How to help conservatives be more humane

[thebeave]

Nice word salad, but you still haven't answered my question. Its one thing to claim to have beliefs and priniciples and claim to be caring and vote, etc, , but another to show evidence for meaningful contributions. Where's the evidence to back up your claim in the OP? Show me a few examples of liberal philanthropic organizations/entities that have contributed significantly to their outgroup. That's all I'm asking.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Show me a few examples of liberal philanthropic organizations/entities that have contributed significantly to their outgroup. That's all I'm asking.

How does women's suffrage fit your request? How about civil rights?

We see how liberal policies in Brazil brought Bolsonaro to power. That happened because more people were empowered and raised out of poverty.

Bill Gates gives away millions to empower and help the disenfranchised. I don't think he makes them take a political test.

 

[Angry Floof]

Nice word salad, but you still haven't answered my question. Its one thing to claim to have beliefs and priniciples and claim to be caring and vote, etc, , but another to show evidence for meaningful contributions. Where's the evidence to back up your claim in the OP? Show me a few examples of liberal philanthropic organizations/entities that have contributed significantly to their outgroup. That's all I'm asking.

We're talking about principles and mentality. Medicare for All, UBI, these things don't come from conservative minds for a reason, and the reason has nothing to do with money. It has to do with the ungenerous, scared, punitive, authority worshiping conservative mind.

People of humane, liberal values are doing good all over the world. What rock do you live under? And it has nothing to do with political party. (Well, you can be sure people who genuinely want to help everyone, as many people as possible, solve problems for people they don't even know, are not likely to be very conservative in their politics.)

You see, there are people, many, many people, who don't get their views from a party or tribal culture. They get them from conscience and self reflection and empathy and compassion and reason.

We're talking about a world view, a regard for fellow humans, how big of a world a person can include in their views, how generous a person is in terms of helping others or caring about others even when they can't help, a mental framework. All of this informs your choices and opinions. As Lakoff explains in the video, conservative mentality means a specific framework, and that framework is us vs. them, authority worshiping, conformity, punish non-conformity, tribalist, fear and demonize out groups, susceptible to fascist leadership... These ideological elements do a lot to diminish your sense of empathy and compassion.

You seem to want any human goodness in the world to be wearing an ideological label, when the truth is that the human traits of openness, curiosity, generosity, cooperation, tolerance for differences, etc., do not come from party dogma, and furthermore, they tend to pool around liberal, progressive ideologies. The ideology follows the internal moral compass, not the other way around, like with people who need an authority figure tell them what is right or wrong.

But not really understanding that is actually, kind of ironically, a conservative trait, and of course all of this is "word salad" to a right wing authoritarian follower.

 

[Angry Floof]

Show me a few examples of liberal philanthropic organizations/entities that have contributed significantly to their outgroup. That's all I'm asking.

How does women's suffrage fit your request? How about civil rights?

We see how liberal policies in Brazil brought Bolsonaro to power. That happened because more people were empowered and raised out of poverty.

Bill Gates gives away millions to empower and help the disenfranchised. I don't think he makes them take a political test.

I don't know if you listened to the video, but Lakoff describes a conservative mental framework where the authority figures dictate the beliefs and views of the group. From within that framework, it is very hard to understand that not everyone operates that way, that independent actors can come to the same or similar conclusions on issues and pool together ideologically after the fact, after deciding something is right or wrong through conscience and principles rather than handing over their conscience to authority figures.

I grew up in an inconsistent, but fairly authoritarian household. I remember this mindset. It's a mentality that is easy to absorb and take on subconsciously. Some people happen to experience things that push them to question their own hand me down assumptions and learn to reason and self reflect. And some ... don't.

 

[SimpleDon]

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

I assume that when you refer to liberalism you are talking about the classical liberalism of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Mathus, Say, etc.? The philosophy of natural law and utilitarianism that arose in opposition to the industrialization and urbanization in the early 19th century? You are a classical liberal?

