REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Sorry, Chris, you're just a liberal.

POSTED BY: HKCAVALIER
UPDATED: Monday, May 3, 2010 12:46
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5856
PAGE 1 of 3

Saturday, March 27, 2010 11:27 AM

HKCAVALIER


I've been trying to wrap my head around the real differences between liberal and conservative since before I came to this board. For a long time I was in the They're All the Same/Two Sides of a Coin Camp (go Anarchism!). But since the election of Pres. Obama I've felt more and more that there truly is a real, deep-rooted difference in the two ideologies. The difference is so extreme that folks who subscribe to one, naturally see the folks on the other side as mentally deranged, hopelessly confused or downright evil.

Now, some of you, I know, on both sides of the divide would reply, "BUT THEY ARE!!!" And, sure, in some instances you could make a pretty strong case. But I subscribe to the notion that human beings are fundamentally rational and rationalizing creatures. We see ourselves (at least) as logical and sensible, and given our premises, for the most part, we are. Logic and reason are limited by our context, but within our perceived context, we tend to do what we think makes the most sense.

What I've observed is that reality as seen by liberals is irreconcilably different from reality as seen by conservatives. Or more specifically, reality as VALUED by liberals is different from reality as VALUED by conservatives. Not opposite, but with certainly opposing aims. I'm talking about liberal and conservative ideals, what liberals and conservatives value above everything else. We may dicker about this or that policy, but policy is not what defines a person's ideology or morality or highest value, it is the reason we support a given policy, our purpose in supporting it and the ideal we wish to attain through that policy that makes us either liberal or conservative.

So, fundamentally, I am not talking about parties or leaders, who try variously to manipulate the liberal and conservative leanings of the people. I'm talking about people. I'm talking about WHY the folks who voted for Obama did so and WHY conservatives voted Bush in before him. I'm talking about a real red state/blue state divide. I'm talking about the common thread in all liberal thinking and a corresponding theme in all conservative thought.

So here's what I got (it'll take some time to cover all the variables, so please bear with me): The fundamental conservative value, the one theme that colors all conservative thought and motivates all conservative action (as I've come to perceive it and as I'm defining it here) is the PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. There is nothing that stirs the conservative heart more, nor excites the conservative's stronger admiration than seeing the wicked punished. When the conservative sees the wicked punished, she sees the virtuous prevail. For the conservative thinker, virtue is defined by its attitude toward the wicked, nothing is more crucial in the conservative world view. Nothing defines you more distinctly to the conservative thinker than your relationship and attitude toward the wicked.

Alright, there's a lot more to it, but that's the central theme.

Whereas, to a liberal thinker, the highest good, the fundamental measure of virtue is GENEROSITY. Nothing excites a liberal's admiration, nothing moves a liberal's heart more profoundly than the sight of tremendous personal generosity and kindness. It's what floats the liberal's boat. Everything else, every other kind of virtue pails beside kindness.

So, I hope you begin to see the problem.

It's not that conservatives don't value kindness, it's just that kindness is rather trivial next to the righteous punishment of the evil doer, you see? The conservative sees no contest between these two virtues in their hierarchy of value. Kindness is nice and good and lovely and pleasant, but it don't mean squat if you leave the evil doers free to wreck havoc on decent folk.

Conversely, liberals certainly value justice and seeing the wicked thwarted, but to the liberal minded, such actions will always, fundamentally, trouble and dishearten them as well, because it conflicts with their ideal of kindness. The liberal grudgingly accepts violence as necessary...for now. It does not exist in the liberal's ideal world.

The conservative sees this as the CENTRAL, MOST DANGEROUS ASPECT OF LIBERALISM. The conservative never looks forward to a world without violence, because the conservative never sees a permanent end to evil in this life. The conservative believes that liberals better freakin' wise up and accept the reality of evil, and, as the conservative reflexively does, express gratitude to those willing to keep the forces of darkness at bay.

So, for a conservative Christian, God will always be the Father; while to a liberal minded Christian, God will always be the Son. Since conservatism sees the world as, fundamentally, a place where evil will always be trying to destroy you, they will tend to be more religious and find much more poignant meaning in a promised after life. The liberal is necessarily focused on making this world a better place and will look, necessarily, to the conservative Christian's eye, as dangerously secular.

So, you see, liberals and conservatives naturally see each other as fundamentally untrustworthy. That's why they judge liberals and conservatives by different standards altogether. The liberal's gut reaction to the inherent militarism of conservative thought is disgust and outrage; while the conservative sees the liberal's lack of nerve in the face of life's harsh realities, as thoroughly craven and perverse.

But that's why liberals were marching in the streets to protest Bush's war, but stay home when its Obama's war. Same policies, but utterly incompatible intentions. Bush went to war to punish the wicked and conservatives loved him for it. The liberals who managed to support the war did so because they saw the need to liberate the Iraqi people from their suffering. Same policy, different rationales, different values being promoted, win/win for the Bush Admin.

Now, liberals get up in arms about how the conservatives all of a sudden demand that terrorist suspects be tried in military tribunals. "Hypocrisy!" they cry. But it's really not hypocrisy at all. Like the liberals, conservatives hold liberals and conservatives to different standards. The conservatives KNEW in their guts George was gonna punish the wicked, so they let him do it however he wanted to--screw the details. They trusted him. But the conservatives fundamentally distrust liberals and their "universalist," "egalitarian" ways, they see liberals as hell-bent on letting the evil doer off! So, they demand more militarism, more sabre rattling, more punitive measures from a "liberal" President than they would ever demand of a conservative one.

One aspect of the liberal and conservative divide that is rather symmetrical is their chosen "protected classes." A liberal's concept of "the poor" is of a fundamentally blameless class of people. Certainly, there are bad poor people, but their poverty is not a sign of wickedness in itself. Nor does it imply such, or stand in need of opposite proofs. The poor are presumed innocent until proven to be otherwise. What's more, the fact of their poverty implies a lack of kindness in their lives and so the liberal will naturally desire to fill the gap however she can.

The "protected class" in conservative thought, of course, are "the rich." The rich are the naturally blameless class. Certainly there are bad rich people, but the fact of their prosperity is never a sign of their wickedness in itself. The rich are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. What's more, the fact of their being rich, implies that they have made the right choices in life and have bettered themselves in the face of life's many threats and pitfalls.

Rich liberals secretly wish to be poor, or more precisely, wish to be as morally wholesome as the poor are in their eyes. The fundamentally liberal experience of wealth is guilt. Whereas, poor conservatives see themselves as deserving of their poverty and think the rich must be fundamentally better people in some way than they are. The fundamentally conservative experience of poverty is shame.

And this brings us to two fundamentally incompatible concepts of social reality: egalitarianism and hierarchy. The liberal imagination is stimulated by words like "universal" and "equal" while such words tend to make conservatives gag. The kindness liberals imagine extends to all people, even to the ones they understand to be the bad or the misguided.

Conservatives are baffled by this liberal madness. The conservative world is fundamentally hierarchical in structure. The rich, for instance, primarily got rich by earning it. Their place in the hierarchy is earned and completely appropriate. But the liberal heart will always be uncomfortable with hierarchy and difference, even though they will accept the reality of such things...for now.

So, the liberal will give in and accept a deeply flawed health care bill, because it's a step in the direction of their highest ideal; while the conservatives see it as fundamentally evil because it upsets the natural hierarchy. It punishes the rich and unfairly elevates the poor.

The liberal will support a woman's right to choose out of generosity and an understanding that violence is always a tragic and painful choice that they presume the mother made out of necessity. While conservatives see only the intentional violation of innocence, and so understand abortion as among the most abhorrent of crimes.

Anyway, that's plenty to get a conversation started if folk are interested.

Thanks for listening.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 27, 2010 1:42 PM

CITIZEN


I've heard an argument that the basic difference is being able tolerate ambiguity, Liberals tend to be able to do so, Conservatives can't. If you look at the extremes of Conservatism there does seem to be a lack of an ability to tolerate ambiguity, but I haven't really looked into it that deeply.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 27, 2010 2:15 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I've heard an argument that the basic difference is being able tolerate ambiguity, Liberals tend to be able to do so, Conservatives can't. If you look at the extremes of Conservatism there does seem to be a lack of an ability to tolerate ambiguity, but I haven't really looked into it that deeply.
There's all kinds of things one side seems better at doing, in general, than the other. Doesn't really define either side.

AND you stray into a hopelessly biased argument. It's not that conservatives "can't" tolerate ambiguity, it's simply that conservatives don't see anywhere near as much ambiguity in the world as liberals do. Your statement reflects a fundamentally liberal world view. It comes down to a fundamental disagreement about the facts in that case.

What I've tried to do here is identify the one thing that defines a person one way or the other, the one habit of thought you will only see in a liberal and likely see in all liberals, and the one habit of thought you will only see in the conservative and most likely all conservatives. See what I mean?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 27, 2010 2:39 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
So, for a conservative Christian, God will always be the Father; while to a liberal minded Christian, God will always be the Son.


This is brilliant.

But where do the anarchists fit in? It's easy to see where Chris fits. Or even you.

But where does Frem fit? Where do generous punishers of the wicked belong? THAT is the question.

By your definitions, I see myself as a liberal--much more interested in generosity than punishment.

