I think Marvin's point is simply that a defensive counterattack is a species in the genus attack.
And my point is that the term "counterattack" presupposes that something else had occurred beforehand. When the "counterattacker" has invented in their own mind the supposed excuse for their action, then counterattack is not the correct term and it would be far better to not keep buying into the counterattack narrative.
The storming of the Capitol was not a defensive counterattack, okay?
The people counterattacking here are the people whom the white conservative semi-majority have previously been attacking and who are now defending themselves.
I do not read Marvin as saying that there's anything wrong with that.
The people counterattacking here are the people whom the white conservative semi-majority have previously been attacking and who are now defending themselves.
I do not read Marvin as saying that there's anything wrong with that.
But this is the exact opposite of the people Marvin has been advocating for. He has been advocating for the white conservatives as perceiving themselves as being under attack.
If the Nazis invade Poland and the Poles throw Molotov cocktails at them:
1 The Nazis are under attack.
2 The Nazis started it by attacking the Poles.
3 The Poles are only defending themselves; the Nazis are the aggressors here.
4 The Nazis thoroughly deserve it.
If the Nazis invade Poland and the Poles throw Molotov cocktails at them:
1 The Nazis are under attack.
2 The Nazis started it by attacking the Poles.
3 The Poles are only defending themselves; the Nazis are the aggressors here.
4 The Nazis thoroughly deserve it.
2, 3, and 4 don't make 1 untrue.
Sure. Still doesn't match Marvin's approach to the issue, which makes no mention of 2 and 3 whatsoever.
Nor am I convinced that anyone is throwing Molotov cocktails here anyway. A gay marriage is not a Molotov cocktail aimed at conservatives who don't like the notion of gay marriage. It's a couple of men who love each other committing to one another. Centering the narrative on the objectors is moving the focus somewhere else than the people getting married ever intended.
And that's a big part of the frustration with that kind of conservatism. It is so fucking self-centred. Certainly, when the same-sex marriage debate was at its peak here in Australia, it mystified me why my choice of partner seemed to be of such central importance to complete strangers and they could make it all about them.
The peak being the local couple who declared that if gays could get married, they were getting divorced (only to discover that legally they couldn't do so because they'd have to separate first).
We frequently don't have Poles throwing Molotov cocktails at invading Nazis. We have Poles walking down the street in Poznan, accidentally finding themselves in the path of a Nazi tank and then the Nazis declare that being in the way constitutes an attack.
I think Marvin's point is simply that a defensive counterattack is a species in the genus attack.
Like orfeo, I'm not willing to grant any kind of equivalence between "trying to ensure equal rights for gays and minorities" and "trying to violently overturn the results of an election."
I'm not sure he's advocating that for any purpose beyond being aware how the enemy thinks. Being aware how the enemy thinks is useful, especially when the best road to victory is converting the waverers.
I don't see any reason to think Marvin has any special insight into how Trump supporters think or feel. And if his initial outrageous claim (that Trump supporters were correct that liberals wanted "to take all their money and use it to promote homosexuality, kill babies, bring in loads of immigrants, and just generally trample all over good old-fashioned American Christian Values") is dialed all the way back to "they're unhappy that the culture is changing" then it's really just somewhere between trivial and trite.
Of course it bloody is. Not a very nice one, for sure. Maybe not even one that the rest of us can or should allow to continue. But to deny that it (or more accurately, any given set of beliefs and cultural practices that the rest of us have decreed to be intolerant) exists is ridiculous.
If the Nazis invade Poland and the Poles throw Molotov cocktails at them:
1 The Nazis are under attack.
2 The Nazis started it by attacking the Poles.
3 The Poles are only defending themselves; the Nazis are the aggressors here.
4 The Nazis thoroughly deserve it.
2, 3, and 4 don't make 1 untrue.
Sure. Still doesn't match Marvin's approach to the issue, which makes no mention of 2 and 3 whatsoever.
I have repeatedly said that (a) nothing in my argument should be taken to mean I think the attack is unjustified and (b) I side with the attackers.
