Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

There's a thing called semantics. Words can mean a different thing in different contexts.

"Right" doesn't necessarily mean "Republican" here. Just because some different people use the label of "Right" in a different sense doesn't invalidate the research.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The point is that traditional right-wing is associated with an adherence to the traditional status-quo. What exactly that status quo is, varies between nations. Yet people who adhere to whatever it is, all score highly on this test.

When you're talking political factions, that's a different thing. Nobody involved ever claimed e.g. that this test is measuring "all Republicans" for example.

That is exactly what this test is underhandedly implying. I am so sick of ham-fisted academia beating the "conservatives ur evil" drum while disguising it as scientific, and I basically actually believe conservatives are evil!

God, why am I so cursed as to end up in the timeline where this became acceptable?

[mainiac]

Semantics are supposed to be useful labels, not trap cards.

[mainiac]

I dont believe Powder Miner was confused at all on that score.

[Powder Miner]

I don't think anyone is questioning that the paper has its own definition of right-wing. I'm arguing that that definition is there with the test to explicitly push a certain point, that there isn't one worldwide right-left axis, and that even in the specific right-wing and left-wing fields that this country utilizes in its politics the paper's definition does not match up with reality. Remember, the right wing party is the one often hoarsely shouting to reduce the government. I'm a libertarian and government reducing is a pretty big point, and in the American political axis I am right wing. But I'm far from pro-establishment.

[Powder Miner]

The validity of that definition is what I've been arguing from the start

[Frumple]

Remember, the right wing party is the one often hoarsely shouting to reduce the government.

Eehhh... if you're talking the republicans, that's honestly sorta' arguable. They are regularly shouting to reduce parts of the government (education, welfare, healthcare)*, but they're also regularly shouting (sometimes in the same sentence) for massive increases in other parts (military, law enforcement, business)*. The governmental reduction thing is rather inconsistent, y'know?

*Non-exhaustive examples, of course.

[mainiac]

Well you can change his argument to "parts of the government" and his statement is just as valid.

[Reelya]

I think the terminology (establishment vs anti-establishment) makes more sense than the political axes do.

E.g. Stalin and Hitler are virtually indistinguishable, compared to libertarians and anarchists. The political right/left definition would have us supposes that libertarians and fascists are in the same "camp" while anarchists and Stalinists are in the opposite "camp". This makes absolutely no sense.

Yeah, I think that's where we all got befuddled. I do agree though that the paper's a bit unrealistic in that regards. It defines "right-wing" as pro-establishment but defines left-wing as anti-establishment pro-other-establishment. So, if the folks the left-wing authoritarians support end up in power, now the left-wingers are right-wingers. The terminology doesn't make sense at all.

I think the deeper point here is that people with a pro-establishment psychology will support whoever is seen as the legitimate "stabilizing" power. Stalinism was established for long enough that "conservative" types in Russia just naturally supported it. And you had Russian patriots and American patriots virtually indistinguishable from each other during the Cold War. So are there really "opposite ends" of the spectrum there, or are they the exact same personality type and how they react to authority / nationalism / patriotism / conventionalism? Personally I think that if communism and capitalism had been swapped, you'd have seen about 90% of the same people on each side waving the flags. This is why I think it's relevant, the same personality types would be the flag-wavers no matter what.

[Powder Miner]

Yes, they're far from consistent and it is an issue I very frequently have with the Republican party. But they're not consistently authoritarian either -- they DO try to reduce parts of the government, and imposing government power and authority into daily lives is not the main purpose the party exists for, only on an unfortunate set of issues. It would be more accurate to say that the right-wing can be prone to authoritarianism, but does not exist as a function of the axis of authoritarianism -- a similar thing can be said for the Democratic party, though I have quite a few gripes with it.

I also challenge the statement that fascism is right-wing in the first place rather than a mixture of both wings, but I have other things to write so I can't go into an indepth argument at a moment.

I also think it's not valid to stipulate that patriots on both sides of the cold war were the exact same -- it's the kind of generalization that I am not fond of. Your definition also produces its own axis, and whether or not it makes more "sense" then the common axis, the fact remains that the right-wing that paper suggests is not what right-wing means in the United States of America, therefore to state authoritarianism is right-wing is misleading; it isn't right-wing on the left-wing right-wing scale that people actually use.

[mainiac]

I recall the argument that Christopher Hitchens used to blame all war on religion.  Wars that were fought for reasons other then religion were fought by fanatics.  Fanaticism is similar to religion.  Therefore religion was to blame.

[Reelya]

My question is, which parts of the government are the Republicans trying to reduce, and which parts do they want to expand?

From what I know, the Republican expansion of government oversight is pretty well correlated with the idea of using authority to enforce conventionalism / traditionalism. Whereas the things they want to cut back on are the progressive things, which they would see as going against traditionalism.

Maybe you can go into more detail, but it seems to me like the "less government" stuff is not applied evenly, and has quite a bit of bias which does in fact match the stuff measure by the RWA scale. e.g. on the LGBT issue, I'm sure many Republicans would support cutting back on protections for LGBT people with the "less government" rhetoric, while simultaneously supporting specific laws to make things harder for LGBT people, which they don't interpret as more government, in a very convenient twist of logic.

[mainiac]

Remember when conservatives argued that liberals liked public transit because it promoted loyalty to the collective?  Remember how fucking stupid that was?  Dont be like that.

[Frumple]

... I actually don't remember when that happened. Will admit I never paid much attention to anti-public transit arguments, mostly because the argument's won in the area I'm in and public transit barely exists. Tell us more?

[Reelya]

Remember when conservatives argued that liberals liked public transit because it promoted loyalty to the collective?  Remember how fucking stupid that was?  Dont be like that.

I was alluding to the transgender bathroom laws. Government genital inspectors is right in line with the sort of thinking that scores high on the RWA test.

I fail to see how that connection is the same as hyperbole that "public transport = communism".