Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 8
Send Topic Print
For the Leftists: Godwin Explained. (Read 8641 times)
bobbythefap1
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 7026
Listen now to the rain
Re: For the Leftists: Godwin Explained.
Reply #30 - May 12th, 2012 at 9:39pm
 
Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 9:34pm:
bobbythefap1 wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 9:09pm:
Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 6:02pm:
bobbythefap1 wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 1:46pm:
Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 4:32pm:
Doctor Jolly wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 3:57pm:
There is a modern day equivalent of Godwins law.

Whenever parties of the right-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "stop the boats", or its predecessor "children overboard".



There is a modern day equivalent of Godwins(sic) law.

Whenever parties of the left-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "equality", or its predecessor "tolerance".

Usually in response to 'because I said so' type ideas based on nothing but emotion like 'let the refugees drown' or something like that


So do you think an open border policy is devoid of emotion?

No the opposite. I am saying it is an opinion developed only by emotion and not by evaluating the facts and/or reality


Whether one likes or dislikes refugees is a subjective personal opinion. Facts and reality, whatever that is, doesn't matter. On the one side you have the lefties allowing anyone and everyone in, and on the other you have the right who would rather they stay in their own country. The former take the position they do because they are overly sensitive and empathize with anything that they believe suffers, the latter emphasize personal responsibility and believe they ought clean up the mess their own country is in.
Whatever side you take, it's nothing but personal opinion. Sure, each have different outcomes, but neither are objective. 
I do not pretend to own this land so I do not pretend to have an authority on who comes to it.
You would wet your pants in the position some of those people find themselves in
Most of the time the problem in their own country is caused by the west.
Back to top
 

A day without sunshine is like night.
 
IP Logged
 
Postmodern Trendoid III
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 10259
Gender: male
Re: For the Leftists: Godwin Explained.
Reply #31 - May 12th, 2012 at 9:59pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 8:11pm:
Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 6:34pm:
As you can see I work in an environment where I have direct experience with leftists.
It's not so much ideology that's the problem, it's a constant taking sides with all that supposedly suffers. Should this really be the departure point for all intellectual activity?   


I'm not sure what you mean by taking sides. Everyone who works has direct experience with all sorts of people.

Leftists? They are actually quite rare these days. I'd count a few Socialist Alternative types and people who sell the Green Left Weekly at train stations.

Go back to the 70s. Campuses were full of them. Unions were full of them. The whole country was dripping with leftists.

It's a different story now. It's a post-cold war world. The economy is fundamentally different. Students compete for places and marks with people from different backgrounds; workers compete for jobs with people from Asia; businesses compete for contracts and sales with cheaper operators overseas.

Conservatives like Prince Charles advocate environmental conservation. Far-right crusaders like David Oldfield advocate socialism. Old boys on this site advocate Enlightenment humanist values in their critique of multiculturalism.

An all-encompassing narrative of the left does not exist anymore. You have to go to places like Nepal, West Bengal, Venusuela or Guatemala to find old style leftists, and even there you'll find them struggling with realpolitik.

For Marx and Lenin, this would always be the challenge of leftist parties - the issue of putting theory into practice.

In Australia, we've put them out of business with affluence. In places like Europe, where the GFC proved Lenin right about speculative capitalism, they seem to be making a bit of a comeback.

But not for long. It's hardly the end of ideology, but the right and left have shifted into the other's territory. While we sit around and squabble along ideological cold-war lines, the rest of the world is working out how to develop and catch up with the west.

As always, politics will follow economic growth. Much of the west is now in recession with dwindling economies. China, India and Brazil now have the highest economic growth. If their domestic consumption improves as predicted, their GDPs will surpass the US and Europe in less than 20 years.

Economic growth changes everything: population, living standards, employment and education. Look at the baby boom generation and how their politics and values transformed the west.

This is the real story of the world at this point in our history. It's not about right and left, it's about stagnation and growth.

Old boy moaners are a symptom of change. They don't occupy an ideological position; they just resist change, whether they lean towards left or right.

The world is turning, Bolshie. Same as it ever was.