And in WW2 terms (given that others have started using that as an analogy) I think it's more like the Allies invading Germany itself in 1945.
I think there's something even more basic / fundamental in play here. At its bottom, the conflict here is between a set or sets of people who understand the universe to be comprised of some basic inalienable rules or principles not subject to human will, and another set of people who understand the universe to be far more malleable and re-shape-able according to human wishes and desires. The fundamental conflict here is between those who understand "reality" as subject to human desires and power, and those who see "reality" as something humans must adapt to. It goes part-and-parcel with T's attitude toward the law: obey it when it suits you, ignore it when it doesn't.
I'm skeptical that we suddenly uncovered a deep fundamental schism in the way two halves of American society view the universe.
And I'm not sure which side is supposed to be which in your categorization. Is it the left that's supposed to think reality is subject to human desires and powers and the right that believes in reality as something humans must adapt to, or is it the other way around?
Of course it bloody is. Not a very nice one, for sure. Maybe not even one that the rest of us can or should allow to continue. But to deny that it (or more accurately, any given set of beliefs and cultural practices that the rest of us have decreed to be intolerant) exists is ridiculous.
What’s currently ridiculous is ripping one sentence out of context and pretending I said something “didn’t exist”. If I asserted what something was RIGHT AFTER I said what it was not, it’s bloody clear to any fair person I was denying the characterisation not the existence.
Intolerance is other-centred. It’s not its own thing, it’s a reaction to some other thing.
Having been minded to defend you on this thread earlier this week, I’m now reaching the conclusion that you’re being an arse for the sake of it.
Addendum: and you can’t even accurately describe what I referred to. I talked about intolerance. You have to amend it to something “more accurate” in order to speak about something quite different, in your determination to not engage with what I actually said.
I’m sorry if you can’t cope with an abstract concept like “intolerance” instead of a concrete thing like, say, “conservative Midwestern American Values”, but there’s a difference and that was the whole damn point.
Of course it bloody is. Not a very nice one, for sure. Maybe not even one that the rest of us can or should allow to continue. But to deny that it (or more accurately, any given set of beliefs and cultural practices that the rest of us have decreed to be intolerant) exists is ridiculous.
What’s currently ridiculous is ripping one sentence out of context and pretending I said something “didn’t exist”. If I asserted what something was RIGHT AFTER I said what it was not, it’s bloody clear to any fair person I was denying the characterisation not the existence.
I meant that in the sense that intolerant cultures exist. Apologies for any confusion caused by poor wording on my part.
Intolerance is other-centred. It’s not its own thing, it’s a reaction to some other thing.
Addendum: and you can’t even accurately describe what I referred to. I talked about intolerance. You have to amend it to something “more accurate” in order to speak about something quite different, in your determination to not engage with what I actually said.
I’m sorry if you can’t cope with an abstract concept like “intolerance” instead of a concrete thing like, say, “conservative Midwestern American Values”, but there’s a difference and that was the whole damn point.
Nobody believes in the abstract concept of intolerance. They believe in things that the rest of us label intolerance, such as the inherent superiority of the white race or that their understanding of God's Law must be upheld throughout the land. The abstract concept is a useful shorthand we can use to refer to all those different beliefs, and that's how I've been using it in this discussion, but I don't think it's useful to try to talk about "intolerance" as its own thing, independent of any specific intolerant beliefs. It would be like trying to talk about the colour blue as its own thing, independent of any specific blue items.
Of course it bloody is. Not a very nice one, for sure. Maybe not even one that the rest of us can or should allow to continue. But to deny that it (or more accurately, any given set of beliefs and cultural practices that the rest of us have decreed to be intolerant) exists is ridiculous.
What’s currently ridiculous is ripping one sentence out of context and pretending I said something “didn’t exist”. If I asserted what something was RIGHT AFTER I said what it was not, it’s bloody clear to any fair person I was denying the characterisation not the existence.
I meant that in the sense that intolerant cultures exist. Apologies for any confusion caused by poor wording on my part.
