Difference between revisions of "Talk:Leftist"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Replaced content with "you all can suck it")
Line 1: Line 1:
−
This is a total contradiction:
+
you all can suck it
−
 
 
−
:'' Politics on the 'left' usually imply taking positions in favor of poor, powerless, or oppressed people. Therefore communists, socialists, and social democrats are usually considered leftists
 
−
 
 
−
People living under Communism are not "oppressed".  Pul-leez.  It will be reverted, but I haven;t a clue how to fix it.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
That is not a contradiction but a limit of the one dimentional political view.  That is why some views use an additional libertarian/authoritarian axis.  The communist ideal is in favor of the positions mentioned above, but takes a very authoritarian approach to acheiving those goals.  It is by that standard that it becomes oppressive and indeed, much of the reason that communism seems to fight its own ideals.
 
−
 
 
−
:Exactly, it's not a contradiction at all: it's evidence that not every political viewpoint lies on a left/right spectrum. Back in 1917 communists and a lot of other kinds of leftist radicals stood up in favor of the poor and the serfs against the Russian nobility. They proceeded to massively screw up their country. So around 1989 a lot of ordinary Russians stood up against oppression by Soviet bureaucrats. The people who overthrew the USSR were:
 
−
# leftist?
 
−
# rightist?
 
−
# none of the above? (Seems to me that's the right answer!!) --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 05:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
By the way, I made some comments on how to define the political spectrum on the Talk:rightist page. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 05:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==Communism==
 
−
 
 
−
::Rob, I studied Communism - both its theoretical components such as [[Marxism]] ( or "[[Marxism-Leninism]]") and its history in countries like [[Soviet Union]], [[China]], [[Cuba]], [[Cambodia]], etc.) I'm not sure what you mean by ''People living under Communism are not "oppressed".'' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:::I was talking about this quote,
 
−
:::''"Politics on the 'left' ...imply taking positions in favor of ...oppressed people. Therefore communists...are ...considered leftists''
 
−
:::This ranks with Holocaust denial in it's offensive quality.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
So called communism as it has been practiced thus far is NOT true communism. Therefore it cannot be oppressive. For the former USSR to have been a communist nation their could not be a leader, since they would be elevated above everybody else. This goes in opposition to the definition of communism. All "communist" experiments thus far have been flawed because they have leaders.
 
−
--[[User:Caznoob|Caznoob]] 13:48, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:Interesting debate; kinda like [[Hell]] is not really Hell because, according to the Bible, God is light.  Light generates heat, thus where God does not dwell, there is no light.  Hence there are no fires of Hell, because God is the source of light, heat, and warmth.  So, contrary to popular misconceptions, Hell is not really full of eternal fire, rather eternal darkness.  Being dark, there is no light or heat.  IOW, Hell really is a freezing cold place because there is no light. 
 
−
 
 
−
:Finally got that straighten out.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:02, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
For an interesting idea of hell read "Paradise Lost" by John Milton. Anyways, your post is very true about hell but regardless it says nothing about communism.--[[User:Caznoob|Caznoob]] 14:12, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==Definition==
 
−
 
 
−
:Here it is written that leftist "''usually imply challenging the traditional system of a society, by people who believe their economic interests, or personal values, or political rights are not supported by the traditional ruling institutions.''" What about people in a country such as France with a highly regulated economy challenging this on the grounds that it doesn't ''support'' their ''economic interests, or personal values''. Are such people ''leftist''?
 
−
 
 
−
:''During the Reign of Terror of the early Enlightenment, the left attempted a dechristianization movement to ...'' The phrase ''the left'' implies ''the left'' are some kind of homgenous mass. All of the left ''attempted a dechristianization movement''? (simply read the linked article [[Enlightenment]]) What relevance the ramblings of an anarchist have I will leave to others to decide. Such edits seem to be what the editor thinks ''leftists'' are and are not an encyclopedic description of ''leftist'' thoughts or tendencies. Such edits contravene [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] 5: ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry''.
 