Reducing everything to economics was Marx's position. While you make some fair points, I disagree that economics is the sole driver of human affairs. If we do a reduction to a sole cause, I think Nietzsche's will to power comes as close as we can get. Yet just claiming the base human drive is to will power doesn't analyse the content of the ideas driving man to power.
Money or economics is one of those ideas that drive man. There's also science, engineering, religion, procreation, utilitarianism, to name just a few.
My concern is what I call a will to weakness; which goes under the guise today of 'equality' and 'tolerance.' There is a huge trend toward castigating anything that is perceived to have power or that is in authority. There's a trend being encouraged to whine about power just for the sake of it. This is childish. Most of those who whine about power have absolutely no idea on what the authority structure should be replaced with. Just one example is those who whine about capitalism. Never do they have a solution.

On a more positive note, does the word reverence mean anything today?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Postmodern Trendoid III
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 10259
Gender: male
Re: For the Leftists: Godwin Explained.
Reply #32 - May 12th, 2012 at 10:00pm
 
bobbythefap1 wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 9:39pm:
Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 9:34pm:
bobbythefap1 wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 9:09pm:
Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 6:02pm:
bobbythefap1 wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 1:46pm:
Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 4:32pm:
Doctor Jolly wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 3:57pm:
There is a modern day equivalent of Godwins law.

Whenever parties of the right-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "stop the boats", or its predecessor "children overboard".



There is a modern day equivalent of Godwins(sic) law.

Whenever parties of the left-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "equality", or its predecessor "tolerance".

Usually in response to 'because I said so' type ideas based on nothing but emotion like 'let the refugees drown' or something like that


So do you think an open border policy is devoid of emotion?

No the opposite. I am saying it is an opinion developed only by emotion and not by evaluating the facts and/or reality


Whether one likes or dislikes refugees is a subjective personal opinion. Facts and reality, whatever that is, doesn't matter. On the one side you have the lefties allowing anyone and everyone in, and on the other you have the right who would rather they stay in their own country. The former take the position they do because they are overly sensitive and empathize with anything that they believe suffers, the latter emphasize personal responsibility and believe they ought clean up the mess their own country is in.
Whatever side you take, it's nothing but personal opinion. Sure, each have different outcomes, but neither are objective. 
I do not pretend to own this land so I do not pretend to have an authority on who comes to it.
You would wet your pants in the position some of those people find themselves in
Most of the time the problem in their own country is caused by the west.



You're moving off topic.
The point was that decisions are never devoid of emotion.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91852
Gender: male
Re: For the Leftists: Godwin Explained.
Reply #33 - May 13th, 2012 at 12:17am
 
Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 9:59pm:
[quote author=6F45564A4548240 link=1336608361/26#26 date=1336817506][quote author=7A47434B2E0 link=1336608361/25#25 date=1336811661]
My concern is what I call a will to weakness; which goes under the guise today of 'equality' and 'tolerance.' There is a huge trend toward castigating anything that is perceived to have power or that is in authority. There's a trend being encouraged to whine about power just for the sake of it. This is childish. Most of those who whine about power have absolutely no idea on what the authority structure should be replaced with. Just one example is those who whine about capitalism. Never do they have a solution.


There you have it. No need to whine, Bolshie.

We're extremely fortunate, you know.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sir Spot of Borg
Gold Member
*****
Offline


WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26458
Australia
Re: For the Leftists: Godwin Explained.
Reply #34 - May 13th, 2012 at 7:04am
 
bobbythefap1 wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 9:10pm:
Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 12th, 2012 at 5:06pm:
Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 10:42am:
bobbythefap1 wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 10:35am:
Puppets law: 90% of the time an online conversation is had about terrorism committed by the state of Israel, or any legitimate concern of serious crimes committed by Jews, or Israel is discussed; someone will call the person raising the issue antisemitic in an attempt to end the conversation because they do not have any legitimate means of debunking such claims.


Can I keep that? Might use it as my sig later.

SOB



Bugger it wont fit in my sig

Damn
How about "Whenever legitimate concerns are raised about Israel or a Jew, in 90% of occasions someone will be called 'anti-Semitic' to divert/end the conversation and/or guilt trip people/s into forgiving/forgetting issues raised.


