How do you, personally, define 'left-wing' vs 'right-wing'?

[Starlight]

What, to your minds, is the primary thing that makes you call something "left-wing" and something else "right-wing"?

Is it policies that involve spending money to benefit the people? Is is the size of the government? Is it the tax rates? Is it the amount of government control of the economy? Is it the rhetoric of politicians? Is it the authoritarian nature of the policies? Is it a set of particular policies you hold that are labelled by you as 'right-wing' and others as 'left-wing' and do you look for viewpoint matches on those policies to determine whether something else is right or left?

I occasionally take some flak on this site because I've come to prefer "distributed power vs consolidated power" as a my preferred tool of political analysis and preferred way of thinking about the 'left' (distributed power in the hands of as many people as possible) vs 'right' (consolidated power in the hands of a few people) political spectrum. Some posters here take issue with this metric because it sometimes gives different results to their own preferred metrics for measuring right v left.

So I'm interested to see what people on this site would say they use as their primary practical working definition of 'right' vs 'left' in their daily thinking and posting and media consumption (I'm not particularly interested in anyone regurgitating a textbook/dictionary definition of 'left' and 'right' to me).

[Cow Poke]

I think it depends on the arena. Political, religious, economics....

And I think part of the confusion is that you can be "right wing" in one area and "left wing" in another.

[Sparko]

The big dividing line for me is the left wanting more government control over our private lives. "big government/nanny state"

[Sparko]

I occasionally take some flak on this site because I've come to prefer "distributed power vs consolidated power" as a my preferred tool of political analysis and preferred way of thinking about the 'left' (distributed power in the hands of as many people as possible) vs 'right' (consolidated power in the hands of a few people) political spectrum. .

That is pretty much the exact opposite of what you actually believe. You want the government to control everything while pretending it is "the people" - Socialism is about a ruling class acting like it is helping the people while in fact it controls every aspect of their lives from how much they make, to what they make, how they live their lives, what goods they are allowed to have, all in the name of "equality" - equally poor.

[guacamole]

I like the conservative/liberal - statist/libertarian axis. That allows for some additional accuracy and measures you against two sets of values simultaneously. It helps to explain how you can have totalitarian regimes on both ends of the political spectrum.

But I also agree with CP. We are a strange mixture of right/left/libertarian/statist on a number of issues. I am right-wing when it comes to abortion and gender-identity policy. I am left-wing when it comes to labor and the environment. I am statist when it comes to healthcare and education, but libertarian when it comes to most issues of personal liberty--speech, religion, association, etc. So my opposition to forcing bakers to make cakes is based less on traditional, Christian morality - I don't believe this is a Christian nation and it shouldn't be beholden to Christian morality as Christian morality - but instead on free-speech issues.

I come out as centrist on most quizzes, which I think is inaccurate.

fwiw,
guacamole

[LeaC]

I like the conservative/liberal - statist/libertarian axis. That allows for some additional accuracy and measures you against two sets of values simultaneously. It helps to explain how you can have totalitarian regimes on both ends of the political spectrum.

But I also agree with CP. We are a strange mixture of right/left/libertarian/statist on a number of issues. I am right-wing when it comes to abortion and gender-identity policy. I am left-wing when it comes to labor and the environment. I am statist when it comes to healthcare and education, but libertarian when it comes to most issues of personal liberty--speech, religion, association, etc. So my opposition to forcing bakers to make cakes is based less on traditional, Christian morality - I don't believe this is a Christian nation and it shouldn't be beholden to Christian morality as Christian morality - but instead on free-speech issues.

I come out as centrist on most quizzes, which I think is inaccurate.

fwiw,
guacamole

I agree with pretty much all of this. Except that my opposition to forcing people to bake cakes is more about freedom of artistic expression than free speech necessarily. Anyone who is making a custom design should be allowed to refuse to do so for any or no reason at all. If it's on your shelf, already made, for general sale, then anyone should be allowed to buy it.

Being "right-wing" on gender identity policy just means believing in science and logic.

[tabibito]

I agree with pretty much all of this. Except that my opposition to forcing people to bake cakes is more about freedom of artistic expression than free speech necessarily. Anyone who is making a custom design should be allowed to refuse to do so for any or no reason at all. If it's on your shelf, already made, for general sale, then anyone should be allowed to buy it.

Being "right-wing" on gender identity policy just means believing in science and logic.

Given that baking wedding cakes and taking photos at weddings etc is work undertaken as a contract, I see it more as a matter of forced labour: people being deprived of the opportunity to decide for themselves whom they will work for.

[Mountain Man]

Left-wing is anybody to the left of me, and right-wing is anybody to the right of me.

