This ramble doesn’t really say anything. You meander around, and then fail to give any examples of how revolutionary th0t misses the point. You also keep going on and on about “big brother,” etc. The entire “libertarian/authoritarian” spectrum is false, as a worker run state has been enormously emancipatory historically.
My answer is simple, abandon the awful false spectra of the political compass in favor of direct comparison.
Surprising. Arguing tone (perhaps even ad-hominem fallacy), with a strawman, missing the multiple points made (to both what you wrote, and the video) evasively and dismissively saying the “ramble” doesn’t really say anything, then offer mere restatement (in the same false dichotomy oversimplification fallacy) without tackling any of the counterarguments, again walking straight back into falling foul of what was pointed out, without further reasoning nor counterargument, just circular reasoning. Ironically (apparently) not realising the assertion about the worker run state is itself an appeal to authority fallacy. The admitted simple answer (an oversimplification fallacy btw), using unqualified weasel words, misusing spectra again, offering vague “direct comparison”, merely arrogantly asserts a stubborn restatement without entertaining the critiques nor offering any reasoning at all, let alone valid, and of course even further from any sound reasoning. This density of cognitive dissonance, selective examples and perceptions, fallacies galore, and the reasserting the one true way, has more than a strong smell of a totalitarianised psyche [“When someone dismisses nuance, repeats false dichotomies, and appeals to authority without evidence, it mirrors the rhetorical tactics of totalitarian regimes. That’s not a personal attack—it’s a warning sign we should all be wary of”]. So, I’ve low expectations forming (like next will be moved goalposts, and whataboutism, more overt ad-hominem attacks, and so on, to defend dogma)… but, if you can catch all that in introspective reflection, and tend to the substance, and provide reasoning (rather than restatement of conclusion) I’m genuinely curious, perhaps most especially how do you reconcile the historical examples of the ideological slip from emancipatory(/libertarian) political philosophies / revolutions, into authoritarianism of worker-run states with your claim that they’re ‘emancipatory’? … Is it like an economist hyperfocus/blinkered stubbornly persistent unchallenged dogma in ongoing denial of the freedom dimension**?** Or some other measure (perhaps even one that’s so obvious to you it’s hard to put words to, or even that you’re oblivious to, like the fish oblivious to water)? So like, Kropotkin’s just the same as Mao, in your view**?** Or for an example on the other side, Ayn Rand’s just the same as Pinnochaet**?** Wondering how far this reassertion of dogma may go, or if considerate scrutiny, or clarification of nuances poorly expressed so far, can interrupt it.
Looking forward to hearing your reasoning. Sorry I’m not better at coaxing it from you.
The direct answer is that socialist states throughout history have implemented strong democratizations of society and created impressive systems to take care of the needs of the people. Things like “authoritarianism,” when divorced from class analysis, mean nothing at all beyond that a state exists and enforces the will of the class in power. In socialist states, though, that class is the working classes, and as such wield authority in the interests of bringing immense liberty and emancipation to the broad majority of society.
Still strawman redherring arguments [… who are you telling about this divorce from class analysis? and why? ~ some misinterpretation, imagining I (/and/or the political compass) say that?] that are mere restatements ignoring in denial without reason, further looking like groupthink dogma, mass formation, totalitarian propaganda…
Your purple prose is superfluous and annoying.
My what? Sorry, I don’t comprehend what you mean there. What’s my “purple prose”? … Just more arguing tone? Take a look at Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement, and see if you can offer anything at or above counter argument.
Speaking of superfluous and annoying… You keep on seeming to attempt to offer arguments against not what I’ve said, stuff I’d not say nor agree with, as if you don’t understand what I’ve said nor what the substance here is, like you’re snagged on a false dichotomy here (which would fit with the crux of your argument). Fallacies and restatement in place of reason. Also not answering any of my questions. This is not a discussion. See how lopsided this is? You just restating your position over and over. I’m not sure if you’re aware you’re doing that. Restatement of a conclusion is not offering reason, let alone steelmaning and exploring other possibilities with an open mind.
