What is the psychology assessment of neo con fascism alt right?

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

Do you think a balance needs to be struck with the neoconservative fascists trying to seize power in the US, so their right to their beliefs is respected?

Well, there are all sorts of weird beliefs in the US, and people have a right to believe them. But seizing power adversely affects the rights of others, so has to be stamped on. In a democracy, nobody has a right to seize power, right or left. 

You can believe what you like, but when it comes to power, it's obvious that that affects the rights of others. That's why you have laws. 

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Well, there are all sorts of weird beliefs in the US, and people have a right to believe them. But seizing power adversely affects the rights of others, so has to be stamped on. In a democracy, nobody has a right to seize power, right or left. 

You can believe what you like, but when it comes to power, it's obvious that that affects the rights of others. That's why you have laws. 

Well sure, but I'm asking why a Centrist solution to human rights has a better chance of being fair? 

[mistermack]

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Well sure, but I'm asking why a Centrist solution to human rights has a better chance of being fair? 

But I think you are still viewing the word Centrist as the centre between extreme opinions, and ignoring the word "rights" and what that means. To me, it means having a power, because it's right that you should have that power. Not just because you want it. 

And when you have a situation where it's right that one person has a power, but it interferes with a power that another person ought to have, then it's probably time to look for a compromise. And sometimes it's not an easy decision. 

I wouldn't define centrist as the middle point between fascists and commies, but if that's your thinking, then we are at cross-purposes. 

[Phi for All]

51 minutes ago, mistermack said:

But I think you are still viewing the word Centrist as the centre between extreme opinions, and ignoring the word "rights" and what that means.

No, it's because I'm NOT ignoring the word "rights" and what it means. I think human rights aren't something you can find middle ground about. We're all due a certain basic amount of respect and access to resources simply because we've agreed to live in a society and participate in its economy. 

And do you really think my position is that extreme? That says a lot.

[nec209]

14 hours ago, Phi for All said:

What's the centrist view on LGBTQA rights? Do they think those folks should have rights some of the time? I know the Democrats have been suggesting that rights belong to everyone all the time, and the right thinks only a few people deserve them, but what's the centrist view?

I’m not sure what they want may be they just want to go back to the way things where in the 90s and the extreme groups want to go back to the way things where in the 50s.

[mistermack]

They tried communism and it didn't work. If you have a very rich country, with a big surplus of the basics, I guess a free-to-all would work. Elsewhere, people think it's right to reward work and talent. Where I am hard left, is I don't believe in the right to inherit capital. I'd like to see a 100% tax on your estate when you die, with the proceeds going to levelling up opportunity for all. Some people might view that as abusing their human rights. I don't. 

I think the right to equal opportunity trumps the right to inherit. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

And when you have a situation where it's right that one person has a power, but it interferes with a power that another person ought to have, then it's probably time to look for a compromise. And sometimes it's not an easy decision. 

This was about LGBTQ rights, so I’m at a loss as to how this is infringing on/ interfering with anyone else’s rights, or “power”

Or did you have some other example in mind?

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, nec209 said:

I’m not sure what they want may be they just want to go back to the way things where in the 90s and the extreme groups want to go back to the way things where in the 50s.

The problem with "going back to the way things were" is that it's entirely subjective. The 90s was the most prosperous decade of my life, and before 1996 we actually had rules about what constituted "news" used to inform the public, so I could wish we could go back for those things. But the 90s also means the Columbine shooting here in my state, the one that started the media craze over school shootings. The genocides in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The Oklahoma City bombing, and the first World Trade Center bombing.

And going back to the 50s?! Not if you're a person of color, or don't like cars breaking down on the regular due to vapor lock, or if you don't want actual ballot box tampering. Most of the folks I hear talking about life being better in the 50s mean it was before civil rights, when white people could do or say anything they pleased.

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

They tried communism and it didn't work. If you have a very rich country, with a big surplus of the basics, I guess a free-to-all would work. Elsewhere, people think it's right to reward work and talent.

I'd have no problem with capitalism if it rewarded work/talent equitably, but in its current form it doesn't. Work/talent combined with resources makes goods and performs tasks, and all involved should profit equitably, but the resource owners look down on work/talent, and overvalue their resources to the point where the resource owners make hundreds of times more than the talented worker.

