How to help conservatives be more humane

[Angry Floof]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1SEv_i4LUE[/YOUTUBE]

As I have pointed out for years now, within the in-group community, conservatives are helpful neighbors, good friends, generous, compassionate, and willing to help anyone who needs it.

Why do they not seem to be able to extend that value on the well being of everyone beyond their in-group? Conservatives worship hierarchical authority, fear the world beyond their in-group, seek to punish and control the world for not obeying their abusive father figures. How does that become more valuable to them than their actual personal, human experiences of generosity and care and compassion and love?

When the authoritative daddy figure says the world outside the in-group is evil and dangerous, conservatives have no choice but to believe that. When conservatives stop viewing the world in this way, they tend to become less conservative and more liberal, meaning more openhearted and generous and humane in their regard for all of their fellow human beings and not just their in-group. So when a sociopath like Trump comes along and pounds on their prejudices and fears with the support of a major political party, which is intertwined with a conservative, punitive, authority-worshiping religion, you get exactly what we are experiencing in the U.S. right now.

George Lakoff explains how to help conservatives become more compassionate and open hearted in their world view and not just toward their own in-group.

 

[Trausti]

The goal of modern conservatism is to protect liberalism from progressives.

 

[Angry Floof]

The goal of modern conservatism is to protect liberalism from progressives.

Yes, I know. Because people outside of the little in-group are not seen as people. They're scary, evil creatures who refuse to obey the abusive father figure and therefore enemies and not humans. Their well being is of no concern.

 

[Tigers!]

It is indeed kind of you to care.

 

[Angry Floof]

It is indeed kind of you to care.

Everyone has the capacity to care about the well being of every human without having to know or like individuals within the tribe of seven billion.

Unfortunately, no matter how much any of us cares about the well being of all humans whether we like some of them or not, and understand the reasons that it's better to care about the well being of all humans whether we like some of them or not, we still have a large chunk of humanity that holds a purposeful desire for their greater tribe to suffer and to be punished. They're not just happy with simply not helping others; they actively find ever more creative ways to make sure their fellow human beings are not helped.

I think it's better in all ways to hold a humane world view that values the well being of everyone no matter what you think of anyone personally (because there are plenty of sociopathic assholes in the world, yet it's still better to care about their rights and well being even if you hate some of them personally and believe they should be punished for actual crimes they've committed) than it is to be a "nice" person in your mannerisms while basing your ideological principles on what some other humans have taught you about magical father figures doling out judgement and punishment.

Edit: Lakoff makes a relevant point to this in the video. Conservatives tend to view the world in terms of their own individual, personal experiences. I guess that makes it harder to take a more universal, objective view when examining their principles when everything is framed subjectively. In other words, they think they are the judges of whether people individually or as groups are deserving of help or inclusion. The idea that wanting the best for every human regardless of what you think of them personally is lost on them.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

There is even a dividend to being more co-operative and inclusive.

The human race evolved not, as Desmond Morris etc. suggested, by the survival of the fittest, but through the survival of the most co-operative.

Conservatism and distrust makes them an evolutionary backwater in the long term..

 

[ideologyhunter]

Are you sure they're capable of it? My appraisal: they're just too Christian for that.

 

[repoman]

Some of the answer and some of the reason for OP's bias lies in this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oikophobia#Political_usage

 

[Angry Floof]

Some of the answer and some of the reason for OP's bias lies in this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oikophobia#Political_usage

Bullshit. It's not a preference for foreign cultures. It's an ideology that includes everybody, whether you like them or not. There may be a "leftist" adolescent world view, but that is not what's being discussed here.

But considering how black and white and fundamentally dichotomous the conservative mindset tends to be, it's not surprising that this would be viewed as preference for when the only other option available in a dichotomy is preference against. There are other possibilities, namely that preference, opinion, subjective feelings are irrelevant.

That requires a much higher level of maturity than adolescence.

Here is a great video explaining why a world view that places the well being of all humans as a top priority, without regard to your personal opinions or feelings about any of those humans, benefits everyone, even the most selfish among us. Even the filthy rich benefit more from everyone prospering than they do from economic inequality.