The classical liberalism that is primarily concerned with economic liberalism as opposed to the social liberalism of the US? The social liberalism of "all men are created equal" that threw off the yolk of monarchy and the aristocracy in favor of representative democracy and self determinization? The social liberalism that has been trying to better our progress toward the two goals of equality and more inclusive democracy for more than 240 years? This is what you oppose? Along with social progress?

 

[Angry Floof]

Some background on framing in general.

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

 

[repoman]

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

I assume that when you refer to liberalism you are talking about the classical liberalism of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Mathus, Say, etc.? The philosophy of natural law and utilitarianism that arose in opposition to the industrialization and urbanization in the early 19th century? You are a classical liberal?

The classical liberalism that is primarily concerned with economic liberalism as opposed to the social liberalism of the US? The social liberalism of "all men are created equal" that threw off the yolk of monarchy and the aristocracy in favor of representative democracy and self determinization? The social liberalism that has been trying to better our progress toward the two goals of equality and more inclusive democracy for more than 240 years? This is what you oppose? Along with social progress?

I tried to read Adam Smith and the old timey sentence structure and information density gave my modern ADHD brain a headache. But I found that he was a very compassionate and empathetic writer, not a cold blooded machine.

Also, trying to guess what someone from so long ago would think if you took them in their prime via a time machine to our time is silly and almost always done from a biased motivation. But after a few months of dealing with culture shock all of those time transported writers would probably come up with some good ideas that would not line up with what the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation would like to hear.

 

[thebeave]

Nice word salad, but you still haven't answered my question. Its one thing to claim to have beliefs and priniciples and claim to be caring and vote, etc, , but another to show evidence for meaningful contributions. Where's the evidence to back up your claim in the OP? Show me a few examples of liberal philanthropic organizations/entities that have contributed significantly to their outgroup. That's all I'm asking.

We're talking about principles and mentality. Medicare for All, UBI, these things don't come from conservative minds for a reason, and the reason has nothing to do with money. It has to do with the ungenerous, scared, punitive, authority worshiping conservative mind.

People of humane, liberal values are doing good all over the world. What rock do you live under? And it has nothing to do with political party. (Well, you can be sure people who genuinely want to help everyone, as many people as possible, solve problems for people they don't even know, are not likely to be very conservative in their politics.)

You see, there are people, many, many people, who don't get their views from a party or tribal culture. They get them from conscience and self reflection and empathy and compassion and reason.

We're talking about a world view, a regard for fellow humans, how big of a world a person can include in their views, how generous a person is in terms of helping others or caring about others even when they can't help, a mental framework. All of this informs your choices and opinions. As Lakoff explains in the video, conservative mentality means a specific framework, and that framework is us vs. them, authority worshiping, conformity, punish non-conformity, tribalist, fear and demonize out groups, susceptible to fascist leadership... These ideological elements do a lot to diminish your sense of empathy and compassion.

You seem to want any human goodness in the world to be wearing an ideological label, when the truth is that the human traits of openness, curiosity, generosity, cooperation, tolerance for differences, etc., do not come from party dogma, and furthermore, they tend to pool around liberal, progressive ideologies. The ideology follows the internal moral compass, not the other way around, like with people who need an authority figure tell them what is right or wrong.

But not really understanding that is actually, kind of ironically, a conservative trait, and of course all of this is "word salad" to a right wing authoritarian follower.

I give up. Nothing about my question. Just more word salad.

 

[SimpleDon]

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

This isn't a question of bias, it is a question of philosophy. The classical liberals versus social liberals. We are all children of the Enlightenment and we all trace the foundation of our philosophy back to John Locke, Voltaire, Hume, Kant, and Rousseau. We all trace our economic philosophy back to Adam Smith and the other classical economists. This takes us through the 18th century.

The differences between the classical liberals and the social liberals of today are in the question of which elements of the foundation of the Enlightenment philosophy are empathized more and how much the philosophy has to be adapted to reality versus how much we have to try to change the reality to fit the philosophy.

