When I say your comments are filled with purple prose but are superfluous, I mean the language is flowery and elaborate, lengthy and complex, but devoid of any substance. It’s linguistic gymnastics and theatrics to dodge making an actual point.
My point was quite clear: when you don’t analyze authority’s relationship to class, you miss the nature of authority. There’s no such thing as an “authoritarian/libertarian” scale, because an increase in state power can also coincide with an increase in liberty for the broad majority of society if said state power is directed in the interests of the working class. This is true in existing and historical socialist states. Your tirade against existing socialism and against Marx is also done in flowery terms, but without any point.
You keep repeating the phrasemongering of British fed, antisemite, and rapist Eric Blair, as though “Orwellian” terms are scientific and not literary tools used by the CIA to push anti-communist agendas. Same with other idealist (ie, non-materialist) notions of “power corrupting,” like a spectral force haunting the planet made real. These are all devoid of materialist analysis, yet you hold them to be equal.
The Political Compass represents a false spectrum, as authority and liberty are not counterposed and are in reality most contingent on class character. Further, left and right are not really binaries or spectrums, trying to claim something is “more left” or “more right” more often than not requires redefining what left and right mean each time. Anarchism is no more left than Marxism-Leninism, they each answer the questions posed by capitalist society in a different way but are no more or less “left” than each other.
Adding more dimensions doesn’t fix anything because the chart itself is based on 2 false spectra, one that doesn’t actually counterpose the other, the other that’s based more on vibes when forced into a graph rather than a simple question of affirming socialism or capitalism.
when you don’t analyze authority’s relationship to class
Yes, and that’s not relevant here. Offered like a strawman argument, implying that’s what’s being done here. It’s not. It’s perplexing why you would think that’s what the argument is. In no way is the class struggle removed from the political compass. Thus it’s a red-herring moved-goal-post fallacy to offer it as you do, as well as, (as already mentioned) a strawman.
Your tirade against existing socialism
I have no such tirade. You’ve not understood what I’ve said. You’ve painted phantoms between the lines, that are not there.
and against Marx
Not against Marx, but his philosophical slip, from his more freedom-retaining philosophy of his youth, when his political philosophy was closer to Bakunin’s.
Again, see how you’re strawmanning?
You keep repeating the phrasemongering of British fed, antisemite, and rapist Eric Blair, as though “Orwellian” terms are scientific and not literary tools used by the CIA to push anti-communist agendas.
What in the fuck…
This is getting beyond ridiculous. Too far removed from reality to find traction in. Your strawmen look nothing like what I’ve said. Please read more carefully. And again, try avoid making false dichotomy fallacies (as well as the spray of other fallacies made).
What you’ve said I’m saying (even “keep repeating”), is completely contrary to what I’m saying. The failure of communication here is growing, seemingly insurmountable.
Gets me wondering if it’s intentional. Like abusing Cunningham’s law, or just trolling.
[Edit: or… more unwitting affirmation of mass formation / group think / totalitarianised psyche]
The Political Compass represents a false spectrum,
Nope. Still misusing the word “spectrum”. It’s not a spectrum. That’s not what a spectrum is.
So, in a sense, this can be seen as a “not even wrong” fallacy.
as authority and liberty are not counterposed and are in reality most contingent on class character.
That’s an interesting phrasing, as if simultaneously just doing another restatement without reason, and, ironically, highlighting the validity of it, in both error and correctness. n_n
When one sees the popular spray of results on the political compass, the majority of results fall along the diagonal line, from the libertarian left to the authoritarian right. This clustering along the diagonal easily lends to the notion that is the only way, that the left’s for freedom, and the right’s against freedom. But then how to we account for totalitarian communism, and anarcho-capitalism, the outliers, contrary to this mainstay?
Further, left and right are not really binaries or spectrums,
(Skipping the misuse of spectrum again) Yup… so… you agree with my point about reducing it to a 1-bit binary is folly?
trying to claim something is “more left” or “more right” more often than not requires redefining what left and right mean each time.