Yet ask Rue or Signy or Citizen. While we agree on quite a few positions (Israel, economy, the current war, etc.), they would never see me as one of *them,* the liberals. I don't belong. I don't embrace their need to force generosity on the ungenerous.

I like your conceptualization so far. I'd like to hear more about the role of anarchistic anomalies in this scheme. Or maybe qualify that for those who accept the model of authority, this is where they want authority to be used.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 27, 2010 3:00 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I've heard an argument that the basic difference is being able tolerate ambiguity, Liberals tend to be able to do so, Conservatives can't. If you look at the extremes of Conservatism there does seem to be a lack of an ability to tolerate ambiguity, but I haven't really looked into it that deeply.
There's all kinds of things one side seems better at doing, in general, than the other. Doesn't really define either side.

AND you stray into a hopelessly biased argument. It's not that conservatives "can't" tolerate ambiguity, it's simply that conservatives don't see anywhere near as much ambiguity in the world as liberals do. Your statement reflects a fundamentally liberal world view. It comes down to a fundamental disagreement about the facts in that case.

What I've tried to do here is identify the one thing that defines a person one way or the other, the one habit of thought you will only see in a liberal and likely see in all liberals, and the one habit of thought you will only see in the conservative and most likely all conservatives. See what I mean?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

My statement reflects nothing more than what I heard once. I tried to indicate that .
Quote:

Yet ask Rue or Signy or Citizen. While we agree on quite a few positions (Israel, economy, the current war, etc.), they would never see me as one of *them,* the liberals. I don't belong. I don't embrace their need to force generosity on the ungenerous.

I'm awfully gratified I fit into one of your labels.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 27, 2010 3:11 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


I got this from Spider Robinson, in his and Robert Heinlein's novel Variable Star. Probably not gonna get this exactly right, this is how I remember it, not his exact words:

Conservatives live in a state of fear, especially of the future. Bad folks, wicked folks, evil, violent, threatening folks, are out there, and they're coming. So a vigilant, defensive posture is always necessary to protect yourself and the stuff you've got through hard effort. This is a justifiable posture if that's how you see it.

Liberals see danger in the world, but see it through a longer perspective. It's better than it WAS. It's getting better, and in the future, will continue to get better. Bad stuff that happens right now, on a personal level, is the exception, and if we keep making things better, bad stuff will continue to decline. Enough education, enough charity, enough medical care, enough reduction of poverty, enough sharing, enough whatever, and the CAUSES of evil will disappear, and the evil actions, which are the results, will stop happening. This is also a justifiable position, if you can look at it that way. May be a little idealistic, and may be an impossible dream, may not be realistic or practical, but there it is.

That's at least what I remember of what The Spider wrote. If I've got him wrong, it's my fault, not his.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 27, 2010 3:46 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Liberals see danger in the world, but see it through a longer perspective. It's better than it WAS. It's getting better, and in the future, will continue to get better. Bad stuff that happens right now, on a personal level, is the exception, and if we keep making things better, bad stuff will continue to decline. Enough education, enough charity, enough medical care, enough reduction of poverty, enough sharing, enough whatever, and the CAUSES of evil will disappear, and the evil actions, which are the results, will stop happening. This is also a justifiable position, if you can look at it that way. May be a little idealistic, and may be an impossible dream, may not be realistic or practical, but there it is.

I was gonna say I needed to think about it a while before offering any reply, till I saw this.

That's "THE" Dream, all of the folk I hold up as examplars of human behavior, this is their core belief - and the solution has it's roots in not producing the cause, indeed, which is IMHO the screwed up, messed up people who out of ignorance, weakness, desperation or malice, do such things.

And I believe in that, enough to have devoted a lifetimes work to it, but *without* the presumption of moral authority or one right way - someone who's concept and implementation stands in opposition to mine, well I will wish them the very best, and then run them over, if I can, but in truth I'd prefer to cooperate if/when possible.

Nor do I ever, EVER subscribe to the ends justifying the means, you keep goin down that road eventually the means BECOME the ends, a sickness that I see in modern parenting, especially in Dobsons exhortation to pound on your kid once in a while just to teach them who's boss, even if they've done no wrong...

Not only that, but the means can contaminate the ends - nobody is perfect and I have on occasion used means that had a negative impact on the ends, and I *learn* from that, when it happens - nor do I shift the blame with the abusers "but they made me do it" strategy or try to spread the blame around, those are *MY* sins, and mine alone, and if they must be answered for in some afterlife, well, that's between me and my afterlife, innit ?

And the worst of them is my lack of patience, for while I do believe in that dream, those that do evil for malice, profit or pleasure, deliberately and knowingly, even often glorifying in it, well...

Yes, eventually they'll dry up and blow away, but damned if I can stand by and watch the suffering inflicted without lifting a hand, although using it in mercy would be a far better cause and I *know* this - but my conscience dictates action with a strength unknown to anyone who's never suffered a desperate compulsion against their own better judgment, and in order to successfully act against them, I must in a way BECOME them.
Quote:
In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. I think it’s impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves. And then, in that very moment when I love them... I destroy them. I make it impossible for them to ever hurt me again. I grind them and grind them until they don’t exist.
-Ender Wiggin.


And all to try to build a world and society I would be no more welcome in than I ever was in this one.

Trust me, you think YOU'RE screwed up ?
You have *NO* idea.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 27, 2010 3:49 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
So, for a conservative Christian, God will always be the Father; while to a liberal minded Christian, God will always be the Son.


This is brilliant.

But where do the anarchists fit in? It's easy to see where Chris fits. Or even you.

But where does Frem fit? Where do generous punishers of the wicked belong? THAT is the question.
Oh, now but see, that's the thing. Frem is a no-brainer...by my reckoning, he's all liberal to his toes, as am I, it turns out. I'm only going on my understanding of human psychology here, but I'd say you either favor kindness or you favor punishment, there's no middle ground. One of these values will beat out the other by a decisive margin. Frem may punish the wicked, but he punishes with a guilty conscience, his commitment is to the kids and seeing them safe--as long as the kids are safe, he doesn't give a shit what you're up to.

Anarchism, at its core, is anti-punishment and pro-coexistence. Anarchism proceeds from an idea that human life can be improved, that human beings allowed to thrive are basically good.

That is not how it is for conservatives. Conservatism requires laws, requires universal, culturally created ideas of right and wrong. People are not innately good, they must be molded, corralled, civilized.
Quote:
By your definitions, I see myself as a liberal--much more interested in generosity than punishment.
Of course.
Quote:
Yet ask Rue or Signy or Citizen. While we agree on quite a few positions (Israel, economy, the current war, etc.), they would never see me as one of *them,* the liberals. I don't belong. I don't embrace their need to force generosity on the ungenerous.
Well, to my way of thinking, they would simply be wrong about you. I think they are. Rue and you are having a passionate argument about policy is all. A lot of Libertarians, the "But I'm really a Libertarian" types like Glenn Beck, like to make Libertarian noises but their hearts are Klingon. Give 'em the choice between a Mother Theresa and a Ronald Reagan, they'll go with the Gipper every time.
Quote:
I like your conceptualization so far. I'd like to hear more about the role of anarchistic anomalies in this scheme. Or maybe qualify that for those who accept the model of authority, this is where they want authority to be used.
Thanks for your kind words.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 27, 2010 3:54 PM

FREMDFIRMA



I see we cross posted, yeah, that's prettymuch it, since by preference I would be very much pleased to not have anyone I felt needed clobbering...

Although as I said, means become ends, much like Pavlovs much vaunted dog, I almost *have* to have someone to vent the terrible rage upon, and sadly, society has left me enough proper targets for it to last several lifetimes.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 27, 2010 4:36 PM

BYTEMITE


For some conservatives it's about punishment, but I've seen a lot who just value personal and economic responsibility.

This is a valid perspective to a point (I think safety nets are necessary to be humane, though I support more of a community and local-charity based effort than anything officially organized). But once the conservative in question passes a certain income level, when they talk about personal and economic responsibility in practice they're supporting something like social darwinism.

They still have a point about government size and people being FORCED to help other people. But sometimes it does seem like they dislike all kinds of charity, even non-government organizations ("pull yourself up by your bootstraps"). I think people have civic duties and obligations.

Ultimately, you can't make someone be nice, and I also figure other people will compensate for what is not contributed.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 27, 2010 6:56 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
That is not how it is for conservatives. Conservatism requires laws, requires universal, culturally created ideas of right and wrong. People are not innately good, they must be molded, corralled, civilized.

I was an interested reader of this thread until I happened upon this. Shame really that this thread has lost all interest for me now.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 27, 2010 7:41 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
For some conservatives it's about punishment, but I've seen a lot who just value personal and economic responsibility.
Hi Byte,

Okay. I realize I wasn't as clear as I'd have liked. I'm really not talking about policy. Most policies can be supported given the proper context, by anyone. I, too, value personal and economic responsibility pretty highly. I want people to take responsibility for themselves, absolutely. That's how I live. I also see the value of a "safety net" for folk who are in trouble and don't mind paying into such a system.

But the real issue here, that I'm trying to get at is what fires people up? What do people get passionate about? What moves them? Any self respecting adult, seems to me, will value personal and economic responsibility, but no one's gonna march in the streets for something so merely sensible.

