• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

What political ideology are you?

I have a hypothesis that people here will mostly be liberals (i.e., leftists), with a handful of conservatives and libertarians, and maybe one or two Communists.
I favor gun ownership, a standing military, personal responsibility, and I salute the flag. So all my liberal friends think I'm conservative.

I support same sex marriage, abortion rights, limiting gun proliferation, taxing churches, and I believe in ghosts. So all my conservative coworkers think I'm gay...

Do with that what you will.

But isn't that normal? To be a bit in both camps? I'm for generous welfare, and free education, while at the same time want an almost completely deregulated jobs market. I want employers to be able to hire and fire people as they see fit. I'm against anti-discrimination laws. I'm for free speech. I hate hate hate any liberal attempts to curb it.

I'm also for fiscal responsibility. Which makes me neither liberal or conservative... because they both suck.
 
I support gun ownership and think that a gun should not be taken away without a felony conviction involving armed violence.

I think abortion should be legal.

I think contraception should be legal.

I don't support so called "conscience" laws w/r/t your employer. Example: If the owner of a drug store sells contraception or the abortion pill (I forget it's name) they should be allowed to require their employees to sell it (with valid prescriptions) as a condition of employment.

Mixed feelings on Universal Health Care. I think it's a good idea, but I also think if others are paying for your healthcare it's likely that they're going to want say in your health related lifestyle choices. Example: smoking I also don't know how much additional revenue that the government needs to fund it.

I think there are crimes worthy of execution, but I don't trust our courts or juries to apply the same standards to everyone without bias.

Same applies to mandatory minimums for violent crimes & deliberate false accusations of any crime. (accuser knows accusation is false when making it)

All accusations of criminal behavior should be litigated in criminal courts with full rights guaranteed under the Constitution. I'm opposed to all attempts to undermine due process or sidestep the criminal courts for determining innocence or guilt in criminal matters.

I think men & women should have the same rights, and be held to the same standards of accountability for their actions socially & under the law.

I'm opposed to stop & frisk & opposed to racial profiling. People don't get to pick their race (or sex). Law enforcement, or the law itself should not be able to hold such characteristics against them.

Police should be required to articulate, in writing, the specific reasons for stopping any citizen. Specific reasons means that the cop should be required to put in writing specifically why they saw probable cause to believe the specific person was being stopped for the specific crime that they're suspected of. Cops that do not comply with these requirements should lose their careers, permanently.

I'm opposed to the draft.

Permanently withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Syria, & Iraq. Do not put troops in Venezuela.

I think genital mutilation, of either sex, should be illegal for anyone who doesn't or cannot give consent to it (must be an adult living independently). Should be a felony & carry substantial prison time.

Drinking age should be 18, not 21. I think if you're old enough to fight & die for your country you should have all the rights of adulthood. (This assumes that you're mentally competent enough to know right from wrong, if you're not then no)

Driving should be 15 for restricted license, 16 for operators license. Driving test should be more difficult & should require parallel parking. Person being tested should be required to do this manually without the vehicle's systems assisting driving/parking. (I'm thinking about those cars that can park themselves, or put themselves back in the correct lane, etc.) Purpose of the test should be to prove that the driver can competently maneuver the vehicle well enough for day to day operations.
 
I have a hypothesis that people here will mostly be liberals (i.e., leftists), with a handful of conservatives and libertarians, and maybe one or two Communists.
I favor gun ownership, a standing military, personal responsibility, and I salute the flag. So all my liberal friends think I'm conservative.

I support same sex marriage, abortion rights, limiting gun proliferation, taxing churches, and I believe in ghosts. So all my conservative coworkers think I'm gay...

Do with that what you will.

Meh. Another gay conservative.
Yaaawn.
:D
 
Or is there a correlation between being a liberal and seeking more education?
There's no difference. Correlation does not imply causation. You're inferring a causation from a correlation. I didn't do that. You did that.

There is a difference between saying the more education you get the more liberal you will be and saying the more liberal you are the more education you will desire.

And I am saying there may be a causation.

I am only saying a causation can't be ruled out.

Did you, by any chance, pull these numbers right out of your arse?

No. I pulled them out of yours.

I don't think it matters what you study.

It matters how you feel about education.

A person can think education in itself is worthwhile.

Or a person could study business.
 
To me it seems many on the right only get an education as a way to enter the business world. They do not care about education for education's sake.

While many on the left see education in itself, even if you can't make money with it, as valuable.

That is why you get many on the right wanting to cut funding for "useless" things like the arts.

Did you, by any chance, pull these numbers right out of your arse? I don't think it matters what you study.

untermensch didn’t mention numbers, nor did he comment on the subject selected (although it seems somewhat implied).

With no comment on causality, I think there’s likely a substantial perspective difference between practical and academic approaches to life, and it seems reasonable that it would correlate with broad social categories including politics and ideology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Or is there a correlation between being a liberal and seeking more education?

There's no difference. Correlation does not imply causation. You're inferring a causation from a correlation. I didn't do that. You did that.

To me it seems many on the right only get an education as a way to enter the business world. They do not care about education for education's sake.

