Foxy, you can't simply "define" a concept like "social justice". It is a vague term with numerous overlapping understandings in different contexts and trying to pin down what is and is not social justice can take a while. For that discussion to be at all productive both sides have to be willing to discuss things honestly. Frankly, I can't trust that you have any interest in discussing things honestly.
So - you use an 'out' - I won't discuss honestly. Yet, here I am trying my darnest to get things all set up from the beginning - definitions being one of them.
If you can't define social justice - that it is a vague term with numerous 'overlapping understanding in different contexts' then how can you label the left with it? It would see like a rather ill advised thing to do if you are trying to create the image that the left is a cohesive 'hive' mind. Wouldn't the entirety of the left have to agree on a single definition.
That is all I am asking shag - for that single definition that the entire left subscribes too.
Considering your continued attempts to delegitimize my points and inject false premises into this discussion (the left is one big happy family...your point seems to be disingenuous and illegitimate?) your thinly veiled contentious nature to any opposing view as well as past experience, any attempt to pin down a specific term would stall discourse even further. It has happened on the issue of "social justice" numerous times between you and I and, in the original focus is, at best, tangential. We have already gone far enough off course here.
This is exactly why I am trying to find out, up front, what you mean by 'social justice' very specifically in this case shag - we do run around in circles, so lets make sure we are running down the same straight line this time.
The original discussion between you and me was the political spectrum and how it is defined.
I pointed out that the modern political spectrum is defined by the Left and that the only consistent definition of "The Right" is "those who the Left disagree's with".
You responded by essentially saying both sides define one another while attacking the entire notion of "the Right" as simply a "lump all" category for non-Leftist thought (nevermind that these two arguments undercut one another). Essentially you attempted to delegitimize the point from two opposing angles.
So - you are defining the political spectrum by 'the left' and 'everyone else' basicially - correct?
I am just trying to find out how you define 'the left' - you have stated that they are people concerned with social justice, and tied in collectivism. I am just trying to make sure I understand social justice as you understand social justice in this case - because it is apparently 'fuzzy' and hard to nail down (see your first paragraph).
[*]there is no unifying ideological framework of goals/means that runs through "The Right" (or conservative thought) as there is for the Left.
But, you don't define the left's goals and means except by some sort of 'fuzzy' social justice. Does 'fuzzy' count here?
[*]"The Right" has not (and does not) have the ability to define the Left because, unlike the Left they have never had control of the "tools of propaganda"; media, entertainment, academia, etc.
But, you just defined the left shag - do you have some magical ability that the rest of the right is lacking?
[*] Unlike Leftist thought, "the Right" has not had a need nor the ability to broadly brand it's opposition in simplistic, false terms because...
- Conservatives has been forced to sharpen their arguments by having to play on an uneven playing field for generations while the Left has not had to seriously confront conservative thought as a matter of course. The Left has gotten complacent and their arguments have gotten sloppy as a result. They are used to debating amongst people who share their worldviews and thus discussing issues on the margins instead of having to defend the core premises of their worldview.
- Because of the dominance of the Left in the media, academia, etc., "the Right" has not been afforded the option to falsely brand the Left because any attempt to do so would be met with hostility, heavily scrutinized and quickly debunked. Tying back to the sharpening of the argument, Conservatives/Libertarians have had to find ways to break through those Leftist dominated outlets in ways that have lasting effect and something easily debunked would not have that effect.
- The different viewpoints on human nature lead the Left to look for external factors to blame for human evil and, by extension, for their own political, philosophical and policy failings. Combine that with the group think fostered by dominance of the "tools of propaganda", and it very quickly leads to simplistic understandings of opposing points of view and the ascribing of disingenuous motive and/or less then reasonable thought in the development of those opposing views. In short, the Left is ideologically predisposed to vilifying and creating straw men. Hence the predisposition toward demagoguery (which is what Maher was engaging in and what the Left has been doing with Palin for years now).
But shag, you have in this very thread simplistically, in false terms defined the 'left' (and aren't you the 'right'?) - are you not doing to the 'left' the exact thing you claim the 'left' does to the right?
With new media the left has had to sharpen their rhetoric - they do quite well shag - you might not like it, but there are plenty of outlets that equal American Thinker or Heritage on the left.
Falsely 'brand' the left - the right does it all the time - communist, socialist, traitor, nazi - you name it we get labeled with it.
And once again - you simplify the left as an 'entirety' looking to blame outside forces only for 'evil' in humanity. The entire left shag?
Do you have any source for any of this stuff you are spewing? Or is it just the viewpoint of those on the right, or more specifically you?
However I do like that you do cling to my groupthink theory, regarding the right on this board, from long ago.
Now we are stuck on your attempts to legitimize your two arguments and/or delegitimize the counterpoints I raised instead of directly confronting the counterpoints I raised on their merits.You even confirmed as much by inferring that you are in fact arguing that my point, "seems to be disingenuous and illegitimate". However, arguments are disprovable. You are simply assuming it to be true and, if I don't point it out, that assumption is accepted as an a priori fact in the debate as a premise.
How can there be any honest, civil discourse when the point you raise is simply assumed to be illegitimate? How can there be any honest, civil discourse when the opposition premises their argument on the notion that your argument is illegitimate instead of discussing the idea on it's merits? How is there ANY civility to be had in that context? How can there be any productive discussion when one side simply dismisses counterpoints without reason?
Considering your actions here as well as your history on this forum, not only can I not trust that you are interested in honest discourse, in fact I can reasonably infer the exact opposite. Any answer I give will be met with whatever challenge you can muster. No reasonable point, let alone an entire perspective can be articulated in that type of back and forth format where one side is looking to delegitimize the first thing that comes out of the opposition's mouth.
Your pattern on this forum gives away the game way to soon. If you were interested in honest dialog you would be interested in understanding opposing views that you are clearly rather ignorant of. Instead, you assume they are illegitimate and work feverishly from the moment someone starts articulating them to delegitimize.
I think I have finally figured out your game - smoke and mirrors. As soon as the debate starts to shift - or someone actually tries to actually pin you down, you skitter about. You can't come up with definitions or 'rules' because then you would actually have to debate within those parameters.
If you can't state the rules - which you can't - then you can always claim I am not playing by them, that I am dishonest, or that I am ignorant. Your lack of rules, or definitions, assures you that the playing field can shift at anytime, according to you.
Here, I am even trying to play the game a'la shag - but, you know that as soon as you state a rule viola - that rule can be used against you. You state a definition, and then, you cannot add to it or subtract from it, leaving you to 'play by it'.
Shag - your arguments are built on sand -