And I'm not sure you need big surpluses to make some things free-to-all. If we'd been smarter about internet shopping, we could have made the big corporations pay to use our data to target us. And if we'd use public spending the way it should be used, with absolutely no profit motive involved, we could save a LOT on things just about everyone uses.

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

Where I am hard left, is I don't believe in the right to inherit capital. I'd like to see a 100% tax on your estate when you die, with the proceeds going to levelling up opportunity for all. Some people might view that as abusing their human rights. I don't. 

I think the right to equal opportunity trumps the right to inherit. 

Interesting. Generational wealth is a big problem. It might get a bit sticky for someone who just has a home and $30,000 in savings. That person's kids were hoping for a leveling up opportunity of their own. I'll have to think about this. I'm reminded that the modern narrative tells us to kick our kids out of the house at 18 and don't give them anything so it'll make them resilient, yet rich people do the opposite. They fund them fully, make sure they have a great education, and keep them close as they navigate through life. 

My hard left? I'd expand the US Postal Service, get them their own fleet of jets, and turn them into a hub of commerce and shipping, publicly funded. I'd have them set up an enormous website where anyone who wanted to sell anything and have it shipped could do so. IOW, I'd take care of the Amazon problem by competing with them using a socialist format that wasn't driven by profit. Shipping costs would go down, the USPS site wouldn't be trying to compete with its own vendors (like Amazon does), and both large and small businesses would see costs go down. To go along with this, I'd also add internet access in infrastructure bills. I think the US government using socialism to give every citizen access to capitalism is a huge investment in its People.

[AIkonoklazt]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I'd have no problem with capitalism if it rewarded work/talent equitably, but in its current form it doesn't. Work/talent combined with resources makes goods and performs tasks, and all involved should profit equitably, but the resource owners look down on work/talent, and overvalue their resources to the point where the resource owners make hundreds of times more than the talented worker.

Resource owners isn't looking down as much as doing things because they can, or slightly more specifically, because they can maximize their returns that much more. If they don't squeeze as hard as they could, they're leaving some unsqueezed blood on the table. it's a matter of converting human resource into some other resource they can spend or turn into gold bars or whatever.

As for serfs? Tough luck, serfs rent means of production (office space, office equipment, factories, etc etc) and pay the difference between the value they produce and what trickles down to them (pay and benefits) as rent.

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

This was about LGBTQ rights, so I’m at a loss as to how this is infringing on/ interfering with anyone else’s rights, or “power”

Or did you have some other example in mind?

Well my initial comment was about what could be regarded as "centrist" in rights. I didn't claim that centrist was my own stance in everything. But LGBTQ turns up a lot of conflicts. Does some man's demand to be referred to as a woman interfere with my right to free speech? Does someone's determination to be offended interfere with my right to free speech? Do men demanding to use the ladies toilets interfere with women's rights to privacy and a safe space? There's arguments on both sides. 

The ones I feel most sorry for, are straight men who look a bit feminine, and straight women who look a bit male. In the old days, they would never get asked if they were a man or woman. 

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Well my initial comment was about what could be regarded as "centrist" in rights. I didn't claim that centrist was my own stance in everything. But LGBTQ turns up a lot of conflicts. Does some man's demand to be referred to as a woman interfere with my right to free speech? Does someone's determination to be offended interfere with my right to free speech? Do men demanding to use the ladies toilets interfere with women's rights to privacy and a safe space? There's arguments on both sides. 

The ones I feel most sorry for, are straight men who look a bit feminine, and straight women who look a bit male. In the old days, they would never get asked if they were a man or woman. 

Are any of these things actual rights? How does someone’s desire to be referred to in a certain way interfere with free speech? Is that enforced by some government agency, who will toss you in jail or fine you if you don’t comply?

[mistermack]

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

Is that enforced by some government agency, who will toss you in jail or fine you if you don’t comply?

It's gradually going that way. In the field of work, you can be sacked for discrimination, or sued for sexual discrimination, for constructive dismissal etc. in this country, if you employed a he who demanded to be treated as a she. 