Intolerance is other-centred. It’s not its own thing, it’s a reaction to some other thing.
Addendum: and you can’t even accurately describe what I referred to. I talked about intolerance. You have to amend it to something “more accurate” in order to speak about something quite different, in your determination to not engage with what I actually said.
I’m sorry if you can’t cope with an abstract concept like “intolerance” instead of a concrete thing like, say, “conservative Midwestern American Values”, but there’s a difference and that was the whole damn point.
It would be like trying to talk about the colour blue as its own thing, independent of any specific blue items.
You mean like light in the ~480nm wavelength range? As opposed to a subjective and variable perception of colour based on the wavelengths of light reflected by an object filtered through the eyes and interpreted differently by each brain?
I think Marvin's point is simply that a defensive counterattack is a species in the genus attack.
Like orfeo, I'm not willing to grant any kind of equivalence between "trying to ensure equal rights for gays and minorities" and "trying to violently overturn the results of an election."
Pointing out that two things are both members of a particular class is not granting any kind of equivalence, unless you think that buying a pet cat is equivalent to buying a pet tiger.
You mean like light in the ~480nm wavelength range? As opposed to a subjective and variable perception of colour based on the wavelengths of light reflected by an object filtered through the eyes and interpreted differently by each brain?
I think most people would agree that the sky is often blue. You'll agree, I'm sure, that if you point a spectrometer at that blue sky, you'll see a rather wide, continuous spectrum, and it's not at all obvious from looking at the spectrum that we should think it "the same colour" as monochromatic light with a wavelength of 480 nm.
The reason that we call both "blue" is entirely due to the perception of colour, which is a little different in every combination of eye and brain. It's completely trivial to imagine a different colour sensitivity for an eye that would make the sky appear to be some other colour.
You mean like light in the ~480nm wavelength range?
Yes, actually. In that it’s perfectly true, but also useless when the subject under discussion is which colour (never mind which shade) we should use to paint the walls.
Nobody believes in the abstract concept of intolerance.
Speak for yourself, mister. It's one of those words that if you don't actually nail down what it means, you can just wave it around in discussions and get an emotional reaction.
The reason that we call both "blue" is entirely due to the perception of colour, which is a little different in every combination of eye and brain.
Not sure that that sentence is logical; how can you tell it's a little different or not? At best, you'll get slightly different reports but that does not mean that the perception is different.
And as it is the words and terminology that differ (I agree with you on that), how do we know how different the eye/brain result is? It seems impossible to me.
May I be evil and suggest that I'd rather be reading about the Great Orange One on this thread? I have this burning desire to make sure he doesn't sneak up on me, so to speak--but there's only so much wading I can do through the media before I reach upchuckery level. And there's always Hell, you know, though I admit the Orange One is sufficient to make me think, "Why, this is Hell, nor am I out of it..."
I'd like especially to be reading about the brilliance of the Biden Administration.
There has been a suggestion over the last few days that the US send in troops to help stabilize Haiti. Australia has done something like this in our region on a couple of occasions, helping the Solomon Islands deal with anarchy there, and helping Timor Leste deal with infrastructure issues (and perhaps guarantee their sovereignty) after independence from Indonesia.
This is just the sort of thing that I like to see powerful nations do. It strikes me as a righteous use of military force.
If the US ends up getting an invitation to enter the country for this purpose, do you think they should do it?
I think Marvin's point is simply that a defensive counterattack is a species in the genus attack.
Like orfeo, I'm not willing to grant any kind of equivalence between "trying to ensure equal rights for gays and minorities" and "trying to violently overturn the results of an election."
Pointing out that two things are both members of a particular class is not granting any kind of equivalence, unless you think that buying a pet cat is equivalent to buying a pet tiger.
I’m not willing to agree that those two things are properly grouped together at all - and if you think they’re as different as cats and tigers I don’t see the point in trying to call them by the same name.
Trump is not alone in his trials and tribulations.
Another ex-President is having his own problems with the justice system in his country: Jacob Zuma of South Africa (story)
Trump is not alone in his trials and tribulations.
