Dealing with hyper fragmentation of the left

[Mo212]

I've been around the net and the over-sensitivity people on the left have to normal foibles and behaviour is a bit disturbing.

I have no idea how the left tends to convince the average working person to take up the cause when they are outnumbered by people that aren't as hyper sensitive as the left.

This sensitivity to everything in the world of what is left of the left is an impossible one if the left is to get anywhere. I've seen it too much on too many forums and I feel the whole reason the rise of the right in the world is because the left is increasingly puritanical attempting to 'purge' anyone who's simply human.

This kind of ideological fanaticism or not being able to see reality is one of the main reasons the left hardly exists in north america.

I feel that too much bullshit has been absorbed into the left. That it is itself is increasingly alienating to humanity these days. I'm seeing a rightward shift in my home country (canada) and the left here is practically non existent anymore, as conservatives and liberals are hardcore capitalists (basically the same).

(quote from religioustolerance.org)
"There are on the order of 1,500 different Christian faith groups in North America which promote many different and conflicting beliefs. Further, many groups believe that they alone are the "true" Christian church and that all of the others are in error."

I really don't want the left to fractionate like religions into unruly factions that can't expand or attract new members, that way lies disaster as there is no effective opposition.

[Widerstand]

I just would really like to know where anyone isn't allowed to be "simply human"?

[Mo212]

I just would really like to know where anyone isn't allowed to be "simply human"?

By being simply human I mean much of what the left might be offended by is often a distortion of reality (i.e. what they perceive as sexism, etc) to put it another way, leftists are easily slighted because many have this paranoid style. Average human beings are crass, how can one make a mass movement if the people will easily exclude others out of sensitive puritanical overreaction?

Consider the "liberal lefts" hatred of religion (i.e. dawkins, dennet, etc). In america at least, at least 50% of the population is seriously right wing, how does the left plan on making inroads in that population? There can be no left if there is no strength in numbers.

[Widerstand]

I don't think sexism is an inherent part of "being human", but rather a lack of self-reflection, self-control, or willingness to change oneself (or of course a lack of insight as to why sexism is wrong).

I agree that the hatred for religion of Dawkins and his followers is way over the top, but I would hardly consider Dawkins to be left.

[Havet]

I've seen it too much on too many forums and I feel the whole reason the rise of the right in the world is because the left is increasingly puritanical attempting to 'purge' anyone who's simply human.

I really don't want the left to fractionate like religions into unruly factions that can't expand or attract new members, that way lies disaster as there is no effective opposition.

One more reason to unrestrict me

[ComradeMan]

I don't think sexism is an inherent part of "being human", but rather a lack of self-reflection, self-control, or willingness to change oneself (or of course a lack of insight as to why sexism is wrong).

I agree that the hatred for religion of Dawkins and his followers is way over the top, but I would hardly consider Dawkins to be left.

Dawkins has, in my opinion and many others, not done much for the credibility of atheism whatsoever. He should have stuck to being a scientists because when he ventured into theology he was way out of his depth.

What I think the OP is getting at is this.

We live in a reactionary world for the most part and we probably all have some reactionary baggage or other- it cannot be helped. You can't walk through mud and not get muddy- people on the left however seem sometimes to be very keen on denouncing and writing off someone entirely based on some foible or other. But who was then the perfect model leftist? Marx? Engels? Bakunin? Proudhon? Lenin? Mao? Stalin? Castro? Guevara? Let's look, because with each one of them, we could if we wanted to, find enoug to "hang them" for being reactionaries- or at least have them restricted on RevLeft.

[hatzel]

In truth, I think I get what the OP is saying, though. I mean...well, I remember once some guy I knew was telling a story about some French guy he met and said "he was just SOOO French...I mean, he looked French, acted French..." and he was accused of being racist. Apparently even admitting that there is such a thing as a stereotypical French man, let alone claiming that a real-life French man matched the description, is racist. And don't even get me started on when people claim that Finns and Spaniards don't look the same "Social construct!", they scream, "social construct, you racist!"

I think it's that kind of attitude which the OP isn't particularly pleased about..

[ComradeMan]

In truth, I think I get what the OP is saying, though. I mean...well, I remember once some guy I knew was telling a story about some French guy he met and said "he was just SOOO French...I mean, he looked French, acted French..." and he was accused of being racist. Apparently even admitting that there is such a thing as a stereotypical French man, let alone claiming that a real-life French man matched the description, is racist. And don't even get me started on when people claim that Finns and Spaniards don't look the same "Social construct!", they scream, "social construct, you racist!"

I think it's that kind of attitude which the OP isn't particularly pleased about..

I second that. It's runaway train arguments all the time, but then they convenienty get off the train when it suits them.

[RGacky3]

If your basing this on a discussion board then your making a huge mistake, its a discussion board, for people to disagree, when it comes to real life, its not different.

[ComradeMan]

If your basing this on a discussion board then your making a huge mistake, its a discussion board, for people to disagree, when it comes to real life, its not different.

That doesn't make sense? Could you re-explain what you mean? :)

I don't think it is a discussion board argument though... but this discussion board does act as a barometer if you like.

Can you imagine if, hypothetically, RevLeft had existed in 1968- what would the users have been like, their attitudes and the discussions? Who would have been restricted and who not? Interesting thought... given me an idea for a post.... Thanks:thumbup:

[Bud Struggle]

I hate to say it, because the OP is really going at this from the best intentions--but I think he's completely wrong. Either the Revolution is going to be fought correctly on Communist principals with no quarter given and no quarter asked for or else it will fail like all the Revolutions that have gone before.

Communists know full well how to build a degenerate worker state or state Capitalism or whatever else one would want to call places like the SU or Revisionist China or Cuba. Not that those place (were) are bad--but they aren't what Communism is really supposed to be.

The Problem with Lenin and Mao and Fidel and lots of others that tried Communism--is that they never went far enough in following the historical dialetic. They always stopped somewhere and let sexism flurish or religion or maybe a little Capitalism here and there and their Revolutions FAILED.

For Communism to succeed it's not enough to change the economic system or the political system--it's been proved often enough that they can be changed back to Capitalism easily enough. We have to change the WAY PEOPLE THINK. The Feudal and Bourgeoisie past not only has to be removed from society--it has to be distroyed and forgotten. It has to be buried forever or else it will arise like a Vampire when you least suspect it.

What Communism proposes to do is build a new world of freedom and equality--but that con't be done while there is one shread of the old world still living. Yea, it seems like a nice thing to do--to forget our differences and work together, but there are many elements of Revisionism in Communist culture today that can grow if not extinguished properly.

For Communism to succeed, REALLY SUCCEED, we have to stamp out every trace of Bourgeiosie sensibilities and turn to the historical reality of the dialetic.

[ComradeMan]

I hate to say it, because the OP is really going at this from the best intentions--but I think he's completely wrong. Either the Revolution is going to be fought correctly on Communist principals with no quarter given and no quarter asked for or else it will fail like all the Revolutions that have gone before.

Communists know full well how to build a degenerate worker state or state Capitalism or whatever else one would want to call places like the SU or Revisionist China or Cuba. Not that those place (were) are bad--but they aren't what Communism is really supposed to be.

The Problem with Lenin and Mao and Fidel and lots of others that tried Communism--is that they never went far enough in following the historical dialetic. They always stopped somewhere and let sexism flurish or religion or maybe a little Capitalism here and there and their Revolutions FAILED.

For Communism to succeed it's not enough to change the economic system or the political system--it's been proved often enough that they can be changed back to Capitalism easily enough. We have to change the WAY PEOPLE THINK. The Feudal and Bourgeoisie past not only has to be removed from society--it has to be distroyed and forgotten. It has to be buried forever or else it will arise like a Vampire when you least suspect it.

What Communism proposes to do is build a new world of freedom and equality--but that con't be done while there is one shread of the old world still living. Yea, it seems like a nice thing to do--to forget our differences and work together, but there are many elements of Revisionism in Communist culture today that can grow if not extinguished properly.

For Communism to succeed, REALLY SUCCEED, we have to stamp out every trace of Bourgeiosie sensibilities and turn to the historical reality of the dialetic.


OMG What has happened to Bud? He's been kidnapped and re-educated somewhere in the Caribbean? :lol:

Comrades, I think we have the new Bud- Crimson Bud....!

n8Lwbiq8-g8

[Bud Struggle]

OMG What has happened to Bud? He's been kidnapped and re-educated somewhere in the Caribbean? :lol:

Comrades, I think we have the new Bud- Crimson Bud....!


I'm saying either do the Revolution correctly or don't bother doing it at all. Does the world really need another Soviet Union? The second you let in some Revisionism for the sake of "being nice" you screw up the entire principal of Communism.

Either we should get it done correctly or reconcile ourselves to eternal Capitalism. If the past 60 years have taught us anythinbg it is that Revisionism leads to a rebirth of Capitalism. Why bother trying if all we are doing is setting ourselves up for failure? We know how to do it right--let's do it that way.

[RGacky3]

I don't think it is a discussion board argument though... but this discussion board does act as a barometer if you like.

Can you imagine if, hypothetically, RevLeft had existed in 1968- what would the users have been like, their attitudes and the discussions? Who would have been restricted and who not? Interesting thought... given me an idea for a post.... Thanks

Its a disscussion forum, who wants to discuss what everyone agrees on, obviously people are gonna talk about stuf they don't agree on.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm saying either do the Revolution correctly or don't bother doing it at all.


Okay... check, and... *check*. Hey, thanks and everything for kicking in like that.... Say, do you have a business card or something?





Does the world really need another Soviet Union?


Um, no, but many in the East are sick of the market already and had more privileges in the former U.S.S.R. during the good ol' days of economic expansionism, just as the U.S. middle class loved their own prosperous '50s....





The second you let in some Revisionism for the sake of "being nice" you screw up the entire principal of Communism.


("Being nice" is what you find yourself doing when you or your economy gets edged out by the competition.)





Either we should get it done correctly or reconcile ourselves to eternal Capitalism.


Hmmmmmm, you *do* sound even-handed about it -- so how do we steer between the Scylla and Charybdis on this, O Wise One -- ?





If the past 60 years have taught us anythinbg it is that Revisionism leads to a rebirth of Capitalism. Why bother trying if all we are doing is setting ourselves up for failure?


Yeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... I *was* going to suggest rebuilding a Stalinist state all over again, from scratch, and then clamping down on any revisionist tendencies that would emerge within it, just so we can get it right this time.... But now... Oh, fuck it....





We know how to do it right--let's do it that way.


You said the magic word: "we". Got any time free on the weekends?

[Bud Struggle]

You said the magic word: "we". Got any time free on the weekends?

I wan to be your Glorious Leader. :)

Personally, I rather you didn't do the Revolution thing--but if you insist on it I'd like it to be even a little bit like the Communism that RevLefters are always talking about. And if you guys aren't going to do it--well then I'm just going to have to get it done. ;)

[Robert]

I want to be the Glorious Leader. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

Now you're talking!

Can I be a deputy comrade chauffeur? I always wanted to drive a Rolls, and this may be my only chance!:lol:

[Bud Struggle]

Now you're talking!

Can I be a deputy comrade chauffeur? I always wanted to drive a Rolls, and this may be my only chance!:lol:

Robert--pick a contenent--any contenent--it's yours! :D

[ckaihatsu]

Personally, I rather you didn't do the Revolution thing--but if you insist on it I'd like it to be even a little bit like the Communism that RevLefters are always talking about.


Yes, dear chum, so good of you to be so gentlemanly with that bit of high-mindedness. I'm afraid we *are* going to have to insist on our little derring-do, for a full go-around, but we'll be sporting enough to give a listen to our betters and not let the side down...!

(????????!!!!!!!!!!!)

[Widerstand]

Yes, dear chum, so good of you to be so gentlemanly with that bit of high-mindedness. I'm afraid we *are* going to have to insist on our little derring-do, for a full go-around, but we'll be sporting enough to give a listen to our betters and not let the side down...!

(????????!!!!!!!!!!!)

What exactly are *you* *talking* about?

[Bud Struggle]

Yes, dear chum, so good of you to be so gentlemanly with that bit of high-mindedness. I'm afraid we *are* going to have to insist on our little derring-do, for a full go-around, but we'll be sporting enough to give a listen to our betters and not let the side down...!

(????????!!!!!!!!!!!)

