The real difference between liberals and conservatives

[Insomniac]

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

Video, about 20 minutes long. Has some graphs and such so it should probably be watched and not just listened to.

Here is my best attempt at a summary for the purposes of this forum.

The speaker is addressing a liberal audience, so he's confronting the assumption that conservatives are blinded by religion or just plain stupid (Dumbfuckistan). But the division he sees is between openness to new experiences and a preference for familiarity.

As my own commentary, I think taking this at face value explains the intelligence difference between the average liberal and average conservative. Liberals are more likely to seek out lots of new information, especially education, hence why universities are full of them, both in staff and students. Conservatives, then, are concerned with deepening what's already known as opposed to revolutions.

Anyway, back to the video.

Humans come into the world with five settings:

I. Harm/Care - We like to bond with others and care for others, and we dislike things that cause harm to us.
II. Fairness/reciprocity - The foundation of most religions.
III. In group loyalty - Other animals identify as groups but they're either very small or siblings. We identify we people we don't even know and play at tribes from everything from nation and religions to sports teams.
IV. Authority/respect - Unlike other animals, we give weight to more than brutality and power. It's often voluntary and deferential, or even love.
V. Purity - Conservatives use sex, but liberals are increasingly making food a similar issue.

Anyway, people come into the world born with different settings like an audio equalizer that get pushed up or down with experiences.

The point is that liberals and conservatives are different because liberals only give weight to the first two on the list, which is what everyone agrees with more or less. How is the Torah summarized? "That which is harmful, do not do to your neighbor. The rest is commentary." Be fair and don't do harm.

But for the rest, liberals value diversity and say being part of a group leads to discrimination or forced homogeneity, authority is fallible or malevolent and meant to be questioned, and demands of purity are oppressive.

The video comes to the conclusion that society is utterly impossible without these last three, whatever trade offs there are. You can't build Rome appealing to people's sense of goodness, not just in a day but at all. You have to put a desire in them to strive for certain things, to work with people they have no instinctive reason to care for, and you have to have hierarchical leadership that can direct things and keep people in line. Equality and freedom are nice things, but they aren't order, and precious thing that it is, some of those have to sacrificed to appease it.

Again, the speaker is addressing a liberal audience so he can't end here, and his final message is to say, "Don't assume you're right; they're wrong." Everyone thinks that. Take a moment to assume they're correct and entertain the idea for the sake of understanding. Ultimately order is necessary to society, but so is change and new things to avoid stagnation.

Fin

Now, all that being said, I do wonder how much is actually valid. Because if liberals reject group identity, why is it that the liberal intelligentsias seem to be the closest knit and as easily swayed as any other, and why do so many seem to worship raw power? It doesn't explain the Communists in Russia, for example, unless all the liberals just got killed off, and all the rest in the country and wider world suddenly became authority-valuing conservatives. Or were Communists never liberal at all for placing so much on the authority of Marx and purity of doctrine?

Still, I found the talk interesting, and here I share with you all for your thoughts and analysis.

[Archangel]

I touched on this on the old boards, thinking about Jürgen Link's definitions of normalism.

The latter three you touch upon are classic examples of protonormalistic social values, something that our society has been steadily moving away from ever since the 13th century, with the most decisive recent events being WWII and (as a direct consequence) the '68 student revolts. The centre is now considered staid, stolid, or as the kids would say, "uncool". If you think of normalisms as a circle, we've been moving ever more towards the edge. Aristotle and Dante considered "mediocrity" to be the highest goal - now it's the last thing anyone wants.

So if the conservatives represent protonormalistic tendencies - and the organisations they're linked to (church, military, corporations) are the most rigidly protonormalistic and authoritarian there are - the liberals and their buddies (intelligentsia, arts, etc) represent flexible normalism. The fringes, as it were. And any society needs both forms in a delicate equilibrium; not enough of the latter, and there is no progress (especially of the epistemic/paradigmatical kind), which can only happen via a detachment from the centre. By the same token, if there isn't enough of the former - if the centre cannot hold, if you will - things will, alas, fall apart. You may decry Christian/Western values as obsolete, and propose free love and all that rubbish, but without them, the core of our civilisation, our society would simply implode into anarchy.

The contradiction you point out is, however, inherent in any flexible-normalistic system. Look at punk rock. Born out of the idea to distance oneself from "normal" rock music, which itself had grown protonormalistic, it quickly turned from a free-for all of ideas into a totally fixed system itself. The question "is this still punk?" leads the whole notion ad absurdum - and now people are discussing if wearing certain trousers disqualifies one from punkdom, without recognising the irony.

Same with liberal intelligentsia. I like to point out that there is no one more closed minded than the prophets of tolerance. This is because the people do not understand the mechanisms at work While distancing themselves from society's centre, the tighter they wrap themselves around the core of their supposedly flexible-normalistic ideology: The more "radical" and detached from the centre a system appears to be, the more rigid it becomes within itself, because the binding agent that the centre provides can hardly be felt at the extreme fringes.
This is why, ironically, there is nobody more fascist than the most extreme liberals. If you're not a feminist, an environmentalist, anti-religious, pro-gay etc, these people will look down on you no differently than an SS Obergruppenführer would look at a Jew.

[Yelram]

I touched on this on the old boards, thinking about Jürgen Link's definitions of normalism.

The latter three you touch upon are classic examples of protonormalistic social values, something that our society has been steadily moving away from ever since the 13th century, with the most decisive recent events being WWII and (as a direct consequence) the '68 student revolts. The centre is now considered staid, stolid, or as the kids would say, "uncool". If you think of normalisms as a circle, we've been moving ever more towards the edge. Aristotle and Dante considered "mediocrity" to be the highest goal - now it's the last thing anyone wants.

So if the conservatives represent protonormalistic tendencies - and the organisations they're linked to (church, military, corporations) are the most rigidly protonormalistic and authoritarian there are - the liberals and their buddies (intelligentsia, arts, etc) represent flexible normalism. The fringes, as it were. And any society needs both forms in a delicate equilibrium; not enough of the latter, and there is no progress (especially of the epistemic/paradigmatical kind), which can only happen via a detachment from the centre. By the same token, if there isn't enough of the former - if the centre cannot hold, if you will - things will, alas, fall apart. You may decry Christian/Western values as obsolete, and propose free love and all that rubbish, but without them, the core of our civilisation, our society would simply implode into anarchy.

The contradiction you point out is, however, inherent in any flexible-normalistic system. Look at punk rock. Born out of the idea to distance oneself from "normal" rock music, which itself had grown protonormalistic, it quickly turned from a free-for all of ideas into a totally fixed system itself. The question "is this still punk?" leads the whole notion ad absurdum - and now people are discussing if wearing certain trousers disqualifies one from punkdom, without recognising the irony.

Same with liberal intelligentsia. I like to point out that there is no one more closed minded than the prophets of tolerance. This is because the people do not understand the mechanisms at work While distancing themselves from society's centre, the tighter they wrap themselves around the core of their supposedly flexible-normalistic ideology: The more "radical" and detached from the centre a system appears to be, the more rigid it becomes within itself, because the binding agent that the centre provides can hardly be felt at the extreme fringes.
This is why, ironically, there is nobody more fascist than the most extreme liberals. If you're not a feminist, an environmentalist, anti-religious, pro-gay etc, these people will look down on you no differently than an SS Obergruppenführer would look at a Jew.