I think that's one of Dr. Paul's biggest stumbling blocks as a national candidate. His rhetoric is utterly mundane, straight forward reason. A lot of people don't really know where he stands on the deepest level. He's a huge policy wonk, but where's his heart, y'know? Liberals like a lot of what he says, but can they trust him? Conservatives like a lot of other stuff he says, but can they trust him?

Obama is famous for his soaring rhetoric, folk get very emotional about it, both for and against. I think his strongest rhetoric is heavy duty liberal rhetoric and that's why I think he is, fundamentally, a liberal. And I think that's why EVERYONE fundamentally sees the guy as a liberal. He tries the "I'm gonna get tough now" stuff, but nobody really buys that. Not that he won't get tough, but everyone, liberal and conservative alike, can see his heart is not in it. Like Frem, he fundamentally does not want to get tough if he can avoid it. Makes liberals trust him, and conservative revile him. Conservatives can smell a liberal a mile away and this guy fairly reeks of it.
Quote:
They still have a point about government size and people being FORCED to help other people. But sometimes it does seem like they dislike all kinds of charity, even non-government organizations ("pull yourself up by your bootstraps"). I think people have civic duties and obligations.
Of course they have a point. It's a type of argument that satisfies both ideologies for different reasons. The conservatives like it because it respects their protected class and liberals get onboard because they're instinctively against FORCE as a method of solving problems. Of course, a lot of liberals haven't thought it through that far, and don't recognize that government = force. But again, liberals see that necessity calls for compromise. A litte force may be tolerated, just like a little war--with hefty promises that there will be an end sometime soonish--may be necessary.

But again, no liberal is gonna wave a sign reading "War in Iraq NOW" and no conservative is gonna yell, "Give me personal and economic responsability or give me death!"

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 27, 2010 7:49 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
That is not how it is for conservatives. Conservatism requires laws, requires universal, culturally created ideas of right and wrong. People are not innately good, they must be molded, corralled, civilized.

I was an interested reader of this thread until I happened upon this. Shame really that this thread has lost all interest for me now.
Okay, you caught me in a moment of liberal passion. It happens.

I tend to read you as a conservative, so I'd really be interested in your take on my analysis. Are you saying that you believe people are innately good? 'Cause that's all I was saying--with some admittedly loaded turns of phrase--either one believes that people are naturally good or one believes that people must be forced by laws and such to be good. In my experience, conservatives have always been in favor of law enforcement and keeping folk in line--just the type o' thing a passionate Anarchist like m'self might call "molded, corralled, civilized." You want me to pretend I don't feel as I do? You want me to be some perfect model of objectivity? Physician, heal thyself!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 27, 2010 10:53 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
That is not how it is for conservatives. Conservatism requires laws, requires universal, culturally created ideas of right and wrong. People are not innately good, they must be molded, corralled, civilized.

I was an interested reader of this thread until I happened upon this. Shame really that this thread has lost all interest for me now.

I actually thought his bias was quite transparent early in the thread, shortly after pretending to be unbiased in the OP.
His delusion that those eeeeevil conservatives don't know people are innately good, but those dear beloved liberals actually have the greatest faith and hope for innately good mankind did fair clearly paint him as the looney lefty he has fleshed himself out to be since that post.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 27, 2010 11:41 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
I actually thought his bias was quite transparent early in the thread, shortly after pretending to be unbiased in the OP.
His delusion that those eeeeevil conservatives don't know people are innately good, but those dear beloved liberals actually have the greatest faith and hope for innately good mankind did fair clearly paint him as the looney lefty he has fleshed himself out to be since that post.
And let the wild misprision begin! I don't know where you got the idea that I was "pretending to be unbiased." Just trying to be civil. Most people on this board know me pretty well by now and most of you have made your judgements well in advance of this thread, no? Are you, jewelstaitefan, pretending that you just now decided what side I was on?

And it is surely news to me if conservatives like yourself see human beings as innately good. That's just not what I've heard. A lot of conservatives are Christians as well and the Bible certainly doesn't pretend that human beings are innately good.

It's not surprising to me in the least that you would find me to be "looney"--it is the premise, after all, of my OP--but I'm very curious what it is in particular that you find looney about me or my post or anything I've said.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 12:34 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
I actually thought his bias was quite transparent early in the thread, shortly after pretending to be unbiased in the OP.
His delusion that those eeeeevil conservatives don't know people are innately good, but those dear beloved liberals actually have the greatest faith and hope for innately good mankind did fair clearly paint him as the looney lefty he has fleshed himself out to be since that post.
And let the wild misprision begin!

Had to look that one up. Still don't know which definition you intended.
Quote:

Most people on this board know me pretty well by now and most of you have made your judgements well in advance of this thread, no? Are you, jewelstaitefan, pretending that you just now decided what side I was on?


Hard to keep track of each bias of each contributor. I can recall AURaptor and Kirkules and some fairly well, but I took several months off from RWED and forgot the IDs. I evaluated your bias based on the content of this thread, your posts following your OP.


What country are you in, or from. The definitions for conservative and liberal vary greatly around the world, and even are opposite when switching from Yurp to USA. Cannot clearly explain much if I don't know your foundation of understanding. Sounds like you are not using the U.S. version of definitions.

Are you defining these labels in terms of business or finance, or party affiliation, or personal belief system, or voting trend, or something else?

Looney lefty liberal, in the U.S., are those extremist left-wingers so far beyond radical yet so convinced they are centrist they cannot see how far gone they are, thus can only be considered delusional. If you are an extremist of the U.S. version of left wing but proclaim to be centrist, or mainstream, or unbiased, then you are screaming to be labeled as looney lefty.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 3:54 AM

MAL4PREZ


Good thread HK. I like this discussion because some statements Conservatives here make about Liberals are pretty far off from where I stand. I'm not sure if this means I'm not really a liberal, or if the "liberal" label is being misrepresented. I'd also like to know if my definition of "Conservative" is wrong. But I'd have to get a rational reply from a Conservative, something that addresses the ideas rather than attacking the people. Jongsstraw?

HK, I see plenty of good insight in your post, but I disagree with the overall Lib/Con division you've made. It'll take me some time to get there...

For me, the liberal mentality is not based simply on being "kind". I do have an underlying need to promote a greater state of well-being, to see less suffering and a clearer path to the "pursuit of happiness", but I don't think that's fundamentally different from what Conservatives want. I don't think they want to see suffering. Sure, they want to punish some who they think deserve it. Doesn't make them unkind. Liberals also want to punish those who we think deserve it. Libs and Cons just have different definitions of "deserving" it.

I do see your point, though, that conservatives tend to have a villain for every situation. In the past few years especially, they rarely argue against a policy without focusing their attack on the person behind it. I've rarely seen a Conservative on this board argue dispassionately against a policy; their initial reaction is almost always to attack the person/s asking a question. Even in this thread, disagreement by Conservatives has not been expressed as a clarification of their positions, as in: "You're wrong HK, and let me explain where I really stand..." but instead comes as accusations toward you. You're "biased, delusional, looney" etc. I seen it before: all you did was set down a hypothesis and invite discussion, disagreement even. But they seem incapable of disagreeing on principle. They have to attack you.

Back to that kindness thing: Several years ago, when I was first waking up to politics, I heard a news story that really made me think. A bunch of activists pooled their money and power to shut down a plant somewhere in Asia because it used child labor. After some struggle, they did manage to shut down the plant and were all happy about it. The news story I heard was about an outside party following up a few years later: he found that a lot of those unemployed kids took up prostitution or were sold into slavery.

HK, I guess you can argue that the liberal principle of kindness wasn't met here. Well, of course kids involved in prostitution and slavery is horrible. No one's going to question that. (Trying not to make a crack at the Church...) What really bugs me more was how these "activists" completely missed reality. Their attempt at kindness back-fired because they didn't dig enough and find the real root of the problem, and they didn't anticipate what would happen because of their actions. I'd argue that they were completely blinded by righteousness, by having a clear path to being all heroic and stopping Evil. They couldn't see that what they chose to do might make things worse. And even afterward, they could not face up to the consequences of their actions. This mindset of "punish the wicked" has an unavoidable and very welcome corollary of "I am Good", and the need to see themselves as "agents of Good against Evil" was too powerful.

I don't remember if these particular people were "Liberals" or "Conservatives", but it certainly could have been either. I've seen Liberals go into that mindset. It's a human trait, and historically it happens on both sides. Problem now is, the Republicans are so completely uniform that they have no dissenting voices to force them out of their delusions. I wouldn't trade the Democratic infighting for the Republican solid bloc for anything! People need to have their beliefs and actions questioned. Especially in politics.

So, HK, I think the "kindness" is somewhere in the heart of everyone, whether Liberal or Conservative. What interests me more is the path chosen to achieve it. Personally, my goal is to live in observable, provable reality as much as possible. That's why I try to have facts laid out, and to ask for facts in return, rather than unsupported opinions.

What you're making me think, HK, is that perhaps those people who can't offer much besides unsupported opinions and attacks, (who on this site happen to be mostly, but not all, Conservatives), believe that political action means only finding and bringing down "wicked people"? Perhaps they don't believe that a better path can come of logic and observation? Whereas I, being a scientist and all, am trained to rely primarily on observations and trends?


-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 6:21 AM

CHRISISALL


If I am a just liberal, than why do I want to crush the conservatives, see them driven before me, and hear the lamentation of their women???



