I have explained a more nuanced method of understanding things than the political compass.
By calling these groups “faux-leftist” and “faux libertarian” I am drawing a distinction that the compass doesn’t draw, without losing any of the - extremely limited - resolution that it offers.
But you reduced what I said down to:
left means “things I think are good” and everything else is “right”
That tells me that you’re not really interested in what I’m saying. It’s hard to understand how someone could read what I’ve written and honestly come to that conclusion. I can explain further, but I think I’d need to hear that you were curious to understand my point, otherwise it’s probably going to be a waste of my time.
You haven’t explained anything other than you think people are disingenuous with their real beliefs, which is not useful for talking about what things mean. This seems to be nearly the entirety of your stance.
You ever so briefly touched on how you think authoritarianism is inherently anti-worker with absolutely no nuance whatsoever
You made no coherent argument about why to change the common definition of “left”.
Distinction between theoretical and practical still has value. You can talk about where a political philosophy falls on a compass AND you can talk about how an individual differs from the philosophy they claim to espouse.
I’m not really curious to hear more about your point because you’ve repeatedly demonstrated that your point isnt actually coherent or useful for everyday (or even academic) discourse.
I have explained a more nuanced method of understanding things than the political compass.
By calling these groups “faux-leftist” and “faux libertarian” I am drawing a distinction that the compass doesn’t draw, without losing any of the - extremely limited - resolution that it offers.
But you reduced what I said down to:
That tells me that you’re not really interested in what I’m saying. It’s hard to understand how someone could read what I’ve written and honestly come to that conclusion. I can explain further, but I think I’d need to hear that you were curious to understand my point, otherwise it’s probably going to be a waste of my time.
You haven’t explained anything other than you think people are disingenuous with their real beliefs, which is not useful for talking about what things mean. This seems to be nearly the entirety of your stance.
You ever so briefly touched on how you think authoritarianism is inherently anti-worker with absolutely no nuance whatsoever
You made no coherent argument about why to change the common definition of “left”.
Distinction between theoretical and practical still has value. You can talk about where a political philosophy falls on a compass AND you can talk about how an individual differs from the philosophy they claim to espouse.
I’m not really curious to hear more about your point because you’ve repeatedly demonstrated that your point isnt actually coherent or useful for everyday (or even academic) discourse.