Am reading a book that successfully argues that “left wing” vs “right wing” has become completely meaningless in today’s politics. The original source of “left wing” vs “right wing” came from revolutionary France, where the right wing supported the monarchy and the left wing supported the revolutionaries. The book says that “although there have been many great imports from France, politics is not one of them”. (As an aside, the word terrorism – government by terror – also comes from the French Revolution).

According to the book the two sliding scales of political preference that matter are liberal vs socialist and conservative vs progressive. The most important of these is “liberal” vs “socialist”.
Liberal = no government
Socialist = no private enterprise
Both of those extremes are rather frightening.

The sliding scale of “conservative” vs “progressive” is based on:
Conservative = protect the past
Progressive = improve the future

Implicit in the book is that nobody likes a government that kills its own people, for example French revolution, Rwanda, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler.

From a utopian point of view, where would a utopia fit on the sliding scales of liberal vs socialist and conservative vs progressive?

In the mind of the mentally deranged?

mollwollfumble said:

From a utopian point of view, where would a utopia fit on the sliding scales of liberal vs socialist and conservative vs progressive?

Not in France.

Ignmogn

20 deg RH 100% Heavy overcast

Womping great triple t storm last night

72mm

T storm today forecast by tea time.

mollwollfumble said:

According to the book the two sliding scales of political preference that matter are liberal vs socialist and conservative vs progressive. The most important of these is “liberal” vs “socialist”.
Liberal = no government
Socialist = no private enterprise
Both of those extremes are rather frightening.

I’m not sure that’s true. I would say

Anarchist= No government.

mollwollfumble said:

Am reading a book that successfully argues that “left wing” vs “right wing” has become completely meaningless in today’s politics.

Quite true, especially in Australia.
Both the main parties are practising the neoliberalist ideology – the LNP far more aggressively – and while it’s sometimes a good solution for a broken country (which we weren’t) to make a quick fix it’s very destructive in the long term.
I have to laugh at the people that label me a ‘lefty’ or ‘righty’ when I say what a shitfull job the LNP & ALP are doing, as they just automatically assume because I don’t say nice things about their party I must support the other. It doesn’t even begin to occur to them that I am complaining about their party because it’s doing a bad job. Nothing to do with the left/right nonsense.
I don’t care who’s running the country, as long as they do a good job and we haven’t seen that for decades.

^ 2 chat

Re: OP

Yes. The definition of left/right gets pretty confusing in relation to modern politics. Though most people will have a feel for where they lie by the issues and parties that support them.

It’s perfectly cromulent to be with the left on some issues and with the right on others.

Ian said:

It’s perfectly cromulent to be with the left on some issues and with the right on others.

I dearly wise that more people could understand that.
And practice it.

Basically in a parliamentary democracy the left try to put the rights of the collective in front of the rights of the individual while the right try to put the rights of the individual in front of the rights of the collective but it gets very blurred.

Spiny Norman said:

Ian said:

It’s perfectly cromulent to be with the left on some issues and with the right on others.

I dearly wise that more people could understand that.
And practice it.

Most of us do. It is how we live after all. It is the media that puts the confusion spin on it all.

pommiejohn said:

mollwollfumble said:

According to the book the two sliding scales of political preference that matter are liberal vs socialist and conservative vs progressive. The most important of these is “liberal” vs “socialist”.
Liberal = no government
Socialist = no private enterprise
Both of those extremes are rather frightening.

I’m not sure that’s true. I would say

Anarchist= No government.

I agree, they are trying to squeeze too many variables into two scales. The main areas that define the approach to political policy are (IMO):

Anarchist -> Complete centralised government control
All decisions put to public vote -> all decisions by non-elected body (either hereditary or self selecting and maintained by force)
Uniform distribution of wealth and resources -> Unrestricted free market
Introduce change as quickly as possible -> No change to established procedures

This forms a four dimensional space in which various “liberal” political philosophies, or the Left/Right divide, can occupy such a broad band as to make the terms meaningless.

mollwollfumble said:

According to the book the two sliding scales of political preference that matter are liberal vs socialist and conservative vs progressive. The most important of these is “liberal” vs “socialist”.
Liberal = no government
Socialist = no private enterprise
Both of those extremes are rather frightening.

So what’s the difference between anarchy (= no government) and Liberal (as given above)?

mollwollfumble said:

From a utopian point of view, where would a utopia fit on the sliding scales of liberal vs socialist and conservative vs progressive?

What is a utopia? The name itself is from Greek, “ou-” meaning not, and “topis”, place, so it literally means “no place”, or nowhere.

Plato’s idea of a utopia is given in The Republic, and seems to be the model for most modern (Western) democratic societies (although Plato argued that any form of government degenerates over time to tyranny anyway); the influence of his life history (exile from Athens, time in Sparta, etc) is evident in his Utopia: rigidly defined classes that citizens are born into (golden, silver, bronze, and iron); no arts, music, or poetry; few laws and no lawyers, etc. The fundamental problem with it, AFAICS, is that it never changes, and so is boring. The government, as presented by Plato through the voice of Socrates, is essentially a kind of conservative, communist, liquid democracy.

The term itself was coined by Thomas More in a book of the same name. He describes his own version of a utopia, this time on an island in the Atlantic Ocean. The civilisation on this island is a kind of feudal, spartan, communist society: there is no private property – or indeed any privacy, with all goods owned by the community; everybody must work, so there is no unemployment, but each house can (and does) own slaves (More says two of them; slaves are criminals, notably those guilty of adultery); medical (and hospital) treatment is free for all; laws are simple, and there are no lawyers. Premarital sex is punished by a lifetime of enforced celibacy. Each city contains 6000 households, with people being moved to other households and cities to balance the population. Each household elects a representative, who form groups of 30 and elect a leader from among themselves; these form groups of 10, and elect a leader from among them. These leaders elect a prince to rule over the city for life (although he can be removed if he becomes tyrannical.) So More’s utopia is a communistic welfare state, with a form of democratic monarchy.

