PDA

View Full Version : The political "left" and "right"


Kungfu Dinobot
2013-02-20, 01:15 AM
What's the different between them, anyways?


They both seems to end up with Malevolent Fascist Dictatorships, despite being "opposites", so I'd appreciate someone explaining it to me.

Hound
2013-02-20, 01:43 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Looks like everything you might need to know is right there.

Kungfu Dinobot
2013-02-20, 02:16 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Looks like everything you might need to know is right there.


Sorry man, but that page has too much faffing about and not much solid information.

Sades
2013-02-20, 07:18 AM
Click the blue bits that say "right" and "left". Or if there's also too much faffing about on those pages, Google something simpler?

Edit: not meant to sound snarky. Noticed it came out that way.

angloconvoy
2013-02-20, 08:46 AM
To be fair, the difference is mostly built on faffing. If you study economics or politics for a couple of years you'll get a basic understanding. Or in the absolute idiot's guide version, left places more responsibility on government (which in this political ideal puts responsibility on society by extension, security at some cost of personal freedom), right places more responsibility on the individual (personal freedom at the cost of security). Both work in theory, none in practice, and it's really more like a circle because the extremes are practically indistinguishable.

The reason they don't work is because the models assume a perfect balance can be achieved. Which is hilariously optimistic given that most people will be dicks if they think they'll never be found out.

Skyquake87
2013-02-20, 08:47 AM
Hmm...basically, someone on the political left is thought to be more socially inclusive and progressive, whereas someone on the right has a very traditional outlook based on maintaining a hierarchy in society which comes across as reactionary and regressive.

At least, that's how I understand it. Thats not to say that individuals on the left can have views on some subjects that might be seen as the polar opposite of their political beliefs on other issues.

Jaynz
2013-02-20, 02:17 PM
In the United States, 'left-wing' tends to mean liberal interpretation of the Constitution and a desire for 'social justice'. 'Right-wing' tends to mean a more conservative intepretation of the Constitution and a desire for 'lawful justice'. (Note these statements are often portrayed in positive or negative connotations by most, so I tried to distill it down as simply as possible.)

Both sides tend to go through their 'libertine' or 'authoritarian' phases. Currently the 'left-wing' is very much into the heavy-authoritarian phase in order to push a very statist agenda in order to pursue its version of 'social justice'. ("Social Justice", which usually requires a strong govermental force, doesn't tend to work with "lassaize faire" economics, but there have been those on the moderate left, such as the Kennedy, Truman, and Clinton) that have supported it.

The right-wing is currently split hard between its authoritarian wing (typically those in Washington, giving you types like Nixon and both Bushes) and its libertine wing (Tea Party and Libertarians, giving you types like Reagan). It's this current divide that's probably the most important even happening in American politics.

Denyer
2013-02-20, 07:18 PM
In an nutshell: the far right and far left are virtually indistinguishable. Financially, moderate left tends to preach supporting others, moderate right tends to preach self-reliance. In most other things, everyone tends to preach towards being able to do what they want, and ultimately it's all about self-justification.

With politicians, it boils down to "be suspicious of anyone who wants the job."

Democracy is basically tyranny of the majority, but it's better than pretty much all of the alternatives unless you luck into genuinely benign autocrats.

People funding political parties of any type tend to be doing so out of self-interest.

TL;DR, people are bastards.

Jaynz
2013-02-20, 07:35 PM
In an nutshell: the far right and far left are virtually indistinguishable.

Not entirely true. A real far-right would be nearly anarchist, when you think about it. Oddly enough, there's never been a goverment model for this approach, so it's kinda hard to cite examples. The closest you'll get is 'frontier justice' which isn't something most people really want to see.

(Note: Calling the Nazi regieme 'far-right' was a political ploy by Roosevelt to explain how American progressives could work with the Soviet Union in fighting it. Functionally, there's no differences between Stalin's facism and Hitler's brand.)