[Starlight]

That is pretty much the exact opposite of what you actually believe... Socialism is about...

I'm not surprised your lack of understanding of my views is matched only by your lack of understanding of socialism.

Being "right-wing" on gender identity policy just means believing in science and logic.

As a (left-wing) scientist I'm tempted to print out that comment and put on my wall just to enjoy the insanity of it.

Given the extent to which people on this site whine that scientists / academics / well-educated people are "liberal" and that universities have liberal biases etc, I've found the sudden upswing in assertions that right-wing ideas on gender and abortion are "science" to be rather bizarre. Are you guys actually crazy enough to believe your views on these issues are actually scientific? () Or are you just sick of scientists and the left mercilessly mocking your views as unscientific and ignorant, and so like to pretend to yourselves your views are based in science by trying to repeat the claim lots?

[LeaC]

As a (left-wing) scientist I'm tempted to print out that comment and put on my wall just to enjoy the insanity of it.

Given the extent to which people on this site whine that scientists / academics / well-educated people are "liberal" and that universities have liberal biases etc, I've found the sudden upswing in assertions that right-wing ideas on gender and abortion are "science" to be rather bizarre. Are you guys actually crazy enough to believe your views on these issues are actually scientific? () Or are you just sick of scientists and the left mercilessly mocking your views as unscientific and ignorant, and so like to pretend to yourselves your views are based in science by trying to repeat the claim lots?

Sounds like someone got triggered!

[Cow Poke]

Given that baking wedding cakes and taking photos at weddings etc is work undertaken as a contract, I see it more as a matter of forced labour: people being deprived of the opportunity to decide for themselves whom they will work for.

The left is all about using the hammer of big government to force people to do things they (the left) want them to do. Kinda like Taxxman wanting to force a Church School to force their students not to wear MAGA hats.

[Sparko]

I'm not surprised your lack of understanding of my views is matched only by your lack of understanding of socialism.

I understand it fine. You are blinded by your idealism. If New Zealand were ever to become a socialist country, you would be one of the first ones shot. Because you would end up being so disappointed in the reality of socialism you would be one of the first rebels if they didn't get rid of you quickly.

[Bill the Cat]

Are you guys actually crazy enough to believe your views on these issues are actually scientific? ()

On abortion, you darned right. Science is not on the side of the abortionist. Period.

[Cow Poke]

On abortion, you darned right. Science is not on the side of the abortionist. Period.

SCIENCE IS THE FINAL ANSWER!!!!!

(Unless, of course, the science doesn't agree with our position, then our position is the final answer)

[oxmixmudd]

I'm not surprised your lack of understanding of my views is matched only by your lack of understanding of socialism.


As a (left-wing) scientist I'm tempted to print out that comment and put on my wall just to enjoy the insanity of it.

Given the extent to which people on this site whine that scientists / academics / well-educated people are "liberal" and that universities have liberal biases etc, I've found the sudden upswing in assertions that right-wing ideas on gender and abortion are "science" to be rather bizarre. Are you guys actually crazy enough to believe your views on these issues are actually scientific? () Or are you just sick of scientists and the left mercilessly mocking your views as unscientific and ignorant, and so like to pretend to yourselves your views are based in science by trying to repeat the claim lots?

When it comes to the trans-gender agenda's, yes. For example, Men who 'identify' with women, or 'feel like they are a woman in a man's body' are still without equivocation in a MAN's body. Likewise the inverse for females. Scientifically (except in the smallest set of cases), they are male or female, regardless of what their mental state would prefer. That means that, say in sports, they shouldn't be allowed to compete against the opposite sex. But especially in the case of males who 'think' they are females, the maleness of their bodies is disqualifying. They genetically have a built in advantage that requires they should be competing against other men. And I don't think taking 'performance reducing' drugs to help level the playing filed is any more legit that Lance Armstrong taking 'performance enhancing' drugs. A male body, very talented and trained to be an athlete, will in general statistically be above what a similarly talented and trained women athlete will be. And in the inverse its a little less likely to create controversy because what happens there is a built-in genetic disadvantage. Women athletes wanting to compete 'equally' against men will be disadvantaged/disqualified by their own bodies on the objective requirements of the sport unless(and possibly even if) they use banned performance enhancing regimens. So there isn't a whole lot of motivation there to try to cross that line. The extremely unusual women who could compete on the international level w/o artificial enhancements - well we can just wait and see if that can actually happen in more than a handful of sports.

maleness and femaleness is biological and physical. You can't change it by chopping of parts or pasting on new, fake parts or taking performance enhancing/reducing drugs. Only in the smallest minority of 'transgender' individuals is there any actual physical confusion as to whether the body they have is male of female.


Jim