These are some of the most important (for their influence on modern society,) but there are many other varieties, including religious (even inter-religious) utopias, scientific and technological utopias (including one suggested by Buckminster Fuller), a technological and libertarian socialist utopia called The Culture presented by Iain M. Banks. Hesiod thought that we’d descended from a destroyed and looted utopia he called The Golden Age.

The Rev Dodgson said:

pommiejohn said:

mollwollfumble said:

According to the book the two sliding scales of political preference that matter are liberal vs socialist and conservative vs progressive. The most important of these is “liberal” vs “socialist”.
Liberal = no government
Socialist = no private enterprise
Both of those extremes are rather frightening.

You could have stopped at, no government.
I’m not sure that’s true. I would say

Anarchist= No government.

I agree, they are trying to squeeze too many variables into two scales. The main areas that define the approach to political policy are (IMO):

Anarchist -> Complete centralised government control
All decisions put to public vote -> all decisions by non-elected body (either hereditary or self selecting and maintained by force)
Uniform distribution of wealth and resources -> Unrestricted free market
Introduce change as quickly as possible -> No change to established procedures

This forms a four dimensional space in which various “liberal” political philosophies, or the Left/Right divide, can occupy such a broad band as to make the terms meaningless.

>This forms a four dimensional space

Do you want Antony Green to start using tesseracts?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

>liberal vs socialist

I don’t think that scheme is particularly meaningful. The distinction should be between liberal and authoritarian, not liberal and socialist, and there’s not necessarily much correlation with the size of government.

They’re using the term “liberal” to mean “libertarian”, which is very misleading. One could imagine a libertarian, small-government state that is nonetheless highly authoritarian. Indeed, because libertarians advocate leaving everyone to fend for themselves in a laissez-faire economy, with the only welfare provided by private charity, you would expect a society with very marked inequalities, high crime rates and a repressive law-&-order regime, with the rich relying on private armies etc. That’s certainly not a recipe for a liberal society.

I agree though that “left’ and “right” are certainly not reliable idicators of anything much in today’s politics. Because the left have strongly embraced the relativist doctrine of multiculturalism, with its central idea that no culture is better than any other culture and all should be able to magically co-exist in the same modern society, it’s increasingly hard for them to consistently defend concepts like liberal, secular democracy and universal human rights.

For example, we have lefties supporting equality of the sexes and LGBT rights, while at the same time condemning people critical of Islam as being “narrow-minded and divisive”, “racist” etc. Cultural relativism not only makes it impossible to solidly support our Western post-Enlightenment cultural heritage (the very heritage that gave rise to modern liberalism, democracy and the idea of human rights), it makes is impossible to maintain a rationally consistent ethics of any kind.

Leave the liberals right out, better still.

makes is impossible = makes it impossible

Ian said:

Leave the liberals right out, better still.

Again, that’s rubbish. Libertarians can be highly authoritarian.

The opposite of authoritarian is liberal, not Ayn fucking Rand :)

>Cultural relativism

it’s ‘nough to make someone glad
that culture doesn’t determine reality
we got it local homeostasis inside
internal environ’s done automatically

So what do you call someone who believes in equality for all but self responsbility for ones actions as well. eg You can be Islamic if you want but own the fact psychopaths use your religion as an excuse to rape, murder, sell drugs/people and condemn them instead of staying quiet.

Cymek said:

So what do you call someone who believes in equality for all but self responsbility for ones actions as well. eg You can be Islamic if you want but own the fact psychopaths use your religion as an excuse to rape, murder, sell drugs/people and condemn them instead of staying quiet.

I’d say you can be Muslim, Catholic, Mormon, anything you like, as long as you agree that when you live in a Western society you live within the secular laws of a liberal, democratic state in which everyone has the same rights and the same responsibility to avoid violating the rights of others. In other words, the only “multiculturalism” that works is one in which all cultures embrace the essentials of modern Western culture – secularism, democracy, freedom of the individual, sexual & racial equality and universal human rights.

of course all of this is now distant history, when wookiemeister assumed control after the disaster everyone retreated to the strato-spheres and gazed down to earth like gods

Ian said:

Leave the liberals right out, better still.

Of course, ignores autonomous collectives of anarcho-syndicalists.

Bubblecar said:

Cymek said:

So what do you call someone who believes in equality for all but self responsbility for ones actions as well. eg You can be Islamic if you want but own the fact psychopaths use your religion as an excuse to rape, murder, sell drugs/people and condemn them instead of staying quiet.

I’d say you can be Muslim, Catholic, Mormon, anything you like, as long as you agree that when you live in a Western society you live within the secular laws of a liberal, democratic state in which everyone has the same rights and the same responsibility to avoid violating the rights of others. In other words, the only “multiculturalism” that works is one in which all cultures embrace the essentials of modern Western culture – secularism, democracy, freedom of the individual, sexual & racial equality and universal human rights.

The best we seem to have at the moment and everyone strives to be a productive member of society with the hope we can safeguard the future of the planet for all our descendants born or otherwise

Ian said:

Ian said:

Leave the liberals right out, better still.

Of course, ignores autonomous collectives of anarcho-syndicalists.

The mistake it makes is to falsely define “libertarian” as the opposite of “authoritarian”. Libertarianism is a specific right-wing political doctrine that’s obsessively concerned with money and deregulation etc. Modern libertarianism has little connection with liberalism.

Bubblecar said:

In other words, the only “multiculturalism” that works is one in which all cultures embrace the essentials of modern Western culture – secularism, democracy, freedom of the individual, sexual & racial equality and universal human rights.

