Electoral democracy in the US.

[Dr Mindbender]

I'm posting this in OI because i'm keen to know the views of our resident reactionaries, especially the american ones. One of the main reasons i will always prefer living in the british isles to america is our comparitively larger choice of electable parties, compared to the american senate which only has tweedle-rep and tweedle-dem. Which brings me on to my second part which is why the lack of an american labour party? I mean c'mon, here in the uk we at least have one in parliament and they arent exactly the communist party incarnate as you can see by their recent cowtowing to dubya.

So will the US senate ever see a labour party (even a reformist one) and would OI'ers support it's prescence? Opinions?

[Robert]

You want an American labor party? You got an American labor party.

http://www.americanlaborparty.com/index.html

American labor isn't very interested in joining unions anymore, never mind a workers' revolution. It's most popular and competent champion is Ralph Nader, who actually raised $4 million dollars this election but only got 673,000 votes, or 0.5% of the vote. Ralph is a multi-millionaire by the way. King of all hypocrites.

We also have the Constitution, Boston Tea, Independent, Libertarian, and Green parties.

We also have a Communist Party, as one of our resident luminaries can attest. And recruit, I daresay.

[Dr Mindbender]

You want an American labor party? You got an American labor party.

http://www.americanlaborparty.com/index.html

American labor isn't very interested in joining unions anymore, never mind a workers' revolution. It's most popular and competent champion is Ralph Nader, who actually raised $4 million dollars this election but only got 673,000 votes, or 0.5% of the vote. Ralph is a multi-millionaire by the way. King of all hypocrites.

We also have the Constitution, Boston Tea, Independent, Libertarian, and Green parties.

We also have a Communist Party, as one of our resident luminaries can attest. And recruit, I daresay.

I mean one that is ardently active in the senate, on a par with the extent that the british one is active in the UK parliament. Cause from where i'm sitting it looks like Conservatives vs liberals which is great if you're a middle class businessperson but not so good if you're a blue collar worker whose kids teeth are falling out.

[Bud Struggle]

We also have a Communist Party, as one of our resident luminaries can attest. And recruit, I daresay.

Hallelujah Brotha! I BELONG!!!!

[RGacky3]

One of the main reasons i will always prefer living in the british isles to america is our comparitively larger choice of electable parties, compared to the american senate which only has tweedle-rep and tweedle-dem.

Do you really decide on where you live for political reasons? Thats silly, the difference is negligable and does'nt really make so much of a difference.

You wanna know why I live in California and nor Enlgand (i've lived there before), Sunshine (none in england), good looking women (none in england), beaches (none in england), Spice of life (none in england). I think that definately outweighs politics. Its not like having an extra party or 2 is going to improve the quality of life.

[Algernon]

Well I live in Canada and I love the fact that it's not a two party system. With the recent string of minority parliaments, the "smaller" third parties gain a stronger voice and I have always thought that the more ideas put forward in a debate the better.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I'm posting this in OI because i'm keen to know the views of our resident reactionaries, especially the american ones. One of the main reasons i will always prefer living in the british isles to america is our comparitively larger choice of electable parties, compared to the american senate which only has tweedle-rep and tweedle-dem. Which brings me on to my second part which is why the lack of an american labour party? I mean c'mon, here in the uk we at least have one in parliament and they arent exactly the communist party incarnate as you can see by their recent cowtowing to dubya.

So will the US senate ever see a labour party (even a reformist one) and would OI'ers support it's prescence? Opinions?
The Democrats are Labour's sister party.

And by the way you don't have a larger choice of electable parties; you have the Tories and you have Labour. You have one other notable party in the Liberal Democrats, but they are not electable. So you're in exactly the same boat as people in the US, they just get more excited about it.

If you want an interesting political climate, move to Ireland (you know, the real Ireland, the one that gained its independence). We have Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, the two principle parties, neither of which have a realistic hope of achieving an overall majority in the Dáil so they have to rely on smaller parties like the Greens, Labour and formerly the Progressive Democrats. Thus we had up to five parties that were realistically electable (we still have at least four).

EDIT: Of course I only just copped that you live in NI with its devolved assembly. My bad. NI does actually have an interesting political climate because you have a left-right divide and a Unionist-Republican divide which don't exactly run parallel and can overlap. My point stands though that the UK is just as bad as the US.


Do you really decide on where you live for political reasons? Thats silly, the difference is negligable and does'nt really make so much of a difference.

