WAB
Veteran Member
I see this trend toward trashing anyone not FAR left, and lumping people who repeatedly say that they are NOT right-wing, are NOT conservative, and consider themselves either moderate, center-left, center-right, or even center-right (good god perish the thought, fascists!!!!!!1!!!!), into the SAME pile, as silly and unproductive, to say the least.
Emily Lake, Bomb#20, Angra Mainyu, TomC, Dr.Zoidberg, myself, and other people, not to mention Metaphor, Jolly Penguin, and others who have either been banned or got in trouble for something and gave up (which seems may have happened with Metaphor). I have self-banned and returned several times, and go through long periods where I cannot stand to even look at the Politics forum.
I can't speak for those others, but I am most certainly not right wing, although I do have some socially conservative views, and even some fiscally conservative views (although I have modified or renounced many of those over the years). I did more or less align myself to the conservative side years back, but even when I did I have never been racist, a white supremacist, or even a *real* conservative, in that I have never registered as a republican nor as a libertarian. I tend to agree with people who call themselves "classic liberals", although my views have softened in a lot of areas, as in that I now denounce capital punishment, and have a very difficult time with the over-incarceration habit the U.S. of A has seemed to always have had; and I am more inclined to think that some compromise between capitalism and socialism MUST be achieved and sustained. I am opposed to Communism almost as much as I'm opposed to Fascism; but admittedly, I don't think Communism has been effectively employed, at least not in China or the former U.S.S.R, or most other places. I think, in theory, it can and has worked, especially in smaller, agrarian societies, like indigenous peoples, communes, work farms, even monastic retreats and institutions.
Julian Hawthorne, the great novelist's son, wrote an eye-opening book about America's ridiculous spirit of incarceration called The Subterranean Brotherhood. The book was published in 1914, after he had been imprisoned for a year for (allegedly) selling shares in a non-existent company. He was found guilty but maintained his innocence until death. I recommend anyone to read it. He was a good writer and a chip off the old block as far as his ethical and political sentiments were concerned.
My views about classism and egalitarianism have not changed much, except that I understand what can cause homelessness a lot better now, having risked and been close to homelessness for a full two years (2018-2020), and I understand drug addiction, alcohol addiction, and severe depression much more now than I did in my twenties and thirties. I have never cottoned to the notion of classes of human beings (though I understand it and agree that "class" is useful as economic and social terminology, just as "free/freedom" are useful in common language and society).
As for egalitarianism: I believe it is a much misunderstood term. I am all for equal opportunity under the law and in any societal system, as all sane and relatively rational people should be; but I can't see how there ever will be equality of outcomes for all people across the entire social and economic spectrum. I am dead set against bio-engineering, primarily with respect to human beings, at least to how this would actually function in a world where scientists are to decide on matters of ethics and where philosophy is hand-waved away as "woo" and/or unnecessary. Psychiatry and neuroscience are great, but the world needs its philosophers too, objections to the contrary notwithstanding (hello!).
I do agree that there may be an economic solution to achieving equal, or MORE equal, outcomes and total happiness among living beings. But I am not sold on any particular approach I have seen thus far, and remain skeptical. Putting arbitrary or draconian limits on how much wealth a person can amass seems like a recipe for disaster, and legally compelling the extremely wealthy to offer up unproportionally substantial amounts of money - against their will - would be immoral and wrong. The only solution I see is erecting an economic system which would prevent individuals and other entities to amass such absurd amounts of money in the first place.
I have more to say, but would just really like to see all this silly compartmentalization, name-calling, and what I see as deliberate misrepresentation of others' views, lessen considerably in the world, and here.
?" / Twitter