Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-10-2019, 10:49 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFidelius View Post
It is clearly a chart of what conservative White men are frightened of based on variation from themselves.
It's also a clear illustration of white fragility.

For centuries your "kind" has benefited from systematic and institutional advantages, including free rein to abuse and occasionally murder people based on, say, skin color or sexual orientation. Now, society is taking the smallest steps in the direction of a more just society and you come up with a hierarchy in which you are a persecuted majority.

Excuse me if I find it difficult to find a way to soothe your fears that I am the one doing that to you.
  #52  
Old 01-10-2019, 10:51 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Catexist.
What?

Google doesn't help
  #53  
Old 01-10-2019, 10:59 AM
senoy senoy is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
What?

Google doesn't help
It was a typo. She meant Catexit. It's a movement that wants Catalonia (a region in North Eastern Spain bordering France whose largest city is Barcelona) to become independent from Spain. They speak a different language than the rest of Spain and have a different cultural tradition. The roots of it stretch way back to the days of Castille and Aragon, so it would be burdensome to get into the history of the movement, but it is widely supported in Catalonia with somewhere in the vicinity of half of the population supporting it in some sense (whether that be autonomy within Spain or as its own state.) The Catexit movement is widely accused of being racist or classist since much of the current beef is due to the fact that they are wealthier and have closer ties to Northern Europe than their southwestern compatriots and have been subsidizing the rest of the Spanish economy for quite a while. They would deny that assertion, but most people would probably place them as more right of center than left of center.

Last edited by senoy; 01-10-2019 at 11:03 AM.
  #54  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:01 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,368
Ah. Thanks
  #55  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:10 AM
senoy senoy is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,526
I also think that it's fair to add that their position as left or right wing is certainly debatable and I don't want to paint them with too broad of a brush.. I don't know that we can quite peg them on the spectrum. Some of their supporters are certainly pretty far left and others are not. The extreme right in Spanish politics is generally unionist, so it's not as though the Spanish equivalent of the KKK is marching with them. On the one hand, they're an ethnic conglomeration, so that screams right wing, but economically they are mostly left of anything we do in the States.
  #56  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:16 AM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,730
Well, I'm definitely not a liberal, but I do support a number of programs that benefit the poor. History shows that a bunch of disgruntled poor people generally leads to bad things for the rich. Nobody wants that. I'd rather have a pacified poor person eating SNAP food in subsidized housing watching their flat screen, than selling drugs or breaking into my house. I guess that's a more selfish way of saying "a rising tide raises all boats".
  #57  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:25 AM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,999
@ the OP: I would guess that the vast majority of liberals are liberals because they feel that they are either:

1) Oppressed in society, or
2) Fighting on behalf of those who are oppressed in society.



But, ironically, though, Trump appealed to many of his Trumpists by making them feel like they, too, fit either 1# or 2#. The double-edged sword started to cut both ways.
  #58  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:37 AM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus Icarus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 4,875
nm

Last edited by Icarus; 01-10-2019 at 11:37 AM.
  #59  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:07 PM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Is it?

Women are more liberal than men, LGBT are more liberal than heterosexuals. Both groups are marginalized and see their civil and human rights threatened by conservatives in mainstream society.

non-whites are more leftist than whites, but I don't know if they are more liberal. blacks aren't necessarily more liberal than society at large, while LGBT are 2x as liberal as the public at large.
There's a difference between feeling rejected by society and demanding that society serve the interests of every member of that society and not just white males.
__________________
Tentatively and lightly dipping my toes back in the water.
  #60  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:10 PM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
@ the OP: I would guess that the vast majority of liberals are liberals because they feel that they are either:

1) Oppressed in society, or
2) Fighting on behalf of those who are oppressed in society.
How about

3> Honestly good people who want society and government to be good too.


Justice and fairness don't exist in the Universe.
But the beauty of being Human is that we can conceive of these things and create them in our world.
__________________
Tentatively and lightly dipping my toes back in the water.
  #61  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:48 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
You might find this chart about how the right perceive how the left see them (from this article) of interest.

It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong; it's how they see it. As advertisers say, the perception is the reality.
Who died and put the advertisers in charge?

It matters a lot whether your perception of reality is right or wrong. If your perception of reality is wrong then you will face difficulties in your interactions with reality. You make choices and take actions which you are confident will succeed based on your perception. And those choices and actions will fail if there's a significant difference between your perceived reality and actual reality.

A lot of people perceive the reality that vaccinations are unnecessary and dangerous. So they don't get their children vaccinated. Then actual reality steps in and gives their children measles. Their perception wasn't the reality.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 01-10-2019 at 12:50 PM.
  #62  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:51 PM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Of course not. Normal people let the public schools indoctrinate their children.

Liberals will usually get quizzical stares when encountering non-political folks. They won’t argue with them. They just internalize that the liberal rejects human nature and keep it moving. I wouldn’t say liberals are outcasts in society but I would guess they go through life feeling a bit alienated.

This is probably why they sequester themselves in like-minded communities and institutions. I see no problem with that, but the problem comes in when they try to control the rest of society and wield power through the various institutions they control.

“Live and let live” is the most bizarre phrase in the English language for most liberals. They cannot imagine allowing anyone anywhere to live differently. They permit different clothing, music (in some cases), and food, but that is about it. Everyone must engage in a stilted and managed social democracy or else there is oppression and inequality.