 

[Angry Floof]

There is even a dividend to being more co-operative and inclusive.

The human race evolved not, as Desmond Morris etc. suggested, by the survival of the fittest, but through the survival of the most co-operative.

Conservatism and distrust makes them an evolutionary backwater in the long term..

I couldn't agree more. Competition and aggression have long since served their survival value, and have in fact become liabilities in the modern world of a connected, technological tribe of seven billion. Aggression and tribalism are pointless at best, regressive, destructive, and possibly lethal to humankind at worst. Cooperation and compassion are our most effective survival traits now. (Related topic: Why the majority of leaders around the globe should be women.)

 

[Angry Floof]

Are you sure they're capable of it? My appraisal: they're just too Christian for that.

Capable, yes. Will an environment of generosity and altruism impinge to such a degree that it supersedes the environment of tribalism and authority worship? And for how many, if any, to the point where a significant number of people abandon the more destructive aspects of conservatism? No idea.

 

[Tigers!]

Edit: Lakoff makes a relevant point to this in the video. Conservatives tend to view the world in terms of their own individual, personal experiences. I guess that makes it harder to take a more universal, objective view when examining their principles when everything is framed subjectively. In other words, they think they are the judges of whether people individually or as groups are deserving of help or inclusion. The idea that wanting the best for every human regardless of what you think of them personally is lost on them.

I have never met a person, regardless of whether 'progressive' or 'conservative', who does not view the world too little in terms of their own individual, personal experiences.
This means of course they think they are the judges of whether people individually or as groups are deserving of help or inclusion.
What's in it for me has become a mantra for far too many people.
Having a 'magical father figure' or not does not seem to make much difference. Tribaliness is very deeply ingrained within us.

 

[thebeave]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1SEv_i4LUE[/YOUTUBE]

As I have pointed out for years now, within the in-group community, conservatives are helpful neighbors, good friends, generous, compassionate, and willing to help anyone who needs it.

Why do they not seem to be able to extend that value on the well being of everyone beyond their in-group? Conservatives worship hierarchical authority, fear the world beyond their in-group, seek to punish and control the world for not obeying their abusive father figures. How does that become more valuable to them than their actual personal, human experiences of generosity and care and compassion and love?

When the authoritative daddy figure says the world outside the in-group is evil and dangerous, conservatives have no choice but to believe that. When conservatives stop viewing the world in this way, they tend to become less conservative and more liberal, meaning more openhearted and generous and humane in their regard for all of their fellow human beings and not just their in-group. So when a sociopath like Trump comes along and pounds on their prejudices and fears with the support of a major political party, which is intertwined with a conservative, punitive, authority-worshiping religion, you get exactly what we are experiencing in the U.S. right now.

George Lakoff explains how to help conservatives become more compassionate and open hearted in their world view and not just toward their own in-group.

So, if I'm reading this right, conservatives will help out other conservatives, but won't help out liberals. But the liberals are different, in that they will will help out not only their own in-group (other liberals), but needy conservatives as well...say, poor white, rural people. Yet, I don't think I really hear much about the liberals' concern for poor, conservative white people. All I'm hearing is mocking, ridicule, disdain, claims of "white privilege", etc. towards these people by liberals. And many of the policies advocated by liberals tend to specifically exclude these poor white people, such as affirmative action, diversity hiring, etc. Am I missing something?

 

[Trausti]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1SEv_i4LUE[/YOUTUBE]

As I have pointed out for years now, within the in-group community, conservatives are helpful neighbors, good friends, generous, compassionate, and willing to help anyone who needs it.

Why do they not seem to be able to extend that value on the well being of everyone beyond their in-group? Conservatives worship hierarchical authority, fear the world beyond their in-group, seek to punish and control the world for not obeying their abusive father figures. How does that become more valuable to them than their actual personal, human experiences of generosity and care and compassion and love?