Which is exactly what the word “multiculturalism” means in the context of a modern culture.

(I don’t see why we of the East should allow those of the West to treat modern cultures as their own.)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

In other words, the only “multiculturalism” that works is one in which all cultures embrace the essentials of modern Western culture – secularism, democracy, freedom of the individual, sexual & racial equality and universal human rights.

Which is exactly what the word “multiculturalism” means in the context of a modern culture.

(I don’t see why we of the East should allow those of the West to treat modern cultures as their own.)

Multiculturalism should mean all cultures getting along and trying to accept each others non repressive beliefs, kind of like the Federation of Planets, but it seems to mean in to me anyway a whole bunch of cultures living in the one nation with little interaction on a personal level, its a start I suppose

Bubblecar said:

Ian said:

Ian said:

Leave the liberals right out, better still.

Of course, ignores autonomous collectives of anarcho-syndicalists.

The mistake it makes is to falsely define “libertarian” as the opposite of “authoritarian”. Libertarianism is a specific right-wing political doctrine that’s obsessively concerned with money and deregulation etc. Modern libertarianism has little connection with liberalism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

>Which is exactly what the word “multiculturalism” means in the context of a modern culture.

It’s becoming increasingly rare to find “multiculturalists” who interpret the term to mean a pluralist Western society in which everyone recognises the supremacy of Western culture. There are multiculturalists who genuinely subscribe to cultural relativism, and there are various groups (such as Islamists and hard left Marxist-Leninists) who use multiculturalism as a front for their own anti-Western agendas.

Ian said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

Again though that’s a very specific term covering very specific (and little-known) political doctrines mostly concerned with economics. The term “liberal” has much wider and more basic application than “libertarian”.

Bubblecar said:

>Which is exactly what the word “multiculturalism” means in the context of a modern culture.

It’s becoming increasingly rare to find “multiculturalists” who interpret the term to mean a pluralist Western society in which everyone recognises the supremacy of Western culture. There are multiculturalists who genuinely subscribe to cultural relativism, and there are various groups (such as Islamists and hard left Marxist-Leninists) who use multiculturalism as a front for their own anti-Western agendas.

No doubt there are (although I don’t see or hear much of them). Then there are the right-wing groups who portray multiculturalism as being inherently “unAustralian”, for their own racist agenda. And I see and hear way too much of them.

Bubblecar said:

Cymek said:

So what do you call someone who believes in equality for all but self responsbility for ones actions as well. eg You can be Islamic if you want but own the fact psychopaths use your religion as an excuse to rape, murder, sell drugs/people and condemn them instead of staying quiet.

I’d say you can be Muslim, Catholic, Mormon, anything you like, as long as you agree that when you live in a Western society you live within the secular laws of a liberal, democratic state in which everyone has the same rights and the same responsibility to avoid violating the rights of others. In other words, the only “multiculturalism” that works is one in which all cultures embrace the essentials of modern Western culture – secularism, democracy, freedom of the individual, sexual & racial equality and universal human rights.

What happened to, when in Rome do as the Romans do?

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

Cymek said:

So what do you call someone who believes in equality for all but self responsbility for ones actions as well. eg You can be Islamic if you want but own the fact psychopaths use your religion as an excuse to rape, murder, sell drugs/people and condemn them instead of staying quiet.

I’d say you can be Muslim, Catholic, Mormon, anything you like, as long as you agree that when you live in a Western society you live within the secular laws of a liberal, democratic state in which everyone has the same rights and the same responsibility to avoid violating the rights of others. In other words, the only “multiculturalism” that works is one in which all cultures embrace the essentials of modern Western culture – secularism, democracy, freedom of the individual, sexual & racial equality and universal human rights.

What happened to, when in Rome do as the Romans do?

So what do you do when you’re in a multicultural country?

dv said:

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

I’d say you can be Muslim, Catholic, Mormon, anything you like, as long as you agree that when you live in a Western society you live within the secular laws of a liberal, democratic state in which everyone has the same rights and the same responsibility to avoid violating the rights of others. In other words, the only “multiculturalism” that works is one in which all cultures embrace the essentials of modern Western culture – secularism, democracy, freedom of the individual, sexual & racial equality and universal human rights.

What happened to, when in Rome do as the Romans do?

So what do you do when you’re in a multicultural country?

You do what is acceptable to all.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

roughbarked said:

What happened to, when in Rome do as the Romans do?

So what do you do when you’re in a multicultural country?

You do what is acceptable to all.

Yay.

The Rev Dodgson said:

No doubt there are (although I don’t see or hear much of them). Then there are the right-wing groups who portray multiculturalism as being inherently “unAustralian”, for their own racist agenda. And I see and hear way too much of them.

I agree, and those groups unfortunately make it easier for any criticisms of multiculturalism to be unfairly lumped together and dismissed as racism or xenophobia.

When I become king the first thing I’ll abolish is political correctness.
I’ll introduce a law making freedom of thought and expression sacrosanct.
I’ll also abolish jet skis and leaf blowers.

Peak Warming Man said:

When I become king the first thing I’ll abolish is political correctness.
I’ll introduce a law making freedom of thought and expression sacrosanct.
I’ll also abolish jet skis and leaf blowers.

Southpark have been taking the micky out of PC this entire season, basically they portray the advocates as loud aggressive drunken frat boyz who say all the right words but don’t actually interact with anyone they are been PC for, Jimmy a handicaped boy in the show termed PC as meaning Pussy Crusher.

FMD if you look at the world and think that “PC” is one of the top million problems then you’ve got issues.

Cymek said:

Peak Warming Man said:

When I become king the first thing I’ll abolish is political correctness.
I’ll introduce a law making freedom of thought and expression sacrosanct.
I’ll also abolish jet skis and leaf blowers.

