Yes we can. There is of course a sliding scale. That's why there is a center. You could give me your position on any number of issues and we could tell if you are left or right. Especially if its a number of issues. Its easy to tell.
I hope we can. But like I said, we first have to agree on some objective terminology. I'm a centrist; I try to find the objective view and articulate it accurately.
Positions on issues establish if you are left or right. Those positions create opposing views. I oppose your position.
But propaganda can mischaracterize positions and create invalid and unsubstantiated opposition. There first has to be clarity through objective language.
Thats the simplistic view. Even conservatives support change. Liberals support status quo. What matters to both is what is the change and what is the status quo. And both sides move from current positions. We even see it in the current government. Conservatives support the change Trump is making in the Executive.
Objective language would not confuse change to the left with change to the right. Objectively speaking Trump is for centralizing power which is a change towards autocracy. Objectively, real conservatives would not support ignoring the intentions of article 1 the establishment of the legislative branch in the Constitution.
Liberals wanted to maintain status quo. Immigration. Conservatives support the change in how we deal with illegal immigration, Liberals wanted to maintain the status quo.
That's not an accurate assessment. That's more like propaganda. Trump wanted a forty-to-fifty-foot impenetrable wall made of steel and hardened concrete. Most people saw this as impractical particularly since there was already bipartisan legislation and funding for the steel bollard border fence that was being built during both the Bush and Obama administration. Trump then declared--> whoever wasn't for his wall was not for border security --> and subsequently was for open borders--> and inevitably were for crime.
So that definition doesn't really fit. Positions on issues is what determines right or left.
It's not that it doesn't fit. Objectively it fits fine as described. What you're expressing is basically the same sentiment I am expressing when I said it's "limited" in its analytics. But even though it's limited as in unable to show a policy issue much less a position on policy, it still shows a position of the left being a response to the status quo simply because left in this framing of Left/right is open to change and right isn't.
I can agree with this to a large extent.
Where there is objective language there should also be agreement.
That would be the slander you are talking about.
Yes. To be clear, taking the objective meaning of the term conservative and subjectively changing the meaning to infer white supremacy, nazis, christian nationalists, etc.. is slandering real conservatives. Just like saying that people who see Trump's wall as impractical are for open borders and crime, that is also slander.
"An objective view can be obscured through subjective language. Hence, propaganda is designed to manipulate minds using subjective terminology and work the ends against the middle. That is not in the interests of society as a whole, so whoever is lying to manipulate the people by obscuring the issues, is intent on sowing chaos".
I dont think.so. I think you can have a dichotomy where one of those views is not substantively valid.
Sure, you can fill in left and right with whatever you want, subjectively speaking. But objectively speaking, it would NOT be a valid dichotomy
to reason upon if one side is substantively invalid.
Thats the sliding scale I was mentioning earlier. You could give me say ten subjects and we could determine if a person was left or right based upon their positions on the subjects. Some may be further right some may be further left. But overall you could figure it out.
Yes, if we use objective language. But if propaganda has muddied the waters, then a person can be taking sides for or against things that don't even exist in reality.
I disagree that democracy and autocracy determines whats far left as determined by the left.
Well, I didn't mean to imply that democracy/autocracy determines what is far left as subjectively determined by the left, or even subjectively determined by the right.
childeye 2 said:
I think the Democracy/autocracy dichotomy is the most consistent
in its objectivity because
it doesn't rely on personal interpretation.
It also does not determine what far left positions are not supported by the left in general.
I think it implies an ideology of communism on the far left which is not supported by the left in general. The left/right framing of democracy/autocracy shows the centralizing and decentralizing of power. So, it does show the left as being against the centralizing of power. The ideology of the left would therefore support protecting individual civil rights including the right to hold a government accountable to its people.
