[Misc] Lefty loonies

[beorhthelm]

I'm going to defend [MENTION=144]goldstone[/MENTION], although he (and I'm sure I've got the sex right here) can speak for himself, this minor tweaking of the ASA is more appropriately aligned with the left rather than the right, as the left are interested in equality, whereas the right are interested in inequality including but not necessarily involving (but by no means limited to) stereotyping and discrimination.

a delightful misinterpretation, though it depends on what exactly definition of "right" are. the social "far right" certainly like discrimination, and inequality based on that. but a loser "right" do not advocate or desire inequality, just not concerned with it as a driving force to all policy. where as the left are, the far left defining policy to point of obsession. short version, the right dont care, the left care a lot about equality.
(could have saved typing if seen Kalimantan Gull)

 

[Weststander]

Well, as a lefty myself, I'm going to stand up for the right here and say they aren't interested in inequality, they are interested in freedom. And as any student of politics will tell you, you cannot have true freedom without inequality, and you cannot have true equality without restricting freedoms.

Its a battle between two well-meaning ideals that has raged since time immemorial. The French made the best philosophical effort to reconcile the two things by adding a third ideal, brotherhood, to the mix in their famous 'liberte, egalite, fraternite'. We know that true brotherhood between people means that some will accept being a little less equal in return for more freedoms, and others will accept being a little less free in return for more equality, and if we trust and respect each other we can all get along just fine.

Its what allows us to create bigger and better unions with more and more people to live happier and more prosperous lives.... but when the brotherhood falls apart things start sliding...........

Good post.

The French effort on equality was just an ideal. Black and Arab Aftrican migrants live in huge modern sink estates on the edge of their cities, with huge unemployment, police discrimation and are looked down upon by snobby whites.

 

[GOM]

a delightful misinterpretation, though it depends on what exactly definition of "right" are. the social "far right" certainly like discrimination, and inequality based on that. but a loser "right" do not advocate or desire inequality, just not concerned with it as a driving force to all policy. where as the left are, the far left defining policy to point of obsession. short version, the right dont care, the left care a lot about equality.
(could have saved typing if seen Kalimantan Gull)

I'm sorry but this post contains generalisations. This is no longer permissible.

 

[GOM]

Good post.

The French effort on equality was just an ideal. Black and Arab Aftrican migrants live in huge modern sink estates on the edge of their cities, with huge unemployment, police discrimation and are looked down upon by snobby whites.

I'm sorry but this post contains generalisations. This is no longer permissible.

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm sorry but this post contains generalisations. This is no longer permissible.

 

[Grombleton]

When do we expect the post from the OP or one of their mates claiming that they've "caught quite a few with this one" or some other weird method to stop themselves looking like a monumental cockwomble?

Even a rough time is good, i've got a meeting later so I don't want to miss out on it.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Good post.

The French effort on equality was just an ideal. Black and Arab Aftrican migrants live in huge modern sink estates on the edge of their cities, with huge unemployment, police discrimation and are looked down upon by snobby whites.

Unfortunately we 'generally' give our immigrants less freedom, less equality and less brotherhood. Its a recipe for disaster, unsurprisingly

 

[rippleman]

Well, as a lefty myself, I'm going to stand up for the right here and say they aren't interested in inequality, they are interested in freedom. And as any student of politics will tell you, you cannot have true freedom without inequality, and you cannot have true equality without restricting freedoms.

Its a battle between two well-meaning ideals that has raged since time immemorial. The French made the best philosophical effort to reconcile the two things by adding a third ideal, brotherhood, to the mix in their famous 'liberte, egalite, fraternite'. We know that true brotherhood between people means that some will accept being a little less equal in return for more freedoms, and others will accept being a little less free in return for more equality, and if we trust and respect each other we can all get along just fine.

Its what allows us to create bigger and better unions with more and more people to live happier and more prosperous lives.... but when the brotherhood falls apart things start sliding...........

That's just sexist! What about the sisters? Typical French.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

That's just sexist! What about the sisters? Typical French.

Two men, two women.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I've no issue with this in theory, but the semantics of it are a little misleading. For example, if you're a detergent brand, then you have to research and ask the questions such as "who am I marketing this to?" and "who is most likely to buy the washing powder within the family?". In reality, this will still be mainly to mums. However, with this new rule, they can't do that as it's stereotyping.

In regards to the above example, I'm a man in a relationship with a woman, yet we don't live together. I've done my washing for years now and will continue to do so because I can look after myself. But can I honestly say I'm offended because such adverts aren't aimed at me? The answer is no... because anyone with any sense knows that such adverts aren't created to stereotype - they're created to most effectively reach the audience for which they're intended. So all this is actually doing is muddying the waters for companies and brands who could potentially struggle to reach their target audience without causing offence and breaking said rules.

