Semantics (or, what do you call youself politically?)

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Semantics (or, what do you call youself politically?)

Edward Mass: Sep 14, 2011; 𝅘𝅥𝅮 I wanna go home with the armadillo
Good country music from Amarillo and Abilene
Friendliest people and the prettiest women you've ever seen𝅘𝅥𝅮

Words matter. Words also can have multiple meanings, depending on where you live, your age, and your personal beliefs among other factors. As someone who primarily lurks in D&D, I've always been curious as to the self-identification of posters, and the reasons for the choice of identifier.

I choose to define myself as "very liberal", and I realize that the l-word is loaded here. In my defense, I use the word 'liberal' like I use the word 'soccer', in that I am bound by the American terminology as someone who lives in the US. I therefore define liberalism as a synonym of all politics left of the center (not just left-center).

# ? Feb 17, 2020 22:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 09:50

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

I think liberalism is fine for the center-left, and socialism for the left-of-liberals.

I would argue AGAINST both "progressivism", for being essentially a way to move the overton window a little bit leftwards from pre-2008/2012 Dem mainstream while still keeping the socialists and any other anti-capitalist or anti-market critique out, and also "democratic socialism" as redundant (socialism IS democracy) and preemptively and unnecessarily apologetic

# ? Feb 17, 2020 23:56

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Edward Mass posted:

Words matter. Words also can have multiple meanings, depending on where you live, your age, and your personal beliefs among other factors. As someone who primarily lurks in D&D, I've always been curious as to the self-identification of posters, and the reasons for the choice of identifier.

I choose to define myself as "very liberal", and I realize that the l-word is loaded here. In my defense, I use the word 'liberal' like I use the word 'soccer', in that I am bound by the American terminology as someone who lives in the US. I therefore define liberalism as a synonym of all politics left of the center (not just left-center).

The problem is that, even in the US, "liberal" is generally defined in a way that doesn't carry many implications about many areas of policy (like both foreign policy and economic policy). At best, "very liberal" implies a support for what I guess would be called "negative rights" for minorities (that is, support for protecting people form active bigotry and allowing them to do things like get married, etc, or support for allowing people to get abortions).

That's why I think it's good to have some other term that distinguishes someone from that. "Leftist" is frequently used as a term that is both vague and distinguishes someone from mainstream liberals. "Social Democrat" also works if someone isn't actually socialist.

# ? Feb 18, 2020 01:57

Edward Mass: Sep 14, 2011; 𝅘𝅥𝅮 I wanna go home with the armadillo
Good country music from Amarillo and Abilene
Friendliest people and the prettiest women you've ever seen𝅘𝅥𝅮

Ytlaya posted:

The problem is that, even in the US, "liberal" is generally defined in a way that doesn't carry many implications about many areas of policy (like both foreign policy and economic policy). At best, "very liberal" implies a support for what I guess would be called "negative rights" for minorities (that is, support for protecting people form active bigotry and allowing them to do things like get married, etc, or support for allowing people to get abortions).

That's why I think it's good to have some other term that distinguishes someone from that. "Leftist" is frequently used as a term that is both vague and distinguishes someone from mainstream liberals. "Social Democrat" also works if someone isn't actually socialist.

I understand the nebulous nature of the term 'liberal', but the left wing of the Democratic Party isn't a monolith of symmetrical opinion. That is the very reason we use it - to describe an umbrella of opinions. I don't call myself a leftist because, in my mind, those who ARE leftist do more political actions than I do, and I don't want to besmirch their accomplishments.

icantfindaname posted:

I think liberalism is fine for the center-left, and socialism for the left-of-liberals.

I would argue AGAINST both "progressivism", for being essentially a way to move the overton window a little bit leftwards from pre-2008/2012 Dem mainstream while still keeping the socialists and any other anti-capitalist or anti-market critique out, and also "democratic socialism" as redundant (socialism IS democracy) and preemptively and unnecessarily apologetic

I agree with both points. I personally don't consider myself socialist, if only by a hair of pragmatism.

# ? Feb 18, 2020 05:53

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

Edward Mass posted:

I agree with both points. I personally don't consider myself socialist, if only by a hair of pragmatism.

Not being a socialist means that you're either a complete rear end in a top hat or incredibly unpragmatic, hth.

# ? Feb 18, 2020 11:49

forkboy84: Jun 13, 2012; Corgis love bread. And Puro

Depends on the context. Socialist, communist, not quite anarcho-communist.

I dunno. I don't feel comfortable calling myself an anarchist because I still engage with electoral politics but I am influenced by a lot of anarchist ideas and critiques. Left libertarian would be more appropriate but right wing libertarians have poisoned the well on that term.