Many liberals are also against fun. This is the wowzer Mencken talked about. Uptight progressive types. This sets them apart from society to a degree.
Jesus Christ, this is wrong in every way.

We absolutely want to “live and let live.” That is why we become so angry when conservatives use their religion to dictate policy.
  #63  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:11 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post

“Live and let live” is the most bizarre phrase in the English language for most liberals. They cannot imagine allowing anyone anywhere to live differently.
Can you offer 10 examples of what you're talking about? Actually, just five. Okay, just one will do for now.

Last edited by Acsenray; 01-10-2019 at 01:12 PM.
  #64  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:22 PM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 29,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
The extreme right in Spanish politics is generally unionist, so it's not as though the Spanish equivalent of the KKK is marching with them.
Eh, I'd have to think these guys are probably pretty conservative
  #65  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:38 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 18,887
I’ve sort of reluctantly been pushed into the ‘liberal’ camp just due to...facts. I think there are a lot of misapprehensions and sandholing by self-proclaimed liberals about reality and especially among the progressives, particularly when it comes to public finanance and how effective government bureaucracy actually works, but at least they are not generally just making up shit from whole cloth as the self-described, Fox-News-hailing conservatives have done, nor are they wholly exclusionary to anyone who doesn’t fit some narrow set of social, political, and religioous beliefs and ideologies, and they aren’t led about on a noose by a succession of flagrantly lying hypocrites from Newt Gingrich to Donald Trump.

I find it risible that Barack Obama was derided from the right as some kind of hyper-liberal and Elizabeth Warren for being a ‘socialist’ for pursuing pragmatic public policy simply to reduce conflicts, address economic crises, and protect the public from exploitation by powerful corporate interests. Both of them and many others, would have been firmly in the Eisenhower camp of Republicans on a policy basis sixty years ago, and now the simple notion of curtailing adverse profiteering or negotiating with nascent nuclear powers to reduce proliferation are some kind of radical left-wing conspiracy to undermine the US government in the minds of people who keep repeating patently untrue claims.

If there is anyone who feels “rejected by society” it is the staunch conservatives denying everything from advances in medical science related to gene therapies, the insistance that women should not be allowed to make medical decisions about their own bodies, and the wealth of scientific data about topics ranging from evolution and the neuroscience of gender fluidity to global climate change and the inarugably benefits of immigration. These are the people who feel as if any change to society—which has always been in flux, and is indisputably better than it was fifty years ago for nearly everyone at every socioeconomic class—is some kind of menace that should be denied and any advocates of should be persecuted.

Stranger
  #66  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:41 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,498
I think that this whole "rejection from society" business is based on a distorted notion of how empathy works. It seems to presume that in order to care whether other people are being punched in the face, you have to have been punched in the face personally and have personal experience in how getting face-punched feels.

Now, it is indeed the case that you cannot truly know what it's like to experience X if you haven't experienced X. However where the OP fails is that it presumes it's impossible to care at all about X if you haven't experienced X. The OP presumes that if you haven't personally been shot then it logically follows that you cannot possibly think that people getting shot is bad.

Actually, now that I think about it, this actually goes beyond misunderstanding empathy: even if I have no sense whatsoever how how it feels to be shot, I still can oppose people being shot on a purely intellectual assessment of their reactions, and I can also oppose people being shot on a cold clinical assessment of the societal outcomes of what happens to societies where people are getting shot.

The OP doesn't account for any of that - it merely defines complete selfish sociopathy as the norm and declares that anybody who differs from that norm is some sort of reject. That position is fundamentally erroneous both because it's obviously stupid and also because it ignores tons of selfish reasons why a complete selfish sociopath might want to live in a world without race riots.
  #67  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:49 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,190
It's always hilarious to hear American conservatives trying to define liberalism. By their reasoning, a nation that allowed abortion, lacked the death penalty and put restrictions on guns would be a big Marxist concentration camp instead of, y'know, Canada.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #68  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:11 PM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Actually, now that I think about it, this actually goes beyond misunderstanding empathy: even if I have no sense whatsoever how how it feels to be shot, I still can oppose people being shot on a purely intellectual assessment of their reactions, and I can also oppose people being shot on a cold clinical assessment of the societal outcomes of what happens to societies where people are getting shot.
This is me. I’ve already discussed why I reject Republicans and Conservatism in general. Having said that, I am not particularly concerned by empathy for the poor and the marginalized. I only vaguely care about the suffering of others.

Rather, I am primarily motivated by a utilitarian appreciation of the benefits of social welfare and the redistribution of wealth. It benefits me to live in a place with less gun violence. It benefits me to have a government that doesn’t control my marriage or my wife’s uterus. It benefits me to live in a city without homeless cripples and beggars wandering the streets like the cast of Les Mis. It benefits me to have employees who are well-educated, and not distracted by things like hunger, child care, or chronic health problems.

And that’s where I fundamentally just don’t understand Conservatism. Even setting aside the moral considerations, from a purely utilitarian perspective even the most selfish Scrooge should be able to comprehend how they benefit - both directly and indirectly - from liberal policies.

