Comments
CaptoOuterSpace t1_j0vr27w wrote
I read it snorting
bumharmony t1_j0w98at wrote
I would not know by tribe even if I wanted to.
Opposite_Personality t1_j0ut9ge wrote
Who is "our"? How is this not propaganda for the status quo?
I don't have conflicting political beliefs, AMA!
literally_a_brick t1_j0v262t wrote
I was thinking the exact same thing upon reading. The click bait-y title and tag line referring to seemingly all "political beliefs" later gives way to "political beliefs of mainstream political parties endorsed by the majority of Americans". I really hope the author's upcoming book about the subject doesn't just use this reductive duopolistic take on political belief.
DJ-Dowism t1_j0vn7l5 wrote
100%. If you take the time to examine your beliefs and construct your own view of the world and how you see political structures best helping us, there should be no hypocrisy or conflict in your ideology. If you instead pick an off-the-shelf ideology from an existing party built to lure people with hot button issues and rage at their "enemies" as cover for servicing their corporate sponsors, then yeah there's going to be a lot of problems.
Very interested though - how would you describe your political ideology/philosophy?
Opposite_Personality t1_j0w8bpz wrote
Thanks for the gentle reply. Of course I am aware of such mechanisms; I made the reply half way jokingly, but I really wanted a challenge. I don't believe in party politics nor left/right dynamics so we already eliminated historical imperatives, tribalism and virtue signaling :D
You made a very incisive question. It is difficult to describe my political leanings and this was very conflicting to me a couple of years back. The only hard beliefs that I have are local organization (comunal overseeing of basic needs and its solutions) and mutual aid (in-group and out-group). Nothing else.
Today I don't even believe in human rights. Just in basic decency and denying people their want to step on everybody else's life (unless actually asked to). And of course, I believe in violence as last resort in case the other two don't work. Maybe I am just over-saturated with systemic issues, but I truly believe people in our time became extremely backwards (prude, passive-aggressive and manipulable).
Am I a conservative? I truly believe conservative is but the first instinct of an ignorant mind; not a political or intellectual theory but a simple practice. I have been years searching for a true conservative intellectual to only find prudes, dum-dums and sold out pseudo-academics. Liberals and Leftists on the other hand seem more respectable to me, but don't seem able to give their life for others. So, more smoke.
ClosetLink t1_j0x0h3t wrote
> Liberals and Leftists on the other hand seem more respectable to me, but don't seem able to give their life for others. So, more smoke.
I'm not sure I follow your logic here. Are you talking about, like... joining the military? What does that have to do with having logical and/or correct beliefs? And what about the many who do?
Unless you don't mean literally "dying", but rather things that help the lives of others (like healthcare, etc.), in which case I'm even more surprised by your conclusion, but won't ask more.
Opposite_Personality t1_j14x2p6 wrote
I despise police and military institutions. This logic of killing and smacking around people for freedom, the future and the children is all mentally challenged to me.
I mean actually rolling up your sleeves and serving ex middle class people that's living below bridges right now. Mobilizing for them instead of against them and their disgraced middle class dreams.
Capitalism as a system is in bankruptcy right now (probably already taken out by Technofeudalism, two complete steps backwards) and most people is still trying to fake normal, whatever that means.
DJ-Dowism t1_j119xi2 wrote
I find it's much more helpful to look at the policies you would be in favour of and why, rather than trying to find a name to label your political philosophy with. After all, there very well may not be a name that actually encompasses your personal views yet.
Even the two main streams of thought in "liberal" and "conservative" just indicate a desire to move forward or backward, or stay the same, whatever those concepts mean to you - and as polar concepts in the US in particular, they completely reversed within living memory anyway. Time was Republicans abolished slavery, yet later opposed Civil Rights, etc.
There's also the apparent fact that young people seem to begin more "liberal" and end their lives more "conservative", potentially making a farce of any attempts to assign objectivity to either viewpoint outside our relative distance from death, or identifying with concepts we found appealing in our formative years. As the world itself consistently always moves to the "left" over time, unless we each also move to the left throughout our lives we will inevitably simply become more "conservative" in comparison to current culture.
So to me it does much more come down to how you would actually like to see political structures built and executed rather than how you label that: ie. in the most practicably comprehensive sense, what are your preferred policies, and why?
Opposite_Personality t1_j14w805 wrote
That's exactly the problem to me, the eternal reversal and the eternal farce. I wouldn't endorse a single policy right now because it all leads to capital extraction from the lower clases. The system is illustrious in the obvious, it is right there in its name. It isn't called middle-classism. Even paying student debt would end up benefiting debt vultures. "Helping" Ukraine actually produces more capital extraction and more human loss.
