Near Miss of the Day 649: Driver makes close pass on cyclist – then gets out of car to confront rider

Rich_cb wrote:

Did you read the article? Your argument makes it appear that you did not and have just lifted some quotes from Wikipedia. The argument that the Nazis were socialists does not rely on any mistranslation. That relates to the argument that Socialists promoted genocide. You often attack authors of pieces but never seem to critique the actual articles themselves. The article has multiple primary sources indicating that many Nazis did see themselves as Socialists. You also didn't answer my question, What is your definition of right and left wing?

https://fullfact.org/online/nazis-socialists/

Rich_cb wrote:

Did you read the article? Your argument makes it appear that you did not and have just lifted some quotes from Wikipedia. The argument that the Nazis were socialists does not rely on any mistranslation. That relates to the argument that Socialists promoted genocide. You often attack authors of pieces but never seem to critique the actual articles themselves. The article has multiple primary sources indicating that many Nazis did see themselves as Socialists. You also didn't answer my question, What is your definition of right and left wing?

https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists

Rich_cb wrote:

Did you read the article? Your argument makes it appear that you did not and have just lifted some quotes from Wikipedia. The argument that the Nazis were socialists does not rely on any mistranslation. That relates to the argument that Socialists promoted genocide. You often attack authors of pieces but never seem to critique the actual articles themselves. The article has multiple primary sources indicating that many Nazis did see themselves as Socialists. You also didn't answer my question, What is your definition of right and left wing?

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

How do you define right and left wing then?

Rich_cb wrote:

How do you define right and left wing then?

Depends where you are sitting. 

But it has nothing to do with whether the Nazis were socialists; they were not. 

I've never asserted that they were Socialists.

I've pointed out that they are difficult to place on the right-left axis.

Everybody seems certain that they were right wing yet nobody seems able to define what that actually means.

Rich_cb wrote:

I've never asserted that they were Socialists. I've pointed out that they are difficult to place on the right-left axis. Everybody seems certain that they were right wing yet nobody seems able to define what that actually means.

Right-wing politics supports the view that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be seen as natural results of traditional social differences or competition in market economies.

From the wiki article.  Which describes the Nazi party.

As opposed to: Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition of social hierarchy. Left-wing politics typically involve a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished. 

Which does not.

They obviously believed there were hierarchies between races but the interesting thing is to look at their policies for the 'Aryan' people.

Here the picture becomes less clear, from the Snopes link:

"its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital"

The planned economy, large state and limits on personal freedoms were also more typically left wing.

It's almost like left wing policies for the 'Aryan' people inside a bubble of extreme nationalism.

It's partly why I think the terms right and left wing are too simplistic for complex political structures.

A proponent of a low tax, free market economy with a minimal state maybe be described as very right wing yet share absolutely no beliefs with an extreme nationalist who is also described in the same way.

No Rich.  Cherry picking one sentence out of context does not justify your arguement.  

The same article also states:

"In lieu of the socialist ideal of an egalitarian, worker-run state, the National Socialists erected a party-run police state whose governing structure was anti-democratic, rigidly hierarchical, and militaristic in nature."

Which fits the previous definition of right wing perfectly.  Your idea that "Aryan" people were treated according to left wing ideals as I defined is also obviously flawed; trade unions were outlawed and socialists, communists, the disabled and homosexuals were all sent to concentration camps despite belonging to . 

Your assertion that the proponent of a low tax, free market economy with a minimal state and the extreme nationalist do not share right wings ideals is also incorrect - both are supporting the view that hierachial social structures are natural/desirable as I defined. 

Firstly I said that it was too simplistic as it would lead to people with completely incompatible beliefs being given the same label.

I stand by that.

Secondly the sentence I 'cherry picked' was directly related to the definition of left wing that you had just given me.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to demonstrate that the exact terms used to describe left wing activity in your link were used to describe aspects of Nazi rule in another of your links.

How would you describe the organisation of Soviet Russia?

A party-run police state whose governing structure was anti-democratic, rigidly hierarchical, and militaristic in nature?

Right wing Communists?

I have given you a definition that is widely accepted. Just because it does not fit with your internal concept of left and right wing (which is what exactly?) is your problem not mine. 

And the beliefs are consistent - they are to do with social hierarchy and inequality  

You cherry picked the statement because it states the RHETORIC was egalitarian. The article goes on to state that the reality was the opposite as you know. 
 

I am not sure why you want to believe that the Nazi party were not right wing. Shrugs. I hope it makes you happy. 

Again you are misrepresenting what I have said.

I've stated, repeatedly, that the terms are too simplistic as entirely different political philosophies will be given the same label.

Personally I prefer to think in terms of big state/small state and liberal/authoritarian. Combined to give 4 categories.

Under that definition the two examples I gave would be at opposite ends of the spectrum which seems far more appropriate.

