[Closed] Are all right wing folk utterly barking?

The problem with this viewpoint is that some people are not really capable of succeeding in a competitive world. For there to be winners, there have to be losers - and he would not accept this point.

Not really, you can all win, just that some people win less. This is the problem with the obsessive highlighting of the gap between the rich and poor in the UK: sure, the difference is growing, but 30 years ago a poor family quite possibly wouldn't have a TV or a fridge, these days they do.

For what its worth there has to be some kind of middle ground but people most motivated to get into politics usually have firmly held Left or Right wing beliefs and dont want to compromise.

This.

Also I think it's getting harder to be an individual in politics these days - on both the right and the left parties are becoming more organised, with less tolerance for deviation from the official message.

Not really, you can all win, just that some people win less

Then it's not a win. The losers in the West are still much better off than the losers in Africa, so on a global scale they would be considered winners; however that's still not a good enough answer.

To put it another way - only one person can be the CEO of a big company. A few more can be top managers, lots of people can be affluent middle management, and loads can be poorly paid factory workers struggling to get by.

So, some left-wingers are nutters, and some aren't?

Some left-wingers are undoubtedly nutters ........without a shadow of a doubt - I've met plenty of them.

The difference is that left-winger nutters tend to get ignored, whilst right-wing nutters get massive media coverage.

It's probably down to money. And the fact that right-wing nutters have loads of it. And they own newspapers. And TV/radio stations. And have expensive political campaigns.

So it's ok for there to be a massive gap between rich and poor as long as the poor have fridges and tvs?

So it's ok for there to be a massive gap between rich and poor as long as the poor have fridges and tvs?

You'd rather we went to a socialist style economy like Cuba or Venezuela? Other than envy, what's the real problem with a growing wealth divide?

To put it another way - only one person can be the CEO of a big company. A few more can be top managers, lots of people can be affluent middle management, and loads can be poorly paid factory workers struggling to get by.

Except that even a poorly paid factory worker is a lot better off today that he or she would have been a 100 years ago.

envy

😆

Also left wing nutter policies are about being nice and helping your fellow human being even when they are not practical policies, whereas right wing policies are about telling your fellow human being to go fk himself.

So it's ok for there to be a massive gap between rich and poor as long as the poor have fridges and tvs?

Arguably, yes. If I am happy and comfortably off, and then the top 0.5% of the country go and make gazillions of pounds in some boom somewhere, should I suddenly become dissatisfied with my job and salary? Would such a sentiment not simply be jealousy?

I would consider it very important for a reasonable slice of that extra billions to be paid in tax to improve the country, but that would not transfer directly to extra material wealth for the everyday folk would it?

What would you rather? High taxes on the super rich then give every citizen a dividend of some kind? Would be a little unfair, no?

Except that even a poorly paid factory worker is a lot better off today that he or she would have been a 100 years ago

Yep, thanks to a couple of centuries of left wing thinkers.

Highlights the way it all gets a bit hard to decide what's really right wing, and what's left.

Anyway, right wingers that aren't complete nutters: the vast majority of them. Palin and her Tea Party friends are often listed as examples of right wing extremists, but there's a reason a significant proportion of the US population supports them, and that wouldn't happen if their politics were completely out of touch with local opinion.

Not really, you can all win, just that some people win less.

This is the problem with the obsessive highlighting of the gap between the rich and poor in the UK: sure, the difference is growing, but 30 years ago a poor family quite possibly wouldn't have a TV or a fridge, these days they do.

This is the problem with the obsessive highlighting of the gap between the rich and poor in the UK: sure, the difference is growing, but 30 years ago a poor family quite possibly wouldn't have a TV or a fridge, these days they do.

It's very important to highlight the gap between the rich and poor, because the financial gap between even the middle classes and the next rung up the ladder is obscene. Some people will say that people aren't poor in this country because they have the TV or the fridge...that's because their definition of poor is what it was in the 19th-20th century. You have to judge what poor is in relation to how the other half live in this country, so to speak.

There isn't a clear simple definition of poor, just as there isn't a simple clear definition of left wing/right wing anymore. As an example, some people would regard Z-11's diatribe as positively "socialist" in some American quarters.

It's probably down to money. And the fact that right-wing nutters have loads of it. And they own newspapers. And TV/radio stations. And have expensive political campaigns.

This. Reminds me of a particular Australian whose name was dirt in these parts until some hoodies turned up and trashed the joint.

You'd rather we went to a socialist style economy like Cuba or Venezuela? Other than envy, what's the real problem with a growing wealth divide?