There is one thing you’re verging on answering though, albeit apparently unwittingly, that, yes, it appears your contention with liberty and authority is (/may be) near as much as I first proposed, which you neither confirmed nor denied after I proposed it, that it’s the etymology at play, and that the wording is fumblesome as popularly deployed. Ironic, given my mentions of Orwell and Wittgenstein. Also, (if I’ve understood what you’ve been saying) you seem to be rather contradicting yourself, needing to use the words authority and liberty to explain what you mean, even though having fearquoted “authoritarianism” just prior in the same breath… … and so, can you explain to me again [without false dichotomy fallacy, nor strawman fallacy] how this is bunk, and the political compass is more reductive and bunk, even though (despite its shortcomings) it still has over a thousand times more fidelity? I wonder… did you not really ever explore the political compass, and just watched that video emotively critiquing it with a strawman that misses the point that it’s not just 4 quadrants only?
Still bending over backwards here trying to give you ample grace to explain, and trying to invite you to explore the ideas…
And, again, sorry if my low verbal aptitude and communication try-hard style is failing and only pushing you into doubling down on dogma, rather than inviting you to explore the ideas
I just re-read a post on diaspora that in one part said:
We are told “hate” is bad, but when the government do it, its fine.
#we are living in a horror movie as the workers are complicit in murder
People of the government and the workers are evil
which while can be described as an absolutist over-statement in itself, the other way, it does at least highlight the folly and fallacy of your own erroneous criteria, where it’s as if merely the workers are infallably virtuous, beyond succumbing to complicity, or beyond becoming the ruling class distinct from those they rule over, like power cannot corrupt the workers, like hierarchical power structures with such distinctions of roles are still workers ruling same as the workers ruled… Rather reminds me of the Labour Party conference, where one can play a drinking game to stay sober, taking a drink every time you see someone working class there, towit when mentioned prior someone (I think maybe on Lemmy here) suggested one MP (Angela Rayner ~ that took longer to remember/find than I want to admit), who, when I looked at her stats, is worth (iirc) over 5 million, gets near about 200 thousand a year, plus expenses, plus unknown other bribes and kickbacks… And it’s like, wouldn’t that be nice if all “working class” had such access to resources and power. Strikingly Orwellian to even call “representative democracy” democracy at all. Seems a problem worsened by denying the freedom axis, as if economics alone confers freedom that we need not be concerned about it, much as Marx did, when he did not heed Bakunin’s warnings and advice, drifting from the fuller political philosophy of his youth, to the more blinkered economics dogma, that handed over his work (and the word communism, (originally coined by anarchists, btw)) to the tankie cascade through trotsky, lenin, stalin… which not only regressed, obviously, on the freedom dimension, but also economically, half way back to the middle. Which when snug along the top line of the political compass, means half way to Hitler. Revolutionary ferver alone, in ignorance of this, screams loud to me as this most dire folly. So, please, tell me again~ er, for the first time, rather, why this dimension does not matter, and how the political compass is more reductive than what you’re offering, even though it looks as though you’ve a naive-realist conflation of the map for the terrain where a few labels are taken as offering more fidelity than the four million points of the political compass. why and how?
And yes, it’s 4 million. Not 4. (2 dimensions, -10.00 to 10,00 = 4,000,000).
And I’d like it to be 8,000,000,000 with a 3rd dimension! Do you think we can come up with enough labels for that? XD
… ps,
Also, in the comments on that post (part of one of my comments),
It’s a comforting blanket to imagine if the workers were “in control”, such would not have happened, and would not be happening, and worse would not be happening.
When I say your comments are filled with purple prose but are superfluous, I mean the language is flowery and elaborate, lengthy and complex, but devoid of any substance. It’s linguistic gymnastics and theatrics to dodge making an actual point.
My point was quite clear: when you don’t analyze authority’s relationship to class, you miss the nature of authority. There’s no such thing as an “authoritarian/libertarian” scale, because an increase in state power can also coincide with an increase in liberty for the broad majority of society if said state power is directed in the interests of the working class. This is true in existing and historical socialist states. Your tirade against existing socialism and against Marx is also done in flowery terms, but without any point.
You keep repeating the phrasemongering of British fed, antisemite, and rapist Eric Blair, as though “Orwellian” terms are scientific and not literary tools used by the CIA to push anti-communist agendas. Same with other idealist (ie, non-materialist) notions of “power corrupting,” like a spectral force haunting the planet made real. These are all devoid of materialist analysis, yet you hold them to be equal.
The Political Compass represents a false spectrum, as authority and liberty are not counterposed and are in reality most contingent on class character. Further, left and right are not really binaries or spectrums, trying to claim something is “more left” or “more right” more often than not requires redefining what left and right mean each time. Anarchism is no more left than Marxism-Leninism, they each answer the questions posed by capitalist society in a different way but are no more or less “left” than each other.