Southpark have been taking the micky out of PC this entire season, basically they portray the advocates as loud aggressive drunken frat boyz who say all the right words but don’t actually interact with anyone they are been PC for, Jimmy a handicaped boy in the show termed PC as meaning Pussy Crusher.

I thought the frat boy PC concept was brilliant. And he coined Pussy Crusher because one of the PC frat boys was asking a girls permission to take her upstairs and crush her pussy, and she had to reply unambiguously in the affirmative and the next morning they had to show signed indemnities.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

No doubt there are (although I don’t see or hear much of them). Then there are the right-wing groups who portray multiculturalism as being inherently “unAustralian”, for their own racist agenda. And I see and hear way too much of them.

I agree, and those groups unfortunately make it easier for any criticisms of multiculturalism to be unfairly lumped together and dismissed as racism or xenophobia.

So why not call the failure to criticise stuff that should be criticised, for fear of being perceived as racist, something other than multiculturalism?

How about failuretocriticisestuffthatshouldbecriticisedism?

AwesomeO said:

Cymek said:

Peak Warming Man said:

When I become king the first thing I’ll abolish is political correctness.
I’ll introduce a law making freedom of thought and expression sacrosanct.
I’ll also abolish jet skis and leaf blowers.

Southpark have been taking the micky out of PC this entire season, basically they portray the advocates as loud aggressive drunken frat boyz who say all the right words but don’t actually interact with anyone they are been PC for, Jimmy a handicaped boy in the show termed PC as meaning Pussy Crusher.

I thought the frat boy PC concept was brilliant. And he coined Pussy Crusher because one of the PC frat boys was asking a girls permission to take her upstairs and crush her pussy, and she had to reply unambiguously in the affirmative and the next morning they had to show signed indemnities.

Poor Caitlyn Jenner as well, portayed as a brain damaged women who keeps running over people and killing them

The biggest problem in the world right now is radical Islam.
They put death sentences on people who write books, they murder cartoonists, they mutilate their young girls, they hang gays or throw them off buildings, they stone adulterers to death they shoot girls in the head for going to school. These atrocities are happening right here and right now in this century.
Meanwhile the ABC is throwing all it’s resources into investigating the evils of Scientology.
And as I’ve said before I’ve never heard of a scientologist walking into a kindergarten and detonating themselves while yelling L Ron Hubbard.

It’s a barbaric religion that has no place in modernity.

The Rev Dodgson said:

So why not call the failure to criticise stuff that should be criticised, for fear of being perceived as racist, something other than multiculturalism?

How about failuretocriticisestuffthatshouldbecriticisedism?

As I’ve argued before, I prefer the term “liberal pluralism” to “multiculturalism”. We need to think of society as consisting of many different individuals doing their own thing within the one very broad and varied Western culture, not different cultures doing their own thing within a society that has no specific culture.

Peak Warming Man said:

It’s a barbaric religion that has no place in modernity.

How could we stop it though without starting a third world war, one does wonder if this is what the extremists want some religious apocalypse

Cymek said:

Peak Warming Man said:

It’s a barbaric religion that has no place in modernity.

How could we stop it though without starting a third world war, one does wonder if this is what the extremists want some religious apocalypse

Stop it? Banning a religion goes against the very concept of individual liberties that the western world expouses.

Peak Warming Man said:

It’s a barbaric religion that has no place in modernity.

and the bait is set…

>No doubt there are (although I don’t see or hear much of them). Then there are the right-wing groups who portray multiculturalism as being inherently “unAustralian”, for their own racist agenda. And I see and hear way too much of them.

culture’s a hackneyed term, load of wankery anyway, just out the otherside of near half century of cultural determinism, a complete load of shit it was, and toward the end of that we got a million TV channels and all that bullshit. And there’s the city thing, the city wankery.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Peak Warming Man said:

It’s a barbaric religion that has no place in modernity.

How could we stop it though without starting a third world war, one does wonder if this is what the extremists want some religious apocalypse

Stop it? Banning a religion goes against the very concept of individual liberties that the western world expouses.

Not the religion the extremist armies

Peak Warming Man said:

The biggest problem in the world right now is radical Islam.

Terrible as the activities of radical islam and some Islamic governments are, it is not remotely near being the biggest problem in the world right now.

Peak Warming Man said:

I’ll introduce a law making freedom of thought and expression sacrosanct.

This would seem to be 100% counterposed to the idea of eliminating radical Islam

Peak Warming Man said:

The biggest problem in the world right now is radical Islam.
They put death sentences on people who write books, they murder cartoonists, they mutilate their young girls, they hang gays or throw them off buildings, they stone adulterers to death they shoot girls in the head for going to school. These atrocities are happening right here and right now in this century.
Meanwhile the ABC is throwing all it’s resources into investigating the evils of Scientology.
And as I’ve said before I’ve never heard of a scientologist walking into a kindergarten and detonating themselves while yelling L Ron Hubbard.

Scientology is causing financial distress to a lot of people

breaking up lots of families because of the financial stress

They have these 7 OT levels, each level has a price 10,000 dollars up to 100,000 dollars

I think the fight against Scientology is a valid one

but they also need to find out how vulnerable people are being radicalized by Islam

Cymek said:

Not the religion the extremist armies

More of what we have been doing I expect. However I think it will be up to the Muslim nations of the Middle East to confront islamism. Those living under IS are said to be quickly finding out how barbaric they are.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I’ll introduce a law making freedom of thought and expression sacrosanct.

This would seem to be 100% counterposed to the idea of eliminating radical Islam

In a liberal society, people are free to think whatever they like, but liberal societies have a duty to ensure that their immigration policies seek to import liberal-minded citizens, not illiberal ones.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I’ll introduce a law making freedom of thought and expression sacrosanct.