Funny, REAL funny you should post this. A LONG time ago a friend of mine said that a man is defined by his enemies. He was a conservative. Later in life he found God. Became more liberal. Now he says a man is defined by his friends & loved ones.

Me? I say save the kids at all costs so we DON'T have any enemies.
But, once down the Dark Path, say bye.


The evil Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 6:41 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
If I am a just liberal, than why do I want to crush the conservatives, see them driven before me, and hear the lamentation of their women???


Oh God, I love that! LOLOLOL.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 7:10 AM

RIGHTEOUS9


Not sure I have anything overly brilliant to contribute, but there seems to be something at work preceding ideology that should be taken into account.

It's not that I fully disagree with the "generosity," vs. "punishment" bar as a differential,

its that I think the two ideologies use different parameteres to define "evil" and "good."

I loved a side-by-side diagram of the liberal and conservative brain I saw in The Daily Show's "America Inaction". The liberal brain had grey matter, and the conservative brain had black and white matter.

I appreciate the grey area. Most conservatives I have known seem to believe in the innate. Society and place do not have a fundamental role in a person's actions, there is a moral compass that everybody possesses, and it always points the same direction no matter where you are standing.

In my case, you nailed me, I lean on the side of generosity and forgiveness, but I wonder how much of that is predicated on the simple reality that it is harder for me to make a judgement about who is wicked and who is good. If, as I do believe, people are a product of their environment, then it is hard for me to feel good about targetting the end action only. If that person is a product of the environment, then it makes us all culpable in some way(a little liberal guilt for you).

I suppose we also look at the value of punishment differently. I have no problem locking somebody up who is dangerous, but I don't often feel like that's a matter of the good guys winning, or that punishment for the sake of punishment should be a goal of the state.

Now, this is an area where I get dangerously close to operating on faith and ideology. I hope in the process of rehabilitation. I believe a society should focus on that for its prisoner, and not on the punishment side. This does come back to the way I weigh nurture over nature. This is one last opportunity for nurture. Is there a point where it is do late to rehabilitate? Probably, but I don't know...I don't feel good about abandoning the notion, even in the interest of pragmatism...

A conservative would probably counter that more bad people will commit crimes if they view prison as a plushy place to rehabilitate. A conservaitive might fairly argue that punishment is neccesary for putting in check the natures of would-be criminals among us. A conservative would probably hold as obvious, that a person's actions speak for his morality, and a conservative is much more capable of seeing the laws of the land as a guideline for establishing moral character.

If it is easy to define good and evil, then it is easy to feel vindication when evil gets punished, and good gets rewarded. If it is hard to define good and evil, then it is hard to feel good about punishing a person for his actions...it is harder to distance one-self from those actions...it begins to feel like a bit of scape-goating, when we bring down the hammer.

...just a note on that, the one area where I see a whole lot of unchecked vitriol on the left, is with rich, and empowered criminality. This can extend to behaviors that are made "legal" by law as well. There seems to be far less understanding, far less interest in nuancing out the motivations of the person who we(I'll include myself) see as doing harm. we tend to look at them as cynical individuals who DO know better, who are acting out of a self-serving motivation only.

We tend not to be so forgiving, even when they seem to "reform." We have a love hate with Colin Powell in the message boards. We listen intently, we may even be glad he's saying what he's saying, and then somebody writes, basically, "your dead to us, war criminal..." and everybody else piles on.

The same goes for Scott Mcclellan(sp?) or "hmmm I guess I was wrong" Greenspan, though we did seem to give that former health care CEO a pass.

It seems to indicate that yes, we do tend to hold up the poor in some ways. It may not be entirely fair to forgive them their transgressions and to be so hard on the moneyed and powered when they err, but on the other hand, the moneyed and powered don't truly need our sympathy, they have a system that has their back.

I'm straying a bit so I'll end off.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 7:13 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Frem is a no-brainer...by my reckoning, he's all liberal to his toes, as am I, it turns out. I'm only going on my understanding of human psychology here, but I'd say you either favor kindness or you favor punishment, there's no middle ground.


In your model then, anarchism is really uber-liberalism. It makes sense on first glance, since liberalism is rooted in the concept of liberty. I can live with that.

After thinking about it though, I feel anarchism is NOT simply more liberalism. If this were the case, I should irritate Citizen and SignyM less than I irritate Auraptor and Finn. Yet I find more or less an equal amount of enmity from both camps.

I can't get around the fact that both liberals and conservatives are committed to an intractable belief in "authority." And anarchists are not.

So if I may, I would like to propose this dichotomy,to add to your model.

Liberals are committed to preventative authority. So they are more in favor for preventative laws: equal distribution of resources, licensing of products and providers, regulation of the environment, etc.

Conservatives are committed to punitive authority. So they are more in favor of punitive laws: capital punishment, war, restriction of abortion, etc.

Anarchists are committed to no authority at all.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 7:57 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
And let the wild misprision begin!

Had to look that one up. Still don't know which definition you intended.
Doh! I think the internet is kind of a blessing and a curse. I just googled "misprision" and found that it has this extensive legal usage of which I was entirely unaware. I picked up the word in college. In my experience, it's a lit crit term, means misunderstanding based on only reading fragments or portions of a text.
Quote:
What country are you in, or from. The definitions for conservative and liberal vary greatly around the world, and even are opposite when switching from Yurp to USA. Cannot clearly explain much if I don't know your foundation of understanding. Sounds like you are not using the U.S. version of definitions.

Are you defining these labels in terms of business or finance, or party affiliation, or personal belief system, or voting trend, or something else?
I tried to make it clear that I was using the post to define what I mean by these terms. All too often folk go off on various tangents about libs/cons without defining their terms and it becomes a battle over definitions.

Mainly, I'm looking at social/psychological phenomena. I'm talking about my society, the United States. I'm seeing a political landscape and trying to get to the core beliefs and values that drive people to do the things I see being done. I see people on the left in this country doing the things American lefties do and people on the right doing what American conservatives do and I'm trying to get at the essential difference, the core psychological distinction that ultimately leads to a person being on one side or the other.

What I came up with was not a straight forward opposition--libs are for x and against y and cons are against x and for y--but a more subtle difference in their hierarchies of value.

What do I mean by value? Value has everything to do with our emotional response. If I value something highly, I will have a strong positive emotional reaction to it. I can say that I value some things more than others. And some things have negative value, things I find to be destructive. I assign the greatest negative value--have the strongest negative reaction to--the things that specifically seem to threaten my highest values. See what I'm saying?

This is the part I see leading to the most misunderstanding. It's not that all liberals are obsessed with loving kindness above all else, though I understand why you got that impression and I'm sorry for letting my emotions overshadow my point here. My point is only that the liberal psychology, or I might say, in the liberal emotional response, kindness is valued more highly (even if only slightly) than punishing the wrong-doer. I'm trying to focus very specifically on these two values, as I believe that these two values hold the key to all the political shenanigans people get into in this country.

I'm only trying to pinpoint that liberals, all of 'em, value "kindness" more than "punishing the wicked." That is, they have a stronger emotional connection to "kindness" than "punishing the wicked." The liberal may have other things that are more important than kindness in their hierarchy of value, but to be a liberal, to support liberal causes wholeheartedly "kindness" must out rank "punishing the wicked" in their thinking and feeling. And similarly, I do not mean to say that conservatives can't or don't value "kindness," only that "punishing the wicked" holds a higher place in their hearts than "generosity"--you know, it's simply more important if one is to live a good life to secure the borders and keep bad people in check than it is to always be kind to people. Not that being kind to people is not valued, or wrong, but only that it is not quite as important as security. Hierarchy of value.

I think where confusion happens, for all of us, is at the extremes. What I like about my model is that it accounts for people nearer the middle of the spectrum, like say Chrisisall, and folk out near the extremes as well. What I'm saying is that the folks at the extremes will have the widest gap between "generosity" and "punishing the wicked" and people closer to the center will value these two things more equally, but I contend that whether one is higher than the other ultimately places you on one side or the other of the political divide. Also, my model accounts for why people at the extremes get so aggressive toward the other extreme. In these cases, its not simply that one concept is valued more highly than the other, but that one concept threatens the very existence of the other.

So the folks at the extremes don't merely value "generosity" more highly or less highly than "punishing the wicked" but place their highest value in one and actually see the other as a threat. So your far left "looney" sees kindness as the only real answer to life's problems and sees all forms of punishment, violence as sickeningly wrong and destructive to everyone's willingness and ability to be kind. And your far right "crazy" sees punishing the wicked as the central meaningful act in existence and sees all forms of kindness or charity as some kind of flim-flammery or weakness--Byte's "social Darwinist" would qualify here. Which is not to say that such folk are necessarily sane or consistent. A lot of times, folk out at the extremes can get pretty unbalanced and paranoid and the "lover of kindness" can be nothing but violent in public and the "champions of righteousness" can willingly harm all manner of innocents in their persuit of the wicked.

This is my own definition that I'm trying to explain here. As with any attempt to simplify a very complex issue down to its essentials, there are bound to be exceptions and apparent inconsistencies that need to be ironed out. Perhaps as this thread progresses I will discover that I have to abandon this model in favor of another, or I may finally see the flaw in all such models and move on. I don't know.