Great post, I was just talking about the Punk thing with my friend the other day. Its funny what people consider "liberal" and "conservative" it all stems from what the status quo is. I dont cut my hair, technically its hyper-conservatism, but of course people who see me assume that i'm liberal because i'm breaking the predetermined notion that cutting your hair is the norm. But at the same time, in parts of the middle east, barbers are literally murdered, because they represent a breech in the "purity" aspect mentioned above. And in my own personal experience, I find that liberalism in the US tends towards groupism more than conservatives do. If you dont fall under the strict rules of what a "liberal" is (as defined by liberals), then you are immediately a "conservative". Alot of the more "liberal(by literal definition)" ideas, politically, have been proposed by republicans, because right now, liberalism is ingrained in the current state of the government, so any change from that, technically, should be liberal. The idea of getting rid of unions is liberal, whereas when they didnt exist, their creation was liberal. The idea of privatizing social security is liberal, when it was created IT was liberal. And so on and so on. Liberalism has spent years trying to break the boundaries, so now with all the broken walls, the idea of building one is "radical".

[Archangel]

The current definition of liberal is, "if you don't agree with everything people like me say, you're a fascist, and ignorant, and evil".

That's why, while sharing a few of their views, I could never go along with them. It's the fucking hypocrisy. I'd rather vote for an actual fascist who admits it than for one who thinks that he's the most progressive liberal person on earth.

[TheImpossibleMan]

Arch's ancedotal, sweeping, childish characterizations: so hot right now.

[Archangel]

You know, I write a pretty good philosophical article there, and all you get from it is, "Arch is a bigot"...


Which tells me that you're an idiot.

[Archangel]

I mean, it's all in the word, as usual.

The word "culture" as Western civilisation defines it, is derived from the Latin "colere", which has several meanings: to till, to cultivate, to care for/maintain/protect, and to worship.

I said before that the forces within society most closely linked to conservative ideas are the churches and the military (I should have added agriculture, as well). Well, if you look at the word, they are what MAKE a culture, at its core. And all over the world, priests, warriors and farmers are pretty much the oldest social classes - castes, if you will - around. So they're at the core of the protonormalistic bubble, and most of them, being maybe more aware of their intimate ties to the essence of culture, care about preserving the status quo.

On the other hand, nobody has ever accused the left of being pro-agrarian, pro-religious, or pro-military.


The other difference between a conservative and a liberal, at least the smart ones, is, oh, 30 years. The problem begins when people who claim to be liberal and progressive cling to obsolete ideas which got the "progressive" moniker 150 years ago. There is, for example, hardly a more dogmatic, conservative, obsolete bunch of jackasses than the unions these days. And yet, because the self-proclaimed progressive left likes them, anybody who justly criticises them as a relic of the 19th century is called a backwards bigot, and then a fascist.
The German conservatives are doing more for environmental issues than the Greens did when they were in power, but because they're critical of the more radical, retarded ideas, they're called backwards and closed minded.

Et cetera, et cetera.


The fact is that an idea cannot remain "progressive" for 150 years because objective reality changes radically within that time. And this is why the European left, which is still trying to sell some of the most outdated ideas on earth (Rousseau, Marx, etc) as "modern", is slowly fading into obsolescence.


Good fucking riddance, I say.

[Axel]

The current definition of conservative is, "if you don't agree with everything people like me say, you're a communist, and ignorant, and evil".Right?

Intolerance for other side’s opinions is a common phenomenon for both sides indiscriminately.

[UNC]

I'm a liberal conservative

[Archetype]

I hate both. I hate politics.

[TheImpossibleMan]

You know, I write a pretty good philosophical article there, and all you get from it is, "Arch is a bigot"...


Which tells me that you're an idiot.
Jesus man, just stop lying. I didn't call you a bigot, nor do liberals say "If you don't agree with me you're a facist." I'm very left wing but I hardly think the left is perfect, you don't have to make shit up to attack the left's positions.

[Archetype]

TiM, just STOP.

[Pike Bishop]

The current definition of liberal is, "if you don't agree with everything people like me say, you're a fascist, and ignorant, and evil".

That's why, while sharing a few of their views, I could never go along with them. It's the fucking hypocrisy. I'd rather vote for an actual fascist who admits it than for one who thinks that he's the most progressive liberal person on earth.

Come on. You're too smart for the "intolerance of intolerance is intolerant" argument. I'll agree that liberals can be a bunch of sanctimonious assholes, depending on which ones you wind up bumping into. Of course the worst of the worst are the ones you find pontificating all over the internet (irony noted) but I'm not going to abandon a good idea just because the guy putting it out there can act like a jerk sometimes. If I would, it would also be impossible for me to be a conservative.

Anyway, back to the point: if you can complain about people being intolerant of the intolerant, why can't you also condemn the thirteenth amendment for being oppressive (since it oppresses poor little old plantation owners by preventing them from oppressing people)? I'll agree that logically it is a paradox not to tolerate intolerance, but Zeno had a bunch of paradoxes and they don't prevent me from believing in motion.

And about the punk thing: the real punks noticed that the superficial elements of their ethos were being co-opted and commercialized back in the early eighties, and they promptly abandoned it in favor of other modes of expression (musical and otherwise). Unfortunately it became a "style" devoid of an ethos and as a result we've had a bunch of ungrateful suburban dickhead teenagers who hate their parents (but still happily accept checks from them) subject us to a whole bunch of bullshit ever since the revival of the early '90s. We can't blame the Subhumans for that. [/rambling]

[Archangel]

Come on. You're too smart for the "intolerance of intolerance is intolerant" argument. I'll agree that liberals can be a bunch of sanctimonious assholes, depending on which ones you wind up bumping into. Of course the worst of the worst are the ones you find pontificating all over the internet (irony noted) but I'm not going to abandon a good idea just because the guy putting it out there can act like a jerk sometimes. If I would, it would also be impossible for me to be a conservative.

No I'm not.


I live in Europe, where I'm basically considered a fascist anyway.Our left talks about abolishing Christian churches on one hand, and protest FOR the building of mosques on the other.

They WILL blackball and slander you if you don't agree with their views. The conservative candidate for the governor of Hesse was called a nazi because he said, correctly, that a large part of juvenile delinquents are immigrants.

By the way, tolerance was invented by a man who said that the English language was only fit for peasants and beasts, so I never much cared for it anyway.
Today, tolerance means tolerating everything except the core values of your own society.

Trust me, you don't have an actual "left" in the US. You have Ralph Nader and Michael Moore; we had Stalin and Ulbricht.

[Archetype]

Aren't they a bit far beyond liberal?

[Axel]

I live in Europe, where I'm basically considered a fascist anyway. Our left talks about abolishing Christian churches on one hand, and protest FOR the building of mosques on the other.
...
Today, tolerance means tolerating everything except the core values of your own society.Generalization, Arch. And actually, you live in Germany.

I consider that political climate in Germany is specific and that a Nazi label is a way to much at hand of left extremists there - as much as it is a Commie label in many other parts of Europe.

Trust me, you don't have an actual "left" in the US.Definition of liberal and conservative is largely subjective and specific for different part of the world.

A division between "left" and "right" doesn’t equal to division between liberal and conserve. For instance, the idea of Liberalism has nothing to do with idea of Communism, so much less with practice of Bolshevism, while all of them are labeled as "left" ones.

You have Ralph Nader and Michael Moore; we had Stalin and Ulbricht.Aren't they a bit far beyond liberal?Exactly.

