Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

No, conservatives don't tend to be reactionary, certainly they are less so than socialists.

Oh? Hmmm. 🤔

In political science, a reactionary or a reactionist is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante—the previous political state of society—which the person believes possessed positive characteristics that are absent from contemporary society. As a descriptor term, reactionary derives from the ideological context of the left–right political spectrum. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore a status quo ante.

As an ideology, reactionism is a tradition in right-wing politics; the reactionary stance opposes policies for the social transformation of society, whereas conservatives seek to preserve the socio-economic structure and order that exists in the present. In popular usage, reactionary refers to a strong traditionalist conservative political perspective of a person opposed to social, political, and economic change.

Reactionary ideologies can be radical in the sense of political extremism in service to re-establishing past conditions.

There really does seem to be a clear connection between conservatism and "reactionary" politics...?

However, today's conservatism is the conservatism of the current global order, the DEI values of corporations. Today, the conservative religious viewpoint of the 1950s is considered to be radical, "far right".

Conservatives in 2024 are leaders like Biden, Starmer, Albanese, who represent the global order. Those on the right like Trump and Farage are considered to be radicals.

You mistake the map for the territory. Today's left is reactionary in the true sense of the word - reacting to change - not the right. Look at how the left reacted to Trump and Musk. Poor old Elon can't even gesture to a crowd without absurd lies being told and repeated about him being a Nazi. Meanwhile, most of the people accusing him of being a Nazi are anti-Semitic and want to see the end of Israel. Go figure.

Today's politics are topsy turvy.

[amorphos_ii]

People [not AI or computers] read a lot into expressions and emotions too, the words may be apparently unbiased if checked by a computer, but there are other facets which are equally true. They should time the durations; Labour often barely get through half a sentence, before being rudely interrupted, so calculate and compare [forget going into averages and other deceptions]. This is how I came to my conclusions, all I ask is that all facets are taken into account and measured where possible. Thought I was stating the obvious.

[Pattern-chaser]

You mistake the map for the territory.

That would be a refreshing change (in the words of the beer advert). If it is correct?

Today's left is reactionary in the true sense of the word - reacting to change...

Are you referring to "reactive", as contrasted with "proactive", here?

Politically, reactionary has always referred to those who favour and yearn for past times, and seek to retain, or regain, them wherever possible. The complement to that is "revolutionary", referring to those who tend toward change and novelty.

Isn't it true that the terms left and right, as they apply to politics, emerged from this reactionary/revolutionary dichotomy?

In political science, a reactionary or a reactionist is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante—the previous political state of society—which the person believes possessed positive characteristics that are absent from contemporary society. As a descriptor term, reactionary derives from the ideological context of the left–right political spectrum. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore a status quo ante.

As an ideology, reactionism is a tradition in right-wing politics; the reactionary stance opposes policies for the social transformation of society, whereas conservatives seek to preserve the socio-economic structure and order that exists in the present. In popular usage, reactionary refers to a strong traditionalist conservative political perspective of a person opposed to social, political, and economic change.

That seems to agree quite strongly with what I have described, and it seems to show your definition as a radical () rebranding of the term "reactionary"...?

Why and how, I wonder, have Wikipedia got it so very wrong? It seems to be using the term as it has long been used, in politics?

[Sy Borg]

You mistake the map for the territory.

That would be a refreshing change (in the words of the beer advert). If it is correct? 😉

Today's left is reactionary in the true sense of the word - reacting to change...

Are you referring to "reactive", as contrasted with "proactive", here?

Politically, reactionary has always referred to those who favour and yearn for past times, and seek to retain, or regain, them wherever possible. The complement to that is "revolutionary", referring to those who tend toward change and novelty.

Isn't it true that the terms left and right, as they apply to politics, emerged from this reactionary/revolutionary dichotomy? 🤔

In political science, a reactionary or a reactionist is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante—the previous political state of society—which the person believes possessed positive characteristics that are absent from contemporary society. As a descriptor term, reactionary derives from the ideological context of the left–right political spectrum. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore a status quo ante.

As an ideology, reactionism is a tradition in right-wing politics; the reactionary stance opposes policies for the social transformation of society, whereas conservatives seek to preserve the socio-economic structure and order that exists in the present. In popular usage, reactionary refers to a strong traditionalist conservative political perspective of a person opposed to social, political, and economic change.