I feel people voluntarily wants to be deluded all of the time.
The only meaning of current policies to me is bread and circuses. And I never was able to stand performative arts, really.
I can't stand party politics anymore. It didn't lead to something useful for the last 50 years at least. It only stands in the way of progress and keeps reassuring those capital transfers and extractions to perfection.
iiioiia t1_j0y9tmz wrote
> If you take the time to examine your beliefs and construct your own view of the world and how you see political structures best helping us, there should be no hypocrisy or conflict in your ideology.
This is assuming a pretty extraordinarily high level of intelligence on behalf of the individual. A short visit to /r/politics might give you an idea of the quality of humans we're dealing with here.
DJ-Dowism t1_j117cxi wrote
I honestly don't think it takes an extraordinary degree of intelligence to systematically view the world through an objective lens. What it does take is the will to embark on that journey. Which isn't to say everyone will reach the same destination either, although I do personally believe there are several irrefutable conclusions that have been proven as best courses from my own explorations, usually we are denied the ability to even discuss on this basis as the idea of forging our own path simply does not have much traction in our current culture.
Your example of r/politics is unfortunately a demonstration of furthering political tribalism, in my experience at least. It's not so much a demonstration of the average person's ability to objectively examine how they view the world so much as an indictment of how little that is encouraged by our culture.
EDIT: a word
iiioiia t1_j11bo8x wrote
> I honestly don't think it takes an extraordinary degree of intelligence to systematically view the world through an objective lens.
Well I disagree passionately! lol
The world is highly subjective and illusory, as a consequence of it largely running on top of the human mind whose behavior is a function of millions years of evolution (in conditions highly dissimilar to the present), as well as distortion due to culture, propaganda, and various other issues. I mean just take this philosophy subreddit for example - getting anyone to seriously discuss the truth value of a proposition is very often like pulling teeth!
> Your example of r/politics is unfortunately a demonstration of furthering political tribalism, in my experience at least.
The mind is naturally attracted to the extremes of any situation - discussions in politically oriented subreddits are a train wreck, but I propose what's even more interesting than that is that political discussions in most any community, regardless of average intelligence level, will also be a trainwreck. The classic example I always use is https://news.ycombinator.com, a forum populated by mostly highly intelligent programmers, engineers, etc - in technical threads, people are smart - but pop into a political thread and observe how IQ's and logical capabilities have been cut in half, at least. I believe there is something about certain topics that the mind just cannot compute without constantly generating errors.
I very much agree with you on culture though - I wouldn't find ot hard to believe that culture could count for half or more of the problem.
DJ-Dowism t1_j11dqvv wrote
Studies have shown that having ideas challenged which you associate with your identity, and in turn your group identity, are responded to neurologically in the same manner as physical threats, short-circuiting logical thought processes and exacerbating tribalism. Our identity and status within groups is as essential to our survival as access to food and water. This response often forces doubling down on existing beliefs even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. I'd imagine that's a big part of the effect you're describing. It's the same fight or flight response we experience when we perceive a tiger on a path in the jungle, and the same evolutionary pressures apply in many ways.
I would say it comes down to intentionally constructing processes of interrogating our beliefs as a culture. What's much more important than your base level of intelligence entering into a conversation is your willingness to actually explore concepts within that conversation. To truly engage in a dialog. To not feel threatened by entertaining conflicting beliefs. If that itself can become part of our group identity, this process is no longer existentially threatening.
Again though, I'm not saying there is actually a "one true way" to view the world objectively. It's a process we can choose to attempt to engage in, which we will never perfect, but brings much better results over time. It doesn't mean we're all going to agree, but we're at least going to be able to exchange ideas and move towards a better understanding of the world, together.
iiioiia t1_j11nlxl wrote
> Studies have shown that having ideas challenged which you associate with your identity, and in turn your group identity, are responded to neurologically in the same manner as physical threats, short-circuiting logical thought processes and exacerbating tribalism.
Agree, psychology textbooks and papers are informative - however, I think it's much more interesting if you observe the overwhelming amount of available evidence first hand: internet arguments. What you describe here is not surprising if one is considering people's System 1 powered, realtime intuitive reaction. But more interesting is that people regularly (and on some topics, usually/always) are literally not able to release themselves from a belief, or often even question their belief - individually, or with assistance. And even more hilarious: very often this occurs in a scenario where the individual in question is mocking the intelligence of other people...and often the people they are mocking are literally artifacts of their imagination.