That's one dimensional thinking: Just because he doesn't like the obscenity of the wealth divide created by the current form of capitalism, doesn't mean he wants a total socialist state.

I'd go as far to say that's a right-wing way of thinking.

You have to judge what poor is in relation to how the other half live in this country, so to speak

Well exactly. Define poor.

For me, it's when lack of money genuinely impinges on day to day quality of life and you have difficulty in obtaining basic essential needs.

That's one dimensional thinking: Just because he doesn't like the obscenity of the wealth divide created by the current form of capitalism, doesn't mean he wants a total socialist state.

Don't you go putting words in my mouth!

Oh, actually, go on then...that's more or less what I thought, only I was still laughing at the old "envy" line.

Also left wing nutter policies are about being nice and helping your fellow human being even when they are not practical policies, whereas right wing policies are about telling your fellow human being to go fk himself.

Not really, Stalin and Mao certainly weren't adverse to hurting their fellow human beings. And a protectionist left wing politician is protecting his country's interests, usually at the expense of the third world.

For me, it's when lack of money genuinely impinges on day to day quality of life and you have difficulty in obtaining basic essential needs.

Then you have to reset what you think poor is, because you are defining it into one simple definition.

Excellent I am poorer but now I have a fridge and a TV GAWD bless trickle down capitalism I am less well off but apparently better off.

Exactly. People may have the TV and the fridge, but it doesn't mean they are upwardly mobile, or somehow better off.

That's one dimensional thinking: Just because he doesn't like the obscenity of the wealth divide created by the current form of capitalism, doesn't mean he wants a total socialist state.

Obscenity? In what way?

Being a crazy dictator kind of takes you out of the normal political spectrum - I'd call Stalin and Mao nutters not left wingers.

Point still stands 🙂

However the protectionism issue is an interesting one. Globalism has undoubtedly brought wealth to the developing world, but is it the right kind of wealth in the right places? Sweatshops anyone? NAFTA? On the other hand, Bangalore?

People may have the TV and the fridge, but it doesn't mean they are upwardly mobile, or somehow better off

No? Define better off?

My Mum used to teach kids in the 70s with no shoes. That doesn't happen any more.

Then you have to reset what you think poor is, because you are defining it into one simple definition.

Seems a reasonable starting point, though.

For me, it's when lack of money genuinely impinges on day to day quality of life and you have difficulty in obtaining basic essential needs.

(if you don't include choice, recreation and travel as basic essential needs.. but that's another thread..)

but surely someone who has only exactly enough to continue to exist could be considered poor..?

Is the ability to carry out bike maintenance a basic essential need for you..?
would your life be poor without it..?

Not really, you can all win, just that some people win less.

I genuinely laughed at that

Why? It's called a non-zero-sum game.

Perhaps I should've worded myself differently. I do consider choice, recreation and travel as basic needs.

Mogrim - good point about it being non-zero sum. Perhaps this was what my FiL actually meant by 'success'.

[url= http://preview.tinyurl.com/45xpt3b ]Lefties as just as nuts[/url]

but surely someone who has only exactly enough to continue to exist could be considered poor..?

Definitely, though I'd argue they are considerably better off than a poor person a 100 years ago.

That's cos we have that thing called the welfare state.

molgrips - Member
My Mum used to teach kids in the 70s with no shoes. That doesn't happen any more.

That's cos we have that thing called the welfare state.

Paid for by a capitalist system.

Edit: lol@druidh 🙂

Obscenity? In what way?

Millionaire households (those with $1 million or more in assets under management) represented 0.7% of the world’s total and owned $33.2 trillion — or about a third of the world’s total. Households worth less than $100,000 saw a slight decline in their assets, from $13.5 trillion to $13.4 trillion.

the worlds three richest people are worth more than the 48 poorest countries..obscene in that sense ? I know you dont get it someone up there [molgrips?]said that right wingers lacked empathy so dont fret.

The obscenity is that there are countries that poor out there - chucking in a meaningless soundbite about 3 rich people and 48 poor countries is just muddying the waters - if they weren't rich (and noone substitued them), would the other countries not be poor?

It's called a non-zero-sum game.

In game theory and economic theory, a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s). If the total gains of the participants are added up, and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero.

The concept of winning and winning less well is what I laughed at, it is semantic twaddle.

No it isn't. Betting is zero-sum, we both bet a tenner on the outcome of the match and winner takes all. Working isn't zero-sum, my boss gets the benefit of my labour, and I get the benefit of a wage. We both win something. If he wins a bit more, so be it.

