# 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:** 3
**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, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/41 "2013-05-02T13:54:33Z")
> [@Death\_of\_Rats](#): > > 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. Ah. :smack: I get it. These guys are not contending that the study is wrong. They’re exemplifying and justifying the partisan reactivity. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/42 "2013-05-02T13:57:19Z")
Occupy Wall Street? ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/43 "2013-05-02T13:59:15Z")
People have been conditioned to think of environmentally friendly as poor quality. So if you put an environmental sticker on it then people are going to become suspicious of the quality. People think of fast food as fattening so if you give people a salad and tell them it was from a fast food chain they will tell you it has more calories than if you tell them it was from a cafe. You can not overcome conditioning by just telling people it is better. People come into the study with experience of environmentally friendly products. If you had read the study you linked to you would know that moderates also had a preference for not wanting the good labeled environmentally friendly. ---
**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, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/44 "2013-05-02T13:59:57Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Nuclear power for many liberals. This is especially true for those liberals who wish to reduce our usage of fossil fuels. Not so much “ideology over practicality,” then, as a dissonance between two aspects/branches/interpretations/concerns of the same ideology (environmentalism). A dissonance even some apolitical scientists and engineers share, I should think. Nuke plants are **probably** a more eco-friendly power source than fossil fuels, summing up the pros and cons of each, but the consensus is not absolute yet, is it? ---
**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, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/45 "2013-05-02T14:00:53Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Really? > > How was it “over the top”? > > I hate to say it, but: Why do you hate America? 🙂 (At least, I hope so! I’m not going to take the time to read your posts to see what your thought patterns tend to be, but I’m really hoping you don’t actually deserve a :rolleyes:) And I do love Tierra del Fuego, Ellsmere Island, and a whole lotta stuff in between! ---
**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, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/46 "2013-05-02T14:01:42Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Occupy Wall Street? That was not a choice of ideology over practicality, it was a choice of ideology (if sufficiently definite to qualify as such) over inaction. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/47 "2013-05-02T14:02:12Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > One of these things [small cars vs SUVs] is not like the others. One of these things just doesn’t belong. Tiny smart cars may be great for the environment, but they aren’t particularly useful for getting 3 kids to soccer practice. ---
**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, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/48 "2013-05-02T14:14:09Z")
Oh, and to answer your ( **Debaser** ’s) question about how it was “over the top” – well, if I recall correctly, my wife and I realized that it really wasn’t that big a deal, so we did buy the product without reservations (and, indeed, all other things being equal, we DO prefer to buy things made in the US). I think the slightly “over-the-top” part of it was some word or phrase which implied that people in other countries aren’t as brave or free or something or other. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/49 "2013-05-02T14:20:22Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Vouchers take money away from already strapped school systems. You don’t have to mow any less of the school lawn if you lose the money that one student was allotted. > > The reason that many on the right likes vouchers is that it gives money to religious groups. Wouldn’t you agree that the idea of religious institutions getting taxpayer money on some level appeals to you? I think you are dead wrong about why people on the right (or people anywhere really) like vouchers. They like them because it gives them the choice. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/50 "2013-05-02T14:25:15Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Vouchers take money away from already strapped school systems. According to the survey of research that I linked to vouchers are good for public schools. When voucher programs are implemented, results in nearby public schools improve, especially when compared to public schools that don’t have any chance of their students getting vouchers. In any case, few if any public schools are “strapped”. Most are rolling in money, particularly the urban districts that deliver such awful results for poor children. > [@](#): > > The reason that many on the right likes vouchers is that it gives money to religious groups. Cite, please? Every book, article, column, or statement I’ve seen from someone on the right gives one reason for liking vouchers: vouchers lead to a better education for poor children. Thus I have to judge your statement as incorrect. The real question, though, is this: given that vouchers lead to poor children getting a better education, why does the left overwhelmingly oppose vouchers? > [@](#): > > Wouldn’t you agree that the idea of religious institutions getting taxpayer money on some level appeals to you? Not particularly. There are certainly some social service projects where religious institutions could do a lot of good with money from the taxpayers. However, this needs to be balanced against the fact that wherever government money goes, restrictions and regulations and bureaucracy and so forth usually follow. Hence at least in the great majority of cases, it would be better for religious institutions to avoid financial entanglements with the government. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/51 "2013-05-02T14:41:57Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > You link to a partisan website to cite some controversial research over and over and pretend as though there’s nothing controversial about either the research or your claims about it. Can you link us to any serious criticism or the research that Dr. Forster summarized? Can you link us to any real research on the effects of school vouchers which disagrees with his conclusions? If not, then what’s controversial about his research? ---
**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, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/52 "2013-05-02T15:05:25Z")
> [@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. You are missing the point. Let’s do it this way: you seem to believe my statement is wrong. Okay. Then, answer this simple question: _why_ did they choose the way they did? For my statement to be wrong there must be no reason—zero, zilch. That these people made a decision in which they see NO benefit? You’ll have to explain that to me. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/53 "2013-05-02T15:24:17Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > 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. That’s nonsense. It’s easy to find burger joints in the city, even in the Village. Five Guys is big and they just opened a big location in Times Square. Shake Shack is extremely popular. There are tons of ethnic restaurants because it’s a huge city with people from all over and a lot of them like to try new things, but there’s no shortage of diners and burger joints that make stuff practically everybody likes. I don’t think this would fit the OP’s example anyway, but nobody’s avoiding “American food,” whatever that means. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/54 "2013-05-02T15:29:18Z")
I don’t think it’s ideology over practicality so much as ignorance of the scientific data. Back when I was a kid, I worked at a grocery store bagging groceries, and this old guy was complaining about the quality of the plastic bags. He said, “The bags stink cuz they’re recycled.” I think many conservatives reject green products because they assume inferiority. It’s the same kind of ignorance that causes people to think raw milk is better for them than pasteurized milk. ---
**Author:** ![dstarfire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dstarfire/32/5762_2.png) [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/55 "2013-05-02T15:32:25Z")
My thanks to Qin for mentioning nuclear power. It perfectly embodies choosing one aspect of idealogy (environmentalism) at the expense of another (technology, energy independence, ‘oil bad’, etc.). For the rest of you (I’m looking at you, deBaser, and Magellan), **it doesn’t matter why** conservatives exhibit this behavior (probably because they’re human). ALL people (liberals, conservatives, judges, lawyers, politicians, etc.) do stupid sh\*t sometimes, usually for reasons that seem perfectly valid from a particular perspective. Stop wasting time (and thread space) defending the conservative attitude, and show us how liberals do the same stupid sh\*t. It’s much more satisfying, more fun, and more informative. Don’t waste this rare chance to sling some mud and do the right thing (promote cross-partisan understanding) with the same exact words. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/56 "2013-05-02T17:31:04Z")
> [@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 > > 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. There is controversy alright, but one thing that should not be forgotten is that on most of those examples many conservatives are not looking the real costs of not looking at alternatives will cause to all humans, not just the environment. > **[Puma releases ‘true’ carbon emission cost](https://www.ft.com/content/c2bacb12-7fde-11e0-b018-00144feabdc0)** > [@](#): > > Jochen Zeitz, Puma’s chief executive, who is also chief sustainability officer at PPR, said publication of the data was a useful step to “providing transparent benchmarks” about emissions of carbon dioxide and related gases, such as methane, that are associated with global warming. > > Findings by consultancies PWC and Trucost show that the true cost of the company’s emissions of greenhouse gases is at €66 ($93) a tonne. > > Compare this with the current price of carbon dioxide permits under the European emissions trading scheme of €17. > > Professor Alyson Warhurst, chief executive of Maplecroft, an environmental consultancy, said the figures showed that the cost of carbon dioxide permits “did not reflect the true cost” of emissions when global warming was taken into account. > > **The €66-a-tonne figure is the consultancies’ estimate of the cost to the world economy of future damage such as hurricanes and other unusual weather events that are likely to be caused by climate change sparked by rising concentrations of greenhouse gases.