# ? Feb 18, 2020 12:12

Blurred: Aug 26, 2004; WELL I WONNER WHAT IT'S LIIIIIKE TO BE A GOOD POSTER

I would call myself a radical neo-classical liberal centrist. "Centrist" because I don't believe that the right or left have a monopoly on truth, "classical liberal" because I consider myself a student of John Stewart Mill (he's a philosopher if you haven't heard of him), "neo" because I believe that technology has the potential to solve many of the political problems we currently face and "radical" because I'm very unapologetic about it.

As someone who believes that facts and logic rather than emotion should guide our political decisions, I feel like a man in political exile in the current climate, a man without a home. People are often mystified when I express "left wing" beliefs (e.g. marijuana should be decriminalised) and "right wing" beliefs (e.g. people who enter a country illegally have no legal rights) together, but they normally fall silent pretty quickly when I show them the evidence. (I have the Wikipedia app on my phone for just such situations).

Economically I believe that there aren't any good reasons to interfere with the operation of the free market, but I believe that the government can still have a role to play in incentivising particular outcomes. The left have it wrong when they say that the market is incapable of solving problems like e.g. hunger. If people are starving and angry, then it would actually be in the rational self-interest of companies like Google to come up with more efficient solutions. Afterall, why would they let people starve when feeding the hungry carries with it such a strong profit motive?

On the other hand, the right wing has it wrong when they say that the government shouldn't play any role in incentivising technological solutions to social problems. If governments offered tax breaks to companies like Google to develop solutions to hunger, for example, it would undoubtedly speed up the development of solutions in which most people could be properly fed. If only governments and corporations cooperated more fruitfully instead of viewing each other as enemies we would solve world hunger like yesterday.

On other issues, I believe in gender and racial equality but we must be careful not to move the pendulum so far that reverse racism and reverse sexism become acceptable. I am a strong agnostic but I believe that all people should have the right to freedom of religious expression provided they have the appropriate permits. I am very dogmatic and absolutist about free speech. Bad ideas and hateful speech conducted without proper facts will be defeated in the forum of public opinion, just as Mill said, so there is no reason to restrict speech we might deem inappropriate for whatever reason.

I understand that such ideas do not make me popular in a world ruled by simplistic political dichotomies, but as Martin Luther King once said, "here I stand; I can do no other".

# ? Feb 18, 2020 13:38

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

Blurred posted:

I would call myself a radical neo-classical liberal centrist. "Centrist" because I don't believe that the right or left have a monopoly on truth, "classical liberal" because I consider myself a student of John Stewart Mill (he's a philosopher if you haven't heard of him), "neo" because I believe that technology has the potential to solve many of the political problems we currently face and "radical" because I'm very unapologetic about it.

As someone who believes that facts and logic rather than emotion should guide our political decisions, I feel like a man in political exile in the current climate, a man without a home. People are often mystified when I express "left wing" beliefs (e.g. marijuana should be decriminalised) and "right wing" beliefs (e.g. people who enter a country illegally have no legal rights) together, but they normally fall silent pretty quickly when I show them the evidence. (I have the Wikipedia app on my phone for just such situations).

Economically I believe that there aren't any good reasons to interfere with the operation of the free market, but I believe that the government can still have a role to play in incentivising particular outcomes. The left have it wrong when they say that the market is incapable of solving problems like e.g. hunger. If people are starving and angry, then it would actually be in the rational self-interest of companies like Google to come up with more efficient solutions. Afterall, why would they let people starve when feeding the hungry carries with it such a strong profit motive?

On the other hand, the right wing has it wrong when they say that the government shouldn't play any role in incentivising technological solutions to social problems. If governments offered tax breaks to companies like Google to develop solutions to hunger, for example, it would undoubtedly speed up the development of solutions in which most people could be properly fed. If only governments and corporations cooperated more fruitfully instead of viewing each other as enemies we would solve world hunger like yesterday.

On other issues, I believe in gender and racial equality but we must be careful not to move the pendulum so far that reverse racism and reverse sexism become acceptable. I am a strong agnostic but I believe that all people should have the right to freedom of religious expression provided they have the appropriate permits. I am very dogmatic and absolutist about free speech. Bad ideas and hateful speech conducted without proper facts will be defeated in the forum of public opinion, just as Mill said, so there is no reason to restrict speech we might deem inappropriate for whatever reason.

I understand that such ideas do not make me popular in a world ruled by simplistic political dichotomies, but as Martin Luther King once said, "here I stand; I can do no other".

Source your quotes, but also this is just :perfect:

# ? Feb 18, 2020 13:40

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Blurred posted:

I would call myself a radical neo-classical liberal centrist. "Centrist" because I don't believe that the right or left have a monopoly on truth, "classical liberal" because I consider myself a student of John Stewart Mill (he's a philosopher if you haven't heard of him), "neo" because I believe that technology has the potential to solve many of the political problems we currently face and "radical" because I'm very unapologetic about it.

