Jordan Peterson's 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos
- Thread starter Mohamed
- Start date
^^^^^^ No. Reason being it that the right is far more economically minded and is not the group that wants to ban what it does not like.
You will not see a right person want to ban something they do not agree with, demand statues be removed, songs taken off the radio, does not mind that the deficit is going up and up every year and our kids will be taxed to death to repay.
This is a left right thing, the right is telling Marcon where to put his green thumb.
You will not see a right person want to ban something they do not agree with, demand statues be removed, songs taken off the radio, does not mind that the deficit is going up and up every year and our kids will be taxed to death to repay.
This is a left right thing, the right is telling Marcon where to put his green thumb.
STN the problem is the solution resides in the middle. Economics only does not resolves all problem. Especially if like now the money is earned and kept by only a fraction of the populations. You need solutions that keeps the poor happy. Win/Win 
@jailmon "Why do they all require this positioning"?
Because despite the severe problems with a two axis description, we live in a polarized moment politically, and so such arguments are going to reference the language.
I'm not sure you can *have* a political discussion that doesn't reference people taking political positions. How would that work? Similarly an economic discussion. (I suppose in both cases if the discussion was framed very, very narrowly you might be able to get away with it. )
You can't take the politics out of politics.
STN - "You will not see a right person want to ban something they do not agree with, demand statues be removed, songs taken off the radio."
Now you are just trolling. C'mon man, at least try to stick to reality.
Because despite the severe problems with a two axis description, we live in a polarized moment politically, and so such arguments are going to reference the language.
I'm not sure you can *have* a political discussion that doesn't reference people taking political positions. How would that work? Similarly an economic discussion. (I suppose in both cases if the discussion was framed very, very narrowly you might be able to get away with it. )
You can't take the politics out of politics.
STN - "You will not see a right person want to ban something they do not agree with, demand statues be removed, songs taken off the radio."
Now you are just trolling. C'mon man, at least try to stick to reality.
STN the problem is the solution resides in the middle. Economics only does not resolves all problem. Especially if like now the money is earned and kept by only a fraction of the populations. You need solutions that keeps the poor happy. Win/Win
The majority of the poor are poor because of no work for them due to no skills, business not hiring due to too high a cost, due to high taxes. All these fall under economics, not because they need free stuff.
BTW, what fraction of the population are you talking about? Usually when someone says fractions it is a very small number.
Question, how can you call it trolling when it is true? Pointing out facts is trolling? Perhaps you should find a safe space if that offends you.
Salty i’ve Always been a conservative always voted conservative, but this bullshit your spouting is too much. Left and right uses any means necessary to push their agenda . It’s the nature of politics, both will willing obstruct, lie and bullshit their way through.
So don’t believe in fairy tales please.
STN, you are wrong in saying that nobody on the political right wants to ban something he/she does not agree with.
Take Stephen Harper for instance. He is politically on the right. He wanted to ban prostitution.
It's very easy to name other examples. Many people on the right would like to ban the inheritance tax. Some would like to do away with the minimum wage. Some don't want class-action lawsuits.
The political right certainly does not want state planning of the economy ...
Take Stephen Harper for instance. He is politically on the right. He wanted to ban prostitution.
It's very easy to name other examples. Many people on the right would like to ban the inheritance tax. Some would like to do away with the minimum wage. Some don't want class-action lawsuits.
The political right certainly does not want state planning of the economy ...
STN - The right tries to ban stuff all the time. Especially if you are using the same standard as for the Baby it's Cold Outside thing, where it is just people complaining and saying it should be off the air.
They demand commercials that show gay couples be removed, they demand statues for other religions be removed, they demand movies and comic books be removed or changed or redone. Back in the US they got the Dixie Chicks banned from the radio for three years.
All political creeds have people who want to shut the other side up. And also people just complain that something is bullshit and gross and vulgar or wrong and demand it get taken off the shelves or off the air all the fucking time.
They demand commercials that show gay couples be removed, they demand statues for other religions be removed, they demand movies and comic books be removed or changed or redone. Back in the US they got the Dixie Chicks banned from the radio for three years.
All political creeds have people who want to shut the other side up. And also people just complain that something is bullshit and gross and vulgar or wrong and demand it get taken off the shelves or off the air all the fucking time.
The intensity. It has definitely been more and more polarized since the 90s, but there really was a time when the parties weren't nearly so polarized. You had more regional power, so in the South you could be a Democrat and very conservative. In the Northeast you could be Republican and fairly liberal. The Civil Rights Act changed that and there has been ideological sorting ever since. By the 90s it was basically done and you have the situation you have now.
