Late again! Damnit!
A social democrat has entered the chat.
Yeah, a lot of the left/right conversation is dominated by US politics where one side - the left - IMO generally see folks on the right as Americans stuck in a pre-civil rights mindset, while folks on the right see anyone left of the Cheneys as a demoncrat, child-trafficking, blood-drinking, and for the life of me I don't get, but, fascist.
One side is demonstrably trying to work with the other, while the other side would rather storm a capitol building to install a god-emperor to rule for a thousand years.
Folks on the right are in a media bubble of fear and resentment, and rather than traditional conservative platforms like small government, fiscal responsibility and such, the organising principle of modern conservatism is 'owning the libs'.
That it.
Owning the libs.
CRT is this year's Cultural Marxism; A boogeyman folks on the right can't define, but Tucker tells 'em it's bad, so they hate it.
On the other forum folks on the right have been asked to define CRT... It has not gone well... Posted this interaction to try help 'em, but I might as well be pissing in the wind with folks like droid.
Ah, I should amend my position. I had not seen this post of yours, and in due consideration I should posture myself as being in
response to you. Not that I particularly care about who was first, it's just that I noticed a neat opportunity to be obnoxiously reasonable AND royally piss off Scudsucker at the same time.
Anyway, your problem, Greg, is that you're too damn
smug. Not that you don't have a lot to be smug about, cuz quite honestly your quorum sensing ability with respect to social democrat talking points is godlike. The only other person that can even come close is OD and you outclass him by orders of magnitude, so well done. But the label "social democrat" has a snag in that it smuggles in an equivocation, which is a problem if you're trying to be philosophically rigourous.
Correct
Complete nonsense, leaping to a ridiculous conclusion.
You will need to clear up a few things.
1) how you classify fascism in the same group as marxism, socialism and communism
2) how you come to the conclusion that the set of left-wing people who do believe in one or more of marxism, socialism or communism are the same set that have been diagnosed with a mental health disorder
3) You are counting diagnosis. I suggest to you that mental health disorders are equally spread throughout the entire population, and left wing people are more likely to seek help. You are ignoring all the undiagnosed.
So, in summation, you are very wrong and I disagree with your premise.
Plato in his philosophy gives very important place to the idea of justice. He used the Greek word "Dikaisyne" for justice which comes very near to the work 'morality' or 'righteousness', it properly includes within it the whole duty of man. It also covers the whole field of the individual's conduct in so far as it affects others. Plato contended that justice is the quality of soul, in virtue of which men set aside the irrational desire to taste every pleasure and to get a selfish satisfaction out of every object and accommodated themselves to the discharge of a single function for the general benefit.
From a philosophical standpoint, the discussion on justice and the discussion on right and wrong are practically impossible to divorce from each other. Since Plato's Republic, it would only be a slight overstatement to claim that the project of philosophy was
solely aimed at the grounding of justice within a sociopolitical worldview. The traditional grounding for this concept of justice among Indo-Europeans and Semitic cultures(i.e. Abrahamic) was God, but that only works within a theistic framework, and non-theistic frameworks have to find an alternative grounding because they obviously don't believe justice can be guaranteed by something they don't believe in, and that's where secular ideologies (i.e. sociopolitical worldviews) as a response to the scientific revolution enter the picture.
The politically significant secular ideologies can be broadly arranged into three categories, namely liberalism, Nazism and Marxism/socialism. Of the three, only liberalism grounds the notion of justice in the individual, Marxism/socialism and facism both set up sociopolitical systems where social justice takes precedence over individual justice, which is what makes both Marxism/socialism and fascism totalitarian in their disposition upon pain of philosophical self-refutation by way of internal contradiction, and this is what makes liberalism incompatible with the other two as well as what makes it possible for liberalism to rein in the general tendency of states to assume absolute power/responsibility, against which fascism and Marxism/socialism has no defence.
And therein lies the rub, because while you
say you are a social democrat, in essence you favour social justice over individual justice, and so substantively your claim to favour social democracy does not and cannot entail a commitment to liberal principles in any meaningful fashion. And indeed, as you should well know given the aforementioned quorum sensing facilities you posess, what label has become fashionable among the left for people who prioritise individual justice over social justice? "White supremacist" or "Nazi", no? Just ask Scudsucker, as he tried to pull
exactly the Nazi stunt on me for
no other reason that I refused to entertain the idea of a state not being subordinate to individual rights, and objected to you "liberals" pushing totalitarian talking points.
stupid 10k char limit 1/2