Purism does it have a place?

[Doctor Amadeus]

When it comes to any kind of ideology political or not there tends to be layers some are centrist or as I like to call it opportunist who really don't have a foundation for believing in anything.

Then of course you have more moderates Red or Blue, Black or White, then of course faithfuls or as I like to call it purist. The total opposite of those in the center who don't believe in anything. To Purist it's either ALL Black All White All Red or All Blue.

So the question for this thread is simple where do you place YOURSELF no in a specific ideology, but more or less over all.


Does Purism have a place?

Personally I would have to say yes, obviously it matters the context of what one is purist about, but over all whether it's the left or the right, there really is a base that requires representation.

I also think there are layers, but part of me politically anyways is my experience both being Canadian and a U.S Citizen. I have seen how multiple Parties can lead to just as much chaos as a two party system and there is always some purism or extreme some are willing to go, but not others on almost every issue and every ideology.


The real question is how do you get something done, I think a multi party system CAN work if there is a legitimate reason for it, however often times when you have the left fighting with the left and the right fighting with the right it sometimes falls to an over all lack of compromise completely.


What do you think, where are you from and what has been your experience overall?

[Dezerte]

I guess you're not talking about this then.

Black and white thinking can often be dangerous, but it can also help solidify certain ideas as given (e.g. mathematics, ethics etc). Generally speaking I find it both easier (less stressful) and more open (the world and it's affairs are complicated) to view the world as grey and not black and white. Pragmatism is important I feel, but there are limits, as in most things.

[Felya]

I guess you're not talking about this then.

Yeah, I was confused...

Black and white thinking can often be dangerous, but it can also help solidify certain ideas as given (e.g. mathematics, ethics etc). Generally speaking I find it both easier (less stressful) and more open (the world and it's affairs are complicated) to view the world as grey and not black and white. Pragmatism is important I feel, but there are limits, as in most things.

That’s the catch 22... isn’t neglecting all purity, a form of purity it self? Shouldn’t the rejection of everything being black and white, have a safety valve to allow for some instances there of? Otherwise, you are just inventing a new form of purity... a black and white scenario, where it’s black and white that purity is bad and lack there of is good.

Am I just arguing on behalf of discrimination against those who discriminate?

[Shadowferal]

Black and white ideology is easy when you're the one determining the extremes.

[Endus]

This is basically an impossible question.

1> Pure what? Political parties change their views slightly basically every election cycle, and often within cycles as well. It's a moving target. Being a "pure Democrat" means you're drifting with the ideological wind and blindly doing what someone tells you, rather than having any real opinions for themselves. Even if you're aiming at a particular viewpoint, the idea of anything being "pure" implies that they are separate and distinct from other views in some way, but they aren't; they just have a particular label for that subset. Come up with your own label, and ta-da, your views are "pure" that label.

2> Are we talking about ideals or practicality? There's a divide between what you want to achieve, eventually, to create the utopia you believe could exist, and what changes you're supporting in the here-and-now as a step towards that utopia. Taking those steps doesn't mean your utopia exists, even in part, but it nudges society a little bit closer. Insisting on your pure utopia or nothing is just . . . dumb and weird. Accepting baby steps towards it and knowing you'll maybe never achieve your end goals in your lifetime, that's just how politics works.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I guess you're not talking about this then.

Black and white thinking can often be dangerous, but it can also help solidify certain ideas as given (e.g. mathematics, ethics etc). Generally speaking I find it both easier (less stressful) and more open (the world and it's affairs are complicated) to view the world as grey and not black and white. Pragmatism is important I feel, but there are limits, as in most things.

Yes thank you for clarification. Because I was uncertain exactly how I wanted to articulate this.

I think pragmatism lends to over all reasoning. Not so much ones position.

For example I hate onions and I’m in the anti onion party.

I would be just fine destroying every onion if I had my way.


Now there is the reality. The majority love onions I can’t get rid of onions everywhere in the city I live much less the world.

But what if I could make a deal with freaks who hate pickles. We join together to make sure pickles aren’t allowed in some places and onions in another.

But but what about no onions anywhere and why not at least outlaw onions most places.

