# Liberal equivalent of idealogy over practicality **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 1, 2013, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251 "2013-05-01T20:15:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/21 "2013-05-02T02:05:56Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > There’s plenty of irrational behavior among liberals, no doubt. Most anti-vaccers I know are liberals. But the particular kind the OP describes–the cutting-off-one’s-nose-to-spite-one’s-face kind–is not something I’ve seen among liberals. How are anti-vaxxers not doing that? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/22 "2013-05-02T02:34:05Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > How are anti-vaxxers not doing that? The conservatives above don’t (as far as I can tell) see any benefit to themselves from avoiding “environmentally friendly” products. In this context, “environmentally friendly” is a synonym for “energy efficient.” They just don’t like treehuggers, so they avoid the term in order to avoid guilt-by-association. They would benefit personally from the products, **and they know that** , and they’re not supporting any cause they disagree with by purchasing the product; they just don’t like the sound of the term. Anti-vaxxers have insanely stupid arguments against vaccines, but they do have arguments against them. It’s not just a case of spin. I really have a hard time even thinking of something comparable. What if liberals were hesitant to support a charity like “Doctors Without Borders” if it were described as “pro-life,” meaning that they helped people live? It’s a real stretch, but I can’t think of anything more analogous. Maybe objecting to the word “capitalist” in product advertising? I dunno. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/23 "2013-05-02T08:22:19Z")
> [@dstarfire](#): > > A recent study shows people with moderate or conservative leanings will avoid energy efficient products that are labelled as environmentally friendly. Those same products were almost universally favored when the environment label was left off. Really? So I guess every boycott ever is “ideology over practicality” then. Don’t buy from businesses that practice horrendous wage slavery overseas or pollute the environment, but miss out on those sweet, sweet savings! ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/24 "2013-05-02T09:50:02Z")
I don’t have any specific examples, but I can suggest the kind of thing that the OP is looking for: Imagine two identical products on the shelf. One is flamboyantly labelled with an American flag emblem and “made in America, by an American”, next to the product name. The other one is just quietly labelled with the name of the product. Many liberals will prefer to buy the foreign-made item, even it’s a little more expensive. Or here’s a more realistic example: restaurants. Liberals love ethnic food from every part of the world…but not from America. In the hip parts of New York , say near Greenwich Village, it’s easier to find Thai ,Vietnamese or Indian food than it is to find a hamburger. And don’t even think about some southern grits from good ol’ Alabama. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/25 "2013-05-02T10:09:53Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > I don’t have any specific examples, but I can suggest the kind of thing that the OP is looking for: > Imagine two identical products on the shelf. One is flamboyantly labelled with an American flag emblem and “made in America, by an American”, next to the product name. > The other one is just quietly labelled with the name of the product. > Many liberals will prefer to buy the foreign-made item, even it’s a little more expensive. This is a good example, except for parity, label one product “locally sourced.” 🙂 And even then, the parity isn’t exact: the interesting part about the original is that some conservatives would go against self-interest (i.e., saving money on energy costs) for no reason. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/26 "2013-05-02T10:52:26Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > I don’t have any specific examples, but I can suggest the kind of thing that the OP is looking for: > Imagine two identical products on the shelf. One is flamboyantly labelled with an American flag emblem and “made in America, by an American”, next to the product name. > The other one is just quietly labelled with the name of the product. > Many liberals will prefer to buy the foreign-made item, even it’s a little more expensive.. I think you found an uncommon but real example. I actually recall my wife and I hesitating to buy something or other (at a hardware store, maybe?) simply because of the over-the-top jingoistic “Made in America” shelf presentation. I think your “hamburger/grits” example might be less likely, actually. Most liberals I know are almost as interested in American regional dishes, and local “best whatevers” (including hamburgers), as they are in Thai food, etc. They even sometimes dig some foods/drinks directly associated with conservatives (I guess I’m thinking of things like Coors beer), but of course from a neo-hipster, anthropological, even ironic perspective. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/27 "2013-05-02T11:28:19Z")
