Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
That is obviously not true. We need some amount of hierarchy to run our civilization. Our civilization simply could not exist at its current scale without a hierarchical structure. You need leadership at the top making decisions at some point. You need to delegate your power as a citizen to leaders who can wield that power to get things done.
What you should actually be against (and what I think you actually mean) is class society.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesShould the GOP even be considered a "political" party anymore since they openly admitted that they have zero political platform to run on and have openly crowned Donald Trump as their "Chosen one God-King over the Divided States of Trump" from this point onward?
Shouldn't they all get kicked out as the "fanatical death cult" it is in accordance to "separation of church from state"?
Edited by TitanJump on Aug 25th 2020 at 4:05:19 PM
Again, most anarchists outside of the most absolute believe that hierarchy will continue to exist at the informal level and that this is not necessarily a bad thing.
Think of being an artist inspired to take up the craft due to respect for another, relatively more famous artist, and who is able to contact them personally for mentorship, friendship, and advice, outside of the bounds of a formal student-teacher relationship. That's anarchist-friendly hierarchy, as there's asymmetrical levels of experience, respect, and popularity going on here; it's an unspoken assumption that the admirer, because of their position, will not lecture or make unreasonable demands of the mentor, and that the mentor's advice should be acknowledged so long as the mentor-mentee relationship is maintained.
The only way to completely, 100% abolish all hierarchy for good would be through Individuality Is Illegal-type moves, as hierarchy arises through humanity's inherent inequalities. Some people are just faster than others, some are smarter at math, others stronger, better at differentiating red and blue objects, resulting in specialization of skills and more (and everyone becoming an enforced Master of None is not a viable option these days unless you want some form of primitivism). We just don't need to allow those differences to reach harmful levels.
Edited by AlleyOop on Aug 25th 2020 at 10:12:20 AM
Usually, with the left and right, I define it as a sliding scale of tall poppy syndrome and social Darwinism.
Extreme leftism is evil because it eventually becomes the bad guys from X-men, just the super-powers are a whole lot more mundane. Whereas the far-right wants to kill you for being inferior, the far-left wants to kill you for being superior and therefore a threat to equality.
@Titan Jump yes, because that actually is a political position in and of itself.
Leviticus 19:34This diversion into political theory is a bit off-topic, but it's not as simple as left-right. The political spectrum is more accurately represented as a two-dimensional graph, with statism vs. anarchism on one axis and social conservative vs. social liberal on the other axis.
In this, Fascists plot as statist and social conservative, Libertarians plot as anarchist/conservative, Social Democrats plot as statist/social liberal, and there are a few stragglers in the anarchist/liberal corner. Ironically, while ideological Communism is far over on the anarchist end, its real-world implementations are uniformly extremely statist, just in a slightly different flavor. Most real-world implementations of Communism are also extremely socially conservative.
The thing is that your view of the extreme left doesn't actually exist in any serious form in any political party. The caricature of "equal opportunity means hammering down the nails" is purely a propaganda statement.
Edited by Fighteer on Aug 25th 2020 at 10:17:36 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"And fascists....
and authoritarian communists...
And other anarchists!
You anarchists sure are contentious people.
Anywyas I heard the RNC is kinda...sad. How sad we talkin' about?
I would like to point out that the accusation of this wing existing as a serious contender is espoused not just by the right or the far right, but certainly used within the center and center-left in response to...well. Just about anything, really.
Edited by Aszur on Aug 25th 2020 at 8:24:46 PM
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes![]()
![]()
It doesn't exist anymore. It did used to exist and used to hold power in other parts of the world, and that is what fuels the propaganda. The Maos and Pol Pots of the world were discredited, and hopefully will stay that way.
Anyway, the point is that Protagonist's definition of "extreme leftism" isn't entirely imaginary. It just isn't a particularly relevant problem now.
Edited by M84 on Aug 25th 2020 at 10:21:53 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised![]()
![]()
![]()
Perhaps not formally as it'd give the game away (nobody wants to be described as bad or mediocre, even with the script flipped to treat it as a virtue), but in practice Maoist China at the peak of the Cultural Revolution ran heavily on a kind of Tall Poppy Syndrome in which being smarter or more talented was twisted into being a sign of bourgeoiserie.