** > > Emissions of carbon dioxide and related gases that were produced last year from the manufacture of Puma products reached 717,000 tonnes or a “true cost” of €47m, said the consultancies. But that is not what I want to concentrate here, I want to reply to the DDT item. There are several recent treads where I noticed that conservatives are relying on a big lie from very reprehensible sources, this is the most calm one though, it is just claiming that DDT was superior, it is when used properly, but the troubles and the abuse of it caused the limitations imposed currently on DDT. The usual DDT propaganda point though includes the accusation that environmentalists are mass murderer for opposing DDT and causing many deaths, these canards have to be responded to as it is clear that many conservatives still do not know the whole history. > **[DDT](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/DDT)** > > DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) is a Russian rock band powerful halocarbon insecticide\[note 1\] with a controversial history. It is an extremely stable and decay-resistant chemical: the discoverer found that jars that had contained DDT and were... > [@](#): > > Wingnuts (Lee Doren from the YouTube channel “HowTheWorldWorks” is one example) and corporate shills will sometimes imply that a supposed worldwide ban on DDT has killed millions of people by giving them malaria or some other mosquito-borne disease, and that Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring was responsible for the alleged ban. There’s even a site run by the right-wing think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute titled [Rachelwaswrong.org](http://Rachelwaswrong.org)[2][3] This is total rubbish. > > Carson devoted some of her book into weighing the pros and cons of DDT use,[4][5] but her findings did not lead to a global ban. There was and is no global ban on DDT; only agricultural use is banned. Places with deadly mosquito-borne illnesses still use DDT, and in some places excessive use has led to the development of DDT-resistant mosquitoes.[6][7] In fact, the drastic reduction of DDT use in agriculture delayed the onset of resistance in mosquitoes. ---
**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, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/57 "2013-05-02T18:07:33Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > 🙂 > > (At least, I hope so! I’m not going to take the time to read your posts to see what your thought patterns tend to be, but I’m really hoping you don’t actually deserve a :rolleyes:) You got it right. ---
**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, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/58 "2013-05-02T18:08:23Z")
> [@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. What products are cheaper when they’re made in America? ---
**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, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/59 "2013-05-02T20:31:52Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Can you link us to any serious criticism or the research that Dr. Forster summarized? Can you link us to any real research on the effects of school vouchers which disagrees with his conclusions? > > If not, then what’s controversial about his research? I have in threads that are about that issue. But I’m not going to jump onto your hobbyhorse in a different thread to hijack the thread. If you really want to pretend that that research is uncontroversial, well, ride on cowboy. > [@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. Actually, that’s a decent point. Not that environmentally friendly products are always vastly inferior, but that that’s at least a reason why conservatives might act against their self-interests: in this regard, they rise to the level of anti-vaxxers. They’ve got really ridiculous reasons for believing they’re acting in their own self-interest, but at least there are reasons. As such, I withdraw my objection to the comparison between these conservatives and anti-vaxxers. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2013, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251/60 "2013-05-03T03:30:38Z")
> [@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. > > In the interests of balancing my perspective, can somebody point to a similar behavior among liberals (unnecessarily violating one aspect of their ideology to support another)? Environmentalists who realise US population growth is damaging and unsustainable, but can’t discuss it because someone might think they’re bigoted. So that concern trumps their environmentalism. > [@](#): > > As an astronomer who studies how stars develop over tens of millions of years, Ben Zuckerman instinctively takes the long view. What he sees in regard to future U.S. population numbers troubles his environmentalist’s heart: As many as a billion people on the American landscape by 2100, as many as 100 million in California, courtesy of liberal immigration policies. > > Zuckerman, a 58-year-old UCLA professor given to running shoes and organic rice cakes, believes environmentalists should be loudly demanding curbs on legal immigration and an end to illegal immigration, which are fueling the country’s surging population growth. The influential Sierra Club, to which he has belonged for more than three decades, ought to be especially vocal on the matter, he thinks…I don’t know how my colleagues in the Sierra Club can save species and wetlands and so on when there are a billion Americans." > > What really motivates the club leadership, Zuckerman says, is fear. Fear of being called racist. Fear of losing minority-group members and fear of forfeiting financial support from big business and foundations. > **[The Sierra Club and the Immigration Freight Train](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-jun-09-tm-45400-story.html)** > > As an astronomer who studies how stars develop over tens of millions of years, Ben Zuckerman instinctively takes the long view. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-equivalent-of-idealogy-over-practicality/657251.md?page=4)