Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

vmchale.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–138 of 138 posts

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#131

Post by esafak »

Gormo wrote: post #129
OkayPhysicist wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confusing authoritarian vs libertarian ideology with left-wing vs right-wing ideology. They're two different axes, with debatable degrees of correlation. "We're going to give the government absolute power in order to best benefit everyone" comes from a very different belief system than "We're going to give the government absolute power to benefit the dictator, or my position under him". Under your model of the…

> You're confusing authoritarian vs libertarian ideology with left-wing vs right-wing ideology. I'm certainly not. In the US, there is a significant overlap between libertarianism and conservatism, due to American political traditions themselves being rooted in constitutionalism and suspicion of centralized power. Rather, I believe it is you who is confusing "conservative" vs. "progressive" political philosophies wit…

I've said all I want to say but I wanted to share this to ground future debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#132

Post by jrm4 »

1718627440 wrote: post #108
jrm4 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure exactly what the question is here, but I'm comfortable saying that the definition I gave isn't a "later" thing. It's the historical/factual origin story of the word. As with many cultural things, Black folks will often invent something, and then it gets appropriated because it's cool (for better or worse). What you're saying, if sincere, is extremely late stage. I'm very comfortable with: It was solely "…

Before your comment I did not know that "woke" means something else then political behaviour of the left. I also didn't had in mind that it comes from the word "awake". I here it exclusively used in the sense I described. We don't have much black subgroups here, as far as I know, and it takes some while before terms cross the Atlantic. Sorry that we are all misusing your term. But I think that's not a political thing…

Yes, appreciate it -- and I respect the need to get into it about smaller particular annoyances of the left, etc.

But again, it only takes a little poking around outside of ones bubble to see the nebulousness of "Woke". E.g.video clips of literally any right, or perhaps center person confronted with "No, seriously, actually define it" ALWAYS crumble.

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#133

Post by vmchale »

skrebbel wrote: post #21
bonoboTP wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US they call that right-leaning version "libertarian".

Nah the thing we call liberalism is much milder than that. It’s like the watered down, we-do-trust-the-government-but-maybe-tone-it-down-a-little version of libertarianism. I mean the same meaning as eg the Economist gives the term. I think maybe the term changed meaning in the US because for decades pretty much everyone agreed with it (no social democrats in sight, barring the occasional Bernie). A movement that ~ev…

> no social democrats in sight

The US already has social security, medicare, medicaid. It is often just plain worse/more brutal than Western European countries but the difference isn't a radical reimagination of the social order.

> barring the occasional Bernie

Western Europe has likewise not imagined any new government welfare since the 1970s.

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#134

Post by [deleted] »

1718627440 wrote: post #121
giardini wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1718627440 says " no amount of misery of the living is worth justifying a kill[i.e., an abortion]." So abortion is murder for you, and the ban against murder is usually based on the Bible's Old Testament for people in the USA (stemming from the 6th commandment "Thou shalt not kill."). Assuming so, yet another specific religious belief has been dragged into our politics despite the fact that we have a clause in our co…

I don't think most people use religion to define basic rules in the society nowadays. I don't think I have indicated this in my comment. > we now have > - birth control, > - largely safe (for the mother) abortion What does the fact that we can do something has to do with its morality? > - Humans will still be driven to have offspring, Demography in modern countries begs to differ, but that's only tangent to the topic…

[deleted]

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#135

Post by giardini »

1718627440 wrote: post #121
giardini wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1718627440 says " no amount of misery of the living is worth justifying a kill[i.e., an abortion]." So abortion is murder for you, and the ban against murder is usually based on the Bible's Old Testament for people in the USA (stemming from the 6th commandment "Thou shalt not kill."). Assuming so, yet another specific religious belief has been dragged into our politics despite the fact that we have a clause in our co…

I don't think most people use religion to define basic rules in the society nowadays. I don't think I have indicated this in my comment. > we now have > - birth control, > - largely safe (for the mother) abortion What does the fact that we can do something has to do with its morality? > - Humans will still be driven to have offspring, Demography in modern countries begs to differ, but that's only tangent to the topic…

1718627440 says >I don't think most people use religion to define basic rules in the society nowadays. I don't think I have indicated this in my comment.

Then by what right/power/means do you justify any "rights/rules" whatsoever, including justification to speak about the question?

You later mention "boundaries of bodies". Do you think having a "body" grants rights? What about a "dead" body? Should the dead vote? Perhaps you're a Democrat and think "Yes, my dead Democrat grandfather still votes (at least twice) every 4 years."?

1718627440 says >What does the fact that we can do something has to do with its morality?

There has always been a clash between morality and science. Science always wins.

