Norway party to seek ban on Islamic call to prayer

[Neoteny]

Egalitarian vs. Hierarchy. But hey.

[mrswdk]

So you see what I mean.

[Neoteny]

Is what you mean that the left-right spectrum is a useful shorthand encompassing a variety of perspectives?

[mrswdk]

Or that it is used to describe such a broad range of things that it is basically meaningless.

[Neoteny]

Broad descriptors are still useful. I don't even know why we're arguing semantics anymore. Is it because you didn't want to be labeled politically?

Jesus Christ who cares.

[mrswdk]

Because about a page ago you said there were uses in dividing people and stances into 'right' and 'left', but still haven't said what any of those uses are.

[Neoteny]

It's a shorthand for politics in a two party system whether you like that system or not. It's a point of reference for solidarity. It makes pedants uncomfortable I guess? It has a historical meaning that exists apart from specific political parties (ie American Democrats of 1860 are [maybe?] to the right of modern Democrats) as well as international politics (American vs Irish Republicans).

It's not going to be a hard definition, but it's useful.

[mrswdk]

I don't think that version of 'solidarity' helps imo. What you mean there is solidarity with your 'side', the implication of which is uniting in opposition against the other 'side'.

That sort of pack mentality that treats politics as some sort of ideological duel is exactly why politics with a capital 'p' is so fricking dull and irritating. People who are supposed to be managing the entire country/economy spending half their time engaging in childish point scoring against the other team rather than doing the actual work of governing.

[Neoteny]

I don't think that version of 'solidarity' helps imo. What you mean there is solidarity with your 'side', the implication of which is uniting in opposition against the other 'side'.

No, what I mean is solidarity primarily with class and labor, and at a broader level with civil rights protections for gender, race, and sexuality and other aspects of generally left activity such as environmentalism and social safety. Being against political conflict is a uniquely centrist position and one that pushes the status quo almost as hard as the right. It's adversarial by nature in that those classes and groups are and have been marginalized in society and have had and will have to fight for any gain that can be squeezed from the powerful.

I realize that I put solidarity in between references to political parties which may have suggested that I was supporting how a lot of modern parties operate. When I'm talking about the left I'm not really even talking about liberals like the Democrats. They claim to stand for these values, but are mostly willing to toss them aside in the interests of centrist "compromise." The American Democratic party in particular tries to game the system and score political points by "side" and it's dumb and ineffective (see DACA and budget controversies for proof). That's not solidarity. That's just bad politics.

Fun thing about class solidarity is that it's also an inroad to attracting voters from the right. See all the teacher strikes going on in the US which include a large number of people who voted for Trump. It doesn't really matter who you voted for; we all need a living wage.

That sort of pack mentality that treats politics as some sort of ideological duel is exactly why politics with a capital 'p' is so fricking dull and irritating. People who are supposed to be managing the entire country/economy spending half their time engaging in childish point scoring against the other team rather than doing the actual work of governing.

Labeling collective action "pack mentality" is as revealing as anything else you've said here, but, again, I don't think we're on the same page here. The distribution of political power is such that "pack mentality" is sometimes the only tool marginalized communities have. That is especially the case when the party representing them is weak like the Democratic Party in the US. I also think your main issue in this statement is with two party systems or something? The system is fucked, sure, but not an indictment of using the spectrum for organizing people and politics.

[mrswdk]

I don't think that version of 'solidarity' helps imo. What you mean there is solidarity with your 'side', the implication of which is uniting in opposition against the other 'side'.

No, what I mean is solidarity primarily with class and labor, and at a broader level with civil rights protections for gender, race, and sexuality and other aspects of generally left activity such as environmentalism and social safety. Being against political conflict is a uniquely centrist position and one that pushes the status quo almost as hard as the right. It's adversarial by nature in that those classes and groups are and have been marginalized in society and have had and will have to fight for any gain that can be squeezed from the powerful.

I realize that I put solidarity in between references to political parties which may have suggested that I was supporting how a lot of modern parties operate. When I'm talking about the left I'm not really even talking about liberals like the Democrats. They claim to stand for these values, but are mostly willing to toss them aside in the interests of centrist "compromise." The American Democratic party in particular tries to game the system and score political points by "side" and it's dumb and ineffective (see DACA and budget controversies for proof). That's not solidarity. That's just bad politics.

Fun thing about class solidarity is that it's also an inroad to attracting voters from the right. See all the teacher strikes going on in the US which include a large number of people who voted for Trump. It doesn't really matter who you voted for; we all need a living wage.

So even if we assume 'class' isn't a dead meme, it sounds from your last paragraph as if right and left isn't actually a very useful way of defining class divisions.

That sort of pack mentality that treats politics as some sort of ideological duel is exactly why politics with a capital 'p' is so fricking dull and irritating. People who are supposed to be managing the entire country/economy spending half their time engaging in childish point scoring against the other team rather than doing the actual work of governing.

Labeling collective action "pack mentality" is as revealing as anything else you've said here, but, again, I don't think we're on the same page here. The distribution of political power is such that "pack mentality" is sometimes the only tool marginalized communities have. That is especially the case when the party representing them is weak like the Democratic Party in the US. I also think your main issue in this statement is with two party systems or something? The system is fucked, sure, but not an indictment of using the spectrum for organizing people and politics.

When it's more important that your 'side' scores than that you deliver a system which actually supports people live their lives, that is the 'pack mentality' I'm referring to. People who buy into that point scoring and let it define their interest in politics help perpetuate that sort of nonsense.

All the best work of government is the work that gets done when no one's paying any attention to it. As soon as an issue becomes politically charged, it becomes a football and turns to poop.