That one didnt quite fit either. I changed it a bit. I wanted the original. Admins more space for sig please!

SOB
Back to top
 

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a 
Moron!
- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope
WWW PoliticsAneReligion  
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: For the Leftists: Godwin Explained.
Reply #35 - May 13th, 2012 at 9:51pm
 
Doctor Jolly wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 3:57pm:
There is a modern day equivalent of Godwins law.

Whenever parties of the right-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "stop the boats", or its predecessor "children overboard".



What the modern day equivalent of Godwins law for progs?

Whenever parties of the left-wing feel they are losing the upper hand on general policy, they bring out "stop the growth/islamophobia/homophobia/your-pet-obcession-phobia", or its predecessor "stop global warming/cooling/poverty/trade/jewish conspiracy/".

Or what? What's the prog tactic when the going gets rough and people stop listening?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57063
Here
Gender: male
Re: For the Leftists: Godwin Explained.
Reply #36 - May 13th, 2012 at 10:27pm
 
Godwin sounds like a NAZI.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frances
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3568
In a Castle in the Hills
Gender: female
Re: For the Leftists: Godwin Explained.
Reply #37 - May 17th, 2012 at 10:21am
 
Interesting that Morning Mist omitted to quote this part of the Wikipedia article on Godwin's Law....

Quote:
Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, since this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.

While falling afoul of Godwin's Law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose their argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.


Just because one person makes a reference to Hitler or the Nazis doeasn't mean that the whole discussion is finished.  It just means that the person who made that reference has diminished credibility.

It seems to me as if he is using Godwin's Law as a tool to stifle debate.
Back to top
 

Sure God created man before woman. But then you always make a rough draft before the final masterpiece.
 
IP Logged
 
Postmodern Trendoid III
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 10259
Gender: male
Re: For the Leftists: Godwin Explained.
Reply #38 - May 17th, 2012 at 10:27am
 
Frances wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 10:21am:
Interesting that Morning Mist omitted to quote this part of the Wikipedia article on Godwin's Law....

Quote:
Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, since this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.

While falling afoul of Godwin's Law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose their argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.


Just because one person makes a reference to Hitler or the Nazis doeasn't mean that the whole discussion is finished.  It just means that the person who made that reference has diminished credibility.

It seems to me as if he is using Godwin's Law as a tool to stifle debate.



Then you're welcome to provide evidence that Abbott and Newman are sending people off to gas chambers, performing medical experiments, making different races, homosexuals, and communists wear badges, sprouting theories of racial biology, etc etc etc.

You can't because there is no comparison.

It's a tactic used by the emotionally and intellectually deficient to stifle debate and smear opponents unjustifiably.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frances
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3568
In a Castle in the Hills
Gender: female
Re: For the Leftists: Godwin Explained.
Reply #39 - May 17th, 2012 at 10:45am
 
Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 10:27am:
Then you're welcome to provide evidence that Abbott and Newman are sending people off to gas chambers, performing medical experiments, making different races, homosexuals, and communists wear badges, sprouting theories of racial biology, etc etc etc.

You can't because there is no comparison.

It's a tactic used by the emotionally and intellectually deficient to stifle debate and smear opponents unjustifiably.


Why should I provide evidence such as you suggest?  There is no need on your part to make further references to Nazi atrocities in response to my post, although if you want to commit a Godwin yourself, I can't stop you.

If you could be bothered reading what I posted, you would see that I did not support, to any degree whatsoever, the statement you were objecting to.  In fact I referred to posting such comments as diminishing the credibility of the person making them.

your strict application of certain aspects of Godwin's Law is not appropriate in a forum such as this.  It may have a place in formal debating, but not here.

Interpreting Godwin's Law in the manner you are suggesting is a rightist tool to stifle debate.
Back to top
 

Sure God created man before woman. But then you always make a rough draft before the final masterpiece.
 
