Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
292,430
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 167:
Line 167: − + − + + Line 179:
Line 180: + + + + + +
→Wow, that was a brilliant deletion of all content from this page: responses to Redblue
==Wow, that was a brilliant deletion of all content from this page==
==Wow, that was a brilliant deletion of all content from this page==
Congratulations to Rob for deleting the only '''definition''' of the political spectrum from the political spectrum page,
Congratulations to Rob for deleting the only '''definition''' of the political spectrum from the political spectrum page, and replacing it with this '''complaint''':
and replacing it with this '''complaint''':
:The political spectrum is a method used to assign views to persons and groups which they do not hold. It is a method of pigeon-holing stereotypes.
:The political spectrum is a method used to assign views to persons and groups which they do not hold. It is a method of pigeon-holing stereotypes.
Notice that says '''nothing''' about what the political spectrum actually is. "A method used to assign views ... people do not hold" could be a description of comedy, or a description of blackmail, or whatever. But it says '''nothing''' about what the political spectrum is. Don't you think the political spectrum page should try to explain what the political spectrum is?
Notice that says '''nothing''' about what the political spectrum actually is. "A method used to assign views ... people do not hold" could be a description of comedy, or a description of blackmail, or whatever. But it says '''nothing''' about what the political spectrum is. Don't you think the political spectrum page should try to explain what the political spectrum is?
:Couldn't agree more; I count [[User:Redblue]] having made 20 edits to [[Political spectrum]] mainspace, 9 edits to [[Leftist]], and 9 edits to [[Rightist]], and where are we any closer to any definitions than before any of these three pages were started? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
I tried to define what seems to be the main difference between viewpoints called "left" and viewpoints called "right". I said:
I tried to define what seems to be the main difference between viewpoints called "left" and viewpoints called "right". I said:
Is that a perfect definition? Probably not. Can somebody come up with a better definition? Great if you can. But just deleting it and boo-hooing about unjust stereotyping is a sign of insecurity worthy of the P.C.-est college hippy around. Personally I don't even understand what a 'rightist' or a 'leftist' would find insulting about my definition.
Is that a perfect definition? Probably not. Can somebody come up with a better definition? Great if you can. But just deleting it and boo-hooing about unjust stereotyping is a sign of insecurity worthy of the P.C.-est college hippy around. Personally I don't even understand what a 'rightist' or a 'leftist' would find insulting about my definition.
:OK. So I am challanging the veracity of the specrtum theory; does that me make leftist? Others claim they should be accepted-- even without defining them--because it's traditional and they were taught it in high school; does that make them rightists? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Obviously not all views can be neatly classified. I'm glad the criticisms of a one-dimensional viewpoint didn't disappear from the page: it's important to remember that not everything is left or right or conservative or liberal or whatever. I sure wish people on other pages in Conservapedia would remember that once in a while.
Obviously not all views can be neatly classified. I'm glad the criticisms of a one-dimensional viewpoint didn't disappear from the page: it's important to remember that not everything is left or right or conservative or liberal or whatever. I sure wish people on other pages in Conservapedia would remember that once in a while.
:I agree with all of this. What I disagree with is using the Left/Right Spectrum Theory as the starting point of classification. It may have some comparative value, but what usually happens is a new group comes on stage--take [[Wahhabism]] for example--nobody knows what it is, so somebody defines it is "rightist", i.e. bad guys, and then whatever minor details need to be trimmed can be conveniently ignored. The case of Wahhabism is one in particular I think we should examine in addition to the National Socialist, becuase both are very revealing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Having words to classify political viewpoints is helpful, but obviously that doesn't mean every viewpoint can be nailed down perfectly. I'm not trying to assign views to people who don't hold them. The left-right 'political spectrum' is just a way of classifying '''some''' views.
Having words to classify political viewpoints is helpful, but obviously that doesn't mean every viewpoint can be nailed down perfectly. I'm not trying to assign views to people who don't hold them. The left-right 'political spectrum' is just a way of classifying '''some''' views.
:One word can clarify all this--'''theory'''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
It's like when you go into a furniture store and ask for a red couch. Are all red couches exactly the same color? No. Are there some couches you would call red, which upon close inspection contain some fibers of other colors? Yes. Does that mean the word 'red' is a method for pigeon-holing stereotypes? Good luck furniture shopping if you ban all words for colors.
It's like when you go into a furniture store and ask for a red couch. Are all red couches exactly the same color? No. Are there some couches you would call red, which upon close inspection contain some fibers of other colors? Yes. Does that mean the word 'red' is a method for pigeon-holing stereotypes? Good luck furniture shopping if you ban all words for colors.