Were this not so common[1] and therefore taken for granted as an unavoidable part of reality like the weather, I think it would get massive amounts of attention. And that it doesn't get hardly any attention (other than people complaining about it incessantly) suggests to me that there is something very, very strange about "reality".
> I would say it comes down to intentionally constructing processes of interrogating our beliefs as a culture. What's much more important than your base level of intelligence entering into a conversation is your willingness to actually explore concepts within that conversation. To truly engage in a dialog. To not feel threatened by entertaining conflicting beliefs. If that itself can become part of our group identity, this process is no longer existentially threatening.
Ah....now this is something I rarely encounter. Isn't it weird that with all the "experts" in the world, many of them on payroll in relevant positions, and with all the calls for "more critical thinking" we hear in the media, *no one seems to have put two and two together? I mean, you and I are surely not dummies, but are we that much smarter than others? Or is there perhaps something else going on?
> Again though, I'm not saying there is actually a "one true way" to view the world objectively. It's a process we can choose to attempt to engage in, which we will never perfect, but brings much better results over time.
Maybe aiming for objectivity is not the correct goal? If the problem space is fundamentally subjective (I believe it is), aiming for objectivity will fail indefinitely. I think is is perfectly plausible that our success and obsession with science may now be causing net harm to us, and maybe has been for quite some time with no way for us to realize it (since that would at the very least require thinking, and that topic has become as taboo as questioning religion was a hundred years ago - it is literally enforced at several levels, including the government and mostly all media).
[1] There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes "What the hell is water"?
noonemustknowmysecre t1_j0vu2ml wrote
> I don't have conflicting political beliefs, AMA!
Cracks knuckles
Would you prefer a mass die-off of humanity or would you rather we continue to kill the planet with massive CO2 pollution?
Do you want higher wages for workers? And how should we deal with illegal foreign workers?
What do you think of the military aid to Ukraine and how do you feel about military spending?
When did you stop beating your wife?
CovfefeForAll t1_j0x8p81 wrote
cracks neck, does a quick squat stretch and a couple of lunges
>Would you prefer a mass die-off of humanity or would you rather we continue to kill the planet with massive CO2 pollution?
Not a political belief.
>Do you want higher wages for workers? And how should we deal with illegal foreign workers?
Yes, and create a robust system where foreign workers can be allowed to work and pay taxes much easier than currently allowed. This removes the exploitability of underpaid undocumented workers that drive wages at the bottom way way down. Also, severely punish employers who take advantage of undocumented labor. To this end, increase IRS funding to look specifically at wage theft and wages paid under the table.
>What do you think of the military aid to Ukraine and how do you feel about military spending?
Military spending is necessary, and should be used when needed to defend allies. We can afford to cut down a good portion of our spending though, and take a good look at wasted funding and earmarks that serve no purpose except to give specific politicians more political clout.
>When did you stop beating your wife?
I plead the fifth.
noonemustknowmysecre t1_j0xfsut wrote
Although, off the record, arresting the hiring bosses and fining the corporations that illegally hire foreigners is really the right way to go about it. Neither Democrats nor Republicans actually want to fix the problem though. Offer green cards to anyone working there willing to flip on their boss and send them to prison. Between immigration, automation, and outsourcing, the gini-coefficient keeps on rising and the poor rural farmboys keep getting madder and madder.
Hot-damn though, average wage of an H-2A is $21.91 an hour. Like, legally, a place has to prove they can't find anyone local to work the job and there is no cap.
Like, none of your ideas are even bad. I do think environmentalism is a real thing. But you're a sane functioning member of society. Generally liberal. Whee. But any statement along the lines of "although", "while", "however", or anything with a "but" will be taken as a conflicting view. Irrationally wanting two opposite things simultaneously. Which is why any politician worth their salt avoids actually answering any questions.
CovfefeForAll t1_j0xvv6x wrote
> Although, off the record, arresting the hiring bosses and fining the corporations that illegally hire foreigners is really the right way to go about it.
It's really the only sustainable possible solution. We NEED to do it if we actually want to stabilize the lowest wages.
> I do think environmentalism is a real thing.
I really think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was distancing myself from the false dichotomy you put forward. We CAN try to put a very quick, very harsh damper on our pollution, and that would be neither of the 2 scenarios you put forward. The political issue is whether we have the political will to do the needful regarding environmental degradation and pollution. But yes, I do agree that environmentalism is not only real, but the only possibility if we want to ensure a future for humanity that goes beyond the 21st century.
> But any statement along the lines of "although", "while", "however", or anything with a "but" will be taken as a conflicting view.