You wanna know why I live in California and nor Enlgand (i've lived there before), Sunshine (none in england), good looking women (none in england), beaches (none in england), Spice of life (none in england). I think that definately outweighs politics. Its not like having an extra party or 2 is going to improve the quality of life.
England has good looking women, they're just not good looking in an inbred redneck slack-jawed yokel kind of way.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You want an American labor party? You got an American labor party.

http://www.americanlaborparty.com/index.html

American labor isn't very interested in joining unions anymore, never mind a workers' revolution. It's most popular and competent champion is Ralph Nader, who actually raised $4 million dollars this election but only got 673,000 votes, or 0.5% of the vote. Ralph is a multi-millionaire by the way. King of all hypocrites.

A party that advocates spending cuts, to go along with pro-market crap? :rolleyes:

Whatever happened to the United States Labor Party, anyway?

[Rascolnikova]

This isn't particularly articulate, but it's already written:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1277030&postcount=62. . .


And to otherwise answer your question, no, I don't think we'll ever see any real sort of reformist party with significant control in US government--at least not unless we revise our voting system first. Even if they had 1/3 of the population behind them, they could in no way get 1/3 of the seats.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

It's very difficult for a thrid party catch on because of the winner-take-all methods we employ in most elections. It's not completely implausible that a third party may gain relevance in certain areas (where some already are), or even in the Presidential race (if the independednt is a billionaire).

As for alternatives emerging, if the Democrats manage to get the big things done it's possible that the GOP could split along religous-fiscal lines, which would be nice. When Jesse Ventura ran and became Governor of Minnesota, for example, he adopted, what he termed, Demorat social values and Republican fiscal adoption. The religous right is slowly dying (hopefully a gay marriage fight in the supreme court won't happen in the supreme court for another decade or so...all we need is another Roe v Wade...) out in terms of both national relevance and standing withing the GOP. Many evangelicals were calling for a third party, but Sarah Palin seemed to ahve shut most of that up.

All I can say is that the Libertarian movement blew it. This was the perfect opportunity to cash in, especially in the South and out west, were an anti-Bailout anti-immigrant pro-protectionism pro-xenophobia candidate could have done well. Whatever, maybe I'm wrong.

I hope the contemporary GOP never recovers from this election. Of course, if Barack Obama becomes Jimmy Carter redux, the Republicans won't have a problem regaining control.

But no, probably not an electoral alternative for a while. Don't make the mistake, however, that both parties are monolithic through and through. Black and gay issues, for example, seem to contradict each other within the Democratic party.

[Rascolnikova]

Black and gay issues, for example, seem to contradict each other within the Democratic party.


???

[RGacky3]

England has good looking women, they're just not good looking in an inbred redneck slack-jawed yokel kind of way.

Dude I've been to england, they have as much sex appeal as cancer. I'm not saying they arn't there, there are some, but jeez, I'm not saying their ugly, just compared to the rest of the world. BTW I live in Los Angeles, not maky inbred rednecks here :P.

[Killfacer]

Dude I've been to england, they have as much sex appeal as cancer. I'm not saying they arn't there, there are some, but jeez, I'm not saying their ugly, just compared to the rest of the world. BTW I live in Los Angeles, not maky inbred rednecks here :P.


Thats bullshit:

1. Most american women are fat
2. All Americans have stupid 80's clothes, have stupid 80's hair and look like they are from the 80's.
3. I went to los angeles. Everyone was fat.

[Killfacer]

Also, i have seen the OC.

Your a bunch of smug ugly freaks, go fuck off and have a beach party you fat idiots.

[RGacky3]

Thats bullshit:

1. Most american women are fat
2. All Americans have stupid 80's clothes, have stupid 80's hair and look like they are from the 80's.
3. I went to los angeles. Everyone was fat.

I have a feeling you spent your entire time in Walmart, your not getting the finest specimen there.

All I know is the broads I've seen in London are all funky looking, they all look about 35 when they're 20 years old, and are all freaking hipsters.

But I don't think this conversation belongs here.

[synthesis]

"Electoral democracy" isn't ever democratic, regardless of where it occurs.

The primary function of "electoral democracy" is to create a class of professional politicians whose careers are always more important than changing anything that needs to be changed.

[Rascolnikova]

"Electoral democracy" isn't ever democratic, regardless of where it occurs.

The primary function of "electoral democracy" is to create a class of professional politicians whose careers are always more important than changing anything that needs to be changed.

How, then, would you define what is democratic?

[synthesis]

I define it as "rule by the people" in spirit if not in letter. Do you disagree with my analysis?

[Rascolnikova]

I define it as "rule by the people" in spirit if not in letter. Do you disagree with my analysis?