Last edited by JB99; 01-10-2019 at 02:12 PM.
  #69  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:37 PM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius DrFidelius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,330
I am also incredibly selfish and self serving because I want a healthy, well educated, and diverse community where everyone feels accepted and prosperous. That makes my life easier.
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #70  
Old 01-10-2019, 04:54 PM
Urbanredneck Urbanredneck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,872
I find it interesting that I am often the only pickup truck owner when I go to "liberal" events with some of my liberal relatives or friends

Micheal Moore even admitted that liberals are great for many things like standing around holding signs. But your conservative redneck brother in law is the person to go to to help you move or to get something fixed.
  #71  
Old 01-10-2019, 05:11 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
I find it interesting that I am often the only pickup truck owner when I go to "liberal" events with some of my liberal relatives or friends

Micheal Moore even admitted that liberals are great for many things like standing around holding signs. But your conservative redneck brother in law is the person to go to to help you move or to get something fixed.
I live in the real world and not stereotype-land, so I don't share your "experience".

ETA: I would note that your pointless jab is also wildly off-topic, but what is the topic of this thread?

Last edited by begbert2; 01-10-2019 at 05:12 PM.
  #72  
Old 01-10-2019, 05:36 PM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
But among people who benefit from the inequality (hetero white men, especially those from higher socioeconomic statuses, aka a lot of the liberals on this board), what motivates their liberalism? Has it been studied?
I think a lot of the time it's that they've already benefited, so to speak. That's why white liberals tend to skew toward both educated and more wealthy.

Based on what I can tell, if you're white, male, and you have a well paying, secure job and a good education, you're not as likely to be feeling like you have to scrap vs. "other" groups to get your piece of the pie, and are more likely to be friendly toward programs that help others even if it's not directly beneficial, or even mildly detrimental toward their own group.

But if you go and find a white guy who's struggling with the employment market and his economic position, that guy is very likely to be a lot less tolerant toward policies that he perceives as enriching others at his expense, or that give others a leg up that he doesn't get. Or for that matter that set someone else's kids up ahead of his own.

So... almost the opposite of what you postulate. It's not the rejection from society that forces white men into liberalism, but rather the reaping of the benefits that enables them to be liberal.
  #73  
Old 01-10-2019, 05:41 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
I think a lot of the time it's that they've already benefited, so to speak. That's why white liberals tend to skew toward both educated and more wealthy.

Based on what I can tell, if you're white, male, and you have a well paying, secure job and a good education, you're not as likely to be feeling like you have to scrap vs. "other" groups to get your piece of the pie, and are more likely to be friendly toward programs that help others even if it's not directly beneficial, or even mildly detrimental toward their own group.

But if you go and find a white guy who's struggling with the employment market and his economic position, that guy is very likely to be a lot less tolerant toward policies that he perceives as enriching others at his expense, or that give others a leg up that he doesn't get. Or for that matter that set someone else's kids up ahead of his own.

So... almost the opposite of what you postulate. It's not the rejection from society that forces white men into liberalism, but rather the reaping of the benefits that enables them to be liberal.
You are making the rather large oversight of forgetting sociopathy.
  #74  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:09 PM
carrps carrps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
I find it interesting that I am often the only pickup truck owner when I go to "liberal" events with some of my liberal relatives or friends

Micheal Moore even admitted that liberals are great for many things like standing around holding signs. But your conservative redneck brother in law is the person to go to to help you move or to get something fixed.

Absolutely NOT true in my experience.
  #75  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:39 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
As to the OP, remember that there were plenty of white guys in 1920s Germany who also felt like they were rejected from society (whether they actually were is debatable). Liberals, they weren't.
To people making this comparison, or saying the modern tea party feels persecuted, I don't feel it is the same thing.

Nazis, or the tea party feel persecuted because they want to go back to a day when people like them were firmly in charge. They feel that those they consider to be inferior outsiders are taking over their society.

So yeah, the tea party feels victimized. But they feel victimized because non-whites, feminists, foreigners, gays, non-christians, etc. keep growing in number and influence. They want to go back to a day when people with their demographics were privileged. Meanwhile some people who benefit from those same demographics want to tear down the social hierarchy that privileges them.

Which again, comes back to my OP. I haven't read all the replies yet. But again I'm assuming self interest is one factor in why people pick the politics they do.

White men are actually slightly under-represented compared to the electorate. The tea party is about 52% white men, the electorate is about 34% white men, solid liberals are about 30% white men. 30% is also the share of the general public, but whites are over represented in politics.

Anyway, I agree with others that looking at the insanity and stupidity of the modern conservative movement is also a major motivator to lean leftward.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 01-10-2019 at 06:39 PM.
  #76  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:43 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
I find it interesting that I am often the only pickup truck owner when I go to "liberal" events with some of my liberal relatives or friends

Micheal Moore even admitted that liberals are great for many things like standing around holding signs. But your conservative redneck brother in law is the person to go to to help you move or to get something fixed.
http://www.thedrive.com/news/16712/t...s-study-claims

Quote:
Researchers at Stanford University recently developed an artificial intelligence algorithm to analyze the disparate data sets and determine an area's political leanings, publishing their results in the important-sounding Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in December. The machine was able to to determine that a neighborhood with more sedans than trucks on the street and in driveways had an 88 percent chance of voting Democratic, while areas with more pickup trucks had 82 percent chance to vote Republican.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #77  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:52 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
@ the OP: I would guess that the vast majority of liberals are liberals because they feel that they are either:

1) Oppressed in society, or
2) Fighting on behalf of those who are oppressed in society.