Yes, I've heard that explanation. The NY Times Best Seller List methodology can be too say the least opaque. I've also heard that they can have their thumb on the scale for books they like and don't like.
https://www.thestar.com/entertainme...-bestseller-except-where-it-matters-most.html
Canadians like Jalimon do not understand that conservative southerners flocked to the Democratic Party for 125 years because of Lincoln who was a Republican. The Republican and Democratic parties were not always divided along ideological lines as much as social and historical lines. That is what has mostly changed. I feel like the 2 party system as presently constituted has failed the country and needs to be overhauled.
Exact! About 2% Now check how much this 2% owns and how much % of taxes they pay. A few century ago similar situation lead to the French revolution right?
Cheers,
My god never tough I would read this! Yes! The Rivals of Painful Gulch era should be over in the US. Bring some 3 or 4th options please!
Cheers,
The question would be what third party and/or multi-party options would give us better government. Everyone would have different responses. I would prefer that the two parties drop their extreme cultural elements and focus on class issues. The U.S. has this unique feature where Democrats have used identity politics to rally Black voters, Hispanic voters and other disaffected groups. The Republicans rally conservative Christians with promises of defending Christian and traditional norms. I'm sure these cultural issues seep into the politics of other democracies, but it doesn't seem to be of the magnitude that is here in the U.S.
The French in 1789 were rebelling against food shortages and regressive taxes. I don't think the situations are similar.
@sambuca - "I've also heard that they can have their thumb on the scale for books they like and don't like."
Probably, although I suspect it is more in classifying things into the different categories to give it better or worse competition.
@EagerBeaver and others - The problem is Duverger's Law. Especially in a First-Past-The-Post voting system with a presidential system, you are going to always get two parties. It's why the subdivisions of the parties fighting out in the primaries is where you see the splits that would be other parties in another system.
As for switching to class-based, that's partly historical. The US mythologizes the idea it has a classless society - that was part of the whole rebellion against the UK. It is baked into the myth. It makes it hard to make a party with that as its pure focus in the European style. That's just identity politics as well, of course, it is just class as identity.
(Not to mention that the US has always had identity politics based on race, since the question of slavery was front and center from the beginning and was hugely important through the first hundred years. )
Probably, although I suspect it is more in classifying things into the different categories to give it better or worse competition.
@EagerBeaver and others - The problem is Duverger's Law. Especially in a First-Past-The-Post voting system with a presidential system, you are going to always get two parties. It's why the subdivisions of the parties fighting out in the primaries is where you see the splits that would be other parties in another system.
As for switching to class-based, that's partly historical. The US mythologizes the idea it has a classless society - that was part of the whole rebellion against the UK. It is baked into the myth. It makes it hard to make a party with that as its pure focus in the European style. That's just identity politics as well, of course, it is just class as identity.
(Not to mention that the US has always had identity politics based on race, since the question of slavery was front and center from the beginning and was hugely important through the first hundred years. )
I think it's naive to think by eliminating political labeling you will eliminate polarization. Canada has a left and right. You cited the French Revolution earlier and in that popular rising you could see the formation of the left in the Montagnards versus the less radical Girondins. I think the important thing for the individual is to not develop rigidity of universally supporting party (the team mentality) and their extremes. I use the labels Left and Right to describe obvious demarcations.
I remember not too long ago when Americans complained the two parties were too similar. I don't here that anymore.
Interestingly on another dimension, the French Revolution brought us the example of the extreme Left trying to destroy all tradition including Catholicism and even words in almost a bizarre attempt at whitewashing the past. It's an excellent lesson from all left-oriented political revolutions (i.e. France, Russia, China, etc.). The American Revolution and Britain's Glorious Revolution were more practical in their graduated approach to change.
I strongly disagree that the two-party system has failed the US. As a country you have the politics and institutions you deserve. It's clear that the US and many other countries are degenerating into Right-wing extremism/Fascism and the population (at least a portion of) has to bear the responsibility that. The politicians don't lead, they're propelled by their base. Events like Trump are not accidents or the first of something new. It's the result of a long progression that has this as the natural outcome. In the US there are daily reminders that 20%-25% of the population are gullible, angry, intellectually lazy, and easily manipulated mouth breathers. There's nothing about overhauling a 2 or 3 or 4 party system that can change that.
Similar threads