Lastly what happens over time. What if onions make there way into more places they shouldn’t be or aren’t wanted.

Is our onion representatives weak. Maybe they become more comfortable with pickle haters.

That’s how I’m trying to frame the question

- - - Updated - - -

Black and white ideology is easy when you're the one determining the extremes.

What do you mean?

- - - Updated - - -

This is basically an impossible question.

1> Pure what? Political parties change their views slightly basically every election cycle, and often within cycles as well. It's a moving target. Being a "pure Democrat" means you're drifting with the ideological wind and blindly doing what someone tells you, rather than having any real opinions for themselves. Even if you're aiming at a particular viewpoint, the idea of anything being "pure" implies that they are separate and distinct from other views in some way, but they aren't; they just have a particular label for that subset. Come up with your own label, and ta-da, your views are "pure" that label.

2> Are we talking about ideals or practicality? There's a divide between what you want to achieve, eventually, to create the utopia you believe could exist, and what changes you're supporting in the here-and-now as a step towards that utopia. Taking those steps doesn't mean your utopia exists, even in part, but it nudges society a little bit closer. Insisting on your pure utopia or nothing is just . . . dumb and weird. Accepting baby steps towards it and knowing you'll maybe never achieve your end goals in your lifetime, that's just how politics works.

My end game is a livable wage, healthcare with options for real cures and better treatment for all.

Education that evolves an progresses. These aren’t pie in the sky utopian ideas. These are realities everyone deserves.

So no compromise even one that delays the moving towards that’s is always a loss.

[Rozz]

I agree with Dezerte and Endus' second point. I supposed it does definitely have a place and can be important beyond a personal metric.

[Slant]

When it comes to any kind of ideology political or not there tends to be layers some are centrist or as I like to call it opportunist who really don't have a foundation for believing in anything.

Then of course you have more moderates Red or Blue, Black or White, then of course faithfuls or as I like to call it purist. The total opposite of those in the center who don't believe in anything. To Purist it's either ALL Black All White All Red or All Blue.

So the question for this thread is simple where do you place YOURSELF no in a specific ideology, but more or less over all.


Does Purism have a place?

Personally I would have to say yes, obviously it matters the context of what one is purist about, but over all whether it's the left or the right, there really is a base that requires representation.

I also think there are layers, but part of me politically anyways is my experience both being Canadian and a U.S Citizen. I have seen how multiple Parties can lead to just as much chaos as a two party system and there is always some purism or extreme some are willing to go, but not others on almost every issue and every ideology.


The real question is how do you get something done, I think a multi party system CAN work if there is a legitimate reason for it, however often times when you have the left fighting with the left and the right fighting with the right it sometimes falls to an over all lack of compromise completely.


What do you think, where are you from and what has been your experience overall?

So, you're not really interested in Purism and want to discuss two-party vs. multi-party system? Because ironically enough, Purism doesn't exist in neither the Canadian nor the US parliamentary system as I understand it.

[Lynarii]

Purism is an expression of megalomania.

The reality is that nobody things exactly the same way you do. Even people who agree with you on one topic probably disagree with you on others. So to insist on purism is to say that your personal thoughts are more important than every other human's on the planet. That your idea of what is right is better than everyone else's. So no, I don't support it. I've never been fond of zealotry even when the zealot in question is on my 'side', they'll just turn on everyone the moment that people are not slaves to their will anyway, and I would always rather work with a reasonable person who I can disagree calmly with.

[Witchblade77]

Yes thank you for clarification. Because I was uncertain exactly how I wanted to articulate this.

I think pragmatism lends to over all reasoning. Not so much ones position.

For example I hate onions and I’m in the anti onion party.

I would be just fine destroying every onion if I had my way.


Now there is the reality. The majority love onions I can’t get rid of onions everywhere in the city I live much less the world.

But what if I could make a deal with freaks who hate pickles. We join together to make sure pickles aren’t allowed in some places and onions in another.

But but what about no onions anywhere and why not at least outlaw onions most places.

Lastly what happens over time. What if onions make there way into more places they shouldn’t be or aren’t wanted.

