Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Split the Forum in Twain? Caucuses of the Left and the Right

Page 1 of 1 [ 13 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

26 Sep 2011, 7:24 pm

A recent thread posits that political debate is pointless because we're working from different basic moral assumptions. Because of this, it may be interesting to form two caucuses within Politics, Philosophy, and Religion: the Left and the Right. Moderates, libertarians, and the like would have to choose a side. Yes, you would have to choose between a more-or-less secular wing filled with pot-smoking hippis and tax-and-spend collectivists or a fanatical caucus filled with angry bigots, frequent prayer invocations and pledges of loyalty, and a commitment to free markets.

Resolutions would be proposed and voted on in parliamentary fashion. Since the caucus with numeric superiority should win such votes handily, behind-the-scenes intrigues across caucuses (bipartisanship) would be necessary for the minority caucus to get time of day. Splinter issues could be used to drive a wedge through the majority caucus and perhaps lead to votes of no confidence. Actually, this could make an interesting video game (for political nerds).



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Sep 2011, 7:35 pm

Bad idea. And also unworkable.

ruveyn



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

26 Sep 2011, 7:35 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
Yes, you would have to choose between a more-or-less secular wing filled with pot-smoking hippis and tax-and-spend collectivists

Don't forget the Free Love, Baby!

NeantHumain wrote:
or a fanatical caucus filled with angry bigots, frequent prayer invocations and pledges of loyalty, and a commitment to free markets.


They aren't really all that committed to free markets.

They're much more interested in bankrupting the nation for the sake of enriching the rich and empoverishing the poor.



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

26 Sep 2011, 9:14 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Bad idea. And also unworkable.

Nah, I'm thinking a parliamentary simulation would be a good idea, albeit a boring one except to those committed to playing fake politics on a computer.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

26 Sep 2011, 9:31 pm

This has been proposed before, though usually with regards to splitting religious discussion off from religious debate. What we need is for people to stop responding to 3-4 specific posters who spam up the place with valueless posts; we all know who they are and that engaging them is pointless, yet seem powerless to stop ourselves.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

26 Sep 2011, 9:33 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Bad idea. And also unworkable.

Nah, I'm thinking a parliamentary simulation would be a good idea, albeit a boring one except to those committed to playing fake politics on a computer.

I think it sounds interesting. I wouldn't mind getting a bit involved in something like this, just to try it out.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

26 Sep 2011, 10:03 pm

Isn't this just a reworking of your "Tale of Two PPRs" thread, where you suggest the left and right form voluntary caucuses (I guess here you're suggesting involuntary ones)? I know a political forum that has general sections where the right, left, and other debate but also left and right specialty sub-forums.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

26 Sep 2011, 10:04 pm

I know how the right loves an echo chamber but then people who live in reality would have nobody to laugh at.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

26 Sep 2011, 10:06 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
Yes, you would have to choose between a more-or-less secular wing filled with pot-smoking hippis and tax-and-spend collectivists or a fanatical caucus filled with angry bigots, frequent prayer invocations and pledges of loyalty, and a commitment to free markets.


Where would angry, teetotal, cycling, pro-union, antireligious, inattentive to fashion, neurotic Winnipeggers go?


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

27 Sep 2011, 12:17 pm

Dox47 wrote:
This has been proposed before, though usually with regards to splitting religious discussion off from religious debate. What we need is for people to stop responding to 3-4 specific posters who spam up the place with valueless posts; we all know who they are and that engaging them is pointless, yet seem powerless to stop ourselves.


But they're such mental midgets! I can't help myself!! ![/attitude]

Guilty as charged.


_________________
--James


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,195
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

27 Sep 2011, 12:22 pm

Right.... because 'Left' and 'Right' are such a wonderfully accurate and salient sketch of what's out there to be discussed and mapped of the issues.

I think we could just dumb it down enough by saying "Pee-pee jousting only. Any OPs above 4th grade reading comprehension requirements will be locked, three offenses is a ban".


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

27 Sep 2011, 2:06 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Right.... because 'Left' and 'Right' are such a wonderfully accurate and salient sketch of what's out there to be discussed and mapped of the issues.


Agreed. It's absolute rubbish - there are lots of left-wing political parties (especially in Europe) that have very "right-wing" social policies.



N0tYetDeadFred
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 243
Location: Fortress of Solitude

27 Sep 2011, 2:20 pm

I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure we probably have a disproportionate number of anarchists, etc. in our ranks. Good luck squeezing a bunch of aspies into left/right blocs!