Yes, I am a woman. I didn't know that Nietzsche is a philosopher that mostly teenage males read ... but that doesn't surprise me! — Coryanthe

He's not, Banno is just talking crap.

One of the main things that Nietzsche talks about, and that he's in agreement with many Christians about, is that when you remove the God element out of theology - whether it be Christianity, Judaism, etc. - is that the whole system collapses. So he's arguing against those who basically try to remove God, but keep the system of ethics and Judeo-Christian worldview intact. The Judeo-Chrstian worldview/ethic is not at all obvious or immediately self-apparent to someone trying to build their system of value.

This point has been echoed by Christian thinkers. Personally I find it pretty convincing. I like that Nietzsche's writing is relevant in that he's primarily dealing with questions of value in a post-Christian age, a process which is ongoing.

But getting back to Nietzsche I do wonder if another possible way his ideas could be translated into practice would be as anarchism, but this is yet another complex area. — Jack Cummins

Possibly. Nietzsche hated nationalism. I've never read any of his writings on anarchism and I'm honestly not sure if he ever wrote about it. I'd love it someone could find out more about his views on the state.

^That's a good one.

The obvious answer being because the people are violent. After all, that’s what’s really meant when we say a particular society is violent, right? So the real question would be “why are people in group X more violent than people not in group X?” And it could be that people who are violent just so happen to prefer group X for whatever reason. Or it could be that violent people created group X for whatever reason. It doesn’t have to be the case that group X created violent people. — Pinprick

Sure, we can ask “why are people in group X more violent than people not in group X?” But we probably wouldn't say "people who are violent just so happen to prefer group X for whatever reason."

For instance, an example of a society is, say, a violent inner city or a prison. Lets just go with a violent inner city. For all intents and purposes, we can say that the people or the kids there are basically stuck - it's not like they could migrate to the suburbs if they wanted to. So if you go to high school in an violent inner city you fall into that social order whether you like it or not. Maybe the bullies start messing with your brother or sister. I'm just saying you're probably not going to be able to seal yourself off from the rest of the world (if you are you should consider that a privilege.) Look into the social orders, look into the incentives, look into the repercussions for being on the low end of that social order. If you take prison as an example it should be clear to you: You're basically locked away with a ton other predators: Kill or be killed. Be weak at your own risk.

You're there whether you like it or not and you just gotta make the best of it.

Sure, but I don’t think anyone can accurately say why I have the expectations I do. — Pinprick

I do think repeated reinforcement plays a role, especially if you've never been exposed to anything else. Some of these expectations are mostly innocuous by the way, so I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. We all have them. I'm sure media and literature and our parents also play a role. It's certainly multi-faceted.

People will often consider society or culture as a cause for human behavior, but isn’t society itself actually caused by human behavior? If a society or culture is particularly violent, isn’t that because the people within that culture behave violently? To me it seems that society or culture is basically just a scapegoat for our own actions and behaviors. Instead of pointing the finger at ourselves, we abstractly point to society instead, as if the fault/blame has nothing to do with us. — Pinprick

Ultimately, I'm a believer in free will so I believe that regardless of how horrid a society may be the individual still has a choice to whether he pulls that trigger or mugs than homeless guy.

I will say though that society is more than just "the people" - if a society or culture is particularly violent we should look into why that is. This isn't my area of expertise, but I'd be fascinated to see what the reasons are for that. The individuals in that society probably aren't all just free floating individuals in a vacuum who happen to be violent. I'd be inclined to believe that there's a reason and a logic for it.

Society is also expectations. Expectations are pervasive: We expect things of men (achievement, strength, etc.) and we obviously expect things of women (maybe grace, beauty, kindness, etc.) These expectations (i.e. standards) can be oppressive to some and have deep implications and we should be cognizant of this. This type of thing transcends the individual.

I know everything about sovereign bonds. I issued them for 5 years at the Dutch State Treasury Agency. So fire away. There are still bonds out there that will perform even if interest rates start rising again and the market value will lower but there's Ukrainian collateralised bonds offering 6% or so, which given current interest rates is a good return and relatively safe.

Another I've always found interesting but never tried is investing via crowd funding. There are platforms that allow you to evaluate the underlying business case and pick something you know something about so you can make a real assessment. — Benkei

I'd be interested in learning more about government bonds. I don't own any. What's their importance for the macro picture? What should newer investors know about either buying them or the bond market in general?

Define imperialism. Some political science theories look at the ability to project power over territory which doesn't necessarily mean it has to be part of the sovereign territory of a country. — Benkei

Yeah, the definition is going to be the contentious point in these kinds of discussions. I would ask these political theorists to define what they mean by "power" - if they're including soft power, then I feel like virtually all decently powerful countries would qualify as "imperialist" under this definition.

As for "Joe Biden: Accelerated Liberal Imperialism" hasn't imperialism, liberal or otherwise, been US policy, more or less, since the get go? (Earlier eras of imperialism maybe shouldn't be described as "liberal".)

Imperialism tends to be such a good thing for the imperialists, be they Belgian, Dutch, German, Russian, English, French, Italian, American, Spanish, Japanese or Chinese--whosever--it's hard to imagine potential imperialists foregoing the opportunities. If they could be imperialists, why wouldn't they?

Since the beginning, has any country's leadership ever said: "We could become fabulously rich by taking over and exploiting those shit hole territories over there; but, you know, imperialism is just wrong, and we wouldn't want to become wealthy by doing something that moralists would consider distasteful." ???? — Bitter Crank

I remember reading a study done that concluded that imperialism was extremely expensive from the host country's point of view and the policy of imperialism didn't really make sense economically. It could really only be made sense of from a matter of national pride. I'm sure I could dig up the study if you like, but if you think about the costs of maintaining all those soldiers overseas and facilities it's got to be extremely expensive.

Historically speaking the US has not been anywhere near the level of imperialism when compared to the European powers. We briefly experimented with it as a matter of national policy in the Phillipines in the 1890s but I just don't recall America having the desire or stomach to maintain these colonies. Just to be clear when we're talking about imperialism in the traditional sense we're talking about colonies.

I understand that legal standards existed but whether the nations signed to them or not, they were not followed in the Pacific theater. I was just wondering whether you'd consider FDR a war criminal due to this, and if so, is there any conclusion beyond that that we should be drawing?

I'm not trying to defend FDR here. FDR is an icon for the American left though. I'm not even trying to push a certain view here - a part of me obviously wishes affairs in the Pacific could have been more humanitarian, but on the other hand I understand that was a completely different time period and that I'm so far removed from the actual situation in my warm home and comfy chair. There were American war crimes in the European theater as well that went completely unpunished. No one should try to white-wash them, but on the other hand excessive criticism comes off as suspect. How we ought to view these crimes is an interesting topic.

Yeah, people who get into it for the money are the first ones to leave on the dip. In my experience they buy high and sell low. I remember in March when things were looking terrible with COVID and BTC had dropped 50% in a day looking at the price and telling myself that I was 100% ready to go down with the ship on this one.

I think in order to be a good, patient investor you need something beyond the monetary reward. Bitcoin is a vision. I think the greatest thinker in this space is a guy named Andreas Antonopolous - check him out on youtube he's got a bunch of introductory material on bitcoin and ethereum. Personally I've done pretty poorly with altcoins because I'm mostly just in it for the gains and when things go too far south I'm out.

As for wallets if you're serious then check out a hardware wallet like the Nano Ledger X (I have the Nano Ledger S which is the earlier model). These store your funds offline and you're not trusting someone else to keep them safe. Not your keys, not your coins.

But the "modern" standards of treating POWs existed already in treaties from 1907 and 1929. I'm judging it by the standards of that time. Japan never ratified 1929 Geneva Convention in the treatment of POWs but did say in 1942 it would follow the 1907 Hague rules. — Benkei

I don't really care about the agreements. I'm talking about the actual treatment of POWs. The "standards of the time" was the actual treatment, not whatever legal standards states happened to sign or whatever standards were outlined in legal documents. I understand that the US and Germany had legitimate POW agreements that were by and large followed, but this was not the case in the Pacific.

The conduct in the Pacific Theater would never, ever fly today.

The way that POWs were treated on both sides of that conflict would be completely inexcusable in 2020/according to modern conventions. There was just very bad blood on both sides - both sides were fed vicious propaganda about the other and the horrific Japanese treatment of prisoners was well known to the Americans. Only around 60% of Americans survived Japanese captivity.

My point is while the way that the Japanese treated their POWs and captured civilian populations was obviously inexcusable and no one tries to defend that, the way the Americans dealt with the Japanese could quite brutal as well and cannot be justified according to modern standards of morality. I think it's a mistake to try.

If we are to hold our leaders during that time period to modern standards virtually all of them fall gravely short. I'm not entirely sure what the upshot of that is though: Does it mean that they're monsters? How harshly should we judge them?

EDIT: My understanding with the killing of POWs was that it was often just inconvenient/annoying to transport and keep watch over them, not that they were really a threat.

And yes, Truman and Churchill should be thrown in exactly the same pile as Hitler and Stalin - the pile of war criminals. That Hitler and Stalin were worse is no defense of Churchill's action. — Benkei

Just curious, would you include FDR in this list? The war in the Pacific was absolutely brutal and the soldiers and high command for all intents and purposes operated under a "take no prisoners" attitude for much of the war. On the other hand the Japanese were known for fake surrendering.

Hey, congrats on your gains. Sentiment has been very bullish lately, so hopefully you got in at a good time. Personally, I've been "in" since late 2016 and I can assure you that the volatility can be absolutely face-ripping. In March we saw roughly a 50% drop in a day. If you hold onto your investment for over a year there's tax advantages to that, i.e. you'll get to keep more of your profit.

I actually didn't buy my first bitcoin with the intention of holding onto it or treating it as an investment. Bitcoin was simply the best way to move money around the poker sites given all the onerous bank restrictions on sending money to them. It's definitely the favored currency on those sites as well now: Censorship-resistant, decentralized, borderless. When you hold your own bitcoin in your own wallet that bitcoin is truly yours - it's not being held onto by a bank or a company that gives you an IOU. It's yours and no one else can access it, not even governments. What else falls into that category? You can send it anywhere you want at any time you want and no one can censor or reverse it. It's truly unique.

"Man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom he can hand over that great gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creature is born." - Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, from The Grand Inquisitor chapter.

Are we condemned to be free? Are The Human's choice and freedom in life the source of much tragedy in The Human's life? Do you believe in the Tragedy of Human Freedom? Do you agree or disagree with the quote above? Why or Why not?

I believe that there is truth to man's existence in this quote. Man often appears to be yearning for order, submission, and subscription. Man does not seem to handle freedom well, especially for long durations of time. Yet I find the quote troublesome to ponder on due to man's hope to be free from restraint and order even if it is short-lived...What are your thoughts? Let us discuss this. — The Questioning Bookworm

I do find the Inquisitor's quote to be true, and I also want to mention that I love Dostoyevsky as a writer. It's been years since I read that book but I still remember that chapter.

In regards to the quote, yeah -- whether it's society and its institutions or organized religion, man is quick to surrender his natural freedom. Freedom -- the unknown -- is scary. What if something goes wrong? Who do we fall back on? Why risk keeping my own money when I can just store it away in a safe, insured bank? We delegate so much of our lives to institutions whether religious or secular because these things are deemed safe and they keep our anxiety at bay.

No, of course it doesn't. I don't understand this black and white thinking, on a philosophy forum of all places. Are we just slaves to propaganda, or can we discuss things rationally and imaginatively? It's as if you guys are not satisfied until I do the correct virtue signalling, like saying Putin is a monster or whatever. It's just dumb. — jamalrob

I'm not doing the black and white thinking - I was saying that both a) Putin is a skilled leader who has successfully advanced Russian interests in many cases and retains popularity and b) Is likely a criminal and is responsible for terrible human rights abuses - are both true and both statements should be acknowledged in any account of Putin.