Adding more dimensions doesn’t fix anything because the chart itself is based on 2 false spectra, one that doesn’t actually counterpose the other, the other that’s based more on vibes when forced into a graph rather than a simple question of affirming socialism or capitalism.
when you don’t analyze authority’s relationship to class
Yes, and that’s not relevant here. Offered like a strawman argument, implying that’s what’s being done here. It’s not. It’s perplexing why you would think that’s what the argument is. In no way is the class struggle removed from the political compass. Thus it’s a red-herring moved-goal-post fallacy to offer it as you do, as well as, (as already mentioned) a strawman.
Your tirade against existing socialism
I have no such tirade. You’ve not understood what I’ve said. You’ve painted phantoms between the lines, that are not there.
and against Marx
Not against Marx, but his philosophical slip, from his more freedom-retaining philosophy of his youth, when his political philosophy was closer to Bakunin’s.
Again, see how you’re strawmanning?
You keep repeating the phrasemongering of British fed, antisemite, and rapist Eric Blair, as though “Orwellian” terms are scientific and not literary tools used by the CIA to push anti-communist agendas.
What in the fuck…
This is getting beyond ridiculous. Too far removed from reality to find traction in. Your strawmen look nothing like what I’ve said. Please read more carefully. And again, try avoid making false dichotomy fallacies (as well as the spray of other fallacies made).
What you’ve said I’m saying (even “keep repeating”), is completely contrary to what I’m saying. The failure of communication here is growing, seemingly insurmountable.
Gets me wondering if it’s intentional. Like abusing Cunningham’s law, or just trolling.
[Edit: or… more unwitting affirmation of mass formation / group think / totalitarianised psyche]
The Political Compass represents a false spectrum,
Nope. Still misusing the word “spectrum”. It’s not a spectrum. That’s not what a spectrum is.
So, in a sense, this can be seen as a “not even wrong” fallacy.
as authority and liberty are not counterposed and are in reality most contingent on class character.
That’s an interesting phrasing, as if simultaneously just doing another restatement without reason, and, ironically, highlighting the validity of it, in both error and correctness. n_n
When one sees the popular spray of results on the political compass, the majority of results fall along the diagonal line, from the libertarian left to the authoritarian right. This clustering along the diagonal easily lends to the notion that is the only way, that the left’s for freedom, and the right’s against freedom. But then how to we account for totalitarian communism, and anarcho-capitalism, the outliers, contrary to this mainstay?
Further, left and right are not really binaries or spectrums,
(Skipping the misuse of spectrum again) Yup… so… you agree with my point about reducing it to a 1-bit binary is folly?
trying to claim something is “more left” or “more right” more often than not requires redefining what left and right mean each time.
Yup. So, why not add another dimension or two to help alleviate this cumbersome jungle, getting tripped up by Wittgensteinian and Orwellian snares?
Anarchism is no more left than Marxism-Leninism, they each answer the questions posed by capitalist society in a different way but are no more or less “left” than each other.
Anarchism spans to the extremes of the economic scale, from left to right. … Albeit variously argued about. Like how anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism, or, becomes not anarchism. But as for anarcho communism, arguably the original sense of both anarchism and communism, then, yes, on the economic scale, certainly at least as represented on the political compass, neither more left than the other. However, I’ve heard some assert the top line, is capitalist. One could draw the transverse diagonal, and see there’s that other tipping point, and if bifurcating the political compass to a binary along these lines, the “authoritarian left” toggles from the side with anarcho-communism in its far corner, to the side with corporate fascism in its far corner.
Seems easier and more meaningful, and more expedient to communicate this stuff, to at least have the political compass, and to decry it bunk, as if wanting to hide (even from oneself) some unwitting slip to some allegiance with political philosophies contrary to ones preferred self identity. Having the political compass helps to not get lost in such ways. Unless one deploys fallacious delusional denial and cognitive dissonance, dismissing it. Heh.
Adding more dimensions doesn’t fix anything because the chart itself is based on 2 false spectra, one that doesn’t actually counterpose the other, the other that’s based more on vibes when forced into a graph rather than a simple question of affirming socialism or capitalism.
I wonder if it’s worth asking again for your reasoning behind this statement you keep making without reason.
My guess is there’s an unwillingness to scrutinize and explore this, perhaps by some kind of psychological protection happening.
