IdleRich
IdleRich
Not all battles with two sides divide in the same two ways - I don't think that the difference between revolutionaries and reactionaries is the same as that between Manchester United and Manchester City. If most wars have two sides it doesn't mean that they're always about the same thing."Since you seem to agree with the second premise, I'll just say that the first is only contrary to internet conventional wisdom. Historical conventional wisdom is the single axis. The French national assembly had two sides: revolutionaries and reactionaries. Stalin was some sort of communist, Franco was some sort of fascist. It's easy to place people and movements. I don't see the need for another dimension."
And even if historically people thought that then that's hardly an argument for insisting it's the case now.
Is this an unfair characterisation and if so why?
"I just don't think that any two people who agree on immigration or gay rights can be assumed to have the same views on whether or not unfettered capitalism is a good thing (or even that it's an especially good predictor) and that's basically what you're asking us to accept."