In general, though, extremes tend to be bad, no matter which extreme you're adressing.

Democracy is basically tyranny of the majority, but it's better than pretty much all of the alternatives unless you luck into genuinely benign autocrats.

Fortunately we don't have a democracy. :)

Hound
2013-02-20, 07:47 PM
Fortunately we don't have a democracy. :)
That's actually true, more or less. The founding fathers felt it unwise to place too much power over the government in the hands of the common man. We're allowed to directly elect only one branch (out of three) of our government.

Of course, at the time, they figured the wealthy and educated elite were, generally speaking, altruistic and just and even more so that the common people are too fickle and easily manipulated.

They were half right, unfortunately...

Jaynz
2013-02-20, 07:54 PM
That's actually true, more or less. The founding fathers felt it unwise to place too much power over the government in the hands of the common man. We're allowed to directly elect only one branch (out of three) of our government.

And even then it was just supposed to be the House. The Senate was given to direct elections with the Wilsonian movement in order to 'cut corruption'.. and that's worked out so well...

Of course, at the time, they figured the wealthy and educated elite were, generally speaking, altruistic and just and even more so that the common people are too fickle and easily manipulated.

Actually it was more mercenarial than that. They figured, somewhat rightly, that the landowners and artisans (the only 'producers' at the time) had more knowledge and 'political skin in the game' than the uneducator laborer that would likely vote himself the largess. (Madison's papers explicitly mention this.)

Industralization blurred this quite a bit, though, as we developed a powerful and large middle-class, something that the Founding Fathers weren't too familiar with (they only dealt with gentry until the mid 1800s'). But if owning 'productive land' was no longer a rule about voting... well, that allows in all classes, doesn't it? Including the uneducated and unvested ones.

In an ideal society, we would have upped the uneducated and unvested classes into being both educated and vested. Instead, Wilsonian politics took the opposite approach with "Progressivism", by ENCOURAGING the use of political largess to buy their favor while deliberately keeping their education low and their vestment limited to the largess. And that's how we are where we are today...

Hound
2013-02-20, 08:36 PM
Actually it was more mercenarial than that. They figured, somewhat rightly, that the landowners and artisans (the only 'producers' at the time) had more knowledge and 'political skin in the game' than the uneducator laborer that would likely vote himself the largess. (Madison's papers explicitly mention this.)
Well that is essentially what I mean by fickle and easily manipulated. Generally speaking most people are not concerned with politics, not really. Most people are concerned with putting food on the table and their own personal security. That and who's going to win American Idol or the Superbowl.

The average person doesn't have time to think about the general welfare of the entire country as a whole. The average person figures that is what the politicians are for. That it's someone else's job to pay attention to that kind of stuff and that's what we elect them for. People figure that if they watch the nightly news they've fulfilled their responsibility to the government because the TV will tell them all they should know about what the government is doing and what is right or wrong in the country as a whole.

This mentality is what allows politicians to manipulate them and it's always been true and it probably will be for a very long time. People are worried about how much the shit they want and need costs and how much money they will get for doing whatever it is they do. Those two factors along with feeling secure will have almost everything to do with how the average person votes. It's why things like gun control or gay marriage or oil prices or any number of other topics that aren't actually important get used to sway public opinion.

People aren't going to use their vote to benefit the entire country, they're going to use their vote to benefit themselves.

That said you can't let that mentality rule a nation, not successfully, and that's the point. The founding fathers knew that.

Hound
2013-02-20, 08:49 PM
It seems funnier and funnier to me how people blame the state of the government and the country on the politicians, on the left or the right or whatever, or the rich and the corporations. It's not their fault that things are ****ed up. It's never been on them. It's never on anyone else. Say what you want about the corruption and the 1% and all that shit. If your way of life is ****ed up, it's on you to fix that. You have no one else to blame for that but yourself. A sense of personal responsibility matters so much more than defining what left wing or right wing means.