This would seem to be 100% counterposed to the idea of eliminating radical Islam

How about we allow people to follow whatever religion they want, but we make it illegal for people to kill people, or mutilate babies?

Muslims would have there equivalent of conservatives and progressives

I would seek to find those both conservatives and progressives with Islam to look at religious reform

A woman on radio recently expressed an intent to board a plane, go to France and shoot refugees. Not terrorists, not radical muslims, but Syrian refugees. Did not seem to be joking.

She wasn’t detained for questioning or put on a no-fly list, and indeed remains a Republican member of Nevada’s state legislature.

I do think it would be good if reasonable and decent people of all religions and indeed of none could act in concert against dangerous nutters like her and ISIS. To try to frame it as a battle between Islam and the West is to miss the point.

http://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2015/dec/07/michele-fiore-says-she-wants-to-shoot-syrian-refug/

On KWDN, Fiore discussed why she did not sign on to a statement from Republican member of the Assembly opposing the resettlement of Syrian refugees in Nevada.

“What, are you kidding me? I’m about to fly to Paris and shoot ‘em in the head myself,” Fiore said, adding, “I am not OK with Syrian refugees. I’m not OK with terrorists. I’m OK with putting them down, blacking them out, just put a piece of brass in their ocular cavity and end their miserable life. I’m good with that.”

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I’ll introduce a law making freedom of thought and expression sacrosanct.

This would seem to be 100% counterposed to the idea of eliminating radical Islam

In a liberal society, people are free to think whatever they like, but liberal societies have a duty to ensure that their immigration policies seek to import liberal-minded citizens, not illiberal ones.

Great but how can we be sure that anti-muslim bigots don’t just lie to slip through their entrance tests?

dv said:

Great but how can we be sure that anti-muslim bigots don’t just lie to slip through their entrance tests?

We can’t be sure that any bigots won’t just lie, but we could at least make their citizenship dependent on signing the form, and be able to revoke it if it becomes clear that they were lying.

One for the forum nerds:

http://www.theage.com.au/world/britains-spy-agency-sends-out-christmas-card-brainteaser-for-you-to-solve-20151210-glk78y.html

Witty Rejoinder said:

One for the forum nerds:

http://www.theage.com.au/world/britains-spy-agency-sends-out-christmas-card-brainteaser-for-you-to-solve-20151210-glk78y.html

fuck

Opps sorry.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bill-shorten-tony-abbott-is-a-very-unusual-man-20151210-glk5nl.html

The former prime minister also stirred controversy by calling for a “religious revolution” within Islam in an opinion piece he wrote for News Corp.

“I don’t know if he’s Australia’s version of Donald Trump but he’s a very unusual man, Tony Abbott,” Mr Shorten said on Thursday.

“We shouldn’t have a bar of what he says.

“I think his views are not befitting a former prime minister who was in charge three months ago and I think, really, he may be feeling very upset about his loss of office, he may see this as an issue which he can now speak out on but I ask him as a former prime minister of Australia to please respect the fact that we are a country of all faiths and all religions. We must have tolerance.”

Mr Shorten said Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull should recognise that Mr Abbott’s remarks in recent days were “a very bad look”.

Politicians are saying, “We must have tolerance” , yet young Islamic radicalized people are not being taught tolerance

We need religious reform

Kind of a weird comment for someone in an unreformed denomination. Then again Abbott is a bit weird.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The biggest problem in the world right now is radical Islam.

Terrible as the activities of radical islam and some Islamic governments are, it is not remotely near being the biggest problem in the world right now.

Yes, on the drum one correspondent reckons that possibly the greatest threat to Australia with the exception of the threatened Japanese invasion is……Tony Abbott.

CrazyNeutrino said:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bill-shorten-tony-abbott-is-a-very-unusual-man-20151210-glk5nl.html

The former prime minister also stirred controversy by calling for a “religious revolution” within Islam in an opinion piece he wrote for News Corp.

“I don’t know if he’s Australia’s version of Donald Trump but he’s a very unusual man, Tony Abbott,” Mr Shorten said on Thursday.

“We shouldn’t have a bar of what he says.

“I think his views are not befitting a former prime minister who was in charge three months ago and I think, really, he may be feeling very upset about his loss of office, he may see this as an issue which he can now speak out on but I ask him as a former prime minister of Australia to please respect the fact that we are a country of all faiths and all religions. We must have tolerance.”

Mr Shorten said Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull should recognise that Mr Abbott’s remarks in recent days were “a very bad look”.

Politicians are saying, “We must have tolerance” , yet young Islamic radicalized people are not being taught tolerance

We need religious reform

Shorten’s talking lazy shit, as usual.

He clearly doesn’t believe we should tolerate intolerance, as he’s accusing Abbott of intolerance. But Abbott is (much more convincingly) accusing conservative Islam of intolerance, and saying that we in the West should not feel that we have to tolerate that intolerance. And that Muslims themselves should reform their religion to make it more tolerant.

dv said:

Kind of a weird comment for someone in an unreformed denomination. Then again Abbott is a bit weird.

Modern Catholicism is clearly very different from medieval Catholicism. That’s not necessarily the case with Islam.

CrazyNeutrino said:

We need religious reform

Quite the opposite, what is needed is a return to traditional tolerant Islam. The Wahhabi doctrine is the outcome of reformation. Traditional Islam respects the various sects and tradition and scholarship holds that no man can understand the mind of god and say that their particular version of the religion is the true one. Wahhabism is the rejection of tradition and scholarship and the search for the one true doctrine – hence the intolerance of other sects and religions.

party_pants said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

We need religious reform

Quite the opposite, what is needed is a return to traditional tolerant Islam. The Wahhabi doctrine is the outcome of reformation. Traditional Islam respects the various sects and tradition and scholarship holds that no man can understand the mind of god and say that their particular version of the religion is the true one. Wahhabism is the rejection of tradition and scholarship and the search for the one true doctrine – hence the intolerance of other sects and religions.