I suppose you are fishing for a job after the Revolution. I'm sure we'll find something good for you now that you are on my team.

Seriyously though, I think for the Revolution to work there has to be some disciplined understand of what constitutes real Communism and what is Revisionism. If you really don't believe in Revisionism--then why let it be part of your program?

[ckaihatsu]

What exactly are *you* *talking* about?


Well, lessee -- BS said that if I *insisted* on "[doing] the Revolution thing" that it should be done the RevLeft way. (That would be substitutionism, of course.)





I suppose you are fishing for a job after the Revolution. I'm sure we'll find something good for you now that you are on my team.


And here he -- like all less-than-revolutionary political people -- seems to think that we flip-flop like freshly caught fish on the floor of a boat.

- Whatever -

[Robert]

Can I be a deputy comrade chauffeur? I always wanted to drive a Rolls, and this may be my only chance!In my half-joke, I accidentally said something indicative of a problem none of the commies here appear to appreciate.

There are people on Earth who do not want to "share in control of the means of production." Nor do they want to have anyone telling them to increase their class consciousness. They know what that really involves and they don't like it.

They want to put in 8 hours and go home to play baseball with their kids. The problem it creates is that the business of business and the business of governance is not made of 8-hour days, and this creates opportunities and obligations for those with more ambition and energy and desire to step in, work 16 hour days, and ultimately exercise control.

Even worse (for communists), average people are happy to concede this in exchange for a modicum of security, food, and entertainment.

[The Idler]

Fragmentation hasn't exactly harmed Christianity.

[ckaihatsu]

There are people on Earth who do not want to "share in control of the means of production." Nor do they want to have anyone telling them to increase their class consciousness. They know what that really involves and they don't like it.


How mysterious and ominous...! So are you going to *share* "what that really involves" with us or should we let our imaginations run amuk and make up all kinds of bad shit so as to be "scared" by "commies" -- ??!!!





They want to put in 8 hours and go home to play baseball with their kids.


The simple life, huh? Okay, let's let it stand for now, for the sake of argument....





The problem it creates is that the business of business and the business of governance is not made of 8-hour days, and this creates opportunities and obligations for those with more ambition and energy and desire to step in, work 16 hour days, and ultimately exercise control.


Looks like it's *still* the 'dictatorship of the market' in effect, even though Wall Street went bankrupt in 2008. People can work all they like at "the business of business" and "the business of governance" and it's *still* the anemic yet rapacious market that condemns people to foreclosure, poverty, joblessness, etc....





Even worse (for communists), average people are happy to concede this in exchange for a modicum of security, food, and entertainment.


Let's tally this up here: So average people will *get* security, food, and entertainment, and they'll concede political matters to communists? Those workers who are communists (political people) will be more than capable in lifting control out of the hands of capitalists, even if some choose to enjoy their life in the meantime instead of working 16-hour days...!

[Mo212]

Fragmentation hasn't exactly harmed Christianity.

Do you know anything at all about the history of Christianity? i.e. the reformation, the catholic churchs history, etc? Christianity is not a unified whole, and most importantly christianity has a god commanding them to do good to people on earth and be humble in hopes of eternal life or suffer for eternity (through permanent death or hellfire depending on your flavor of christianity), the left has no such unifying principle.

Lets also acknowledge that most christians aren't Christians in the biblical sense, they are christians in name only (CINO). Most peoples thinking is so piss poor they have never even read the bible and just believe what little bits they've been taught in sunday school or their pastor has told them.

[Mo212]

I think the left has underestimated technological change on relationships and thats why the left cannot get it together.

http://www.bowlingalone.com/

"Television, two-career families, suburban sprawl, generational changes in values--these and other changes in American society have meant that fewer and fewer of us find that the League of Women Voters, or the United Way, or the Shriners, or the monthly bridge club, or even a Sunday picnic with friends fits the way we have come to live. Our growing social-capital deficit threatens educational performance, safe neighborhoods, equitable tax collection, democratic responsiveness, everyday honesty, and even our health and happiness."


http://www.amazon.com/Bowling-Alone-Collapse-American-Community/dp/0743203046/

[ckaihatsu]

This both the most patronizing thing I've read in a long time, and also the most socially opportunistic thing I've seen in a long time. (Obviously I'm not around religious circles much.)

For the reward of 'societal togetherness' (or whatever) the price we're supposed to pay is a shared mass delusion in an authorized arbitrary religious belief system. While some of the criticisms of our hyper-individuated modern urban norm have some validity, the critique only serves to prop up *bourgeois* political norms, like "equitable tax collection".

I'll challenge any religionist to put forth an analysis of the political and economic practices of *capital* that lead to conditions of social strife and anomie.

[balaclava]

Dealing with hyper fragmentation of the left
I've been around the net and the over-sensitivity people on the left have to normal foibles and behaviour is a bit disturbing.


Not that my opinion counts but this is how the new boy sees it. . . . Everybody is so angry, everybody disagrees about everything, anything said is viewed with suspicion, everyone’s looking for the double meaning or the trap in anything said, everyone else if a fascist, racist, troll. Just look at the number of ‘restricted’ members, what does that tell you? What happened to ‘workers of the world unite?’ I know this is a discussion forum but the venom is palpable.

All that said, it is very entertaining, it’s like one of those clips from ‘You’ve been Framed’ where the guy jumps out of the cupboard; there’s a moment of fear and shock then the auto response kicks in and he’s jumped on and clubbed with the nearest heavy weight.

[ckaihatsu]

Since you're relatively new to revolutionary / leftist politics your response is understandable. You might actually see a similar social environment around certain branches of history, or in the arts, or in some fields of science -- basically, wherever people have to use their intellects to navigate through a not-so-simple intellectual terrain, with attendant biases.

What I've personally found fascinating about politics is that it's where stuff is put into motion -- there's far more at stake, and so many of the lackadaisical approaches to academic / intellectual fields and topics just don't survive when people have serious interests on the line and they want to make actual progress. At the same time politics can be competitive so there's a whole other realm of bullshit that comes with it, due to cross-interests and cross-tactics, etc., but once one knows the ropes somewhat it's not that tough to pick it out upon first sight.

The messiness you're seeing is probably from newer participants -- like yourself, possibly. Since there's more at stake it's very easy to find oneself quickly short of patience with the other -- political capital, or the benefit of the doubt, is often not easily extended in ambiguous situations. But I think among our own on the revolutionary left it's far easier to ascertain correct credentials and to go comradely forward from there. It's really a night-and-day difference from those on the soft left and further right who use political positions as currency, constantly shifting around to orient themselves around the current political trendiness.

Don't be *too* entertained, though -- you'd be better off with professional purveyors for your entertainment needs, rather than adding to whatever cacophony exists around what *should* be serious matters.

[RGacky3]

I know this is a discussion forum but the venom is palpable.


go to leftism in the real world, strikes, occupations, community organizations, urban farms, collectives, protests, its not like a discussion forum.

[Ele'ill]

I've been around the net and the over-sensitivity people on the left have to normal foibles and behaviour is a bit disturbing.

I have no idea how the left tends to convince the average working person to take up the cause when they are outnumbered by people that aren't as hyper sensitive as the left.

This sensitivity to everything in the world of what is left of the left is an impossible one if the left is to get anywhere. I've seen it too much on too many forums and I feel the whole reason the rise of the right in the world is because the left is increasingly puritanical attempting to 'purge' anyone who's simply human.

Then you are an advocate of every horrible human action imaginable simply because it was carried out by a human.

If by purge you mean- hold police officers accountable who- amidst a rain of racial slurs- beat a young man to near death and left him in a car for close to an hour to die alone without medical attention needed from close to 20 broken bones in his body-

If by purge you mean hold those accountable for genocide and war crimes- both physical and economic in nature

Then yes- by purge you surely mean execute.

Do you disagree?



This kind of ideological fanaticism or not being able to see reality is one of the main reasons the left hardly exists in north america.

Reality?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage#United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair

Spare me the talk of current 'fanaticism' - as if there weren't little clones of you back throughout time stomping your feet at the notion of struggle.







I feel that too much bullshit has been absorbed into the left. That it is itself is increasingly alienating to humanity these days. I'm seeing a rightward shift in my home country (canada) and the left here is practically non existent anymore, as conservatives and liberals are hardcore capitalists (basically the same).

You're confusing 'left' for 'liberal'.

Most of us here don't play party politics and most of us have done more for our communities than most politicians ever have


(quote from religioustolerance.org)
"There are on the order of 1,500 different Christian faith groups in North America which promote many different and conflicting beliefs. Further, many groups believe that they alone are the "true" Christian church and that all of the others are in error."

I really don't want the left to fractionate like religions into unruly factions that can't expand or attract new members, that way lies disaster as there is no effective opposition.

You're trying to lump this last challenge that every community let alone radical community has to overcome- in with the other bullshit at the beginning of your post.

Sects exist- it is a challenge to work together with opposing views however slight- we're doing it.

Did you think you're going to see an 'anarchist party for canada' as a sign that the left is booming in ca? :lol:


The people that thanked this user's original post should be a little embarrassed

[Ele'ill]

There are plenty of leftists in North America and every single one of them is a threat to the state and a threat to capitalism which is why their push for social justice has been criminalized if not well beyond that.


It never ceases to amaze me when people blame the victims in this situation- as if there aren't ten thousand external forces intentionally keeping their legs from them- as if there isn't state repression and as if there hasn't been any sacrifice at all.

[Ele'ill]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]

Not that my opinion counts but this is how the new boy sees it. . . . Everybody is so angry, everybody disagrees about everything, anything said is viewed with suspicion, everyone’s looking for the double meaning or the trap in anything said, everyone else if a fascist, racist, troll.

I'm sorry you've suffered the consequences of your actions and ideas. How odd that the same type of people get upset when they're held accountable.



Just look at the number of ‘restricted’ members, what does that tell you? What happened to ‘workers of the world unite?’


The movement is serious enough that there cannot be room for fail tactics and absolutely no tolerance for undesirable swings away from community and worker control and back into capitalism

In regards to this forum- it's been explained a dozen times this month. If you can't figure it out by now you're trolling.






I know this is a discussion forum but the venom is palpable.

It's likely because many of the people you'll communicate with on here are involved in leftist struggles in the real world. It isn't a fun day debating stuff on the internet- they've just lived it two or three times in the last week.

[Fabrizio]

The people that thanked this user's original post should be a little embarrassed

I think he spoke sense. If you're equating un-PC language to genocide and racist beatings then you're proving his point.

[Robert]

The simple life, huh?

Yes, and the majority has it within easy reach. In my country, at least.

[synthesis]

I think the left has underestimated technological change on relationships and thats why the left cannot get it together.

:lol:

I've heard literally dozens of explanations as to why the left is in the state it's in, and this one is probably the most unintentionally amusing.

[ckaihatsu]

The simple life, huh?





Yes, and the majority has it within easy reach. In my country, at least.





I think the left has underestimated technological change on relationships and thats why the left cannot get it together.





:lol:

I've heard literally dozens of explanations as to why the left is in the state it's in, and this one is probably the most unintentionally amusing.


Well, let's do the math here: The reason why the left doesn't have more of a presence in mainstream society is because it's failed to grasp that the majority in other countries just want to use online social networking for their relationships so that they can get the simple life within easy reach...!

Now we know.


x D

[ckaihatsu]

I think he spoke sense. If you're equating un-PC language to genocide and racist beatings then you're proving his point.


What the less-than-leftist political crowd fails to understand about the process of *description* is that details *are* important when describing such serious and atrocious matters as genocide and racist beatings.

The "un-politically-correct" slur is *still* being used to tar people who take up humane political issues, crudely dismissing their politically *appropriate* sensitivity in description that *should* be a part of such serious and atrocious matters as genocide and racist beatings.

Taking up such historical and political issues is no small thing, and many people don't even bother with them *at all* -- we should acknowledge and appreciate the efforts of those who do, and tread lightly if they should happen to *be affected* themselves around such critical and emotional matters, as by being noticeably more sensitized to political and interpersonal dynamics as a result of their work.

[Bud Struggle]

Taking up such historical and political issues is no small thing, and many people don't even bother with them *at all* -- we should acknowledge and appreciate the efforts of those who do, and tread lightly if they should happen to *be affected* themselves around such critical and emotional matters, as by being noticeably more sensitized to political and interpersonal dynamics as a result of their work.