Denyer
2013-02-20, 09:14 PM
Not entirely true. A real far-right would be nearly anarchist, when you think about it.
Common definitions, anyway. "Far left" tending to mean tree-hugging and personal freedom of a different sort, whereas communism and fascism get lumped in together (and generalised as "far right".)

Fortunately we don't have a democracy. :)
Eh, the unelected parts of political machinery are as self-interested as the others.

Say what you want about the corruption and the 1% and all that shit. If your way of life is ****ed up, it's on you to fix that. You have no one else to blame for that but yourself.
Assuming you're happy with life at a basic subsistence level with a lot of uncertainties and can find somewhere to do it. Land's a fixed quantity, there are economic and other structures it's difficult to operate outside (especially when kids are in the equation -- but that presupposes an administrative governmental structure, and that's before working out sanitation/water/energy), production is to a great extent automated, etc.

As far as social structures go part of the world's population thrives, relatively speaking and by some definitions, by exploiting commodity production originating from far worse conditions.

Not to say that people can't opt out of some of the various rat races, or shouldn't. Nor that people don't reflexively look to shift culpability.

Jaynz
2013-02-20, 09:22 PM
Common definitions, anyway. "Far left" tending to mean tree-hugging and personal freedom of a different sort, whereas communism and fascism get lumped in together (and generalised as "far right".)

It's tricky. Communism is extremely authoritarian and while it promises 'freedom to the workers' it never ever delivers it. It's the ultimate left-wing authoritarian side.

Tree-huggers are about personal hedonism on the one hand, and an expansive 'protectionist' super-state on the other. So it's personally libertine while demanding an authoritarian state for society... well, usual boomer wackery, really.

Eh, the unelected parts of political machinery are as self-interested as the others.

I support strict term-limits on all government positions. History shows us that goverment officials do their job a lot better if they know they'll have to live in their mess rather than above it. :)

Kungfu Dinobot
2013-02-21, 01:32 AM
Dang, man, I think we're moving off topic. I know the US of A is a fun country to talk about but, ah, screw it, it is fun to talk about;)

BTW,


It seems funnier and funnier to me how people blame the state of the government and the country on the politicians, on the left or the right or whatever, or the rich and the corporations. It's not their fault that things are ****ed up. It's never been on them. It's never on anyone else. Say what you want about the corruption and the 1% and all that shit. If your way of life is ****ed up, it's on you to fix that. You have no one else to blame for that but yourself. A sense of personal responsibility matters so much more than defining what left wing or right wing means.


You sure? lots of people blame Bush's spendings on the Miliary Industrial Complex for the second great depression. It may not be true, but that's the popular opinion and I'd like more insight.

Jaynz
2013-02-21, 03:11 AM
You sure? lots of people blame Bush's spendings on the Miliary Industrial Complex for the second great depression. It may not be true, but that's the popular opinion and I'd like more insight.

Ironically, the military budget was less under Bush than under Clinton (there was a big push to cut back a lot of programs while upping the tech on the Air Force, etc.). Sadly, due to the US not passing a budget under Obama at all, it's pretty difficult to tell what the expenses are in comparison.

Hound
2013-02-21, 03:21 AM
You sure? lots of people blame Bush's spendings on the Miliary Industrial Complex for the second great depression. It may not be true, but that's the popular opinion and I'd like more insight.No, Bush's overspending has more to do with the state of the national deficit and less to do with the state of the world's economy.

Assuming you're happy with life at a basic subsistence level with a lot of uncertainties and can find somewhere to do it.I never anything about living outside of modern society. I said that if your life is shit then you have yourself to blame for that.

People need to stop looking for someone to blame all the ****ing time. It's your own personal choices that get you where you are.

Now I am aware that there are parts of the world where that just isn't true and in those cases what I'm saying doesn't apply but in a country like the US people have become far too used to always looking for someone else to blame.

