There’s a big difference between progressive viewpoints on social issues such as: gay marriage, abortion rights, amnesty for illegal immigration, etc. and progressive viewpoints on fiscal issues such as: universal healthcare, wealth redistribution, free college tuition, universal basic income.
I agree that society over time grows to accept more liberal social viewpoints, but not necessarily the fiscal agenda.
No, what I am saying is that liberals look at history and cherry pick to create a narrative. The narrative that Theodore Roosevelt and the rest of the progressives started to shape our government and society toward perfection with their trust busting, then Woodrow Wilson with his internationalism and peace conferences, then FDR and the new deal showed how great the government was at regulating the economy, then Kennedy and LBJ liberated black people, and everything culminated in the perfection of Barack Hussein Obama.
They overlook the actual history of Roosevelt’s imperialism, Wilson’s racism, FDR’s flirtation with fascism, Kennedy’s conservatism, LBJ’s failures, and BHO’s uselessness. This allows them to think that they are one the “right side of history” because people like them have always been right and correct.
Yes, you never see conservatives cherrypicking to create a narrative.
Sure you do, same as with liberals. It’s just that bullshit, especially on the SDMB, has a well-known liberal bias.
GMOs, nuclear energy, Diebold hacked the elections in Ohio, Obamacare will save the average family $2500 a year, etc., etc.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, I can see how society would want to embrace the conservative “fiscal agenda” of “poor people can go fuck themselves”. Particularly as health care, tuition and real estate costs continue to rise.
Indeed. As was evident in the post I’d just quoted.
As does self-awareness, apparently.
No, self-awareness does not have a liberal bias. Particularly not on the SDMB.
This is a highly partisan board. The more partisan, the less self-aware, the less sense of proportion, and the greater tendency to take oneself and one’s sacred cows with deadly seriousness. Certainly this would also happen on right-wing boards, but the SDMB is left-wing.
Regards,
Shodan
Do you know why so many newly-arrived right-wing posters of late either leave in a huff or blow up and get banned? It’s not because we’re big liberal meanieheads who can’t stand opposing views. It’s because so many of them turn up and recite whatever the latest right-wing meme circulating in their particular bubble is, then get all upset when it turns out to be “bullshit” and gets debunked.
You mentioned a few left-wing examples, but we’ve had a constant stream of nonsense from Benghazi and the IRS “scandal” to “You didn’t build that” to the Wall and of course the ongoing “nothingberder!” refrain relating to the Mueller investigation. Which is not to say that there aren’t many left-leaning posters who spout nonsense nor many right-wing posters who make solid, fact-based arguments. But despite right-wing posters being the minority here, the bullshit-to-substance ratio is far higher.
The divide did not used to be so dramatic, but for context I’ll just borrow some quotes from other threads to point out that these are the wells that many on the right are drawing from these days:
Where are the left-wing sources and politicians of equal prominence, influence and mendacity? And who here is defending them?
And yet we have no problem skewing left-wing arguments which are not factually based. Accusations that we handwave away Democratic wrongdoing because “IOKIADDI” tend to be ill-founded (and in many cases outright projection); in fact the tendency of Democrats and liberals to demand excessive levels of accountability of each other is a recurring theme.
Am I guilty of some confirmation bias? Undoubtedly. But so are you. And even in the context of this board, with so much more material to work with, you are pointing out molehills on the left and ignoring the Himalayas on the right.
Another example of reality having a left-wing bias is that right-wingers are Perfectionists: They demand that humans will do what they see as the right thing, and see any move to create policy which acknowledges that humans will do what they’ve been observed to do is a moral failing, and must not be allowed.
For example, drug policy: Conservatives see that nobody needs drugs to live. They decide that drugs are bad. Therefore, they conclude that people will not take drugs, and that any policy to reduce the harm drugs do, such as needle exchange or decriminalization, is morally wrong. The fact this leads to increased crime is never seen as a failure of their policy or lack thereof.
Similarly with sexual education: Conservatives decide that people younger than eighteen should not have sex, and that nobody should have gay sex. Therefore, they destroy sexual education by demanding that it push their Perfectionist worldview, and refuse to accept the fact abstinence-only sexual education leads to increased teenage pregnancy. The fact is morally wrong, and, therefore, must not be acknowledged to exist.
Man, you guys can sure overcomplicate stuff.