Maybe we should hold a dinner for them ever now and then, too!

Well nope I don't see it. What the PC crowd does is hyper inflate ever misused word and incident and puts all non PC actions on the same playingfield. Using the wrong kind of off color word is just as bad as mass murder. It desensitized people to actual evil in the world by giving them the opportunity to tune out people that go on and on in this fashion.

Further--these PC people seem to make all of the rules about what is proper and what isn't. X word is good Y word is bad--because they say so. So there is a little Fascist element in the PC playbook.

There is some good that PC people do--but it is far outweighted by the problems they cause.

[RGacky3]

THe over sensative PC crowd I agree, are just being rediculous, but I'm pretty sure actual racism, discrimination and hte such causes way way way more problems that a couple over senstive soccer moms.

Also many of those anti-pc people, are the type of people that just say Muslim=Terrorist, and call people that call that rediculous and offensive PC, yet will balk and scream if anyone suggests that dropping the a-bomb was a war crime and terrorism.

It cuts both ways.

[Bud Struggle]

True but the PC people aren't going to get within a hundred miles of where the real racism is committed. For that matter I would wager to assume that the real racists, etc. are completely PC in what they say. Their racism comes in moving a piece of paper over to the side of a desk or leaving a name off of a list. All with a smile on their face.

[RGacky3]

True but the PC people aren't going to get within a hundred miles of where the real racism is committed.

You mean civil rights activists? Are they the PC people?


For that matter I would wager to assume that the real racists, etc. are completely PC in what they say. Their racism comes in moving a piece of paper over to the side of a desk or leaving a name off of a list. All with a smile on their face.

Absolutely.

[Ele'ill]

I believe the confusion here is who the OP was referring to as the 'Politically Correct Crowd' and the question is 'are they actually overreacting'

[Ele'ill]

I think he spoke sense. If you're equating un-PC language to genocide and racist beatings then you're proving his point.

Am I equating un politically correct language to genocide and racist beatings?

[Fabrizio]

What the less-than-leftist political crowd fails to understand about the process of *description* is that details *are* important when describing such serious and atrocious matters as genocide and racist beatings.

The "un-politically-correct" slur is *still* being used to tar people who take up humane political issues, crudely dismissing their politically *appropriate* sensitivity in description that *should* be a part of such serious and atrocious matters as genocide and racist beatings.

Taking up such historical and political issues is no small thing, and many people don't even bother with them *at all* -- we should acknowledge and appreciate the efforts of those who do, and tread lightly if they should happen to *be affected* themselves around such critical and emotional matters, as by being noticeably more sensitized to political and interpersonal dynamics as a result of their work.

So sensitized to political and interpersonal dynamics of historical injustice, that their sensitivty makes it impossible to work with 99% of ethnic minority, or poor, or female, or third-worlders, or blue collar workers, etc. etc. etc.?

Seems perverse to claim to be so especially touched by and sensitive to these issues when at the same time most of the people being denounced are also supposedly "oppressed".

[Fabrizio]

Am I equating un politically correct language to genocide and racist beatings?

Well you tell me: how did we get from the things the OP was talking about (the crass language which is everyday use for most people), onto genocide and racist beatings in your post?:confused: Apologies if I misread you.

[Ele'ill]

I've been around the net and the over-sensitivity people on the left have to normal foibles and behaviour is a bit disturbing.

I have no idea how the left tends to convince the average working person to take up the cause when they are outnumbered by people that aren't as hyper sensitive as the left.

This sensitivity to everything in the world of what is left of the left is an impossible one if the left is to get anywhere. I've seen it too much on too many forums and I feel the whole reason the rise of the right in the world is because the left is increasingly puritanical attempting to 'purge' anyone who's simply human.

This kind of ideological fanaticism or not being able to see reality is one of the main reasons the left hardly exists in north america.

I feel that too much bullshit has been absorbed into the left. That it is itself is increasingly alienating to humanity these days. I'm seeing a rightward shift in my home country (canada) and the left here is practically non existent anymore, as conservatives and liberals are hardcore capitalists (basically the same).

(quote from religioustolerance.org)
"There are on the order of 1,500 different Christian faith groups in North America which promote many different and conflicting beliefs. Further, many groups believe that they alone are the "true" Christian church and that all of the others are in error."

I really don't want the left to fractionate like religions into unruly factions that can't expand or attract new members, that way lies disaster as there is no effective opposition.


I was going to highlight a part of the post where it threw me to discuss what I did but it's pretty much the entire original post-

It's heavier on the general sensitivity in ideology (or so I took it) than specifically in language used by 'the world' or 'working class'.

My question to you was literal and not intended to be snarky.

So rather than taking the original post to be solely about working class slang I took it to be about leftist's ideology being overly sensitive to things- or a 'just give it up, nobody cares' kind of comment


Edit- rereading it again I still think the original post comes across as 'leftists are making too big a deal about things' - secondly I'd think it could be a liberal approach 'change will come slowly- just give it time' but I didn't reply to it as such

[ckaihatsu]

So sensitized to political and interpersonal dynamics of historical injustice, that their sensitivty makes it impossible to work with 99% of ethnic minority, or poor, or female, or third-worlders, or blue collar workers, etc. etc. etc.?


This is a spurious argument -- you're mixing scales here.

Let's take your premise to be sound, for the sake of argument -- even *if* activists happen to be non-minority in every sense of the term their efforts will still be socially valuable and politically constructive *even if* they only work with like non-minority activists. For example the abolitionists against slavery were usually not actual oppressed slaves themselves.





Seems perverse to claim to be so especially touched by and sensitive to these issues when at the same time most of the people being denounced are also supposedly "oppressed".


I don't know what you're referring to here -- you're not being clear.

[ComradeMan]

I'm not sure what Fabrizio means but I think he may be getting at the PC obsession with not offending minority groups etc however members of these minority groups may be explicitly un-PC- this creates a problematic situation in which critique of the un-PC members/actions/views of the minority group is seen as an attack on the minority itself and is denounced as un-PC. :crying:

[ckaihatsu]

I'm not sure what Fabrizio means but I think he may be getting at the PC obsession with not offending minority groups etc however members of these minority groups may be explicitly un-PC- this creates a problematic situation in which critique of the un-PC members/actions/views of the minority group is seen as an attack on the minority itself and is denounced as un-PC. :crying:


(This is why soft-leftists catch so much hard-edged shit from the right -- because by *not* situating their political definitions according to one's objective relationship to the means of mass production all of this chaotic identity-politics bullshit prevails...!)

[ComradeMan]

(This is why soft-leftists catch so much hard-edged shit from the right -- because by *not* situating their political definitions according to one's objective relationship to the means of mass production all of this chaotic identity-politics bullshit prevails...!)

I agree with you in part but I am not convinced that every human situation can always be brought down to a hard analysis of the means of mass production.

In a non-racist world we would not need to talk about race, but we do not live in a non-racist world so identity politics is unfortunately a necessary evil in a sense.

What pisses me off to be frank is all the theorising and speculation, conjecture on this and that- I believe in being more pragmatic, seeing what works and why and applying it to the specific situation. One size fits all solutions do not take into account the vast diversity of global issues, geopolitics and socio-economic situations- especially outside of the so-called industrial and post-industrial nations (even then it's problematic).

[ckaihatsu]

I agree with you in part but I am not convinced that every human situation can always be brought down to a hard analysis of the means of mass production.


You're over-generalizing here -- *no one* said that "every human situation can always be brought down to a hard analysis of the means of mass production."

Rather, since we're on a political forum here we're talking in *generalities* and so *cannot* give specific explanations for *specific* situations.





In a non-racist world we would not need to talk about race, but we do not live in a non-racist world so identity politics is unfortunately a necessary evil in a sense.


You're positing here that the theory of identity, or identity politics, gives a sufficient explanation for the existence of racism. It does not.

Racism is often confused with prejudice. Racism *is* sufficiently explained in terms of one's objective relationship to the means of mass production: The accumulation of capital gives rise to a dichotomy of wealth ownership vs. not, and the owners of wealth use trivial traits like race (and gender, etc.) for the purpose of forming their own crude group identity, as well as dividing members of the working class against each other based on like trivial social qualities.

Those who do *not* own capital must sell their labor for the means of life and livelihood -- it is one's material *wages* from work that enables their larger social activity, including improved standards of living, social group identity, etc. -- how one *chooses* to identify in a social context *may* lead, individually, to a better job, better wages, etc., but *objectively* wage-earners (workers) have much more of an objective interest in selling their labor *as a group*, or collective bargaining, *regardless* of social group identification. Larger rank-and-file labor groupings equate to more of a tie-up, or organization, of a sector of the labor market, empowering those workers with more bargaining power to *set* the terms of their selling of their own labor power.





What pisses me off to be frank is all the theorising and speculation, conjecture on this and that- I believe in being more pragmatic, seeing what works and why and applying it to the specific situation. One size fits all solutions do not take into account the vast diversity of global issues, geopolitics and socio-economic situations- especially outside of the so-called industrial and post-industrial nations (even then it's problematic).


You're speaking vaguely -- you may want to posit something else here.

[ComradeMan]

You're over-generalizing here -- *no one* said that "every human situation can always be brought down to a hard analysis of the means of mass production."[QUOTE]

Some do it's all they ever seem to talk about.

[QUOTE=ckaihatsu;1919326]Rather, since we're on a political forum here we're talking in *generalities* and so *cannot* give specific explanations for *specific* situations.

Well I don't think we should deal in generalities for the exact probkems you mention.


You're positing here that the theory of identity, or identity politics, gives a sufficient explanation for the existence of racism. It does not.

I didn't say that is gives a sufficient explanation- but the two are interconnected.



Racism is often confused with prejudice. Racism *is* sufficiently explained in terms of one's objective relationship to the means of mass production: The accumulation of capital gives rise to a dichotomy of wealth ownership vs. not, and the owners of wealth use trivial traits like race (and gender, etc.) for the purpose of forming their own crude group identity, as well as dividing members of the working class against each other based on like trivial social qualities.

The fact that the two are often confused as you quite rightly point out shows that the issues are linked.

I also don't believe that all inter-racial strife is necessarily down to issues of capital, however they are so intricately interwoven it's difficult to separate them.



Those who do *not* own capital must sell their labor for the means of life and livelihood -- it is one's material *wages* from work that enables their larger social activity, including improved standards of living, social group identity, etc. -- how one *chooses* to identify in a social context *may* lead, individually, to a better job, better wages, etc., but *objectively* wage-earners (workers) have much more of an objective interest in selling their labor *as a group*, or collective bargaining, *regardless* of social group identification. Larger rank-and-file labor groupings equate to more of a tie-up, or organization, of a sector of the labor market, empowering those workers with more bargaining power to *set* the terms of their selling of their own labor power.


The trouble with this is... it explains the situation but doesn't deal with it. The fact is your average bigot who throws a brick through an immigrant's shop window, or defaces a Jewish cemetery etc etc doesn't probably see it like this nor understand what you are highlighting.

We need to get into the specifics and deal with each specific issue.. specifically otherwise there is no objectivity. Some would argue that all issues are intersubjective but that is a matter for another thread.

The problem as I see it is that large rank and file labour groupings are on the wane in many places or have lost their political might.

Let's get this straight, I'm not disagreeing with your theoretical viewpoint but what I feel is that on the ground level, on the streets if you like, the perceptions and the issues take a different twist.

[ckaihatsu]

Well I don't think we should deal in generalities for the exact probkems you mention.


The social ill we've been discussing, racism, *is* a *general* issue, because it's independent of individuals and individual actions. As I described, racism is based within the institution of wealth ownership, particularly as it pertains to control of the means of mass production.





You're positing here that the theory of identity, or identity politics, gives a sufficient explanation for the existence of racism. It does not.





I didn't say that is gives a sufficient explanation- but the two are interconnected.


The fragmentation / balkanization of the working class into trivial social identities (like race, etc.) will *determine* people's social identity in a one-way direction, giving rise to the bullshit chaotic dynamic of identity politics.





The fact that the two are often confused as you quite rightly point out shows that the issues are linked.


Those who own wealth have positions of privilege in relation to the capitalist nation-state -- individuals with ownership of wealth will have many more options in social settings to determine paths for themselves *even if* their past actions may be termed 'prejudice' by whatever social setting they happen to be in. Likewise they may even be engaged in *racist* practices, as with hiring, employment policy, real estate leasing, etc., and their racist practices will be tolerated by the larger society due to their position of privilege, based on wealth ownership.