I think you’ll find that Wahhabism is certainly not the only intolerant and authoritarian form of Islam. Nearly all of it is intolerant and authoritarian.

party_pants said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

We need religious reform

Quite the opposite, what is needed is a return to traditional tolerant Islam. The Wahhabi doctrine is the outcome of reformation. Traditional Islam respects the various sects and tradition and scholarship holds that no man can understand the mind of god and say that their particular version of the religion is the true one. Wahhabism is the rejection of tradition and scholarship and the search for the one true doctrine – hence the intolerance of other sects and religions.

Ill be happy with anything that works, if Muslims can return to traditional tolerant Islam that would be good

But I think religions should look to the UN charter of human rights and then look at how their scriptures and teachings could be reformed to reflect all those Human Rights

All religions need to accept the UN charter of Human rights, modernize their teachings to be tolerant of other peoples rights

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The biggest problem in the world right now is radical Islam.

Terrible as the activities of radical islam and some Islamic governments are, it is not remotely near being the biggest problem in the world right now.

Yes, on the drum one correspondent reckons that possibly the greatest threat to Australia with the exception of the threatened Japanese invasion is……Tony Abbott.

Yet, so many people didn’t see this all those years back and they actually voted for his non-policies. Strangely, some of us figured out just how dangerous he is.

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The biggest problem in the world right now is radical Islam.

Terrible as the activities of radical islam and some Islamic governments are, it is not remotely near being the biggest problem in the world right now.

Yes, on the drum one correspondent reckons that possibly the greatest threat to Australia with the exception of the threatened Japanese invasion is……Tony Abbott.

That raised a smile, but really I think I would put the TA threat even below the IS threat.

The DT threat I’m not so sure about.

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Terrible as the activities of radical islam and some Islamic governments are, it is not remotely near being the biggest problem in the world right now.

Yes, on the drum one correspondent reckons that possibly the greatest threat to Australia with the exception of the threatened Japanese invasion is……Tony Abbott.

That raised a smile, but really I think I would put the TA threat even below the IS threat.

The DT threat I’m not so sure about.

DT threat?

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

Yes, on the drum one correspondent reckons that possibly the greatest threat to Australia with the exception of the threatened Japanese invasion is……Tony Abbott.

That raised a smile, but really I think I would put the TA threat even below the IS threat.

The DT threat I’m not so sure about.

DT threat?

The guy who wants to be POTUS

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Terrible as the activities of radical islam and some Islamic governments are, it is not remotely near being the biggest problem in the world right now.

Yes, on the drum one correspondent reckons that possibly the greatest threat to Australia with the exception of the threatened Japanese invasion is……Tony Abbott.

That raised a smile, but really I think I would put the TA threat even below the IS threat.

The DT threat I’m not so sure about.

I don’t consider TA much of a threat. I think he is a spent force politically.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That raised a smile, but really I think I would put the TA threat even below the IS threat.

The DT threat I’m not so sure about.

DT threat?

The guy who wants to be POTUS

of Course

The historical difference between Islam and Christianity is the lack of tolerance in the latter. In Spain under the caliphate, Christians and Jews held positions of authority in the government. Once the Reconcista occurred, Jews and Muslims were forced to flee, convert, or die. The Christians murdered or drove out every last Jew out after the Seige of Jerusalem: and it was not until the Jews and Muslims together drove the Christians out that the Jews could return. Although recent events are not unimportant, a long view is useful before making a pronouncement on what is fundamental or intrinsic to a faith.

dv said:

The historical difference between Islam and Christianity is the lack of tolerance in the latter. In Spain under the caliphate, Christians and Jews held positions of authority in the government. Once the Reconcista occurred, Jews and Muslims were forced to flee, convert, or die. The Christians murdered or drove out every last Jew out after the Seige of Jerusalem: and it was not until the Jews and Muslims together drove the Christians out that the Jews could return. Although recent events are not unimportant, a long view is useful before making a pronouncement on what is fundamental or intrinsic to a faith.

I don’t make such pronouncements, I leave that to the believers themselves. But it’s undeniable that nearly all Muslim-majority societies are more authoritarian, intolerant, sexist and racist than Western societies.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That raised a smile, but really I think I would put the TA threat even below the IS threat.

The DT threat I’m not so sure about.

DT threat?

The guy who wants to be POTUS

He’s a clown; the fact that people like the clown is a damning reflection on the US peoples however the guy is still a clown. If he got the nomination, you’d see a huge swing to the dems as well as many nations privately telling the sitting government that if the clown looks gaining office, there will be some serious damage to relations.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

The historical difference between Islam and Christianity is the lack of tolerance in the latter. In Spain under the caliphate, Christians and Jews held positions of authority in the government. Once the Reconcista occurred, Jews and Muslims were forced to flee, convert, or die. The Christians murdered or drove out every last Jew out after the Seige of Jerusalem: and it was not until the Jews and Muslims together drove the Christians out that the Jews could return. Although recent events are not unimportant, a long view is useful before making a pronouncement on what is fundamental or intrinsic to a faith.

I don’t make such pronouncements, I leave that to the believers themselves. But it’s undeniable that nearly all Muslim-majority societies are more authoritarian, intolerant, sexist and racist than Western societies.

Seems for the most part the older a civilisation the less progressive it becomes over time as traditions become absolutes and its sacrliege to question them especially if you are an outside observer

Cymek said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

The historical difference between Islam and Christianity is the lack of tolerance in the latter. In Spain under the caliphate, Christians and Jews held positions of authority in the government. Once the Reconcista occurred, Jews and Muslims were forced to flee, convert, or die. The Christians murdered or drove out every last Jew out after the Seige of Jerusalem: and it was not until the Jews and Muslims together drove the Christians out that the Jews could return. Although recent events are not unimportant, a long view is useful before making a pronouncement on what is fundamental or intrinsic to a faith.

