenced by many factors, but at the same time we all operate on the assumption that grownups have enough free will to know the difference between right and wrong. And sure, I'd accept that some people might do horrible things while all the time thinking they're actually doing good. However, while we might recognise that, say, the Twin Towers hijackers acted on the assumption that their actions were good and honest and true, it doesn't really impact on our own judgments when we find their actions deplorable. We might be prepared to forgive, but we can only do that after our moral and ethical principles have been challenged by the action (or even the views) of others.

This whole moralistic discussion of good and evil is very non-productive, generally. But I find it very funny when certain folks who have in other contexts denied the very existence of morality and good/evil as concepts, have no trouble with those concepts in a discussion like this.

Some people might deny the very existence of morality, good and bad, right and wrong, etc, but it's hard-wired - we are a social species after all. As I've said before, all political arguments are moral arguments, so it's only natural, as well as right and proper, that we examine the views of others and form our judgments according to our own.

[Forty Two]

Off the hook? This conversation was not about letting people off the hook. It was about whether they were "good elements" or "bad elements." If one subscribes to the notion that people are neither "good" nor "bad" but do good or bad things, or have different moral compasses, then the notion that the extreme right "are" bad people becomes absurd. They are people. They do, say and think some bad things - things which many people consider bad.

But, again, nothing is good or bad, but that thinking makes it so, said Hamlet. And, some good people do some bad things.

Nevertheless, your first point there about what some people bit onto and held like a dog with a bone was clarified in the very next post -- wherein I said this: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... s#p1801631 - there is no ambiguity in what I wrote. There is no waffling. It's quite clear. There was no reason for person after person to continue to pretend that I said that some really nasty people are, in fact, good.

But, let's not pretend we're talking about specific people here. We're talking about a category - a group - and the parameters of that group are mushy, and subject to different opinions. Some people want to make sure that when a term like "extreme right" is used, that it is read in a very broad sense to include simply conservatives or anyone on the right. You know that's true. It's tactic of certain activists, where you create a label that applies to a universally deplored bunch, and then force your political enemies into that group. Both the right and the left engage in that tactic.

And you say this - "at the same time we all operate on the assumption that grownups have enough free will to know the difference between right and wrong." Do "we?" Who believes in "free will?" Who believes that adults are "free" to make choices in life? We can bop around the forum, and I guarantee you that there are folks who argued that there is no free will, or no real free will and that there is no such thing as morality or right and wrong.

Anyway - good discussion - in my view, Nazis are assholes. That should be good enough, even if I add the caveat that most of the people you hear being labeled that during street protests these days, well, aren't Nazis. Are "they" extreme right wing? Depends on the person, I suppose. Same as when judging extreme leftists. Are there "good" extreme leftists? When you're talking about a communist, it's hard to imagine that one is "good" given the nasty nature of the dystopian monstrosity they advocate. But, sometimes they probably think of themselves as being in the right. I'll address all but those clearly in the most extreme left on a case-by-case basis. And, that's how I address the extreme right, too.

[pErvinalia]

Most socialists/communists don't advocate Soviet style authoritarianism. I say most, as I do know some Stalinists exists. You might like to make the point that all efforts at communism wind up as a Stalinesque-like hell hole, but that's different from claiming that current commies actively advocate for that.

[rainbow]

Most socialists/communists don't advocate Soviet style authoritarianism. I say most, as I do know some Stalinists exists. You might like to make the point that all efforts at communism wind up as a Stalinesque-like hell hole, but that's different from claiming that current commies actively advocate for that.

What the Czechoslovakian government thought of Stalin (1962)

[Tero]

House Dems Will Push for Background Check on Every Gun Sale
“The American people are on our side.”
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... nd-checks/

[Forty Two]

Most socialists/communists don't advocate Soviet style authoritarianism. I say most, as I do know some Stalinists exists. You might like to make the point that all efforts at communism wind up as a Stalinesque-like hell hole, but that's different from claiming that current commies actively advocate for that.

Communism is inherently authoritarian.

I don't make the argument that efforts at communism wind up as Stalinesque. I believe Communism cannot be other than authoritarian, because at its heart -- foundationally -- as a necessary feature of Communism - the individual is subjugated in all respects to the community - at least that's what Marx wrote about. The individual doesn't decide where he's going to work - he cannot - he cannot because the community decides what, where, when, how and how much to produce, and how it's distributed, who needs what and who has what abilities. If the community says you're appropriate for factory work, then you do factory work, even if you want to be a dentist. The dentists are those who the community says has the ability. And, you can't just decided to be a dentist because the quantity of dentists needed and where they are needed is decided by the community, not the individual. If the community says 10,000 dentists are needed, but 20,000 people want to be dentists, 10,000 of them are out of luck. You don't have a private market in dentistry.

And, I'm sure there are people who call themselves communists or otherwise leftists (but not communist) who do not advocate that and who have respect for individual rights, and liberty, and what you call "freeeedumbb!" -- And those would not be in the "extreme left" in my view.

Again, that's why we have to define terms. If your definition of communism includes the notion that individuals will have the right to choose their career paths, start new businesses like dental businesses if they want to, even if the State doesn't want them to, and even if it goes against the community plan for the means of production of dental services, then your kinder, gentler communism would be something to discuss. But it is not Communism in the classic sense, in the textbook sense - in the sense of any definition in common usage.

[Forty Two]

House Dems Will Push for Background Check on Every Gun Sale
“The American people are on our side.”
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... nd-checks/

Great. It won't prevent a single shooting, but it will feel as if we're doing something, and feelings are what matters.

[Cunt]

...one there seems to be no return from.

This seems a key area ignored by many with 'gun control' fantasies.

Humans are very dangerous.

I would feel better in a country where everyone is able to have guns, rather than one where everyone is not able to have guns.

Not because there aren't evil people around, willing to use guns to exploit others, but because there is simply nothing better to address that issue, than well-armed normal people.

Soon guns will be able to be printed, without serial numbers, in your home. That world will be safer if normal citizens are armed.

If you use armed guards, or armed police, then you are using guns and benefiting from use of deadly force. Just because you try to keep your hands clean literally, doesn't mean you aren't supporting guns, and the right to defend yourself with them.

[pErvinalia]

Most socialists/communists don't advocate Soviet style authoritarianism. I say most, as I do know some Stalinists exists. You might like to make the point that all efforts at communism wind up as a Stalinesque-like hell hole, but that's different from claiming that current commies actively advocate for that.

Communism is inherently authoritarian.

I don't make the argument that efforts at communism wind up as Stalinesque. I believe Communism cannot be other than authoritarian, because at its heart -- foundationally -- as a necessary feature of Communism - the individual is subjugated in all respects to the community - at least that's what Marx wrote about. The individual doesn't decide where he's going to work - he cannot - he cannot because the community decides what, where, when, how and how much to produce, and how it's distributed, who needs what and who has what abilities. If the community says you're appropriate for factory work, then you do factory work, even if you want to be a dentist. The dentists are those who the community says has the ability. And, you can't just decided to be a dentist because the quantity of dentists needed and where they are needed is decided by the community, not the individual. If the community says 10,000 dentists are needed, but 20,000 people want to be dentists, 10,000 of them are out of luck. You don't have a private market in dentistry.

That's great, but it's not "Soviet style authoritarianism", nor is it a "dystopian monstrosity".