Eh, I call it being realistic, not conflicting, but I can see how people might see that as backtracking or weakness. That's why I'm not a politician.
noonemustknowmysecre t1_j0y9zad wrote
> I was distancing myself from the false dichotomy you put forward.
Well you stepped right into the other two.
> We CAN try to put a very quick, very harsh damper on our pollution, and that would be neither of the 2 scenarios you put forward.
OH, if it's harsh enough, it's the first. If it's not harsh enough, it's the second. Currently, we're doing the 2nd, which is really the right choice.
noonemustknowmysecre t1_j0xet43 wrote
Slips on the knuckle duster
So environmentalism isn't a political issue to you? You are apathetic to pollution. Is this an endorsement of eco-terrorists such as the Sea Shepard and the Earth Liberation Front? Do you advocate for the dissolution of the EPA? Do you have any words for it's administrator Michael S. Regan?
You admit you want to import more foreign workers and undercut working class wages. These workers whom I quote "drive wages at the bottom way way down", you want more of them? Do the economic rules of supply and demand no longer apply low-end labor? Are you not aware of our current robust system where foreign workers can be allowed to work that is the work visa program? Are you looking to remove the restrictions on H-2A visas?
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a "Though". While you openly advocate we need to cut down our military spending, you acknowledge that it is "necessary and should be used". It is without doubt that we find your views "conflicting" and inconsistent.
Pleading the fifth? A likely story!
CovfefeForAll t1_j0xvhck wrote
stretches arms, starts bouncing on balls of the feet, takes a few practice air punches
> So environmentalism isn't a political issue to you?
Oof, way to miss what I said. You gave an and/or, and all I said was that the scenario you put forward is not a political issue, it was....something. Not sure what. Extinction or causing the oven-baked death of the world, as if those are the only 2 options.
> You admit you want to import more foreign workers and undercut working class wages
Nope nope. We already have foreign workers who undercut wages. The idea is to legitimize them and regulate the wages they need to be paid so that EVERYONE is paid more.
noonemustknowmysecre t1_j0xwfqo wrote
> as if those are the only 2 options.
They're ALL false dichotomies! Fight CO2 or bake the world. Combat immigration or screw the working class. Splurge on the military or abandon Ukraine and our defense agreement.
It's an antagonistic journalistic push poll trying to steer you into a conflicting statement. Hence the knuckles and such.
>The idea is to legitimize them and regulate the wages they need to be paid so that EVERYONE is paid more.
(We do that. That's literally what's happening right now. When everyone is paid more, they hire illegal workers for less.)
CovfefeForAll t1_j0y0trx wrote
>When everyone is paid more, they hire illegal workers for less
It was a three part solution. Crack down on the employers hiring undocumented workers, give a sort of minimum wage visa to anyone willing to work, and then hire them.
noonemustknowmysecre t1_j0y9me8 wrote
> give a sort of minimum wage visa to anyone willing to work, and then hire them.
RIGHT. And we DO 2 parts of your 3 part plan already. Read up on H-2A visas. H-1Bs essentially too. Are you not listening to me? When we do these two parts of your plan, what we get is what we have. Right here and right now. Meat-packers and hotels simply go get someone cheaper.
CovfefeForAll t1_j10ghes wrote
>Meat-packers and hotels simply go get someone cheaper.
And that won't happen if they start getting punished for hiring illegally. Which was part one.
noonemustknowmysecre t1_j10mtuj wrote
Agreed. Your 3 part plan was really just one thing. And "When everyone is paid more, they hire illegal workers for less" is still true. And "The idea is to legitimize them and regulate the wages they need to be paid so that EVERYONE is paid more." Is still kinda bullshitty and won't work. We're kinda going in circles at this point.
[deleted] t1_j0xjg5i wrote
[deleted]
Opposite_Personality t1_j0w2bbw wrote
🤣
[deleted] t1_j0v0oxg wrote
[deleted]
moonshinedegreaser t1_j0u6mqw wrote
I have more questions about the conclusions of why political climate is the way it is. Why can't political belief be a combination of all of the things they are referring to? I know a lot of people would like one specific answer as to why, but why can't we have all these things stacked against us as individuals and citizens?
iiioiia t1_j0vgm8b wrote
> Why can't political belief be a combination of all of the things they are referring to?
If you're asking literally, a shortlist of the root causes (imho):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curriculum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics (kind of joking on this one lol)
It's somewhat similar to why historic practices in medicine and science were so "obviously" (from our current perspective) wrong and primitive: we had not yet discovered how to do otherwise (in many different ways), though in this case it is not known whether it is possible to do otherwise in practice, even if it is possible in theory.
moonshinedegreaser t1_j0vjob5 wrote
What I'm saying is that a good number of people believe that it's one or the other when really, it's not. It's all of them combined that make these judgements of how everything works
-Technology. -We have entered a post-truth era. -We’re polarized, sorted socially and geographically along partisan lines. -Our leaders. -Psychology.