Is our onion representatives weak. Maybe they become more comfortable with pickle haters.

That’s how I’m trying to frame the question

- - - Updated - - -




What do you mean?

- - - Updated - - -




My end game is a livable wage, healthcare with options for real cures and better treatment for all.

Education that evolves an progresses. These aren’t pie in the sky utopian ideas. These are realities everyone deserves.

So no compromise even one that delays the moving towards that’s is always a loss.

I'm... having trouble relating to your onion analogy. why? because despite being an onion hater myself, I have absolutely no desire to impose my own choice not to eat onions on anyone else. to the point where i will buy onions and cook with them for my SO because he happens to like them - yes I would make two separate meals if I must (I also adjust meals for my guests, whenever they have dietary preferences or requirements that do not match mine, I feel that its a common curtesy to do so). I think that onions should be available to all and then people can make their own choice whether they eat them or not. and in cases of allergies or intolerances, we already have labels that list onions on prepared meals. and many restaurants will omit onions in your meal whenever possible, or often onion free options from the start.

who decides that onions do not belong somewhere? you? why? what makes you the arbiter of it above those who love the onions? why instead of outlawing onions not have more onion free options? live and let live?

I guess for me black and white mentality is a bit alien, and my idea of a compromise generally involves finding some sort of middle ground that works for all parties involved as much as possible, while trying to minimize anyone giving up on things in order for compromise to work. in onion example - that compromise is me making two different meals for dinner - one with onions for SO, and one without onions for me, so we both get to have what we like and so we are both happy. so outlawing onions in some places is NOT my idea of a valid compromise as it makes people in some areas lose acess to food they love and have to go further to find it (and depending on how far you go with that whole outlawing onions thing) maybe even risk legal repercussions. that's no compromise. no one is happy in this scenario.

[LeGin Tufnel]

Voted no.

Not sure what the painting has got to do with it, though.

As far I understand it, Balaam encountered an angel invisible to him but not the donkey. When the donkey (who was naturally a tad perturbed at this point) refused to travel any further, Balaam proceeded to beat his ass so hard the angel threatened to kill him.

Something to do with pride, I guess.

[Doctor Amadeus]

So, you're not really interested in Purism and want to discuss two-party vs. multi-party system? Because ironically enough, Purism doesn't exist in neither the Canadian nor the US parliamentary system as I understand it.

No Political is the biggest form of purism thus it has to be discussed

[Slant]

No Political is the biggest form of purism thus it has to be discussed

You're not making a lot of sense. There is no purism. Wtf does that even mean? Not a single person on the planet is just this or that in political terms. Neither are centrists not believing in anything.

Seems to me you're just trying to sugarcoat extremism into being an acceptable political stance. It's not.

[Kokolums]

we have nuclear weapons. so its not so much about purism yes or no but stability. we have to proceed in a manner that does not destabilize nations that own nuclear weapons. That means the greatest threat is societal change, trying to change the current established order, trying to update our moral codes. Whatever culture a nation currently has, needs to be preserved at this point.

[nickbor34]

It seems to me that the division into right and left is a conditional political phenomenon. A person should not choose between idiology because we are guided by our feelings.

[Felya]

It seems to me that the division into right and left is a conditional political phenomenon. A person should not choose between idiology because we are guided by our feelings.

Two problems with this... it’s not political... and it’s not chosen...

[TigTone]

Two problems with this... it’s not political... and it’s not chosen...

It a shame people forget or ignore humans are still animals and will act often like our ape relatives.

[Lenonis]

This seems like a polite way to ask if political extremism has a useful purpose.

To which I say only if you try really hard to ignore all the bad that comes with it.

[LeGin Tufnel]

OP - I still don't understand the relevance / symbolism of the Jaeger painting. It's got nothing to do with "purism" (either the style or the content).

[Theodarzna]

What is purism in a political context? I mean there is a lot of claims that "Well this is that but just more moderate" but what the so-called purists are pointing out is that an orange is an orange and a horse is a horse, some are trying to claim that an apple is just a scaled down incremental step towards a horse and the "purists" are calling that out as utterly daft.