Liberals who disdain things that are perfectly fine for irrational ideological reasons? You want [hipsters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipster_(contemporary_subculture)#Critical_analysis). ---
**Author:** ![Mdcastle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/958977/32.png) [@Mdcastle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mdcastle)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/28 "2013-05-02T12:10:29Z")
Conservative here speaking up Not to rekindle off topic debates, but when you look at how many environmentally friendly products actually _are_ vastly inferior at least in some ways. LED/CFLs vs. incandescent bulbs electric cars vs. gasoline cars DDT vs. whatever they use now regular showerheads and toilets vs. water saving plastic shopping bags vs. dragging reusable cloth bags all over creation regular leaf bags vs. compostable Phosphate detergent vs. whatever they use now small cars vs. SUVs. Coal power vs. conservation If I see two widgets side by side on the store shelf, and one is labeled “environmentally friendly” and one is not, I’m probably going to by the one that is not. I wouldn’t care about making an anti-environmental statement, but if I knew nothing about widgets given the above list I’d figure there must be something inferior about the environmental product. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/29 "2013-05-02T12:19:50Z")
> [@Mdcastle](#): > > If I see two widgets side by side on the store shelf, and one is labeled “environmentally friendly” and one is not, I’m probably going to by the one that is not. I wouldn’t care about making an anti-environmental statement, but if I knew nothing about widgets given the above list I’d figure there must be something inferior about the environmental product. Gee, if only they had thought to account for that in the study! Oh wait, they did. They demonstrated that without the “environmental” labeling, people evaluated the products as superior, or at least opted to purchase them more often. So, why you’re talking about believing the products to be inferior in some way, I have no idea. As for your list, you seem to be suggesting that until these options are superior in every way, they would be poor choices. That’s, to be blunt, a very dim selection strategy. It strikes me as motivated by the same kind of spite being exemplified in the study. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/30 "2013-05-02T12:26:52Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > I think you found an uncommon but real example. I actually recall my wife and I hesitating to buy something or other (at a hardware store, maybe?) simply because of the over-the-top jingoistic “Made in America” shelf presentation. > > I think your “hamburger/grits” example might be less likely, actually. Most liberals I know are almost as interested in American regional dishes, and local “best whatevers” (including hamburgers), as they are in Thai food, etc. They even sometimes dig some foods/drinks directly associated with conservatives (I guess I’m thinking of things like Coors beer), but of course from a neo-hipster, anthropological, even ironic perspective. That’s still a little different. If the two items are the same, then making a choice based on superficial reasons isn’t particularly remarkable. If two cleaning products are not meaningfully different from one another, choosing one because the packaging has a pleasing shape is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Even pizza or chicken choices are not idea examples. I’ve got plenty of places to choose pizza, and while some are obviously inferior to others, I might make decisions based on location or price as well. If I learn that the Domino’s corporation is anti-choice, it’s perfectly reasonable for me to not want my money to support them. Same for anti-gay Chik Fil A. We need some example where one item is clearly preferable to another, but a political factor makes us choose the less preferable item. I cannot really think of a great example, though. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/31 "2013-05-02T12:38:32Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Oh wait, they did. They demonstrated that without the “environmental” labeling, people evaluated the products as superior, or at least opted to purchase them more often. Of course they did! Without the “environmental” labeling people didn’t know they were looking at a likely inferior product. > [@](#): > > So, why you’re talking about believing the products to be inferior in some way, I have no idea. “Environmental” and “inferior product” are basically synonyms. You can’t get something for nothing. Making things environmentally friendly almost always has a triple constraint: It will add to cost, reduce capability or take longer to do what it’s supposed to do. I’m a hunter and I also do some other environmentally friendly things. I recycle. I use re-usable shopping bags. I do these despite the drawbacks of doing them because I care about the environment. I would never argue that they are practically better in any way. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/32 "2013-05-02T12:39:41Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > I think you found an uncommon but real example. I actually recall my wife and I hesitating to buy something or other (at a hardware store, maybe?) simply because of the over-the-top jingoistic “Made in America” shelf presentation. Really? How was it “over the top”? I hate to say it, but: Why do you hate America? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/33 "2013-05-02T12:52:54Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Of course they did! Without the “environmental” labeling people didn’t know they were looking at a likely inferior product. Read the fucking link. > [@](#): > > “Environmental” and “inferior product” are basically synonyms. You can’t get something for nothing. Making things environmentally friendly almost always has a triple constraint: It will add to cost, reduce capability or take longer to do what it’s supposed to do. Read the fucking link. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/34 "2013-05-02T13:04:41Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > This is a good example, except for parity, label one product “locally sourced.” 🙂 And even then, the parity isn’t exact: the interesting part about the original is that some conservatives would go against self-interest (i.e., saving money on energy costs) for no reason. Nonsense. There is always a reason. Perhaps **Mdcastle’s** post will help you understand that. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/35 "2013-05-02T13:13:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Nonsense. There is always a reason. Perhaps **Mdcastle’s** post will help you understand that. Seriously? Jesus Christ. In the study, they confirmed that of the two options, the efficient bulb was preferred by both groups. This remained even when the efficient bulb was more costly. The difference emerged ONLY in response to the environmental labeling. Read the fucking link. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/36 "2013-05-02T13:17:50Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Seriously? Jesus Christ. > > In the study, they confirmed that of the two options, the efficient bulb was preferred by both groups. This remained even when the efficient bulb was more costly. > > The difference emerged ONLY in response to the environmental labeling. > > Read the fucking link. Yes, we did read the fucking link. The environmental labeling is what tunes people in to the fact that it’s likely an inferior product. That’s why when the label changes it turns people off. Without the label, people probably aren’t thinking about that. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Why do you assume that people who understand this better than you didn’t read the link? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/37 "2013-05-02T13:32:23Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Yes, we did read the fucking link. > > The environmental labeling is what tunes people in to the fact that it’s likely an inferior product. That’s why when the label changes it turns people off. > > Without the label, people probably aren’t thinking about that. > > Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Why do you assume that people who understand this better than you didn’t read the link? You keep asserting that it is an inferior product. Please explain how it is an inferior product when these same people demonstrated that they would choose it over the other product when just considering the merits of the product? Why would they choose it when just considering the merits of the product even when the cost was greater? You say that you understand this better, but these are some fundamental questions you keep glossing over. In fact, you are demonstrably wrong (read the fucking link) when you assert that it is an inferior product. ---
**Author:** ![Death\_of\_Rats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a6a055/32.png) [@Death\_of\_Rats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Death_of_Rats)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/38 "2013-05-02T13:36:52Z")
So, **Debaser** , you realize you are proving the study correct. You make ill-informed choices based on an unfounded emotional response to words associated with environmental labeling. Without that knee-jerk response you would see the new technology as superior and choose it over the old. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/39 "2013-05-02T13:52:12Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > You keep asserting that it is an inferior product. I haven’t asserted that yet, actually. I’ve stated that almost always environmentally friendly products are inferior to normal ones. Thus, it is logical to avoid environmentally friendly products if you don’t care about the environment, want to save money, or want the best product, or some combination of these. But if you want to talk about the specific product in question, yes I will say it now. [Incandescent lightbulbs are far superior to compact florescent ones](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp). > [@](#): > > Incandescents reach full brightness a fraction of a second after being switched on. As of 2009, CFLs turn on within a second, but many still take time to achieve full brightness.[44] The light color may be slightly different immediately after being turned on.[45] Some CFLs are marketed as “instant on” and have no noticeable warm-up period,[46] but others can take up to a minute to reach full brightness,[47] or longer in very cold temperatures. Some that use a mercury amalgam can take up to three minutes to reach full output.