I don't know. I would have to do a little research on what all qualifies as electoral democracy.

[Killfacer]

I have a feeling you spent your entire time in Walmart, your not getting the finest specimen there.

All I know is the broads I've seen in London are all funky looking, they all look about 35 when they're 20 years old, and are all freaking hipsters.

But I don't think this conversation belongs here.


The people in my local asda (walmart) are admittedly pretty vile looking.

[Rascolnikova]

The people in my local asda (walmart) are admittedly pretty vile looking.


*clears throat*
Children.

Can you take it somewhere else?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ras (if I may call you that), you may be interested in this alternative to electoralism:

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

[synthesis]

Nice. That's where I was headed.

If the populace is reasonably educated, I see no reason why the concept of a "trial by peers" cannot be extended to a "government by peers." Government should be a chore, like jury duty, not a breeding ground for personal ambition and the holding of authority.



Can you take it somewhere else?

Probably not, seeing as you're all restricted.

[Rascolnikova]

Probably not, seeing as you're all restricted.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/reactionary-chatter-iii-t92775/index6.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/trashcan-f34/index.html

I see options. I also don't see why a good revolutionary online community would think I should have to read about "fat broads" to participate no matter what my political views.

As for sortition--not having gone into depth--it seems like a partial solution. Honestly, for some jobs which I can reasonably see might best be done by government, I would rather see someone more competent or specialized than myself--or than the average citizen--filling them. . . especially if we're going to experiment with a planned economy. Electoral democracy has it's problems, and certainly the form of it presently practiced in the US is close to meaningless, but I don't see it as worthless or so impossible to use well that we should throw it out.

Before forming a definite view on this I will need to know more game theory, and have a closer look at the possibilities than wikipedia can afford.

[Killfacer]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/reactionary-chatter-iii-t92775/index6.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/trashcan-f34/index.html

I see options. I also don't see why a good revolutionary online community would think I should have to read about "fat broads" to participate no matter what my political views.

As for sortition--not having gone into depth--it seems like a partial solution. Honestly, for some jobs which I can reasonably see might best be done by government, I would rather see someone more competent or specialized than myself--or than the average citizen--filling them. . . especially if we're going to experiment with a planned economy. Electoral democracy has it's problems, and certainly the form of it presently practiced in the US is close to meaningless, but I don't see it as worthless or so impossible to use well that we should throw it out.

Before forming a definite view on this I will need to know more game theory, and have a closer look at the possibilities than wikipedia can afford.


Okay, sorry about that. Got a bit carried away, it won't happen again.

[Rascolnikova]

Okay, sorry about that. Got a bit carried away, it won't happen again.
thanks. :)

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I define it as "rule by the people" in spirit if not in letter. Do you disagree with my analysis?
I disagree with your definition. It doesn't make sense. You are being asked to define democracy; as in, to express its meaning in letters and words so that we can understand its meaning as you see it. But if your definition contains the clause "in spirit if not in letter", you're not really defining anything. You have given us absolutely no way to discern any kind of analysis at all.

[Rascolnikova]

I disagree with your definition. It doesn't make sense. You are being asked to define democracy; as in, to express its meaning in letters and words so that we can understand its meaning as you see it. But if your definition contains the clause "in spirit if not in letter", you're not really defining anything. You have given us absolutely no way to discern any kind of analysis at all.


Are you suggesting that the phrase "in spirit if not in letter" has no meaning?

I believe a clearer statement, in this case, would be "in actuality if not in appearance," but I thought the message came across.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As for sortition--not having gone into depth--it seems like a partial solution. Honestly, for some jobs which I can reasonably see might best be done by government, I would rather see someone more competent or specialized than myself--or than the average citizen--filling them. . . especially if we're going to experiment with a planned economy. Electoral democracy has it's problems, and certainly the form of it presently practiced in the US is close to meaningless, but I don't see it as worthless or so impossible to use well that we should throw it out.

Before forming a definite view on this I will need to know more game theory, and have a closer look at the possibilities than wikipedia can afford.

Well, keep in mind that even the wiki distinguished between pure sortition and qualified sortition (random selection of candidates who met the technical criteria established beforehand). On the other hand, in terms of the politicians per se, why should these careerists be elected?

[RGacky3]

I see options. I also don't see why a good revolutionary online community would think I should have to read about "fat broads" to participate no matter what my political views

Your right, my bad, I appologise.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Are you suggesting that the phrase "in spirit if not in letter" has no meaning?

I believe a clearer statement, in this case, would be "in actuality if not in appearance," but I thought the message came across.
When trying to define something, at least in this context, that phrase has no meaning, no.

