Calling something "the left" only has meaning when people agree on what that means. If you disagree that something is "left" but you are using a different definition of "the left" then we haven't actually communicated anything.

You say that the political compass rehabilitates certain ideologies, presumably by calling them "left" and therefore "good" or at least assigning them certain attributes that people may want, but I believe the opposite; using the single left/right axis is worse because then you're either lumping together a whole bunch of ideologies, or everyone is using their own bespoke definition of left/right which makes communication impossible.
The more axis you have, the more descriptive you can be about the relative beliefs of your ideology... But the harder it is to draw.

I don't know that I disagree with your ideology, but I disagree that left means "things I think are good" and everything else is "right", which is essentially what you're doing.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I have explained a more nuanced method of understanding things than the political compass.

By calling these groups "faux-leftist" and "faux libertarian" I am drawing a distinction that the compass doesn't draw, without losing any of the - extremely limited - resolution that it offers.

But you reduced what I said down to:

left means "things I think are good" and everything else is "right"

That tells me that you're not really interested in what I'm saying. It's hard to understand how someone could read what I've written and honestly come to that conclusion. I can explain further, but I think I'd need to hear that you were curious to understand my point, otherwise it's probably going to be a waste of my time.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 points 34 minutes ago

You haven't explained anything other than you think people are disingenuous with their real beliefs, which is not useful for talking about what things mean. This seems to be nearly the entirety of your stance.

You ever so briefly touched on how you think authoritarianism is inherently anti-worker with absolutely no nuance whatsoever

You made no coherent argument about why to change the common definition of "left".

Distinction between theoretical and practical still has value. You can talk about where a political philosophy falls on a compass AND you can talk about how an individual differs from the philosophy they claim to espouse.

I'm not really curious to hear more about your point because you've repeatedly demonstrated that your point isnt actually coherent or useful for everyday (or even academic) discourse.