Encouragement of people to rat out on their neighbors lead to a lot of jealous folk reporting more "successful" people (be it academics, artistic skills, fashion sense, gift of gab, better at growing crops) as enemies of the state out of spite. It may not have been the explicit party line nor intended, but in practice? People absolutely chose to interpret and sometimes even encourage it at the ground level.
Today I still see people in my social circle (usually on Twitter, because of course) say in response to posts about only guillotining the absolute 1% that actually, they kind of do want to see doctors' and dentists' and $50,000-a-year white collar heads roll along with them, because why should they be stuck at the minimum wage while these people can afford to not starve? Sometimes the OP comes in to slap them down by pointing out that in a lot of places 50K isn't even all that much anyway, but the Tall Poppy Syndrome desire to crab-bucket everyone above them is there if not openly so.
Edited by AlleyOop on Aug 25th 2020 at 10:48:47 AM
This graph puts the above quote into persepctive
Edited by NoName999 on Aug 25th 2020 at 7:27:43 AM
![]()
![]()
![]()
Maoist China was extraordinarily authoritarian. Although it operated on Tall Poppy Syndrome, it was not "liberal" by any conceivable definition of the term. Lumping Marxism-Leninism or Maoism with Social Democracy is just insane. It is only done by trolls.
Yes, there are people who want to Eat the Rich and cut down everyone over the median income, and while they have very loud voices on social media, they aren't in charge of the Democratic Party like the fascists are in charge of the Republican Party. Fortunately. Frankly, I'm more worried about the anti-intellectuals on the Left: the anti-vaxxer, anti-GMO, homeopathic medicine idiots; the Greens; etc.
It would be very nice if this returned to U.S. Politics. The Democrats are not about lining you up and shooting you if you earn more than $50K. Let us stop arguing about it.
Edited by Fighteer on Aug 25th 2020 at 10:33:04 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yes, because social democrats are not extreme left, thus not prone to this kind of dogmatic and horrific thinking. Not sure how this disproves Protagonist's point. Nor does he seem to believe the Democrats think this way. But your earlier point that this kind of mindset only exists as a propaganda statement is untrue and I and others have provided examples.
Edited by AlleyOop on Aug 25th 2020 at 10:34:20 AM
Well, what is the point? Idiots exist everywhere. If we want to have a broad conversation about it, there's a General Politics thread in this very forum.
If the topic is the forthcoming election, or the applicability of these positions to the political parties in the U.S., then talking about the Eat the Rich and Tall Poppy Syndrome crowd as if it somehow offsets the fascist elements in the GOP is blatant both-siderism.
Or would be if Sanders didn't keep making himself a focal point for them. Oh well.
Edited by Fighteer on Aug 25th 2020 at 10:38:09 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I'm extremely tired of anti-intellectualism on the entire spectrum. No, your facebook friend saying whatever based on unsourced nonsense does not have the same level of authority as 90+% of scientists or researchers who have been working in the field for fifteen years or more and publish peer-reviewed papers...
Bottom line: while Protagonist's definition of extreme left isn't just propaganda - it really existed as a major political force in the world with very serious consequences - it also isn't really relevant to present day USA politics. And hopefully it never will be.
Edited by M84 on Aug 25th 2020 at 10:41:41 PM
Disgusted, but not surprisedThe ability to challenge contemporary scientific knowledge and existing dogmas is a long-respected duty of the scientific community, and sure enough I did some of that when I published my thesis, but you must treat it all as in good faith and provide evidence of your own. Debate it on the same level.
About Republicans speaking at the DNC, is that a normal thing? Or just because of this election?
Because, really, it is a very strange thing to behold. It certainly would not happen in my country. Sure, politicians here will talk about working with other parties (they need to build coalitions, after all), but outright endorse them? They wouldn't dream of it.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesIt's a deliberate effort to showcase just how alienating Trump's presidency has been. People reading into it that the Democrats have gone rightward are engaging in... motivated thinking, shall we say.
Edited by Fighteer on Aug 25th 2020 at 10:49:57 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It's a bunch of rats suddenly looking up and realizing "O SHIT THE SHIP IS SINKING" and trying to reinvent themselves as "good Republicans" so that if and when Trump goes down, they at least survive to give the whole capitalist neo-feudalism thing another go.
Someone did tell me life was going to be this way.

The Hill: Hispanic Caucus endorses an additional 12 non-Hispanic candidates, mostly in swing districts.
Hey, 13,000 pages! Wow this thread moves fast.
Edited by nova92 on Aug 25th 2020 at 6:55:23 AM