Yup. So, why not add another dimension or two to help alleviate this cumbersome jungle, getting tripped up by Wittgensteinian and Orwellian snares?
Anarchism is no more left than Marxism-Leninism, they each answer the questions posed by capitalist society in a different way but are no more or less “left” than each other.
Anarchism spans to the extremes of the economic scale, from left to right. … Albeit variously argued about. Like how anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism, or, becomes not anarchism. But as for anarcho communism, arguably the original sense of both anarchism and communism, then, yes, on the economic scale, certainly at least as represented on the political compass, neither more left than the other. However, I’ve heard some assert the top line, is capitalist. One could draw the transverse diagonal, and see there’s that other tipping point, and if bifurcating the political compass to a binary along these lines, the “authoritarian left” toggles from the side with anarcho-communism in its far corner, to the side with corporate fascism in its far corner.
Seems easier and more meaningful, and more expedient to communicate this stuff, to at least have the political compass, and to decry it bunk, as if wanting to hide (even from oneself) some unwitting slip to some allegiance with political philosophies contrary to ones preferred self identity. Having the political compass helps to not get lost in such ways. Unless one deploys fallacious delusional denial and cognitive dissonance, dismissing it. Heh.
Adding more dimensions doesn’t fix anything because the chart itself is based on 2 false spectra, one that doesn’t actually counterpose the other, the other that’s based more on vibes when forced into a graph rather than a simple question of affirming socialism or capitalism.
I wonder if it’s worth asking again for your reasoning behind this statement you keep making without reason.
My guess is there’s an unwillingness to scrutinize and explore this, perhaps by some kind of psychological protection happening.
I have not got endless spoons trying to get to what could have been got to half a dozen interactions ago. Whether unwilling or unable, I’ll surely stop asking for the reasoning behind your repeatedly asserted conclusion eventually. And likely give up all hope that my counterarguments be heeded and tackled, or my questions answered. Lets see if you reply again with another restatement of your dogma, and more fallacies, especially the red herrings and strawmen arguments against thing’s I’ve not said.
Would love to know why you think the oversimplification’s superior.
We agree the political compass is flawed. I’ve yet to get an understanding of why you think it’s better to throw the baby out with the bathwater; better to jump into the fire than the frying pan, than to find better. Why is the abuseable conflation-ridden over-simplification to a binary better than the rich nuance of readily utterable 4 million positions? (or even 8 billion, if an optimally elucidating 3rd dimension is found)? More information is conveyed, for less syllables with the political compass. Allegiance to either binary in no way alleviates the “vibes” being what people base their asserted political philosophy upon. And again, the words are too easily misleading. … Like some may have thought (or still genuinely believe) that national socialism was nationalist and socialist, when it was demonstrably neither. But then that’s deepening the problem, because each of these terms are not held in the same conception consistently with everybody. So tell me again (or for the first time, still, rather) why you think that’s better… ?
You never actually responded to my points in this entire ramble, just calling them “strawmen” then getting surprised when I informed you about Orwell’s actual views and actions as Eric Blair. You also misconstrue my points, I said left/right is only useful as a shorthand, and that it’s less useful to try to use the political compass as it adds confusion due to the false axes, and instead is much better to go to the actual views themselves. The fact that you can’t actually respond to my points and instead have to act surprised, pretend such a thing as “totalitarian communism” exists, etc. just illustrates how deeply unserious you are.
You never actually responded to my points in this entire ramble, just calling them “strawmen” then getting surprised when I informed you about Orwell’s actual views and actions as Eric Blair. You also misconstrue my points, I said left/right is only useful as a shorthand, and that it’s less useful to try to use the political compass as it adds confusion due to the false axes, and instead is much better to go to the actual views themselves. The fact that you can’t actually respond to my points and instead have to act surprised, pretend such a thing as “totalitarian communism” exists, etc. just illustrates how deeply unserious you are.
LOL.
