Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

This World Ain't Big Enough For Two 14 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.

  • I for one am tired of having racism identified with the right. I'm tired of hearing people tell me I should change parties because my party is right wing and so was Hitler, as if there were any similarities between the two.

    I don't think "left" and "right" is adequate to describe the spectrum anymore.

    --
    J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
    • That's a somewhat different issue, though perhaps no less important. Labels are important for our understanding of the world, but we must recognize that they are only the beginning of understanding. I can say that beer and cognac are both alcoholic beverages, but that is only meaningful at a certain level, and even then not very meaningful.
    • Where I used to work one of my coworkers would say that a graph of political thoughts is more like a circle. Moderates on both sides are very similar and as you go to the extremes the extreme righ and the extreme left thinking individuals have more in common with each other than anyone else.

      I thought it was a very interesting way to illustrate political thinking. :-)
      • Well, and in many respects, it's true. A good example are the World Bank protestors, which are mostly far-left and far-right activists. Even in the U.S. Congress, it's not uncommon to see the far-left and far-right come to agreement on certain bills, against the moderates.

      • :) The original second paragraph to my post (which I deleted before posting) mentioned how a high school teacher drew that circle for our class and I never bought it. While there are people shooting each other on both ends (and actually all up and down) the spectrum, I can never see someone becoming so anti-gun-control that they become pro-gun-control, for example.

        --
        J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
        • That is not the point though.
          I believe there are two.

          1. That they have in fact become very much like each other for having entrenched themselves in extreme views and not being open to considering others.

          2. People at such extremes find themselves at odds with those in the "middle", and may form "unholy" alliances to fight that fight.
          --
          Were that I say, pancakes?

          • Yeah, I do see what everyone's saying here, and it's shedding some light on that circle (which has bothered me for seven or eight years). Always before I've felt like people were using it to say, "Viewpoints don't matter, as long as you don't take them strongly. When you take them strongly, you become just like the other side. See? That proves viewpoints don't matter. So since your viewpoints don't matter, you should just drop your point and accept mine."

            Seriously, until today, that's how I've heard

            --
            J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
      • There is a Non Sequitur strip which represents exactly this. (p111 of Beastly Things)

        Political identification process in the ninteies

        Step 1:
        Evaluate your life and choose a direction everyone should follow

        Step 2:
        Emphasize your direction

        Step 3:
        Exaggerate your position to clarify differences.
        (I must admit I am occasionally guilty of this particular conceit, in any realm)

        Step 4:
        Entrench yourself in the dogma of your chosen side and eliminate the bothersome task of thinking for yourself.

        Step 5:
        See Step 1
        --
        Were that I say, pancakes?
    • Ranges of political philosophy are
      more often (outside of mainstream culture)
      represented as a square.

      http://www.self-gov.org/wspq.html
      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?

      • Hmmm. It says I'm a libertarian. No surprise.

        --
        J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers

        • Now that I've glanced through the quiz FAQ, I should clarify that remark. One of the FAQ's was, "Isn't this a trick to tell everyone they're libertarian?" I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort; I'm not surprised to hear myself identified as libertarian because I've long been sympathetic to that philosophy.

          --
          J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers

    • I disagree that "left" and "right" are inadequate. They are of course insufficient, and of course there are points of agreement between the two, but the facts show (at least here in France) that those two sides have different agendas and different methods, and that the distinction is mostly consistent. I also think that the circle metaphore is only punctually correct and generally useless, and that the positioning on a square/map is about as relevant as psychological tests in lousy magazines.

      Howeve

      --

      -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

      • Well, the problem to me is that in general, there is a standard understanding of which position on an issue is "left" and which is "right." Now, in general I'd be "right," but unfortunately some of the points of view that are called right not only don't describe me, but don't describe most conservatives I know. Racism is identified with the "right," but I know very few right-wing American racists. The libertarian site with the quiz I took yesterday said most people on the right were in favor of censorshi

        --
        J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers

        • I think that there may be historical reasons for this inadequacy, ie that maybe it is adequate here but not over there.

          In France, before the Dreyfus affair, it was possible (and in fact not uncommon) to be on the left and racist. After the Dreyfus affair, it became completely impossible and thus racism became a right thing. That habit hasn't changed since.

          In the US there was no Dreyfus affair, and that may have had an influence.

          --

          -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.