Seriously, would you classify Stalin and Ulbricht as liberals, Arch?

[Archangel]

I like to generalise. And since "liberal" in Europe actually means something totally different (actually, it means what it's supposed to mean, as in the ideas of Hume and Mill), I'll just have to make a difference between conservatives and leftists.

Hell, I'm on the right fringes of conservatism here; in America, I'd probably be considered a raging moonbat "liberal"...

[Yelram]

I like to generalise. And since "liberal" in Europe actually means something totally different (actually, it means what it's supposed to mean, as in the ideas of Hume and Mill), I'll just have to make a difference between conservatives and leftists.

Hell, I'm on the right fringes of conservatism here; in America, I'd probably be considered a raging moonbat "liberal"...

I was just talking to a girl the other night, and my reasoning for not being a lefty was that its groupism, and as soon as you dont fit in the group, they blackball you. She had apparently assumed that since my hair was long I agreed with everything she does. First she said "I dont do that", then I told her I wasnt sure I wanted to vote for Barack and BAM. OMG, I HOPE YOU DIE, bla bla bla. I've seen it happen time and time again, leftists are totally intolerant of other peoples views, whereas conservatives, although they disagree with things people do, or views of them, have never attacked me in that way.

[TheImpossibleMan]

Conservatives are very hateful, while liberals seem to be more fair and even minded.





















Wow, making sweeping, meaningless generalizations is fun!

[Willam]

I always simplified it this way.

Liberals would rather see 100 guilty people go free than have 1 innocent person go to jail.

Conservatives would rather see 1 innocent person go to jail than have 100 guilty people go free.

[halfabubbleoff]

I will come at this from the other side. Unlike Arch and Yelram, I identify more with the US Liberal movement than the Conservative.

The interesting thing is that I do it for many of the same reasons that Yelram mentioned. I was raised in a very socially conservative area. I was brought up on the core ideas of country, clan, and religion. Much of that still colors my world view.

However, as I aged, and expanded my world view, I was exposed to other ideas and cultures. Through those experiences, I learned that each group has different ideas which echo the greater truths of the world. None of them were completely right, so I tried to understand as much as I could about as many of them as possible. I took concepts from many belief systems and melded them into my own.

The down side to this "enlightenment" was returning to my roots. When speaking to people who share my conservative upbringing, I am treated as unclean or tainted in some way. I have been insulted and threatened for refusing to agree that one particular groups ideas are the universal truths. I have seen much more intolerance and hypocrisy from the conservatives than liberals in my experience. Many members of the conservative movement in the U.S. are just as hate filled and intolerant as Yelram points out liberals can be.

The intolerance issue is not unique to a belief system. Extreme members of both sides of this coin are rabid radicals with no patience for the beliefs of the other. That is a question of extremists using labels to fuel their own anger and egos. "We are better than them, so they must be destroyed."

I am not clear on the differences between the liberal idea and the Liberal parties in Europe. So I can't comment on Arch's experiences. I'm open to learn. It would be interesting to see how America has bastardized the term.

Unfortunately, Conservative in the U. S. is coming to equal Christian Evangelical. The core "small government" ideals and individual responsibility that the movement was founded on are being replaced by a radical movement that feels they need to dictate and maintain the moral purity of the country. It is the exact opposite of Arch's example. They decry the exclusion of Christian rights in every aspect of society, but are ready to outlaw and restrict any other religion, or even denomination.

I think the core reason why I identify more as a liberal is the fact that the majority of the moment has gone back to the idea of individual contributions to the whole as opposed to the conservative ideal of "follow and ask no questions".

As I have seen, much of this seems to hinge on personal experience. I find that fascinating. It seems to indicate that one's exposure to more extreme elements on either side have a strong bearing on which they relate to, personally.

Perhaps we should turn this into a discussion of what Liberal and Conservative are first. I think that discussion would be very interesting in the amount of overlap that appears as memebers of both groups deliver their belief structure.

[Claydon]

Now, what I am about to write is actually more for the US as this is what I have had the most experience with.

I believe that the mantles of liberalism and conservative have been hijacked by the extremes of the respective parties. I am a republican, everyone on this board is well aware of this. Now, what does that mean to you? Do visions of people dancing around holding venomous snakes come to mind? Stopping the teaching of evolution? The list can go on and on. I feel that the party I am a part of has been hijacked by the social/religious zealots of this party. I am a fiscal conservative but socially progressive, and yet there is little to no room for my views and others who share my views within this party.

What about a liberal? Do you envision fools dressed in pink outfits screaming no blood for oil while blocking a Marine recruiters office? JFK was a democrat, socially progressive and yet at least partially fiscally conservative, and a down right hawk when it came to foreign policy.

With this in mind, I would have to say is the real difference between these two groups is how they spend the tax monies. I would rather the money be spent for defense, grants for research and infrastructure. Whereas the left favors social programs, social medicine, midnight basketball etc.

[Yelram]

I will come at this from the other side. Unlike Arch and Yelram, I identify more with the US Liberal movement than the Conservative.

The interesting thing is that I do it for many of the same reasons that Yelram mentioned. I was raised in a very socially conservative area. I was brought up on the core ideas of country, clan, and religion. Much of that still colors my world view.

However, as I aged, and expanded my world view, I was exposed to other ideas and cultures. Through those experiences, I learned that each group has different ideas which echo the greater truths of the world. None of them were completely right, so I tried to understand as much as I could about as many of them as possible. I took concepts from many belief systems and melded them into my own.

The down side to this "enlightenment" was returning to my roots. When speaking to people who share my conservative upbringing, I am treated as unclean or tainted in some way. I have been insulted and threatened for refusing to agree that one particular groups ideas are the universal truths. I have seen much more intolerance and hypocrisy from the conservatives than liberals in my experience. Many members of the conservative movement in the U.S. are just as hate filled and intolerant as Yelram points out liberals can be.

The intolerance issue is not unique to a belief system. Extreme members of both sides of this coin are rabid radicals with no patience for the beliefs of the other. That is a question of extremists using labels to fuel their own anger and egos. "We are better than them, so they must be destroyed."

I am not clear on the differences between the liberal idea and the Liberal parties in Europe. So I can't comment on Arch's experiences. I'm open to learn. It would be interesting to see how America has bastardized the term.

Unfortunately, Conservative in the U. S. is coming to equal Christian Evangelical. The core "small government" ideals and individual responsibility that the movement was founded on are being replaced by a radical movement that feels they need to dictate and maintain the moral purity of the country. It is the exact opposite of Arch's example. They decry the exclusion of Christian rights in every aspect of society, but are ready to outlaw and restrict any other religion, or even denomination.

I think the core reason why I identify more as a liberal is the fact that the majority of the moment has gone back to the idea of individual contributions to the whole as opposed to the conservative ideal of "follow and ask no questions".

As I have seen, much of this seems to hinge on personal experience. I find that fascinating. It seems to indicate that one's exposure to more extreme elements on either side have a strong bearing on which they relate to, personally.

Perhaps we should turn this into a discussion of what Liberal and Conservative are first. I think that discussion would be very interesting in the amount of overlap that appears as memebers of both groups deliver their belief structure.