I think that you should be seeing where this discussion is going from here. The classical liberals of today, emphasize individual freedom and economic freedom over the collective freedom, as expressed by the government, natural law over manmade law, the social contract guaranteeing the individual's freedom and property rights but not the equality of the individuals with others, bending reality to the philosophy, etc. The social liberals of today are pretty much the opposite, seeing government as a necessary restraint on the bad behavior of the unregulated economy, seeing progress as a function of collective action rather than a product of the inspired few individuals, believe that the philosophy, the ideology, has to adapt to the reality, and to the changes in the reality, that the social contract requires equality of all in the society with each other and equality of opportunity that doesn't exist now.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Self government is a liberal invention. But many of my trumpo-supporting friends say it is conservative. After hearing something like that from someone there really isn't any point in continuing the discussion/argument/exchange. You're obviously talking to someone who is highly illiterate/brainwashed wrt history and common sense.

 

[Angry Floof]

Nice word salad, but you still haven't answered my question. Its one thing to claim to have beliefs and priniciples and claim to be caring and vote, etc, , but another to show evidence for meaningful contributions. Where's the evidence to back up your claim in the OP? Show me a few examples of liberal philanthropic organizations/entities that have contributed significantly to their outgroup. That's all I'm asking.

We're talking about principles and mentality. Medicare for All, UBI, these things don't come from conservative minds for a reason, and the reason has nothing to do with money. It has to do with the ungenerous, scared, punitive, authority worshiping conservative mind.

People of humane, liberal values are doing good all over the world. What rock do you live under? And it has nothing to do with political party. (Well, you can be sure people who genuinely want to help everyone, as many people as possible, solve problems for people they don't even know, are not likely to be very conservative in their politics.)

You see, there are people, many, many people, who don't get their views from a party or tribal culture. They get them from conscience and self reflection and empathy and compassion and reason.

We're talking about a world view, a regard for fellow humans, how big of a world a person can include in their views, how generous a person is in terms of helping others or caring about others even when they can't help, a mental framework. All of this informs your choices and opinions. As Lakoff explains in the video, conservative mentality means a specific framework, and that framework is us vs. them, authority worshiping, conformity, punish non-conformity, tribalist, fear and demonize out groups, susceptible to fascist leadership... These ideological elements do a lot to diminish your sense of empathy and compassion.

You seem to want any human goodness in the world to be wearing an ideological label, when the truth is that the human traits of openness, curiosity, generosity, cooperation, tolerance for differences, etc., do not come from party dogma, and furthermore, they tend to pool around liberal, progressive ideologies. The ideology follows the internal moral compass, not the other way around, like with people who need an authority figure tell them what is right or wrong.

But not really understanding that is actually, kind of ironically, a conservative trait, and of course all of this is "word salad" to a right wing authoritarian follower.

I give up. Nothing about my question. Just more word salad.

Not only has the question been thoroughly answered, it is actually irrelevant to the OP, which is about the authoritarian mindset of conservatism, why that authority-worship/punishment/judgement/control/fear-of-other mindset is such a force for inhumane policies and attitudes, and about how conservatives can be inspired to be more compassionate rather than punitive in their regard for out groups.

Seriously, I bet if you rubbed a couple of brain cells together, you could actually answer your own question. It will require honesty and inquiry rather than after the fact justification of what you already believe, though.

 

[SimpleDon]

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.)

My wife and I voted for women as a default when we knew little about the candidates or we viewed either candidate as being acceptable, which is frequently true in primary elections. And when we could we voted for black or brown candidates. When I was working in heavy industrial design and construction I tended to work with women, non-whites, and immigrants because these people were routinely passed over for advancement and had worked much longer in their jobs and were much more competent than the others, native white males, like me.

This is how I met my wife.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Yup, this is the fundamental problem. They are unreachable because we can't overcome their continued diet of propaganda.