IP Logged
 
Sir Spot of Borg
Gold Member
*****
Offline


WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26458
Australia
Re: For the Leftists: Godwin Explained.
Reply #40 - May 17th, 2012 at 10:49am
 
Well it is a thread about godwins law

SOB
Back to top
 

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a 
Moron!
- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope
WWW PoliticsAneReligion  
IP Logged
 
Postmodern Trendoid III
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 10259
Gender: male
Re: For the Leftists: Godwin Explained.
Reply #41 - May 17th, 2012 at 11:00am
 
Quote:
frances wrote
If you could be bothered reading what I posted, you would see that I did not support, to any degree whatsoever, the statement you were objecting to.  In fact I referred to posting such comments as diminishing the credibility of the person making them.


Then why did you state this?
Quote:
It seems to me as if he is using Godwin's Law as a tool to stifle debate.


Sounds like you're accusing me and/or Mike Godwin of stifling debate?


Quote:
frances wrote
your strict application of certain aspects of Godwin's Law is not appropriate in a forum such as this.  It may have a place in formal debating, but not here.


It is extremely relevant here. I am trying to teach some of the clowns who post here to clean up their act. If you want to be taken seriously then the effort must be put in to prove your case true. The forum will be all the better for it. It will also help each individual poster learn the mechanics of proper debate and what passes for acceptable dialogue in the real world. If they want to just swear and poke fun at others then there's plenty of chat rooms and blogs around the net were those children can play.


Quote:
frances wrote
Interpreting Godwin's Law in the manner you are suggesting is a rightist tool to stifle debate.


There you go again.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frances
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3568
In a Castle in the Hills
Gender: female
Re: For the Leftists: Godwin Explained.
Reply #42 - May 17th, 2012 at 11:34am
 
Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 11:00am:
Quote:
It seems to me as if he is using Godwin's Law as a tool to stifle debate.


Sounds like you're accusing me and/or Mike Godwin of stifling debate?


I'm accusing you of it.  Mike Godwin is hardly responsible for what people do with his "Law".

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 11:00am:
your strict application of certain aspects of Godwin's Law is not appropriate in a forum such as this.  It may have a place in formal debating, but not here.


It is extremely relevant here. I am trying to teach some of the clowns who post here to clean up their act. If you want to be taken seriously then the effort must be put in to prove your case true. The forum will be all the better for it. It will also help each individual poster learn the mechanics of proper debate and what passes for acceptable dialogue in the real world. If they want to just swear and poke fun at others then there's plenty of chat rooms and blogs around the net were those children can play. [/quote]

You may say that you are trying to educate some forum members (although there are a handful who should really be written off as lost causes) and maybe you are, but the way it comes across is as if you are saying "Someone mentioned Nazis or Hitler - Godwin's Law - thread over", which leads me to suggest that it is being used as a tool to stifle debate.  I referred to it as a "rightist" tool as, with one or two exceptions, the forum members who tend to make the posts on this forum of the sort to which you are objecting are left leaning so, on this forum (but maybe not on others) invoking Godwin's Law is effectively a tool of the right.
Back to top
 

Sure God created man before woman. But then you always make a rough draft before the final masterpiece.
 
IP Logged
 
...
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male
Re: For the Leftists: Godwin Explained.
Reply #43 - May 17th, 2012 at 11:40am
 
Frances wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 11:34am:
invoking Godwin's Law is effectively a tool of the right.



Well if the lefties didn't continually engage in reductio ad hitlerum in place of a reasoned argument, there'd be no need to apply "the law".

It's basically ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
Back to top
 

In the fullness of time...
 
IP Logged
 
Frances
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3568
In a Castle in the Hills
Gender: female
Re: For the Leftists: Godwin Explained.
Reply #44 - May 17th, 2012 at 11:50am
 
... wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 11:40am:
if the lefties didn't continually engage in reductio ad hitlerum in place of a reasoned argument, there'd be no need to apply "the law".


On this forum, the majority of offenders are from the left, but not all.  I'm sure that corporate_whitey and one or two others from the right have been guilty of this too.


... wrote on May 17th, 2012 at 11:40am:
It's basically ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.


It's more than that - it's a method of arguing that sends a message to others that the person using it is not worthy of much attention.  In other words, if someone uses this tactic, they diminish their own credibility.
Back to top
 

Sure God created man before woman. But then you always make a rough draft before the final masterpiece.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 8
Send Topic Print