When the authoritative daddy figure says the world outside the in-group is evil and dangerous, conservatives have no choice but to believe that. When conservatives stop viewing the world in this way, they tend to become less conservative and more liberal, meaning more openhearted and generous and humane in their regard for all of their fellow human beings and not just their in-group. So when a sociopath like Trump comes along and pounds on their prejudices and fears with the support of a major political party, which is intertwined with a conservative, punitive, authority-worshiping religion, you get exactly what we are experiencing in the U.S. right now.

George Lakoff explains how to help conservatives become more compassionate and open hearted in their world view and not just toward their own in-group.

So, if I'm reading this right, conservatives will help out other conservatives, but won't help out liberals. But the liberals are different, in that they will will help out not only their own in-group (other liberals), but needy conservatives as well...say, poor white, rural people. Yet, I don't think I really hear much about the liberals' concern for poor, conservative white people. All I'm hearing is mocking, ridicule, disdain, claims of "white privilege", etc. towards these people by liberals. And many of the policies advocated by liberals tend to specifically exclude these poor white people, such as affirmative action, diversity hiring, etc. Am I missing something?

Missing nothing. Dickens called it telegraphic philanthropy. It’s one of the WEIRD aspects of western culture - preference for the out group and distain for the in group. A graph was posted on this forum that white people are the only group that shows out group preference. Folks like Angry Floof virtue signal by degrading poor whites.

 

[Worldtraveller]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1SEv_i4LUE[/YOUTUBE]

As I have pointed out for years now, within the in-group community, conservatives are helpful neighbors, good friends, generous, compassionate, and willing to help anyone who needs it.

Why do they not seem to be able to extend that value on the well being of everyone beyond their in-group? Conservatives worship hierarchical authority, fear the world beyond their in-group, seek to punish and control the world for not obeying their abusive father figures. How does that become more valuable to them than their actual personal, human experiences of generosity and care and compassion and love?

When the authoritative daddy figure says the world outside the in-group is evil and dangerous, conservatives have no choice but to believe that. When conservatives stop viewing the world in this way, they tend to become less conservative and more liberal, meaning more openhearted and generous and humane in their regard for all of their fellow human beings and not just their in-group. So when a sociopath like Trump comes along and pounds on their prejudices and fears with the support of a major political party, which is intertwined with a conservative, punitive, authority-worshiping religion, you get exactly what we are experiencing in the U.S. right now.

George Lakoff explains how to help conservatives become more compassionate and open hearted in their world view and not just toward their own in-group.

So, if I'm reading this right, conservatives will help out other conservatives, but won't help out liberals. But the liberals are different, in that they will will help out not only their own in-group (other liberals), but needy conservatives as well...say, poor white, rural people. Yet, I don't think I really hear much about the liberals' concern for poor, conservative white people. All I'm hearing is mocking, ridicule, disdain, claims of "white privilege", etc. towards these people by liberals. And many of the policies advocated by liberals tend to specifically exclude these poor white people, such as affirmative action, diversity hiring, etc. Am I missing something?

You're missing lots.

There are in fact, (this part is my opinion) an ever growing core of 'conservatives' that are really single high authoritarians, that are beyond 'help'. They will continue to vote against their own self interest because they are so susceptible to propaganda that they are easy to lead into doing so. Nearly all of the current right wing (and much of the anti-progressive/anti-equality sentiment among otherwise left leaning types) behavior can be explained in terms of authoritarian and tribal group dynamics.

Many of us who would otherwise be more than willing to help everyone have given up on the far right, and those who do not want to ever learn or be helped if it means also helping those in the out group(s). There's only so many chances I am willing to give someone before I write them off as a waste of effort. My ignore list on this forum is pretty much those I think fall into that category.

Most of those who come to this forum, and continue to advocate for policies and politicians that are actively harming everyone but the 1% are pretty much beyond help. They've been shown the results of their policies. They've been shown the outcomes (in other parts of the world) where those policies are shunned, and they continue, even though it hurts their own situation, to advocate for those damaging policies. No helping them.

Since they've proven intractable, the only thing left is either ignoring them (which too many here seem incapable of doing) or ridicule. Neither is effective in changing their minds, but they aren't going to change anyway, so....fuckitall.