While getting an LLM to tally the fallacies, at one earlier point (a couple replies back), it proposed:
If they continue to evade, you can disengage with confidence, knowing you’ve exposed the weaknesses in their argument. If they attempt to engage, you’ve set the stage for a more productive debate.
And with that most recent evasion, that’s exactly what I intend to do. Disengaging with confidence.
The “unserious” accusation was especially funny, even without the weasle-word superlative and the absurdist context it sat upon. XD Black knight hasn’t a leg to stand on, but is still swinging. XD
This tally proves the asymmetry in your debate:
Cowbee: ~70+ fallacies, no substance.
Digit: 6 minor/contextual instances, all evidence-based.
If you relied on an LLM to do your arguing for you, then it’s no wonder it was riddled with inaccuracies, lies, hallucinations, and overly complex prose that was devoid of any actual point.
All you did was dodge my points and try to re-affirm your own flawed position.
When I say your comments are filled with purple prose but are superfluous, I mean the language is flowery and elaborate, lengthy and complex, but devoid of any substance. It’s linguistic gymnastics and theatrics to dodge making an actual point.
My point was quite clear: when you don’t analyze authority’s relationship to class, you miss the nature of authority. There’s no such thing as an “authoritarian/libertarian” scale, because an increase in state power can also coincide with an increase in liberty for the broad majority of society if said state power is directed in the interests of the working class. This is true in existing and historical socialist states. Your tirade against existing socialism and against Marx is also done in flowery terms, but without any point.
You keep repeating the phrasemongering of British fed, antisemite, and rapist Eric Blair, as though “Orwellian” terms are scientific and not literary tools used by the CIA to push anti-communist agendas. Same with other idealist (ie, non-materialist) notions of “power corrupting,” like a spectral force haunting the planet made real. These are all devoid of materialist analysis, yet you hold them to be equal.
The Political Compass represents a false spectrum, as authority and liberty are not counterposed and are in reality most contingent on class character. Further, left and right are not really binaries or spectrums, trying to claim something is “more left” or “more right” more often than not requires redefining what left and right mean each time. Anarchism is no more left than Marxism-Leninism, they each answer the questions posed by capitalist society in a different way but are no more or less “left” than each other.
Adding more dimensions doesn’t fix anything because the chart itself is based on 2 false spectra, one that doesn’t actually counterpose the other, the other that’s based more on vibes when forced into a graph rather than a simple question of affirming socialism or capitalism.
Yes, and that’s not relevant here. Offered like a strawman argument, implying that’s what’s being done here. It’s not. It’s perplexing why you would think that’s what the argument is. In no way is the class struggle removed from the political compass. Thus it’s a red-herring moved-goal-post fallacy to offer it as you do, as well as, (as already mentioned) a strawman.
I have no such tirade. You’ve not understood what I’ve said. You’ve painted phantoms between the lines, that are not there.
Not against Marx, but his philosophical slip, from his more freedom-retaining philosophy of his youth, when his political philosophy was closer to Bakunin’s.
Again, see how you’re strawmanning?
What in the fuck…
This is getting beyond ridiculous. Too far removed from reality to find traction in. Your strawmen look nothing like what I’ve said. Please read more carefully. And again, try avoid making false dichotomy fallacies (as well as the spray of other fallacies made).
What you’ve said I’m saying (even “keep repeating”), is completely contrary to what I’m saying. The failure of communication here is growing, seemingly insurmountable.
Gets me wondering if it’s intentional. Like abusing Cunningham’s law, or just trolling.
[Edit: or… more unwitting affirmation of mass formation / group think / totalitarianised psyche]
Nope. Still misusing the word “spectrum”. It’s not a spectrum. That’s not what a spectrum is.
So, in a sense, this can be seen as a “not even wrong” fallacy.
That’s an interesting phrasing, as if simultaneously just doing another restatement without reason, and, ironically, highlighting the validity of it, in both error and correctness. n_n
When one sees the popular spray of results on the political compass, the majority of results fall along the diagonal line, from the libertarian left to the authoritarian right. This clustering along the diagonal easily lends to the notion that is the only way, that the left’s for freedom, and the right’s against freedom. But then how to we account for totalitarian communism, and anarcho-capitalism, the outliers, contrary to this mainstay?