Why does it have to be just one and why can't it be all? Why can't we as individuals look at an opposing individual and say "everything is fucked up and we are both feeding into it"?
HadMatter217 t1_j0vqqz5 wrote
The answer is that propaganda works. Also we haven't entered a post-truth era. We never left a post-truth era. There's a lot of money involved in getting people to believe your lies.
iiioiia t1_j0vlrkx wrote
> What I'm saying is that a good number of people believe that it's one or the other when really, it's not. It's all of them combined that make these judgements of how everything works
Agree....though, there are also many other important things in play, like media/journalism/propaganda/social media ("The telephone Game")/etc.
> -Technology. -We have entered a post-truth era. -We’re polarized, sorted socially and geographically along partisan lines. -Our leaders. -Psychology.
YES!!!
I believe that we can fight back against ("the simulation" supports it physically), but we also cannot (our minds do not (yet) support it).
> Why does it have to be just one and why can't it be all?
Architectural and "software" (culture, knowledge, etc) shortcomings. Consider the conversations you read online: most people are typically utterly unable to skilfully contemplate FAR simpler problems than this! A lot of people hit their limit with one variable, let alone millions.
> Why can't we as individuals look at an opposing individual and say "everything is fucked up and we are both feeding into it"?
It is our nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog
>> A scorpion wants to cross a river but cannot swim, so it asks a frog to carry it across. The frog hesitates, afraid that the scorpion might sting it, but the scorpion promises not to, pointing out that it would drown if it killed the frog in the middle of the river. The frog considers this argument sensible and agrees to transport the scorpion. Midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, dooming them both. The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung despite knowing the consequence, to which the scorpion replies: "I am sorry, but I couldn't resist the urge. It's in my nature."
Though, if one considers the history of racism, sexism, basically any "-ism", we know that we do have some capacity for change. Were we to invest more time, attention, and resources in this domain, I would be shocked if we wouldn't make substantial progress, perhaps even rapidly. Unfortunately, we would first have to develop both the ability and desire to do that, before we would be able to actually do it, and ain't nobody got time for that. So, I suspect we will remain in this state until that changes.
noonemustknowmysecre t1_j0vrug0 wrote
>why political climate is the way it is
/r/history is over there.
moonshinedegreaser t1_j0w0l48 wrote
Political journalism at it's finest haha. Pick a small part of a whole statement and put focus on that to change the context. Lmao JK.
AnAppariti0n t1_j0vbugh wrote
Exactly why so many people are just frustrated, they feel themselves compelled to mold to the confines and package values of a party when the reality is the individual issues are what matter. I hate when people automatically label me a Dem or Rep or whatever when I answer my thoughts on an issue. No, that’s my thoughts on that issue, please don’t just assume “Ok that’s what Dems think so naturally all my other views line up with Dems”. It’s the inherent flaw of party politics is that there are only two “boxes” you are allowed to be in when there are in actuality innumerable combinations of stances one can have. In other words I think a lot of political frustration is that many people don’t feel well-represented by either of the two major political parties.
glass_superman t1_j0vqdqp wrote
> many people don’t feel well-represented by either of the two major political parties.
Maybe that was no accident?
If you look at the elections in the USA, in every race there is exactly one winner. President obviously but even, say, house representatives. Though your state may have many, there is a different election for each one. Same for senators, governors, etc.
Opposed to this would be, say, a parliament where you can only vote for one person/party but the top 100 most popular would win. Or like a running race where the top 5 advance.
> This is because Duverger's law says that the number of viable parties is one plus the number of seats in a constituency.
So that's why we have only two parties in America.
I ask: Was the country intentionally designed this way in order to provide the illusion of choice without actually providing any choice?
The two parties agree on almost everything. We're so hyper-focused on the differences between them that we fail to notice how very similar they are. Which of them is in opposition to a stronger military? Which one is anticapitalist? Which party is against eating meat? Which party wants to dissolve federal government? On major issues there is no dissent.
iiioiia t1_j0ya6df wrote
> The two parties agree on almost everything. We're so hyper-focused on the differences between them that we fail to notice how very similar they are. Which of them is in opposition to a stronger military? Which one is anticapitalist? Which party is against eating meat? Which party wants to dissolve federal government? On major issues there is no dissent.