The reality of the Soviet Union was not egalitarian, doesn't make them right wing Communists.

I'm trying to demonstrate that the nomenclature is not fit for purpose.

Many of the examples used to demonstrate that the Nazis were not socialists could be applied to the Communists. This renders the argument a bit laughable really and reinforces my point that the terms are almost meaningless.

Rich_cb wrote:

Again you are misrepresenting what I have said. I've stated, repeatedly, that the terms are too simplistic as entirely different political philosophies will be given the same label. Personally I prefer to think in terms of big state/small state and liberal/authoritarian. [ ... ].

I think we'd understand better if there was a chart (or several...) that could illustrate this idea?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Edit: don't know anything about these folks but you can see where you lie on a 2 axis scheme here:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

That second.one is more what I was getting at but with big state/small state instead of right/left.

Apparently I'm Right/Libertarian.

Bloody Communist.

Wow, you actually went all the way through a six-page questionnaire putting in pretend answers from me? How staggeringly sad is that? How empty is your life to actually waste your time doing that? Along with your stalking my Twitter account I think this really indicates you need some serious help.

Now now Comrade Rendel.

I'm sure he didn't mean it, please don't send him to the gulags.

I wouldn't, I did despise him but now I deeply pity him, he clearly needs help. He has literally filled in a six-page questionnaire with fake answers in my name in order to produce an idiotic result that nobody apart from himself could give a flying fuck about, that is so very, very sad.

Oh, so you didn't post a link from my Twitter account yesterday? I think you should inform the relevant admin then, as there's a weird stalker who needs to get a life who's posting stupid things under your username. Is that why you've changed your username at least five times, to get away from him?  

Turns out I'm to the right of Trump, and Hitler definitely was right wing.

So informative.

After exensive analysis and doing the quiz dozens of times I have been able to compile a version of this chart which may interest road.cc readers. I apologise for the absence of most types of bicycle but I believe these would be spread over the chart area so clarity would be lost.

To save space I have moved the fixie to an artificially low position on the libertarian axis. For those who don't recognise the bike at the upper mid-left is of course a Flying Pigeon.

chrisonatrike wrote:

After exensive analysis and doing the quiz dozens of times I have been able to compile a version of this chart which may interest road.cc readers. I apologise for the absence of most types of bicycle but I believe these would be spread over the chart area so clarity would be lost.

To save space I have moved the fixie to an artificially low position on the libertarian axis. For those who don't recognise the bike at the upper mid-left is of course a Flying Pigeon.

 

I do love this. You are of course correct that cycling is inherently left wing, and car driving is right wing. 
 

Helmets are authoritarian though. 

I think the majority of people on bicycles are ... all over the chart.  The majority of self-defined "cyclists" (e.g. people reading here) are probably on the lower half (libertarian / cussed individualists).

The car is actually one of the queen's.

But I'll stand by my fixie comment (in the modern era...) until someone can show that e.g. China is engaging in espionage to steal the secrets of alleycat-running messengers and their fans. (Lucas Brunelle is so odd that I have no idea nor interest on where he'd fit on the left / right axis).

Fixies do not chart on your graph because the Z hipster axis is lacking...

Yet car drivers are all limited by law to driving no faster than the same maximum speed on any given road regardless of the cars top speed.

Egalitarian?

Cyclists can go as fast as their ability allows them. Ganna on Brompton would undoubtedly be faster than most of us on a Bolide.

Hierarchical?

Rich_cb wrote:

Yet car drivers are all required by law to drive their vehicles at the same maximum speed on any given road regardless of the cars top speed.

I think I know what you meant but I think this can be misconstrued. I know people who think that the speed limit is the compulsory speed for the road - they would agree that they are "required by law to drive their vehicles" at that speed.

Now edited for clarity.

Yes but Chairman Mao bikes are very left wing!

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/marr-is-snubbed-for-a-day-at-church-9...

How come you haven't included a lefty?

Rich_cb wrote:

Again you are misrepresenting what I have said. I've stated, repeatedly, that the terms are too simplistic as entirely different political philosophies will be given the same label. Personally I prefer to think in terms of big state/small state and liberal/authoritarian. Combined to give 4 categories. Under that definition the two examples I gave would be at opposite ends of the spectrum which seems far more appropriate. The reality of the Soviet Union was not egalitarian, doesn't make them right wing Communists. I'm trying to demonstrate that the nomenclature is not fit for purpose. Many of the examples used to demonstrate that the Nazis were not socialists could be applied to the Communists. This renders the argument a bit laughable really and reinforces my point that the terms are almost meaningless.

No, you asked for definitions of left and right wing. I gave them and explained why they mean the Nazis are right wing. 
 

I'm sorry it upsets you that fiscal conservatism with a low tax, free market economy with a minimal state and an extreme fascist nationalism share the same philosophical underpinning - that inequality exists among individuals and this is correct and should not be rectified - but it is true.