[46] This and the shorter life of CFLs when turned on and off for short periods may make CFLs less suitable for applications such as motion-activated lighting. > [@](#): > > According to the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) in 2008, CFLs may pose an added health risk due to the ultraviolet and blue light emitted. This radiation could aggravate symptoms in people who already suffer skin conditions that make them exceptionally sensitive to light. The light produced by some single-envelope CFLs at distances of less than 20 cm could lead to ultraviolet exposures approaching the current workplace limit set to protect workers from skin and retinal damage. Industry sources claim the UV radiation received from CFLs is too small to contribute to skin cancer and the use of double-envelope CFLs “largely or entirely” mitigates any other risks.[50] > A 2012 study comparing cellular health effects of CFL light and incandescent light found statistically significant cell damage in cultures exposed to CFL light. Spectroscopic analysis confirmed the presence of significant UVA and UVC radiation, which the study’s authors conjectured was attributable to damage in the bulbs’ internal phosphor coatings. No cellular damage was observed following exposure to incandescent light of equivalent intensity. The study’s authors suggest that the ultraviolet exposure could be limited by the use of “double-walled” bulbs manufactured with an additional glass covering surrounding the phosphor-coated layer. > [@](#): > > CFLs, like all fluorescent lamps, contain mercury[52][53] as vapor inside the glass tubing. Most CFLs contain 3–5 mg per bulb, with the bulbs labeled “eco-friendly” containing as little as 1 mg.[54][55] Because mercury is poisonous, even these small amounts are a concern for landfills and waste incinerators where the mercury from lamps may be released and contribute to air and water pollution. In the U.S., lighting manufacturer members of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) have voluntarily capped the amount of mercury used in CFLs.[56] In the EU the same cap is required by the RoHS law. > In areas with coal-fired power stations, the use of CFLs saves on mercury emissions when compared to the use of incandescent bulbs. This is due to the reduced electrical power demand, reducing in turn the amount of mercury released by coal as it is burned.[57] In July 2008 the U.S. EPA published a data sheet stating that the net system emission of mercury for CFL lighting was lower than for incandescent lighting of comparable lumen output. This was based on the average rate of mercury emission for U.S. electricity production and average estimated escape of mercury from a CFL put into a landfill.[58] Coal-fired plants also emit other heavy metals, sulfur, and carbon dioxide. > In the United States, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that if all 270 million CFLs sold in 2007 were sent to landfill sites, around 0.13 metric tons of mercury would be released, 0.1% of all U.S. emissions of mercury (around 104 metric tons that year).[59] > The EPA updated their mercury comparison graph in November 2010. The graph assumes that CFLs last an average of 8,000 hours regardless of manufacturer and premature breakage. In areas where coal is not used to produce energy, the content emissions would be less than the power plant emissions for both types of bulb.[60] > [@](#): > > Health and environmental concerns about mercury have prompted many jurisdictions to require spent lamps to be properly disposed of or recycled, rather than being included in the general waste stream sent to landfills. Safe disposal requires storing the bulbs unbroken until they can be processed. > It is unlawful to dispose of fluorescent bulbs as universal waste in the US states of California, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin.[61] Home-supply chain stores make free CFL recycling widely available.[62] > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Please explain how it is an inferior product when these same people demonstrated that they would choose it over the other product when just considering the merits of the product? Why would they choose it when just considering the merits of the product even when the cost was greater? Because they saw the environmental label, and it reminded them how fucking awful these things are. > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > In fact, you are demonstrably wrong (read the fucking link) when you assert that it is an inferior product. Did you really not know how bad compact florescent bulbs were? I guess I didn’t realize I was talking to someone completely ignorant about the subject of the OP. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/40 "2013-05-02T13:54:25Z")
> [@Mdcastle](#): > > Conservative here speaking up > > Not to rekindle off topic debates, but when you look at how many environmentally friendly products actually _are_ vastly inferior at least in some ways. > LED/CFLs vs. incandescent bulbs > electric cars vs. gasoline cars > DDT vs. whatever they use now > regular showerheads and toilets vs. water saving > plastic shopping bags vs. dragging reusable cloth bags all over creation > regular leaf bags vs. compostable > Phosphate detergent vs. whatever they use now > **small cars vs. SUVs.** > Coal power vs. conservation One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn’t belong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251.md?page=3)