Isn't it surreal that this is pretty much not even on anyone's radar? I mean sure, people complain about this shit endlessly, but things like you mention could be addressed, but never are.
Personally, I think there are unwritten rules in the journalist class, that these sorts of questions are never asked in a way other than so they can be addressed with a prepared sound byte.
HadMatter217 t1_j0vrdkg wrote
The democratic deficit is intentional.
Provokateur t1_j0vjozb wrote
It this is saying most people hold irrational beliefs, obviously yes. Everyone already knew that.
It's it's saying all political beliefs are irrational, that's clearly not true.
The articles references a few folks who actually say interesting things, but none of it makes it into the article.
coyote-1 t1_j0uku9r wrote
For one ’team’ in this nation, indeed there is no coherent whole at first glance. How do we make sense of a party that simultaneously proclaims itself pro-life, yet wants to remove roadblocks to capital punishment AND wants to flood the streets with guns? That proclaims the sanctity of life in the womb, yet seeks to dismantle all systemic support for young disadvantaged families?
One just has to be willing to look at the dark side of life to grasp the unifying theme: a will to cruelty, to punishment. The moment you do that, the varied positions of that particular ‘team’ all form a coherent package.
wilde_man t1_j0urvzq wrote
Your first mistake is thinking that over 300 million people can be divided into 2 coherent teams.
​
>that simultaneously proclaims itself pro-life, yet wants to remove roadblocks to capital punishment AND wants to flood the streets with guns? That proclaims the sanctity of life in the womb, yet seeks to dismantle all systemic support for young disadvantaged families?
That said even a single person has many competing and simultaneous reasons for believing what they do. someone who is pro-life, pro-guns, and pro-capital punishment may believe in protecting the lives (unborn children too, as they reckon) of the innocent rather than an inherent sanctity of life.
Even if someone disagrees with their goals and/or methods (myself included, not that it matters because I'm not American) they are doing themselves and their opponent a disservice by not even trying to understand their opponent.
​
>One just has to be willing to look at the dark side of life to grasp the unifying theme: a will to cruelty, to punishment. The moment you do that, the varied positions of that particular ‘team’ all form a coherent package.
"the dark side of life is all the people who disagree with me, they are being evil for kicks"
​
TLDR: the person I replied to can't fathom how someone might be of a different political persuasion.
Chankston t1_j0ut6kz wrote
I feel like it’s always the lazy resort to “comic book villain” strawmanning.
If you always think your political enemies think what they think because “they’re evil, they want to inflict pain and be monstrous,” then it’s blatantly obvious you’ve never been good faith or probably even read the foundational reasoning of the opponent.
And that’s a shame generally, but also rhetorically. Is this supposed to convince the other side to change their mind when you completely butcher their position and call them names?
I get that politics is becoming more intertwined with identity, but I feel like good discussions are always a give and take. I take the good parts of your reasoning and weigh it into my own beliefs, even if we disagree broadly.
LongjumpingArgument5 t1_j0v1mzd wrote
Even the Simpsons pointed out that Republicans are evil back in 1994.
They're only goal is to gaslight obstruct and project. They have no ideas on how to move forward at all. They create no real bills and do not even attempt to pass laws. All they want to do is put on a circus to pander to their flock of sheep.
Why bother passing laws when all you have to do is "own the libs" and your people will vote for you because they love a three-ring circus
iiioiia t1_j0vi9ue wrote
> Even the Simpsons pointed out that Republicans are evil back in 1994.
Demonstrating that causing someone to believe that a proposition is true can be as easy as showing them a cartoon, which is pretty interesting if one has the ability to take such things seriously.
LongjumpingArgument5 t1_j0vmcn0 wrote
Generally The Simpsons tends to be a reflection of the current society. I think it shows that Republicans have been evil for well over a quarter century.
The Republican goal is to make sure rich people get richer and poor people stay poor. You can see it in the few times they actually try to submit a bill to Congress. They are Patriots in the same way that they are pro-life, only when it supports their end goals. But the reality is they believe in neither of those things. All you have to do is look instead of burying your head in the sand and saying "go team". What bills have Republicans put forward in the last 6 years?
iiioiia t1_j0vnbaz wrote
> Generally The Simpsons tends to be a reflection of the current society.
"tends", "a reflection of", "the".
The nice thing about ambiguity is it is impossible to be incorrect, if used skilfully (which seems to come naturally to humans).
> I think it shows that Republicans have been evil for well over a quarter century.
It very well may, but there is an important difference between representing something in a cartoon vs it actually existing in reality (notice how many characters in cartoons can fly, do superhuman feats, etc).
> The Republican goal is to make sure rich people get richer and poor people stay poor.