It's the same problem we have with the Islamists--there's no overcoming the diet of propaganda they are fed by the jihadists.

 

[Trausti]

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

I assume that when you refer to liberalism you are talking about the classical liberalism of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Mathus, Say, etc.? The philosophy of natural law and utilitarianism that arose in opposition to the industrialization and urbanization in the early 19th century? You are a classical liberal?

The classical liberalism that is primarily concerned with economic liberalism as opposed to the social liberalism of the US? The social liberalism of "all men are created equal" that threw off the yolk of monarchy and the aristocracy in favor of representative democracy and self determinization? The social liberalism that has been trying to better our progress toward the two goals of equality and more inclusive democracy for more than 240 years? This is what you oppose? Along with social progress?

Liberalism in the sense that everyone be treated equally regardless of immutable characteristics; based on individual merit. That view is under attack by progressives, who prefer to put people into groups and judge people not as individuals but based on membership in an assigned group. It’s Marxism. And I reject it.

 

[Worldtraveller]

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.

Yup, this is the fundamental problem. They are unreachable because we can't overcome their continued diet of propaganda.

It's the same problem we have with the Islamists--there's no overcoming the diet of propaganda they are fed by the jihadists.

Also the same problem we have with authoritarians who continue to defend the status quo in spite of all the evidence that it is bad for society.

 

[SimpleDon]

<<snipped out the OP video>>​

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 are viewing the conflict that is disadvantaging poor whites as a racial battle with the government unfairly helping black and brown people. That liberals are siding with the black and brown people against the white people forcing whites to support conservatives.

Your go-to evidence of this is that Harvard and some other private universities slightly lower admission standards for minority students.

I view the conflict that is disadvantaging the poor and the middle class of all races as an economic class war in which the already rich, the 1% or the 0.1%, are using their control of the media and their growing control of the government to suppress wages and to increase profits. That race has been used as it always has been used to divide the poor and the middle class in order to obscure the class war and to gain the votes of conservative white people in order to economically disadvantage them and the rest of the poor and middle-class.

My go-to evidence, results, in the forty years of movement conservatism and its economic policies, wages have stagnated and profits and the incomes of the already rich have soared while the supposed beneficiaries in your view of government bias against white people have faired the same or even worse than white people, in a word, reality.

As for your feeling you are being mocked, ridiculed, etc., I don't doubt that you feel this way. You probably base your political views on most if not all of the following;

• the government is not the solution, it is the problem
• in order for someone to advance someone else has to be knocked back
• that our economy is or should be a self-regulating free market
• that the benefits of free trade outweigh the costs for the US
• that government should be run like a business
• that the mainstream media is overwhelmingly liberal, who lie about conservatives so what conservatives need is a media that can unabashedly lie about liberals
• that we should go back to the gold standard for money, back to money that is really worth something
• that large numbers of men are living high on welfare who otherwise would have to work
• higher wages means higher prices and runaway inflation
• that our grandchildren will have pay-off the national debt bankrupting them
• the poor are to blame for poverty
• black people don't want equality they want to be superior to white people
• lowering taxes on the rich benefits everyone because the rich will invest the money in new plants and businesses providing new jobs
• ... etc.

These are all lies.

I would humbly suggest that you might be mocked less if you believed fewer lies and based more of your views on facts.

 

[SimpleDon]

[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.

I admit that I had only read the OP and hadn't watched the video. Now that I have watched it I realize that he has a good point.

I don't usually participate in discussions involving psychology and emotions framing any decisions that are made. I don't have the background for such discussions nor do I easily think in such terms. In my defense, I was an engineer, a pilot, and a mountain and rock climber and these things have little room in the decisions that they require for emotions and psychology.

But I do recognize myself in his description of how not to approach a discussion with conservatives. I would normally ask for my response to thebeave be removed as not responsive to the OP but will let it stand as an example of what not to do responding to an emotion-driven conservative.

