Chicken or Egg?

The BBQ Pit
1

Lately many of my rants have been about people and their attitudes toward politics. Since users here are obviously of above-average intelligence, I’d like some other views on the topic. The question is: From what you’ve seen in discussing politics (and the world in general), do most people label themselves politically based on their views, or base their views on their accepted political orientation?

To clarify, I would describe myself as conservative because my opinions on subjects like size and scope of government, religion, abortion, etc. tend to agree with conservative principals. I have met people before, though, who shape their political views, or their opinion on social issues like abortion, on the “party line” (and no, not the party line that advertises on late-night TV).

Being a conservative, I’ll pick on liberals for examples, but I’m sure it goes on with both sides. I try to avoid political discussions in polite company, but I have had experiences in which I was inundated with liberal talking points and challenged the speaker to explain him or herself. Quite often, the louder they were, the less likely they were to be able to explain themselves. One girl threw out some mumbo-jumbo term about ten times before I asked what it meant. She said that if I didn’t know already, then she couldn’t explain it. Perfect.

Add on to this the strange case of people protesting against capital punishment and calling soldiers murderers, then showing unfaltering allegiance to the practice of abortion. Quite often these people cannot explain why they have these opinions except that they are liberal and that’s what liberals believe.

Has anyone else encountered this phenomenon?

2

I wouldn’t be surprised if it was both. I think many people pick based on some beliefs that they have that are important to them, and then fall in line with the other issues, probably largely due to general animosity with “the other side” on their core beliefs.

3

Good point. And I think that today’s environment of 24 hour news channels filled with pundits, as well as talk radio, magazines, etc. contributes by promulgating the idea that there is no gray area - you must be on one side or the other.

4

None of the school administrators I have known made clear their political leanings. How do you know the principals you agree with are conservative?

5

If you listen to people for long enough you will notice that it’s not limited to politics. On pretty much any topic people will spout all sorts of nonsense they picked up from others.

On the other hand - knowledge is often received to the level that one can recognize what is the correct answer (for them) without being capable of explaining in detail. This does not mean they are automatically wrong of mis-informed. It’s the difference between being able to pass a multiple choice test - and an essay test.

6

Why is this in the pit?

7

Heh. Oops - mind working faster than the fingers. :slight_smile:

I’m not sure that I made it clear enough (except in my own mind), but I was mainly talking about folks who confront you about your opinions being wrong without being able to explain why you’re wrong or they’re right. I’d venture to say that most of the ones whom I’ve encountered were either wrong or mis-informed.

8

“unfaltering allegiance to the practice of abortion” ?

9

Yup.

10

Okay, I’m just noting that it’s a tad ironic that an OP which, as I understand it, is basically about well-poisoning, has well-poisoning in it.

11

How so? The OP was regarding people who hold opinions because they fit the labels they apply to themselves. I don’t see how mentioning folks who will fight to the death to defend abortion while calling military actions “murder” is comparable. Can you explain how you see it to be so?

I’ll freely admit if I’m wrong, but I don’t see your point.

12

Indeed.

Say you have a thought. “I believe X.” You seek out other people who also believe X. When you do, you find that those people, who have been believing X for longer than you have, also believe Y and Z. You may not have thought about Y and Z all that much yourself, but given that you share a common belief in X, it seems logical that their stances on Y and Z are also going to be reasonable for you as well. So you adopt them without perhaps thinking about them as deeply as you’ve thought about X.

The defense is of choice, not abortion itself. You can hate the practice and argue against it while still wanting people to have the choice to decide for themselves.

If you honestly have encountered people waving placards that say “Kill A Fetus Today!” then certainly, they are idiots.

13

I agree with the some of both line. I’m a Liberal because most of my views match those of the Liberals, although there are some ways in which I dffer. I’m pro nuke for example, and I’m not morally opposed to the death penalty. In areas in which I am unsure facts on the ground and have yet to form an educated opinion, I will probably receive input from Liberal sources more readily than those from conservative sources, because I trust their conclusions more on other issue.