−
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 15:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::What is unfortunate is we reached the pot-of-gold at the end of the leftist rainbow in 1989 with the collapse of Communism.  Now we see all these definitions are problematic, but certain editors wish to hold to them.  So they just need to be balanced with the factual record of leftist accomplishments.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:31, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::Are you trying to say '''all''' ''leftists'' supported communism? As a consequence do you think this should be reflected in the article?
 
−
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 05:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::::That is dependent upon which timeframe or era you are discussing. As we've stated, the term has been redefined several times/  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::I Made a tentative edit which makes a timeframe irrelevant.
 
−
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:[[User:RobS|RobS]] reverted it before I had taken my finger of the ''save page'' button.
 
−
 
 
−
::I thought this definition:
 
−
:::The term '''Leftist'' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the [[political spectrum]] who generally supports varying degrees of social or political or economic change designed to promote the public welfare, variously in the guises of social democracy, or liberalism, the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those or who oppose right-wing politics.
 
−
::was somewhat better than:
 
−
:::The term '''Leftist''' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the [[political spectrum]]. Politics on the 'left' usually imply challenging the traditional system of a society, by people who believe their economic interests, or personal values, or political rights are not supported by the traditional ruling institutions. Of course, it is obvious that there is not just one dimension of political thought, so that people can unambiguously be classified as 'right' or 'left'. Nonetheless, the left/right description of the [[political spectrum theory]] still has wide currency.
 
−
::What can others add, what do they think?
 
−
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::''change designed to promote the public welfare''
 
−
::::That [[leftist]] utopia, [[North Korea]] is "designed to promote the public welfare"?  you will probably get an arguement there. And North Korea, beginning with the founding of the regime, or its state and condition today, can hardly be described as "conservative", or "right-wing".  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::Did you actually read ''change designed to promote the public welfare''? Note the word ''designed''. There is no implication in the sentence that the ''design'' will actually succeed. [[Kim Jong Il]] may weel believe his ''leftismness'' is ''designed to promote the public welfare'' - I belive it won't succeed.
 
−
::George Bush is following a strategy ''designed'' to defeat global terrorism. Discuss.
 
−
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:::So, under this theory, we are to ignore what actual human experience has taught us, and continue promoting and propounding myths that the judgement of history says are extremely hazardous and detrimental.  IOW, ignore human rights violations, and continue propounding the myth its all for the "benefit" of "public welfare".  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::I think that the term ''leftist'' is so impossibly vague as to be almost meaningless. There is no such thing as an identifiable leftist ideology. Ideologies such as communism, socialism, social democracy and so on may all be "leftist" to some degree, but are different enough from one another to make a collective term such as leftist essentially empty. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 14:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::Would you agree the term [[theory]] is applicable?  I am contemplating a poll to page move [[Political spectrum]] to [[Political spectrum theory]] by consensus.  Then we can engage in theorizing and generalizations without the highly contentious and controversial doctrinaire assertions.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::::Since most of your edits seem to be based on either your personal opinion, which would be in violation of [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] No. 5, or is your own original research, which is apparently acceptable under [[Differences with Wikipedia]] No.10, an unambiguous solution would be for you to create [[Essay: Political spectrum theory]]. Then those of us who prefer to write encyclopedic articles could get on with the job undisturbed by eager researchers.
 
−
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::Well actually, I'm not interested in the spectrum theory, and rarely use designations like "left" or "right"; I do make occasional references to "leftists" for persons and groups who identify themselves as "leftists".  My only job is to insure factual marterial is placed in any of the these articles.  And assertions such as "leftists are for what's beneficial to humanity", or "liberals are broadminded" are proveably false assertions.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:07, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::For someone who rarely use designations like "left" or "right" you seem to be eager to retain a monopoly on how they are defined.
 
−
:::*[http://www.information-entertainment.com/Politics/polterms.html Political Terms We All Should Know]
 
−
:::*[http://pages.slc.edu/~sersauli/filmcourse/Liste%20e%20informazioni/Glossario%20film.htm Louis Giannetti, Understanding Movies]
 
−
:::*[http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=leftist Wordnet Princeton]
 
−
:::An encyclopedia would generally follow or describe the existing definitions. The opinion of [[User:RobS|RobS]] wouldn't normally meet encylopedic requirements. The article [[Political spectrum]] seems to manage much better, edits being well sourced, the only exceptions your own, which have often then be reverted by those more encyclopedic than yourself.
 