Thanks for your civil reply. That means a lot to me. I place civility pretty far up there in my hierarchy of value.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 8:11 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
In these cases, its not simply that one concept is valued more highly than the other, but that one concept threatens the very existence of the other.


This explains your choice of terms very well, "generosity" vs. "punishment." I get it now.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 8:26 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Wow, Cavalier, I never saw it in that light, but I think what you wrote is brilliant. I would add NewOld’s “fear”, since it both fits—there are bad guys out there you need to punish/keep yourself safe from, and also the reason fear does so well in motivating Conservatives, ergo is a great manipulator.

I wouldn’t say you’re screwed up at all, Frem; rather, I would use the word “pragmatic”. Liberals can all too easily be caught by the fallacy of too MUCH kindness, blinding ourselves to reality and the need to take action—as such we abdicate our responsibility. To see and try to understand, yet have the willingness to act despite it going against one’s desire to be kind or fair, is more realistic than some of what liberals end up doing.

BigDamn, if you saw value until you got to that part, then think a minute: if you agree that the Conservative core is that the world is dangerous, there are bad guys out there, etc., then it naturally follows that they would want rules and limitations to keep themselves safe. It’s a natural progression; to stay safe from the dangerous, we want to curb the dangerous, keep it “corralled” so that it can’t hurt us. If Liberals, on the other hand, are stuck dealing with ambiguity (added to the concept that “bad” people are MADE bad, not born that way), it’s all too easy to fall into the belief that “everyone can be helped”, so there’s less desire to stay safe from them. This is all too obviously a trap, since society DOES have to be kept safe from some “bad” people, whatever caused their badness. Then, too, what Cavalier has written goes straight to the heart of The Authoritarians, that theory we debated a long time ago. Someone to lead—black and white thinking—makes one feel safe; one person to follow and believe in and blind oneself to their faults.

I fully agree about Paul, Cav. Humans much more like easy delineation between beliefs and to have someone they can follow who excites them, is flashy...one reason Obama won is that soaring rhetoric, it inspired, it talked of the possibility of dramatic change which would make things further along that path of “better”. Also explains why we’re so disappointed in him. But yes, Paul has a lot of good ideas, but isn’t a dramatic enough person to hold people’s interest in his rhetoric.

It’s a shame Jewel can’t read what you wrote more dispassionately. I didn’t get that you were saying Conservatives were “evil”, merely that they had a different mindset. I think his point was well taken—perhaps Conservatives believe people are innately good, maybe the difference is that once people behave “badly” in their terms (i.e., abortion, poverty, violence), they feel they’ve been corrupted from their innate goodness, and unless they can be fixed, are to be rejected. It’s no better than the Liberal trap that people are born innately good, so must be forgiven and worked with to bring that goodness out—which doesn’t take responsibility for ensuring the public good by “corralling” them, because there are myriad out there whose goodness is so far buried that nothing can help them.

I agree that it’s not about “innate goodness”, or else Conservatives, being generally more religious, WOULDN’T be so. I see more in the Bible that teaches that mankind is/was made in God’s image and born innocent, the concept Cav puts forth doesn’t hold water. What I’m trying to say is, although perhaps both believe in innate goodness, the way they view and deal with people once they do something “bad”, how they’re viewed and dealt with, is what differs.

Which is where I agree with Mal about the “kind” thing. I’m not sure that’s accurate...just guessing, but maybe it’s something to do with more tolerance of “the different”, less willingness to be concrete. Maybe muddled in the grays is closer...too many variables and less able to think in the black and white (which has it’s advantages in some situations)? Like I said about the trap of not realizing some people have to be corralled for the public good, but being stuck in “if we can help...”.

I hate to admit it, but what I’ve seen here, too, is more that
Quote:
they seem incapable of disagreeing on principle. They have to attack you.
than reasoned debate on the part of Conservatives. Now I can’t know if that’s because the kind of Conservatives who come here or stay here are less reasoned than the majority, so that statement should be caveated as such. But, aside from Mike who everyone knows is a shit-disturber, that is what I’ve seen. It makes debate difficult, because there are no reasoned arguments to “grab onto” and debate.
Quote:
A bunch of activists pooled their money and power to shut down a plant somewhere in Asia because it used child labor. After some struggle, they did manage to shut down the plant and were all happy about it. The news story I heard was about an outside party following up a few years later: he found that a lot of those unemployed kids took up prostitution or were sold into slavery.
Oh, bingo! There’s the “trap” I was talking about, that Liberals see what they believe is a wrong, try to solve it without realizing that there may be a WORSE wrong if it is “solved”. That’s a prime example of what I was trying to say, and takes it out of the realm of “kindness” as well as the realm of seeing an individual person as “bad”...more seeing a situation as “bad” by our interpretation, and not seeing that something worse might follow.

But in such an example, both sides are trapped by their ideology. Conservatives by and large thought it was good to invade Iraq, aside from the fears their leaders had exploited, because it would bring democracy (i.e., good) to replace dictatorship (bad). But has it and will it? Will it leave a vacuum for someone worse than Saddam? Not anticipating the long-term result of their actions seems to me to be a trap both ways of thinking are given to doing.

I’d also posit that seeing themselves as “good” and being blinded by “righteousness” is another trap both mentalities fall into, not just one or the other.

Ooops, I see on both points that Mal got there before me. He’s saying somewhat the same thing I just said, and I, too, think in cases like that it’s more “the path chosen to achieve it” which can be the danger.

Righteous gave an ideal example of how I view the Liberal mentality:
Quote:
If, as I do believe, people are a product of their environment, then it is hard for me to feel good about targetting the end action only. If that person is a product of the environment, then it makes us all culpable in some way(a little liberal guilt for you).
I don’t know if its liberal guilt or not, I don’t find myself feeling guilty about what I believe and how I am (unless I behave in ways that don’t fit with what I believe).

Righteous also brought out a very valid point with
Quote:
...just a note on that, the one area where I see a whole lot of unchecked vitriol on the left, is with rich, and empowered criminality. This can extend to behaviors that are made "legal" by law as well. There seems to be far less understanding, far less interest in nuancing out the motivations of the person who we(I'll include myself) see as doing harm. we tend to look at them as cynical individuals who DO know better, who are acting out of a self-serving motivation only.
Now THAT’s a weakness of Liberals in general, and one I know I have as well. I’m not sure what it stems from—certainly not the original concept of “kindness”?

Your last one, Cantake, may well be the definitive division, in many regards: Liberals are committed to preventative authority, Conservatives to punitive authority, Anarchists to none. Obviously sweeping statements don’t hold true for everyone, and I realize you were leaving out the more moderate members of either side, but that may be close to the crux of the two ways of thinking.

Either way, excellent debate. I would like to see someone from the Conservative side try to do the same as you did in the beginning; tell us how they view the two mentalities and what the core beliefs of each are. That way we'd get two different views. I have no doubt I am impressed with your delineation partly because it appeals to me to be thought of that way, so I'm biased. I would be very interested in hearing the theory from the "other side".


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 9:10 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
As with any attempt to simplify a very complex issue down to its essentials, there are bound to be exceptions and apparent inconsistencies that need to be ironed out.
My Father-in-Law read the OP & asked how is it possible to simplify the complexity of, for instance, backing the Contras over the Sandinistas...
He posited that it can't be boiled down to "punishing the wicked."
I think he means to say that greed, fear, opportunism, sheer power- all can't be simplified in this way.
Personally, I'd simplify it along the lines of the "I'm afraid that if we don't"'s & the "I really think we should"'s. Both ends of the spectrum meet with the "WE MUST!"'s.


The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 9:23 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


In some respects I agree, Chris, but that deals with one small portion of the issue. It doesn't speak to the wider mentality of the two sides and how they view the world, it only speaks to dealings with the world outside our country.

It's much bigger than that; tho' in the cases you cited, I agree. But with other dealings, it doesn't always come down to "We must".


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 9:24 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
tell us how they view the two mentalities and what the core beliefs of each are.

Conservatives: "I'm afraid if we don't act, and ACT NOW to preserve our way of life, It'll be GONE!!!!"

Liberals: "I really think we should help innocents, even if that means we ourselves pay some price for it..."

Me: "No one way is The Way, just be prepared son, always be prepared (& treat others as you would like to be treated)."


The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 9:57 AM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
So the folks at the extremes don't merely value "generosity" more highly or less highly than "punishing the wicked" but place their highest value in one and actually see the other as a threat. So your far left "looney" sees kindness as the only real answer to life's problems and sees all forms of punishment, violence as sickeningly wrong and destructive to everyone's willingness and ability to be kind. And your far right "crazy" sees punishing the wicked as the central meaningful act in existence and sees all forms of kindness or charity as some kind of flim-flammery or weakness--Byte's "social Darwinist" would qualify here.
Thank you HK. I understand your meaning better. And I think CTS made a great point: "Liberals are committed to preventative authority. Conservatives are committed to punitive authority." That does seem to fit the extremes on both sides.

I don't know about the dispassionate thing, Niki. Were you here during the God debates? I guess it's a few years back now. Someone brought up a question about God that seemed quite academic to me, but it offended some posters so deeply that one at least still hasn't returned. This thread seems like it could go the same way. I'm not sure how many of our Conservatives will be able to take the "punishment of the Wicked" idea as a concept to be debated, rather than a personal insult that requires retaliation.