14

Theoretically, you are correct, but there are some flaws in your argument. If someone chooses to kill dogs, or their parents, then the question of choice isn’t applicable. Having an abortion is not like choosing chicken noodle over clam chowder. Regardless of whether people want to defend the right to choose there must be limits on what you can choose to do.

Besides that, the choice argument is a red herring. If you look at the roots of the abortion “movement,” social Darwinism, not liberty, was the driving force. While they may not care to admit it, even to themselves in some cases, a good many people still support “choice” because it is overwhelmingly chosen by “lower” people. Many also view abortion as a form of birth control, eliminating an unwanted pregnancy rather than living with the consequences of their own actions.

“Choice” thus becomes the way they justify such opinions, though if you try to find consistency in the political spectrum, it’s invalidity as an argument becomes glaringly clear. Most political views are ascribed to either conservative or liberal mindsets. School choice, for example, is seen as a conservative issue while choice over abortion is a liberal one. If one supports the right to choose whether a child is born, shouldn’t that person also defend the right to choose where that child goes to school?

This goes back to my original point: Choice isn’t being defended as part of liberty, abortion is being defended as part of the liberal mindset. No logic needed.

15

And I’d venture to guess that when you receive input from liberal sources you at least think about it, right? The people I’m talking about don’t bother with that.

Quick example: Back in 2000 I had a co-worker who drove a huge SUV. One day over lunch he was telling me how Al Gore being elected President would be a great thing for the auto industry. Do you really think he thought that one through at all?

16

Now you’re making shit up because it coincides with your world view of liberals as central-planning fingers-in-everyone’s-pie dictators lacking in morals, and there’s no way you can be gainsaid because ‘people just don’t care to admit it.’

17

I think it goes both ways for most people. I think most people who identify with a label have some core beliefs first and then end up choosing it based upon those, but thereafter, unless they have a strong feeling about it, there’s not really much reason to disagree.

For instance, one might consider oneself a conservative or liberal for many of the same reasons you do, but not really care one way or the other about, say, guns. However, not caring, they only really get exposed to how it relates to others they identify with and, if they get involved in a discussion where it comes up, they’ll probably end up finding themselves supporting the opinion that those others had even though they really don’t care.

I think, for instance, that a large part of the whole birther phenomenon was a result of this, wherein Obama was an opponent, a few people expressed doubts, and they went along, but not really caring that much, they didn’t see the counter-arguments. And by the time it became a larger issue, it was now an ingrained part of that, and yet they could not longer really identify where they picked it up.
In other cases, I’ve met people who were liberals or conservatives simply because that’s how they were raised and never really questioned it. As such, they identify as that and use the basis for that thought to form their opinions but never really questioned whether or not they agree with the base philosophies behind them.

These would be the type where you meet them and they generally can’t defend any of their opinions outside of circular reasoning, and it usually goes something like this “As a liberal, I’m pro-choice.” then “I’m a liberal because I’m pro-choice.” Or they might even come out and say “I’m a Republican because my dad was a Republican.” Either way, these sorts of people are both utterly frustrating and completely boring to discuss politics with.
There are the types who try to pick a label based upon the one that best fits all of their beliefs, but they’re also the types who will end up saying they’re something really obscure or they need to take 30 seconds to describe which parts of their views are liberal, which are conservative, which are libertarian, etc.
Anyway, back on point, I think most people fall in the first category where they have a handful of strong beliefs and they may or may not fall in line with their chosen label on all of them, but they’ll tend to fall in line on the things that they don’t care so much about, or at least didn’t when they first formed their opinion on it.

18

This is retarded drivel.

19

Chicken. Definitely the chicken. Anybody who says otherwise is cracked.

20

So now liberals hate the poor, too? Man, those unlucky bastards can’t catch a break!