who are the left wing equivalents of right wing pundits in this ng?
Sir Blob
more embedded in my soul's recollections, its like the holy trinity
RichA
> i can only think of trotsky whereas calvin, stewe and richa are far
> more embedded in my soul's recollections, its like the holy trinity
Tom Cervo for one.
calvin
moviePig and nick
RichA
moviePig used to be apolitical.
calvin
So he still pretends, but he's about as apolitical as Karl Marx.
TBerk
> i can only think of trotsky whereas calvin, stewe and richa are far
> more embedded in my soul's recollections, its like the holy trinity
Why, you going to 'disappear' some people?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Dance_Alone
berk
Alls Quiet
most consistently liberal semi-regular poster on this group has been
"Thumper." There used to be someone named Tom...something; he was very
polite but also very liberal.
moviePig
If they're different, I'll settle for 'anti-political'. (I haven't
been political since I could say 'posturing imbecile'. How could
anyone?) Otoh, despite all the arrogant certainty, I bet no two
people here would agree on what 'political' even means...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
steve
On 30-Dec-2009, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> If they're different, I'll settle for 'anti-political'. (I haven't
> been political since I could say 'posturing imbecile'. How could
> anyone?) Otoh, despite all the arrogant certainty, I bet no two
> people here would agree on what 'political' even means...
I cant imagine how you can take this position, PM. If you arent political,
how can you directly oppose so many of my political (by any reasonable
definition) opinions? After all, opposition to a political opinion *is* a
political opinion.
Definitions can be tricky, but I'll bet that the common ground between
definitions, here, would be substantial and differences minimal, making it
largely a non-issue. Of course, you can argue about "substantial" and
"minimal"...and that's you all over. Avoiding making any coherent point
while expressing disagreement is your MO, IMO.
steve
--
"I've got a bomb in me pants!"
Wallace - A Matter of Loaf and Death
nick
I'm not left wing. I support the working classes. I believe in class
warfare.
moviePig
> On 30-Dec-2009, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > If they're different, I'll settle for 'anti-political'. (I haven't
> > been political since I could say 'posturing imbecile'. How could
> > anyone?) Otoh, despite all the arrogant certainty, I bet no two
> > people here would agree on what 'political' even means...
>
> I cant imagine how you can take this position, PM. If you arent political,
> how can you directly oppose so many of my political (by any reasonable
> definition) opinions? After all, opposition to a political opinion *is* a
> political opinion.
Your dismissal of global warming is based on (what you'd call)
political principles ...whereas my non-dismissal is based on "best
guess I can make". (That is an example, not a re-opening of debate.)
> Definitions can be tricky, but I'll bet that the common ground between
> definitions, here, would be substantial and differences minimal, making it
> largely a non-issue. Of course, you can argue about "substantial" and
> "minimal"...and that's you all over. Avoiding making any coherent point
> while expressing disagreement is your MO, IMO.
...and painting over inherent uncertainty is yours, imo. But --
pseudo-glib ad hominems aside -- the possible ingredients of
'political' seem too numerous to make even *near*-coincident
definitions likely. E.g., right/left, Repub/Dem, mass persuasion,
demagoguery, cultural destiny, political correctness, electioneering,
blind ideology ...pick a recipe. (Spare me any reflex remark about
how that's not "coherent". If it's gibberish to you, shuck it and
truck it.)
calvin
So you support the proletariat in its struggle with the
bourgeoisie? No, that's not left wing.
moviePig
I agree. Nothing says 'gauche' like tawdry warfare...
Sir Blob
iirc thumper's a copyright fanatic so unlikely
Sir Blob
On Dec 30, 11:42 pm, "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
Tom
> i can only think of trotsky whereas calvin, stewe and richa are far
> more embedded in my soul's recollections, its like the holy trinity
Count me amongst those proudly on the left.
Tom
RichA
So do I. I think the middle and upper should stop having to pay for
the lower.
calvin
He's not only leftist to the bone, and political every day,
but cold blooded and mean as a rattlesnake when cornered.
You, steve, have expressed good will toward him over
and over again, but he hasn't even noticed. He has noticed
that you're his intellectual superior, though, but instead of
respect you'll get only his barred fangs and more venom, as
above.
Sir Blob
lol
Sir Blob
LOLOLLOLLOLOLOLLLOLOLOLOL!
steve
On 30-Dec-2009, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > I cant imagine how you can take this position, PM. �If you arent
> > political,
> > how can you directly oppose so many of my political (by any reasonable
> > definition) opinions? �After all, opposition to a political opinion *is*
> > a
> > political opinion.