Please explain what specific issues that you were disagreeing about. Many people often take offense to you disagreeing with their religion. Politics on the other hand IS NOT PHILOSOPHY. It is not based off of some magnanimous, idealistic view, its based upon facts, and what facts work, and what dont. Philosophically, I consider myself extremely liberal. I am an alltheist. I find that Liberals in the United States do not accept all religions, but rather admonish ALL of them for being stupid, and ignorant. So oftentimes, religious people feel attacked, or threatened by this, and so therefore flock to the other party (see Arch's European reference). There is nothing entirely liberal about accepting other peoples ideas, just like there is nothing conservative about preventing the exchange of ideas.

[kid_vidrio]

Politics on the other hand IS NOT PHILOSOPHY. It is not based off of some magnanimous, idealistic view, its based upon facts, and what facts work, and what dont. Philosophically, I consider myself extremely liberal. I am an alltheist. I find that Liberals in the United States do not accept all religions, but rather admonish ALL of them for being stupid, and ignorant. So oftentimes, religious people feel attacked, or threatened by this, and so therefore flock to the other party (see Arch's European reference). There is nothing entirely liberal about accepting other peoples ideas, just like there is nothing conservative about preventing the exchange of ideas.
Generalize much while complaining about people who generalize?

And it is practically the definition of being conservative that, while you may exchange ideas, you would certainly never buy into something different like a light bulb went off.

And how can you possibly think that politics and philosophy are that far removed from one another.

For a time it seemed that you were not as misguided as I once thought you were, but time (and more posts) fixed that.

[freegood]

Hell, I'm on the right fringes of conservatism here; in America, I'd probably be considered a raging moonbat "liberal"...

It took Palin to get you to agree with a hardcore atheist like Sam Harris.

[Yelram]

Generalize much while complaining about people who generalize?

And it is practically the definition of being conservative that, while you may exchange ideas, you would certainly never buy into something different like a light bulb went off.

And how can you possibly think that politics and philosophy are that far removed from one another.

For a time it seemed that you were not as misguided as I once thought you were, but time (and more posts) fixed that.

If you think politics and philosophy are the same things, you are a marxist. They are polar opposites. To be a good human being you must be selfless, to be a good citizen, you must be selfish. Its how the different systems work. People should treat one another well, but when you become "selfless" in regards to the government, you are more or less opening the doors to government control. Politics is about solid systems, not hypothetical ones. Its funny how many liberals feel that philosophy should be included in government, but religion should not. For the past 15 years, conservatives have been the ones with new ideas, and the liberals have been the ones afraid of change (politically speaking).

[Archangel]

It took Palin to get you to agree with a hardcore atheist like Sam Harris.
Hey, nobody bashes American Protestant Christianity more than I do. Atheists and I agree on 90% of matters there, including the notion that Mrs Palin and her faith are a dangerous liability.
If you think politics and philosophy are the same things, you are a marxist. They are polar opposites.
Whoa whoa whoa there.

This guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_(dialogue)) disagrees. As does he (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_re_publica).
Him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_(Aristotle)), too. And that's just the BC guys. Hegel, Hobbes, Mill, Hume, Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, they all (and many others) philosophised about politics. Hell, The State is one of the chief thinking points of philosophy.

[halfabubbleoff]

Please explain what specific issues that you were disagreeing about. Many people often take offense to you disagreeing with their religion. Politics on the other hand IS NOT PHILOSOPHY. It is not based off of some magnanimous, idealistic view, its based upon facts, and what facts work, and what dont. Philosophically, I consider myself extremely liberal. I am an alltheist. I find that Liberals in the United States do not accept all religions, but rather admonish ALL of them for being stupid, and ignorant. So oftentimes, religious people feel attacked, or threatened by this, and so therefore flock to the other party (see Arch's European reference). There is nothing entirely liberal about accepting other peoples ideas, just like there is nothing conservative about preventing the exchange of ideas.

...

If you think politics and philosophy are the same things, you are a marxist. They are polar opposites. To be a good human being you must be selfless, to be a good citizen, you must be selfish. Its how the different systems work. People should treat one another well, but when you become "selfless" in regards to the government, you are more or less opening the doors to government control. Politics is about solid systems, not hypothetical ones. Its funny how many liberals feel that philosophy should be included in government, but religion should not. For the past 15 years, conservatives have been the ones with new ideas, and the liberals have been the ones afraid of change (politically speaking).

This only serves as an example of my point from the end of my post. This seems to be very subjective to me. Our experiences are polar opposites. I have always found that the liberals I speak with are very tolerant toward other cultures and religions. Tolerant until they seek to impose their beliefs and will on others, that is. "The only thing I can't tolerate, is intolerance"

As to your first question to me (because I feel it would be rude not to answer), there are not real specific issues that you can list here (beyond "who will you vote for, etc"). They range from cultural and racial diversity, and religious acceptance to international affairs and unquestioning loyalty to social/political leaders. Any new idea is met with suspicion at best, if not outright hostility.

Unfortunately, your statement separating politics from religion in the US is becoming less true by the day. Much of the "Conservative Base" talked about in the political arena is based in the Evangelical Movement. I am a firm believer in separating church and state. I believe the person should have strong beliefs, and religion definitely contributes to that. However, the Office is a different matter. A country needs to make choices that are not always in agreement with one's religion, but do serve the greater good of the nation. This movement toward a "Christian America" that is gaining so much influence in the Conservative ranks smacks of theocracy to me.

You made an interesting statement. "I find that Liberals in the United States do not accept all religions, but rather admonish ALL of them for being stupid, and ignorant." I have found that to be true in militant atheists, but not in liberals as a whole. Again, I think this comes back to personal experiences. Which is worse a liberal atheist or a Christian conservative? They seem equally intolerant to me....

One last point: The "selfless" vs. "selfish" views above confound me. I have always felt that to be most effective in government, one must be selfless. They must be willing to put the needs of a nation before their own for the betterment of all. An ideal citizen is willing to pay taxes in order to provide for those unable to provide for themselves. They accept government programs that do not benefit them with the knowledge that these programs offer some benefit to the Nation.

The key is moderation, as it is in all things. I dislike the extreme liberals that Yelram has encountered every bit as much as I dislike the extreme conservatives in my own experience. A government will not survive if it's people are blind followers (selfless) or concerned with only their own lives (selfish).

I still find it amazing that Yelram and I have had such opposing experiences with the conservative and liberal movements. I admit that it really piques my interest.

[Yelram]

This only serves as an example of my point from the end of my post. This seems to be very subjective to me. Our experiences are polar opposites. I have always found that the liberals I speak with are very tolerant toward other cultures and religions. Tolerant until they seek to impose their beliefs and will on others, that is. "The only thing I can't tolerate, is intolerance"

As to your first question to me (because I feel it would be rude not to answer), there are not real specific issues that you can list here (beyond "who will you vote for, etc"). They range from cultural and racial diversity, and religious acceptance to international affairs and unquestioning loyalty to social/political leaders. Any new idea is met with suspicion at best, if not outright hostility.

Unfortunately, your statement separating politics from religion in the US is becoming less true by the day. Much of the "Conservative Base" talked about in the political arena is based in the Evangelical Movement. I am a firm believer in separating church and state. I believe the person should have strong beliefs, and religion definitely contributes to that. However, the Office is a different matter. A country needs to make choices that are not always in agreement with one's religion, but do serve the greater good of the nation. This movement toward a "Christian America" that is gaining so much influence in the Conservative ranks smacks of theocracy to me.

You made an interesting statement. "I find that Liberals in the United States do not accept all religions, but rather admonish ALL of them for being stupid, and ignorant." I have found that to be true in militant atheists, but not in liberals as a whole. Again, I think this comes back to personal experiences. Which is worse a liberal atheist or a Christian conservative? They seem equally intolerant to me....