Another ex-President is having his own problems with the justice system in his country: Jacob Zuma of South Africa (story)
Trump is not alone in his trials and tribulations.
Another ex-President is having his own problems with the justice system in his country: Jacob Zuma of South Africa (story)
Indeed, a few mornings ago I was awakened to the 6am news telling me that Zuma had reported to the police for incarceration. Wonderful start to the day. A good day day for RSA, and (though many within and without wouldn't admit it) a good day for the ANC.
Trump sues everybody. Wikipedia tells me he or his companies had launched 1,900 lawsuits before he was President.
I seem to recall that traditionally he's sued people with less money than him to try and make them settle out of court rather than risk being bankrupted by legal fees. Going up against people with far deeper pockets than him seems a foolish play.
Part of the issue, though, is that I doubt anybody, including T's own henchkeepers, can come up with a clear, accurate accounting of his worth. It would not surprise me to learn that T's alleged wealth conssst largely of smoke, mirrors, and promissory notes. There may be no "there" there.
Trump sues everybody. Wikipedia tells me he or his companies had launched 1,900 lawsuits before he was President.
I seem to recall that traditionally he's sued people with less money than him to try and make them settle out of court rather than risk being bankrupted by legal fees. Going up against people with far deeper pockets than him seems a foolish play.
Oh it really is. And according to detailed, expert analysis it's a terrible lawsuit and those that filed it will probably face sanctions. The best exempler for me is that one of the lawyers filing it misspelled his own name on the signature page... (facepalm)
Mike Dunford (https://twitter.com/questauthority) on Twitter has some fun legal analyses of the Trump lawsuits, including this one. Though you have to be prepared for repeated cries of "oh fuckaduck" as he comes across some new idiocy.
So the basic legal strategy here is, "Keep everybody even more confused than I am and maybe they won't be able to figure what I'm up, because I sure as hell don't have a clue."
I wonder if certain people aren't trying to run out the clock (=Trump's death). Not him, of course, he probably thinks he's immortal. But his, ah, handlers. Family members and the like. Because a lot of things will be nixed or at least less in the spotlight once he's dead.
oops! My apologies to our host @BroJames. It was late at night here when I posted and unedited version of my post about ex-pres Zuma of South Africa. Here is a correct link to several recent news stories about his jailing.
I wonder if certain people aren't trying to run out the clock (=Trump's death). Not him, of course, he probably thinks he's immortal. But his, ah, handlers. Family members and the like. Because a lot of things will be nixed or at least less in the spotlight once he's dead.
Dream on. The conspiracy theories that will almost certainly arise in the wake of the Orange One's demise will curl our hair. And I shudder to consider the potential for violence aping the insurrection in early January.
Is it only me, but is this former American president kind of like a remake of Silvio Berlusconi? But with fast food and stupider..it's really sad to think of American democracy taking such long time to digest him.
The other thread that I think important is how the Republican party spent 3-4 decades building the themes of trickle-down economics, government is bad, liberals hate America and political correctness is oppressing Whites and Christians. Trump just took those lies and turned the dial up to 11. Throw in the Cult of personality and you have a winning formula.
Whilst I do think it true that Trump has decimated the GOP as a political party, it is also true that the GOP created Trump. He's their monster.
And as it is the words and terminology that differ (I agree with you on that), how do we know how different the eye/brain result is? It seems impossible to me.
I don't know which part of you decides what words to use, but most of us use our brains for that purpose
And we know there are perceptual issues, because of all those optical illusions that make colours look different depending on what else is in view. You take the same colour, change its environment, and the same person gives it a different name. That can only be a change in perception.
But that aside, "everybody" agrees that bright reds are red. But pick a colour that's somewhere at the boundary between different colour names, and you'll get people disagreeing about whether that's blue or green, for example. And that's probably a mix of perception and name mapping. But given that that name-mapping happens in the brain, ...
ETA: it's easy to imagine an experiment where people are shown monochromatic and composite light, and ask to say which composite light is "the same colour as" the monochromatic one. And I think that has to expose differences in chromatic sensitivity between people. I don't know if it's been done, though - I suspect it has.