It is rather loaded language, so much that I'm not sure anyone but those toward the liberal end of spectrum will use it. I doubt Conservatives see themselves as punishing anyone. Take gay marriage: they are not attacking gays, or taking any rights away from them. They are defending "traditional marriage". And anti-abortion is not about limiting the rights of woman who are sexually active, it's about protecting the unborn. Putting any of these issues in terms of "punishing the wicked" completely undermines these arguments.

It would be nice to hear some rational responses from Conservatives. Hope I don't miss it. I'm back in school tomorrow and my internet time will go way way down.


-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 10:09 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Take gay marriage: they are not attacking gays, or taking any rights away from them. They are defending "traditional marriage".
"I'm afraid that if we don't" discourage gay marrage, that gays will over-run our country & ruin our way of life.
Quote:
And anti-abortion is not about limiting the rights of woman who are sexually active, it's about protecting the unborn.
"I'm afraid that if we don't" condemn abortion, we'll go to Hell, or, at the very least, lose future potential military recruits.


The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 10:33 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
My Father-in-Law read the OP & asked how is it possible to simplify the complexity of, for instance, backing the Contras over the Sandinistas...
He posited that it can't be boiled down to "punishing the wicked."
I think he means to say that greed, fear, opportunism, sheer power- all can't be simplified in this way.
Personally, I'd simplify it along the lines of the "I'm afraid that if we don't"'s & the "I really think we should"'s. Both ends of the spectrum meet with the "WE MUST!"'s.
I'm sorry my point isn't clearer. I'm talking pretty much specifically about the emotional/psychological SOURCES of action, what drives us to choose one action or another--NOT what actions we ultimately choose. I'm saying the REASON a liberal backs a cause is gonna be different from the REASON a conservative backs a cause in some particular way. Our reasoning is different, based on different premises, different hierarchies of value. I, being pretty profoundly liberal in the sense I'm using the term here, would be entirely against us backing either Contra or Sandanista. Sometimes the most generous thing you can do for others is to let them determine their own destinies. I presume there would be a lot of other liberal folk who would back one or the other faction for liberal reasons. A conservative could just as easily push for non-intervention but would, I contend, do so for very different reasons than I.

Most of all, I'm trying to talk about a liberal mindset vs. a conservative mindset. And I'm also trying to create a model that accounts for why liberals and conservatives in this country so habitually misunderstand each other.

Another way of thinking about what I'm saying is from the point of view of vulnerabilities of the right and left, our triggers and the sorta "dog whistle" propaganda that is used to manipulate us. For instance, if you want an emotionally liberal or liberal valuing person to support your program, then talk about its universal application, about its fairness, about how it gives relief to the poor. Convince me of these things and I will prolly support you as far as it goes. On the other hand, if you want an emotionally conservative or conservatively valuing person to support your program, then talk about how it will keep him safe, how foolproof it is, and how it will make the country more prosperous and if you can, how it will make life difficult for wicked people. Do that, and you'll have the conservative base behind you.

So what I'm talking about isn't just ideology, because we think of ideology as something largely chosen--rather I'm talking about deeper values, the knee-jerk and involuntary responses in people that propel us toward action.

Does that help?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 10:41 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Does that help?

I'll pass it along- I think I personally was already getting you. I just wanted to word it differently, "generosity" being hope, & "punishment" being fear. I thought my F-I-L would "get" that better.


The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 11:05 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Me: "No one way is The Way

And in this, you show the wisdom I have always respected you for.

Problem comes from, as you say, folks who see anything BUT their way as a threat to them and their way of life, and will engage all they have out of fear of it, because one human response to something that makes us afraid is to attack it viciously in hopes of destroying it's power and thus ability to harm them.

And it's very true that the extremes see each other as such a threat - but also true that the extremes of EITHER end see Anarchism as a threat, in Catalonia you had the Communists, and the Fascists, otherwise diametrically opposed on that scale, fighting side by side to crush the Anarchist threat - because Anarchism itself, not it's practice, but it's very *existence*, threatens every extreme since it's mere presence subverts the presumption that one side must destroy the other to survive.

That's the root cause of the bitter hatred, you see, our very existence is a slap in the face of their innermost core beliefs, and a thorn in the side more grating, more offensive, than anything else they could possibly imagine - the antagonism between them and their spiritual/moral opposites, that STILL fits in with their core beliefs and concept of the way the world works, it doesn't challenge many, if any, of their perceptions or understandings - but something that by its mere existence casts doubt on ALL they believe, that is an affront beyond measure.

It's also, mind you, why Ronin were hunted down and despised, the idea that a Samurai might choose to serve NO master, but rather their own conscience (the infamous 47) or the people as a whole (Miyamoto Musashi) was genuinely offensive not only to those Lords, but also society as a whole because it cast the shadow of doubt on their entire culture and way of life.

So it's not anything Anarchists DO that offend the extremes, it's the fact that we EXIST, which does...

And because of that, we fall under attack from them all, and in an obligatory snide insinuation of our superiority I feel the need to point out this.

We *still* exist, survive and thrive, despite that.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 11:26 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
It is rather loaded language, so much that I'm not sure anyone but those toward the liberal end of spectrum will use it.

Agreed. I've been wracking my brain to think of a term that is better than punishment, but I'm having a hard time. The closest I've come is "having standards" and not allowing for deviation from that standard.

Quote:
I doubt Conservatives see themselves as punishing anyone. Take gay marriage: they are not attacking gays, or taking any rights away from them. They are defending "traditional marriage". And anti-abortion is not about limiting the rights of woman who are sexually active, it's about protecting the unborn. Putting any of these issues in terms of "punishing the wicked" completely undermines these arguments.


See, what HK calls "wickedness" is failing to meet a set of conservative standards. Traditional marriage is a conservative standard, for example. What is being described as "punishment" is not allowing gays to erode that standard by diluting it with non-traditional marriages. The liberal side sees it as a "punishment" for not meeting that standard. The conservative side sees it as protecting a standard by not expanding its definition.

The same thing with the abortion debate. The standard is human life. It doesn't matter that the human life is trapped in the body of another human life. You don't compromise the standard, you don't bend the principle, you don't dilute the definition. You protect the ideology, even if it isn't convenient.

This reminds me of a quotation by one of my favorite authors. A priest named Anthony de Mello once said, "Compassion has no ideology."

He obviously was a liberal.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 12:11 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
See, what HK calls "wickedness" is failing to meet a set of conservative standards.
I think this is a very good way of wording it! "Punishment for breaking the standards."

But it doesn't avoid the problem: I think it's still a phrase that's easy for liberals to throw around, but many Conservatives might not be happy with it. What I've gotten out of debates and this site and elsewhere is that they don't recognize the "standards" that they themselves have set and could adjust if they choose. There is only the Way It Is and Always Must Be. (Who already posted something about that? Chris?)

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 12:37 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
It is rather loaded language, so much that I'm not sure anyone but those toward the liberal end of spectrum will use it. I doubt Conservatives see themselves as punishing anyone. Take gay marriage: they are not attacking gays, or taking any rights away from them. They are defending "traditional marriage". And anti-abortion is not about limiting the rights of woman who are sexually active, it's about protecting the unborn. Putting any of these issues in terms of "punishing the wicked" completely undermines these arguments.
Thanks so much--everyone--for bringing so much thought to this discussion! This is really gratifying for me.

You bring up a really important point M4P, that I want to talk about. It's tough. I don't agree with you that the right don't think they're punishing anyone, you just need to listen to Palin or Beck or AURaptor talk about Iraq to feel the totemic power punishing the wicked has for the far, far right (far right, as I see it, o' course).

I think what the problem is, and I'm sorry for the unflattering description I give of the right--I don't think it's my job to flatter the right, but they seem to really get pissed at this kind of impoliteness--the problem is not that I'm using the wrong words, but that I am the wrong person to be using those words. I think it's a kind of proprietary language for the right. Punishment of the wicked should be a very familiar value to any Born Again Christian, for instance, but no Born Again is gonna be too happy with someone like me talking about it. Here I am "the wicked" presuming to tell them anything!

It speaks to the deep, not entirely conscious distrust both sides have for the other. I'm trying to be as trustworthy as I can, as clear in my biases as I can, but it's such a huge topic it's hard for me to cover all the bases all the time.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 12:42 PM

RIGHTEOUS9




just for clarification, how would you define a liberal extremist?

Personally, I have great interest and respect for the thoughtful posts of frem, cavalier, and SergeantX,

but I've never been convinced that the anarchist philosophy is tennable and that it would ultimately result in something we haven't seen before...

I've read posts between you guys and rue and sygm, and they do sometimes get quite heated on both sides, but is that an issue of extremes being threatened by anarchism or is it an issue of frustration when both philosophers don't seem to really find the other's position viable?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 1:43 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You bring up a really important point M4P, that I want to talk about. It's tough. I don't agree with you that the right don't think they're punishing anyone, you just need to listen to Palin or Beck or AURaptor talk about Iraq to feel the totemic power punishing the wicked has for the far, far right (far right, as I see it, o' course).
I agree about this example - the right certainly made no bones about the Axis of Evil. But I think when it comes to domestic policy, which is own my mind more this week, they really don't see their own motivations as "punishment." I could be wrong, of course, since I can't read minds. But what I've sensed from the far right is that what you and I see as "punishment of those who break the conventions" is just not defined that way for them.

