Classifications like those just feel kind of arbitrary. Like I get associating with like minded people, but my point was that trying to classify everything in these neat little bottles don’t work. You can make enemies if you don’t check all the opinion boxes no matter where you turn.
For example, I would agree with your military assessment as being left, except that military is never something that should be utilized domestically, unless as a very last resort facing an armed rebellion. Otherwise, its for defense and on the rare occasion offense, but should remain strong, very strong. I would much more readily agree with my conservative acquaintances on this issue and have in the number of conversations I have had as an older fellow.
And I’m not an economist nor a lawyer so any thing that I could really offer as far as corporate regulation would be very general things like, “monopolies bad”. So it would be difficult for me to really collate some kind of list of laws I think we should have, which speaks to the point that most people aren’t experts and just pretend to know the inner workings of systems they have no training in.
I would agree that I fall left of center, but only because it averages out that way. I have some very “conservative” opinions that are dwarfed by the “progressive” opinions that I have. Like, you cant take a bunch of opinions someone has and go, “You are just like those guys!” That will inevitably be proven wrong.
Classifying you as a leftist doesn’t mean that you have to agree with other leftists on everything, or that you aren’t allowed to have a few opinions that are right-wing too. It just means that your opinions tend to fall on the left side of the spectrum.
In other words, people aren’t left wing because they identify as left and then that determines their opinions. They’re left wing because, regardless of how they came to their conclusions on what their opinions should be, those opinions are on the left.
I appreciate your and and your opinion. I feel that it is important that I stress that anything that I type is not meant as an attack and is merely discussion. I love discussion it brings me a greater understanding everytime I am invited to participate. To the point, what you said in your post is something that I find to be untrue and is the point of what I am trying to say.
Firstly, no matter where you go people vote you off the island if you disagree with group think. I have seen it happen a number of times. There are specific issues that will get you ousted much more quickly to be true, but those issues aren’t necessarily core tenets of whatever the group philosophy is.
Secondly, as long as I have been alive I have found people who due to groupthink will always take the group’s ideas as a point of fact, creating the situations I am talking about. I am trying to say that the way that we do politics, separating things into large groups creates more harm than good.
I am not left because my ideas are left wing. I am left wing because you tell me I’m left wing. Then I identify as such, then connect with like minded people. Then group think takes hold and an equilibrium is reached wherein each idea is given a value.
Those in the group that disagree on principle risk being removed from the group or having to stay silent while often harmful ideas are espoused. Because at least our group isn’t that other one.
This last point is the danger, because, suppose it is true that the group we are discussing is truly better than their opponents. That doesn’t then give them immunity from making incorrect choices and espousing dangerous and harmful ideas and tactics. Those arguing for and enacting those can just say, “At least we aren’t those guys. They are evil!!” And then commit atrocities in the name of goodness. Because, “Hey, at least we aren’t those people.”
Classifications like those just feel kind of arbitrary. Like I get associating with like minded people, but my point was that trying to classify everything in these neat little bottles don’t work. You can make enemies if you don’t check all the opinion boxes no matter where you turn.
For example, I would agree with your military assessment as being left, except that military is never something that should be utilized domestically, unless as a very last resort facing an armed rebellion. Otherwise, its for defense and on the rare occasion offense, but should remain strong, very strong. I would much more readily agree with my conservative acquaintances on this issue and have in the number of conversations I have had as an older fellow.
And I’m not an economist nor a lawyer so any thing that I could really offer as far as corporate regulation would be very general things like, “monopolies bad”. So it would be difficult for me to really collate some kind of list of laws I think we should have, which speaks to the point that most people aren’t experts and just pretend to know the inner workings of systems they have no training in.
I would agree that I fall left of center, but only because it averages out that way. I have some very “conservative” opinions that are dwarfed by the “progressive” opinions that I have. Like, you cant take a bunch of opinions someone has and go, “You are just like those guys!” That will inevitably be proven wrong.
Regardless, I appreciate your response.
Classifying you as a leftist doesn’t mean that you have to agree with other leftists on everything, or that you aren’t allowed to have a few opinions that are right-wing too. It just means that your opinions tend to fall on the left side of the spectrum.
In other words, people aren’t left wing because they identify as left and then that determines their opinions. They’re left wing because, regardless of how they came to their conclusions on what their opinions should be, those opinions are on the left.
I appreciate your and and your opinion. I feel that it is important that I stress that anything that I type is not meant as an attack and is merely discussion. I love discussion it brings me a greater understanding everytime I am invited to participate. To the point, what you said in your post is something that I find to be untrue and is the point of what I am trying to say.
Firstly, no matter where you go people vote you off the island if you disagree with group think. I have seen it happen a number of times. There are specific issues that will get you ousted much more quickly to be true, but those issues aren’t necessarily core tenets of whatever the group philosophy is.
Secondly, as long as I have been alive I have found people who due to groupthink will always take the group’s ideas as a point of fact, creating the situations I am talking about. I am trying to say that the way that we do politics, separating things into large groups creates more harm than good.
I am not left because my ideas are left wing. I am left wing because you tell me I’m left wing. Then I identify as such, then connect with like minded people. Then group think takes hold and an equilibrium is reached wherein each idea is given a value.
Those in the group that disagree on principle risk being removed from the group or having to stay silent while often harmful ideas are espoused. Because at least our group isn’t that other one.
This last point is the danger, because, suppose it is true that the group we are discussing is truly better than their opponents. That doesn’t then give them immunity from making incorrect choices and espousing dangerous and harmful ideas and tactics. Those arguing for and enacting those can just say, “At least we aren’t those guys. They are evil!!” And then commit atrocities in the name of goodness. Because, “Hey, at least we aren’t those people.”