But, ironically, though, Trump appealed to many of his Trumpists by making them feel like they, too, fit either 1# or 2#. The double-edged sword started to cut both ways.
Yes but as far as point 2, what separates those who are demographically privledged who fight to keep an unequal system vs those who fight to tear it down?

I can understand point 1. I can understand why non-christians are more leftist than christians. Non-whites more than whites. Women more than men. LGBT more than heteros. etc.

Hetero white men are over-represented among those who want to maintain an unequal social system. As one would expect. 30% of Americans are white men, 52% of the tea party are white men.

But why does one person who demographically benefits from inequality support an unequal system while someone else opposes that same unequal system?

I understand the arguments that a rising tide lifts all boats. I believe in human capital. Society works best when everyone who has talent is allowed to use that talent. Selfishly, I want women in science because a lot of talented scientists wouldn't get a chance to contribute in a patriarchal culture. The cure for a disease that I or someone I love may suffer from could come from a female scientist who would be relegated to being a housewife in a different era, or from a muslim scientist who wouldn't be allowed into the country and had to live in poverty in their home nation under different policies.

So from a selfish reason, maybe part of the issue is that some people just realize everyone's lives get better in an egalitarian society where everyone is allowed to contribute. After all, the Nazis kicking the jews out of Germany is why the US got the atomic bomb first, because all the jewish scientists who were deemed inferior by the nazis ended up working on the project for the allies.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 01-10-2019 at 06:53 PM.
  #78  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:55 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
To people making this comparison, or saying the modern tea party feels persecuted, I don't feel it is the same thing.
It comes down to how you define "rejected from society".

I personally define it as "physically exiled - marched to the border and forced to cross it", so I have a hard time guessing what you mean by it. If you mean to be literally marginalized by society, many liberal white men have never been literally marginalized. If you mean feeling marginalized, then virtually every Trump supporter qualifies, aside from the extremely wealthy ones who instead support him because they're sociopaths and know Trump and his ilk will allow them free reign.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Which again, comes back to my OP. I haven't read all the replies yet. But again I'm assuming self interest is one factor in why people pick the politics they do.
Everything anyone ever does is always done entirely based on their own interests. It's just that some people are interested in being good, kind, generous, or non-nazi people, and thus selfish self interest drives them to act in ways that will allow them to retain a positive image of themselves, by their own definition of positive.

If you define "self interest" as "always doing the thing that screws other people over the most", or whatever, then the number of non-conservatives who hew to it in their decision-making will decrease radically.
  #79  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:04 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Yes but as far as point 2, what separates those who are demographically privledged who fight to keep an unequal system vs those who fight to tear it down?
A lot of it comes down to whether they're capable of empathy or whether they're a sociopath.

But some of it comes down to education and awareness of how the world works. Persons capable of empathy but who mistakenly think that churches can take care of all the poor people can argue that social programs should be cut and churches and neighborhood charity will pick up the slack, while others look outside and note that we already have churches and neighborhoods and yet the poor remain, and deduce that if we want the poor gone we're gonna have to get organized about it, government-style.

(The sociopaths, meanwhile, look out the door and think, "Hmm, slaves/scapegoats/lunch!")

Last edited by begbert2; 01-10-2019 at 07:04 PM. Reason: typo
  #80  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:08 PM
Littleman Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Well, I'm definitely not a liberal, but I do support a number of programs that benefit the poor. History shows that a bunch of disgruntled poor people generally leads to bad things for the rich. Nobody wants that. I'd rather have a pacified poor person eating SNAP food in subsidized housing watching their flat screen, than selling drugs or breaking into my house. I guess that's a more selfish way of saying "a rising tide raises all boats".
Right! That's how revolutions are born.
  #81  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:16 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,368
I've read articles that suggest that there are deep-seated differences between conservatives and liberals that result in these different views. Conservatives are riveted to the idea of safety and security and protecting and providing for my own people, which they narrowly define as their own family, community, tribe, ethno-nationality or other strictly defined group. Liberals define their "community" much more broadly and are less likely to perceive threats from "outsiders" as intensely as conservatives do, and are less likely to dismiss suffering on the part of outsiders as being less important than the needs of their insiders.

Last edited by Acsenray; 01-10-2019 at 07:17 PM.
  #82  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:26 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
I find it interesting that I am often the only pickup truck owner when I go to "liberal" events with some of my liberal relatives or friends

Micheal Moore even admitted that liberals are great for many things like standing around holding signs. But your conservative redneck brother in law is the person to go to to help you move or to get something fixed.
There you have it. The reason why conservatives are better than liberals. Conservatives drive pick-up trucks and liberals don't.
  #83  
Old 01-11-2019, 08:44 AM
LAZombie LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 173
Come on guys! You can do better than "I'm liberal because I'm an awesome big brain guy."

There's no way that your political leanings don't have some sort psychological underpinnings. People don't have the rage you exhibit daily because of opposition to something that would have been almost universally agreed upon 20 years ago like opposition to gay marriage.

Do some introspection and tell us how a heterosexual white male really became a liberal.
  #84  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:19 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,263
We really can take the op out of the political realm and divorce it from partisanship.

Wesley Clark in essence seems to be puzzled by the concepts of altruism and empathy. He seems to be confused that someone who is not of a disadvantaged ("rejected") group, or feeling that they are such, can have empathy for those who are and feel that they should work for justice even if such justice does not provide immediate and obvious benefits to them.