And please understand: I'm not trying to say that you're wrong in how you're defining the mentalities. I'm saying that just seeing that distinction, and defining it the way you (and I) do, is part of the liberal mindset. Do you follow?

Quote:
that I am the wrong person to be using those words. I think it's a kind of proprietary language for the right.
Very interesting. This makes me think of something - with the caveat that I don't know why I'm so inclined to play Devil's advocate, because I agree with what you're saying. Really. You're just bringing up interesting points that make my mind goes sideways...

A very good friend of mine "went lesbian" after I'd known her several years. OK, my hobbies have included dance and ice hockey. Lots of gay men, lots of gay women. I really don't care. My friend's new crowd was different though. They made it pretty clear that there were conversations I could not freely take part in because I'd never done a girl. They seemed to have some inherent distrust of a fem-ish straight girl. It was a bizarre little clique.

So, as we already agreed, there's bias on every side. But I'll enthusiastically agree that religion and today's right wing is especially good at it.


Quote:
It speaks to the deep, not entirely conscious distrust both sides have for the other. I'm trying to be as trustworthy as I can, as clear in my biases as I can, but it's such a huge topic it's hard for me to cover all the bases all the time.
You're doing well. It is quite hard to have a conversation like this. I find that another facet of that other mentality is to grab ahold of anything that may give offense and focus on it. aka Palin and the pig lipstick. It gets things off topic. I find that it generally happens when specific details of explanation are asked for, and can be quite frustrating.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 3:20 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

And it's very true that the extremes see each other as such a threat - but also true that the extremes of EITHER end see Anarchism as a threat
I recently rented Sanjuro for the first time- made me think of you, Frem


The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 3:30 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

It speaks to the deep, not entirely conscious distrust both sides have for the other.
Hey, I don't entirely trust MYSELF not to be blinded by bias; I'm as subject to misinformation as anyone. I try to soak it all up & spit out the utter BS, then weigh the facts.
Not always entirely successful, but tools (like this place) make it a bit easier. I find you & Jong to be a really good balance here; neither of you rabid nor dismissive.
Shoot for the stars & hope to get to at least get to the Moon, objective-wise, that's my motto, if, y'know...

...I had a...


The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 5:33 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I recently rented Sanjuro for the first time

In order to keep this brief and try to stay on topic - that is however, one other reason extremes hate Anarchists, we don't take em seriously!

Well, that and we're kind of obnoxious.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 5:37 PM

CHRISISALL



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 28, 2010 10:30 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
And let the wild misprision begin!

Had to look that one up. Still don't know which definition you intended.
Doh! I think the internet is kind of a blessing and a curse. I just googled "misprision" and found that it has this extensive legal usage of which I was entirely unaware. I picked up the word in college. In my experience, it's a lit crit term, means misunderstanding based on only reading fragments or portions of a text.

Whoops. I used a Webster's 2663 page version, 1976 edition.

Short version:
Of those I've known throughout my life, the far more generous have been decidedly conservative, but I can't argue the liberals think of themselves as generous, they're just thinking in their warped veiwpoint.
And I'm not talking about charity, although all the studies have shown that conservatives are many multiples more generous with money than liberals.
This warped "punish the wicked" thing you came up with does not mesh with any of the conservatives I know, and would not be tolerated.

When peoples create a government, or agree to how they should be governed, or agree on laws, rules, guidelines they should all abide by so all get along together, the most conservative are so generous that they want to very clearly spell out what the laws and consequences will be for the violators, miscreants, who insist on not getting along with the rest of society.
Liberals prefer to argue the merits of theft, rape, pillaging, murder in courts, muddy the definitions, make the consequenced unclear so that even a citizen who wishes to abide by all laws cannot even do so after the liberals have warped all the cause-effect relationships of behavior/punishment.
Liberals define this corruption of societal rules as being generous, by supporting the habitual miscreant, or even the anarchist.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 29, 2010 5:18 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Short version:
Of those I've known throughout my life, the far more generous have been decidedly conservative, but I can't argue the liberals think of themselves as generous, they're just thinking in their warped veiwpoint.
Thanks for your reply.

I don't doubt you here. Your comments allow me to reiterate an important point: I'm really not talking about results, but rationales. I think liberals can sometimes be so abstract in their thinking that they can leave the real world and its requirements behind and live in some version of the ideal. In this sense, "it's the thought that counts" is a quintessentially liberal attitude in politics. Sometimes that's true, but sometimes it's the most bassackwards nonsense going. I think this in part accounts for why the Healthcare bill is so crappy. The liberals on Capital Hill keep telling themselves, "but we're reforming healthcare!" over and over as if wishing will make it so and go with whatever crap they're handed.

There's more to say, but I'm off to work. Have a good day, everybody!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 29, 2010 6:34 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I think liberals can sometimes be so abstract in their thinking that they can leave the real world and its requirements behind and live in some version of the ideal. In this sense, "it's the thought that counts" is a quintessentially liberal attitude in politics.

Yep, there's truth to that.
In that way Liberals can be "soft."
In the other direction though, Conservatives can be "hard."

"Reality is probably someplace in between."
- James T. Kirk


The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 29, 2010 6:50 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I wish I could be here more for real-time discussions, it takes so long to catch up every morning!
Quote:
Conservatives: "I'm afraid if we don't act, and ACT NOW to preserve our way of life, It'll be GONE!!!!"

Liberals: "I really think we should help innocents, even if that means we ourselves pay some price for it..."

Me: "No one way is The Way, just be prepared son, always be prepared (& treat others as you would like to be treated)."
I think I disagree, but I’m not sure how to put it into words. I agree to an extent with the Conservative viewpoint, but I don’t think the Liberal is accurate. I don’t think Liberals THINK about helping innocents as their core belief. It goes deeper. I think the Conservative viewpoint is pretty right on, Cantake got it:
Quote:
what HK calls "wickedness" is failing to meet a set of conservative standards. Traditional marriage is a conservative standard, for example. What is being described as "punishment" is not allowing gays to erode that standard by diluting it with non-traditional marriages. The liberal side sees it as a "punishment" for not meeting that standard. The conservative side sees it as protecting a standard by not expanding its definition
By the way, it’s great to have an articulate conservative voice speak up (I’m assuming that’s what you are, given your verbiage?). Wish we could get more of you chimingin.. I think it’s a lot closer to the truth; that the status quo must be maintained to keep people safe. It goes again to the concept, in my opinion, of the fear of “other” Conservatives have at the base, which can be defined as the fear of change. I think that fits with the “less government”, because government institutes change (new laws), as well as some of the stuff from “The Authoritarians”.

But the Liberals, there I fail. I KNOW the base belief isn’t about helping innocents. Perhaps it’s along the lines of “change can be good, not frightening”, but I know that’s not it either. I’m not sure what it is. Given the basis of conservative thought, in my opinion, is fear, it doesn’t follow that the basis of Liberal thinking is lack of fear. There has to be something else at the core; I reject helping innocents as well as “kindness”, those are liberal buzz words and how we liberals may view ourselves, but it’s not accurate. I’m not sure liberals viewing the keeping of the status quo as “punishment”, I know I don’t. I see it more as being locked into a mentality and unwilling to evolve, as well as fear of the “different”. So I’m not sure how t define the liberal mentality. Maybe a belief in what we do will/can make things more equal, even if it means changing the status quo? I’m not saying that’s what we DO in the end, but I know that’s a motivation for me. If you take “conservative” literally, it actually MEANS no change, conserve what “is”.

No, Mal4, I wasn’t here for the God debate—thank heaven. I’d probably be run out of town on a rail, from what you describe. I get into a lot of trouble voicing my opinions—more on organized religion than “god”, but not having one gets me in trouble too. Glad I missed that one! Yes, as everyone knows, “religion and politics” are the two subjects that can get most heated. I don’t view this thread going that way, tho’, because we’ve got few, if any, conservatives arguing their point...

I agree the “punish the wicked” isn’t appropriate, and not just because they’d be offended. I think it’s more that punishment is an effect, not the purpose. Exclusion or containment of those threatening the status quo seems closer, but I don’t know if that works entirely, either.

Along the same lines, Mal4, I think
Quote:
Liberals are committed to preventative authority. Conservatives are committed to punitive authority
doesn’t do it either. But I can’t come up with what’s closer. It doesn’t work for me because, as I said, I don’t think it’s intended (subconsciously/at the core/whatever) as “punitive”, and because most of what I’ve seen is conservatives not WANTING more government, which represents authority. Yes, except when it matches their own values, but in general I think one has to take “authority” out of it. I’d suggest conservatives are more bent on blame—but where does that leave liberals? Certainly not “not blame”, because we are quick to blame the conservatives...

I just know that, not just because conservatives wouldn’t like it, “punish” doesn’t work. It’s something deeper, more along the idea of punishment OR control of those not following the “status quo”...protecting the status quo, as Canttake put it, is at the heart of it somehow...


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 29, 2010 6:51 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Chris, I disagree wholeheartedly with your
Quote:
"I'm afraid that if we don't" discourage gay marrage, that gays will over-run our country & ruin our way of life.
That one has a certain validity, but I think at the base it’s something more, perhaps inability to understand, which leads to fear, which leads to hate. As for the abortion viewpoint,
Quote:
"I'm afraid that if we don't" condemn abortion, we'll go to Hell, or, at the very least, lose future potential military recruits.
DEFINITELY doesn’t work for me. Conservatives aren’t afraid of going to hell because of condoning abortion, I think it goes more to not understanding-fear-hate again, but perhaps in both cases because they challenge their religious beliefs...those are things that, like politics, hit closest to home with most people.