I don't know which part of you decides what words to use, but most of us use our brains for that purpose
And we know there are perceptual issues, because of all those optical illusions that make colours look different depending on what else is in view. You take the same colour, change its environment, and the same person gives it a different name. That can only be a change in perception.
But that aside, "everybody" agrees that bright reds are red. But pick a colour that's somewhere at the boundary between different colour names, and you'll get people disagreeing about whether that's blue or green, for example. And that's probably a mix of perception and name mapping. But given that that name-mapping happens in the brain, ...
What I was trying to say is that the name-mapping is a learnt behaviour, and therefore has some degree of uniformity. What we can never know is just how any one individual actually perceives a particular colour (or shape for that matter) and how that differs between individuals. Why do I like greens and blues, but not pinks and reds, for example.
I was doing an experiment in an OU science course which depended on identifying the colour of a chemical. The colour range I was observing was in the blue/green boundary area - always a problem for name-mapping, which of course didn't affect the experiment. What did arouse my curiousity was that if I observed with my right eye, it was different from what I saw with my left eye. A very subtle variation, and as it also affected the comparison chart, not critical for the experiment.
I now know that the perception of blues in my two eyes is different. So extending that to other people is not unlikely. But I wouldn't expect someone to be be seeing what I think of as red and calling it blue.
I wouldn't expect someone to be be seeing what I think of as red and calling it blue.
I think this is because - in practice if not in principle - we learn colours by being shown things of that colour: 'look at that red fire engine' leads an individual to believe that the colour that they perceive the fire engine to be is known as 'red'. But that doesn't mean that the colour that they perceive is the same as the colour that anyone else perceives. I've heard an anecdote of someone seeing a (ginger?) cat and exclaiming 'what a lovely green cat!' - because on the basis of their colour perception, the cat was the same perceived colour as grass, and they'd been told that grass was green.
I was doing an experiment in an OU science course which depended on identifying the colour of a chemical. The colour range I was observing was in the blue/green boundary area - always a problem for name-mapping, which of course didn't affect the experiment. What did arouse my curiousity was that if I observed with my right eye, it was different from what I saw with my left eye. A very subtle variation, and as it also affected the comparison chart, not critical for the experiment.
I now know that the perception of blues in my two eyes is different. So extending that to other people is not unlikely. But I wouldn't expect someone to be be seeing what I think of as red and calling it blue.
I have a similar experience - my right eye tends to see things more red and my left eye more blue.
Deuteranopia is a type of red-green color blindness characterized by the inability to distinguish red and green pigments. Protanopia is another type of red-green color deficiency. Both are primarily caused by recessive genes in the X chromosome -(link)
My grandfather was a good amateur watercolourist but red/green colour blind and occasionally he'd mix his colours up part way through a painting, distracted with the palette already mixed, so there's a painting in existence with a beautiful green bridge and red leaves in the trees. It actually looks like a moss covered bridge and some autumn colouring in the trees that were coloured red, but it wasn't what was in the scene.
More unusual is total colour blindness, achromatapsia - link. I shared a chemistry lab bench with a lad who was completely colour blind, which meant I ended up telling him the point of change whenever we were titrating using a coloured indicator. He and his brothers all had the same condition and were studied extensively. It was fascinating asking him what he saw because he couldn't describe it at all.
Comments
And my point is that the term "counterattack" presupposes that something else had occurred beforehand. When the "counterattacker" has invented in their own mind the supposed excuse for their action, then counterattack is not the correct term and it would be far better to not keep buying into the counterattack narrative.
The storming of the Capitol was not a defensive counterattack, okay?
I do not read Marvin as saying that there's anything wrong with that.
But this is the exact opposite of the people Marvin has been advocating for. He has been advocating for the white conservatives as perceiving themselves as being under attack.
1 The Nazis are under attack.
2 The Nazis started it by attacking the Poles.
3 The Poles are only defending themselves; the Nazis are the aggressors here.
4 The Nazis thoroughly deserve it.
2, 3, and 4 don't make 1 untrue.