What do you do as an employer, if you have men's and women's toilets, and some man wants to use the women's, against the wishes of the women employees ? These cases can involve big money, whoever ends up winning. 

In any case, you asked for examples, I gave some. I'm not too interested in the finer points.

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Interesting. Generational wealth is a big problem. It might get a bit sticky for someone who just has a home and $30,000 in savings. That person's kids were hoping for a leveling up opportunity of their own. I'll have to think about this.

Well, if nobody is inheriting anything, you wouldn't be disadvantaged. I would use the money to level up education quality for all, and free healthcare, and keep the threshold where you start paying income tax as high as possible. So you might miss out on a lump sum, but you could keep more of your wages from day one.

Edited November 30, 2023 by mistermack

[swansont]

23 minutes ago, mistermack said:

It's gradually going that way. In the field of work, you can be sacked for discrimination, or sued for sexual discrimination, for constructive dismissal etc. in this country, if you employed a he who demanded to be treated as a she. 

If this is the issue, doesn’t it assume you have a right to discriminate? Is that the case? I thought that this was covered in the Human Rights Act of 1998.

23 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What do you do as an employer, if you have men's and women's toilets, and some man wants to use the women's, against the wishes of the women employees ? These cases can involve big money, whoever ends up winning. 

I would assume you comply with the law. What rights are involved here? Surely violating the law isn’t a right. Simply having laws doesn’t deprive people of rights. If the government has the authority to compel action or punish, it can’t have involved a right.

Wanting something to be a right isn’t an uncommon feeling, from what I’ve see and heard, but it’s not the same as what actual rights are.

 

[nec209]

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The problem with "going back to the way things were" is that it's entirely subjective. The 90s was the most prosperous decade of my life, and before 1996 we actually had rules about what constituted "news" used to inform the public, so I could wish we could go back for those things. But the 90s also means the Columbine shooting here in my state, the one that started the media craze over school shootings. The genocides in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The Oklahoma City bombing, and the first World Trade Center bombing.

And going back to the 50s?! Not if you're a person of color, or don't like cars breaking down on the regular due to vapor lock, or if you don't want actual ballot box tampering. Most of the folks I hear talking about life being better in the 50s mean it was before civil rights, when white people could do or say anything they pleased.

 

I think some people wanting to go back to the 90s mean the way LGBT and abortion was in the 90s than the way it is today. Well the more extreme religious folks want the 50s.

Not sure what you mean by news as in the 90s you did not have social media like today. Was there ever time CNN and Fox news was balanced?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, nec209 said:

Not sure what you mean by news as in the 90s you did not have social media like today. Was there ever time CNN and Fox news was balanced?

Probably referring to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which expanded the number of radio stations one could own and the reach of TV stations one could own.

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Probably referring to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which expanded the number of radio stations one could own and the reach of TV stations one could own.

Exactly. And prior to that act, we had at least some government guidelines requiring the news to actually inform the public of important events.

[nec209]

20 hours ago, swansont said:

Probably referring to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which expanded the number of radio stations one could own and the reach of TV stations one could own.

Not sure how having access to more news is making the news not balanced as I don’t think there even been balanced new is always been liberal and conservative.

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, nec209 said:

Not sure how having access to more news is making the news not balanced as I don’t think there even been balanced new is always been liberal and conservative.

 

It’s not access to more news.

Allowing one owner to control more outlets ensures that their bias can be more widespread.

News used to be closer to just being news. Before Fox News, and when the Sinclair Group controlled fewer stations.

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, nec209 said:

Not sure how having access to more news is making the news not balanced as I don’t think there even been balanced new is always been liberal and conservative.

In addition to what swansont said, having access to more news doesn't mean the quality is where it should be. When the aim is to entertain rather than inform, they report stories differently. We don't get as much signal as we did prior to Clinton and Reagan, so "more news" is actually "more noise". 

[npts2020]

Also, from 1949-1987, there was something called the "fairness doctrine" (then partially in effect before being entirely abandoned in 2000 when the part guaranteeing a person attacked on air equal air time was tossed out) which required equal air time for candidates for public office and editorial content to report both sides of a debate, among other things.