Yes, some is informed self interest, coming to a rational conclusion that a more just society is a better place to live for yourself and for your own kinship ... that being concerned about having the biggest piece of the pie is less effective at getting more pie than working on making a bigger pie ...but many of these behaviors are not driven by rational decision making.

So where does empathy and willingness to act out of empathy come from?

Does identification as a particular culture or subculture lead to more or less of it? To the sorts of self-sacrifice individuals will make out of concern for the greater good? Why?

Does perceived economic trajectory and security facilitate or discourage it?

Is there a genetic predisposition to greater or lesser degrees of empathy?

Last edited by DSeid; 01-11-2019 at 09:20 AM.
  #85  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:09 AM
senoy senoy is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Do some introspection and tell us how a heterosexual white male really became a liberal.
Sure. You'll have to forgive me if my memory is a bit shaky, but here goes. I grew up in a divided home. My mother was a socially conservative FDR union Democrat (She has since become a Trumpian) My father was a pastor, a social moderate, but he had an economics grad degree, so as was not uncommon at the time was a free-market economist, so Republican. I guess you'd call him a Northeastern Republican. Growing up, both parents generally were apolitical. My father especially never took a public political stance on anything due to his being a pastor. My mother was more outspoken, but I think that as a general rule, they both believed that politicians were self-serving and any interest they had toward the people they represented was incidental. I came of age in the mid-90s, back when Rush Limbaugh was writing the book on conservative media. Following the Gulf War his rhetoric appealed to me and since he was knocking the person in power in the mid-90s, my high school brain held some fascination with him. This was compounded by the Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict. My great grandfather was a Serb, so I felt a racial and religious affinity towards the Serbs without really understanding the conflict, regardless though, it pushed me strongly against the Clinton administration. I registered Republican when I turned 18 in 1996 and voted for Bob Dole (although by that election, I was already turning away from the Republican Party.)

Following that election, I was enrolled in college. I would define what happened next as largely a period of disillusionment with institutions. I spent a couple of years pretty lost in terms of who I was. I identified largely as an atheist, anarchist throughout much of the late 90s. It was not quite an abrupt shift, but my initial conservative leanings were largely the rebellion of youth rather than thought out political statements. I know that I didn't like Serbs getting bombed and that Clinton even at that early date seemed sleazy, so it was a jab at authority. After the election, I became quickly even more disillusioned or perhaps apathetic. The 90s were a period of stability, so I think that allowed us to view politics in less hateful ways. By early 97, the PRWOA was in the news, so in my need for rebellion against institutions, I took up the mantle of government against the poor. It was largely a bi-partisan screwing of the poor, so that pushed me against both parties. Through most of college I was largely just anti-government period. I spent much time dabbling in anarcho-communism. In 2000, I registered Green Party and voted for Nader.

In the early 2000s, I spent a great deal of time diving into philosophy. During my atheist phase, I largely identified as an Existentialist, so spent a lot of time reading those chaps. Of course, as any good young atheist would, I fell in love with Nietzsche, but as part of the quest to affirm my beliefs, I naturally had to read his competitor-Kierkegaard. Reading Kierkegaard was like a revelation. Kierkegaard really seemed to get it. Like nailed humanity spot-on. I started diving into Kierkegaard and then due to the fact that he was a 'Neo-Socratic' stumbled upon Gabriel Marcel and that led me largely to reject atheist formations of the world. This rejection then opened up Christianity to me. Marcel was very big on the idea of experiencing the subjectivity of others. That we tend to view people as our own objective idea of those people. So we must work to view them as their subjective selves. I think that when you combine that with Imago Dei theology-that these subjective beings we inhabit the earth with are literally the Image of God, I think that forces us to confront that how we treat these images of God is how we treat God Himself, which is the only objective thing in existence and I might go so far as to claim the only thing that actually has value.

I still was identifying as anarcho-communist at this time (and did so well into my 30s-I'm 40 now) feeling that anarcho-communism allowed the greatest measure of free will. I also became a pacifist in my late 20s since I felt that harming God's creation is the same as harming God. As I got older, I began to more and more believe that humans when left to their own devices are fallen creatures. We prioritize the self over the other inherently. This prioritizing of the self leads to things like the Tragedy of the Commons and the Iron Law of Oligarchy. I began to move away from anarchist models because I felt that ultimately the selfishness of humanity combined with the nature of social relationships dooms them to failure. Once you move away from that anarcho- prefix though, then what is left? I think I still hold true with 'ideal communist' ideas of sharing resources and abolishing private property in favor of property of all, but I'm not sure that there is ever a way to get there in a real world. So, I largely settle for socialist dogma of at least doing our best to redistribute wealth and level society. I vote almost completely Democrat (but my conceit is that I'll vote for at least one Republican in local elections just so I can at least pretend that I'm balanced. It's foolish, but it's my own foolishness to commit.)

Socially, I am generally left on things largely because of how I think that God wants us to treat others. Anti-death penalty (you don't kill God's creation), pro-gay marriage (God is love and celebrates love), anti-racism, sexism and fascism (for obvious reasons), pro-legalized drugs (my position is complicated and elucidated in other threads), pro-prostitution(less complicated, prostitution is impossible to eradicate, so the goal is to minimize suffering), pro-open borders (although that might be economic instead of social policy. God doesn't recognize imaginary constructs like race or nation, neither should we.), anti-war (Destroying God's creation is an affront to Him), etc. My divergence from leftist social policy is on abortion. I'm pro-life due to the fact that I think that the voiceless need a voice and a system in which you don't have a voice does not have a right to end your life. I recognize that it's a complicated subject and that unwanted pregnancies bring their own kind of suffering and ultimately the goal should be that every pregnancy is wanted, but I think killing people is a fundamental breach of social responsibility toward others (Anyway, that horse has been beaten to death, so not worth arguing about.)