>
> Your dismissal of global warming is based on (what you'd call)
> political principles ...whereas my non-dismissal is based on "best
> guess I can make". (That is an example, not a re-opening of debate.)
It's a political issue because a. the govt is involved and/or b. because
there are public calls for govt involvement and/or c. because you advocate
govt involvement. If the govt wasnt a part of this (in reality or in your
dreams), it would simply be a scientific issue. "Best guess" or otherwise
(and calling it "best guess" is just diffusing the issue..which you love to
do), if you advocate govt action (and you have) you are taking a political
position.
> ...and painting over inherent uncertainty is yours, imo. But --
> pseudo-glib ad hominems aside -- the possible ingredients of
> 'political' seem too numerous to make even *near*-coincident
> definitions likely. E.g., right/left, Repub/Dem, mass persuasion,
> demagoguery, cultural destiny, political correctness, electioneering,
> blind ideology ...pick a recipe. (Spare me any reflex remark about
> how that's not "coherent". If it's gibberish to you, shuck it and
> truck it.)
Try my off-the-cuff definition (a., b., and c. above... which may need some
revision, but I think it's close) and see if it applies to the many items
you glibly list, and rejects most (or all) of what you believe is
non-political. That's why definitions are better than incomplete lists.
And I'll bet we're in susbstantial agreement on what is/isnt political.
moviePig
> On 30-Dec-2009, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > > I cant imagine how you can take this position, PM. If you arent
> > > political,
> > > how can you directly oppose so many of my political (by any reasonable
> > > definition) opinions? After all, opposition to a political opinion *is*
> > > a
> > > political opinion.
>
> > Your dismissal of global warming is based on (what you'd call)
> > political principles ...whereas my non-dismissal is based on "best
> > guess I can make". (That is an example, not a re-opening of debate.)
>
> It's a political issue because a. the govt is involved and/or b. because
> there are public calls for govt involvement and/or c. because you advocate
> govt involvement. If the govt wasnt a part of this (in reality or in your
> dreams), it would simply be a scientific issue. "Best guess" or otherwise
> (and calling it "best guess" is just diffusing the issue..which you love to
> do), if you advocate govt action (and you have) you are taking a political
> position.
You seem to feel that 'political' always implies the presence of
'government'. I'm not sure it does, at least colloquially.
And, thanks as always for your tireless efforts to catalog things I
"love". Note, though, that I don't 'diffuse' issues as much as merely
point out where they *are* diffuse. (Some people actually appreciate
this, while others dislike having their issues diffused... not to
mention de-fused...)
> > ...and painting over inherent uncertainty is yours, imo. But --
> > pseudo-glib ad hominems aside -- the possible ingredients of
> > 'political' seem too numerous to make even *near*-coincident
> > definitions likely. E.g., right/left, Repub/Dem, mass persuasion,
> > demagoguery, cultural destiny, political correctness, electioneering,
> > blind ideology ...pick a recipe. (Spare me any reflex remark about
> > how that's not "coherent". If it's gibberish to you, shuck it and
> > truck it.)
>
> Try my off-the-cuff definition (a., b., and c. above... which may need some
> revision, but I think it's close) and see if it applies to the many items
> you glibly list, and rejects most (or all) of what you believe is
> non-political. That's why definitions are better than incomplete lists.
> And I'll bet we're in susbstantial agreement on what is/isnt political.
Yes, *we* could likely reach some arbitrary agreement... but I still
doubt we'd know much about someone else who simply declared himself
'political' or not.
Meanwhile, you want to declare me 'political' for not supporting your
view on global-warming (...a view which you declare to be so political
that it necessarily politicizes all who touch it). Although that's
illogical, help yourself anyway... as long as you realize that even
the most heartfelt dichotomy doesn't cleave the actual cosmos...
steve
On 31-Dec-2009, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> You seem to feel that 'political' always implies the presence of
> 'government'. I'm not sure it does, at least colloquially.
Well...then let's hear your definition.
Our conversations seem to always go this way....with me making definitive
statements and begging you to do more than make vague statements of
disagreement.
> And, thanks as always for your tireless efforts to catalog things I
> "love". Note, though, that I don't 'diffuse' issues as much as merely
> point out where they *are* diffuse. (Some people actually appreciate
> this, while others dislike having their issues diffused... not to
> mention de-fused...)
Well...forgive me for trying to distill vague ideas into something useful
and understandable.