There’s the argument that “social justice” is to conservatives a buzz word for something bad, whereas to the liberals it’s what we seek...but how does that reflect the deeper mentality?

As Cav said, “emotional/psychological SOURCES of action, what drives us to choose one action or another” that we’re trying to define...damn I wish we had more conservatives who would speak up and define THEIR sources of action (tho’ just as with liberals, it would be their conscious opinion, so would require digging deeper). But it would be a start. “Protecting the status quo” is good...but what makes them WANT to protect the status quo? I think “fear” is at the root...but then what’s at the root of liberal mentality? Not “lack of fear”.

Along with that, I would agree that our core values on both sides are easy to manipulate, and that they can be used to make us support a war, either mentality, but...

HEY, how about at the core conservative values are “conserve the status quo” and liberal values are “evolve the status quo”? Maybe “evolve” could be viewed by liberals as “improve”...but the terms come close, I think. The word “conservative” certainly has its roots in that, but “Liberal” doesn’t work...

Frem, I disagree to a point. I don’t think
Quote:
folks who see anything BUT their way as a threat to them and their way of life
because I don’t think liberals see the things they disagree with conservatives with as threatening THEIR way of life. It may work for conservatives, but it doesn’t work for me; abortion or restricting of same doesn’t threaten me, or does gay marriage. It’s something else. To ME, they’re about not imposing strictures on either, on letting people lead their own lives, and I’m not threatened by the restricting of either, I’m ANGRY that the attempt to do so. So where does that put me? Oh, wait, yes I do fear them, because I fear their restricting of the above might move on to restrictions that WOULD threaten my way of life. Okay, I’ll give you that...but I don’t THINK it’s at the core of why I feel the say I do.

I also don’t see Anarchists’ existence as a threat in any way:
Quote:
our very existence is a slap in the face of their innermost core beliefs
isn’t true for me. What do I feel about them...lemme think. I think they’re wrong, that no curb on humans would mean a worse situation. I do fear them, because I think if they had their way, the result would be chaos—so in that way, yes, I fear them...but I fear them coming into POWER, not their mere existence. Maybe it’s because anarchists aren’t numerous enough to view as an enemy? Dunno. I know anarchism doesn’t seem to me to cast doubt on what I believe, and isn’t an affront. I just disagree...and certainly fear that if they had power, yes, the result would affect my way of life. It’s not that their existence bothers or offends me.

Mal4, in your post about conservatives not liking the terminology, how about changing it to “control (punishment, too, maybe, but first off control) to keep from breaking their beliefs of what is right”?

Cav, I don’t think it’s at all about “you” saying these things Unless you mean you as a liberal; I think conservatives would get their ruff up at anyone saying what you have...but you’re definitely right about neither side trusting the other.

I agree with R9—maybe it’s because we both view anarchists as unrealistic, so we dismiss them? I for one am more likely to think “yeah, it’s nice, in a perfect world, but will never happen” so roll right over it.

Mal4, are you female? As I’ve said before, I can’t tell unless someone says something; it’s very confusing! I’m not sure of the motivation of your lesbian friends; I was told the same until I discovered I was “bi”. I know now that I think there are discussions a straight woman wouldn’t fully UNDERSTAND, but I wouldn’t exclude them, just speak from my own point of view. I’d hazard a guess that their lifestyle is different, they are a minority and undoubtedly defensive, so maybe that’s one way of excluding those they think would disapprove of them or judge them? Just guessing.

I DO think the habit of grabbing anything that seems offensive belongs more to the right than the left...might that not be rooted in, again, maintaining the status quo, fear of change?

River: Thank you! It’s great to actually “talk” to you. Or at least come close...the bias is still there, as evidenced by your terminology, but it’s a good try. As to generosity, one has to take into account the disproportionate number of hard-core conservatives are rich, so they can donate more. I’m sure it doesn’t account for everything, but it should be taken into account. What is the basis, do you think? It’s not pure generosity, any more than liberal thinking is pure “kindness”, so from what mindset does it come? Maybe “liberal guilt” isn’t just confined to liberals? Just guessing.

Also, how does gay marriage “not get along with society”? And if you want to go back in time, how would continuing slavery, since it went against the laws of the time? Laws must evolve as society changes, in my view, so while I fully agree that “punishing” isn’t the right term, we have to come up with something better than just what laws, etc., will be for miscreants. I definitely don’t think “generosity” is at the base of wanting to clearly spell out laws and consequences. There’s nothing “generous” about that that I can find.

I guarantee liberals don’t want to “argue the merits of theft, rape, pillaging, murder”. That’s just wrong. I think Mal4 describes it better with
Quote:
liberals can sometimes be so abstract in their thinking that they can leave the real world and its requirements behind and live in some version of the ideal
We can get trapped in thinking we’re trying to find ways for things to be “fair” or “equal” for all, and that leads to complexities and difficulties that have certainly affected the courts, but it’s not at all what you ascribe it to. I think your viewing it as “corruption of societal rules” goes right along with the “protect the status quo” concept that’s been mentioned repeatedly. If you could lay aside your biases and recognize that neither side, at their core, is inherently “evil”, we would truly appreciate your views.

Also, as Mal4 said, I don’t view the actions of one side or the other as the answer; we’re trying to hash out the core beliefs that differentiate the two, not their actions, and if what you wrote was trying to ascribe core beliefs, it’s terribly skewed.


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 29, 2010 7:00 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

HEY, how about at the core conservative values are “conserve the status quo” and liberal values are “evolve the status quo”?
I would accept that as an axiom were it not clear that Liberals generally want to "conserve" the natural environment, and Conservatives generally want to make "liberal" use of it.




The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 29, 2010 7:06 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


As I see it..

The difference between liberals and conservatives are this:

1. Liberals believe that government is good. Conservatives believe it is bad.

2. Liberals believe that a higher human authority should run your life. Conservatives believe that this power should come from religion/God.

3. Liberals would have us enslaved to government. Conservatives would have us enslaved to religion.

4. Liberals want your money to give to someone who doesnt deserve it. Conservatives want you money to give to themselves.

5. Liberals are National Socialists. Conservatives are the Catholic Church.

6. Liberals want to destroy America and its ideals of freedom. COnservatives wish to subvert its ideals to their purposes.


Which is the lesser of 2 evils?

Neither since both extreemes are evil.

Instead, I propose that we allow for the freedom of people. No matter what.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 29, 2010 7:27 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
As I see it..

The difference between liberals and conservatives are this:

1. Liberals believe that government is good. Conservatives believe it is bad.

2. Liberals believe that a higher human authority should run your life. Conservatives believe that this power should come from religion/God.

3. Liberals would have us enslaved to government. Conservatives would have us enslaved to religion.

4. Liberals want your money to give to someone who doesnt deserve it. Conservatives want you money to give to themselves.

5. Liberals are National Socialists. Conservatives are the Catholic Church.

6. Liberals want to destroy America and its ideals of freedom. COnservatives wish to subvert its ideals to their purposes.


Which is the lesser of 2 evils?

Neither since both extreemes are evil.

Instead, I propose that we allow for the freedom of people. No matter what.



Would be a not-too-unreasonable comparison were it not for the fact that Liberals = Nazis is highly mislabled.

Nationalsocialism was an extremely specific political theory that placed individual freedom as nonexistent where it didn't serve the purposes of the Volksgemeinschaft, it was highly exclusive to any outsider, highly intolerant of non-normative behavior and equaled the will of the Fuehrer with the will of the people. Added to that, they considered rules (where not military structure) to be made for breaking, as the cause justified any action and you could hardly plan for the adversities the cause might face.

Liberals would be extremely allergic to the anti-choice, anti-homosexuality, anti-rule-of-law aspects of Nazism. Not to mention the genocide, anti-semitism, police violence and indefinite detainment without legal recourse.

Say socialism if you must, as the concept is at least more flexibly applied. The Nazi comparison is just not applicable.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 29, 2010 7:32 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:


1. Liberals believe that government can be good. Conservatives believe it is allowed to be bad.

Fixed it for ya!

Oh c'mon, it's just a joke...


The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
The parallel internet is coming
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:28 - 178 posts
Is the United States of America a CHRISTIAN Nation and if Not...then what comes after
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:33 - 21 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:17 - 7469 posts
The Rise and Fall of Western Civilisation
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:12 - 51 posts
Biden* to punish border agents who were found NOT whipping illegal migrants
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:55 - 26 posts
Hip-Hop Artist Lauryn Hill Blames Slavery for Tax Evasion
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:52 - 11 posts
GOP House can't claim to speak for America
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:50 - 12 posts
How Safe is Canada
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:45 - 121 posts
Spooky Music Weird Horror Songs...Tis ...the Season...... to be---CREEPY !
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:39 - 57 posts
'Belarus' and Nuclear Escalation
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:29 - 20 posts
confused Lame duck Presidency, outgoing politicians in politics
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:22 - 7 posts
Crazy Muslims in China start riots, FauxSnooze says 'Muslims Target of Deadly Chinese Riots'
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:10 - 16 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL