Political rubrics

[Ruralguy]

I think most people know, roughly, the continuum of views on such issues. The problem is that many don't really care about that spectrum. They just want to discuss their views. They'll tend toward being pejorative for any view other than their own.

For the most part, you appear to be asking people to be a bit more charitable in their argumentation.

That's probably not a bad thing.

[marshwiggle]

I think most people know, roughly, the continuum of views on such issues. The problem is that many don't really care about that spectrum. They just want to discuss their views. They'll tend toward being pejorative for any view other than their own.

For the most part, you appear to be asking people to be a bit more charitable in their argumentation.

That's probably not a bad thing.

I think I'd say "transparent" rather than charitable. If I accuse someone of holding an "extreme" position that I disagree with, then that implies there must be some position in between them that I still disagree with, but that I consider "moderate".

For instance, during the riots in the summer of 2020, *ANTIFA represented the far left by engaging in violence and property crime. By definition, anyone holding many of the same views but still respecting the rule of law would be more moderate. 

(* or whoever was setting things on fire, looting, creating "the CHAZ/CHOP", etc.)

When someone refers to "far-right anti-abortion protesters" then I'd like to hear how they would define "moderate-right anti-abortion protesters". Presumably that would involve either what they believe or how they express it.

(Clarification: It makes no sense to define "moderate" as holding the same views as "extreme" but simply not expressing them publicly. Carrying that to its logical conclusion would mean that publicly expressing any compromise position would be morally unacceptable.)
 

[lightning]

I think most people know, roughly, the continuum of views on such issues. The problem is that many don't really care about that spectrum. They just want to discuss their views. They'll tend toward being pejorative for any view other than their own.

For the most part, you appear to be asking people to be a bit more charitable in their argumentation.

That's probably not a bad thing.

I think I'd say "transparent" rather than charitable. If I accuse someone of holding an "extreme" position that I disagree with, then that implies there must be some position in between them that I still disagree with, but that I consider "moderate".

For instance, during the riots in the summer of 2020, *ANTIFA represented the far left by engaging in violence and property crime. By definition, anyone holding many of the same views but still respecting the rule of law would be more moderate. 

(* or whoever was setting things on fire, looting, creating "the CHAZ/CHOP", etc.)

When someone refers to "far-right anti-abortion protesters" then I'd like to hear how they would define "moderate-right anti-abortion protesters". Presumably that would involve either what they believe or how they express it.

(Clarification: It makes no sense to define "moderate" as holding the same views as "extreme" but simply not expressing them publicly. Carrying that to its logical conclusion would mean that publicly expressing any compromise position would be morally unacceptable.)
 

And that's why I maintain that rubrics are useless. The rubrics themselves are reflexive and can be plotted on yet another fluid spectrum, defined by whoever and whomever wants to define it. Yes, we can indicate our own rubric to introduce our ideas, but that only subjects the rubric to yet another rubric attempting to be objective.

The more you try to be objective when it comes to labels and symbols, the harder it becomes to be objective. When trying to define a symbol with a rubric, whether as a preface or for interpretation, the rubric itself becomes a fluid symbol. Antifa, BLM, the confederate flag, taking a knee, Republican, Democrat-- these are all symbols.

[Anselm]

Anarcholibertarians seem to fall on the right in that they favor private property and respecting cultural traditions.  What is called far right in Europe includes people who believe in guaranteed jobs, healthcare and strict environmental protections. As someone who has studied all extremes I do notice that far left and far right have a lot of common ground which would support the horseshoe theory.  Many ideas start out as fringe and extremist but then become mainstream and that also works in the reverse direction.  I just find that these labels are too vague to have any good meaning for serious discussions.

[Wahoo Redux]

It seems really obvious to me that there are codifiable conservative vs liberal beliefs readily available in the public sphere.

Liberals:
---guaranteed universal income / tax the rich
---reparations
---LGBTQ rights
---gun control
---separation of church and state
---Trump lost
etc.

Conservatives:
---business first / tax loopholes a God given right
---end Affirmative Action
---no "Special rights"
---Second Amendment
---America founded by Christians
---Trump was cheated by an amazingly well constructed Democratic conspiracy; the Jan. 6th patriots are being railroaded & the charges against Trump are a politically motivated witch hunt but Killary, on the other hand, needs to be locked up along with Hunter
etc.

And we all know these things and where they fall when they come up.

As someone has said, the individual viewpoints are far too messy, however, for an easy matrix.  Trump, a Clinton or two, the "Mainstream Media," and the Second Amendment can make some otherwise mainstream, sane, law-abiding people literally dangerous. And the catalysts are ridiculous. Antifa are loud, stupid kids.  Communism has been dead in North America for 40 years or so.  The Proud Boys are a teeny-tiny minority of hard-right activists. 

What strikes me is how much the conservative base has changed in my lifetime.  My parents were both Depression-era babies and Eisenhower-era young adults.  The only time my father said a bigoted thing in his life was when he saw a couple of young men wearing high heels in New York City.  They hated long hair, rock'n'roll, most TV programs, and obnoxious '80s fashions.  The Flower Power and late Boomer generations were very boggling to them and actually made them angry for no particular reason. When my widowed grandfather brought his girlfriend for a visit, my father made them rent a hotel room because he would not have unmarried people sharing a bed in his house. The world was full of evils that are now commonplace.

Now even Trump tries to dance to rock music, and a good many conservatives are sporting long Metalhead hair, listening to Green Day and Metallica, and staying up all night watching Netflix and engaging in premarital sex openly and unabashedly.  Approximately half of all conservatives are fine with gay rights.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-homosexuality/by/state/among/party-affiliation/republican-lean-rep/

The country is slowly becoming more liberal in outlook, even with the current culture wars.  This, I believe, is part of the reason there has been such a conservative backlash of late.  Bud Light abides. 

[Anselm]

Wahoo Redux, what did liberal and conservative mean 60 years ago when these topics were not even a thing back then?  UBI and reparations only seem to have been on the table for the past decade.

[Wahoo Redux]

Wahoo Redux, what did liberal and conservative mean 60 years ago when these topics were not even a thing back then?  UBI and reparations only seem to have been on the table for the past decade.

Well, in the first place, I was thinking 40 or 45 years ago.

In any event, I just mentioned the ones that I personally saw----Rock'n'Roll, the "longhairs," premarital sex, and unmarried couples cohabitating----I left off drugs, the Vietnam war, abortion, and Richard Nixon.  And, most ridiculous of all, boys with pierced ears.  My father was mad about tattoos too and predicted financial and cultural ruin on anyone with a tattoo.

I mentioned reparations only because anyone familiar with American society will know how a conservative will most likely react vs. how a liberal will most likely react, acknowledging that there are plenty of variations on both sides.  The point was that we pretty much know how society is divided based upon the issue at play.  Please reread, because that was a separate commentary than the one about how society was changing.