> > Try my off-the-cuff definition (a., b., and c. above... which may need
> > some
> > revision, but I think it's close) and see if it applies to the many
> > items
> > you glibly list, and rejects most (or all) of what you believe is
> > non-political. �That's why definitions are better than incomplete lists.
> > And I'll bet we're in susbstantial agreement on what is/isnt political.
>
> Yes, *we* could likely reach some arbitrary agreement... but I still
> doubt we'd know much about someone else who simply declared himself
> 'political' or not.
Why do you add the modifier "arbitrary"? Im not looking for an arbitrary
definition, but one that accurately describes a concept and makes necessary
and relevant distinctions. If we can agree on such a definition, it will
tell us, when accurately applied, what is and what isnt political. That's
the whole point.
> Meanwhile, you want to declare me 'political' for not supporting your
> view on global-warming
Not quite. I declare you political for advocating govt action for the
ostensible purpose of curbing global warming. If you simply talked about
the science without advocacy, you would have a good case for being
apolitical. And my view on GW is also political, in that I oppose govt
action.
> (...a view which you declare to be so political
> that it necessarily politicizes all who touch it).
It became political the moment someone publically called for govt action.
> Although that's
> illogical,
How so? Unless you reject my definition, it's perfectly logical. And if
you do reject it, I expect to hear your definition.
> ... as long as you realize that even
> the most heartfelt dichotomy doesn't cleave the actual cosmos...
So...you believe there is an "actual cosmos"?
I'll call that progress. ;^))
moviePig
> On 31-Dec-2009, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > You seem to feel that 'political' always implies the presence of
> > 'government'. I'm not sure it does, at least colloquially.
>
> Well...then let's hear your definition.
I don't have one. I *think* I could come up with a serviceable one --
as indeed you did -- but the original purpose (of getting to accuse
someone of being 'political' or not) doesn't interest me enough. My
"contribution" here was mainly to point out the vagueness of the
attribute itself, at least when it got hurled at me.
> Our conversations seem to always go this way....with me making definitive
> statements and begging you to do more than make vague statements of
> disagreement.
My statements are 'definitive', afaics ...just not, in this instance,
'definitional'. I.e., I could define 'political' so as to include
every Earth creature *but* me... (though that definition might be one
we *couldn't* agree on...)
> > And, thanks as always for your tireless efforts to catalog things I
> > "love". Note, though, that I don't 'diffuse' issues as much as merely
> > point out where they *are* diffuse. (Some people actually appreciate
> > this, while others dislike having their issues diffused... not to
> > mention de-fused...)
>
> Well...forgive me for trying to distill vague ideas into something useful
> and understandable.
Einstein (I think) said: An explanation should be as simple as
possible... but not simpler...
> > > Try my off-the-cuff definition (a., b., and c. above... which may need
> > > some
> > > revision, but I think it's close) and see if it applies to the many
> > > items
> > > you glibly list, and rejects most (or all) of what you believe is
> > > non-political. That's why definitions are better than incomplete lists.
> > > And I'll bet we're in susbstantial agreement on what is/isnt political.
>
> > Yes, *we* could likely reach some arbitrary agreement... but I still
> > doubt we'd know much about someone else who simply declared himself
> > 'political' or not.
>
> Why do you add the modifier "arbitrary"? Im not looking for an arbitrary
> definition, but one that accurately describes a concept and makes necessary
> and relevant distinctions. If we can agree on such a definition, it will
> tell us, when accurately applied, what is and what isnt political. That's
> the whole point.
It's 'arbitrary' because it'd be the mP/Steve definition... and
probably different were we to include a third party... and even then
probably still far from entry into Webster or the Bureau of Weights
and Standards...
> > Meanwhile, you want to declare me 'political' for not supporting your
> > view on global-warming
>
> Not quite. I declare you political for advocating govt action for the
> ostensible purpose of curbing global warming. If you simply talked about
> the science without advocacy, you would have a good case for being
> apolitical. And my view on GW is also political, in that I oppose govt
> action.
I don't advocate 'govt. action', per se. If action's needed and the
Getty heirs want to finance it, that's jake with me. But, what if it
is and they don't?...
> > (...a view which you declare to be so political
> > that it necessarily politicizes all who touch it).
>
> It became political the moment someone publicly called for govt action.
>
> > Although that's
> > illogical,
>
> How so? Unless you reject my definition, it's perfectly logical. And if
> you do reject it, I expect to hear your definition.
It's illogical to assume (or summarily to declare) that anyone who
rejects your politically chosen course does so for political reasons.
(E.g., maybe it's merely *their* ox that's being gored.)
> > ... as long as you realize that even
> > the most heartfelt dichotomy doesn't cleave the actual cosmos...