 

[Angry Floof]

Missing nothing. Dickens called it telegraphic philanthropy. It’s one of the WEIRD aspects of western culture - preference for the out group and distain for the in group. A graph was posted on this forum that white people are the only group that shows out group preference. Folks like Angry Floof virtue signal by degrading poor whites.

It's not a matter of preference for or preference against. Holding one's own group and authority figures accountable is not disdain, it's maturity and responsibility. Concern for the humanity and well being of out groups is not a preference for, but a recognition of shared humanity.

Seriously, set aside your tribalism for five minutes.

Also, how would you recognize someone who doesn't virtue signal? How would you recognize someone who holds humane principles and values because they are humane and not for reasons of appearances and conformity to their tribe?

How would you recognize someone who comes to their own conclusions about an issue independently of their tribal identity as opposed to taking their views from a hierarchy of authority figures?

 

[Angry Floof]

So, if I'm reading this right, conservatives will help out other conservatives, but won't help out liberals. But the liberals are different, in that they will will help out not only their own in-group (other liberals), but needy conservatives as well...say, poor white, rural people. Yet, I don't think I really hear much about the liberals' concern for poor, conservative white people. All I'm hearing is mocking, ridicule, disdain, claims of "white privilege", etc. towards these people by liberals. And many of the policies advocated by liberals tend to specifically exclude these poor white people, such as affirmative action, diversity hiring, etc. Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing quite a bit. Is it possible for you step out of your black and white, us vs. them, tribal framework for a second?

You're perfectly capable of harboring a genuine desire for the well being of all humans. Unfortunately, right wing ideology insists on a certain framework for understanding the world, a framework of strict father, do not question authority, disobedience is criminality, judgmental, punitive. All of this conflicts with your natural desire (unless you're a straight up sociopath) for the well being of all people.

You're also missing the fact that just reminding right wing authoritarian followers of the good things they do for their in group (and therefore steering their neural pathways away from punishing nonconformity and toward altruism and compassion) has the effect of making them more compassionate toward outgroups as well as their in group, and yes, more humane in their regard for their fellow human being.

 

[thebeave]

So, if I'm reading this right, conservatives will help out other conservatives, but won't help out liberals. But the liberals are different, in that they will will help out not only their own in-group (other liberals), but needy conservatives as well...say, poor white, rural people. Yet, I don't think I really hear much about the liberals' concern for poor, conservative white people. All I'm hearing is mocking, ridicule, disdain, claims of "white privilege", etc. towards these people by liberals. And many of the policies advocated by liberals tend to specifically exclude these poor white people, such as affirmative action, diversity hiring, etc. Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing quite a bit. Is it possible for you step out of your black and white, us vs. them, tribal framework for a second?

You're perfectly capable of harboring a genuine desire for the well being of all humans. Unfortunately, right wing ideology insists on a certain framework for understanding the world, a framework of strict father, do not question authority, disobedience is criminality, judgmental, punitive. All of this conflicts with your natural desire (unless you're a straight up sociopath) for the well being of all people.

You're also missing the fact that just reminding right wing authoritarian followers of the good things they do for their in group (and therefore steering their neural pathways away from punishing nonconformity and toward altruism and compassion) has the effect of making them more compassionate toward outgroups as well as their in group, and yes, more humane in their regard for their fellow human being.

This doesn't really address the point I was making. Show me some evidence or examples where liberals show empathy, compassion and humanity towards their outgroup (e.g. white, poor, needy conservatives). Have you, or would you, ever contribute money or your labor towards helping out a group of poor, white, rural conservatives?

 

[Worldtraveller]

So, if I'm reading this right, conservatives will help out other conservatives, but won't help out liberals. But the liberals are different, in that they will will help out not only their own in-group (other liberals), but needy conservatives as well...say, poor white, rural people. Yet, I don't think I really hear much about the liberals' concern for poor, conservative white people. All I'm hearing is mocking, ridicule, disdain, claims of "white privilege", etc. towards these people by liberals. And many of the policies advocated by liberals tend to specifically exclude these poor white people, such as affirmative action, diversity hiring, etc. Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing quite a bit. Is it possible for you step out of your black and white, us vs. them, tribal framework for a second?