1718627440 says > Do you accept DNA to determine boundaries of bodies?

For some purposes, e.g., medical, Yes. But for political argumentation no, b/c of twins, triplets,...,clones. Are all clones one "body" (they all have the same DNA)?

1718627440 says >Would you find it moral, if your mother had killed you?

I would have nothing to say about it!8-))

Without reference to some authority (God, Jesus, DNA, Cthulhu) you justify your arguments based solely on your existence. Nothing is added, nothing gained, no political insight or structures, etc. Of course you can believe what you want, but everyone else can do the same presumably. This is an unconvincing, empty argument and is dangerous b/c if someone wants to delete your authority they can merely delete you.

A nihilistic Hobbesian argument seems awfully close to the truth and, while some of us matter more than others, no one of us matters much.

1718627440 says *>>Yeah I guess the Romans killed some non-physical ghosts.

So you believe the Romans killed Jesus and Peter??**

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#136

Post by 1718627440 »

giardini wrote: post #135
1718627440 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think most people use religion to define basic rules in the society nowadays. I don't think I have indicated this in my comment. > we now have > - birth control, > - largely safe (for the mother) abortion What does the fact that we can do something has to do with its morality? > - Humans will still be driven to have offspring, Demography in modern countries begs to differ, but that's only tangent to the topic…

1718627440 says >I don't think most people use religion to define basic rules in the society nowadays. I don't think I have indicated this in my comment. Then by what right/power/means do you justify any "rights/rules" whatsoever, including justification to speak about the question? You later mention "boundaries of bodies". Do you think having a "body" grants rights? What about a "dead" body? Should the dead vote? Pe…

> You later mention "boundaries of bodies"

You claimed the mother has authority over the life of the baby, because its body is part of her. I don't think that is true, thus I quoted you a definition for body boundaries.

> There has always been a clash between morality and science. Science always wins.

Weird statement. There is a fight between a compiler and a memory model. The compiler always wins.

You claimed, because it is possible to perform abortion now, it should be moral automatically.

> is dangerous b/c if someone wants to delete your authority they can merely delete you.

Exactly the argument why "deleting" someone is immoral without pointing to religion.

> So you believe the Romans killed Jesus and Peter?

Yes? Palestine was a roman province, so only the procurator could order executions. Petrus was a roman citizen so could demand to be judged by the emperor in Rome, which he did, so he got executed in Rome.

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#137

Post by giardini »

1718627440 wrote: post #136
giardini wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1718627440 says >I don't think most people use religion to define basic rules in the society nowadays. I don't think I have indicated this in my comment. Then by what right/power/means do you justify any "rights/rules" whatsoever, including justification to speak about the question? You later mention "boundaries of bodies". Do you think having a "body" grants rights? What about a "dead" body? Should the dead vote? Pe…

> You later mention "boundaries of bodies" You claimed the mother has authority over the life of the baby, because its body is part of her. I don't think that is true, thus I quoted you a definition for body boundaries. > There has always been a clash between morality and science. Science always wins. Weird statement. There is a fight between a compiler and a memory model. The compiler always wins. You claimed, becau…

1718627440 sez>You claimed the mother has authority over the life of the baby...

No, I did not. I don't believe in "life" - it's a nonscientific concept.

1718627440 sez> There is a fight between a compiler and a memory model.

There is no "fight": both are present, one completes it's task, neither "wins".

1718627440 sez>"Petrus was a roman citizen..."

and other stuff he read in some text written by religious fanatics thousands of years ago (and randomly amended by other fanatics since)."Nothing to see here, move on, move on please,..." - Frank Drebin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjK2Oqrgic

Re: The Obsolescence of Political Definitions (1991)

#138

Post by 1718627440 »

giardini wrote: post #137
1718627440 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You later mention "boundaries of bodies" You claimed the mother has authority over the life of the baby, because its body is part of her. I don't think that is true, thus I quoted you a definition for body boundaries. > There has always been a clash between morality and science. Science always wins. Weird statement. There is a fight between a compiler and a memory model. The compiler always wins. You claimed, becau…

1718627440 sez >You claimed the mother has authority over the life of the baby... No, I did not. I don't believe in "life" - it's a nonscientific concept. 1718627440 sez > There is a fight between a compiler and a memory model. There is no "fight": both are present, one completes it's task, neither "wins". 1718627440 sez >"Petrus was a roman citizen..." and other stuff he read in some text written by religious fanati…

> There is no "fight": both are present

Same for science and morality.

> "life" - it's a nonscientific concept

Somebody needs to tell that to biologists. Biology: the study/teaching of living things.

Post reply on HN