[Rascolnikova]

When trying to define something, at least in this context, that phrase has no meaning, no.

I see. Can you identify for me the characteristics of a context where it would have meaning, and how that differs from this?


Well, keep in mind that even the wiki distinguished between pure sortition and qualified sortition (random selection of candidates who met the technical criteria established beforehand). On the other hand, in terms of the politicians per se, why should these careerists be elected?

Why does electoral democracy necessarily entail careerists? I'd think it would be simple enough to put limits on the amount of time any individual can spend in public service.

And why would election be necessarily worse in all circumstances than all other means of selecting qualified candidates for sortition?


Your right, my bad, I appologise.

Thank you, I appreciate it. :)

[synthesis]

Why does electoral democracy necessarily entail careerists?

Because it takes an entirely different set of personal qualities to run for office than to govern properly, and not necessarily ones that you'd want to encourage in government.

[Rascolnikova]

Because it takes an entirely different set of personal qualities to run for office than to govern properly, and not necessarily ones that you'd want to encourage in government.

You just quoted a question, and then said something which, while relevant to the debate, doesn't seem to answer it. Can you explain how it does? I seem to be missing something.

The fact that campaign and governance require different qualities is germane, but I don't see that it negates the value of electoralism in all contexts. This effect is much diminished in very small community settings, and your comment also doesn't address--if one is going to use sortition--how one better selects those who should be eligible. I should mention here that I have a very poor opinion of standardized tests as they presently exit, and find it extremely unlikely that tests which could do a better job at this sort of thing will be devised soon.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I see. Can you identify for me the characteristics of a context where it would have meaning, and how that differs from this?
Application of something "in spirit rather than letter" makes sense, because in the phrase in question "letter" means the textual definition for something. Thus to apply something or to act according to some principle or rule "in spirit rather than in letter" means to do that according to what you thing the principle or rule means, in spite of the textual definition of the rule or principle. Thus defining something so as to include spirit but exclude letter is an oxymoron.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Americans love making up definitions, as though they had the authority to redefine words that have their roots in Latin or Greek and belong to most Western languages. They think liberalism is a leftist political tendency :confused: , materialism means liking to buy stuff (!!!), democracy, which means rule by the people, they think means direct electoral decision-making. Republic, which simply means public thing, they think means representative democracy. Message to the United States: STOP IT, you ass-holes!

[Rascolnikova]

Americans love making up definitions, as though they had the authority to redefine words that have their roots in Latin or Greek and belong to most Western languages. They think liberalism is a leftist political tendency :confused: , materialism means liking to buy stuff (!!!), democracy, which means rule by the people, they think means direct electoral decision-making. Republic, which simply means public thing, they decided that it means representative democracy. Message to the United States: STOP IT, you ass-holes!

How dare language evolve.

I confess, the way it evolves here, now, most certainly reflects the spectacular classical illiteracy of the US population, but situational evolution of language is, well. . . the way language works.

.

It's time to get over it.

[RGacky3]

Message to the United States: STOP IT, you ass-holes!

No :p, its not just Americans that do that.


Why does electoral democracy necessarily entail careerists? I'd think it would be simple enough to put limits on the amount of time any individual can spend in public service.

And why would election be necessarily worse in all circumstances than all other means of selecting qualified candidates for sortition?


In almost all parlimentary/electoral style republics the politicians end up as career politicnas, going from different branches, and so on. You can put limits if you want, they will find loop holes, or they'll just have successors. If you need a bunch of specific laws to plug up holes in a system, chances are its a very flawed system and should be changed.

Plus if your putting limits on people running, your really putting limits on democracy.

The question should'nt be "are electoral politics beneficial to the community, or can they be un-corrupt." The real question should be, is the authority nessesary? If it is absolutely nessesary then the question should be how to give it and keep it accountable. If its not, then we don't need it and should'nt have it.

[synthesis]

Application of something "in spirit rather than letter" makes sense, because in the phrase in question "letter" means the textual definition for something. Thus to apply something or to act according to some principle or rule "in spirit rather than in letter" means to do that according to what you thing the principle or rule means, in spite of the textual definition of the rule or principle. Thus defining something so as to include spirit but exclude letter is an oxymoron.

Well, you could have literal democracy, direct decision-making. That could be a possibility with technology. But sortition would be an improvement over electoral politics in the sense that it moves closer to democracy "in spirit if not in letter."


You just quoted a question, and then said something which, while relevant to the debate, doesn't seem to answer it. Can you explain how it does? I seem to be missing something.