You're perfectly capable of harboring a genuine desire for the well being of all humans. Unfortunately, right wing ideology insists on a certain framework for understanding the world, a framework of strict father, do not question authority, disobedience is criminality, judgmental, punitive. All of this conflicts with your natural desire (unless you're a straight up sociopath) for the well being of all people.

You're also missing the fact that just reminding right wing authoritarian followers of the good things they do for their in group (and therefore steering their neural pathways away from punishing nonconformity and toward altruism and compassion) has the effect of making them more compassionate toward outgroups as well as their in group, and yes, more humane in their regard for their fellow human being.

This doesn't really address the point I was making. Show me some evidence or examples where liberals show empathy, compassion and humanity towards their outgroup (e.g. white, poor, needy conservatives). Have you, or would you, ever contribute money or your labor towards helping out a group of poor, white, rural conservatives?

It depends on how you define help.

I will (and continually do so) vote for those politicians and policies that will help those people. The fact that so many of them are too ignorant to realize it is not my problem. Note that for me, voting for those policies have small short term negative effects for me (usually higher taxes in my bracket), but I'm willing to take that since I know that the long term effects are positive in other ways that are not directly related to just me having more money.

 

[Angry Floof]

So, if I'm reading this right, conservatives will help out other conservatives, but won't help out liberals. But the liberals are different, in that they will will help out not only their own in-group (other liberals), but needy conservatives as well...say, poor white, rural people. Yet, I don't think I really hear much about the liberals' concern for poor, conservative white people. All I'm hearing is mocking, ridicule, disdain, claims of "white privilege", etc. towards these people by liberals. And many of the policies advocated by liberals tend to specifically exclude these poor white people, such as affirmative action, diversity hiring, etc. Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing quite a bit. Is it possible for you step out of your black and white, us vs. them, tribal framework for a second?

You're perfectly capable of harboring a genuine desire for the well being of all humans. Unfortunately, right wing ideology insists on a certain framework for understanding the world, a framework of strict father, do not question authority, disobedience is criminality, judgmental, punitive. All of this conflicts with your natural desire (unless you're a straight up sociopath) for the well being of all people.

You're also missing the fact that just reminding right wing authoritarian followers of the good things they do for their in group (and therefore steering their neural pathways away from punishing nonconformity and toward altruism and compassion) has the effect of making them more compassionate toward outgroups as well as their in group, and yes, more humane in their regard for their fellow human being.

This doesn't really address the point I was making. Show me some evidence or examples where liberals show empathy, compassion and humanity towards their outgroup (e.g. white, poor, needy conservatives). Have you, or would you, ever contribute money or your labor towards helping out a group of poor, white, rural conservatives?

Is this a joke? Let me highlight some stuff for you:

It's in our principles and values and how we vote, etc. Yes, I believe in helping poor, white, rural conservatives! No matter what I think of their ideology, which is often right wing authoritarian ignorance, not always, but typically, and yet that opinion of backward ideology does not change the fact that I believe their needs should be met just like everyone else's. My principles are about everyone being accounted for, everyone's rights and well being, everyone being protected from abuse, fraud, etc., everyone having healthcare. No matter what I think of any person or group, society works better for everyone when everyone is included and everyone's needs are met.

This is one of those many things you can't seem to grasp from within your right wing authoritarian mental framework. It's as if your hatred of certain people takes priority over conscience or honest examination of right and wrong and what might be best for the whole of society that you depend on just like everyone else does.

It doesn't matter what you think of anyone personally, or whether you like them or even if you hate them, that should not matter when it comes to principles. If your principles favor any group, yours or others', then they are not principles at all.

I can actively hate a person, or lots of people, or hate their ideology and its poisonous effect on the world, and still actively NOT wish for them to suffer or be punished.

Why the fuck is this rocket science? Are you capable of separating your conscience and principles from preferences and opinions? Is your fear and hatred of out groups really more valuable than conscience or principle or recognizing the humanity of every human being?