So, anyway, that's as introspective as I can get without an even longer and more rambling post that no one will bother to read.
  #86  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:25 AM
LAZombie LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post

So, anyway, that's as introspective as I can get without an even longer and more rambling post that no one will bother to read.
I read it. Thank you.
  #87  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:27 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,162
For me -- a hetero, white, native-born-USian, able-bodied, economically advantaged male -- maybe it comes from a curiosity about this big planet we live on, and all the diverse people and cultures that inhabit it (near and far). That curiosity is mostly a product of upbringing -- family values, as it were (were that phrase not contaminated by Republican associations). I think being CURIOUS about the world leads to a little-bit-more-than-average KNOWLEDGE of the world (and, ideally, more humility about what one does NOT know). Most of the governmental and personal actions and policies that we associate with "liberal" happen to be ones that a person is more likely to favor, the more CURIOUS they are about the rest of humanity besides oneself.

Just my opinion and observation. One supporting anecdote is to compare the current president (for whom a lack of curiosity is an overarching distinguishing trait -- even his supporters would agree, I think) vs. the previous one (for whom an abundance of curiosity was an overarching distinguishing trait -- even his detractors would agree, I think).

I'll note that being curious about the world is FUN. It's not some hard dose of empathetic medicine, as sociopaths/Republicans imagine it must be. I think I would be bored, if I weren't curious about people and cultures other than myself/my own! In other words, ironically, there is some self-interest in caring about others -- not just in the Kantian rising-tide sense, nor in the someday-I'll-need-help-myself sense. Just pure, direct fun!

Last edited by JKellyMap; 01-11-2019 at 10:32 AM.
  #88  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:34 AM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
You are making the rather large oversight of forgetting sociopathy.
So you're saying that sociopathy makes straight white men liberal? Nice.


To go a bit further with what I was saying upthread, I think that a lot of the right-wing talking points and propaganda are prima facie reasonable and even sound good, IF you're kind of sheltered and are mostly living in a white middle class bubble. Some of it even sounds reasonable outside of that, when taken in its own vacuum.

I mean, who really wants a larger government or more government intrusion into their lives and business? That seems reasonable. Or that people should be allowed to rise as far as their talent and work ethic allows. Or that we shouldn't prioritize one group over another for political reasons, etc....

But once that bubble pops, or you intellectually venture outside of it, you realize that a lot of the "interference" or intrusion is really not intended to get up in your business and tell you how to do stuff, it's to do things like protect the environment from dumb-asses like you who want to drive a Ford Expedition, even though you don't have a big family or even shuttle your kids around. You just want a big imposing vehicle for some reason.

Put simply, when people get the least bit introspective about the WHY on a lot of these policies, then they become a lot more evident, and the contradictions and selfishness of a lot of them becomes very apparent.

But to get there, you kind of have to be able to get above your more immediate needs of making ends meet and that sort of thing. Otherwise, you're going to tend to vote for the party that promises the best scheme to help you and yours get where you want to be.

Not incidentally, this is why(IMO) minorities vote Democrat. It's not at all that they're somehow more enlightened than white people. Far from it- all Americans are pretty much equal dumb-asses as far as that sort of thing is concerned. No, it's because the Democratic party has a track record in recent years of putting equality and progress first, which they perceive as directly being beneficial to them and theirs.

But, speaking as a white guy who's become considerably more liberal over time in conjunction with my improving financial and employment status, along with a lot of my friends and acquaintances, it's pretty obvious that now that I'm not worrying about trying to make ends meet, I'm able to consider others a lot more than before.
  #89  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:44 AM
Lightnin' Lightnin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Apple Core
Posts: 7,395
The only time I, as a white heterosexual male liberal, feel rejected from society is when conservatives tell me that I'm somehow not a real American because I'm an evil liberal.
__________________
What's the good of Science if nobody gets hurt?
  #90  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:45 AM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius DrFidelius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,330
I am not a Liberal. I am still as conservative as I was back when I went to Reagan campaign rallies. As a conservative I cannot support what the current Republican party is doing
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #91  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:51 AM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 29,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightnin' View Post
The only time I, as a white heterosexual male liberal, feel rejected from society is when conservatives tell me that I'm somehow not a real American because I'm an evil liberal.
This.
  #92  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:58 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
... you realize that a lot of the "interference" or intrusion is really not intended to get up in your business and tell you how to do stuff, it's to do things like protect the environment from dumb-asses like you who want to drive a Ford Expedition, ...
... or trash Joshua Tree National Park and recklessly destroy endangered species there ...

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/1...nment-shutdown
  #93  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:13 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,070
I'm too confused by OP's arithmetic to give his thesis much thought. But whites who have post-graduate education tend to be liberal — does he think postgrads "feel rejected"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
... the tea party is 89% white and 59% male. That works out to 52% of the tea party as white men...
No. That means the % of teabaggers who are white men is at least 48% and at most 59%. To get a more precise estimate you need survey results shown by answer pairs, not just single answers.