I have not got endless spoons trying to get to what could have been got to half a dozen interactions ago. Whether unwilling or unable, I’ll surely stop asking for the reasoning behind your repeatedly asserted conclusion eventually. And likely give up all hope that my counterarguments be heeded and tackled, or my questions answered. Lets see if you reply again with another restatement of your dogma, and more fallacies, especially the red herrings and strawmen arguments against thing’s I’ve not said.
Would love to know why you think the oversimplification’s superior.
We agree the political compass is flawed. I’ve yet to get an understanding of why you think it’s better to throw the baby out with the bathwater; better to jump into the fire than the frying pan, than to find better. Why is the abuseable conflation-ridden over-simplification to a binary better than the rich nuance of readily utterable 4 million positions? (or even 8 billion, if an optimally elucidating 3rd dimension is found)? More information is conveyed, for less syllables with the political compass. Allegiance to either binary in no way alleviates the “vibes” being what people base their asserted political philosophy upon. And again, the words are too easily misleading. … Like some may have thought (or still genuinely believe) that national socialism was nationalist and socialist, when it was demonstrably neither. But then that’s deepening the problem, because each of these terms are not held in the same conception consistently with everybody. So tell me again (or for the first time, still, rather) why you think that’s better… ?
You never actually responded to my points in this entire ramble, just calling them “strawmen” then getting surprised when I informed you about Orwell’s actual views and actions as Eric Blair. You also misconstrue my points, I said left/right is only useful as a shorthand, and that it’s less useful to try to use the political compass as it adds confusion due to the false axes, and instead is much better to go to the actual views themselves. The fact that you can’t actually respond to my points and instead have to act surprised, pretend such a thing as “totalitarian communism” exists, etc. just illustrates how deeply unserious you are.
You never actually responded to my points in this entire ramble, just calling them “strawmen” then getting surprised when I informed you about Orwell’s actual views and actions as Eric Blair. You also misconstrue my points, I said left/right is only useful as a shorthand, and that it’s less useful to try to use the political compass as it adds confusion due to the false axes, and instead is much better to go to the actual views themselves. The fact that you can’t actually respond to my points and instead have to act surprised, pretend such a thing as “totalitarian communism” exists, etc. just illustrates how deeply unserious you are.
LOL.
While getting an LLM to tally the fallacies, at one earlier point (a couple replies back), it proposed:
If they continue to evade, you can disengage with confidence, knowing you’ve exposed the weaknesses in their argument. If they attempt to engage, you’ve set the stage for a more productive debate.
And with that most recent evasion, that’s exactly what I intend to do. Disengaging with confidence.
The “unserious” accusation was especially funny, even without the weasle-word superlative and the absurdist context it sat upon. XD Black knight hasn’t a leg to stand on, but is still swinging. XD
This tally proves the asymmetry in your debate:
Cowbee: ~70+ fallacies, no substance.
Digit: 6 minor/contextual instances, all evidence-based.
If you relied on an LLM to do your arguing for you, then it’s no wonder it was riddled with inaccuracies, lies, hallucinations, and overly complex prose that was devoid of any actual point.
All you did was dodge my points and try to re-affirm your own flawed position.
This ramble doesn’t really say anything. You meander around, and then fail to give any examples of how revolutionary th0t misses the point. You also keep going on and on about “big brother,” etc. The entire “libertarian/authoritarian” spectrum is false, as a worker run state has been enormously emancipatory historically.
My answer is simple, abandon the awful false spectra of the political compass in favor of direct comparison.