I always interpreted the term to mean simply that change is pretty much the one constant in the world, and conservatives/the right are trying to prevent that from happening/mitigate its effects.
So as a result, reality leans to the left, as the left is already advocating for change, not trying to avoid/mitigate/stop it.
This is spot on for many conservatives. The idea that because things *ought *to be a certain way, that they therefore *are *that way.
I think that’s a big part of it. Conservatives tend to believe the world is working the way as intended. Probably because it generally works in their favor. Liberals tend to see what they perceive as injustices and want to change them.
So while a wealthy conservative assumes they are wealthy because they did all the right things in life, a liberal might see an unfair distribution of wealth.
Ya know, I think that “unfair distribution of wealth” is a right wing characterization of liberal thinking. I don’t believe that I’ve ever met a liberal who thought wealth earned through honest means was unfair. Just that perhaps the wealthy person perhaps had a social or moral or ethical obligation to give a little back to the community, that perhaps it’s the smart thing to do because by helping to improve the community and the lives of those in it, ultimately it leads to greater wealth accumulation for the original wealthy person.
“Increase your power in the world by making those under you even more powerful in the world” or influential or wealthy or rich.
Why do you think that is?
How far away from “communist” do you believe China is?
Do you know any Chinese nationals? Ever sat down with them over a meal and had discussions with them about their government policies? Ever met with members of the Chinese government? Ever discussed policies with them?
:smack:
I guess where I have a problem is with the “unfair” part. That wealthy guy may well have done all the right things, and so may have his parents, grandparents and great grandparents.
Why is that somehow unfair to some person who didn’t do the right things, and neither did their ancestors? Why should they deserve a piece of the other guy’s pie?
I’ll half agree with that.
I do not think that wealth earned through honest means is unfair, however, just because it is legal does not make it honest.
Doing a leveraged buyout, transferring your debt to the new entity, liquidating the capital invested in it and taking that money for yourself is not, IMHO, honest, but it is legal.
there are other schools of thought that would say that not only was that honest, it was smart.
Those schools of thought will gleefully conflate honest and legal, and consider that I do not think of vulture capitalism to be honest to be an indication that I see an “unfair distribution of wealth.”
This, I 100% agree with. The wealthy got wealthy because of the opportunities afforded them by living in our society. The least that they can do is to give back to ensure that those opportunities are available for others, and the best they can do for themselves is to improve the society that they live in so that they have even greater opportunities.
If we have massive wealth inequality, where only the 1% can afford luxuries of any kind, then in order to watch the next Avenger’s movie, those billionaires are going to have to get together and pool a decent amount of their money.
Living in a society where almost everyone can afford to pay the $6 to $20 to go see the Avengers means that the wealthy person has more opportunities. They may go to the special theater where they serve you caviar and champagne, and it may cost $100’s a ticket, but that’s fine, because that pays for the luxury that they desire, for far less than it would be if they had to finance the movie themselves.
This isn’t just a random idea disconnected from historical precedent. It used to be that if you were an artist, you sought a patron, and if you wanted music or art, you sought an artist to be the patron of. That was inefficient and meant that the wealthy were spending a pretty decent portion of their wealth on entertainment, while the masses did not have access to it at all. The Globe Theatre had the standing room only mosh pit that cost very little to get into, but it also had balcony boxes where rich patrons viewed the plays. This showcasing of Shakespeare’s work would not have been possible had the wealthy wanted to keep it all to themselves.
Both the wealthy and the non-wealthy are better off if society itself is wealthier. That is something that not only the non-wealthy need to realize, but is also something that the wealthy need to recognize.
Speaking generically, it’s far more likely that the wealthy guy or his parents or grandparents etc rigged the system to give them an ongoing advantage. Is that “fair”?
So, you are rewarding the wealthy for the actions of their ancestors, and so punishing the poor for the actions of theirs.
The pie gets bigger the more its shared.
It’s not all about the wealth. A big part of the imbalance is in opportunity – both positive and negative.
People in more affluent communities get more opportunities to both succeed and fuck up. A kid in a good school district with a learning disability gets all sorts of help and access to resources that help her succeed and move on to college. Same kid in a poor district? Good luck with that. A kid in a wealthy community who gets busted for drug possession may find it no more than a major speed bump on his way to college. In a poor community? He’s finished.
I understand that part of the incentive to accrue wealth is to afford your kids those multiple chances. But that doesn’t make the lack of opportunities for the other kids “fair.”