It's not about virtue signaling for me. It's just about the facts. I think we're on the same page here?

Putin has also rolled back liberalization and Democratic reforms, and he could very well be the richest man in the world all on a $133,000/year salary if we're going by the Kremlin. His net worth has been estimated at around $70 billion.

But he's also a savvy leader, no denying that. He could very well be doing what he believes is in the best interest of Russia as a state. But does that preclude someone from being a criminal?

but we should spend less money on upkeep and hiring guards and more money on mental health specialists, educators, etc. for prisons, in my humble opinion. Also, we should not be using prisoners for free labor. Slavery ring a bell? Prisoners are cut off from the world as it is, most of them can't vote, and in some places, they are used for free/slave-like labor. This seems to be a problem too. I feel like there would be pushback more from individuals who aren't even in prison. — The Questioning Bookworm

Aren't prisons in the US required to compensate prisoners for their labor? Obviously the wages are very low and from what I understand the small wages they receive mostly just go back into the prison commissary. Personally I think its best if prisoners just keep busy whether its work or attending class. I just don't think in the US, especially in some of the southern states, you're going to see a huge outpouring of sympathy for prisoners.

Can budgeting be properly executed to allocate money more toward rehab rather than the way things are?

Maybe? I was a bit surprised you'd be willing to cut funding for upkeep or at least try to divert that funding into mental health services, but for me it would just be a matter of how effective these services are and whether they can be linked to less violence in prisons. Personally I see things relating to upkeep - temperature, cleanliness, food services - as being quite important.

Prison reform is an interesting topic.

I think a lot of people can agree that we'd like to see drug offenders not end up in prison, and ideally if we can lessen the number of people in prison that'll make the prison population easier to manage and result in less overcrowding which is never good for quality of services.

I think virtually everyone can agree with prison reform in theory, it's when it gets brought down to the practical level of actually providing more funding or putting prison guards through "bullshit" training that can result in some pushback.

I will say that the poor food quality bothers me though. I've never been to prison, but I did spend time in the military and honestly a good rest and decent food go a very long way. The temperature needs to be comfortable as well, and I've heard this is a problem in some prisons.

It's a difficult issue because prison guards aren't the cream of the crop. After you've had piss thrown at you or been attacked several times, your attitude changes. There are some genuinely terrible and mentally ill people in prison so sometimes when these idealists from outside come in with their grand solutions I get a little skeptical. I do believe in providing the basics though, but I would imagine bringing in increased funding would be an uphill battle in local communities.

Of course you're right, just because you agree with a fascist about a given policy point doesn't make you a fascist.

Fascism thrives in crisis; strong centralized control is often touted, rightly or wrongly, as the only solution to the present, existential crisis that will wipe us out if we don't act. I'd honestly be sympathetic to the idea that under the right circumstances we're all fascists. How do you think the world would respond if we were faced with an alien invasion? Would we be desperately looking to protect civil liberties and limit the scope of government when faced with the annihilation of our species? I think it's disingenuous to only view fascism as some type of foreign threat that we ourselves are immune to; fascism is within us.

It doesn't always have to be "oppression," either. It's simply one person (or a few) that gives the orders, and one (or many) who follows the orders. One commands, one obeys. That's power dynamics, and that's what is being analyzed. — Xtrix

Gotcha - so I think the reason my point here isn't too compelling to you is because you're more talking about the power/powerless distinction rather than oppressor/oppressed. These two are different. The target for the oppressor/oppressed group is often the white, straight, cis male while for the power/powerless group it might be shadowy bankers or whoever holds power. If we're going to talk power we should ditch our discussion of oppressed/oppressor because we're on different territory.