One last point: The "selfless" vs. "selfish" views above confound me. I have always felt that to be most effective in government, one must be selfless. They must be willing to put the needs of a nation before their own for the betterment of all. An ideal citizen is willing to pay taxes in order to provide for those unable to provide for themselves. They accept government programs that do not benefit them with the knowledge that these programs offer some benefit to the Nation.

The key is moderation, as it is in all things. I dislike the extreme liberals that Yelram has encountered every bit as much as I dislike the extreme conservatives in my own experience. A government will not survive if it's people are blind followers (selfless) or concerned with only their own lives (selfish).

I still find it amazing that Yelram and I have had such opposing experiences with the conservative and liberal movements. I admit that it really piques my interest.


Heres why. I respect the people for having different beliefs, but WRONG is WRONG. If someones been around 70 years, and they tell me communism is a bad idea, I dont say "oh pish, you are just old, get with the times". I say, OH yeah, you watched fascism come and go, and communism, hey MAYBE I'M THE ONE WHO NEEDS TO LISTEN. I go into old peoples houses everyday, and I look like a fucking hippy, and I have NEVER been treated badly by them. But the SECOND some dumbshit liberal that thinks everyone with a pony tail thinks Bush is the second coming of the Antichrist, finds out i'm a republican, I get treated like i'm sub-human. People should be allowed to vote for things that they support, even if those things they support are part of their religion. Its funny that the original intention of the separation of church and state was to keep CHARITY, and THE COLLECTION PLATE centered around the church, and to prevent the government from making its own church to control the people, and yet thats EXACTYLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED. A citizen MUST be selfish or the WHEELS OF GOVERNMENT WILL NEVER TURN, but as a HUMAN you must be selfless. I DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT TAKING MY MONEY TO USE AS CHARITY. If I want to give selflessly, THAT IS MY DECISION, NOT FUCKING CONGRESSES. There are just so many morons out there who bow down to the church of social programs. THERE IS NOT A MOVEMENT TOWARDS CHRISTIAN AMERICA. AMERICA HAS ALWAYS BEEN CHRISTIAN. I dont understand what kind of propaganda you are reading, or what laws specifically you believe give some sort of special power to christians. I think alot of your problems stem from family issues, which is understandable. Parents try to raise you right, and some dumbass professor molds your mush-filled head into something that they dont recognize, under the guise of being "progressive" or "open minded". An open mind is like a set trap, just waiting for misdirection, the ties that bind, distort the map, and drive our self correction.

And Arch, laws are not based upon philosophy. what is "fair" may be based in some sort of philosophy, be it religious, or societal, but the law that is written is not philosophical at all. Its the difference between the golden rule, and Hammurabi's code. I have yet to see someone not turn in an insurance claim because "well I wouldnt want to have MY rate go up".

[Mustard]

Using CAPITALS vs. not using capitals.

That is the real difference between libs and cons.

[Archetype]

Using CAPITALS vs. not using capitals.

That is the real difference between libs and cons.
But you just used both. Sink...are you god?

[Mustard]

No. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn once.

[Archetype]

Please explain what specific issues that you were disagreeing about. Many people often take offense to you disagreeing with their religion. Politics on the other hand IS NOT PHILOSOPHY. It is not based off of some magnanimous, idealistic view, its based upon facts, and what facts work, and what dont.
God I hate that fucking word. Fact.

Politics is the act of acquiring power. Socially, economically, that's what it revolves around. It's very tribal. Political ideology is just that act of acquiring power with a specific worldview. You can't cut off philosophy from anything, but I agree with Yelram in that politics is very much non-philosophical, by nature of it's existence. It's about acting, and immediacy; if a philosopher king truly did exist, nothing would get done. Gautama left his palace first, then founded Buddhism. This movement toward a "Christian America" that is gaining so much influence in the Conservative ranks smacks of theocracy to me.

You've piqued my interest, what's so bad about theocracy? Civilization was founded on theocracies, and the first secularist nations? Founded by warrior-kings bent on world domination.

The key is moderation, as it is in all things.

That still bothers me, though it's pretty unrelated. I think that was the Apollonian idea of morality, moderation and compassion in all things. But philosophically, it just fucks with me, it doesn't fit, anyone know of a work that expounds on the idea?

[Archangel]

It's funny that Americans get so hung up on the separation of church and religion when thy're far more governed by pseudo-religious beliefs, while in a secular country as ours, the ruling party is called the Christian Democratic Union.

[taters]

This is a very 'conservative oriented' analysis of liberals. I almost unilaterally disagree with it, and will even go as far as partially agreeing with something Pharon said ina nother thread.

Liberal and Conservative are subjective terms that do not qualify all political beliefs. In one setting, fiscalists and libertarians can be seen as liberal, in another as conservatives. The same with religious people.

People have been duped into believing there are two simple easily quantifiable 'wings' to every argument. I blame the media and the urge to simply arguments that most people have. This is not the case.

For instance, in a communist state, socialist would be seen as 'conservative', and in a autocracy or theocracy, libertarians would be seen as 'liberal'. The truth is, neither clearly qualify for that description.

[Archetype]

Try blaming people. It's people's fault.

[halfabubbleoff]

Heres why. I respect the people for having different beliefs, but WRONG is WRONG. If someones been around 70 years, and they tell me communism is a bad idea, I dont say "oh pish, you are just old, get with the times". I say, OH yeah, you watched fascism come and go, and communism, hey MAYBE I'M THE ONE WHO NEEDS TO LISTEN. I go into old peoples houses everyday, and I look like a fucking hippy, and I have NEVER been treated badly by them. ...

No need to quote it all, I think.

Yelram, you have obviously been the victim of some bad situations and some undeserved criticism and abuse. I understand the why of your reaction, even if I feel it is misplaced when directed at me. I do not disagree with any of your points. In fact I agree with most of them. It is critical to listen to those with experience and learn from that. In fact, if you look at my precious posts, the fact that I do listen is the reason I align myself with liberals more than conservatives.

I do agree with you. My longer hair has only once been an issue. I had an employer who almost did not hire me because of it. What I have encountered is the same situation you have. As soon as I state anything that differs from their belief system, I am attacked and vilified as a "bleeding heart liberal". Heck, I've even had people call me a gullible idiot for recycling soda bottles. Nothing religious or even controversial in that.

You got rather heated by the end of your post (judging by your use of CAPS anyway).... I agree that part of the separation of Church and State was the charity plate, and I prefer it. However, that was not the only core reason. Many people came to the Colonies to avoid religious persecution from the Church of England. One of the core principals of this nation was the right to worship freely without government interference. Yes, America has always been a Christian Nation, and a Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and even Scientologist one as well. That is why there is no "State Religion" the idea was to insure that this was a place where people did not have to live in fear of worshiping peacefully.

I don't read propaganda. I don't engage in personal attacks. I expressed my beliefs based on my past experiences and noted that they were very close to your own, just on the opposite side of the coin.

There is one statement you made that I do take issue with.
I think alot of your problems stem from family issues, which is understandable. Parents try to raise you right, and some dumbass professor molds your mush-filled head into something that they dont recognize, under the guise of being "progressive" or "open minded". An open mind is like a set trap, just waiting for misdirection, the ties that bind, distort the map, and drive our self correction.