Wrong - it is the Democrat goal. This is true by virtue of me saying it is true. Also: I saw it in a meme.
> You can see it in the few times they actually try to submit a bill to Congress. They are Patriots in the same way that they are pro-life, only when it supports their end goals.
You can also see that Democrats like abusing children in their bill submissions - though, I'd be careful forming a strong belief based purely on what one "sees".
Science has studied this phenomenon extensively, I highly recommend digging into the literature.
> But the reality...
Ah yes...."the" "reality". There can be only one.
LongjumpingArgument5 t1_j0vxcr6 wrote
>I'd be careful forming a strong belief based purely on what one "sees".
I suppose I could form strong beliefs like Republicans do, based on what Fox News says. I mean why trust my eyes when I could just trust talking heads. Remember, critical thinking is a tool of the left, you should skip it unless you want to be woke. There is no room for thought on the right.
Facts slide off Republicans like Teflon.
"Omg that's a cartoon, there is no possible way that cartoons can contain truth, I should just reject it outright, especially because it doesn't conform to my twisted perspective of the world". - you presumably
iiioiia t1_j0vy9bo wrote
> I suppose I could form strong beliefs like Republicans do, based on what Fox News says.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz2WfBFdOAU
> I mean why trust my eyes when I could just trust talking heads.
Trusting either may not be wise.
> Remember, critical thinking is a tool of the left, you should skip it unless you want to be woke.
Is this to say that all people on the left are good at critical thinking, or even a majority of them are?
> There is no room for thought on the right.
What does this even mean?
> Facts slide off Republicans like Teflon.
Perhaps you should give the rules on the sidebar a read.
> "Omg that's a cartoon, there is no possible way that cartoons can contain truth, I should just reject it outright, especially because it doesn't conform to my twisted perspective of the world". - you presumably
Well, you are incorrect once again.
I'm genuinely curious: why do you do this? Granted, it's surely plenty of fun, but still. It seems to me to be contrary both to your implied desires as well as your literal words.
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j0vzy4d wrote
The Simpsons is a cartoon. The reason why you shouldn't give much weight to the political philosophy of the Simpsons should not need to be further explicated.
LongjumpingArgument5 t1_j0w7oa0 wrote
Are you the kind of person who when reads an opinion article that makes the following statement
"There is water vapor in our atmosphere, it makes the sky blue, I like the way the sky looks when it's blue but also sometimes with a change"
And then they come to the conclusion that because it's an opinion article that the whole article is invalid so clearly water vapor is not in our atmosphere making the sky blue.
You dismiss it outright because of the form it takes.
I know it's hard to understand but you have to refute the message not the form that it comes in.
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j0x0e3j wrote
I know it's hard to understand but you shouldn't trust your political philosophy to cartoons.
LongjumpingArgument5 t1_j0x0q1o wrote
Or the kind of people that can't see truth truth inside humor.
[deleted] t1_j0uvxcb wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0uxdty wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0ux0tz wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j0vlija wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
coyote-1 t1_j0vilog wrote
I’m not the one who said anything about two teams. I merely examined the public pronouncements of one very well known team.
All the rest is your own projection. Especially the TLDR at the end.
[deleted] t1_j0vkwnz wrote
[deleted]
RampantRooster t1_j0uv4px wrote
Neither team makes 100% sense when viewed as a whole. That's why this two party system is so shit.
Purely_Theoretical t1_j0vaag8 wrote
You would have to do a lot more work to prove those things are contradictory.
Regarding pro life, the GOP seems to be heavily weighting things being done TO a life, like abortion, relative to things happening as a result of inaction. I don't think that's obviously incoherent.
Regarding guns, they believe guns offer them a means to protect themselves and loved ones. People of diverse ideologies have recently lost trust in the police. Couple that with the fact that the police legally have no duty to protect you, and have qualified immunity when they do something wrong. Again, not obviously incoherent.
iiioiia t1_j0vh4kg wrote
> How do we make sense of a party that simultaneously proclaims itself pro-life, yet wants to remove roadblocks to capital punishment AND wants to flood the streets with guns?
Ontology, logic, epistemology, psychology, mindfulness/meditation, at least (these are more than enough to improve things substantially, were we to actually use them).
For example: here you are discussing several predictions about reality as if they are necessarily accurate descriptions of reality itself. It is possible to do otherwise, but it is not very popular. Even discussing the simple abstract phenomenon itself is typically very popular, if such a conversation is invoked from an object level instance like this, despite it being a philosophy forum (psychology forums are similar in my experience). Paradoxically, abstract discussion is often extremely popular, but only if the invocation of the topic is from an abstract perspective - then, people very often thoroughly enjoy discussing the phenomenon, including their personal shortcomings.