I think power is an interesting topic. I think there's a discussion to be had about power in virtually every society. I understand that corporations are hierarchical, but as a capitalist one of the things I really like about capitalism is the ability of one to find means of income outside of that structure. Nothing in capitalism dictates that you need to work for a corporation, although its certainly a good option for some people because those types of jobs tend to be a little more stable and offer decent benefits.

The existence of strong power imbalances is always worrisome, at least in my opinion. I spent some time in the military, for instance, and when a superior officer gave you an order you had to do it assuming the order wasn't illegal. In the workplace, it's a bit different because you could always quit or try to find another job. There certainly are power imbalances in the workplace, but it's possible that the power imbalance can actually be skewed in favor of the worker, as is the case with unions or if one worker is particularly skilled at something or if there are few workers and many firms looking to hire. Not to mention there's also a certain freedom at only being bound to your contract and not having to stay overtime to attend board meetings or make production decisions... plenty of people just don't care.

True...but a pretty compelling historical argument (in my view) can be made that it has indeed been a series of struggles between the oppressors and the oppressed. — Xtrix

You're absolutely welcome to adopt that worldview and plenty of people have. The oppressor/oppressed worldview is, in fact, a compelling narrative because countless people have been drawn into it. Plenty of intelligent posters here use it. I've personally entertained the idea. I ultimately rejected the narrative for a few reasons. I think it's both wrong and toxic, but nonetheless influential.

One of the main points we get from reading Nietzsche is that we come to sever the connection between "weak" and "good." We very often associate these things in our minds, but if I remember correctly Nietzsche associates this connection with living within a Judeo-Christian culture which naturally associates the two. I think severing the association between "weak" and "good" is actually a very profound point that is often overlooked today.

Secondly, if you look to the individual you'll see the individual is really a multitude of identities: We are "oppressors" in some ways and "oppressed" in others. Everybody is like this, unless I suppose you can find yourself a black transgender parapalegic who is also poor, ugly, and fat with a speech disability... you get my point here. If you really want to be serious about pushing for the oppressed vs. oppressor worldview here you gotta take into account everything: class, looks, gender, disability, sexuality, height, family history, etc. After that's done you gotta weight their respective importances: How oppressed is someone who is poor but genetically gifted? How about rich but ugly and short? Who does the weighing is a big sticking point here.

The reality is that basically everybody is oppressed in one way another. Nobody is just a member of a given social class or just a person with a disability or just a good-looking person who therefore has everything in life easy for them. All of this should lead us to considering others on the level of the individual which will always blur this black-and-white notion of oppressed/oppressor The individual contains multitudes and trying to reduce those multitudes so everyone can fit neatly into one of two categories is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

The invention of writing, according to the Communist Manifesto. That's what was meant. (Footnote by Engels on page 1.) — Xtrix

Oh thanks I didn't know that.

I think class struggles is one of those factors that is particularly important in studying human history, for these reasons. — Xtrix

It's interesting to me that you say "class struggles" here as opposed to just "class background" or something like that. Do you see Western society as first and foremost characterized by class struggle? It's one thing to recognize class differences and differences in outlook that emerge from that, it's another to describe the class system as a "struggle." Maybe you're seeing something that I am not. I understand that everyone would like more money and we may feel envious, but why consider someone rich an enemy?

When does history begin? — Bitter Crank

Are you asking me or Marx? If I'm trying to put in a good defense for Marx here I'd say the arrival of homo sapiens, which have always lived in communities. Sure these communities may not have had economies in the sense that we have, but they still needed to ask themselves questions concerning resource distribution and storing resources vs. consuming them immediately. I think humans have always had to make economic choices.

His is at least an interesting proposal to think about. — Bitter Crank

Certainly. It was always my understanding that agriculture allowed for the ancient city-state to flourish. It also tied people to the land. I've never heard that it was a conspiracy but it's an interesting idea.