Bunch of people get shot at a school and people get all up in arms about gun control, then the government gets involved and people get mad at the government for making gun control laws. Everyone so quick to shift responsibility away from the nutjob with the gun.

angloconvoy
2013-02-21, 02:19 PM
Dang, man, I think we're moving off topic. I know the US of A is a fun country to talk about but, ah, screw it, it is fun to talk about;)

It's actually not off-topic at all, America is the most famous and "pure" example of a democracy with a left and right, and no monarchy, so it actually serves best to answer your original question by giving actual examples. My previous answer was mostly based around the economic theory of left and right, America is how it works and gets defined in practice.

Oh and Hound, my life was pretty shit after the company I worked for suddenly went bankrupt (the board panicked about the economy, made some shady deals and went into voluntary bankruptcy) and I didn't get paid. In a "first world" country. And there is such a thing as the poverty trap, you have to get into debt to stay in the game, so to speak. I'm only just getting into a position where I can start living in a way I would have previously considered normal now. If you've been lucky enough to never be aware of any of that first hand then I'm happy for you, but you shouldn't assume people have control over their lives just based on which country they live in. If you're middle class and your life's shit, yeah, that's usually on you, but extenuating circumstances can and do arise. Personal responsibility plays a part in the day to day (like me working to get back on my feet), but a large part of the point of government is to prevent cases like mine from arriving, so governmental responsibility is also important.

Hound
2013-02-21, 06:29 PM
That's irrelevant, it's still your choices that put you there. You didn't have to be working for a company struggling economically in a foreign country and you didn't elaborate on what you did to change your circumstance but blame the company all you want or the world economy for being shit, but I'd wager you didn't go to them expecting them to get your life back on track.

Denyer
2013-02-21, 08:22 PM
I support strict term-limits on all government positions.
Hell yes. It hasn't worked too badly over here for the most part, where we burn through prime ministers in short order (Blair going grey wasn't an exception and whatever I think of the guy, he aged rapidly in office) and the Lords have some sense and don't veto things there's strong public support for (for the most part) in the modern era.

I said that if your life is shit then you have yourself to blame for that.

People need to stop looking for someone to blame all the ****ing time. It's your own personal choices that get you where you are.
In some cases. In many cultures, things are stacked to keep the majority of resources in the hands of relatively few. Personal responsibility is part of the answer, but ignoring -- for example -- the erosion of family life brought by extended working time or packing people off into factories a great distance away, the lack of substantive jobs encouraged by exploiting weaker economies, workforces affected by illness brought in by staff that can't afford to miss days, poorer families being unable to buy food in sufficient quantity to make savings, etc. basically guarantees that those situations will deteriorate.

It's not unusual that what eventuates as a cultural identity is that anyone can make it if they work hard; people don't want to think about being brought low themselves, and it's easier to construct a narrative where it's always or primarily the fault of those that are. Been the case for centuries.

And yes, there are some cases where the answer is people being lazy scum that most (myself included) wouldn't shed a tear over being processed into soylent green... but any time there's a choice between complicated and simple, the latter usually isn't the full answer.

Hound
2013-02-21, 10:19 PM
Oh I'm sure it's not nearly as simple as I'm distilling it down to be. Doesn't change that you have to take responsibility for your choices and rely on yourself primarily to make positive change. Ours is a culture that has become much too used to delegating blame to some other person or entity.

The government won't bring happiness and prosperity to your life and they shouldn't have to. In fact I fear a great deal of the political corruption is due to the government being responsible for the prosperity of some.

Kungfu Dinobot
2013-02-22, 01:58 AM
No, Bush's overspending has more to do with the state of the national deficit and less to do with the state of the world's economy.


Hope you don't mind me asking, what exactly caused the second Great Depression? of the first one?

I never anything about living outside of modern society. I said that if your life is shit then you have yourself to blame for that.

People need to stop looking for someone to blame all the ****ing time. It's your own personal choices that get you where you are.

Now I am aware that there are parts of the world where that just isn't true and in those cases what I'm saying doesn't apply but in a country like the US people have become far too used to always looking for someone else to blame.