Some 26 years ago my elder daughter at her primary school was being told something by her teacher where the comment came out at one point: "When your Mum does the washing", in response to which the 8 year-old said "What makes you think my mum does the washing.?"


She was obviously ahead of her time. I was out of work at the time - for almost a year as the wife had a good job and the jobs market was a bit difficult, so I was semi-househusbanding, doing all the cooking, cleaning etc.

 

[Nixonator]

Can't say I found the stereotyping amusing but regardless, another step towards censorship and the streamlining of opinion.

This one in aid of 'psychological damage'. Christ, what else will be construed to cause psychologial damage? Strange times ahead.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, as a lefty myself, I'm going to stand up for the right here and say they aren't interested in inequality, they are interested in freedom. And as any student of politics will tell you, you cannot have true freedom without inequality, and you cannot have true equality without restricting freedoms.

Its a battle between two well-meaning ideals that has raged since time immemorial. The French made the best philosophical effort to reconcile the two things by adding a third ideal, brotherhood, to the mix in their famous 'liberte, egalite, fraternite'. We know that true brotherhood between people means that some will accept being a little less equal in return for more freedoms, and others will accept being a little less free in return for more equality, and if we trust and respect each other we can all get along just fine.

Its what allows us to create bigger and better unions with more and more people to live happier and more prosperous lives.... but when the brotherhood falls apart things start sliding...........

Good response, although I disagree. Would you consider fascism to be of the right (and, if not, why not?), because if it is, then you can't align the right with freedom. Freedom is a highly contested term, and I don't think it defines the left-right distinction. Broadly, I think the left are for equality, inclusivity and are future-oriented (ie believe there can be a better future) whereas the right are for inequality, exclusivity and value the past.

 

[Nixonator]

Good response, although I disagree. Would you consider fascism to be of the right (and, if not, why not?), because if it is, then you can't align the right with freedom. Freedom is a highly contested term, and I don't think it defines the left-right distinction. Broadly, I think the left are for equality, inclusivity and are future-oriented (ie believe there can be a better future) whereas the right are for inequality, exclusivity and value the past.

Rubbish. I'm no capitalist but capitalism values human progress much moreso than socialism, which values equality at the expense of progress.

 

[beorhthelm]

Good response, although I disagree. Would you consider fascism to be of the right (and, if not, why not?),

you're using a narrow and flawed definition of "right", fascism is far right and more defined by being authoritarian anyway.

 

[Seagull kimchi]

Oh, am I not allowed to find episodes of 'Some mothers do have them' amusing anymore? How about 'The Flintstones'?

 

[Guinness Boy]

It's a finely nuanced position... actually.

You are the other Today listener on NSC and I claim my five pounds


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Machiavelli]

Rubbish. I'm no capitalist but capitalism values human progress much moreso than socialism, which values equality at the expense of progress.

1, I wasn't speaking about capitalism
2, neither capitalism nor socialism value anything; they're not agents.

 

[Nixonator]

1, I wasn't speaking about capitalism
2, neither capitalism nor socialism value anything; they're not agents.

Oh christ. Thank god you didn't dispute the part about it being rubbish.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Good response, although I disagree. Would you consider fascism to be of the right (and, if not, why not?), because if it is, then you can't align the right with freedom. Freedom is a highly contested term, and I don't think it defines the left-right distinction. Broadly, I think the left are for equality, inclusivity and are future-oriented (ie believe there can be a better future) whereas the right are for inequality, exclusivity and value the past.

Well I certainly don't think that its a binary distinction, obviously political values are in 3D and there are axis' of economic, law, social politics where people can vary markedly. And of course there are many cases where freedom and equality go hand in hand.

I believe that all political groupings are 'for' something and hold that their beliefs are for the good of society, whatever others may think. So no, I don't believe that the right are for inequality, no, that is merely a feature of the politics of freedom that they hold. Exclusivity is likewise a feature of capitalism that individuals of all political hues value to some degree. And the elderly (and middle-aged, in all truth) of all hues value the past, but I don't believe that is linked to a party anymore than the fact that the elderly tend to vote to the right. I get very nostalgic in my middle years.

And although fascists are indeed seen to be of the right, their anti-semitism, anti-elitism and so on suggests they are a third way entirely, but its pointless to bring fascism into this debate because they are irrelevant to modern politics. There is also a branch of thought that all current political parties are of the right, and the left is where communists and extreme socialists sit. There is certainly truth evident in this by the response to certain of Corbyn's policies which can be fairly mild and middle-of-the-road and yet denounced as loony socialism

One of the great failings of the left (again, I am one) is that we fail to understand the right and why they vote why they do; and one of the failings of partisanship on both sides is that we don't value what the other side brings to our society. A little thanks can never go amiss.

 

[Thunder Bolt]