EDIT: Bollocks to it. Can't be arsed.

simple kill them take their money and give it to the poor countries

Betting is zero-sum, we both bet a tenner on the outcome of the match and winner takes all.

so the one who is not the winner and now has nothing and is down £10 is still a win less weller obviously
How is there no looser in this scenario?

You really haven't quite understood the difference between zero-sum and non-zero-sum, have you? This is the zero-sum example, and quite clearly has a loser. Non-zero-sum may have two winners, a winner and a loser, or two losers.

Bedtime, anyway. Night.

TV and a fridge eh? a TV can be obtained for peanuts s/h and a fridge has to be provided by a landlord, so to say that everyone is better off is a load of balls.

Food poverty anyone? food parcels are on the rise in the UK because lots of people can't afford to heat the house and feed themselves

the prisoner's dilemma is the textbook non-zero-sum game, so we'll here explore it by way of showing how, with the help of game theory, evolution can be simulated on a computer.

In the prisoner's dilemma, two partners in crime are being interrogated separately. The state lacks the evidence to convict them of the crime they committed but does have enough evidence to convict both on a lesser charge bringing, say, a one-year prison term for each. The prosecutor wants conviction on the more serious charge, and pressures each man individually to confess and implicate the other. She says: "If you confess but your partner doesn't, I'll let you off free and use your testimony to lock him up for ten years. And if you don't confess, yet your partner does, you go to prison for ten years. If you confess and your partner does too, I'll put you both away, but only for three years." The question is: Will the two prisoners cooperate with each other, both refusing to confess? Or will one or both of them "defect" ("cheat")?

win win = 1 year each
win [s]loose[/s] less win = free and 10 years.
So free is winning and 10 years in prison is winning less well than the free person. I think it is you who does not understand nor do you understand that when you dont win you loose even in non zero sum.

Prisoner's dilemma doens't give you only 2 options, but 3.

win/lose
lose/win
win/win. (or if you prefer, win less/win less)

1 year is a win because it's less than 10
0 years is a bigger win because it's less than 10 and 1
10 years is a loss.

Win/win in this scenario means that both parties win less but neither party loses.

The problem is that greedy people look at anything less than the best possible option as losing. Whereas other people look at all the good options as winning, and only consider themselves as losers when they actually lose.

Prisoner's dilemma doesn't entirely help that because the outcomes are so negative- it's hard to think of a year in prison as a win. There are other alternatives that work better- yield/don't yield in traffic is a good one.

Obviously you have three outcomes but win/loose or loose /win was irrelevant for the point I made ie you still get winners and loosers.
it is a given that in the real world wealth is not evenly shared so we can discount the win less well/win less well scenario from the real world as clearly some do loose. We have winners and loosers. I am labouring a self evident point here.

Junkyard - Member

it is a given that in the real world wealth is not evenly shared so we can discount the win less well/win less well scenario from the real world as clearly some do loose. We have winners and loosers. I am labouring a self evident point here.

Wealth doesn't have to be equally divided to have a win/win situation. Just declaring things to be self evident doesn't make them so.

What is it they are actually trying to stop you from saying. I've heard so many whiney right wingers complaining about those lefty pcers lately yet they never actually define what they are being stopped from doing or saying. What actually is it?

Countless examples of free speech being suppressed by left wing (and right wing admittedly) organisations. One recent example are the books of Mark Twain. Classic pieces of literature, but not as far as some left wingers are concerned, who want them banned, or rewritten, for being "offensive".

And I've seen many examples in the media of left wing commentators saying "such and such an opinion will not be tolerated". Usually from the very folk preaching so-called tolerance themselves.

Divide and rule..

Elements of this technique involve:

creating or encouraging divisions among the subjects in order to prevent alliances that could challenge the sovereign

aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate with the sovereign

fostering distrust and enmity between local rulers

encouraging meaningless expenditures that reduce the capability for political and military spending

well done you lefties and righties.. you are falling for the oldest trick in the book..
thanks a bunch

Left or Right to a lesser or greater extent they/you are all bonkers. Wish the actual and wannabe politicians could have another planet to play on.

Could they not have gone to that planet instead of the hairdressers and estate agents? (hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy).

Just declaring things to be self evident doesn't make them so.

kennyp
Countless examples of free speech being suppressed by left wing (and right wing admittedly) organisations. One recent example are the books of Mark Twain. Classic pieces of literature, but not as far as some left wingers are concerned, who want them banned, or rewritten, for being "offensive".

Lets seeone actual example then Kennyp - not rumour mongering from the right wing press but an actual example.

One edition for use in schools of Tom Sawyer had the "N" word removed from it so as to make it easier to discuss other themes from it in American schools. Hardly what yo claim above.

so - lets see some real examples please