Sure. Still doesn't match Marvin's approach to the issue, which makes no mention of 2 and 3 whatsoever.
Nor am I convinced that anyone is throwing Molotov cocktails here anyway. A gay marriage is not a Molotov cocktail aimed at conservatives who don't like the notion of gay marriage. It's a couple of men who love each other committing to one another. Centering the narrative on the objectors is moving the focus somewhere else than the people getting married ever intended.
And that's a big part of the frustration with that kind of conservatism. It is so fucking self-centred. Certainly, when the same-sex marriage debate was at its peak here in Australia, it mystified me why my choice of partner seemed to be of such central importance to complete strangers and they could make it all about them.
The peak being the local couple who declared that if gays could get married, they were getting divorced (only to discover that legally they couldn't do so because they'd have to separate first).
We frequently don't have Poles throwing Molotov cocktails at invading Nazis. We have Poles walking down the street in Poznan, accidentally finding themselves in the path of a Nazi tank and then the Nazis declare that being in the way constitutes an attack.
Of course it bloody is. Not a very nice one, for sure. Maybe not even one that the rest of us can or should allow to continue. But to deny that it (or more accurately, any given set of beliefs and cultural practices that the rest of us have decreed to be intolerant) exists is ridiculous.
I have repeatedly said that (a) nothing in my argument should be taken to mean I think the attack is unjustified and (b) I side with the attackers.
And in WW2 terms (given that others have started using that as an analogy) I think it's more like the Allies invading Germany itself in 1945.
And I'm not sure which side is supposed to be which in your categorization. Is it the left that's supposed to think reality is subject to human desires and powers and the right that believes in reality as something humans must adapt to, or is it the other way around?
Intolerance is other-centred. It’s not its own thing, it’s a reaction to some other thing.
Having been minded to defend you on this thread earlier this week, I’m now reaching the conclusion that you’re being an arse for the sake of it.
I’m sorry if you can’t cope with an abstract concept like “intolerance” instead of a concrete thing like, say, “conservative Midwestern American Values”, but there’s a difference and that was the whole damn point.
I meant that in the sense that intolerant cultures exist. Apologies for any confusion caused by poor wording on my part.
Nobody believes in the abstract concept of intolerance. They believe in things that the rest of us label intolerance, such as the inherent superiority of the white race or that their understanding of God's Law must be upheld throughout the land. The abstract concept is a useful shorthand we can use to refer to all those different beliefs, and that's how I've been using it in this discussion, but I don't think it's useful to try to talk about "intolerance" as its own thing, independent of any specific intolerant beliefs. It would be like trying to talk about the colour blue as its own thing, independent of any specific blue items.
You mean like light in the ~480nm wavelength range? As opposed to a subjective and variable perception of colour based on the wavelengths of light reflected by an object filtered through the eyes and interpreted differently by each brain?
I think most people would agree that the sky is often blue. You'll agree, I'm sure, that if you point a spectrometer at that blue sky, you'll see a rather wide, continuous spectrum, and it's not at all obvious from looking at the spectrum that we should think it "the same colour" as monochromatic light with a wavelength of 480 nm.
The reason that we call both "blue" is entirely due to the perception of colour, which is a little different in every combination of eye and brain. It's completely trivial to imagine a different colour sensitivity for an eye that would make the sky appear to be some other colour.
Yes, actually. In that it’s perfectly true, but also useless when the subject under discussion is which colour (never mind which shade) we should use to paint the walls.
Speak for yourself, mister. It's one of those words that if you don't actually nail down what it means, you can just wave it around in discussions and get an emotional reaction.
Not sure that that sentence is logical; how can you tell it's a little different or not? At best, you'll get slightly different reports but that does not mean that the perception is different.
There has been a suggestion over the last few days that the US send in troops to help stabilize Haiti. Australia has done something like this in our region on a couple of occasions, helping the Solomon Islands deal with anarchy there, and helping Timor Leste deal with infrastructure issues (and perhaps guarantee their sovereignty) after independence from Indonesia.