I think I was passing out as I was typing that, so I'll try again. You said that electoral politics would be acceptable in local communities - but what about the more technical work for which relatively few people would be qualified - areas like energy, the environment, and education? Either you allow them to pursue careers in the field or you impose term limits and run the risk of eventually exhausting the supply. I don't think the problem is that people can hold office more than once, but that they have to aggressively pursue that position, which entails careerism.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

How dare language evolve.

I confess, the way it evolves here, now, most certainly reflects the spectacular classical illiteracy of the US population, but situational evolution of language is, well. . . the way language works.

.

It's time to get over it.

How dare people change the definitions of words indeed. It makes efficient communication impossible and your language worthless. The United States is a liberal democracy, but most Americans don't even know what the fuck that means. You people seriously need to get your shit straight.

[RGacky3]

The definition of a work is what most people understand it to mean.

Karl Marx and other philosophers used materlialism to describe a philisophical standpoint, most people (at least Americans) understand materalism to mean wanting a lot of material things, so thats what it means. Language is'nt something written in stone by philosophers, its a means of communication.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Most Americans understand it to mean what the print media promulgates. It's not some kind of democratic process.

Materialism's already taken. Has been for hundreds of years. Find another word.

[Rascolnikova]

How dare people change the definitions of words indeed. It makes efficient communication impossible and your language worthless. The United States is a liberal democracy, but most Americans don't even know what the fuck that means. You people seriously need to get your shit straight.

As much as I hate to be "we" here, if we don't want to get it straight, it becomes your shit.

Sadly.

[Rascolnikova]

Application of something "in spirit rather than letter" makes sense, because in the phrase in question "letter" means the textual definition for something. Thus to apply something or to act according to some principle or rule "in spirit rather than in letter" means to do that according to what you thing the principle or rule means, in spite of the textual definition of the rule or principle. Thus defining something so as to include spirit but exclude letter is an oxymoron.

An oxymoron, not a redefinition?

[Bud Struggle]

I have no idea what you people are going on and on about. :cool:

[Anti Freedom]

I have no idea what you people are going on and on about. :cool:
The last bit was just words. One guy was complaining that the US was misusing words.

Frankly, I'd just say that people can use words however they'd like. If I want the term "materialism" to mean "masturbation", "republic" to mean "masochistic", and "liberal" to mean "drunken" then all the more power to me, who can dare to tell me what I should or should not do? In any case, GO LIBERAL REPUBLIC MATERIALISM!

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

In theory then, if I just define the words as I please then I could say, without lying, that Nixon never infringed the law and that W never lied about Iraq's WMDs. How nice.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

As much as I hate to be "we" here, if we don't want to get it straight, it becomes your shit.

Sadly.

how is that?

[Rascolnikova]

how is that?

If we don't want to get it straight, it's no longer ours--we are no longer participants in that part of the classical tradition. We have disowned it.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

But your scholars haven't. Nor have the ones in other English-speaking countries. Not to mention the fact that, as I said before, these words belong to most Western languages. How is an American going to interpret the words materialism, liberalism, democracy or republic in a text written by a French historian, a British political scientist, or a German philosopher if you have your own twisted definitions? Or simply in a novel. Or even a newspaper article. How do you propose these words be translated into contemporary American English?

[Anti Freedom]

In theory then, if I just define the words as I please then I could say, without lying, that Nixon never infringed the law and that W never lied about Iraq's WMDs. How nice.
Sure! Now, it could be argued that you are being purposefully deceitful, which people hate just as much and consider morally wrong as well, but you can do anything you want!


But your scholars haven't. Nor have the ones in other English-speaking countries. Not to mention the fact that, as I said before, these words belong to most Western languages. How is an American going to interpret the words materialism, liberalism, democracy or republic in a text written by a French historian, a British political scientist, or a German philosopher if you have your own twisted definitions? Or simply in a novel. Or even a newspaper article. How do you propose these words be translated into contemporary American English?

Umm... it's easy. Scholars will either reassert the classical meaning, or they will invent a new word, such that they will not be concerned. Not only that, but other languages really don't matter anyway, all that matters is the internal integrity of a language. An American will interpret the words materialism, liberalism, democracy, or republic, in a foreign text, according to how it is interpreted by the translator or in the footnotes. The same thing occurs with most of these other sources too. Do we actually have to propose anything at all? It's simple, you make up a word, you define it such that people can understand. I really don't see what the big deal is, people invented the words, they own the words, why should the literal letters and phenomes of this thing actually matter?