Bunch of people get shot at a school and people get all up in arms about gun control, then the government gets involved and people get mad at the government for making gun control laws. Everyone so quick to shift responsibility away from the nutjob with the gun.

Theoretically true, I read it in a book somewhere, but you know, as Machiavelli once said (not exactly though), Fortune is a harsh mistress.


Though my original question still remains, how can both the left(with its hippies) and the right(with its fundies) become malevolent dictatorships?:confused:

Hound
2013-02-22, 05:27 AM
Hope you don't mind me asking, what exactly caused the second Great Depression? of the first one?
I think the current economic woes had a great deal to do with banks mismanaging money and a collapse of the real estate market. Though I'm not 100% on the particulars...

I'm unaware of extreme left wing or right wing nuts becoming malevolent dictators...

angloconvoy
2013-02-22, 08:39 AM
That's irrelevant, it's still your choices that put you there. You didn't have to be working for a company struggling economically in a foreign country and you didn't elaborate on what you did to change your circumstance but blame the company all you want or the world economy for being shit, but I'd wager you didn't go to them expecting them to get your life back on track.

In this case the country is actually irrelevant, as I would have been afforded exactly as much government/legal assistance had I been in England. I do have to work for someone, or I can't pay rent/bills. There was no sign of the company struggling financially. As I said, it was sudden and a bit shady, and came down to back luck for working with a company with a board that turned out to be shady. So I don't think it's irrelevant as sometimes the best possible choice with all the available information can go awry, and that's an example of what a government should protect against, since government exists to serve society.

I got my life back on track by taking any work I could and also by getting into debt (to be clear, at this point I was eating once a day, the cheapest healthy meal I could, just the cost of remaining an active member of the workforce with a roof over your head is killer when you suddenly get called in to a meeting where you're told you won't be paid for the month you've just worked and you don't know where your next paycheck is coming from. And yes, they did wait until just before payday to shut it down). It took a long time to get basically clear (I still have monthly payments but they don't cripple me financially). I'm a realist so I know getting my life back on track was on me, but that is not a situation that should have been able to arise. Someone (well, the board of directors who walked away scot-free, frankly) should have been accountable for the people who suddenly lost their jobs and in some cases homes (I'm using myself as an example but my company had a few thousand employees around the world, and at the time many companies worldwide were going bankrupt because of bankers breaking the law with no intervention from the governments). They should have been able to go to someone and get more help getting their life back on track than they did.
I hope you never experience that kind of thing, but it'd be nice if you were able to understand it's not as simple as "make your choices and it's all on you". People who expect to just be cared for by the government can do one, it doesn't exist to make you rich and happy, but it is supposed to exist to help prevent you getting the rug suddenly pulled from under you, and a well functioning government should catch you if that happens (again, nice in theory but referring back to my "people will be dicks if they can get away with it" comment, you will have to do it yourself).

Obviously this is a touchy subject for me, and I do see the upside of your point (that we should try to take control and improve our lives, because no-one will do it for us), but there will always be factors we can't control and we should always push our society and governments to be better for when things go astray.

Kungfu Dinobot
2013-02-22, 10:36 AM
I think the current economic woes had a great deal to do with banks mismanaging money and a collapse of the real estate market. Though I'm not 100% on the particulars...

I'm unaware of extreme left wing or right wing nuts becoming malevolent dictators...

What i mean is, why is is both the extreme left and right dictatorships? I thougth one is about 'freedom' or some such.

Jaynz
2013-02-22, 02:50 PM
What i mean is, why is is both the extreme left and right dictatorships? I thougth one is about 'freedom' or some such.

The 'extreme right-wing' being a fascist state was an deliberate invention of WWII, designed to make allying with the Soviet Union more appealing to fight the Nazis. The Nazis had to be portrayed as the extreme opposite of the Soviets (and also now the extreme opposite of the Progressive movement) and thus the myth was born.