Quote:
Among solid liberals, the gender roles are reversed. 59% female to 41% male. But at 73% white, that still means 30% of solid liberals are white men ...
No. The % of solid liberals who are white men could be anything from zero to 41% based on the figures you show! You ignore the possibility of dependence (or correlation) among attributes.

There are webpages that do provide the sort of numbers you are trying to deduce. Unfortunately I have no handy bookmarks to share.
__________________
andros had more faith in an American jury than I had; and he was right. I'm happy to lose a bet and hope this trend continues.
  #94  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:27 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Everything anyone ever does is always done entirely based on their own interests.
But some people aren't voting in their own interests. The modern Republican party seems to be a lot of guys who drive pick-ups voting for the interests of a handful of people who are driven around in limousines.

Why? Because the limousine people tell the pick-up people that they should vote against the interests of the sedan people and the public transportation people.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 01-11-2019 at 11:28 AM.
  #95  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:35 AM
Mdcastle Mdcastle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,073
I thought the whites that felt rejected by society- their jobs been given to someone in China, their kid got rejected form college because of racist affirmative action programs, the liberals seem keen on vacuuming out their wallets and giving it to people that would rather be lazy and sit around watching TV than working an hones living, politicians have traditionally not even bothered campaigning to them as opposed to minorities and illegal aliens and coastal elites, are what got Trump elected and the rise of the paleoconservaive / populist / Trumpist wing of the conservatives.
  #96  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:50 AM
you with the face you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 11,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I know not all liberals are white, but around 3/4 of them are. Plus non-whites are already rejected from society if we are being honest so I can understand why non-whites lean leftist in politics.
One problem with your thesis is that it's very white-centric, but you don't seem to be aware of it. How are non-whites rejected from society when they are a part of society?

Instead of "society" I think what you really mean is "power". Non-whites and non-heterosexuals certainly have less power, whether it be in the form of political clout, wealth, or social status. One's access to power--and their attitudes towards power--probably has a major affect on their political leanings.

Conservatives and liberals fundamentally differ in their beliefs about government and its role in our lives. I believe economic power is at the crux of this divide. Conservatives believe a small, hands-off government is ideal. Why? Because it ensures power resides in the hands of those who "deserve" it: the job makers, the tycoons, the CEOs, the white and wealthy. In other words, those who have always had power in this country. Heavily taxing the rich is deemed unfair by conservatives because "getting what you deserve" is so central to their ideology, and the default assumption is that the rich is entitled to be as rich as they can be. Regulating companies so they are forced to color within certain lines is considered unfair by conservatives because they believe the rich guy at the tops deserves to make as much money as possible. On the flip side, expanding government services to provide free healthcare, food stamps, housing assistance, etc. is objectionable to conservatives because they believe poor people fundamentally don't deserve these things. Only people with money should expect to receive medical attention in this country.

Conservatives, in short, are more likely to side with those in power and that means siding with money. Even if they lack power themselves, they identify with the rich white male establishment and are invested in its protection; it feels safe and familiar to them. The government puts checks on this power, and thus, conservatives vilify it and fantasize about it becoming smaller.

Liberals, on the other hand, do not have this adversarial attitude towards the government. Nor do they typically side and/or identify with those who are in economic power. History has shown that government--while far from perfect--has a role to play in protecting the powerless from the powerful. Slavery and the Civil War is the starkest example. A small, hands-off federal government would have allowed slavery to spread all over the damn place untethered. While the liberal POV would see this as bad because they are more apt to see the issue from the side of the powerless, conservatives less so. They might shrug and tell themselves no biggie because market forces would've kill slavery eventually, but their indifference to whether this "eventually" would have come sooner than 100 extra years or more of black bondage undermines any pretense of genuine concern. Another example of the government providing necessary rescue to the powerless is the New Deal. As quiet as its kept, if we had had true conservative governance during the Great Depression, this country would've promptly turned into a hellscape of death and starvation.

So to the OP's question. To me, it seems like you want us to dissect why white male liberals believe the way they do, as if they are the oddities here. To be a liberal, all you have do is believe the government's role is shift the balance of power such that those who otherwise would be completely exploited or destitute have some protections in place, so that things aren't so unequal between the haves and have-nots that social stability is threatened. In contrast, to be a conservative, you have to believe in a model of governance that disregards such protections as being too burdensome on the power brokers and thus, wrong wrong wrong. Since most of the populace is not in the power broker camp, its much more of a mystery to me as to why anyone (except rich white people) would be conservative.
  #97  
Old 01-11-2019, 12:10 PM
senoy senoy is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by you with the face View Post
So to the OP's question. To me, it seems like you want us to dissect why white male liberals believe the way they do, as if they are the oddities here. To be a liberal, all you have do is believe the government's role is shift the balance of power such that those who otherwise would be completely exploited or destitute have some protections in place, so that things aren't so unequal between the haves and have-nots that social stability is threatened. In contrast, to be a conservative, you have to believe in a model of governance that disregards such protections as being too burdensome on the power brokers and thus, wrong wrong wrong. Since most of the populace is not in the power broker camp, its much more of a mystery to me as to why anyone (except rich white people) would be conservative.
You're being myopic and only looking at it from your point of view.