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Well, maybe not. We have had hierarchies of prowess, holiness, wealth, strength, and so forth, Classes, if you will, a long time. But to collapse 12,000 years of settled life and then say that what was going on in the wake of the industrial revolution in the 19th century characterizes all of history could be, perhaps, possibly, BOGUS. A mistake. Error. Over-generalization.

(Ok, off to the firing squad with you, Crank -- this is totally heretical and anti-revolutionary thought.) — Bitter Crank

It's been a while since I've read Marx but I think he does dig into history to try to push for his thesis, like for instance he talks about feudalism at some length. I certainly think one could account for human history in economic terms, as Marx does, but it would seem incomplete.

But yeah, you may not be a rank-and-file Marxist. Off to the firing squad.

This is the idea that the U.S. should remain somewhat isolated and try to influence, contain, and exert power on other nations while remaining 'off-shore.' — The Questioning Bookworm

That's interesting, what exactly is meant by "off shore?" Do they just mean "soft power?" Do you consider the new realists and the old ones to be on essentially the same page ideologically speaking? It's been a while since I've engaged in this.

This is exactly right. Power is what determines a realist's course of action. The world is a chessboard, and the nations that are playing the game are concerned with power and power alone. Cheers! — The Questioning Bookworm

Cheers. This reminds me Kissinger's Diplomacy a bit, which I guess I would consider a realist's bible. It's certainly where my understanding of realism comes from.

I believe Marxism does have teleological underpinnings, taking after Hegel who is definitely teleological. Marx basically flipped Hegelism on its head: He replaced the focus on the immaterial and the idealism of Hegel with the materialism of the economic system, but the teleological implications remain, i.e. the idea that history is inevitably trending somewhere.

I think its a very difficult question to ask "What's the driving force behind history? Is it Economics? Sexuality? Gender relations? Etc." So I asked Xtrix how economics is the driving force, and he responded that it was just an "essential" force and not the driving one. I think a lot of people view economics as an essential force, but couldn't we just as easily portray sexuality or gender relations or even the ways in which difference is treated (e.g. disability) an essential force as well? We're all free to choose the lenses through which we view the world.

But human beings have been around for 200,000 years, long before any real "economy." Was there no human nature prior to the industrial or agricultural revolutions? — Xtrix

There was still an economy at those times, there has always been economy. Marx definitely doesn't believe in any permanent, immutable human nature. I'm just conveying Marx's stance here.

Engels in the footnote, but it doesn't mean class struggle is the ONLY aspect of history. An essential one, yes. — Xtrix

I don't know what the footnote says because I don't have the text on me, but of course Marx believes in the existence other aspects of human history. It's that he places the economic as the overriding one, i.e. the one which is the ultimate determinant of the others. That's a Marxist view. It's been a while since I've read Marx but make no mistake about it, the economic super-structure of a society is primary, according to Marx. I'm not seeking to misrepresent Marx.

That's a misrepresentation, in my view. To attribute class to "human nature" doesn't make sense. — Xtrix

I wasn't doing that. I was saying that according to Marx "human nature" is essentially just the product of the economic system. In evaluating a society, according to Marx, look first and foremost at its economic structure or system. Again, this isn't me this is Marx.

If we get hung up on what "the" essential feature of history is, we won't get off the ground. — Xtrix

Tell that to Marx.

I don't see disability or women's rights really being on par with class struggles. — Xtrix

Well are you a woman or disabled? If not then of course you wouldn't see these things as important as class, but for those who face those issues daily they can be just as important if not more important than class. It's all about where you're situated in society. Gender and disability related issues can cut across social classes.

I like talking about social class and I certainly view it as relevant. What Marxism does, however, is it places the economic as the essential characteristic of the society as well as human nature. So when you quote Marx is evokes that conception to me. If you simply want to portray social class as one among many in society I'm totally fine with that. Power I think is an interesting issue and I don't think it's completely synonymous with class, although the two are related.