This is just the sort of thing that I like to see powerful nations do. It strikes me as a righteous use of military force.
If the US ends up getting an invitation to enter the country for this purpose, do you think they should do it?
Another ex-President is having his own problems with the justice system in his country: Jacob Zuma of South Africa (story)
story
Indeed, a few mornings ago I was awakened to the 6am news telling me that Zuma had reported to the police for incarceration. Wonderful start to the day. A good day day for RSA, and (though many within and without wouldn't admit it) a good day for the ANC.
Oh, and let's not forget Trump suing Twitter, Facebook, Youtube et al for being kicked off their platforms.
I seem to recall that traditionally he's sued people with less money than him to try and make them settle out of court rather than risk being bankrupted by legal fees. Going up against people with far deeper pockets than him seems a foolish play.
Oh it really is. And according to detailed, expert analysis it's a terrible lawsuit and those that filed it will probably face sanctions. The best exempler for me is that one of the lawyers filing it misspelled his own name on the signature page... (facepalm)
AFZ
DOH!
Dream on. The conspiracy theories that will almost certainly arise in the wake of the Orange One's demise will curl our hair. And I shudder to consider the potential for violence aping the insurrection in early January.
The other thread that I think important is how the Republican party spent 3-4 decades building the themes of trickle-down economics, government is bad, liberals hate America and political correctness is oppressing Whites and Christians. Trump just took those lies and turned the dial up to 11. Throw in the Cult of personality and you have a winning formula.
Whilst I do think it true that Trump has decimated the GOP as a political party, it is also true that the GOP created Trump. He's their monster.
AFZ
I don't know which part of you decides what words to use, but most of us use our brains for that purpose
And we know there are perceptual issues, because of all those optical illusions that make colours look different depending on what else is in view. You take the same colour, change its environment, and the same person gives it a different name. That can only be a change in perception.
But that aside, "everybody" agrees that bright reds are red. But pick a colour that's somewhere at the boundary between different colour names, and you'll get people disagreeing about whether that's blue or green, for example. And that's probably a mix of perception and name mapping. But given that that name-mapping happens in the brain, ...
ETA: it's easy to imagine an experiment where people are shown monochromatic and composite light, and ask to say which composite light is "the same colour as" the monochromatic one. And I think that has to expose differences in chromatic sensitivity between people. I don't know if it's been done, though - I suspect it has.
What I was trying to say is that the name-mapping is a learnt behaviour, and therefore has some degree of uniformity. What we can never know is just how any one individual actually perceives a particular colour (or shape for that matter) and how that differs between individuals. Why do I like greens and blues, but not pinks and reds, for example.
I now know that the perception of blues in my two eyes is different. So extending that to other people is not unlikely. But I wouldn't expect someone to be be seeing what I think of as red and calling it blue.
I think this is because - in practice if not in principle - we learn colours by being shown things of that colour: 'look at that red fire engine' leads an individual to believe that the colour that they perceive the fire engine to be is known as 'red'. But that doesn't mean that the colour that they perceive is the same as the colour that anyone else perceives. I've heard an anecdote of someone seeing a (ginger?) cat and exclaiming 'what a lovely green cat!' - because on the basis of their colour perception, the cat was the same perceived colour as grass, and they'd been told that grass was green.
I have a similar experience - my right eye tends to see things more red and my left eye more blue.
My grandfather was a good amateur watercolourist but red/green colour blind and occasionally he'd mix his colours up part way through a painting, distracted with the palette already mixed, so there's a painting in existence with a beautiful green bridge and red leaves in the trees. It actually looks like a moss covered bridge and some autumn colouring in the trees that were coloured red, but it wasn't what was in the scene.
More unusual is total colour blindness, achromatapsia - link. I shared a chemistry lab bench with a lad who was completely colour blind, which meant I ended up telling him the point of change whenever we were titrating using a coloured indicator. He and his brothers all had the same condition and were studied extensively. It was fascinating asking him what he saw because he couldn't describe it at all.