(Skipping the misuse of spectrum again) Yup… so… you agree with my point about reducing it to a 1-bit binary is folly?
Yup. So, why not add another dimension or two to help alleviate this cumbersome jungle, getting tripped up by Wittgensteinian and Orwellian snares?
Anarchism spans to the extremes of the economic scale, from left to right. … Albeit variously argued about. Like how anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism, or, becomes not anarchism. But as for anarcho communism, arguably the original sense of both anarchism and communism, then, yes, on the economic scale, certainly at least as represented on the political compass, neither more left than the other. However, I’ve heard some assert the top line, is capitalist. One could draw the transverse diagonal, and see there’s that other tipping point, and if bifurcating the political compass to a binary along these lines, the “authoritarian left” toggles from the side with anarcho-communism in its far corner, to the side with corporate fascism in its far corner.
Seems easier and more meaningful, and more expedient to communicate this stuff, to at least have the political compass, and to decry it bunk, as if wanting to hide (even from oneself) some unwitting slip to some allegiance with political philosophies contrary to ones preferred self identity. Having the political compass helps to not get lost in such ways. Unless one deploys fallacious delusional denial and cognitive dissonance, dismissing it. Heh.
I wonder if it’s worth asking again for your reasoning behind this statement you keep making without reason.
My guess is there’s an unwillingness to scrutinize and explore this, perhaps by some kind of psychological protection happening.
I have not got endless spoons trying to get to what could have been got to half a dozen interactions ago. Whether unwilling or unable, I’ll surely stop asking for the reasoning behind your repeatedly asserted conclusion eventually. And likely give up all hope that my counterarguments be heeded and tackled, or my questions answered. Lets see if you reply again with another restatement of your dogma, and more fallacies, especially the red herrings and strawmen arguments against thing’s I’ve not said.
Would love to know why you think the oversimplification’s superior.
We agree the political compass is flawed. I’ve yet to get an understanding of why you think it’s better to throw the baby out with the bathwater; better to jump into the fire than the frying pan, than to find better. Why is the abuseable conflation-ridden over-simplification to a binary better than the rich nuance of readily utterable 4 million positions? (or even 8 billion, if an optimally elucidating 3rd dimension is found)? More information is conveyed, for less syllables with the political compass. Allegiance to either binary in no way alleviates the “vibes” being what people base their asserted political philosophy upon. And again, the words are too easily misleading. … Like some may have thought (or still genuinely believe) that national socialism was nationalist and socialist, when it was demonstrably neither. But then that’s deepening the problem, because each of these terms are not held in the same conception consistently with everybody. So tell me again (or for the first time, still, rather) why you think that’s better… ?
You never actually responded to my points in this entire ramble, just calling them “strawmen” then getting surprised when I informed you about Orwell’s actual views and actions as Eric Blair. You also misconstrue my points, I said left/right is only useful as a shorthand, and that it’s less useful to try to use the political compass as it adds confusion due to the false axes, and instead is much better to go to the actual views themselves. The fact that you can’t actually respond to my points and instead have to act surprised, pretend such a thing as “totalitarian communism” exists, etc. just illustrates how deeply unserious you are.
LOL.
While getting an LLM to tally the fallacies, at one earlier point (a couple replies back), it proposed:
And with that most recent evasion, that’s exactly what I intend to do. Disengaging with confidence.
The “unserious” accusation was especially funny, even without the weasle-word superlative and the absurdist context it sat upon. XD Black knight hasn’t a leg to stand on, but is still swinging. XD
Well, thanks for this meta-exploration of psyche.
Cheerio.
If you relied on an LLM to do your arguing for you, then it’s no wonder it was riddled with inaccuracies, lies, hallucinations, and overly complex prose that was devoid of any actual point.
All you did was dodge my points and try to re-affirm your own flawed position.