I'm thinking ChatGPT and AI in general will some day be very helpful with this issue as technologies improve.
[deleted] t1_j0v348m wrote
[removed]
noonemustknowmysecre t1_j0vt7fz wrote
>How do we make sense of a party that simultaneously proclaims itself pro-life, yet wants to remove roadblocks to capital punishment
Because "pro-life" is a slogan, a sales pitch, a political statement that only tangentially involves the concept of life at all. It's MARKETTING the same way that socialism was selling point of a certain German national socialist political party. (And they did raise wages and rights of workers early on.) Or the "Democratic" part of the Democratic Republic of Congo.
If you even glance at the history, they have their roots in religious ideology which is a-okay with capital punishment (and also against it, depending how you want to pick those cherries).
It's just something they say to get the religious nutters to vote for them. Is a scam artist being irrational when he lies to a mark? Then along came a nuttier nut who actually delivered on that promise and boom, they're all losing elections.
[deleted] t1_j0urd0d wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j0ui943 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0v29ij wrote
[deleted]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j0vfpiz wrote
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j0vl2re wrote
ctrl + f "Carl Schmitt"
It would do people well do understand that politics is premised on the Friend-Enemy distinction. All other aspects are secondary to this.
noonemustknowmysecre t1_j0vrcfm wrote
>Our stated political beliefs are irrational when taken as a package
Excuse YOU. This guy has no idea what my political beliefs are and he's treating both the Democrats and Republicans as single unified blocs. There's more than one person in each party. So OF COURSE there are going to be incoherencies.
You don't have to be a philosopher to find out that statistics and sociological polls don't tell you the whole truth. Bloody A, political science and sociology are real sciences, albeit kinda soft, but you need to listen to the people who actually study and measure this stuff rather than people who talk about they feel about it. Don't step out of your box philosophers, you're just going to look like fools.
skyfishgoo t1_j0w67ew wrote
speak for yourself... holding coherent political views is more difficult than following the crowd or towing the party line, but it's far from impossible.
and since when has any "belief" system ever been held to such a lofty standard?
certainly that is not the case with religious beliefs, which are constantly in contradiction.
ppetree t1_j0w9xi7 wrote
Despite ones political beliefs or ones love languages, fundamentally there are only two kinds of people:
The first is one who believes its "every man for himself."
The second is one who believes we all have an obligation to "help each other make it to the end."
There is no philosophy beyond recognizing those two types of people.
iiioiia t1_j0ya9mb wrote
Incorrect - some people believe that "help each other make it to the end" is a good idea, but once people start throwing the word obligation around, or speaking in confident false dichotomies, some people get nervous, and I'm one of them.
ppetree t1_j0z9f46 wrote
The word "obligation" was never a part of my comment. That's your distortion.
iiioiia t1_j0zku38 wrote
> The word "obligation" was never a part of my comment. That's your distortion.
"The second is one who believes we all have an obligation to "help each other make it to the end.""
https://i.imgur.com/aJun2k3.png
With every passing day, it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that this is not a simulation.
ppetree t1_j0zsa9g wrote
I see what the problem is, you're interpreting obligation as work and I'm interpreting it as a moral kindness that comes without effort.
iiioiia t1_j0ztiug wrote
I think you failed to address this:
"The word "obligation" was never a part of my comment. That's your distortion."
Are you willing to address it, or do you refuse?
Spiritual_Fan2436 t1_j0wn0li wrote
Maybe your guys’ beliefs are, but not mine
AudaciousSam t1_j0x32i3 wrote
Ideology is so 20th century. It's all math from here.
[deleted] t1_j0xsx1p wrote
[removed]
BLU3SKU1L t1_j0yk583 wrote
That's because they aren't beliefs. The characteristics of "political beliefs" most closely match up with the concept of policy. Political policy, however, implies that they are malleable, and though they are and do frequently shift, politicians would prefer that you see them as more concrete than that so that they have a social buffer to fall behind to resist the public erosion of those political (largely party) policies.
[deleted] t1_j0u2xk1 wrote
[deleted]
moonshinedegreaser t1_j0u62c8 wrote
That's the point the writer was making. It's two sides of the same coin
djmunci t1_j0ui953 wrote
Tribalism and social pressure sell beliefs/identities as a package. Social media has accelerated this tribal sorting, and emphasizes the stakes and importance of one's tribal identity.
People are inclined to adopt the beliefs of the in-group whether or not the belief naturally appeals/resonates.