On Saturday, December 7, 2024 at 6:41:40 PM UTC+1 Giulio Prisco wrote:
On 2024. Dec 7., Sat at 15:10, PGC <[email protected]> wrote: I can kill some "woke" nonsense: The same critique of platforms like Joe Rogan’s applies equally to establishments like *The New York Times* or other influential media. Exactly. At this moment I consider the flaws of the “right” a necessary counterbalance to those of the “left.” Of course we can negotiate, but there must be fairness and concessions on both sides. Your suggestion that the flaws of the right are a necessary counterbalance to those of the left rests on a flawed premise: the assumption that political ideologies can be reduced to a binary system where one side perpetually balances the other, like weights on a scale. This reductive framework fails to account for the complexities of history, governance, and human behavior, ultimately obscuring more than it clarifies. While the right is often associated with stability and tradition, its historical track record includes the preservation of oppressive systems such as monarchies, apartheid, and segregation. Conversely, the left’s efforts to redistribute power and resources have led to transformative changes like the abolition of slavery and the expansion of civil rights but have also faltered when overzealous policies disregarded individual freedoms. Neither side inherently balances the other, and both possess the capacity for flawed thinking. What is missing from your analysis is the recognition that clear principles, not reactionary balancing, are necessary for meaningful progress. Without a transparent metaphysical framework—a set of principles about human nature, society, and governance—political discourse devolves into tribal competition. Leaders and movements justify any action, no matter how self-serving, by comparing themselves favorably to the "other side" rather than holding themselves to consistent standards. For instance, the 20th-century Cold War arms race relied on the logic of counterbalancing, resulting in a precarious world built on mutual threats of annihilation rather than long-term ethical reasoning. Similarly, modern populist movements weaponize "us vs. them" narratives to frame complex societal challenges in simplistic, emotionally charged terms. Right-wing populists stoke fears of cultural erosion without addressing systemic causes of inequality, while left-wing populists may frame opposition as oppression, neglecting the importance of dialogue. This tendency toward reactionary thinking on both sides demonstrates why accountability must rest on principles, not tribalism. The most catastrophic events in history have arisen not from efforts to achieve equality but from the tribalistic "othering" of human beings. World wars, colonialism, and apartheid were all rooted in the belief that some groups were inherently superior, leading to exploitation, violence, and cultural destruction. By contrast, movements for equality—despite occasional overreach—have advanced society without the catastrophic costs of tribalistic ideologies. The push for equality may stumble in implementation, but its errors pale in comparison to the devastation wrought by those who kill or oppress in the name of national, cultural, or tribal pride. Recognizing our shared humanity should guide us toward solutions that transcend ideological divides. Both right and left operate from implicit models of reality, yet they often leave these assumptions unstated. The right may lean on hierarchical models that emphasize competition and tradition, while the left focuses on systemic models that prioritize equality and collective responsibility. Clarity about these assumptions is essential for progress. For example, a left-leaning policy to address income inequality must consider the right’s concerns about preserving individual incentives, while a right-leaning push for deregulation must address valid concerns about environmental and social costs. Articulating these foundations allows us to move beyond ideological combat and toward problem-solving grounded in shared principles. Game theory illustrates the danger of rigidly adhering to one strategy, whether perpetual aggression or constant compromise. Success requires adaptability, and politics is no exception. Prescribing a blanket approach of counterbalancing assumes a static landscape, but political and social systems are dynamic. Simplistic “right vs. left” thinking prevents the adaptability needed to address challenges on their merits and align strategies with long-term goals. The idea that the flaws of one side balance the flaws of the other ignores this reality and perpetuates cycles of reactionary conflict. Progress comes not from tribal competition but from recognizing our shared ignorance and capacity for error, articulating coherent first principles, and crafting policies that prioritize balancing individual freedom with collective well-being, instead of just mentioning that. Rather than defending a binary framework, we must hold all leaders accountable to standards rooted in reason, ethics, and a shared vision for the future. Only then can we move beyond the false dichotomy of right versus left and toward genuine progress. But for now, everybody that buys into this dichotomy commits to falsehoods that they accuse the other side of fostering. The left overreach by becoming racists for equality/diversity and the right overreach by privileging elites that they claim to dethrone. There is no golden middle or score in a false dichotomy or ill-posed question. The ambitious folks aggressively defending some side just expose their insecurity/fear of subconsciously acknowledging the other to be also have a point. The idea that propagandists will have a solution and that "our side is winning/losing" is poison. Maybe history decides we need the shock therapy of more wars. Personally, imho our ancestors suffered enough from this shit, and people dishonor their sacrifices by whining around about their insecurities online too much, instead of acting and making those changes irl; thoughtfully for both the individual and collective levels of description/logic. The right counterbalancing right now against the alleged elitists also means making politics an auction house for increasing groups of elites, who make dirty deals without limits right in front of our faces instead of under the table to smaller sets of special interests. Now anybody bringing money and a deal serving the right wing politicians' public image can walk straight into those offices. Nothing is won here, just as the left didn't win anything by overpushing gender norms; on the contrary, *both "sides" of a false dichotomy will lose more of exactly what they want to avoid, making the things they fear more real in the process.* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/384ddb76-9ce2-475c-84ad-6cbb73288a9an%40googlegroups.com.