I am not sure that I can overcome a lifetime of decision making in my terms to account for the touchy and much less concrete factors like emotions that conservatives use. Damn it, I did it again!

 

[Emily Lake]

I find myself at a bit of a loss on how to reconcile the claims in this thread with the behavior. The premise is that [liberals presumably] need to learn how to help conservatives be more humane. The assumptions underlying that position are that 1) liberals are more humane than conservatives and 2) liberals know what is best for conservatives and humanity as a whole.

Okay. I get the assumptions, and clearly those are reflected within this thread. It's very clear that self-identified liberals believe that they are more humane than those they identify as conservatives. It's also very clear that self-identified liberals believe they know what's best for those they identify as conservatives. What's not clear, however, is that self-identified liberals actually are more humane. There's a lot of disdain and derision being expressed toward the general category of 'conservatives'.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I find myself at a bit of a loss on how to reconcile the claims in this thread with the behavior. The premise is that [liberals presumably] need to learn how to help conservatives be more humane. The assumptions underlying that position are that 1) liberals are more humane than conservatives and 2) liberals know what is best for conservatives and humanity as a whole.

Okay. I get the assumptions, and clearly those are reflected within this thread. It's very clear that self-identified liberals believe that they are more humane than those they identify as conservatives. It's also very clear that self-identified liberals believe they know what's best for those they identify as conservatives. What's not clear, however, is that self-identified liberals actually are more humane. There's a lot of disdain and derision being expressed toward the general category of 'conservatives'.

Even this framing is (not surprisingly) ridiculously dishonest.

Liberals don't 'believe we know what's best'. We have fucking data that we continue to present to dishonest shitheads whose responses I can practically write out and put in a grab bag myself.

Yeah, there's disdain. It's the same disdain we show towards young earthers and other delusional fuckheads who have shown, by their actions, that they are incapable or unwilling to learn from basic data presented in the simplest terms (sorry, we can't do crayons on the internet easily). Like I said above, at some point, we give up you dishonest, intentionally ignorant, stubbornly resistant to facts 'conservatives' or patriots, or whatever the fuck you like to call yourselves.

It's not disdain (still) for the group though, in general. It is, however, specific and targeted at those we know will prove to be impossible to show simple things like facts, statistics and basic logic.

 

[Emily Lake]

I find myself at a bit of a loss on how to reconcile the claims in this thread with the behavior. The premise is that [liberals presumably] need to learn how to help conservatives be more humane. The assumptions underlying that position are that 1) liberals are more humane than conservatives and 2) liberals know what is best for conservatives and humanity as a whole.

Okay. I get the assumptions, and clearly those are reflected within this thread. It's very clear that self-identified liberals believe that they are more humane than those they identify as conservatives. It's also very clear that self-identified liberals believe they know what's best for those they identify as conservatives. What's not clear, however, is that self-identified liberals actually are more humane. There's a lot of disdain and derision being expressed toward the general category of 'conservatives'.

Even this framing is (not surprisingly) ridiculously dishonest.

Liberals don't 'believe we know what's best'. We have fucking data that we continue to present to dishonest shitheads whose responses I can practically write out and put in a grab bag myself.

Yeah, there's disdain. It's the same disdain we show towards young earthers and other delusional fuckheads who have shown, by their actions, that they are incapable or unwilling to learn from basic data presented in the simplest terms (sorry, we can't do crayons on the internet easily). Like I said above, at some point, we give up you dishonest, intentionally ignorant, stubbornly resistant to facts 'conservatives' or patriots, or whatever the fuck you like to call yourselves.

It's not disdain (still) for the group though, in general. It is, however, specific and targeted at those we know will prove to be impossible to show simple things like facts, statistics and basic logic.

Case in point. In particular, the presumption that if I disagree with your behavior, I must be a conservative... and thus you are justified in calling me dishonest, ignorant, delusional fuckhead, etc.

Very humane. I can feel the humane treatment just oozing off of you. Full of compassion and caring.