That seems to agree quite strongly with what I have described, and it seems to show your definition as a radical (😋) rebranding of the term "reactionary"...?

Why and how, I wonder, have Wikipedia got it so very wrong? It seems to be using the term as it has long been used, in politics? 🤔

I think you need to actually read my post, as opposed to seeing an opportunity and saying "aha".

If you bothered paying attention you would see that I am disputing the conventional definition, and claiming it is dated and misleading.

The fact is that the right are not reacting to events today nearly as much as the left. It's not even close. The left have gone completely off the rails, a fact that has driven millions of former lefties like me to the centre or the right.

Thus, calling right-wingers "reactionary" is a bad description, since the only area where they live up to that name is the breaking of old gender taboos. Meanwhile, there is hardly an issue anywhere that the left isn't screaming about.

It's no surprise that you play word games rather than attend the actual issues. That's what the left, including the BBC, has been doing for some time.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think you need to actually read my post, as opposed to seeing an opportunity and saying "aha".

If you bothered paying attention you would see that I am disputing the conventional definition, and claiming it is dated and misleading.

The fact is that the right are not reacting to events today nearly as much as the left.

"Reactionary" does not mean ""reacting to". You are inventing a new definition for the word, which is OK, I suppose, but highly misleading. In political thinking, "reactionary" and "revolutionary" have been accepted (and widely-used) complementary concepts for a very long time. Your rejection of the existing meaning, and assignment of a new one, is ... confusing.

I don't even challenge your new view, but you should've clearly declared your redefinition, instead of answering the conventional use of "reactionary" as if the writer had written "reacting to" instead.

The left have gone completely off the rails, a fact that has driven millions of former lefties like me to the centre or the right.

I think this is a matter of perspective or perception. Many of those on the left these days would claim that it's right-wing extremism that has gone "off the rails".

[Fried Egg]

I have heard it said that the "left" has, in many ways, become established within many of the institutions in society and seeks to defend and support them, in contrast to the "right" which, seeing these institutions arrayed against them are seeking their overthrow. We see this also in the issues around free speech which has shifted from being a primarily left wing concern to a primarily right wing concern.

So, in so far as the above is true, might be fair to say that the "left" and "right" have switched places in terms of the revolutionary/reactionary scale (compared to what has historically been the case). However, I think this just goes to show that neither the left nor the right are inherently revolutionary or reactionary - it depends on which feels most embodied by the institutions of the day. And even then, it might vary from one issue to the next.

[Sy Borg]

The left have gone completely off the rails, a fact that has driven millions of former lefties like me to the centre or the right.

I think this is a matter of perspective or perception. Many of those on the left these days would claim that it's right-wing extremism that has gone "off the rails".

Right wing extremism has never been on the rails. It's all the same people, that tiny proportion of skinhead types. Most of those deemed "far right" are just regular people. Marxists have infiltrated universities to such an extent that many westerners now wish that their societies would fall - that the wild, authoritarian, violent, misogynist and dysfunctional societies of the Middle east are somehow better. You are one of them - a westerner who actively despises the west.

Today, Sam Kerr has been excused by a court after calling a policeman "stupid and white". There will now be a flood of open racial abuse of white people due to this very public precedent, another example of Britain's famous two-tier justice system, where Muslim criminals get lighter sentences than native British Twitter users. The BBC, of course, was in her corner.

Today in Britain, you now cannot commit a hate crime against white people, even if you commit a crime against a white person because you hate them. Meanwhile, rape of white girls by grooming gangs is not policed for years.

And you think the right has lost the plot?

[Pattern-chaser]

The left have gone completely off the rails, a fact that has driven millions of former lefties like me to the centre or the right.

I think this is a matter of perspective or perception. Many of those on the left these days would claim that it's right-wing extremism that has gone "off the rails".

Right wing extremism has never been on the rails. It's all the same people, that tiny proportion of skinhead types. Most of those deemed "far right" are just regular people. Marxists have infiltrated universities to such an extent that many westerners now wish that their societies would fall - that the wild, authoritarian, violent, misogynist and dysfunctional societies of the Middle east are somehow better. You are one of them - a westerner who actively despises the west.

Today, Sam Kerr has been excused by a court after calling a policeman "stupid and white". There will now be a flood of open racial abuse of white people due to this very public precedent, another example of Britain's famous two-tier justice system, where Muslim criminals get lighter sentences than native British Twitter users. The BBC, of course, was in her corner.