I also don't believe that all inter-racial strife is necessarily down to issues of capital, however they are so intricately interwoven it's difficult to separate them.


We can look at human societies that existed *outside of* capital ownership and see what kinds of social distinctions those societies had, if any....





The trouble with this is... it explains the situation but doesn't deal with it. The fact is your average bigot who throws a brick through an immigrant's shop window, or defaces a Jewish cemetery etc etc doesn't probably see it like this nor understand what you are highlighting.


Not to make light of terrorist-like acts of violence, but such incidents are small in comparison to the *institutional* racism that *pervades* capitalist society -- as with education, hiring, wages, employment, real estate, etc.





The problem as I see it is that large rank and file labour groupings are on the wane in many places or have lost their political might.


In general, yes, but that doesn't change the continuing reality of the working class' *best* interests for rank-and-file self-organization for improving their wages, standard of living, and social cohesion. The *more* workers are divided against each other on trivial social distinctions the *more* they can be separated and exploited more, even to the point of racism / terrorism, ghettoization, in-fighting, etc.





Let's get this straight, I'm not disagreeing with your theoretical viewpoint but what I feel is that on the ground level, on the streets if you like, the perceptions and the issues take a different twist.


Hey, I *hear* ya -- the realities *show* us the social ills that we're describing here, and they take form in millions and billions of people's life stories. Also, people who may not know this theoretical stuff may come to incorrect conclusions about why certain unwanted things are happening in their own lives.

[Ele'ill]

Wouldn't it be safe to say that being politically correct in language use would indicate an awareness to the origin and serious issues that spawned unpolitically correct language?

Sexist language indicates that the person is ok with sexism

Racist language indicates that the person is ok with racial discrimination to varying degrees

[ComradeMan]

Wouldn't it be safe to say that being politically correct in language use would indicate an awareness to the origin and serious issues that spawned unpolitically correct language?

Sexist language indicates that the person is ok with sexism

Racist language indicates that the person is ok with racial discrimination to varying degrees

The trouble with it, Mari3L, is who decides what's correct and what's not and why? Sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions and sometimes it can get taken to silly extremes.

But I don't think we are talking about the overtly discriminatory language people may use, the n-word and openly offensive stuff like that- I think it's the more subtle and silly stuff to be honest.

In my life I have heard of "black people, black Americans, people of color, African-Americans"- who decides this? I think African-American is potentially damaging too. Most black people I know are cool with being called black, don't mind other people using the term and are not offended by it- yet there's always someone who will start to say "tut, tut" and inform you of how the word you have just used is no longer in vogue.

I think another danger with it is that we move from avoiding language that would offend to unspeak :crying: and thus using language as a form of thought control in some Orwellian type of communicative norm.

It's a tricky subject to wade through, I do admit.

[Ele'ill]

The trouble with it, Mari3L, is who decides what's correct and what's not and why? Sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions and sometimes it can get taken to silly extremes.

I think the flaw in society isn't the 'silly extremes' but the fact that people view them as such. It's going to require a ton of education regarding social interaction- and it's just that- social interaction.

Why wouldn't someone want to be 'politically correct'?

I have an inkling as to why



But I don't think we are talking about the overtly discriminatory language people may use, the n-word and openly offensive stuff like that- I think it's the more subtle and silly stuff to be honest.

In my life I have heard of "black people, black Americans, people of color, African-Americans"- who decides this? I think African-American is potentially damaging too. Most black people I know are cool with being called black, don't mind other people using the term and are not offended by it- yet there's always someone who will start to say "tut, tut" and inform you of how the word you have just used is no longer in vogue.

Right, but it isn't the idea of political correctness- it's the approach- there are annoying people out there that can make a big deal out of just about every inane subject you could imagine. That's life.

Why would we attack political correctness?


If there are anarchists meeting to discuss something- council or workshop- and everyone introduces themselves as what they'd like to be identified as or 'called' i.e. 'him' 'her' 'i' 'she' etc it can become tedious, awkward and even unnecessary when over emphasized. It just becomes silly- there should be a general understanding of or respect towards diverse identity politics in such settings and perhaps simply a short blurb before the meeting would have been appropriate.

It isn't political correctness that's the problem it's the people bringing it up in an absurd fashion.




I think another danger with it is that we move from avoiding language that would offend to unspeak :crying: and thus using language as a form of thought control in some Orwellian type of communicative norm.

It's a tricky subject to wade through, I do admit.

Again, the semantics involved here in this thread amazes me and I find it a bit ridiculous- I still do not think the OPoster was talking strictly about language.

[ComradeMan]

The problem with "political correctness" also lies in the name- "political", it's not plain and simple "correctness" (subjective in itself) but I think people are suspicious of the "political" nature to it to. People like the idea of freedom of speech and they don't like the idea of being told "politically" what to say and what not to say. Again, people can sit and analyse things left right and centre and go into academic detail but that's not what tends to happen in the real world. You also run the danger that it can become counter-productive and the use of proscribed language begins to be seen as an act of rebellion.

The silly examples, unfortunately, tend to make up the bulk of the problem. We all know what's offensive and what isn't without being decided for us. The rest is just political manipulation.

[Fabrizio]

[

This is a spurious argument -- you're mixing scales here.

Let's take your premise to be sound, for the sake of argument -- even *if* activists happen to be non-minority in every sense of the term their efforts will still be socially valuable and politically constructive *even if* they only work with like non-minority activists. For example the abolitionists against slavery were usually not actual oppressed slaves themselves.

Oh sorry, what was my "spurious argument" ?:rolleyes: Did I say that it's completely illegitimate for a white, male, non blue-collar to be on the left? No. I'm a white, male, graduate, on the road to become a professional (lawyer). I also am a progressive politically.

However it's worth pointing out to you when sectors of the far-left are so divorced from the "popular classes", that the way those classes talk day-to-day shocks them. Don't you think that's a weakness that needs to be overcome? Or are you so adamant that the far-left is made up of self-sacrificing, morally superior people who are simply much more sensitive to injustice than the rest of us (most of whome suffer that same injsutice daily just as much, if not more, than said leftists).

Or is it more about the ego of said leftists in question (need to be "right on" in every situation, regardless of practical usefulness).

Do you catch my drift yet?


I don't know what you're referring to here -- you're not being clear.

Well it seemed clear enough to me, but here I'll be even clearer: it's ridiculous to claim you are so much more affected by "oppressive" language than the gen. population, when most of said population is "oppressed" itself, and doesn't give a fuck.

Now forgive me if I'm not going to throw out a load of technical debating terms and name a load of logical falalcies at you. It's not through lack of education, it's simply that I don't see the use in it when we're just exchanging opinions.

[ComradeMan]

Intellectual apparatchiks...my friend is what I believe you are describing,

[Ele'ill]

However it's worth pointing out to you when sectors of the far-left are so divorced from the "popular classes", that the way those classes talk day-to-day shocks them.

Have you ever seen or taken part in a lively labor march?

They are leftists.

Nurses strike?

Leftist

Teacher's strike?

Leftist.

Space reclaiming action in light of killings by police.

Leftist.

Community organizing against environmentally harmful industry?

Leftist

Most of the workers I've talked to and worked with who are leftist albeit not the leftists you're talking about within your strawman (see my comment below this one for that) from philly to the PNW are not racist but instead class conscious. THAT is the defining feature of their being- not some 'oh come on it's just a racial slur' peeps that you'd love to make the entire population out to be so that YOU can feel more comfortable being racist or discriminatory.

I find it amusing that you're separating 'those leftists' from 'all the good common folk' without actually describing who you're referring to and who actually makes up those groups in your mind.

Strawman.

Perhaps your privilege has kept you from the real world.






Don't you think that's a weakness that needs to be overcome? Or are you so adamant that the far-left is made up of self-sacrificing, morally superior people who are simply much more sensitive to injustice than the rest of us (most of whome suffer that same injsutice daily just as much, if not more, than said leftists).

I mean, if I walked up to a couple black people and addressed them in a friendly manner but with a racial slur I'd likely get hurt or yelled at- the same goes for everyone else.











Well it seemed clear enough to me, but here I'll be even clearer: it's ridiculous to claim you are so much more affected by "oppressive" language than the gen. population, when most of said population is "oppressed" itself, and doesn't give a fuck.

Doesn't give a fuck that they're oppressed? :lol:

Doesn't give a fuck about discriminatory, hateful and oppressive language? :lol:

You are a rather large fool.

I am embarrassed for you.

[Fabrizio]

So you make no distinction, not even an anlytical one, between 1.) organized leftists and communities moved into activism by a single issue, 2.) the oganzied far-left and "leftists" in the broad sense, and 3.) Some un-PC language in some contexts, and genuine racist behaviour...and then you try to win the argument on that basis.

Sorry, I don't buy it, although it was a skilled bit of intellectually dishonest propaganda on your part (I congratulate you Comrade, you could become editor of some anarchist pamphlet one-day).



Perhaps your privilege has kept you from the real world.



Oh yes, me and my privelige, that must be the reason. Nobody could resist anarchism unless they were priveliged, and nobody priveliged would ever become an anarchist!:p

Come on comrade you can attack me, but credit me with some intelligence at least, I know this shit like the back of my hand. You're an above-average writer though I'll give you that. :)

[ComradeMan]

Perhaps your privilege has kept you from the real world.

Like Bakunin perhaps... born of a family of Russian nobles....

I know what Fabrizio is getting at, he wasn't attacking you so don't go on the attack as such.

I don't necessarily agree with all of his points, but like I said, I know what he's getting at.

[Ele'ill]

So you make no distinction, not even an anlytical one, between 1.) organized leftists and communities moved into activism by a single issue, 2.) the oganzied far-left and "leftists" in the broad sense, and 3.) Some un-PC language in some contexts, and genuine racist behaviour...and then you try to win the argument on that basis.

I don't consider this reply (yours) to be a response to the points I brought up in my original post-

Perhaps I'm misreading somethingt- I simply do not understand the correlation between what I've posted and your responses to them.

I don't understand how 1 & 2 relate to 3 to even be compared with each other in the manner you're listing.

Organized leftists and communities engaged in grassroots activism become after years of struggle- individuals on the far left.

One of my original points was that you were attempting to paint the 'left' as a separate group from the 'working class' or 'gen pop'.

I think it would be a good idea for you to define and then shade in the groups you're describing. Otherwise, I don't know if I'm agreeing to 'leftist ideas' meaning progressive liberal in your mind- or actual leftist ideas.


Sorry, I don't buy it, although it was a skilled bit of intellectually dishonest propaganda on your part (I congratulate you Comrade, you could become editor of some anarchist pamphlet one-day).It wasn't dishonest on my part- you didn't refute anything I've said.




Oh yes, me and my privelige, that must be the reason. Nobody could resist anarchism unless they were priveliged, and nobody priveliged would ever become an anarchist!:pI've found that a lot of people that come from a wealthy background that spout some of the things you have simply have not seen how bad it really is.

Don't take shame in it- it was an observation.


Come on comrade you can attack me, but credit me with some intelligence at least, I know this shit like the back of my hand. You're an above-average writer though I'll give you that. :)I won't attack you.

Elaborate further on what the main point of your thread is.

As you can see, Comrademan and I discussed what the intent was.

He thought it was about language- I thought it was about ideology, 'practice' etc..

[Fabrizio]

Umm, it's not "my thread", I didn't write the OP. But I understood perfectly well what he was talking about. He was referring to the political correctness of the far-left or "revleft". This is not jsut about langauge but I'd guess it's pretty obvious that "political correctness" relates to 'form' more than 'content'. Obviously I am opposed to genuine racism, so are most people. But the obsession with purging all "oppressive attitudes" is particular to the far-left.

I thought my language has been clear, I've referred to far-leftists when I meant that, to the broad left when I meant that. To be honest Mari3l I think you're taking down this too much of a semantic route: we all know what the terms being used refer to.


One of my original points was that you were attempting to paint the 'left' as a separate group from the 'working class' or 'gen pop'.

Obviously the organized far-left is distinct from the gen. pop. I don't see your point. There's no deeper meaning here, it's just a prima facie distinction.


I've found that a lot of people that come from a wealthy background that spout some of the things you have simply have not seen how bad it really is.

Ah well try working low-paid jobs in "multicultural urban London" and you'll see where I'm coming from. That Pakistani guy or black guy might be nice to you when he's serving you from behind the counter, but he's not so nice when he's your boss and he's finally got some power over your white ass. :laugh:It's shit, and no, "the masses" are not particularly enlightened, sadly, at least not in my experience.

So yeah just because I'm training to be a lawyer now doesn't mean I was born "priveliged". (though of course in comparison to 90% of the worlds population, both you and me are priveliged, so let's put this in perspective).

[Ele'ill]

Umm, it's not "my thread", I didn't write the OP. But I understood perfectly well what he was talking about. He was referring to the political correctness of the far-left or "revleft". This is not jsut about langauge but I'd guess it's pretty obvious that "political correctness" relates to 'form' more than 'content'. Obviously I am opposed to genuine racism, so are most people. But the obsession with purging all "oppressive attitudes" is particular to the far-left.

Give an example of how the 'far left' purges oppressive attitudes.


I thought my language has been clear, I've referred to far-leftists when I meant that, to the broad left when I meant that. To be honest Mari3l I think you're taking down this too much of a semantic route: we all know what the terms being used refer to.

No we don't.

I thought this thread was about the left being overly sensitive to everything and not just language.

Apparently some of the users agree and some others don't.

[ckaihatsu]

So sensitized to political and interpersonal dynamics of historical injustice, that their sensitivty makes it impossible to work with 99% of ethnic minority, or poor, or female, or third-worlders, or blue collar workers, etc. etc. etc.?





This is a spurious argument -- you're mixing scales here.



[

Oh sorry, what was my "spurious argument" ?:rolleyes:


Your spurious argument resulted from your mixing of scales (of perspective) -- activists, in their concrete political actions, are addressing political dynamics like racism that are playing out at *large* scales, as the result of governmental and/or corporate policy.

To paint them as being rendered neurotic and imbecilic by hyper-sensitivity to the way they use language around people of minority groups is very much a caricature, and is the basis for the insulting political defamations leveled at leftists, tarred as taking "political correctness" (political appropriateness) to Inquisition-type lengths.

How activists, or anyone, might interact at the small-scale, interpersonal level is distinctly different from their *political* work that addresses *large*-scale societal practices.





Did I say that it's completely illegitimate for a white, male, non blue-collar to be on the left? No. I'm a white, male, graduate, on the road to become a professional (lawyer). I also am a progressive politically.


No prob, but right now you're not being very convincing.





However it's worth pointing out to you when sectors of the far-left are so divorced from the "popular classes", that the way those classes talk day-to-day shocks them. Don't you think that's a weakness that needs to be overcome? Or are you so adamant that the far-left is made up of self-sacrificing, morally superior people who are simply much more sensitive to injustice than the rest of us (most of whome suffer that same injsutice daily just as much, if not more, than said leftists).

Or is it more about the ego of said leftists in question (need to be "right on" in every situation, regardless of practical usefulness).

Do you catch my drift yet?




Well it seemed clear enough to me, but here I'll be even clearer: it's ridiculous to claim you are so much more affected by "oppressive" language than the gen. population, when most of said population is "oppressed" itself, and doesn't give a fuck.





I can quite understand a man accepting laws that protect private property, and admit of its accumulation, as long as he himself is able under those conditions to realise some form of beautiful and intellectual life. But it is almost incredible to me how a man whose life is marred and made hideous by such laws can possibly acquiesce in their continuance.

However, the explanation is not really difficult to find. It is simply this. Misery and poverty are so absolutely degrading, and exercise such a paralysing effect over the nature of men, that no class is ever really conscious of its own suffering. They have to be told of it by other people, and they often entirely disbelieve them. What is said by great employers of labour against agitators is unquestionably true. Agitators are a set of interfering, meddling people, who come down to some perfectly contented class of the community, and sow the seeds of discontent amongst them. That is the reason why agitators are so absolutely necessary. Without them, in our incomplete state, there would be no advance towards civilisation. Slavery was put down in America, not in consequence of any action on the part of the slaves, or even any express desire on their part that they should be free. It was put down entirely through the grossly illegal conduct of certain agitators in Boston and elsewhere, who were not slaves themselves, nor owners of slaves, nor had anything to do with the question really. It was, undoubtedly, the Abolitionists who set the torch alight, who began the whole thing. And it is curious to note that from the slaves themselves they received, not merely very little assistance, but hardly any sympathy even; and when at the close of the war the slaves found themselves free, found themselves indeed so absolutely free that they were free to starve, many of them bitterly regretted the new state of things. To the thinker, the most tragic fact in the whole of the French Revolution is not that Marie Antoinette was killed for being a queen, but that the starved peasant of the Vendee voluntarily went out to die for the hideous cause of feudalism.


The Soul of Man under Socialism by Oscar Wilde

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1017

[Fabrizio]

That's fair enough dude and I wish you luck with it. :) However you still may have more luck agitating if you guys were better at interacting on a day to day level instead jumping up in arms at any criticism.:p

[ComradeMan]

That's fair enough dude and I wish you luck with it. :) However you still may have more luck agitating if you guys were better at interacting on a day to day level instead jumping up in arms at any criticism.:p

I think that's the point- grassroots level, that's what I mean about onto the streets. There seems to be too much talk from ivory towers all the time, from people who are perceived to be priviliged anyway. Even Chomsky has been criticised by some for this. It's difficult, we need academics and the intellgentsia but at the same time they often seemed to be divorced from the chaotic and unpredictable realities at grassroots level- turning everything into theory and statistics all the time.

[Bud Struggle]

And often the PC denforcement is self serving. Elite PCer's enforce PC language because THEY don't like certain types of talk. It has nothing to do with the people being belittled. An expample is the use of the "N" word. Blacks use it all the time to one another--but PCers inforce a strict ban on whites using it.

[RGacky3]

Blacks use it all the time to one another--but PCers inforce a strict ban on whites using it.

No one wants to enforce a ban on a word, no one wants to ban a word. If you think its ok to call black people a nigger go ahead and do it, see who's getting offended, are most black people PC nuts for getting offended?

I don't consider myself a PC guy, but compaining because black people get offended at white people using the N word, whereas SOME of them (Stand up comedians and rappers are not most black people, just like punk rockers are not most white people) use it is rediculous.

If you think calling a gay guy a faggot is ok, then do it, but don't complain if people call you homophobic.

[Bud Struggle]

No one wants to enforce a ban on a word, no one wants to ban a word. If you think its ok to call black people a nigger go ahead and do it, see who's getting offended, are most black people PC nuts for getting offended?

I don't consider myself a PC guy, but compaining because black people get offended at white people using the N word, whereas SOME of them (Stand up comedians and rappers are not most black people, just like punk rockers are not most white people) use it is rediculous.

If you think calling a gay guy a faggot is ok, then do it, but don't complain if people call you homophobic.

I have no problem with anyone calling anyone anything. If I call a gay guy a faggot-- I SHOULD be called a homophobe, where I have problems is with rich Liberals setting up the rules for all of this. If I call the Black person down the street from me a "N" word and he beats the crap out of me--FINE. I just don't want to be lectured to by some rich white Liberal in NYC telling me how I should behave.

[ComradeMan]

And often the PC denforcement is self serving. Elite PCer's enforce PC language because THEY don't like certain types of talk. It has nothing to do with the people being belittled. An expample is the use of the "N" word. Blacks use it all the time to one another--but PCers inforce a strict ban on whites using it.

Orwellian Newspeak- thought control, they may have good intentions but I think they exacerbate the problem. Apart from that a hardened KKK racist is not going to care what some do-gooder in NYC says, are they?

But let's get back to the point, it's not about using the n-word. Bringing it down to that argument is foolish- there is no defense for using the n-word, it's about the silly stuff. It's about how wishing someone a "Happy Christmas" at work could be deemed non-inclusive, offensive and all that. It's about all kinds of stuff like that. It's like Krimskrams pointed out from the Jewish perspective, the goyim deciding what is offensive to Jewish people makes him chuckle.

[Revolution starts with U]

WHatever crackers. Get over it. Me and my niggas control the language now...

... we have to control something

[ckaihatsu]

That's fair enough dude and I wish you luck with it. :) However you still may have more luck agitating if you guys were better at interacting on a day to day level instead jumping up in arms at any criticism.:p


What I find interesting here -- besides your criticism from the *sidelines* -- is that you're accusing leftists of being too emotionally *defensive* when it comes to discussing the substance of the politics, but then you're also saying that leftists aren't *emotional enough* when it comes to interacting "on the street".

So you're using *three* stereotypes, or caricatures, here, and not in *any* kind of constructive way -- [1] the hyper-sensitive, emotionally reactive and defensive political person who threatens tears and retribution at the slightest misstep of political language, [2] the hyper-intellectual, brainy, wordy Western scholar who wouldn't be able to motivate the use of condoms, much less a political event, for lack of emotion and personality, and [3] the hyper-emotional "street" person whose intellectual abilities extend as far as their excitability -- if no one can get them riled up into an excited state then their brains will never have any hope of being jump-started.

Dude, stick to what you *do* know, and don't presume to tell others how to do their activism.





I think that's the point- grassroots level, that's what I mean about onto the streets. There seems to be too much talk from ivory towers all the time, from people who are perceived to be priviliged anyway. Even Chomsky has been criticised by some for this. It's difficult, we need academics and the intellgentsia but at the same time they often seemed to be divorced from the chaotic and unpredictable realities at grassroots level- turning everything into theory and statistics all the time.


I don't know any better way of saying this, so I'll just say it, at the risk of bursting your bubble: Theories and statistics are used because they *correspond to reality*. No, they are *not* the same as *news*, or details about specific events, because that's not what they do. If you want news and stories, hang out with people and write it up and post it to Indymedia -- maybe your thing is more along the lines of ethnographies.

But if you want to know the *whole picture* that's where the *general* stuff comes in. It takes a lot of work and input from many, many journalists, ethnographers, historians, and researchers (etc.) to put the *big picture* together over time, but that's where academia shines.

Politics -- which is what we're doing here at RevLeft -- is about putting that mass knowledge into *usage*, for planning for the future and making it happen (in more-humane ways). Politics is able to cut out a lot of bullshit -- or *make* a lot of bullshit, depending on your class interests -- because it's about honing in on a certain way the world needs to be. You might have noticed by now that in politics, like in business, the point is to make it easy for someone to take action. If whatever it is you're looking at is too "ivory tower" then it's probably not politically oriented.

You're not really being clear here about what you're *expecting* -- you're basically casting doubt on the fact that theories and statistics *do* describe reality, and instead you're calling for some kind of knowledge and information that can describe "chaotic and unpredictable realities at the grassroots level", in *realtime*. But guess what? That's what activists and journalists do -- so you're blaming apples for not being oranges...!





And often the PC denforcement is self serving. Elite PCer's enforce PC language because THEY don't like certain types of talk. It has nothing to do with the people being belittled. An expample is the use of the "N" word. Blacks use it all the time to one another--but PCers inforce a strict ban on whites using it.


Instead of the "politically correct" term we should move on to adopting the sensibility that there are certain ways of addressing people that are just more *appropriate* than other ways. I tend to think that one's *intentions* towards others is at the heart of communication, but why take a risk? There's no need to be even superficially un-polite or demeaning to people, so just don't be *politically* un-polite or demeaning to people, either...!

[ComradeMan]

What I find interesting here -- besides your criticism from the *sidelines* -- is that you're accusing leftists of being too emotionally *defensive* when it comes to discussing the substance of the politics, but then you're also saying that leftists aren't *emotional enough* when it comes to interacting "on the street".

So you're using *three* stereotypes, or caricatures, here, and not in *any* kind of constructive way -- [1] the hyper-sensitive, emotionally reactive and defensive political person who threatens tears and retribution at the slightest misstep of political language, [2] the hyper-intellectual, brainy, wordy Western scholar who wouldn't be able to motivate the use of condoms, much less a political event, for lack of emotion and personality, and [3] the hyper-emotional "street" person whose intellectual abilities extend as far as their excitability -- if no one can get them riled up into an excited state then their brains will never have any hope of being jump-started.

Dude, stick to what you *do* know, and don't presume to tell others how to do their activism.

-Who's being emotional now? :lol: Would you deny the dichotomy that exists between theory and practice?

-I'm not accusing anyone of being x or y, I'm not making absolute statements what I am saying is that there are issues on the ground that can be perceived differently when analysed on paper. It's not about who's right or wrong it's about the perceptions.



I don't know any better way of saying this, so I'll just say it, at the risk of bursting your bubble: Theories and statistics are used because they *correspond to reality*. No, they are *not* the same as *news*, or details about specific events, because that's not what they do. If you want news and stories, hang out with people and write it up and post it to Indymedia -- maybe your thing is more along the lines of ethnographies.


-Statistics prove that statistics often prove nothing. On a given day a given number of people were surveyed who on that given day gave a response. At best statistics are "general" but they can never be exact.

-Define reality please? You can't- it's intersubjective.

-Theories are theories yes, but absolute realities do not exist, scientific theories remain valid until they are disproven.


But if you want to know the *whole picture* that's where the *general* stuff comes in. It takes a lot of work and input from many, many journalists, ethnographers, historians, and researchers (etc.) to put the *big picture* together over time, but that's where academia shines.

-And as soon as it's published/printed risks being obsolete because of successive developments. The world is in a constant state of flux. I'm not saying that they are worthless but I don't think they should be used as some kind of dogmatic approach to everything.


Politics -- which is what we're doing here at RevLeft -- is about putting that mass knowledge into *usage*, for planning for the future and making it happen (in more-humane ways). Politics is able to cut out a lot of bullshit -- or *make* a lot of bullshit, depending on your class interests -- because it's about honing in on a certain way the world needs to be. You might have noticed by now that in politics, like in business, the point is to make it easy for someone to take action. If whatever it is you're looking at is too "ivory tower" then it's probably not politically oriented.

-Like Chomsky?


You're not really being clear here about what you're *expecting* -- you're basically casting doubt on the fact that theories and statistics *do* describe reality, and instead you're calling for some kind of knowledge and information that can describe "chaotic and unpredictable realities at the grassroots level", in *realtime*. But guess what? That's what activists and journalists do -- so you're blaming apples for not being oranges...!

- Spontaneous and constant development. BYW I didn't say activism, I said riots.



Instead of the "politically correct" term we should move on to adopting the sensibility that there are certain ways of addressing people that are just more *appropriate* than other ways. I tend to think that one's *intentions* towards others is at the heart of communication, but why take a risk? There's no need to be even superficially un-polite or demeaning to people, so just don't be *politically* un-polite or demeaning to people, either...!

-It's not just about how you speak to people. I think we had already established that we don't really need to be told what is bigotted and what is not either. PC has other uses too- it is by no means the preserve of the Left either....

[Ele'ill]

First of all- 90% of the people you see engaged in street actions ARE involved in grassroots organizing. You see groups at large summit demonstrations- lots of groups with their own affinity groups even- they are all involved in grassroots street level activism.

Police accountability in the Pacific Northwest. Someone is beaten to death by police- there is an immediate response from various groups using various tactics- these folks are 'seasoned activists' or the 'far left' that you are talking about.

50 people immediately take to the streets and militantly seize the intersection where the beating took place

50 people mobilize and make banners and march to the police HQ to demonstrate

20 people meet in the park to talk and hand out flyers as to what's happening (which is occuring at the other all events as well)

Community councils are organized at varying locations throughout the months to follow



Another person is killed by police


Militant marches mobilize and descend on the city- it starts with 50 some people and ends with 500 just regarding that march

The other groups have organized as well through door to door campaigns- media teams are established

Students engage in social justice activities take to the streets- now the numbers swell to over a thousand

Civil Review Board proposed for city is main topic now - residents of affected areas become engaged in copwatch and call a neighbor programs

so on and so forth

[ComradeMan]

First of all- 90% of the people you see engaged in street actions

But we weren't talking about activism and street demonstrations were we?
:thumbup:

[Ele'ill]

But we weren't talking about activism and street demonstrations were we?
:thumbup:

At this point in the thread- if this isn't what you were all talking about- then I have absolutely no idea what's going on.

[RGacky3]

I just don't want to be lectured to by some rich white Liberal in NYC telling me how I should behave.

Sure, but I don't know if that happens, who are these rich white liberals?

[Fabrizio]

What I find interesting here -- besides your criticism from the *sidelines* -- is that you're accusing leftists of being too emotionally *defensive* when it comes to discussing the substance of the politics, but then you're also saying that leftists aren't *emotional enough* when it comes to interacting "on the street".

So you're using *three* stereotypes, or caricatures, here, and not in *any* kind of constructive way -- [1] the hyper-sensitive, emotionally reactive and defensive political person who threatens tears and retribution at the slightest misstep of political language, [2] the hyper-intellectual, brainy, wordy Western scholar who wouldn't be able to motivate the use of condoms, much less a political event, for lack of emotion and personality, and [3] the hyper-emotional "street" person whose intellectual abilities extend as far as their excitability -- if no one can get them riled up into an excited state then their brains will never have any hope of being jump-started.

Dude, stick to what you *do* know, and don't presume to tell others how to do their activism.

So you've managed to taske something as simple as my criticism, and rephrase it in the most confusing language...is that a talent of yours? :D

Seriously how do you know what activism I do or have done? Do you think only revolutionary marxists are politically active?

Also, I've always earned my keep and mummy and daddy haven't put me where I am, so why the fuck do I have to take being moralized to by some communist, just because they may choose to get involved certain politics which I think are laughable? you really humanity owes you something just because you sell papers, visit picket lines, and stay up till 3am writing jargon-filled pamphlets? :lol:

And second...although this wasn't my point: it is possible to be an emotionally repressed person who has difficulty relating to people, and at the same time be, unconsciously (but obvious to others), deeply influenced by the very emotions which one represses, expressing these in an intellectualized way (i.e prickly, defensive, falling back on jargon and sophistry when attacked), and unable to control said emotions precisely because one does not admit them.

However, that wasn't my criticism in the first place so I'm not sure what you mean (when I was saying how "sensitive" the left was to "injustice", I was quoting you FFS, it wasn't my own claim).

[Fabrizio]

Sure, but I don't know if that happens, who are these rich white liberals?

Me!:cool:

[Ele'ill]

I'm still confused- even more so now- as to what this thread is about


Give an example of how the 'far left' purges oppressive attitudes.
.

[ckaihatsu]

-Who's being emotional now? :lol:


Uh, yeah, -whatever-.... Playing 'gotcha' now?





Would you deny the dichotomy that exists between theory and practice?

-I'm not accusing anyone of being x or y, I'm not making absolute statements what I am saying is that there are issues on the ground that can be perceived differently when analysed on paper. It's not about who's right or wrong it's about the perceptions.


You're pretty much doing postmodernism / phenomenology with *that* attitude....





-Statistics prove that statistics often prove nothing. On a given day a given number of people were surveyed who on that given day gave a response. At best statistics are "general" but they can never be exact.


Wooooooooah. Wowwwwwwwwwww.... Doooooooooooood.





-Define reality please? You can't- it's intersubjective.

-Theories are theories yes, but absolute realities do not exist, scientific theories remain valid until they are disproven.


No, *you* teach the class...!

(Again you're attacking the modern scientific understanding that an objective reality exists that is independent of any given observers and their perceptions.)





-And as soon as it's published/printed risks being obsolete because of successive developments. The world is in a constant state of flux. I'm not saying that they are worthless but I don't think they should be used as some kind of dogmatic approach to everything.


What you probably consider "dogmatic" is what the rest of society merely considers "true" -- sorry if people in your very family happen to side with the existence of *gravity* (etc.), but don't take it too personally....





-Like Chomsky?


Dude, lay off Chomsky. Just come back to it when you're ready.





- Spontaneous and constant development. BYW I didn't say activism, I said riots.


Uh-huh -- political slur there.





-It's not just about how you speak to people. I think we had already established that we don't really need to be told what is bigotted and what is not either.


Well not *you*, obviously -- you're golden. (heh)

But -- and please take my word for it -- *some* people might need some friendly reminders, to put it mildly....





PC has other uses too- it is by no means the preserve of the Left either....


And yet the left has been good enough to absorb all of its context and directedness. How nice of the left to block that oncoming train with its body!

[ckaihatsu]

(Hey, so now you're taking those *general* political characterizations and caricatures and applying them directly to purported *specific individuals* now -- ??? That's called using a 'strawman' tactic for argumentation.)

[Fabrizio]

Dude, I don't need to employ stereotypes to observe that you're being defensive and self-righteous in our interaction in this thread!:tt2:

though I must congratulate you on this:


Uh, yeah, -whatever-.... Playing 'gotcha' now?


Slipping Transactional Analysis into a marxist forum is to be comended, I like it! :)

[Ele'ill]

Dude, I don't need to employ stereotypes to observe that you're being defensive and self-righteous in our interaction in this thread!:tt2:

though I must congratulate you on this:



Slipping Transactional Analysis into a marxist forum is to be comended, I like it! :)

Yeah so how about giving an example of how the 'far left' purges oppressive attitudes.

[ComradeMan]

Yeah so how about giving an example of how the 'far left' purges oppressive attitudes.

You don't, can't and probably never will be able to purge an attitude short of lining people up against a wall.... you should seek to change attitudes.

[Ele'ill]

You don't, can't and probably never will be able to purge an attitude short of lining people up against a wall.... you should seek to change attitudes.

So then what was Fabrizio talking about earlier in this thread?

[Bud Struggle]

So then what was Fabrizio talking about earlier in this thread?

He wasn't calling people fools and trolls, that's for sure.

[Fabrizio]

A tip Mari3l: your intellect would be better served if you learnt to be less semantic.

I don't even remember if it was I or someone else who used the term "purge". But whatever. The point is that the far-left is generally very politically correct, and as the OP (not mine!) said, that really puts off people who otherwise may sympathise.

It's just a fact, do with it as you will.

[Ele'ill]

He wasn't calling people fools and trolls, that's for sure.

http://www.profish.com/images/fishing/Trolling%20Lines.JPG

[Ele'ill]

A tip Mari3l: your intellect would be better served if you learnt to be less semantic.

:rolleyes:

So you'd like for my posts to be extremely vague, like yours.

Is the best way to do that by not answering questions? I saw a lot of that.


I don't even remember if it was I or someone else who used the term "purge". But whatever. The point is that the far-left is generally very politically correct, and as the OP (not mine!) said, that really puts off people who otherwise may sympathise.

It's just a fact, do with it as you will.

And I already addressed this- at which point you suggested it was within language and then failed to give examples- but then went on to suggest that the left purges- but you never explained anything to any degree.




The pink unicorn rides at sunset because the right-wing can't dress their bears.

(how was that?)

[Bud Struggle]

The pink unicorn rides at sunset because the right-wing can't dress their bears.

(how was that?)
It's trolling.

[Ele'ill]

Obviously I am opposed to genuine racism, so are most people. But the obsession with purging all "oppressive attitudes" is particular to the far-left


The reason I'm asking is because it pertains to the original post. (thank fucking-shit something does at this point)

[Ele'ill]

It's trolling.

No, it was snarkish.

And it was a reply to this ridiculousness


A tip Mari3l: your intellect would be better served if you learnt to be less semantic.

[ComradeMan]

Uh, yeah, -whatever-.... Playing 'gotcha' now?

No.


You're pretty much doing postmodernism / phenomenology with *that* attitude....

Perhaps I'm "doing" post-post modernism? :lol:


Wooooooooah. Wowwwwwwwwwww.... Doooooooooooood.

Statistics in themselves do not prove universals, they are pointers not proofs. I'm not going to get into all that about the misuse and dare I say mis-acceptance of statistics but.... "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."


No, *you* teach the class...!

Who said that?

[QUOTE=ckaihatsu;1921389](Again you're attacking the modern scientific understanding that an objective reality exists that is independent of any given observers and their perceptions.)

Because it's bullshit and it doesn't work. Total objectivity is impossible to attain for a start, a degree of subjectivity always exists in everything. See Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper for an interesting view on this.


What you probably consider "dogmatic" is what the rest of society merely considers "true" -- sorry if people in your very family happen to side with the existence of *gravity* (etc.), but don't take it too personally....

Quid est veritas? Define truth.

Does existence exist?

Family? Gravity? Eh?


Dude, lay off Chomsky. Just come back to it when you're ready.

Why not? Chomsky revolutionised linguistics and built up a major theory that is now widely accepted on the LAD or language acquisition device- this was postulated and never proven empirically to exist- at best it might be inferred. No, so let's stay with Chomsky.


Uh-huh -- political slur there.

What political slur? Excluding activism as something positive and believing that riots are negative?


Well not *you*, obviously -- you're golden. (heh)

You said it, not me.


But -- and please take my word for it -- *some* people might need some friendly reminders, to put it mildly....

Of course, no one said they wouldn't.



And yet the left has been good enough to absorb all of its context and directedness. How nice of the left to block that oncoming train with its body!

The left does not exist as one monolithic block and the way you put it is interesting too "good enough to" as if this mystical left were accommodating some kind of unwanted burden.

You've completely missed the point, resorted to weird ad homs and a bizarre extra-Freudian transactional analysis. :thumbdown:

[ckaihatsu]

Playing 'gotcha' now?





No.


Yes.





Would you deny the dichotomy that exists between theory and practice?

-I'm not accusing anyone of being x or y, I'm not making absolute statements what I am saying is that there are issues on the ground that can be perceived differently when analysed on paper. It's not about who's right or wrong it's about the perceptions.





You're pretty much doing postmodernism / phenomenology with *that* attitude....





Perhaps I'm "doing" post-post modernism? :lol:


The relationship between theory and practice is a *dialectical* one. It also transcends any individuals' subjective *perceptions* of that interaction. As it is based in objective reality there *is* a 'correct' and a 'less-than-correct' and an 'incorrect' to the description of that dialectic.





-Statistics prove that statistics often prove nothing. On a given day a given number of people were surveyed who on that given day gave a response. At best statistics are "general" but they can never be exact.


I'll agree with this previous statement of yours about statistics -- that they describe a *general* state, or situation of reality, and so cannot necessarily be interpolated directly down to apply to individual cases.





Statistics in themselves do not prove universals, they are pointers not proofs. I'm not going to get into all that about the misuse and dare I say mis-acceptance of statistics but.... "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."


Here you're going overboard, though, and you're just blithely dismissing the value of all statistical research.





(Again you're attacking the modern scientific understanding that an objective reality exists that is independent of any given observers and their perceptions.)





Because it's bullshit and it doesn't work. Total objectivity is impossible to attain for a start, a degree of subjectivity always exists in everything. See Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper for an interesting view on this.


Most phenomena of the physical world that we deal with are *entirely* regular and predictable, and so total objectivity *is* possible -- if it wasn't we wouldn't be able to make predictions and plan rationally. And, much of the social world is also regular and predictable, and so we are able to develop immense, highly orderly cities that regularize routines for billions of people living more or less reasonably within the same vicinity.





PC has other uses too- it is by no means the preserve of the Left either....





And yet the left has been good enough to absorb all of its context and directedness. How nice of the left to block that oncoming train with its body!





The left does not exist as one monolithic block and the way you put it is interesting too "good enough to" as if this mystical left were accommodating some kind of unwanted burden.


That's *exactly* as I meant it -- that the left is the *only* target of the right-wing "political correctness" slur.





You've completely missed the point, resorted to weird ad homs and a bizarre extra-Freudian transactional analysis. :thumbdown:


You "don't approve" of my responses so you're going to give obtuse replies and an overall "rating" -- ??? If you don't want to discuss then don't but no one here needs your petty personalized characterizations.

[ComradeMan]

Here you're going overboard, though, and you're just blithely dismissing the value of all statistical research.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

It's a quote...



Most phenomena of the physical world that we deal with are *entirely* regular and predictable, and so total objectivity *is* possible -- if it wasn't we wouldn't be able to make predictions and plan rationally. And, much of the social world is also regular and predictable, and so we are able to develop immense, highly orderly cities that regularize routines for billions of people living more or less reasonably within the same vicinity.

Most but not all... interesting.

Total objectivity is not possible, the observer is subjective.

The social world is not regular and predictable.

What kind of predictions? Predictions that are frequently approximate.

Near approximation is okay, it's a necessary evil if you like. But total objectivity is impossible.

Are there cities of billions of people? On this planet?



You "don't approve" of my responses so you're going to give obtuse replies and an overall "rating" -- ??? If you don't want to discuss then don't but no one here needs your petty personalized characterizations.

Err.... humm....

Who was talking about approving? Disagreeing on points has nothing to do with subjective emotions leading to overall approval or disapproval, however you went off on all weird characterisations and "games". :tt2:

Why don't you want to discuss Chomsky...?:thumbdown:

[Revolution starts with U]

If no objective reality exists, jump off a cliff and wish/positive think yourself to survive. Hope that works out for ya :D

[Revolution starts with U]

The only think subjective about reality is one's perception of it. It's still there, it still exists independantly of you.

[Ele'ill]

As does Fabrizios answer- somewhere out there independent of us to the point where we cannot see it.

(because it hasn't been posted yet)

[ComradeMan]

The only think subjective about reality is one's perception of it. It's still there, it still exists independantly of you.

Prove it- objectively.

Even reality is a perception.

[Ele'ill]

Define reality

[ComradeMan]

Define reality

You can't- it's a perception subject to the "perceptional" bias(es) of the "perceiver".

100% objectivity cannot be attained- we approximate objectivity but we can only be objective within limits if you like.

[ckaihatsu]

As does Fabrizios answer- somewhere out there independent of us to the point where we cannot see it.

(because it hasn't been posted yet)


Fabrizio's answer *is* objectively out there somewhere, but he just hasn't approximated reality enough to perceive it yet....


= D

[Revolution starts with U]

Prove it- objectively.

Even reality is a perception.

*cocks 44 magnum...
*POW
Proved.

[ComradeMan]

*cocks 44 magnum...
*POW
Proved.

Crude analysis- don't be anti-intellectual now.

But if you did cock the .44 colt python or whatever and shoot- you would perceive the results but they would still be perceived subjectively, i.e. through your own bias. Ten other witnesses would also give ten other accounts of what happened- none identical. This is what we are talking about....

[Revolution starts with U]

The point is that we would be able to describe the situation, subjectively, but you wouldn't. Because objective reality exists independant of the actors within it.

(On a side note, that's my problem w standard Big Bang theories. What did the universe bang into? Even a vast swath of nothing is still something, so what was here before the bang?)

[ComradeMan]

The point is that we would be able to describe the situation, subjectively, but you wouldn't. Because objective reality exists independant of the actors within it.

(On a side note, that's my problem w standard Big Bang theories. What did the universe bang into? Even a vast swath of nothing is still something, so what was here before the bang?)

1) How do you know I wouldn't? It seems logical enough, but you can't prove it? I might have a near death experience thing or I might come back and haunt you!!!!!!! :w00t:
That objective reality yes, but no one can perceive it though can they?

2) That second point, more seriously, is a problem. I've wondered that myself a lot.

[Revolution starts with U]

I have seen someone I knew very well die. I need no further proof. One day our lives will run out. There is no further proof needed that reality exists independent of its subjective observers.

In fact, this Big Bang theory is based on that concept. There were no thinking entities (at least none that can be/have been empirically verified [to placate the theists]) when the universe came into existence (as we know it).

[ComradeMan]

I have seen someone I knew very well die. I need no further proof. One day our lives will run out. There is no further proof needed that reality exists independent of its subjective observers.

In fact, this Big Bang theory is based on that concept. There were no thinking entities (at least none that can be/have been empirically verified [to placate the theists]) when the universe came into existence (as we know it).

You don't get this do you? That is not proof, because if we can only be subjective observers then what we observe is thus only ever a subjective reality. If our subjective realities overlap enough- we call that an objective reality, or an approximate reality- but a total objective reality it is not. Objective reality exists- okay, maybe, we cannot perceive it and we cannot prove it's positive existence.

as we know it- said it all there. It's our perception.

[Revolution starts with U]

I can infer that objective reality exists by the fact that people die, especially because I have watched one die. Nothing can be verified w 100% certainty, I agree. But the evidence points to an objective reality, and none has disproved this. Being an empiricist, I have to come to the conclusion that objective reality exists.
You can have your objections with empiricism, but it has proven quite effective so far.

[ComradeMan]

I can infer that objective reality exists by the fact that people die, especially because I have watched one die. Nothing can be verified w 100% certainty, I agree. But the evidence points to an objective reality, and none has disproved this. Being an empiricist, I have to come to the conclusion that objective reality exists.
You can have your objections with empiricism, but it has proven quite effective so far.

and none has disproved this.

No one has disproved the existence of God either. But saying prove "it doesn't" is a logical fallacy.

so far
:lol:

[RGacky3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbS9jZOlQjc

Go to about 1 minute (dave chappele), this is pretty much what I think of the idea that its all perception.

[Revolution starts with U]

If all evidence points to it existing, and no evidence has yet disproved, I can reasonably infer that there is a certain truth to it, akin to Supermassive Black Holes.

On what grounds do you posit that objective reality doesn't exist, because we can never 100% know persoanally? THat doesn't matter, it can still be proved. Was there a past before you? Was there a past before any humans? We have proved both of these (either they're true, or none of our technology works).

Objective reality exists, even if your perception is entirely subjective.

[ComradeMan]

If all evidence points to it existing, and no evidence has yet disproved, I can reasonably infer that there is a certain truth to it, akin to Supermassive Black Holes.

On what grounds do you posit that objective reality doesn't exist, because we can never 100% know persoanally? THat doesn't matter, it can still be proved. Was there a past before you? Was there a past before any humans? We have proved both of these (either they're true, or none of our technology works).

Objective reality exists, even if your perception is entirely subjective.

I did not deny the theoretical ideal of "objective reality" what the point is, that even if 1,000,000 people all see the same thing those are 1,000,000 subjective perceptions. Objective reality is that which exists beyond what either you or I or anyone else can perceive individually or as a group.

Reasonably infer is just that, it's reasonable and it is inferrance.

On a less philosophical and more down-to-earth level, science strives for objectivity but most scientists would, I think, agree that even they are prone to subjective bias.

[Revolution starts with U]

I doubt any would deny that. That's why Piltdown, contrary to creationist views on it, is such a positive assertion of the scientific method. The Brittish Royal Society was really the only people who believed it, right from the onset. The american archaeological community came out immediately calling it a fraud.
Science is cool. If you don't like that you can fuck off. ~ Richard Dawkins.

The point tho is the expirement is objective. It can be relied upon. Yes, your subjective self can never know for certain. But we are sure that your subjective reality does not materially shape the objective reality around you.
"Someone handed me a book and said 'it'll really help you, it's called the Secret.' I read about five pages.. and threw it in the trash. I can't believe they sell this shit!" ~ Dave Chappel

[ComradeMan]

I doubt any would deny that. That's why Piltdown, contrary to creationist views on it, is such a positive assertion of the scientific method. The Brittish Royal Society was really the only people who believed it, right from the onset. The american archaeological community came out immediately calling it a fraud.
Science is cool. If you don't like that you can fuck off. ~ Richard Dawkins.

The point tho is the expirement is objective. It can be relied upon. Yes, your subjective self can never know for certain. But we are sure that your subjective reality does not materially shape the objective reality around you.

"Someone handed me a book and said 'it'll really help you, it's called the Secret.' I read about five pages.. and threw it in the trash. I can't believe they sell this shit!" ~ Dave Chappel

Richard Dawkins.--- oh nooooooooooo! :lol:

But we are sure that your subjective reality does not materially shape the objective reality around you.--- but doesn't the fact of their being an observer (potentially) subjectively alter the outcome? Don't go putting cats in boxes however... :lol:

[Revolution starts with U]

Observer is a bad word for them to use. Interactor would be a much better one. Observer is too easily said to mean conscious observer, which is absolutely fallacious. It is the interactor that potentially affects the outcome.
It's not particle/wave duality because of the scientist, it's particle/wave because of the method used to record it.

[ComradeMan]

Observer is a bad word for them to use. Interactor would be a much better one. Observer is too easily said to mean conscious observer, which is absolutely fallacious. It is the interactor that potentially affects the outcome.
It's not particle/wave duality because of the scientist, it's particle/wave because of the method used to record it.

Okay- interactor then. So it's not 100% objectivity.

[Revolution starts with U]

Once again, if objective reality cannot be established, I implore you to happy thought yourself out of a fire. It should work just fine, just imagine that the fire is not there, reality is subjective anyway.
Do eet. Do eet. :D

[ComradeMan]

Once again, if objective reality cannot be established, I implore you to happy thought yourself out of a fire. It should work just fine, just imagine that the fire is not there, reality is subjective anyway.
Do eet. Do eet. :D

Those are not logical arguments- that's classic argumentum ad lapidem. It's also silly too, because whereas in an external observer's reality there would be a pretty nasty roast, the roasted one's reality would be well... who knows? But it still does not make them 100% objective. You are confusing what you deem to be perceived consequences with an objective reality.

You say that objective reality exists, therefore the burden of proof is with you to demonstrate that.

It's like Chomsky's theories of X-bar linguistics, they seem to make sense and work to a point but they are not 100%- and I think even he would admit that if he was in a good mood! :lol: They work up to a point and for most of our daily needs when it comes to science and research what we do is set (i.e. subjective) a point up to which things work reasonably (or not) as the case may be. That is not the same as claim something is an objective absolute though is it?

[Revolution starts with U]

Those are not logical arguments- that's classic argumentum ad lapidem. It's also silly too, because whereas in an external observer's reality there would be a pretty nasty roast, the roasted one's reality would be well... who knows? But it still does not make them 100% objective. You are confusing what you deem to be perceived consequences with an objective reality.

Logic is inadequate to the empirical mindset. If the evidence points to one thing, and the logic cannot follow, it is the logic that is the problem, not the evidence.


You say that objective reality exists, therefore the burden of proof is with you to demonstrate that.

Bang bang. I shoot, argument over. Your subjective reality ceases to exist. The evidence points to reality existing independant of you. If it exists independant of you, what evidence have I to think it is any different for me?

It's like Chomsky's theories of X-bar linguistics, they seem to make sense and work to a point but they are not 100%- and I think even he would admit that if he was in a good mood! :lol:
I think he has admitted that. Nothing in science tho, especially the social sciences, can be proven 100%. I challenge you to show me one thing that has been.
That is not the same as claim something is an objective absolute though is it?
Absolution is an impossibility only suitable for the theistic mindset. The empirical, mathematical, and rational mind does not accept absolutes; did Einstein disprove Newton?

[ComradeMan]

Bang bang. I shoot, argument over. Your subjective reality ceases to exist. The evidence points to reality existing independant of you. If it exists independant of you, what evidence have I to think it is any different for me?

Argument not over. A subjective reality ceases to exist... still not 100%objective though is it?

:lol::lol::lol::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Without logical reasoning there would be no science as we know it today. We'd probably be still sitting in the Middle Ages trying to find the Philosopher's Stone (without Harry Potter).

The evidence does not point to anything unless it is perceived so by you, I or anything else. You have made a logical fallacy here, if we are going to be pedantic. The evidence does not point to anything- you interpret the evidence you perceive in order for you to make a conclusion.


I think he has admitted that. Nothing in science tho, especially the social sciences, can be proven 100%. I challenge you to show me one thing that has been.

I challenge you, I'm not arguing for total objectivity if you seem to recall. :D


Absolution is an impossibility only suitable for the theistic mindset. The empirical, mathematical, and rational mind does not accept absolutes; did Einstein disprove Newton?

Absolution means the forgiveness of sins and I would say it not impossible at all for a theistic mindset.

Absoluteness on the other hand exists in mathematical logic- nothing theistic about that. Infinity or infiniteness also exists as the end result of some calculations in physics connected to general theory of relativity: finite mass distributions of zero size thus infinite density.

[Revolution starts with U]

[QUOTE=ComradeMan;1923944]Argument not over. A subjective reality ceases to exist... still not 100%objective though is it?

:lol::lol::lol::laugh::laugh::laugh:


And if I shoot myself?


Without logical reasoning there would be no science as we know it today. We'd probably be still sitting in the Middle Ages trying to find the Philosopher's Stone (without Harry Potter).

That's false right on it's face. "Science" of the dark ages was very logical, yet not empirical. And it was proved to be astoundingly wrong. They still worked on the science of aristotle and plato, the founders of what we know as logic.
Logic, no matter how neccessary, is inadequate to finding real truth about the world.


The evidence does not point to anything- you interpret the evidence you perceive in order for you to make a conclusion.

The ball rolls down, the apple falls, whether or not I am there to percieve it. This can be, and has been objectively proven. The tree still makes a sound. Do you know if it did or not if you were not there to hear it? No, but it still does, this has been proven through repeatable, testable, experimentation.




Absolution means the forgiveness of sins and I would say it not impossible at all for a theistic mindset.

You know what I meant :sneaky: :laugh:.
Absoluteness on the other hand exists in mathematical logic- nothing theistic about that. Infinity or infiniteness also exists as the end result of some calculations in physics connected to general theory of relativity: finite mass distributions of zero size thus infinite density

Actually if you were to go further into it than pop science you would see that "infinite density" is a real problem for physics that most cannot accept. It is the stick in the spokes of finding a "theory of everything."
Look up the Hawking Penrose black hole radiation debate.

[ComradeMan]

[QUOTE] That's false right on it's face. "Science" of the dark ages was very logical, yet not empirical. And it was proved to be astoundingly wrong. They still worked on the science of aristotle and plato, the founders of what we know as logic.
Logic, no matter how neccessary, is inadequate to finding real truth about the world.

They didn't. Science as we know it did not really exist and in Europe the Church took a dim view on logic, only Aristotle was really accepted into the fold- the Renaissance was when it began to come together. I'll concede Occam- but then again he was also brought in front of a church court and charged with heresy. Remember that although scientific method existed they were usually working with a strongly religious (confirmation) bias. See what I mean?


The ball rolls down, the apple falls, whether or not I am there to percieve it. This can be, and has been objectively proven.

By whom? Someone who perceived it.... :lol:


The tree still makes a sound. Do you know if it did or not if you were not there to hear it? No, but it still does, this has been proven through repeatable, testable, experimentation.

The results of which were fundamentally perceived or you would not be saying this to me now.


You know what I meant :sneaky: :laugh:.

Okay- but I couldn't resist it either! LOL!!! ;) But there you go, in your subjective reality you meant one thing and yet said another.

Let's get into the multiverse...! :scared:


Actually if you were to go further into it than pop science you would see that "infinite density" is a real problem for physics that most cannot accept. It is the stick in the spokes of finding a "theory of everything."
Look up the Hawking Penrose black hole radiation debate.

I would hardly call Karl Schwarzschild pop-science. But I suppose it's subjective...:lol:

Here's another "emprical" fact, the analysis of radiation patterns recorded by WMAP suggests the universe has is a flat topology consistent with an infinite physical universe.

[Dimentio]

I've been around the net and the over-sensitivity people on the left have to normal foibles and behaviour is a bit disturbing.

I have no idea how the left tends to convince the average working person to take up the cause when they are outnumbered by people that aren't as hyper sensitive as the left.

This sensitivity to everything in the world of what is left of the left is an impossible one if the left is to get anywhere. I've seen it too much on too many forums and I feel the whole reason the rise of the right in the world is because the left is increasingly puritanical attempting to 'purge' anyone who's simply human.

This kind of ideological fanaticism or not being able to see reality is one of the main reasons the left hardly exists in north america.

I feel that too much bullshit has been absorbed into the left. That it is itself is increasingly alienating to humanity these days. I'm seeing a rightward shift in my home country (canada) and the left here is practically non existent anymore, as conservatives and liberals are hardcore capitalists (basically the same).

(quote from religioustolerance.org)
"There are on the order of 1,500 different Christian faith groups in North America which promote many different and conflicting beliefs. Further, many groups believe that they alone are the "true" Christian church and that all of the others are in error."

I really don't want the left to fractionate like religions into unruly factions that can't expand or attract new members, that way lies disaster as there is no effective opposition.

Actually, that is a pretty accurate analysis. I think it is because many leftists have pretty clear ideas of where they want to go, and doesn't agree on much except that they think the current world sucks. Liberals and conservatives are generally happy with things stayin' as they are.

[Revolution starts with U]

They didn't. Science as we know it did not really exist and in Europe the Church took a dim view on logic, only Aristotle was really accepted into the fold- the Renaissance was when it began to come together. I'll concede Occam- but then again he was also brought in front of a church court and charged with heresy. Remember that although scientific method existed they were usually working with a strongly religious (confirmation) bias. See what I mean?


That's the point, it was all logic for the greeks. Empiricism came second. And the church furthered this by focusing it on theological descriptions of reality. But logic was still the dominant way to gain knowledge well into the mid 2nd millenia.
Logic, tho neccessary and unavoidable, is weak in truly understanding nature.




By whom? Someone who perceived it.... :lol:

No. :sleep: If you come across a fallen tree, you can be certain that the tree fell. And based on the laws of science, it made a sound.


The results of which were fundamentally perceived or you would not be saying this to me now.




I would hardly call Karl Schwarzschild pop-science. But I suppose it's subjective...:lol:

Here's another "emprical" fact, the analysis of radiation patterns recorded by WMAP suggests the universe has is a flat topology consistent with an infinite physical universe


I didn't realize that was what the flat topology described. I was under the impression it was actually predicted that it would be. I might be wrong tho, I think I was reading it in a Discover while I was pooping :o

[ComradeMan]

That's the point, it was all logic for the greeks. Empiricism came second. And the church furthered this by focusing it on theological descriptions of reality. But logic was still the dominant way to gain knowledge well into the mid 2nd millenia.
Logic, tho neccessary and unavoidable, is weak in truly understanding nature.

Which logic? That's the point- they stuck with basic Aristotlean logic for 2000 years until Chrysippus of Soli's ideas were taken up again and worked on by Frege. Anyway, before that Leibniz in the 17th century "abolished" the old systems of logic with the new "organon" for which he was denounced as a heretic.


No. :sleep: If you come across a fallen tree, you can be certain that the tree fell. And based on the laws of science, it made a sound.

Based on the rules of science you can infer that it made a sound.

[Revolution starts with U]

That's the point tho. Until very recently logic > empiricism. But empiricism has done much for the world of knowledge.

So yes, you can reasonably infer that the tree fell. And based off those same laws you can make predictions and technologies, that you could not with pure logic.

You personally, have a subjective perception. That is apparent. But it is not entirely subjective, for various different reasons. And this can be proved, undeniably. Whether or not I can know if reality is objective, all evidence points to their being a reality independant of me.

I mean.. I wish I could fly too, but it just aint happenin.

[ComradeMan]

That's the point tho. Until very recently logic > empiricism. But empiricism has done much for the world of knowledge.

So yes, you can reasonably infer that the tree fell. And based off those same laws you can make predictions and technologies, that you could not with pure logic.

You personally, have a subjective perception. That is apparent. But it is not entirely subjective, for various different reasons. And this can be proved, undeniably. Whether or not I can know if reality is objective, all evidence points to their being a reality independant of me.

I mean.. I wish I could fly too, but it just aint happenin.

Aha- so 100% objectivity is unattainable!

Of course subjectivity can be limited as best possible and objectivity is to be strived for but people shouldn't get all dogmatic about it either as if it were some holy grail.

Logic cannot perhaps solve everything, but without logical reasoning where would we be?

[ckaihatsu]

I'm noticing that 'reality' is a *blanket* term, like 'scarcity' -- for the purposes of description and discussion both terms can be rather unwieldy if left as bulk generalities.

For 'reality' I think there's a clean distinction that can be made between objective reality, in the sense of nature and material objects that are independent of human agency and activities, and social reality, which is strictly from the actions of people.

These two categories, 'objective (natural) reality' and 'objective social reality', can even be placed on a hierarchy, since society is a (distant) outgrowth from the natural world. 'Objective social reality' would be those large-scale civilizational and institutional systems that were here long before we were and will most likely still be there long after we're gone, like government, economics, technology, etc.

But, going down from there, we find that we're active in societal dynamics that are more on our own scale -- what we might say are within the domain of our own involvements, as in social groups, personal interests, opinions, etc. This could be termed 'subjective social reality'.

Finally, at the most basic unit is the individual, making up what could be termed 'subjectivity / individuality'. I did a composition of this entire hierarchy a few years ago and then more recently made it into a more elaborate layout....


Worldview Diagram

http://i45.tinypic.com/111to46.jpg


Worldview diagram

http://i45.tinypic.com/1olg8y.jpg