As someone who believes that facts and logic rather than emotion should guide our political decisions, I feel like a man in political exile in the current climate, a man without a home. People are often mystified when I express "left wing" beliefs (e.g. marijuana should be decriminalised) and "right wing" beliefs (e.g. people who enter a country illegally have no legal rights) together, but they normally fall silent pretty quickly when I show them the evidence. (I have the Wikipedia app on my phone for just such situations).

Economically I believe that there aren't any good reasons to interfere with the operation of the free market, but I believe that the government can still have a role to play in incentivising particular outcomes. The left have it wrong when they say that the market is incapable of solving problems like e.g. hunger. If people are starving and angry, then it would actually be in the rational self-interest of companies like Google to come up with more efficient solutions. Afterall, why would they let people starve when feeding the hungry carries with it such a strong profit motive?

On the other hand, the right wing has it wrong when they say that the government shouldn't play any role in incentivising technological solutions to social problems. If governments offered tax breaks to companies like Google to develop solutions to hunger, for example, it would undoubtedly speed up the development of solutions in which most people could be properly fed. If only governments and corporations cooperated more fruitfully instead of viewing each other as enemies we would solve world hunger like yesterday.

On other issues, I believe in gender and racial equality but we must be careful not to move the pendulum so far that reverse racism and reverse sexism become acceptable. I am a strong agnostic but I believe that all people should have the right to freedom of religious expression provided they have the appropriate permits. I am very dogmatic and absolutist about free speech. Bad ideas and hateful speech conducted without proper facts will be defeated in the forum of public opinion, just as Mill said, so there is no reason to restrict speech we might deem inappropriate for whatever reason.

I understand that such ideas do not make me popular in a world ruled by simplistic political dichotomies, but as Martin Luther King once said, "here I stand; I can do no other".

A master crafted post.

# ? Feb 18, 2020 13:41

America Inc.: Nov 22, 2013; I plan to live forever, of course, but barring that I'd settle for a couple thousand years. Even 500 would be pretty nice.

Socialism is a really broad term. I'd say Marx+Engels are like the ideological center of modern socialism, but there's various schools of thought between the various anarchist thinkers from Proudhon to Bookchin, and then there's the various flavors of MLs and then there's some random rare schools like Georgism.

For most of them the end goal is economic democracy and the abolition of classes+state, but they have very different ideas of how to get there.

Then you have more liberal socdem types who want state intervention to achieve greater economic equality, but aren't necessarily down with the end goal of communism/advanced socialism, let alone a dictatorship of the proletariat. I wouldn't consider that to be socialism because it's not seeking the abolition of capitalism.

Personally, I would lean more anarchist but I will support socdem causes when it's practical. I've canvassed for and donate to Bernie and pay dues to the DSA and SRA and support the local tenant unions, though I really ought to participate more.

I like this guy's critique of the left-right divide, focusing more on socialist vs bourgeoise liberal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nPVkpWMH9k

America Inc. fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Feb 19, 2020

# ? Feb 19, 2020 08:40

America Inc.: Nov 22, 2013; I plan to live forever, of course, but barring that I'd settle for a couple thousand years. Even 500 would be pretty nice.

I also agree with these very Sartrean/Peircean opinions:

apropos to nothing posted:

don’t worry about what kind of whatever you are, find the people who are doing the work of organizing and join them and do the work and you’re whatever that is.

Grevling posted:

Yeah honestly if you're not out and doing this it doesn't matter at all what you think you are.

Homeless Friend posted:

I don't give a poo poo op

Your viewpoints don't matter on a nuked-out earth destroyed by the great filter that is capitalism. The question is what you did to stop it.

America Inc. fucked around with this message at 09:23 on Feb 19, 2020

# ? Feb 19, 2020 08:59

Verviticus: Mar 13, 2006; I'm just a total piece of shit and I'm not sure why I keep posting on this site. Christ, I have spent years with idiots giving me bad advice about online dating and haven't noticed that the thread I'm in selects for people that can't talk to people worth a damn.

i call myself left-wing because A: i have little to no knowledge of theory or the origin of people who define themselves as socialists or communists or anarcho whatevers and b: if i used literally any other term people would ask the type of question i dont give a poo poo about answering and C: i think society should move left of both where it is and where i think the average person thinks it should be

# ? Feb 19, 2020 13:01

Doorknob Slobber: Sep 10, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

i call myself an anarchist

# ? Feb 20, 2020 02:41

uncop: Oct 23, 2010

My go-to euphemism is "radical democrat, pro mob rule". It makes people intuitively understand my positions far better than the alternative.

# ? Feb 20, 2020 19:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 09:50

Badactura: Feb 14, 2019; My wish lives in the future.

I just say radlib because everyone calls me that anyway.

# ? Feb 20, 2020 20:51

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Semantics (or, what do you call youself politically?)