Europeon Left vs. American Left

[Jaskalas]

I don't the [think] nannying is because the Left is weak.

On the contrary, if the "Left" was far reaching and strong, we could enact things like Medicare for All, and Basic Income. With those two actions, taxes would necessarily be higher, but many strings used to control people would no longer be "necessary". My position on this map, in terms on economics, I think is defined as far left but also highly favorable to the "free market". The safety net would be strong enough to not need many labor laws and regulations.

 

[realibrad]

On the contrary, if the "Left" was far reaching and strong, we could enact things like Medicare for All, and Basic Income. With those two actions, taxes would necessarily be higher, but many strings used to control people would no longer be "necessary". My position on this map, in terms on economics, I think is defined as far left but also highly favorable to the "free market". The safety net would be strong enough to not need many labor laws and regulations.

Maybe not necessary, but it would still be done. There is a reason Europe is the way Europe is. Tweets can and do get people put into jail. I wish we could corner off government into some areas and leave it out of others, but once people justify government, they tend to find more justifications for other things. This is why the Right which is supposed to be anti-big-gov has no trouble pushing for expansion when it fits their goals.

 

[Jaskalas]

Fear of government is no excuse to leave people destitute on the streets. Or to let entire families sink under the weight of a single medical bill. A safety net is separate from those who would do us harm through tyranny. As you said... the Right also suffers from a desire to control people. So if we have to fight that battle for liberty regardless, let's at least have that fight with food on our plates and roofs over our heads. Let us fight it within the Democrat Party.

 

[jackstar7]

Okay, so now that there is this post, @jackstar7 will you respond?

Sure. First, GFY.

Next, I think glenn is fucking dumb. His infantilizing label is bullshit. Plastic bags? How about lowering oil use, pollution, and other reality-based reasons for such things? Just because the justifications for the Right-based legislative agenda is based in puritanical garbage doesn't mean it applies to the other side. That's just finding yourself wanting to brand everyone as tainted so that you can look down on them all.

Show me the science-based evidence to ban gay adoptions and military service, abortions, and other "faith-based" legislative agendas.

Sure looks like one side fits all the definitions of puritanical without semantic pedantry.

 

[nickqt]

Fear of government is no excuse to leave people destitute on the streets. Or to let entire families sink under the weight of a single medical bill. A safety net is separate from those who would do us harm through tyranny. As you said... the Right also suffers from a desire to control people. So if we have to fight that battle for liberty regardless, let's at least have that fight with food on our plates and roofs over our heads. Let us fight it within the Democrat Party.

Protip: it's Democratic party, not Democrat party.

 

[pmv]

This I disagree with given how Left is typically defined. They are taking away the right of expression because they feel that expression is self harm.

Not really, no. For one thing the French right are particularly hostile to Islamic dress, if anything more so than the left. e.g. from a report on the burkini ban [something which seen from here seemed a particularly insane bit of legislation]

The mayor of Cannes, David Lisnard, from Nicolas Sarkozy’s Les Républicains party, was the first mayor to ban burkinis this summer and said he would not budge. He said the ruling “does not in any way change my conviction that ostentatious dress, whatever the religion, is a problem in the current context”. He said burkinis were “Islamist” and a sign of the “salafisation of our society”.

Only two mayors lifted their bans in the wake of the Villeneuve-Loubet ruling: the Socialist mayor of Oye-Plages near Calais and the centrist mayor of Eze in the Alpes-Maritimes. Mayors from the rightwing Les Républicains party and from the far-right Front National are keeping their bans in place, insisting that the Villeneuve-Loubet case does not apply to them.

Secondly its simplistic to paint it as being about 'self harm', its much more complex than that. I think, just as in Turkey, it is seen as a political symbol, and a rather aggressive one. And as I said, the French make a special fetish of 'secularism' (rather as the US does with 'free speech' - in both cases it plays a central role in national identity and is taken much further than it is here in the UK).

 

[realibrad]

Fear of government is no excuse to leave people destitute on the streets. Or to let entire families sink under the weight of a single medical bill. A safety net is separate from those who would do us harm through tyranny. As you said... the Right also suffers from a desire to control people. So if we have to fight that battle for liberty regardless, let's at least have that fight with food on our plates and roofs over our heads. Let us fight it within the Democrat Party.

I think we can solve it, but fear of what government can do is not arbitrary. When bad people take control of large governments horrible things happen. What is stopping the solution for medical is not just fear of governments.

Fighting for liberty should not be fought within just a single party. Parties care about their own power first.

 

[realibrad]

Protip: it's Democratic party, not Democrat party.

No, modern terms apply here. You would not say someone is Democratic, you would say someone is a Democrat.

 

[jackstar7]

No, modern terms apply here. You would not say someone is Democratic, you would say someone is a Democrat.

Like you are a fuckwit?