[Rascolnikova]

But your scholars haven't. Nor have the ones in other English-speaking countries. Not to mention the fact that, as I said before, these words belong to most Western languages. How is an American going to interpret the words materialism, liberalism, democracy or republic in a text written by a French historian, a British political scientist, or a German philosopher if you have your own twisted definitions? Or simply in a novel. Or even a newspaper article. How do you propose these words be translated into contemporary American English?

Scholars routinely use specialized language, and this has become no different.

"_______ in the technical sense"--or the philosophical sense, or the academic sense, or the classical sense, or whatever best fits--seems to work pretty well, cumbersome though it may sometimes be. At least people then know to ask questions rather than presuming common usage.

[benhur]

I am inclined to agree with the Dr. Common usage of words is very essential to communication, especially when it concerns important matters. We call a certain thing 'table,' cuz it's a common agreement among people to use a certain word to denote a certain object ONLY, and NOT other objects. Likewise, certain words can only refer to certain concepts/ideas/principles, and we can't rape the language to use them the way we see fit. That only leads to confusion, and we can never understand each other better.

What's the purpose of language, if each person can give his own meaning to the words? Doing so shall destroy communication, which is the basic purpose of languages.

[Rascolnikova]

I am inclined to agree with the Dr. Common usage of words is very essential to communication, especially when it concerns important matters. We call a certain thing 'table,' cuz it's a common agreement among people to use a certain word to denote a certain object ONLY, and NOT other objects. Likewise, certain words can only refer to certain concepts/ideas/principles, and we can't rape the language to use them the way we see fit. That only leads to confusion, and we can never understand each other better.

What's the purpose of language, if each person can give his own meaning to the words? Doing so shall destroy communication, which is the basic purpose of languages.

If we all make up our own definitions, they will have meaning only when we talk to ourselves.

However, what was attacked was a set of communal re-definitions--communal changes in common usage.

[RGacky3]

If we all make up our own definitions, they will have meaning only when we talk to ourselves.

However, what was attacked was a set of communal re-definitions--communal changes in common usage.

We don't make up definitions, what most people understand a word to mean is what it means.

[Anti Freedom]

We don't make up definitions, what most people understand a word to mean is what it means.
How do sounds and symbols have inherent meaning assigned by society? If it is assigned by society, then it isn't inherent. If it is inherent then it cannot be assigned by society, and instead must be assigned by some language god.

If definitions are assigned by society, then how can uncommon, and archaic definitions exist? The entire idea of technical use, as Rascolnikova was talking about, then goes out the window as metaphysics in philosophy, utility in economics, and so on have to rename their terms due to their defiance of society. And frankly, that notion is absurd then.

Alright, so let's just modify our notions to say that groups can now hold to unpopular definitions of words. Well, what defines a group then? 20,000? 2,000? 200? 20? 2? 1? That becomes squishy, as whatever number you are liable to intuit is arbitrary, if you say it is 200 as a minimum then how is 199 suddenly a different category altogether? Not only that, but even in small groups a word can have a different meaning, like if you have a group of friends, and you and your friends have orgies, but instead of "lets have an orgy" it is instead suggested "lets go have a republic" as a means of conveying the same information. Then the term "republic" would then mean "orgy", the use of words would be internally coherent, and could express information, but the mainstream does not use the same meaning. Why would the mainstream matter? If enough of the same language population died or started using different terms, the usage would then not be wrong, but they are external to this system of use, so why do they matter? Why is the properness of the language usage of a small group contingent upon the traits of the large group, even if there is no relation between those two?

Now, if it is accepted that you and your friends have a common meaning for a term, why not you and one other person. Like "liberal society" could mean for you 2 a "party", for instance, let's just say that you and your brother grew up together in the same household where "liberal society" was used as a term instead of "party", so whenever you hear "liberal society" the first thought you think is what is commonly understood to be a "party". Let's also say that all members of your household die but you and your brother, but you and your brother still will tend to use the term "liberal society" as "party" when talking to each other, or when it slips out. Would the substitution of "liberal society" for "party" in those instances be unjustified? I would argue not. Now let's just say your brother dies, but you still use the term "liberal society" when musing to yourself, or when it slips out. Are you unjustified in your self musings? I would argue not.

The incorrect thing is never the use or misuse of a word, nobody can fully own sounds or symbols, and there is no reason to suspect that words transcend people. The incorrect things in the eyes of most are either deception, or deliberate misuse of a word to be uncommunicative, or ignorance, and not knowing how social convention towards the word works. Only an authoritarian would really care about the internal affairs of what sound and symbol you relate to what meaning. Perhaps this is not a perfect argument, I am neither a linguist nor a philosopher of language, but I think/hope this argument establishes my point.