I don’t make such pronouncements, I leave that to the believers themselves. But it’s undeniable that nearly all Muslim-majority societies are more authoritarian, intolerant, sexist and racist than Western societies.

Seems for the most part the older a civilisation the less progressive it becomes over time as traditions become absolutes and its sacrliege to question them especially if you are an outside observer

I thought that the divisions were not left Vs right, but right Vs wrong.

Obviousman said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

DT threat?

The guy who wants to be POTUS

He’s a clown; the fact that people like the clown is a damning reflection on the US peoples however the guy is still a clown. If he got the nomination, you’d see a huge swing to the dems as well as many nations privately telling the sitting government that if the clown looks gaining office, there will be some serious damage to relations.

Cymek said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

The historical difference between Islam and Christianity is the lack of tolerance in the latter. In Spain under the caliphate, Christians and Jews held positions of authority in the government. Once the Reconcista occurred, Jews and Muslims were forced to flee, convert, or die. The Christians murdered or drove out every last Jew out after the Seige of Jerusalem: and it was not until the Jews and Muslims together drove the Christians out that the Jews could return. Although recent events are not unimportant, a long view is useful before making a pronouncement on what is fundamental or intrinsic to a faith.

I don’t make such pronouncements, I leave that to the believers themselves. But it’s undeniable that nearly all Muslim-majority societies are more authoritarian, intolerant, sexist and racist than Western societies.

That’s true but on the other hand the same can be said for non-Muslim non-Western countries. For all their problems, Indonesia and Malaysia stack up pretty well against the Congo or Myanmar. Spreading tolerance and Enlightenment is broadly going to happen against established religions . The very recent trends against bigotry and intolerance, basically since world war 2, are very welcome and did mainly start in North America and Europe, perhaps partly because of the weakening of the grip of religion and superstition on government. Enlightenment is good, for the whole world: badging it as westernism may be counterproductive.

Does always strike me as weird that the most gungho anti-refugee and bomb-the-shit-out-of-it types in the USA are the ones who want to re-establish the role of religion in government. ISIS in a baseball cap.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

The historical difference between Islam and Christianity is the lack of tolerance in the latter. In Spain under the caliphate, Christians and Jews held positions of authority in the government. Once the Reconcista occurred, Jews and Muslims were forced to flee, convert, or die. The Christians murdered or drove out every last Jew out after the Seige of Jerusalem: and it was not until the Jews and Muslims together drove the Christians out that the Jews could return. Although recent events are not unimportant, a long view is useful before making a pronouncement on what is fundamental or intrinsic to a faith.

I don’t make such pronouncements, I leave that to the believers themselves. But it’s undeniable that nearly all Muslim-majority societies are more authoritarian, intolerant, sexist and racist than Western societies.

Like Iran, Afghanistan with the Taliban

Indonesia’s conservative Aceh province has fully enacted a strict Islamic criminal code, local government officials say, criminalising drinking alcohol, adultery, homosexuality, and public displays of affection outside of a legally recognised relationship.

To punish anyone who has had consensual sex with up to 100 lashes is despicable.

Amnesty International’s South-East Asia campaigns director Josef Benedict

The law, passed in 2014 but is only now being fully enforced, “is to safeguard human dignity”, said the head of the sharia legal department in the provincial government, Syahrizal Abbas.

Peak Warming Man said:

Indonesia’s conservative Aceh province has fully enacted a strict Islamic criminal code, local government officials say, criminalising drinking alcohol, adultery, homosexuality, and public displays of affection outside of a legally recognised relationship.

To punish anyone who has had consensual sex with up to 100 lashes is despicable.

Amnesty International’s South-East Asia campaigns director Josef Benedict

The law, passed in 2014 but is only now being fully enforced, “is to safeguard human dignity”, said the head of the sharia legal department in the provincial government, Syahrizal Abbas.

The gutlessness of the Indonesian govt with regard to Aceh is appalling. The Indonesian constitution guarantees freedom of religion but Aceh gets a perpetual bye.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Indonesia’s conservative Aceh province has fully enacted a strict Islamic criminal code, local government officials say, criminalising drinking alcohol, adultery, homosexuality, and public displays of affection outside of a legally recognised relationship.

To punish anyone who has had consensual sex with up to 100 lashes is despicable.

Amnesty International’s South-East Asia campaigns director Josef Benedict

The law, passed in 2014 but is only now being fully enforced, “is to safeguard human dignity”, said the head of the sharia legal department in the provincial government, Syahrizal Abbas.

The gutlessness of the Indonesian govt with regard to Aceh is appalling. The Indonesian constitution guarantees freedom of religion but Aceh gets a perpetual bye.

You’ll get in trouble for criticising Indonesia we give them a free pass for cruelty and repression as they are our trading partner

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Indonesia’s conservative Aceh province has fully enacted a strict Islamic criminal code, local government officials say, criminalising drinking alcohol, adultery, homosexuality, and public displays of affection outside of a legally recognised relationship.

To punish anyone who has had consensual sex with up to 100 lashes is despicable.

Amnesty International’s South-East Asia campaigns director Josef Benedict

The law, passed in 2014 but is only now being fully enforced, “is to safeguard human dignity”, said the head of the sharia legal department in the provincial government, Syahrizal Abbas.

The gutlessness of the Indonesian govt with regard to Aceh is appalling. The Indonesian constitution guarantees freedom of religion but Aceh gets a perpetual bye.