 

[realibrad]

Not really, no. For one thing the French right are particularly hostile to Islamic dress, if anything more so than the left. e.g. from a report on the burkini ban [something which seen from here seemed a particularly insane bit of legislation]

So you think France is so strict about secularism that they spend a ton of money on private Catholic schools? If France really were so secular, they would not use public money to fund private schools that do not teach evolution.

Secondly its simplistic to paint it as being about 'self harm', its much more complex than that. I think, just as in Turkey, it is seen as a political symbol, and a rather aggressive one. And as I said, the French make a special fetish of 'secularism' (rather as the US does with 'free speech' - in both cases it plays a central role in national identity and is taken much further than it is here in the UK).

While all of that is true, it still does not change what some of the arguments were that got it pushed through. Again, if the French were so pro secularism, then why do they spend so much money on religious institutions?

 

[realibrad]

Like you are a fuckwit?

What?

 

[realibrad]

Sure. First, GFY.

Next, I think glenn is fucking dumb. His infantilizing label is bullshit. Plastic bags? How about lowering oil use, pollution, and other reality-based reasons for such things? Just because the justifications for the Right-based legislative agenda is based in puritanical garbage doesn't mean it applies to the other side. That's just finding yourself wanting to brand everyone as tainted so that you can look down on them all.

Show me the science-based evidence to ban gay adoptions and military service, abortions, and other "faith-based" legislative agendas.

Sure looks like one side fits all the definitions of puritanical without semantic pedantry.

Not sure what any of that has to do with what we were talking about. How was puritanical nanny-statism inherently wrong? How was puritanical misused?

 

[jackstar7]

Not sure what any of that has to do with what we were talking about. How was puritanical nanny-statism inherently wrong? How was puritanical misused?

Because it's all built on false premises. It's a rhetorical house of cards.

But you should feel good about picking this hill to die on.

 

[realibrad]

Because it's all built on false premises. It's a rhetorical house of cards.

How is the use of a word wrong grammatically because of false premises? I corrected someone that said a word was used in a way that does not fit its meaning. It was in fact not misused. You disagreed and would not explain why until Glenn responded. He has now responded so why don't you explain how puritanical was misused? You do not need to talk about politics or anything else, as the original issue was if the word puritanical can be used to modify nanny-statism.

 

[jackstar7]

Context, dumbnuts. It matters.

 

[realibrad]

Context, dumbnuts. It matters.

Puritanical was questioned in terms of its meaning. The phrase puritanical nanny-statism establishes a concept that fits not only grammatically but also things that happen in reality. So what context do you think we are missing, dumbnuts?

 

[jackstar7]

Puritanical was questioned in terms of its meaning. The phrase puritanical nanny-statism establishes a concept that fits not only grammatically but also things that happen in reality. So what context do you think we are missing, dumbnuts?

It fits grammatically, but fits nothing in reality. That context, dummy.

Come up with your own insults. Don't steal mine.

 

[realibrad]

It fits grammatically, but fits nothing in reality. That context, dummy.

Come up with your own insults. Don't steal mine.

Yes it does fit dummy. Nanny-statism exists, and beliefs so strong they reach the level of puritanical exist. That ultimately has no relevance to the original topic of the use of an adjective. It meant what Glenn thought it meant. He did not shift the meaning. You tried to jump in and say he misused it and he did not. You were wrong and you tried to convolute the issue to try and find a way that you could be right.

 

[brycejones]

Banning plastic shopping bags is now puritanical

 

[realibrad]

Banning plastic shopping bags is now puritanical

No. You are clearly not understanding. It would be the motivation behind that rule. If plastic bags were banned to reduce pollution that would be different than banning them because plastic is deeply immoral and anyone who uses it is a horrible person.

 

[jackstar7]

No. You are clearly not understanding. It would be the motivation behind that rule. If plastic bags were banned to reduce pollution that would be different than banning them because plastic is deeply immoral and anyone who uses it is a horrible person.

It IS like context matters. Amazing!

 

[realibrad]

It IS like context matters. Amazing!

Not when we are talking about grammar.

*Well thats not correct, but still. It was used correctly here. Unless you can explain otherwise.

 

[glenn1]

It IS like context matters. Amazing!

Fine I’ll change “puritanical” to the more accurate “overbearing moralistic busybody fuckheads” instead. Happy?

 

[brycejones]

No. You are clearly not understanding. It would be the motivation behind that rule. If plastic bags were banned to reduce pollution that would be different than banning them because plastic is deeply immoral and anyone who uses it is a horrible person.

Well why don't we wait for Glenn to provide the context. Or better yet since you seem to keep jumping in for him why don't you provide some actual evidence on the subject. He used it as an example to support his original post in this stupid thread so evidence shouldn't be hard to come by.

 

[brycejones]

Fine I’ll change “puritanical” to the more accurate “overbearing moralistic busybody fuckheads” instead. Happy?

So banning plastic bags is something only overbearing moralistic busybody fuckheads do in Glenn land?