−
:::Perhaps you could be kind enough to show me where edits such as "leftists are for what's beneficial to humanity" or "liberals are broadminded" have occured on Conservapedia, unencyclopedic as they are.
 
−
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 15:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::::So one of these cites says, "''reduce or eliminate these inequalities.... Common political paths include socialism , [[communism]]'''".  Can we factually say [[Cuba]] has failed in this regard?
 
−
::::*"''The article [[Political spectrum]] seems to manage much better, edits being well sourced, the only exceptions your own''"
 
−
::::ahhhh, those well sourced edits at [[Political spectrum]] were all added by me [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=prev&oldid=103102][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=next&oldid=103136], and 90% of the article, as it is now, was written by me. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=105654&oldid=95884]
 
−
::::Care to stop embarassing yourself before engaging in any further personal attacks?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:51, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:::Fair enough. Well at least the [[Reign of Terror]] stuff disappeared  .[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 16:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
::I fear [[User:RobS|RobS]] believes they (communism, socialism, social democracy and so on) are all part of the same conspiracy.[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::RobS has a new ally. Me. Socialism is the mother of all the parasite leftist "ism's", including Nazism. FDR's concentration camps for Japanese-Americans, Italian-Americans, and German-Americans just didn't have gas chambers. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 18:41, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Left-wing ==
 
−
 
 
−
I noticed "left-wing" redirects here. Do we have an article about left-right politics in general and not specifically extremists. For instance, yes, the extreme left is communism, socialism, and Marxism, but there is a moderate left consisting of most Democrats and some moderate progressives. And likewise, the extreme right is fascism, but there are Republicans, conservatives, some libertarians, etc. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 20:23, 13 February 2012 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
== Leftism definition and ties to the Book of Revelations. ==
 
−
 
 
−
Hi.
 
−
 
 
−
I remember reading a definition of leftism, and how it originated from the Book of Revelations, specifically the bit about Jesus turning people into goats if they did bad. I know it was on a website, and it dealt with the origin of the term during the French Revolution, and it dealt with some sort of book. I can't find it now. I do know that it had a paper-scape of I think a French castle, and the book had been written by a guy named David who apparently had been a fan of Woodrow Wilson's policies. That's all I have right now. If I can dig it out myself, I'll give the link, but otherwise, I'll have to let you find the source. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 14:21, 22 May 2016 (EDT)
 
−
:Jesus turned people into goats? I must've missed that part. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']]</sup> 09:36, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
 
−
::Yeah, it's the one where Jesus has people split to those on his right side and those on his left side, the right side get turned into sheep, while the ones on his left are turned into goats. Jesus then lets the sheep into heaven since, as they aided those who needed their help, they essentially aided him, while he casted the goats out because while claiming to serve Jesus, they neglected to help those in need, and in essence failed to help Jesus. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:48, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
 
−
:::I don't think it says He turned them into sheep and goats. I think it's using sheep and goats as a representation of the separation of the saved from the unsaved. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 09:58, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
 
−
::::The way Pokeria describes it, it's a gospel of works, nullifying the the doctrine of presdestination and the gospel of grace. Why God insists on using metaphors sometimes, I haven't a clue. K.I.S.S. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']]</sup> 11:06, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Leftists = collective government? ==
 
−
 
 
−
Hi.
 
−
 
 
−
The opening paragraph stated that Leftists tended to hold to collective government and promote government expansion. However, there are a few instances of leftists who if anything want to utterly get rid of any forms of government (in other words, advocating for Anarchism), including Jean Paul Sartre, Michel Foucault, Noam Chomsky, heck, even Karl Marx. Think we should reword that opening paragraph to make note of that? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:16, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
 

Revision as of 02:22, January 24, 2019

you all can suck it

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Leftist&oldid=1486556"