I know what propaganda you are reading. I've heard it for years. The reason for my belief system has nothing to do with any "dumbass professor". My views are my own, constructed from my experience. I read avidly. Through reading, I was exposed to many views that did not always match what I had heard in my rural hometown. I was shown that life is not always black and white. I saw that the stereotypes I had been raised with were not always right. I met, and became friends with people from different countries and ethnic groups. I even felt the bite of racism, myself. My parents are conservative in most of their beliefs, yes. Here is the problem with your argument. They did raise me right. They raised me to question things and express my opinions. My college was a conservative school with a former Jesuit as my favorite professor.

Liberal or Conservative labels have nothing to do with someone's level of intelligence or moral fiber. I never tried to belittle your opinion or beliefs. I sympathize with your experiences and would apologize on behalf of liberals everywhere if it would mean anything. The core of my belief structure is the exchange of ideas. One cannot have that if everyone shares the same views. That is a lot of why I like posting here. GMF is a great place to hear different perspectives. I don't always agree with Arch, but I do admire him. Sure, he was the only friend request I ever got on the old GMF, but that is irrelevant.

Another great thread. Thanks everyone.


Oh, and Sink: Were the CAPs OK?

[freegood]

Does ideology trump facts? Studies say it often does (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080924-does-ideology-trump-facts-studies-say-it-often-does.html)

We like to think that people will be well informed before making important decisions, such as who to vote for, but the truth is that's not always the case. Being uninformed is one thing, but having a population that's actively misinformed presents problems when it comes to participating in the national debate, or the democratic process. If the findings of some political scientists are right, attempting to correct misinformation might do nothing more than reinforce the false belief.
http://media.arstechnica.com/news.media/1330873foxnewsgraph.jpg

This sort of misinformation isn't hypothetical; in 2003 a study found that viewers of Fox News were significantly more misinformed (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php) about the Iraq war, with far greater percentages of viewers erroneously believing that Iraq possessed WMDs or that there was a credible link between the 9/11 attack and Saddam Hussein than those who got their news from other outlets like NPR and PBS. This has led to the rise of websites like FactCheck (http://www.factcheck.org/) and SourceWatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch).

Saying that correcting misinformation does little more than reinforce a false belief is a pretty controversial proposal, but the claim is based on a number of studies that examine the effect of political or ideological bias on fact correction. In the studies, volunteers were shown news items or political adverts that contained misinformation, followed by a correction. For example, a study by John Bullock of Yale showed volunteers a political ad created by NARAL that linked Justice John Roberts to a violent anti-abortion group, followed by news that the ad had been withdrawn. Interestingly, Democratic participants had a worse opinion (http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/7/4/5/pages97459/p97459-21.php) of Roberts after being shown the ad, even after they were told it was false.

Over half (56 percent) of Democratic subjects disapproved of Roberts before the misinformation. That rose to 80 percent afterward, but even after correcting the misinformation, 72 percent of Democratic subjects still had a negative opinion. Republican volunteers, on the other hand, only showed a small increase in disapproval after watching the misinformation (11 percent vs 14 percent).

Along those lines, a pair of political scientists, Brendan Nyhan of Duke and Jason Reifler of Georgia State, have shown a similar effect (http://www.duke.edu/%7Ebjn3/nyhan-reifler.pdf), this time concerning misinformation surrounding the presence of WMDs in Iraq, tax cuts, or stem cell research. Participants were shown news reports that contained inaccuracies, followed by a correction. The news reports were not real, but were presented to the volunteers as coming from either the New York Times or Fox News. Again, the findings suggest that facts that contradicted political ideology were simply not taken in; if anything, challenging misbelief with fact checking has the counterintuitive effect of reinforcing that misbelief.

Unlike the Bullock study, Nyhan and Reifler only demonstrate this effect of cognitive dissonance on Republican volunteers, and acknowledge that follow-up studies are needed with liberal or Democratic volunteers.
These findings, if true, have worrying implications. Cognitive dissonance won't help people make rational decisions, but it also suggests that there's little point in arguing with someone who holds an opposing belief. Could this response be why, despite being repeatedly refuted in the media, the percentage of Americans who believe Sen. Obama to be a Muslim continues to grow (http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=509)? The research might also apply beyond the political to other attitudes—I'm thinking of the constant flame wars between fans of the PS3 and Xbox 360, or Mac and PC users. Is all that time spent in the Battlefront (http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums?a=corfrm&cf=48409524) or the Soap Box (http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/frm/f/28609695) wasted?

It seems to suggest that this effect might lead to problems when it comes to efforts to educate people about controversial or politically charged topics; I'm thinking here of climate change or evolution skeptics, both groups that have been targeted by think tanks and interest groups with vested interests in challenging accepted facts. It also points to the rationale behind media outlets like Fox News or Air America, where ideologues can have facts that support their world view continually reinforced. Sadly, that's bad news for anyone who's interested in honest and open public debate.

[halfabubbleoff]

OK, I'm verbose and convoluted in my posts, but that is too dry for me.

Freegood, are you saying that each side is a product of the information they are given and only chooses to believe the information that already supports their preexisting views or fears?

Or was this just a good spot to post that article, and I am reading way too much into this?

[Tar Heel]

Nothing like a thread full of generalizations of Black and white personalities in a world full of grey people. Seriously, Conservative and Liberal are not the only two ways to be.

[Tar Heel]

I am more of a Conserveraltarian. Fiscally Conservative, pro choice, pro guns, anti Afffirmative action, pro oil drilling, pro public education and health care, for the legalization of marijuanna, and fucking up terrorists.

[Morfin]

Fuck you! You're either with us or agin us!

[freegood]

OK, I'm verbose and convoluted in my posts, but that is too dry for me.

Freegood, are you saying that each side is a product of the information they are given and only chooses to believe the information that already supports their preexisting views or fears?

Or was this just a good spot to post that article, and I am reading way too much into this?

Cons are fascist nutjobs and libs are pinko fags

[Phil Theehor]

Liberal or Conservative labels have nothing to do with someone's level of intelligence or moral fiber. I never tried to belittle your opinion or beliefs. I sympathize with your experiences and would apologize on behalf of liberals everywhere if it would mean anything. The core of my belief structure is the exchange of ideas. One cannot have that if everyone shares the same views. That is a lot of why I like posting here. GMF is a great place to hear different perspectives. I don't always agree with Arch, but I do admire him. Sure, he was the only friend request I ever got on the old GMF, but that is irrelevant.

Another great thread. Thanks everyone.



That engendered a non-ironic slow clap. Beautiful.




Same with liberal intelligentsia. I like to point out that there is no one more closed minded than the prophets of tolerance.

That’s well-said, too. The culture of tolerance is no longer really a culture of open-mindedness. I would say that I am intolerant of intolerance, but from this standpoint—everyone has the right to hold and express their own point of view. If what they say is retarded, then you have the right to call it just that. You’re not being intolerant for pointing it out—you are merely participating in the competition of ideas.


You've piqued my interest, what's so bad about theocracy? Civilization was founded on theocracies, and the first secularist nations? Founded by warrior-kings bent on world domination.


That’s an excellent point from a historical perspective. I think your answer, however, lies in the world around us. Just look at the theocracies that still exist. Bad news. They hang homos from cranes under the guise that their activity offends Allah. Scary.

The trouble with a government founded on religion is that religious rules are, in theory, passed down from a higher power. That makes them awfully tough to amend. It’s a lot easier to say “our rule is outdated” than to say “God’s will is outdated”. For a government to serve its people, it has to be able to adapt along with its people.