Note that, as said in another thread, this is the polar opposite view that most Western politicos had of Nazi Germany prior to the war's beginning in 1938.

The myth lives on now as a left-wing meme to demonize its opponents (still, naturally) by painting the 'logical end' of Conservatism as facism, despite it being nowhere near the actual truth.

Warcry
2013-02-22, 05:28 PM
I think there's also a point to be made that any extremist group -- whether it be conservative or progressive, authoritarian or libertarian -- can only hold power by force. By definition, if you're on the extreme edge of the political map only a small number of people actually support you. And even if you do get power by pretending that you're something you're not or by taking advantage of extenuating circumstances (as the Nazis did to some extent, as well as with some Islamic fundamentalist groups today) over the long run you'll only be able to hold onto power through force of arms.

That's the reason why you'll never see a truly benevolent (or even morally-neutral) Communist state, for example. Most ordinary people don't want to be Communist, so the only Communists who ever gain power are evil bastards who'll try to violently impose the system on people "for their own good". It doesn't mean that Communism is inherently evil, but unless the majority of the people actually want Communism any government that tries to impose it will degenerate into tyranny in short order. The same goes for any extremist ideology -- try to implement anarcho-capitalism in Canada or modern Europe, where socialism and a strong government are ingrained in the culture, and you'd either fail or quickly be reduced to shooting people who disagree with you.

Denyer
2013-02-22, 09:06 PM
The government won't bring happiness and prosperity to your life and they shouldn't have to. In fact I fear a great deal of the political corruption is due to the government being responsible for the prosperity of some.
Certainly. Rather than discount the possibility of improvement, though, the bastards should at least be stopped from acting primarily in the interests of a few. They should be working to improve the lives of a lot of people, and offering a safety net for the vulnerable if deserving. And never let off that hook.

how can both the left(with its hippies) and the right(with its fundies) become malevolent dictatorships?
One of the oldest maxims going... power corrupts, and the more of it people have the more it tends to.

Hound
2013-02-23, 01:40 AM
One of the oldest maxims going... power corrupts, and the more of it people have the more it tends to.He wants us to say that the right wing are all devils and the left are the saints.

Kungfu Dinobot
2013-02-23, 03:37 AM
He wants us to say that the right wing are all devils and the left are the saints.


Aw come on, I never said that! Hipsters are left wing, and they're hardly saints.


In relations, how are both hippies and communists "left wing"? Because as far as I can tell, there is no similarity between them.

Hound
2013-02-23, 04:00 AM
Because communism and socialism both fall on the left side of the spectrum and so does liberalism.

Kungfu Dinobot
2013-02-23, 04:13 AM
Because communism and socialism both fall on the left side of the spectrum and so does liberalism.


Ah yes, I read in a book about how communism is supposed to be preceded by socialism.


But why are the communists "left wing" while the "hawks" in the various NATO senates "right wing"? Both seem pretty imperialist (a "right wing" trait) to me:confused:


P.S. You still owe me an apology. I'm more of a right wing guy, I think.

Sades
2013-02-24, 06:49 PM
P.S. You still owe me an apology.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Good luck with that one. You've got better luck getting a rock to read you your choice of daily newspapers.

- his wife.

Hound
2013-02-24, 07:03 PM
You're lucky I even care you exist @both of you!

Kungfu Dinobot
2013-02-25, 02:27 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHA. Good luck with that one. You've got better luck getting a rock to read you your choice of daily newspapers.

- his wife.


Pfft, I only read the papes once a month.


Don't worry, my mother knows how you feel;)


You're lucky I even care you exist @both of you!


Thank you for your acknowledgement of my existance:)



Anyways, what make the communists "Left" and the NATO Hawks "Right"? they both seem pretty imperialist to me, and the hippies and hipsters(who hate imperialism) consider themselves "Left Wing".