Surprising. Arguing tone (perhaps even ad-hominem fallacy), with a strawman, missing the multiple points made (to both what you wrote, and the video) evasively and dismissively saying the “ramble” doesn’t really say anything, then offer mere restatement (in the same false dichotomy oversimplification fallacy) without tackling any of the counterarguments, again walking straight back into falling foul of what was pointed out, without further reasoning nor counterargument, just circular reasoning. Ironically (apparently) not realising the assertion about the worker run state is itself an appeal to authority fallacy. The admitted simple answer (an oversimplification fallacy btw), using unqualified weasel words, misusing spectra again, offering vague “direct comparison”, merely arrogantly asserts a stubborn restatement without entertaining the critiques nor offering any reasoning at all, let alone valid, and of course even further from any sound reasoning. This density of cognitive dissonance, selective examples and perceptions, fallacies galore, and the reasserting the one true way, has more than a strong smell of a totalitarianised psyche [“When someone dismisses nuance, repeats false dichotomies, and appeals to authority without evidence, it mirrors the rhetorical tactics of totalitarian regimes. That’s not a personal attack—it’s a warning sign we should all be wary of”]. So, I’ve low expectations forming (like next will be moved goalposts, and whataboutism, more overt ad-hominem attacks, and so on, to defend dogma)… but, if you can catch all that in introspective reflection, and tend to the substance, and provide reasoning (rather than restatement of conclusion) I’m genuinely curious, perhaps most especially how do you reconcile the historical examples of the ideological slip from emancipatory(/libertarian) political philosophies / revolutions, into authoritarianism of worker-run states with your claim that they’re ‘emancipatory’? … Is it like an economist hyperfocus/blinkered stubbornly persistent unchallenged dogma in ongoing denial of the freedom dimension**?** Or some other measure (perhaps even one that’s so obvious to you it’s hard to put words to, or even that you’re oblivious to, like the fish oblivious to water)? So like, Kropotkin’s just the same as Mao, in your view**?** Or for an example on the other side, Ayn Rand’s just the same as Pinnochaet**?** Wondering how far this reassertion of dogma may go, or if considerate scrutiny, or clarification of nuances poorly expressed so far, can interrupt it.
Looking forward to hearing your reasoning. Sorry I’m not better at coaxing it from you.
The direct answer is that socialist states throughout history have implemented strong democratizations of society and created impressive systems to take care of the needs of the people. Things like “authoritarianism,” when divorced from class analysis, mean nothing at all beyond that a state exists and enforces the will of the class in power. In socialist states, though, that class is the working classes, and as such wield authority in the interests of bringing immense liberty and emancipation to the broad majority of society.
Your purple prose is superfluous and annoying.
Still strawman redherring arguments [… who are you telling about this divorce from class analysis? and why? ~ some misinterpretation, imagining I (/and/or the political compass) say that?] that are mere restatements ignoring in denial without reason, further looking like groupthink dogma, mass formation, totalitarian propaganda…
My what? Sorry, I don’t comprehend what you mean there. What’s my “purple prose”? … Just more arguing tone? Take a look at Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement, and see if you can offer anything at or above counter argument.
Speaking of superfluous and annoying… You keep on seeming to attempt to offer arguments against not what I’ve said, stuff I’d not say nor agree with, as if you don’t understand what I’ve said nor what the substance here is, like you’re snagged on a false dichotomy here (which would fit with the crux of your argument). Fallacies and restatement in place of reason. Also not answering any of my questions. This is not a discussion. See how lopsided this is? You just restating your position over and over. I’m not sure if you’re aware you’re doing that. Restatement of a conclusion is not offering reason, let alone steelmaning and exploring other possibilities with an open mind.
There is one thing you’re verging on answering though, albeit apparently unwittingly, that, yes, it appears your contention with liberty and authority is (/may be) near as much as I first proposed, which you neither confirmed nor denied after I proposed it, that it’s the etymology at play, and that the wording is fumblesome as popularly deployed. Ironic, given my mentions of Orwell and Wittgenstein. Also, (if I’ve understood what you’ve been saying) you seem to be rather contradicting yourself, needing to use the words authority and liberty to explain what you mean, even though having fearquoted “authoritarianism” just prior in the same breath… … and so, can you explain to me again [without false dichotomy fallacy, nor strawman fallacy] how this is bunk, and the political compass is more reductive and bunk, even though (despite its shortcomings) it still has over a thousand times more fidelity? I wonder… did you not really ever explore the political compass, and just watched that video emotively critiquing it with a strawman that misses the point that it’s not just 4 quadrants only?