Perhaps we should turn this into a discussion of what Liberal and Conservative are first. I think that discussion would be very interesting in the amount of overlap that appears as memebers of both groups deliver their belief structure.

Agreed. We have a two party system, well, because it works. We needn’t build some crazy coalition of several after every election in order to build a government.

However, the downside is that there is an enormous contingent of voters who are not represented by either party—who have to hold their nose every election and pull the lever for the least offensive of the two electable options. The biggest unrepresented group that I can see are the Libertarians (originally the Liberals), who value for personal freedom and personal responsibility.

There’s really no good choice for folks like Mr. Tar Heel. The Republicans want to legislate private matters that they have no fucking right to. They (especially Bush) rally The Great Stupid by inferring that whatever is wrong with their lives can be blamed on Mexicans. Or homos.

The Dems want to take every last cent you make and redistribute it. And they want to kill business, too. And serve as economic hall monitors who punish those who achieve.

Conservatives are very hateful, while liberals seem to be more fair and even minded.

Wow, making sweeping, meaningless generalizations is fun!

Adolescent, snarky failed attempts at irony probably pass for actual debate elsewhere on the forum, but not here.

Tool.


(That’s an example of the competition of ideas. He has every right in the world to spout stupid shit. It’s our collective duty to point it out as such. I didn’t want to call him a tool, but due to my libertarian mindset, felt I owed it to him).

[halfabubbleoff]

Ah! Now I get it. Thanks, Freegood!

Tar: I see eye to eye with you on much of that. I'm pretty conservative on the fiscal end, myself. I have to lean liberal on it, if only for the fact that I am pro spending on government aid programs. Lets see about the rest:

pro choice? Yep.
pro guns? Yes (within reason) I'm not a person who believes you need an AK47 or anti-tank weapons in your home, though. Let's keep it reasonable.
anti Afffirmative action? It was needed, but I think if is being abused now.
pro oil drilling? That is a tricky one. I am leaning toward no, but I am seeing very good evidence to support limited expansion. Undecided at this time.
pro public education? definitely
and health care? Not sold on this one. Get a better handle on the malpractice crap out there, and I think the market will correct this one on its own.

I guess that makes me a "pinko nutjob" then???

[redsox39]

Aren't they a bit far beyond liberal?

Not really. they just had balls to pull off what you want to talk about in a coffee shop.

[redsox39]

Generalization, Arch. And actually, you live in Germany.

I consider that political climate in Germany is specific and that a Nazi label is a way to much at hand of left extremists there - as much as it is a Commie label in many other parts of Europe.

Definition of liberal and conservative is largely subjective and specific for different part of the world.

A division between "left" and "right" doesn’t equal to division between liberal and conserve. For instance, the idea of Liberalism has nothing to do with idea of Communism, so much less with practice of Bolshevism, while all of them are labeled as "left" ones.

Exactly.

Seriously, would you classify Stalin and Ulbricht as liberals, Arch?

Really, Communism has nothing to do with Liberals? Guess that whole income redistribution doesn't hold water either. Or the oppression of thoughts contrary to your own. Or the Lust for power. Or the hatred for the rich. Or the backhanded compliments and charities for the poor and minorities...

[Phil Theehor]

Ah! Now I get it. Thanks, Freegood!

Tar: I see eye to eye with you on much of that. I'm pretty conservative on the fiscal end, myself. I have to lean liberal on it, if only for the fact that I am pro spending on government aid programs. Lets see about the rest:

pro choice? Yep.
pro guns? Yes (within reason) I'm not a person who believes you need an AK47 or anti-tank weapons in your home, though. Let's keep it reasonable.
anti Afffirmative action? It was needed, but I think if is being abused now.
pro oil drilling? That is a tricky one. I am leaning toward no, but I am seeing very good evidence to support limited expansion. Undecided at this time.
pro public education? definitely
and health care? Not sold on this one. Get a better handle on the malpractice crap out there, and I think the market will correct this one on its own.

I guess that makes me a "pinko nutjob" then???

Hardly. You have values from both sides of the spectrum. That makes you a) someone capable of forming his own opinions and b) not really that well represented by either party.

[Phil Theehor]

Really, Communism has nothing to do with Liberals? Guess that whole income redistribution doesn't hold water either. Or the oppression of thoughts contrary to your own. Or the Lust for power. Or the hatred for the rich. Or the backhanded compliments and charities for the poor and minorities...

We've got a language disconnect here. I think he means "Liberal" in a classical sense.

Had Dutch Reagan been around at the time that Marx was developing the tenets of communism, he would have been known as a Liberal.

[halfabubbleoff]

Really, Communism has nothing to do with Liberals? Guess that whole income redistribution doesn't hold water either. Or the oppression of thoughts contrary to your own. Or the Lust for power. Or the hatred for the rich. Or the backhanded compliments and charities for the poor and minorities...

One thing kills me with the quote above. I've been called an Ivory Tower Elitist and a Pinko both. Which is true?
Do I hate the rich and powerful, or lust after it?
Is caring for the underprivileged covering a deep desire to belittle them?
Do I want a big government nanny state, or all power to the people?
Worse yet, do I secretly want to plunge the nation into the chaos that comes from Red Soviet Socialism?!?:eek:


Sorry for the light hearted jabs, but I hear the Liberal=Communist argument a lot from the very same people who would fight if you tied Conservative to Fascist. You are right, they are just as equally related. Both are extreme forms of the other. As such, they should always be on the forefront of our minds as reminders of the evils we could become without exercising self control.

[Archetype]

Not really. they just had balls to pull off what you want to talk about in a coffee shop.
I hate both. I hate politics.
Idiot.

[taters]

I am more of a Conserveraltarian. Fiscally Conservative, pro choice, pro guns, anti Afffirmative action, pro oil drilling, pro public education and health care, for the legalization of marijuanna, and fucking up terrorists.

Unfortunately, with base conservatives, the Anti-Affirmative Action and Pro-Gun would lead them to believe your more in their camp.

I am pro gun, pro-choice, pro-smoking-choice, pro legalization, pro- public healthcare and education and pro-affirmative action, pro-union, pro-gay marriage and pro-environmentalism (in the forms of being against logging, draining wetlands, over development, and pro-water flouridization), but the only thing people will focus out on once they see me (in person) is the pro-affirmative action, and they will make judgment of themselves and myself from there.

Many or most of the American people will make all judgments on the most obvious or simplified characteristic they can see. Color and Gender being the first. Dress and attire being the second. Speech being the third a nd everything else after.

[Yelram]

One thing kills me with the quote above. I've been called an Ivory Tower Elitist and a Pinko both. Which is true?
Do I hate the rich and powerful, or lust after it?
Is caring for the underprivileged covering a deep desire to belittle them?
Do I want a big government nanny state, or all power to the people?
Worse yet, do I secretly want to plunge the nation into the chaos that comes from Red Soviet Socialism?!?:eek:



If you look at the history of communism, its based upon rallying the "pinkos" in order to secure power, by stealing money from the rich, its all of those. You know what you "want" and they use that to get you to do what they "want". Last time I checked the Nazis were "NATIONAL SOCIALISTS"

[taters]

If you look at the history of communism, its based upon rallying the "pinkos" in order to secure power, by stealing money from the rich, its all of those. You know what you "want" and they use that to get you to do what they "want". Last time I checked the Nazis were "NATIONAL SOCIALISTS"

What communist nation do you speak of that 'rallied the pinko's'? China, Russia, Cuba, Angola, Albania and Yugoslavia all were made communist by rallying the workers, not the elitist. In fact, the nations that rallied the elitist were usually the authoritarian or facist (Germany, Italy, Tsarist Russia)

By the way Yelram, you know just as well as ANYONE else here that just because the nazi's were called national socialist does NOT mean they were in ANY way socialist, or anything like communist. I know weve had this convo before (or at least I think it was you). If youve read Mein Kampf, as well as anything by Lenin, Marx, Hegel, Rousseau, or Trotsky, you would know Fascism is fundamentally as different from Communism as Anarchy is from it.