They would claim that they are shifting the balance of power toward the middle class which is the 'real' exploited group in society. Conservative politicians certainly favor the wealthy, but their rhetoric does not. If you look at conservative memes, they also paint the wealthy as the problem. Conservative voters feel that the wealthy are themselves liberal, but they can afford to give up some of their wealth to the poor, but they disregard the middle class as worthy of help and in fact wish to confiscate the goods of the middle class in order to distribute that money to the poor and minorities. They then leverage this largesse into voting power that they exploit in order to advance their social agenda which is largely predicated on the destruction of their traditional way of life. They're not completely wrong by the way, nor are they completely right.

Last edited by senoy; 01-11-2019 at 12:11 PM.
  #98  
Old 01-11-2019, 12:20 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot Buck Godot is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,313
My take which echos much of what is said here, comes down to two basic axioms.

1) Peoples political interests vary along a continuum of self/tribe interested <-> Altruistic

2)Conservatism in general is in favor of the continuation of the current power dynamic and so will tend to favor the dominant classes (white, male, cis, etc.) over the minority classes, but since it favors the powerful over the weak it is hard to support on altruistic grounds*.

As a result you get,

Majority voters (White male cis etc.) guided by self interest will tend to associate with the Republicans
minorities guided by self interest will tend to associate with the Democrats
Minority voters guided by altruism will tend to associate with the Democrats
Minorities guided by altruism will tend to associate with the Democrats.

This explains the near monopoly that the Democrats have among minorities, while there is a split among the white male cis group. Since the wealthy are also among dominant classes, there are some exceptions based on economic lines, so that some poor whites might be Democrats out of self interest, and well off blacks might be Republican for reasons of self interest.

I also think that bump's point is key.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
I think a lot of the time it's that they've already benefited, so to speak. That's why white liberals tend to skew toward both educated and more wealthy.

Based on what I can tell, if you're white, male, and you have a well paying, secure job and a good education, you're not as likely to be feeling like you have to scrap vs. "other" groups to get your piece of the pie, and are more likely to be friendly toward programs that help others even if it's not directly beneficial, or even mildly detrimental toward their own group.

But if you go and find a white guy who's struggling with the employment market and his economic position, that guy is very likely to be a lot less tolerant toward policies that he perceives as enriching others at his expense, or that give others a leg up that he doesn't get. Or for that matter that set someone else's kids up ahead of his own.

So... almost the opposite of what you postulate. It's not the rejection from society that forces white men into liberalism, but rather the reaping of the benefits that enables them to be liberal.
Following Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it is much easier to be altruistic if your basic needs are met. As a result white liberals tend to be relatively well educated and well off, which leads to the partially accurate stereotype of the "Liberal Elite".

Conservatives will of course complain that this is a biased assessment. But if you really compare the rhetoric of Republican and Democrat politicians, while Democrats tend to include a mixture of "this policy is good for you" with "this is helps these suffering people", Republican rhetoric is entirely based around "this policy is good for you."
  #99  
Old 01-11-2019, 12:28 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
So you're saying that sociopathy makes straight white men liberal? Nice.
I meant the exact opposite - you seemed to be opining that people the people who support Trump do so because they feel marginalized and they think he'll help them punch up, and that people who are already on top don't need that and thus will be liberal. I don't disagree with that, but I thought that left out the rather significant set of Trump supporters who support him simply because they're assholes and he'll let them punch someone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
But some people aren't voting in their own interests. The modern Republican party seems to be a lot of guys who drive pick-ups voting for the interests of a handful of people who are driven around in limousines.

Why? Because the limousine people tell the pick-up people that they should vote against the interests of the sedan people and the public transportation people.
These people are still voting their interests - they're interested in hurting others. It's all about priorities. It also doesn't help that they're being lied to about how the world works - if you dive into a pool of acid because you think it's cool water, you were still acting on your interests.
  #100  
Old 01-11-2019, 12:48 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
Come on guys! You can do better than "I'm liberal because I'm an awesome big brain guy."

There's no way that your political leanings don't have some sort psychological underpinnings. People don't have the rage you exhibit daily because of opposition to something that would have been almost universally agreed upon 20 years ago like opposition to gay marriage.

Do some introspection and tell us how a heterosexual white male really became a liberal.
You've been told how an individual graduated to liberalism, but I feel that there's still the question of why this didn't happen as much 20 or 100 years ago. Clearly back then there were still people going through personal journeys of learning and maturation, and they they still ended up on the 'looks awfully conservative today' side of things.

In a move that probably won't shock people who know me, I blame religion.

More accurately, I blame cultural inertia - and religion is really really good at perpetuating cultural inertia. The mores of people centuries ago are literally encoded into rules that are applied unaltered and unquestioned as time goes on.

So even as the economy improved and the world globalized and there was less reason to see others as outsiders and competition to be hated and suppressed, societal still tended to cling to the perception of outsiders as the enemy thanks to essentially cultural habit.

And then the sixties and seventies happened, and confidence in authority flagged, and being openly rebellious and even atheist became less culturally anathema. Fast forward twenty years and you get kids who were raised by parents who didn't fully internalize the notion that authorities were reliable. Fast forward another twenty and you have a generation of adults that are willing to completely dismiss everything their parents unthinkingly accept. Presuming they weren't successfully instilled with a religious belief that tells them otherwise, anyway.

In any case, that's my take on the seemingly abrupt departure from centuries of cultural conservatism.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017