[RGacky3]

Meaning is NOT inherent.

Meaning is not an objective notion, for example you cannot assign meaning to a word, but you can have meaning behind a word, the point is to have discorse.

Ok for example when I'm talking on revleft, I use the word Communism, because you understand communism in its origional meaning, when I talk to other people I don't use that word, because they understand it to mean something different, the people who set both of those meanings were just that, just people.

The problem becomes when ones definition does'nt match your own standard, let me give you an example.

Dude: What is Socialism
Leninist: A democratic society where the economy is run by the workers for the social good.
Dude: Was the USSR Socialist?
Leninist: Most definately

Ok that was just a cheap swipe at Leninist and I know that they arn't that dumb to do that, but things like this ahppens ALL the time in the Media, all the time in schools.

Language is a tool, a means to an ends, not an ends in itself, so definitions should be judged on if they convay the intended message, not if they are accurate.

[Anti Freedom]

Meaning is not an objective notion, for example you cannot assign meaning to a word, but you can have meaning behind a word, the point is to have discorse.
What if my point isn't to have discourse but rather to pick a word that rhymes?


Ok for example when I'm talking on revleft, I use the word Communism, because you understand communism in its origional meaning, when I talk to other people I don't use that word, because they understand it to mean something different, the people who set both of those meanings were just that, just people.
Well, yes, and nobody has really attacked the notion of doing things that way, maybe Dr. Rosenpenis has done so by attacking the bastardization of pre-existing terms, but frankly, I am completely fine with your understanding, I merely took an extreme position to make sure that it was clear that words are just tools to be used by people.


The problem becomes when ones definition does'nt match your own standard, let me give you an example.

Dude: What is Socialism
Leninist: A democratic society where the economy is run by the workers for the social good.
Dude: Was the USSR Socialist?
Leninist: Most definately

Ok that was just a cheap swipe at Leninist and I know that they arn't that dumb to do that, but things like this ahppens ALL the time in the Media, all the time in schools.
Ok, yes, people do that. In the eyes of many, the USSR was an attempt at socialism, and the media and the schools promote it as being such.


Language is a tool, a means to an ends, not an ends in itself, so definitions should be judged on if they convay the intended message, not if they are accurate.
I agree, frankly, that is why I say any word could mean anything, but that violating the norms for those words can be considered dishonest.

Good, we mostly agree, problem solved! :D

[synthesis]

Language is always about context, and never exists in a vacuum. When the context changes, so does the language. I agree that it's a pain in the ass to have to say stuff like "materialism/idealism in the philosophical sense" rather than just materialism/idealism because those definitions have come to be associated with concepts like "greed" or "naivete."

But they make sense given the etymology of the words, and think about this: a thousand years ago, the idea of a "secular Jew" would have been absurd. The term "Jew" referred specifically to religious practices and the communities practicing them. Now the context has changed and the definitions have changed with it. Again, it's all about the environment in which the language exists.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

???

Black and gay issues contradict each other in the sense that there's a lot of friction between them. Take california, for example: Hige Black turnout helped Obama, hurt Gays.

[Rascolnikova]

Black and gay issues contradict each other in the sense that there's a lot of friction between them. Take california, for example: Hige Black turnout helped Obama, hurt Gays.

The black vote was decisive on prop 8 or something?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The black vote was decisive on prop 8 or something?

That's what the SF Chronicle seems to be hinting. Along with other minorities, who may have gone for Obama but helped tilt the balance on Prop 8.

[RGacky3]

Well as leftists we are fighting for everyone, be it gays being discriminated against, or workers who are being exploited, even if those workers are homophobic, the same goes with race, I'll fight for the dignity of a latin american imigrant whether or not he believes others (blacks, gays or whatever) desearves dignity.

Our job is to fight for everyone, all the underclass, everyone getting stepped on.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

We don't make up definitions, what most people understand a word to mean is what it means.

Most people understand materialism, liberalism, republic and democracy to mean certain things. Americans specifically understand these words to mean radically different things. That's the problem. Americans adopting wildly different definitions for every day words. As though the language and these concepts were theirs to define and redefine as they please. I'm not saying Americans use incorrect English or employ these terms incorrectly, since that's how they communicate among themselves. Who am I to judge? I'm saying they should learn the conventional meanings of these words in order to better understand these concepts and to avoid misunderstandings. When you ignore conventional usage in order to substitute your own at the expense of efficient communication, you're an ass-hole.

[Rascolnikova]

Most people understand materialism, liberalism, republic and democracy to mean certain things. Americans specifically understand these words to mean radically different things. That's the problem. Americans adopting wildly different definitions for every day words. As though the language and these concepts were theirs to define and redefine as they please. I'm not saying Americans use incorrect English or employ these terms incorrectly, since that's how they communicate among themselves. Who am I to judge? I'm saying they should learn the conventional meanings of these words in order to better understand these concepts and to avoid misunderstandings. When you ignore conventional usage in order to substitute your own at the expense of efficient communication, you're an ass-hole.

When it's one person, they're an asshole; when it's half a continent of people, they're making a dialect.

[Anti Freedom]

When it's one person, they're an asshole; when it's half a continent of people, they're making a dialect.
The new question being "at what point does assholery become a dialect?"

[Rascolnikova]

The new question being "at what point does assholery become a dialect?"

When the changes become common usage for some substantively sized group of people.

[Anti Freedom]

When the changes become common usage for some substantively sized group of people.
Well, yes, but at what point do we label the group of people substantive?

In any case, I have a doubt towards this notion simply because if a large number of people decide to misuse a term, it is not a dialect but assholery, but if a small number of people misuse this term as a matter of teaching/context, then it seems that they are not being assholes, but rather just have a different use for it. And I don't think that their use is de facto illegitimate either, even if their use is without regard for etymology.

[Rascolnikova]

Well, yes, but at what point do we label the group of people substantive?

In any case, I have a doubt towards this notion simply because if a large number of people decide to misuse a term, it is not a dialect but assholery, but if a small number of people misuse this term as a matter of teaching/context, then it seems that they are not being assholes, but rather just have a different use for it. And I don't think that their use is de facto illegitimate either, even if their use is without regard for etymology.

In that context it becomes in-group technical terminology, and in any case they are unlikely to use/misuse it with the different definitions outside the group--thus making it not assholery.

As for how big something has to be before it's a dialect, that's an anthropological linguistics question.

[Anti Freedom]

In that context it becomes in-group technical terminology, and in any case they are unlikely to use/misuse it with the different definitions outside the group--thus making it not assholery.

As for how big something has to be before it's a dialect, that's an anthropological linguistics question.
Well, no, I never stated anything about "technical terminology", instead, I stated a significant number of people misusing the term, they could actually be hicks for my purposes.

I guess the point that should really be gotten to is that assholery is a mindset, not inherent to an action. And even brains in vats could be assholes, or not be assholes, and they have no connection to the outside world.

[humanitynow]

yeah, that is a very horrilble thing about the U.S. to win an election you need great quanites of money and be in one of the two old parties. I think if the prezidental debates included all canidates this would help. this election i really like Cinthia Mckinney but she had no hope of winning

politics in the US are depressing. the people dont have a voice.

[Anti Freedom]

Hmm... yeah, I get too much of my news from Cracked.com, but I will say that I would not favor Cynthia McKinney.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16748_6-most-insane-people-ever-run-president.html

Perhaps I am just grossly misinformed though.

[Rascolnikova]

Well, no, I never stated anything about "technical terminology", instead, I stated a significant number of people misusing the term, they could actually be hicks for my purposes.

I guess the point that should really be gotten to is that assholery is a mindset, not inherent to an action. And even brains in vats could be assholes, or not be assholes, and they have no connection to the outside world.

You did say as a matter of teaching/context. . . if we are talking about rednecks, it would be a small-group language ideogram.

I think some behaviors are assholeish regardless of how well intentioned.

[Anti Freedom]

You did say as a matter of teaching/context. . . if we are talking about rednecks, it would be a small-group language ideogram.
Well, I meant more along the terms that the people didn't know better.

I am not sure that ideogram is the correct term for that, but I am not a linguist, however, this is what wiki says about this:

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



I think some behaviors are assholeish regardless of how well intentioned.
I don't see how assholishness can exist where assholish intent completely does not exist. Let's just say there is a special education child, even if he does something utterly bastardic in terms of the average population, he could still possibly do so without being an asshole if he is sufficiently ignorant.

[synthesis]

I think at this point it would be more productive for non-Americans to understand the different usages so they can more properly ascertain the meaning of the speaker.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

A dialect is perfectly legitimate, as is Americans' definitions. Except a dialect is used among the people who understand it. The problem occurs when the speakers of this dialect act as though their corruption of standard English is the norm, like what happened in this thread. You're not only talking to other Americans. A democracy isn't where decisions are made through direct voting. In American pidgin it may be, but that has no bearing on the conventional meanings of these concepts.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Yes, I am intentionally trying to deride American English