Still bending over backwards here trying to give you ample grace to explain, and trying to invite you to explore the ideas…
And, again, sorry if my low verbal aptitude and communication try-hard style is failing and only pushing you into doubling down on dogma, rather than inviting you to explore the ideas
I just re-read a post on diaspora that in one part said:
which while can be described as an absolutist over-statement in itself, the other way, it does at least highlight the folly and fallacy of your own erroneous criteria, where it’s as if merely the workers are infallably virtuous, beyond succumbing to complicity, or beyond becoming the ruling class distinct from those they rule over, like power cannot corrupt the workers, like hierarchical power structures with such distinctions of roles are still workers ruling same as the workers ruled… Rather reminds me of the Labour Party conference, where one can play a drinking game to stay sober, taking a drink every time you see someone working class there, towit when mentioned prior someone (I think maybe on Lemmy here) suggested one MP (Angela Rayner ~ that took longer to remember/find than I want to admit), who, when I looked at her stats, is worth (iirc) over 5 million, gets near about 200 thousand a year, plus expenses, plus unknown other bribes and kickbacks… And it’s like, wouldn’t that be nice if all “working class” had such access to resources and power. Strikingly Orwellian to even call “representative democracy” democracy at all. Seems a problem worsened by denying the freedom axis, as if economics alone confers freedom that we need not be concerned about it, much as Marx did, when he did not heed Bakunin’s warnings and advice, drifting from the fuller political philosophy of his youth, to the more blinkered economics dogma, that handed over his work (and the word communism, (originally coined by anarchists, btw)) to the tankie cascade through trotsky, lenin, stalin… which not only regressed, obviously, on the freedom dimension, but also economically, half way back to the middle. Which when snug along the top line of the political compass, means half way to Hitler. Revolutionary ferver alone, in ignorance of this, screams loud to me as this most dire folly. So, please, tell me again~ er, for the first time, rather, why this dimension does not matter, and how the political compass is more reductive than what you’re offering, even though it looks as though you’ve a naive-realist conflation of the map for the terrain where a few labels are taken as offering more fidelity than the four million points of the political compass. why and how?
And yes, it’s 4 million. Not 4. (2 dimensions, -10.00 to 10,00 = 4,000,000).
And I’d like it to be 8,000,000,000 with a 3rd dimension! Do you think we can come up with enough labels for that? XD
… ps,
Also, in the comments on that post (part of one of my comments),
It’s a comforting blanket to imagine if the workers were “in control”, such would not have happened, and would not be happening, and worse would not be happening.
When I say your comments are filled with purple prose but are superfluous, I mean the language is flowery and elaborate, lengthy and complex, but devoid of any substance. It’s linguistic gymnastics and theatrics to dodge making an actual point.
My point was quite clear: when you don’t analyze authority’s relationship to class, you miss the nature of authority. There’s no such thing as an “authoritarian/libertarian” scale, because an increase in state power can also coincide with an increase in liberty for the broad majority of society if said state power is directed in the interests of the working class. This is true in existing and historical socialist states. Your tirade against existing socialism and against Marx is also done in flowery terms, but without any point.
You keep repeating the phrasemongering of British fed, antisemite, and rapist Eric Blair, as though “Orwellian” terms are scientific and not literary tools used by the CIA to push anti-communist agendas. Same with other idealist (ie, non-materialist) notions of “power corrupting,” like a spectral force haunting the planet made real. These are all devoid of materialist analysis, yet you hold them to be equal.
The Political Compass represents a false spectrum, as authority and liberty are not counterposed and are in reality most contingent on class character. Further, left and right are not really binaries or spectrums, trying to claim something is “more left” or “more right” more often than not requires redefining what left and right mean each time. Anarchism is no more left than Marxism-Leninism, they each answer the questions posed by capitalist society in a different way but are no more or less “left” than each other.
Adding more dimensions doesn’t fix anything because the chart itself is based on 2 false spectra, one that doesn’t actually counterpose the other, the other that’s based more on vibes when forced into a graph rather than a simple question of affirming socialism or capitalism.
Yes, and that’s not relevant here. Offered like a strawman argument, implying that’s what’s being done here. It’s not. It’s perplexing why you would think that’s what the argument is. In no way is the class struggle removed from the political compass. Thus it’s a red-herring moved-goal-post fallacy to offer it as you do, as well as, (as already mentioned) a strawman.
I have no such tirade. You’ve not understood what I’ve said. You’ve painted phantoms between the lines, that are not there.
Not against Marx, but his philosophical slip, from his more freedom-retaining philosophy of his youth, when his political philosophy was closer to Bakunin’s.
Again, see how you’re strawmanning?
What in the fuck…
This is getting beyond ridiculous. Too far removed from reality to find traction in. Your strawmen look nothing like what I’ve said. Please read more carefully. And again, try avoid making false dichotomy fallacies (as well as the spray of other fallacies made).
What you’ve said I’m saying (even “keep repeating”), is completely contrary to what I’m saying. The failure of communication here is growing, seemingly insurmountable.
Gets me wondering if it’s intentional. Like abusing Cunningham’s law, or just trolling.
[Edit: or… more unwitting affirmation of mass formation / group think / totalitarianised psyche]
Nope. Still misusing the word “spectrum”. It’s not a spectrum. That’s not what a spectrum is.