You’ll get in trouble for criticising Indonesia we give them a free pass for cruelty and repression as they are our trading partner

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Indonesia’s conservative Aceh province has fully enacted a strict Islamic criminal code, local government officials say, criminalising drinking alcohol, adultery, homosexuality, and public displays of affection outside of a legally recognised relationship.

To punish anyone who has had consensual sex with up to 100 lashes is despicable.

Amnesty International’s South-East Asia campaigns director Josef Benedict

The law, passed in 2014 but is only now being fully enforced, “is to safeguard human dignity”, said the head of the sharia legal department in the provincial government, Syahrizal Abbas.

The gutlessness of the Indonesian govt with regard to Aceh is appalling. The Indonesian constitution guarantees freedom of religion but Aceh gets a perpetual bye.

You’ll get in trouble for criticising Indonesia we give them a free pass for cruelty and repression as they are our trading partner

Cymek said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Indonesia’s conservative Aceh province has fully enacted a strict Islamic criminal code, local government officials say, criminalising drinking alcohol, adultery, homosexuality, and public displays of affection outside of a legally recognised relationship.

To punish anyone who has had consensual sex with up to 100 lashes is despicable.

Amnesty International’s South-East Asia campaigns director Josef Benedict

The law, passed in 2014 but is only now being fully enforced, “is to safeguard human dignity”, said the head of the sharia legal department in the provincial government, Syahrizal Abbas.

The gutlessness of the Indonesian govt with regard to Aceh is appalling. The Indonesian constitution guarantees freedom of religion but Aceh gets a perpetual bye.

You’ll get in trouble for criticising Indonesia we give them a free pass for cruelty and repression as they are our trading partner

No we don’t, the Australian government consistently and repeatedly criticises Indonesia

dv said:

Cymek said:

dv said:

The gutlessness of the Indonesian govt with regard to Aceh is appalling. The Indonesian constitution guarantees freedom of religion but Aceh gets a perpetual bye.

You’ll get in trouble for criticising Indonesia we give them a free pass for cruelty and repression as they are our trading partner

No we don’t, the Australian government consistently and repeatedly criticises Indonesia

Don’t they claim we insult their honor and demand an apology

Islamic texts have lots of references to warfare, punishment for apostasy and sexual transgressions.. but they are open to wide interpretation.

The west hasn’t done itself any favours since WW1 in the middle east, especially the Iraqi misadventure.

About 7% of Muslims are politically radicalized acording to wiki

Overview of Australia’s aid program to Indonesia
How we are helping
2014/15 Bilateral Outcome
$551.9 million
2015/16 Bilateral Budget Estimate
$323.0 million
2015/16 Total Australian ODA Estimate
$375.7 million
http://dfat.gov.au/geo/indonesia/development-assistance/pages/development-assistance-in-indonesia.aspx

Politics – Left vs Right?

two faces of the same coin

the further you move from the political centre the closer you move to the same end point tyranny/ dictatorship/ oligarchy

what “left” or “right” means these days is anyone’s guess, as time passes the message changes or is manipulated to fit the needs of the ruling elites

the old australia has ended – now we have free enterprise, declining education and “free trade” laws that throw the peasants into destitution.

lady makin’ snitzel, i’m eatin’ an apple’n slurpin’ yoghurt
did have me hand in a packet CCs but lady confiscated
told ol’ he was really bad boy’d ruin me tea’n she’s right

btm said:

What is a utopia? The name itself is from Greek, “ou-” meaning not, and “topis”, place, so it literally means “no place”, or nowhere.

Plato’s idea of a utopia is given in The Republic, and seems to be the model for most modern (Western) democratic societies (although Plato argued that any form of government degenerates over time to tyranny anyway); the influence of his life history (exile from Athens, time in Sparta, etc) is evident in his Utopia: rigidly defined classes that citizens are born into (golden, silver, bronze, and iron); no arts, music, or poetry; few laws and no lawyers, etc. The fundamental problem with it, AFAICS, is that it never changes, and so is boring. The government, as presented by Plato through the voice of Socrates, is essentially a kind of conservative, communist, liquid democracy.

The term itself was coined by Thomas More in a book of the same name. He describes his own version of a utopia, this time on an island in the Atlantic Ocean. The civilisation on this island is a kind of feudal, spartan, communist society: there is no private property – or indeed any privacy, with all goods owned by the community; everybody must work, so there is no unemployment, but each house can (and does) own slaves (More says two of them; slaves are criminals, notably those guilty of adultery); medical (and hospital) treatment is free for all; laws are simple, and there are no lawyers. Premarital sex is punished by a lifetime of enforced celibacy. Each city contains 6000 households, with people being moved to other households and cities to balance the population. Each household elects a representative, who form groups of 30 and elect a leader from among themselves; these form groups of 10, and elect a leader from among them. These leaders elect a prince to rule over the city for life (although he can be removed if he becomes tyrannical.) So More’s utopia is a communistic welfare state, with a form of democratic monarchy.

These are some of the most important (for their influence on modern society,) but there are many other varieties, including religious (even inter-religious) utopias, scientific and technological utopias (including one suggested by Buckminster Fuller), a technological and libertarian socialist utopia called The Culture presented by Iain M. Banks. Hesiod thought that we’d descended from a destroyed and looted utopia he called The Golden Age.

Thanks btm. I take it from that that utopias can range from no government (eg some from Heinlein) to no private property, and from completely conservative to completely progressive?

>What is a utopia? The name itself is from Greek, “ou-” meaning not, and “topis”, place, so it literally means “no place”, or nowhere.

fairly much the idea John Ralston Saul plays with in The Unconconscious Civilization, as recall

not a bad read that bloke

captain nemo would be the ruler of utopia

My final comment on Left V Right

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJtdvXlu5rM

This is interesting. The book The Dispossessed (1974) by Ursula K. Le Guin has a utopian society that is neither socialist nor capitalist. There is no government AND no private ownership.