Jaynz
2013-02-25, 03:56 AM
Anyways, what make the communists "Left" and the NATO Hawks "Right"? they both seem pretty imperialist to me, and the hippies and hipsters(who hate imperialism) consider themselves "Left Wing".

Hippies and hipsters tend to be among the most authoritarian on the left side of the aisle. They'll claim to hate imperialism, but will lead the charge on 'international action' for their pet causes - regardless of whom it hurts or how many bombs get dropped.

Seriously, did you not read my previous posts here? :P

Hound
2013-02-25, 05:26 AM
WTF is a NATO Hawk? I don't get the reference

Sades
2013-02-25, 05:31 AM
You're lucky I even care you exist @both of you!

BpwCJzPlz8k

:p :p :p :p :p :p :p


Don't worry, my mother knows how you feel;)

You mean Hound's banging your mom? Why that no-good, two timing hussy!

Kungfu Dinobot
2013-02-25, 08:10 AM
WTF is a NATO Hawk? I don't get the reference

In political terms, a "hawk" is a pro-war, imperialistic individual in whatever senate they're in. In this case, I'm refering to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.


You mean Hound's banging your mom? Why that no-good, two timing hussy!


I thought "hussy" is only used for women:confused:

Kungfu Dinobot
2013-02-25, 08:28 AM
Edit button not working, so I double post, sorry!

Hippies and hipsters tend to be among the most authoritarian on the left side of the aisle. They'll claim to hate imperialism, but will lead the charge on 'international action' for their pet causes - regardless of whom it hurts or how many bombs get dropped.

Seriously, did you not read my previous posts here? :P


Okay, read your previous posts. I don't know much hippies, as they are before my time, but last I recall, hipsters are not so much imperialist as much as they are "I'll-put-some-pseudo-intellectual-ramblings-about-western-decadence-on-the-internet-and-feel-pleased-with-myself-while-I-shop-for-Apple-products-with-my-parent's-credit-card-online".

inflatable dalek
2013-02-25, 08:49 AM
Hipster is a political viewpoint now? I thought it was a fashion label? [/OLD].

tahukanuva
2013-02-25, 11:50 AM
In political terms, a "hawk" is a pro-war, imperialistic individual in whatever senate they're in. In this case, I'm refering to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
:[




I thought "hussy" is only used for women:confused:
:[

Kungfu Dinobot
2013-02-25, 03:13 PM
Hipster is a political viewpoint now? I thought it was a fashion label? [/OLD].

To be honest, they're not so much a political viewpoint as much as they are a bunch of middle-class marxist wannabes.


:[





:[

Hey! I have to problem with imperialism, and neither does Machiavelli, and it's not my fault if the english language is sexist

Jaynz
2013-02-25, 03:44 PM
Okay, read your previous posts. I don't know much hippies, as they are before my time, but last I recall, hipsters are not so much imperialist as much as they are "I'll-put-some-pseudo-intellectual-ramblings-about-western-decadence-on-the-internet-and-feel-pleased-with-myself-while-I-shop-for-Apple-products-with-my-parent's-credit-card-online".

*sighs*

Hippies became hipsters, hence the name. And, yes, they're extremely imperialist, though not in the usual historical ways (military an warefare). They prefer to use 'popular culture' and 'mainstream media' to drive their conformist viewpoints. Want proof? Look at last night's Oscars.

Kungfu Dinobot
2013-02-25, 03:58 PM
*sighs*

Hippies became hipsters, hence the name. And, yes, they're extremely imperialist, though not in the usual historical ways (military an warefare). They prefer to use 'popular culture' and 'mainstream media' to drive their conformist viewpoints. Want proof? Look at last night's Oscars.


Ah, agreed.

If there's one thing hipsters are good at, it doublethink. They're go on about how they're CHAMPIONS OF INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM and FREEDOM FIGHTERS AGAINST CORPORATE TYRANNY while aping various counter-culture (hippies and punks being prime) and scrimmaging for social status like good capitalists:lol:

P.S. Is it possible for a corporate giant to "sell out"?