Today in Britain, you now cannot commit a hate crime against white people, even if you commit a crime against a white person because you hate them. Meanwhile, rape of white girls by grooming gangs is not policed for years.

And you think the right has lost the plot?

I think we're all aware that extremism breeds problems for everyone. I think we're also all aware that there are extremists of all colours and shapes —provided they're very simple shapes. Extremists, in general, aren't very bright. There are one or two unfortunate exceptions, though. One of them is orange...

Personally, I condemn and oppose all extremists, and their extreme actions. I'm sure we all feel the same about that.

[Sy Borg]

The left have gone completely off the rails, a fact that has driven millions of former lefties like me to the centre or the right.

I think this is a matter of perspective or perception. Many of those on the left these days would claim that it's right-wing extremism that has gone "off the rails".

Right wing extremism has never been on the rails. It's all the same people, that tiny proportion of skinhead types. Most of those deemed "far right" are just regular people. Marxists have infiltrated universities to such an extent that many westerners now wish that their societies would fall - that the wild, authoritarian, violent, misogynist and dysfunctional societies of the Middle east are somehow better. You are one of them - a westerner who actively despises the west.

Today, Sam Kerr has been excused by a court after calling a policeman "stupid and white". There will now be a flood of open racial abuse of white people due to this very public precedent, another example of Britain's famous two-tier justice system, where Muslim criminals get lighter sentences than native British Twitter users. The BBC, of course, was in her corner.

Today in Britain, you now cannot commit a hate crime against white people, even if you commit a crime against a white person because you hate them. Meanwhile, rape of white girls by grooming gangs is not policed for years.

And you think the right has lost the plot?

I think we're all aware that extremism breeds problems for everyone. I think we're also all aware that there are extremists of all colours and shapes —provided they're very simple shapes. Extremists, in general, aren't very bright. There are one or two unfortunate exceptions, though. One of them is orange...

Personally, I condemn and oppose all extremists, and their extreme actions. I'm sure we all feel the same about that.

You claim that Trump is an extremist, but you provide no evidence or justification. You do realise that a lot of what is said about him in mainstream media are lies, don't you? After Charlottesville, Trump very specifically lambasted the Nazis there and said "there were very good people from both sides" about the non-Nazi contingent. However, the media edited out his comments about the Nazis and made has latter statement look like a tacit endorsement.

Now, lefties are convinced he is a Nazi, and even claim that Musk's "my heart goes out to you" gesture was a Nazi salute. It's all a beat-up. Meanwhile, those who claim Trump is a Nazi are demanding that Jews be removed from their land, which would have been Hitler's preference, had he been alive.

I'm not a fan of Trump but, given the nature of international and domestic politics, you need someone who will bend to rules, without getting too crazy, and I think Trump/Vance can do that. In international affairs, Biden/Harris reminded me of a fighter strictly adhering to Marquess of Queensberry rules while China, Russia and the ME are streetfighting. The west needs more flexible leaders of it will continue to lose ground.

I consider you to be bordering on extremist. You are so far left these days, I'm surprised you haven't changed your preferred philosophers to Marx and Engels.

You cannot see the Beeb's pronounced left wing bias because your own politics are so far left, they seem to be objective. I know. I used to think that way too. To be philsophical and not just another political hack, you need to be able to view issues through both a progressive and conservative lenses.

If you view the Beeb through a conservative lens, the angles, headlines and omissions are routinely infuriating. If you view Fox/Sky (equivalently right wing to the BBC's left), through a progressive lens, the angles, headlines and claims are routinely infuriating.

[Pattern-chaser]

You cannot see the Beeb's pronounced left wing bias because your own politics are so far left, they seem to be objective.

Odd, then, that chewybrian's suggested bias-site agrees with me, not you, and other similar sites also seem to concur. For example, put "10 Most Unbiased News Sources & Channels in 2025" into your preferred search engine. The BBC is one of the 10 sites listed. Is it possible that you are not as even-handedly centrist as you thought?

[Sy Borg]

You cannot see the Beeb's pronounced left wing bias because your own politics are so far left, they seem to be objective.

Odd, then, that chewybrian's suggested bias-site agrees with me, not you, and other similar sites also seem to concur. For example, put "10 Most Unbiased News Sources & Channels in 2025" into your preferred search engine. The BBC is one of the 10 sites listed. Is it possible that you are not as even-handedly centrist as you thought?

