[vezzy-fnord]

This is clearly wrong unless you posthumously redefine all right-wing political violence as being leftist.

Though, really, "left" and "right" are useless terms without defining your usage of them beforehand. Rest assured, there are many right-wingers who are all too willing to make the personal political and to stifle dissent. In fact, that's more-or-less a signature distinction of the New Right that emerged around the era of Buckley and National Review.

[engi_nerd]

...Isn't one of the tropes of the left that you can't just reject the experiences of others offhand in such a manner? Maybe the parent has been run out of places when his views were known. Who are you to just reject that and say that's wrong?

[dragonwriter]

> ...Isn't one of the tropes of the left that you can't just reject the experiences of others offhand in such a manner?

The first paragraph, which appeared to be what was rejected, was a generalization, not a recounting of personal experience.

And, nothing in the post you responded to was any kind of rejection that violates any precept that is particularly common, AFAICT, on the left (it might, I suppose, violate a right-wing stereotype of the left, but, then, that's more a problem of the alignment of the stereotype with reality.)

[engi_nerd]

I am not sure how else to interpret a post wherein someone relates something personal and then the first sentence of the follow up tells them they're wrong.

[dragonwriter]

What was called wrong was the generalization about the left which started the post, not the personal experience offered after it. At least, the "unless..." which qualifies the statement about wrongness only makes any sense as a qualifier to a rejection of the generalization, not the specific personal experience story, so there is no other reasonable way to interpret the post.

[engi_nerd]

I have gone back and re-read that post again.

You are correct. I was wrong.

[vezzy-fnord]

I don't know, I'm not a leftist. Though what you seem to be describing are postmodernism and moral relativism, and I know plenty of left-wing people who reject both.

Again, the term "left" is useless without defining it first. I have no idea what the hell you actually mean when you say "left".

[RightWingRabble]

I'm not going to get bogged down in a "no true scotsman" fallacial argument. People define themselves by these terms and the terms are also widely used. If you can't figure them out, that's on you.

[vezzy-fnord]

It's not a No True Scotsman when there's inherent vagueness.

People define themselves by these terms and the terms are also widely used. If you can't figure them out, that's on you.

Is that so? Because I've heard definitions of "right" as variously economically liberal, economically protectionist, socially conservative, socially liberal (as in classical liberalism), non-interventionist in foreign policy, interventionist in foreign policy, anti-statist, statist and so forth.

In fact, all of these contradictory views have belonged or continue to belong to various movements categorized as "right-wing".

So I'm asking about what you mean. Or perhaps you don't mean anything and are simply looking for an ax to grind.