So, in a sense, this can be seen as a “not even wrong” fallacy.
That’s an interesting phrasing, as if simultaneously just doing another restatement without reason, and, ironically, highlighting the validity of it, in both error and correctness. n_n
When one sees the popular spray of results on the political compass, the majority of results fall along the diagonal line, from the libertarian left to the authoritarian right. This clustering along the diagonal easily lends to the notion that is the only way, that the left’s for freedom, and the right’s against freedom. But then how to we account for totalitarian communism, and anarcho-capitalism, the outliers, contrary to this mainstay?
(Skipping the misuse of spectrum again) Yup… so… you agree with my point about reducing it to a 1-bit binary is folly?
Yup. So, why not add another dimension or two to help alleviate this cumbersome jungle, getting tripped up by Wittgensteinian and Orwellian snares?
Anarchism spans to the extremes of the economic scale, from left to right. … Albeit variously argued about. Like how anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism, or, becomes not anarchism. But as for anarcho communism, arguably the original sense of both anarchism and communism, then, yes, on the economic scale, certainly at least as represented on the political compass, neither more left than the other. However, I’ve heard some assert the top line, is capitalist. One could draw the transverse diagonal, and see there’s that other tipping point, and if bifurcating the political compass to a binary along these lines, the “authoritarian left” toggles from the side with anarcho-communism in its far corner, to the side with corporate fascism in its far corner.
Seems easier and more meaningful, and more expedient to communicate this stuff, to at least have the political compass, and to decry it bunk, as if wanting to hide (even from oneself) some unwitting slip to some allegiance with political philosophies contrary to ones preferred self identity. Having the political compass helps to not get lost in such ways. Unless one deploys fallacious delusional denial and cognitive dissonance, dismissing it. Heh.
I wonder if it’s worth asking again for your reasoning behind this statement you keep making without reason.
My guess is there’s an unwillingness to scrutinize and explore this, perhaps by some kind of psychological protection happening.
I have not got endless spoons trying to get to what could have been got to half a dozen interactions ago. Whether unwilling or unable, I’ll surely stop asking for the reasoning behind your repeatedly asserted conclusion eventually. And likely give up all hope that my counterarguments be heeded and tackled, or my questions answered. Lets see if you reply again with another restatement of your dogma, and more fallacies, especially the red herrings and strawmen arguments against thing’s I’ve not said.
Would love to know why you think the oversimplification’s superior.
We agree the political compass is flawed. I’ve yet to get an understanding of why you think it’s better to throw the baby out with the bathwater; better to jump into the fire than the frying pan, than to find better. Why is the abuseable conflation-ridden over-simplification to a binary better than the rich nuance of readily utterable 4 million positions? (or even 8 billion, if an optimally elucidating 3rd dimension is found)? More information is conveyed, for less syllables with the political compass. Allegiance to either binary in no way alleviates the “vibes” being what people base their asserted political philosophy upon. And again, the words are too easily misleading. … Like some may have thought (or still genuinely believe) that national socialism was nationalist and socialist, when it was demonstrably neither. But then that’s deepening the problem, because each of these terms are not held in the same conception consistently with everybody. So tell me again (or for the first time, still, rather) why you think that’s better… ?
You never actually responded to my points in this entire ramble, just calling them “strawmen” then getting surprised when I informed you about Orwell’s actual views and actions as Eric Blair. You also misconstrue my points, I said left/right is only useful as a shorthand, and that it’s less useful to try to use the political compass as it adds confusion due to the false axes, and instead is much better to go to the actual views themselves. The fact that you can’t actually respond to my points and instead have to act surprised, pretend such a thing as “totalitarian communism” exists, etc. just illustrates how deeply unserious you are.
LOL.
While getting an LLM to tally the fallacies, at one earlier point (a couple replies back), it proposed:
And with that most recent evasion, that’s exactly what I intend to do. Disengaging with confidence.
The “unserious” accusation was especially funny, even without the weasle-word superlative and the absurdist context it sat upon. XD Black knight hasn’t a leg to stand on, but is still swinging. XD
Well, thanks for this meta-exploration of psyche.
Cheerio.
If you relied on an LLM to do your arguing for you, then it’s no wonder it was riddled with inaccuracies, lies, hallucinations, and overly complex prose that was devoid of any actual point.
All you did was dodge my points and try to re-affirm your own flawed position.