Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   casey is remote (realcaseyrollins@social.freetalklive.com)'s status on Thursday, 21-Sep-2023 09:06:53 JST casey is remote

   It boggles my mind how the left side of the political aisle wants more government control, and greatly trusts the state, while the right wants the government to take a more hands-off approach in comparison, yet the right wingers are considered to be more fascist than left wingers.

   Fascism requires three things: authoritarianism, trust in the state, and private sector cooperation in authoritarian measures. It's easier to find people who believe in all three on the left than on the right.

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Thursday, 21-Sep-2023 09:06:51 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to

     • midway
     why would this model be considered better than the by now already traditional bi-dimensional spectrum, with different axes for economic (collectivist vs individualist) and social (libertarian vs authoritarian) issues? to me, it comes across as a failure to realize that it's two separate and independent dimensions, in that it sort of has two axes, but limits how far one can go in the combinations to force the choices into a triangle rather than e.g. a square
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Political_Compass
   • Embed this notice
     midway (midway@soapbox.midwaytrades.com)'s status on Thursday, 21-Sep-2023 09:06:52 JST midway

     in reply to
     The political trichotomy is revealing itself. There aren’t two sides, but 3. It had always been that way.
   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Friday, 22-Sep-2023 05:12:32 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to

     • midway
     that sounds like prejudice to me. to me, regulating economy heavily so as to prevent monopolies, economic abuse and overthrow of democracies, while enabling people to live their lives as they see fit (without abusing others) is not only a perfectly reasonable position, it's *the* most reasonable position. so your chart comes across as discriminatory and attempting to create a blind spot to hide the existence of this reasonable position.
     
     and then, chopping one quadrant of a square and combining two points that should otherwise be quite distant is not clarifying, it's a severe distortion of the picture.
   • Embed this notice
     midway (midway@soapbox.midwaytrades.com)'s status on Friday, 22-Sep-2023 05:12:33 JST midway

     in reply to

     • Alexandre Oliva
     Mostly because I don’t believe that left libertarianism is a real thing or at a minimum has zero practicality and so not a serious position. You can’t want the government to have a heavy regulatory hand but still want them to stay away out of your life and wallet. Those 2 thing’s don’t go together. So if you chop that quadrant off you get the 3 sides.
     
     And it better shows the alignment of fundamental value of each side more clearly, at least to me. It shows how what we call the right is really split between 2 different core values that reduce the other as one increases. It’s the fundamental divide on the right.