Verily I say unto thee, that Matt spake thusly:
> Homer wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Matt spake thusly:
>>> Ah, so virtue is left-wing extremist.
>>
>> That rather arrogantly assumes that anything which is not
>> right-wing extremism must therefore be left-wing extremism. Believe
>> it or not, there is an entire political spectrum between those two
>> points, not that those indoctrinated to the point of hysteria by
>> typically McCarthyistic American politics seem to be able to grasp
>> that obvious fact.
>
>
> Not to offend you, but ...
>
> Again your thinking is off.
And your thinking is linear, simplistic and indoctrinated.
> "diametrical opposition"
Let me simplify this for you:
Firstly you've mistakenly assumed the "diametrical opposites" which I
referred to are "left and right" politics. In fact, what I /actually/
wrote was "diametrical opposition to anything virtuous". Just because
I failed to explicitly exclude left-wing extremism from the criticism
of Hadron's politics, that shouldn't imply that I believe /it/ is the
object of virtue.
Secondly you compounded your error by fallaciously assuming that left
and right-wing extremism are diametrically opposite, whereas they are
just two paths to the same destination (totalitarianism). Despite the
apparent paradox of duplicity, there is nonetheless still a political
spectrum between those two points, /both/ of which are in diametrical
opposition to anything virtuous, where that virtuous condition is (in
case you haven't yet figured it out) democracy.
I really find it intolerably exhausting debating with someone who has
comprehension skills as limited as yours.
If you still have difficulty understanding this concept then consider
the distance along the circumference of a circle between two adjacent
points on that circumference. It can either be 0˚ or 360˚ - depending
on one's perspective. These two points (left and right-wing extremist
politics) are not diametrical opposites (but that was your assumption
- not mine), but there is nonetheless an entire spectrum of points in
between them. These two points are both at the antapex of the circle,
diametrically opposite a third point (democracy) at the apex. To move
from the apex to the antapex, one can travel along either the left or
right side of the circumference, but irrespective of how one deviates
from the apex, the destination is always the same.
So despite my labelling Hadron's politics as "right-wing extremism" -
something which you apparently found confusing, this has /nothing/ to
do with the differences between left and right-wing extremism, either
one of which are unacceptable, but I should thank you for (yet again)
handing me a soapbox on a silver platter.
Political extremism is wrong, regardless of whether that extremism is
left or right-wing oriented. In this context (and in others which you
don't seem to be aware of) there is no difference between either type
of extremist doctrine. For example, both forms of extremism result in
the same totalitarian regime; the only difference being the nature of
the dictator. In one, the dictator is a single representative of many
corporate interests; in the other that dictator is the state. Neither
one of these conditions benefits the ordinary citizens of that state,
since they are all nonetheless repressed by a totalitarian regime.
The most balanced political doctrine is liberal democracy, which is a
doctrine most conducive to the pursuit of personal liberty, in a fair
and just society. This is /my/ political affiliation, and the primary
motivation for my interest in Free Software. Presumably you associate
the desire for Freedom with Communism, hence your confusion. I should
not be especially surprised by your incomprehension, because you have
already adequately demonstrated that you've become afflicted by right
-wing indoctrination. That doesn't necessarily make you a bad person;
it just makes you a victim of (mostly) American propaganda, but these
twisted ideals you've become afflicted with make my task rather hard,
since you seem incapable of perceiving the concepts of Freedom beyond
cheeseburgers and banknotes - you clearly have a rather McCarthyistic
view of anything which doesn't fully embrace the sick American Dream®
that expounds the ideals of exploitation and greed above all else.
Microsoft's political doctrine (which seems institutionalised through
America) is corporatism (a.k.a. corporate fascism). In the context of
this discussion, or indeed any commentary I offer regarding Microsoft
in COLA, this is the only form of extremism relevant to the issues at
hand. That doesn't mean that I'm unaware; tolerant or even supportive
of left-wing extremism, it simply happens to be irrelevant, not least
of which because (at their core) such doctrines are fundamentally the
same, and therefore a moot point. The impetuses for the manifestation
of extremism may be radically different, thus my tendency to identify
Microsoft's (and their supporters') ideals as "right-wing" instead of
just "extremist", but you shouldn't then assume that I therefore must
support (what you mistakenly perceive to be) the opposite doctrine of
left-wing extremism. The diametrical opposites here are democracy and
extremism, not "left and right" which is merely the indoctrination of
false polarisation (the illusion of political choice). Left and right
wing politics are not political /choices/ - they are merely reactions
and counter-reactions to any form of ideology which deviates from the
goals of democracy, as mankind struggles with its own weaknesses.
Democracy attempts to balance the needs of businesses, with the needs
of the people. Unfortunately, business has a propensity to spiral out
into a megalomaniacal obsession with power and greed, if not properly
regulated. Equally the /people/ have a propensity towards selfishness
and anarchy, if not similarly regulated. Providing this regulation is
the purpose of democratic law, but such laws are not infallible; they
are especially susceptible to corruption from megalomaniacal business
interests (through lobbying and other nefarious practises). Generally
speaking, private interests (i.e. ordinary citizens) usually lack the
financial means to do likewise, so they must depend on democratic law
to serve their interests. When the law fails them, they react against
these violations of their rights. This "reaction" is the beginning of
the downward path towards left-wing extremism, as retaliation against
corporatists dragging them down the opposite path, towards right-wing
extremism. When democracy fails, extremism wins, and society descends
into that antapex which is the diametrical opposite of democracy (the
circle of politics).
I had hoped my references to "diametrical" (diameters) and "spectrum"
(the curvature of rainbows) would be sufficient for you to grasp what
I mean by "diametrical opposition to anything virtuous", but I hadn't
accounted for the fact that you apparently never considered democracy
as virtuous, nor considered the possibility that right-wing extremism
is just as diametrically opposed to democracy as left-wing extremism,
and hence can (seemingly paradoxically) occupy exactly the same point
within the political spectrum (the antapex of politics).
As ever, I find it extremely frustrating that I have to explain every
word I write in excruciating detail exclusively for your benefit, but
without these explanations others might tend to take your fallacious;
simplistic and tainted analysis of my views at face value, and that'd
be a misrepresentation that I'm not prepared to tolerate.
> You have combined those words so that they imply the absurd
> conclusion:
Well it's not really my fault if your mistaken inferences lead you to
absurd conclusions.
> Bonus: your mention of a left-right spectrum shows your
> one-dimensional thinking.
Oh the irony!
> And Homer talking about hysteria---that's a good one.
Yes, it is, although Nietzsche had rather more to say on the subjects
of hysteria and the herd mentality with which you (and others) appear
to be afflicted. It should be abundantly clear to you by now, that my
conceptions are rather more autonomous, and thus mass hysteria serves
me no purpose, other than as a signal for me to strengthen my resolve
to enlighten the herd, and thus set them Free.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
06:34:00 up 52 days, 14:16, 4 users, load average: 1.57, 1.44, 1.31
|
|