Even the Tulip Mania did involve the banking sector, so the access to debt is intrinsic to a speculative bubble to form. — ssu

By "access to debt" do you mean, primarily, traders and investors using leverage? So borrowing funds to invest or speculate. Certainly that can magnify things. We can do that on a much greater scale now with the internet but I'd imagine that practice has been around for quite some time.

I think everyone should agree that loose lending practices encourage speculative bubbles, and that was certainly one of the causes behind the 2008 crash - but I think we've seen bubbles in all types of US markets even in eras with high interest rates (1980s). I'm inclined to see financial speculation as just a natural human activity, and unless the government takes serious, serious steps to squash it I think it's going to happen in a number of different financial environments. I could be wrong though. I just think the 1980s here were a time for rampant speculation despite high interest rates and not being in an era of "endless QE."I think you're certainly right in a general sense that high interest rates discourage speculation.

I think we need to be careful not to conflate American exceptionalism with political realism. American exceptionalism is often idealistic, Wilsonian - it's the view that there's something special about America, maybe it's cultural, morality, history, etc. - and by extension it's often not a bad thing to spread (this part doesn't always come with it.) It's basically the view that the US is inherently different from other nations.

A political realist wouldn't recognize the US as being inherently different from other nations though and for the realist the correct lenses through which to view the international order is power. The US is just one source (although a large one) of power among many.

I've never understood why we need to see the history of all hitherto existing society as a history of class struggle. By all means, you're free to put on those goggles but couldn't someone just as easily claim that the history of all existing society is a history of gender relations or disability liberation? Or ethnic relations, of course. To put social class head-and-shoulders above all the other topics out there has always seemed dubious.

And I claim that the substance of morality is how we must treat each other if we're going to live together in social groups — Srap Tasmaner

Here's a question: How are we to treat those that aren't in our group or even directly oppose our group?

Well thanks for the new word.

The reason I'm lukewarm towards loyalty is because loyalty is always towards some cause or some group, but what of the group/cause? Or is it simply the bond or the pledge that is to be considered laudable? Are Hitler's bodyguards laudable for upholding an oath? If we only admire loyalty towards "good" causes that's not the same thing as just "loyalty."

I was talking more about national security, but I definitely agree with you when you mention the split between social darwinists and those who believe we stand and fall together. I think that would be a fundamental difference in values.

Is that true or is it just a story we tell ourselves in order to navigate the social world. I value liberty a great deal, as well as loyalty, and I feel a sense of the sacred on occasion even though I claim to not be religious. Conversely, do you not value fairness? Do you not care about others? You give every indication that you do. — praxis

Personally, my feelings towards loyalty are lukewarm and I care next to nothing about economic equality. I value harm reduction less than many other people that I know. There are very clear differences in fundamental values between those who strongly value liberty vs those who strongly value security.

If someone values X trait enormously while someone else values the same trait at essentially zero while the two might have the "same" moral value in actuality the two differ starkly on that value.

In any case would you really argue that, say, a Nazi and a communist share the same underlying values?

Some people do have very different values, others have some shared. It's a mix. I'm certainly not saying that all Democrats and all Republicans share no values. Check out Haidt's studies on this, there are genuine differences between ideologies.

You describe the term like it's propaganda or something, but I find it helpful and interesting to know where people are coming from politically/ideologically and "left" is a useful descriptor. Discourse between two individuals doesn't just occur in a vacuum, it occurs against a large network of ideas and background assumptions from both sides. Argument within a certain "side" or movement is often more interesting and insightful than argument between different sides because there's more potential for common ground and understanding as well as nuance, as opposed to just arguing with someone who has a completely different values or few shared values.

I know SLX's left is different from yours or 180s, but it's interesting to me to basically plot these differences and gain an understanding of them so I can better communicate with people. I understand that labeling someone as "left" is just a starting point, but it still conveys information and helps me communicate with others by knowing what to might be productive to say and what likely won't.

I only mention the 'left' because of their ideas. I'm not talking about them as people. I notice ideas or philosophies that are different, which makes you unique. That is why I am mentioning you. "Left" is useful because it can describes a certain set of ideas or values.