Your preferred search engine, like Google, whose Gemini build portrayed Hitler and Isaac Newton as people of colour and would only show images of white people in negative settings? Marxism in academia has spread is tentacles everywhere. That's why fact-checkers were stopped in some apps, because they were proved to be biased in themselves.

The info the Beeb provides is good. The issue is more in the info they choose to present and that which they choose not to present. Just as Jimmy Savile's victims over a period of half a century how much the BBC engages content they don't want to discuss.

[Pattern-chaser]

You cannot see the Beeb's pronounced left wing bias because your own politics are so far left, they seem to be objective.

Odd, then, that chewybrian's suggested bias-site agrees with me, not you, and other similar sites also seem to concur. For example, put "10 Most Unbiased News Sources & Channels in 2025" into your preferred search engine. The BBC is one of the 10 sites listed. Is it possible that you are not as even-handedly centrist as you thought?

Your preferred search engine, like Google, whose Gemini build portrayed Hitler and Isaac Newton as people of colour and would only show images of white people in negative settings? Marxism in academia has spread is tentacles everywhere. That's why fact-checkers were stopped in some apps, because they were proved to be biased in themselves.

My own "preferred" search engine is startpage dot com, and the search we're referring to does not have (useful) pictorial solutions. Nor does it offer a built-in fact-checker, although IMO that might be a Good Thing. The shortcomings of AI development, which caused the problems you describe, are being discussed in great detail in other topics, and on other forums, political and philosophical. So I see no need to deviate in that direction, do you?

As for "Marxism in academia", that's very much what this topic is about: bias (and propaganda). And the very existence of "Marxism in academia" is disputed by many.

"Cultural Marxism" refers to a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents Western Marxism (especially the Frankfurt School) as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness. The conspiracy theory posits that there is an ongoing and intentional academic and intellectual effort to subvert Western society via a planned culture war that undermines the supposed Christian values of traditionalist conservatism and seeks to replace them with culturally liberal values.

[Sy Borg]

Here's an example of why national broadcasters should not cover politics. Australia's ABC is being sued by pro-Palestinian activist, Antoinette Lattouf, for unfair dismissal based on her political views and race. Basically, a pro-Palestine manager hired this woman for radio work, and she used the position as a means to promote Palestine's interests over Israel's. Imagine how Jewish Australians would feel, knowing that their tax dollars were going into pro-Palestine programming.

There is no need for national broadcasters to deal with politics, and to do so only opens up issues like this court case. This Lattouf activist not only thought it fine to use taxpayer money on her activism, she is now effectively suing the Australian taxpayer. That she would accuse the ABC of racism is risible because they have been furiously pandering to women and POC for years now. Even when the organisation tries not to let its staff's biases show, they cannot contain it. The BBC and ABC are very similar organisations.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/ita-b ... c1910e86c3

[Pattern-chaser]

Here's an example of why national broadcasters should not cover politics. Australia's ABC is being sued by pro-Palestinian activist, Antoinette Lattouf, for unfair dismissal based on her political views and race. Basically, a pro-Palestine manager hired this woman for radio work, and she used the position as a means to promote Palestine's interests over Israel's. Imagine how Jewish Australians would feel, knowing that their tax dollars were going into pro-Palestine programming.

A topic about media bias is bound to include various example news items. But this item is one on which you hold very strong, sincerely-held beliefs, so it is not conducive to a balanced discussion of bias, is it?

There is no need for national broadcasters to deal with politics...

[Sy Borg]

There is no need for national broadcasters to deal with politics...

😱

Why should taxpayers fork out for a project that actively works against them? Why should taxpayers fork out for a boutique project only used by a small, and shrinking, percentage?

The Beeb - if it was fulfilling its function - would regularly feature potentially popular and broadly appealing movies and music of quality that lack exposure with commercial stations. They could be fostering local talent too. In doing this, they would ideally reflect the British population, not just migrants and "oppressed people". If it did this, it could last a long time.

A fair Beeb would avoid politics because a national broadcaster has no legitimate function there. You would no doubt claim that the BBC's job is to challenge governments, but the challenge only comes from one direction - from the left against the right. It might look "objective" to you but to centrists like me, or right wingers, the careful left-wing curation of material is blatant and constant. It is the kind of left wing politics encouraged by the London banking elite, who profit from divide-and-rule, because it means no one bands together to question them.