Hitler despised the communist and partially came to power by arguing his opponents were communist (sound familiar?) Facism is not the same as socialism, and has almost nothing in common (other than revolution and authortarian type leadership) with communism. Both economically and public policy wise.

[Phil Theehor]

That Yelram, Taters (& Bubble, to an extent) debate what similarities, if any, exist between Communism and Fascism is interesting.

In practice (if not in philosophy), communist regimes (at least the ones I have seen) are authoritative and militaristic. While they might preach that the state serves the people, it is really the other way around. As such (in practice) the major difference between communisism and fascism is the dogma trotted out to help keep people in line.


People usually plot political ideologies on a linear graph. Left on one end, right on the other. I think of it more as a circle. Where you fall on the circle relies not on traditional right and left, but where you fall out on issues of individual rights and responsibilities. Communism and Fascism are adjacent on one end of the circle, Libertarianism sits on the opposite side.

EDIT: Anarchy would actually sit on the opposite side of Communists and Fascists. Libertarianism would be one notch insided.

[Archetype]

Um, which (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_schools_of_thought) anarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_and_present_anarchist_communities#The_autonom ous_Shinmin_region_.281929-1931.29) are you talking about?

[Phil Theehor]

Fair question. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Anarchy in the literal sense. No government.

[Archetype]

I don't think you understand. There are completely different ways of playing the anarchist game, from pro-social order/pro-state/anti-government, to chaotic militaristic and slave funded anarchism. I mean, shit, pure communism is supposed to be anarchic.

[taters]

I don't think you understand. There are completely different ways of playing the anarchist game, from pro-social order/pro-state/anti-government, to chaotic militaristic and slave funded anarchism. I mean, shit, pure communism is supposed to be anarchic.

Only in the sense that each person 'does their own thing aside from what is needed from them'. A true anarchy lacks the organized structure of communisms economic catagorizations.

On the other hand, some people say a true libertarianship would be a form of anarchy, but replacing 'government' with 'market' changes nothing in terms of individual freedom.

[Insomniac]

Ideology exists even in the absence of government.

[Yelram]

What communist nation do you speak of that 'rallied the pinko's'? China, Russia, Cuba, Angola, Albania and Yugoslavia all were made communist by rallying the workers, not the elitist. In fact, the nations that rallied the elitist were usually the authoritarian or facist (Germany, Italy, Tsarist Russia)

By the way Yelram, you know just as well as ANYONE else here that just because the nazi's were called national socialist does NOT mean they were in ANY way socialist, or anything like communist. I know weve had this convo before (or at least I think it was you). If youve read Mein Kampf, as well as anything by Lenin, Marx, Hegel, Rousseau, or Trotsky, you would know Fascism is fundamentally as different from Communism as Anarchy is from it.

Hitler despised the communist and partially came to power by arguing his opponents were communist (sound familiar?) Facism is not the same as socialism, and has almost nothing in common (other than revolution and authortarian type leadership) with communism. Both economically and public policy wise.


"Pinko is a derogatory term for a person regarded as sympathetic to Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism), though not necessarily a Communist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party) member. The term has its origins in the notion that pink is a lighter shade of red, the color associated with communism; thus pink could be thought of as a "lighter form of communism" promoted by mere supporters of socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) who weren't, themselves, "card-carrying" communists."

Wrong yet again.


"First, both communism and fascism are types of authoritarian rule, where the interests and freedoms of the individual are subordinated to those of the state, and quite frequently a powerful leader. Secondly, in many cases both fascist and communist rule are bolstered by a highly powerful military apparatus, as a way to stifle opposition. Thirdly, both types of government are statist, in that the central government has some degree of control over the economic means of production (as opposed to, say a free market, or laissez-faire economy as in the US), and also oftentimes social policy. "

The main key difference is that communism works by finding fundamental similarities between people of different ethnicities, primarily their economic positioning. Whereas fascism focuses on the differences between ethnic groups, and rallies the majority population. Either way they trick people into supporting things that they wouldnt if they knew the big picture.

[Phil Theehor]

I don't think you understand. There are completely different ways of playing the anarchist game, from pro-social order/pro-state/anti-government, to chaotic militaristic and slave funded anarchism. I mean, shit, pure communism is supposed to be anarchic.

I do understand. And I get all that. Relax. In describing the sphere, I was using the literal translation of anarchy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy), which is an absence of government. I was merely pointing to the concept of anarchy as the opposite of totalitarianism. Please let me know if you require further clarificaion. Otherwise, let's move on with the discussion.

[Archangel]

Um, tater, you are aware that the granddaddy of fascism, Benito Mussolini, was a former socialist, right? And that the full name of the nazis was the "national socialist workers' party"?

[taters]

Um, tater, you are aware that the granddaddy of fascism, Benito Mussolini, was a former socialist, right? And that the full name of the nazis was the "national socialist workers' party"?


By the way Yelram, you know just as well as ANYONE else here that just because the nazi's were called national socialist does NOT mean they were in ANY way socialist, or anything like communist. I know weve had this convo before (or at least I think it was you). If youve read Mein Kampf, as well as anything by Lenin, Marx, Hegel, Rousseau, or Trotsky, you would know Fascism is fundamentally as different from Communism as Anarchy is from it.

Facism the term was formalized by the Mussolini, but the idea behind it had existed long before. Franco, Hegel (in parts), Neitzsche, even (if you go out on a stretch) Cromwell all had or endorsed the ideal 'facist' regimes, only it was before the term existed.

Yelram:

Apologies. I took your term 'pinko' as the effeminate term for 'hippies, liberals' equating them with women/gay people.

The main key difference is that communism works by finding fundamental similarities between people of different ethnicities, primarily their economic positioning. Whereas fascism focuses on the differences between ethnic groups, and rallies the majority population. Either way they trick people into supporting things that they wouldnt if they knew the big picture.

I do not totally disagree with your definition. However, I would say the primary difference is in economic policy. Communism blends economic policy with public policy by (in theory, not in action) placing all people as active equal partners in the government. Fascism does the the same by taking the people out as equal partners in the government.

National Socialism is (was) about as socialist (or communist, which is different than socialist) as the Holy Roman Empire was Holy, or Roman, or an Empire. Names mean nothing.

[Archangel]

Um, it was an empire, all right.

[Pax Britannia]

Just ask the Poles.

Actually thats probably a sore subject.

[STDSkillz]

I don't agree with that.

[Yelram]

The real answer is a man named Richard and cats...

*For those who don't get that, too bad...

A cat with 9 legs?

[Yelram]

Nope... Dicks and pussies...

Those who are to dumb to do their job and those who are to scared to...

Your welcome...

Everyones welcome.

[Joe's Job]

True... How true...