got to love the hypocrisy of modern leftist people. dividing people into groups where some have more worth than others (everything not male and white) and some are forbidden doing things.

it's racism/fascism sprinkled with pink glitter.

i could point out people here but that is bad style. their ability of maintaining the self image that they are _good people_ however is astounding. then, the nazis where perceiving themselves as good people too.

@bonifartius
> dividing people into groups
> stupid bad evil leftist people

@namark maybe it's me being a touchscreen peasant.. :> but i can't quite follow you.
if someone is making political statements, i don't need a radar for that, i don't have to know how they look. excluding and shitting on people just because they belong to a major group isn't better than if it happens to a minority. this kind of behaviour will only make things worse.
i don't fucking care what people _are_ as long as they act decent. many modern left behaviours explicitly go contrary to that.

@bonifartius

I think namarks point, and it is a valid one is ...

shitty left people are shitty, and
most left people are shitty

these are very different than

left people are shitty

With that said I took what you said (and I tend to voice a similar opinion) to just be more of an implied meaning. If I (and I presume you) say the left is shitty we arent trying to say 100% of the left, only that it is a pervasive problem with **most** of the left.

Similarly "McDonalds is shitty, they have trouble getting orders right" I dont think someone should or would imply that I am claiming that there is no well run mcdonalds anywhere on the earth that tends to get orders correct, only that most of the time with most mcdonalds it is and will be an issue.

@namark

@freemo @bonifartius My point is that left does not exist other than what you define it as. Grouping people based on a vague political statement is no different than grouping them based on color of the skin, clothes or length of nails. You imply that the world is divided into people who are left and who are not left, and you have a natural leftdar, even more, everyone has a natural leftdar: are they *some superficial characteristic*? - bash!
This is the curial fallacy imo. The tactic you employ to justify yourself here is common to the ideas that you are trying to criticize. "They bad, they discriminate, so I discriminate them". There is no they. You can criticize ideas without demonizing people, even those who at some point might in some ways appear to hold them, and trigger your enemydar. In this particular case your are criticizing something that you immediately engage in yourself.

The all vs most is a distraction. Talking about a McDonalds you will be talking in specific context in which McDonalds is a well defined dichotomy. We collectively ensure it is well defined, by not allowing any random thing to be deemed McDonlads by any random party. That is the fundamental thing that you require before you even begin with any of the loosey-goosey statistics.

I dare, anyone willing, to define the dichotomy of the left based on mathematical principles: define the binary relation, and demonstrate that it's reflexive, symmetric and transitive, without turning it into a tautology. In other words - show me your glorious any% accurate leftdar.

@namark

Not everything that is definable need be definable by mathematical principles.

Two important points here.

1) There are universally accepted definitions for what constitutes the left

2) Even if we accepted the definition of the left as arbitrary the fact remains that the vast majority of people self identify as left or right, so we can also use ones self-identification as the left as its own metric.

@bonifartius

@freemo and I self identiofy as queen victoria today, politically leaning inside out. You are basically saying that the term is entirely meaningless and the whole point of it is to split people into two tribes, and as long as that happens we are golden. Yes keeping the definition vague serves that purpose quote well.
My point is that for any even semi-meaningful definition that you can come up with that is not just dichotomy for dichotomies sake, you would struggle to even prove basic properties that are required for it to be a dichotomy, let alone all the other claims you make.

@bonifartius

@namark

While self identifying as queen victoria may not mean you are queen victoria I can make several correct assumptions about people who self-identify as queen victoria, namely that they are delusional (not you as this was rhetoric of course).

Similarly even if we agreed the left is a fiction and that people who self-identify as left are identifying with a fictional concept, it still doesnt change the underlying assertion or make it any less valid. That is, that people who claim to self-identify as left have certain common qualities in personality among the majority of such people.

So the left being a fiction, if that were true, doesnt in any way weaken the argument. The left doesnt need to be a "reality" for it to be true that those who self identify with it are often bad people.

@bonifartius

@freemo "people who claim to self-identify as left have certain common qualities in personality among the majority of such people"
how exactly does that work? what are they a hive mind? is it that they agree on something?

The best you can claim is that they agree with each other on something. Now tell me what that something is, and then we can discuss whether that something can reasonably satisfy the properties of dichotomy defined on the set of all people.

@bonifartius

@namark

Depends on what you mean by Hive Mind. But yes thats part of it, people who identify as being on the left tend to parrot, often without bothering to understand, things that other people who identify with being on the left tend to say. More so if those people are in high regard among the left (such as being a leader in a party that likewise identifies as being on the left). So yea, group think is a big part of "how that works"

And no the best we can claim is not simply agreeing on something (though there are things they tend to agree on). Personality traits, tactics used in discussion, specific phrasing without understanding the meaning of the words, are all things we can also claim is common or shared among the majority of those identifying as on the left.

@bonifartius

@freemo nice, some kind of weird subspecies of hive mind parrot-humans. What a discovery you have made.

@bonifartius

@namark

actually, it's not a new discovery but how church and politics always have worked. humans like to be in an in-group and do things which are expected from members of that group. this is well documented, a prominent example being https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave_(experiment)

@freemo

@bonifartius @freemo indeed it works very well, I can see it working on both of you right now. Not what @freemo said though.

@namark

funny, when its the left you have some absurd paraphrasing about me thinking its a "human parrot species" or whatever nonsense... now all of a sudden that you feel you can use it as a personal attack its a perfectly normal stance when applied to us...

Might want to look in a mirror your hypocrisy is showing.

@bonifartius

@freemo if it's a natural thing that applies to all how is that a personal attack? or do you mean it a natural thing that only applies to inferior subspecies of hive mind parrots, and find it incredibly insulting that I dare to equate you to them?

@bonifartius