>
> So...you believe there is an "actual cosmos"?
Sure, because I see it when I believe it...
> I'll call that progress. ;^))
It's always progress to find a calling...
Sir Blob
you really do have a problem with dictionaries, dont you. with me you
didnt know what government meant and now its political you dont
understand. no wonder i write in lower caps and call u stewe, but hell
whadda i know, you're just a troll
steve
On 31-Dec-2009, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > > You seem to feel that 'political' always implies the presence of
> > > 'government'. �I'm not sure it does, at least colloquially.
> >
> > Well...then let's hear your definition.
>
> I don't have one. I *think* I could come up with a serviceable one --
> as indeed you did -- but the original purpose (of getting to accuse
> someone of being 'political' or not) doesn't interest me enough. My
> "contribution" here was mainly to point out the vagueness of the
> attribute itself, at least when it got hurled at me.
You seem to be reacting to what you perceive as a negative connotation.
Apparently, to you, "political" is a slander. I take it as value neutral,
and simply the designation of that which deals with govt. I dont "hurl it"
at anyone. It's not an insult. In fact, Id say it's more of an insult to
say someone is not political, because that implies that they dont care or
are ignorant about important issues.
> > Our conversations seem to always go this way....with me making
> > definitive
> > statements and begging you to do more than make vague statements of
> > disagreement.
>
> My statements are 'definitive', afaics ...just not, in this instance,
> 'definitional'. I.e., I could define 'political' so as to include
> every Earth creature *but* me... (though that definition might be one
> we *couldn't* agree on...)
By definitive I mean (from dictionary.com):
2. serving to define, fix, or specify definitely: to clarify with a
definitive statement.
And I would expect you to make a sincere attempt to define the word in a way
that meaningfully reflects the manner in which it is generally used (in the
context we have set), but with leeway to refine that definition to remove
flabby excesses.
> >
> > Well...forgive me for trying to distill vague ideas into something
> > useful
> > and understandable.
>
> Einstein (I think) said: An explanation should be as simple as
> possible... but not simpler...
And I agree with him completely. But you, apparently, do not.
> > Why do you add the modifier "arbitrary"? �Im not looking for an
> > arbitrary
> > definition, but one that accurately describes a concept and makes
> > necessary
> > and relevant distinctions. �If we can agree on such a definition, it
> > will
> > tell us, when accurately applied, what is and what isnt political.
> > �That's
> > the whole point.
>
> It's 'arbitrary' because it'd be the mP/Steve definition...
Well, I suppose the word arbitrary could be used that way, given definition
1 below. The other definitions clearly dont conform.
ar�bi�trar�y /'?rb??tr?ri/
�adjective
1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent
solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic;
tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
However, even though the mP/steve definition would be the product of our
individual will, it would not be without restriction because (beyond
specialized language, which is useful in it's place) a definition should
follow usage, and I would demand that we respect that requirement.
> > Not quite. �I declare you political for advocating govt action for the
> > ostensible purpose of curbing global warming. �If you simply talked
> > about
> > the science without advocacy, you would have a good case for being
> > apolitical. �And my view on GW is also political, in that I oppose govt
> > action.
>
> I don't advocate 'govt. action', per se. If action's needed and the
> Getty heirs want to finance it, that's jake with me. But, what if it
> is and they don't?...
That is advocating govt action..."do it voluntarily [ahem] or I'll force you
by law" is advocating the use of force.
> > How so? �Unless you reject my definition, it's perfectly logical. �And
> > if
> > you do reject it, I expect to hear your definition.
>
> It's illogical to assume (or summarily to declare) that anyone who
> rejects your politically chosen course does so for political reasons.
> (E.g., maybe it's merely *their* ox that's being gored.)
"For political reasons" isnt the issue. The subject matter is political, so
taking a position on that subject is also political.
HNY
moviePig
Yes, it's my observation that 'political' is (most?) often
pejorative. Here, e.g., there seems to be a self-deprecating
resentment of me claiming to be 'apolitical'
Meanwhile, to say that any controversy with political aspects makes
all opinions on it political is mere solipsism ...not unlike calling
an atheist a satan-worshiper.
Meanwhile, meanwhile... if there isn't already, there ought to be a
Godwin-prime Law: i.e., any Internet conversation, given enough time,
will mention Godwin's Law. And, that seems analogous to what's
happened to our discussion here: we've begun to quote not only
official definitions (two in one post), but now even the definition of
'definition'. Somewhere in there, a circuit-breaker has surely
failed...
HND