While many on the left see education in itself, even if you can't make money with it, as valuable.

That is why you get many on the right wanting to cut funding for "useless" things like the arts.

Did you, by any chance, pull these numbers right out of your arse? I don't think it matters what you study. The numbers don't support it. Studying any higher education subject will make you more liberal, because whatever study you study, you'll keep coming up against evidence that human lives and career outcomes have less to do with your actions and skills, and more to do with context. Yes, even business degrees. If you want to become rich, live in a rich country. You'll get more opportunities. This is true for hard science as well.

For someone bringing out the tired mantra of "correlation does not imply causation", you sure are making pretty strong causal claims.
I agree that reality tends to contradict conservative assumptions, and thus more knowledge and understanding of any aspect of reality will tend to make people more "liberal" or at least less conservative (a causal relation that contributes to the noted correlation).

However, the reverse causal direction is also true. Being more conservative will make a person put less value upon gaining thinking skills and knowledge of the world, unless it has a direct obvious application for increasing wealth. Secular public education has been attacked by conservatives for centuries, long before conservatives came to dominated the current incarnation of the Republican party. Sure, a geology degree will make you more $ than no college degree, but scientists generally make little money relative to people with the same level of education in a Business major. So, conservatives are most likely to attend college if there is some wealth oriented practicality to it, like being a Business major (and perhaps to some degree majors like accounting, engineering, and medicine). They are less likely to go to college simply to improve their understanding or to focuses on a major that is more tracked toward less profitable academic professions in the sciences or humanities.

A study by the Fed Reserve Bank of NY found that years after graduation (see Table 1 on p. 28), Business majors were more than twice as likely to be registered Republicans than Democrats, in contrast to what is true of college grads more generally. Note that this is not b/c learning about economics favors conservatism. Among those who have learned the most about economics, those with graduate degrees in it, they are about 2/3 Democrat.

[P]
from cited article said:
[Undergraduate] Economics and business majors are more likely than the general majors to be Republicans. That contrasts with
the self-identified political affiliation of American economists: Klein and Stern (2007) surveyed264 members of the American Economic Association and reported that 23 percent were Republican and 58 percent Democrats.
[/P]

IOW, Econ and Business are among the only majors to attract more conservatives, but it's clearly due to more practical $ making uses of the degree than to the intellectual content of these fields.
 
I used to think this place was a leftist hangout because there are a lot of liberals here.

Now I know that it's actually pretty hostile to the left, because there are a lot of liberals here.

Coming to the realization that liberals are different from leftists casts almost every political topic discussed here in an unflattering light, and reveals how shallow much of the conversation actually is. And for much of my nearly 10 years of posting on this forum, I was lockstep with the liberals, thinking I was a member of the left wing because I enjoyed "progressive" politics and disliked Republicans. Now I'm starting to see how the overton window has moved so far to the right that not even liberals are aware of their position on the center-right, such that any challenge to their ideological principles from the left is simply incomprehensible, and must be the product of some Kremlin plot and not a genuine tendency in the population.

Few are even willing to entertain the thought of a political spectrum that includes people who reject capitalism and think we should try to move beyond it, rather than trying to preserve or repair it. The notion doesn't inspire curiosity or charity, it sends a signal through a very old and well-worn bit of circuitry that immediately terminates in one of a handful of superficial stock responses. From there, since nobody can even bring themselves to consider the possibility that what they have learned about concepts like socialism, communism, Marxism, and anarchism was not accurate and was never intended to be accurate, all of our efforts go into bickering back and forth about definitions and attacking strawmen.

Another segment of the forum are clearly not interested in engaging in good faith, ever, and have succumbed to the siren call of Winning On The Internet. It has taken me a long time to recognize these people and stop wasting my energy trying to communicate with them. Honestly, the internet itself is kind of a lullaby for the disaffected, where they can feel satisfied that they've contributed to whatever social or political cause they favor because they owned somebody in a thread about Venezuela. Gradually, I've been questioning the productivity of such online crusading, compared to taking direct action in real life. Probably I won't hang around here too much anymore, if I'm correct about this, because it not only frustrates and irritates me, but it steals away any motivation I might have to do something worthwhile with my principles.

For what it's worth, I am something like a libertarian socialist, an anarcho-communist, an autonomist Marxist, etc... basically an anti-capitalist who recognizes that capital can be wielded by both private and state apparatuses without making much progress either way, and that meaningful social change happens from the bottom up, not through any official parties or organizations. It bothers me that people consider state regulations on private corporations socialism, or nationalizing the railways of America as socialism, or a government stimulus package as a socialism, and think that this is what it means to be on the left (hence anyone who points out that those are all mechanisms of preserving capitalism must be smoking something potent).

I've been trying to disabuse people of the notion that "socialism is when the government controls things, and the more government control there is, the socialister it is", but it seems most are too far gone, too married to the Cold War-era propaganda that still pollutes the brains of boomers everywhere.
 
I used to think this place was a leftist hangout because there are a lot of liberals here.

Now I know that it's actually pretty hostile to the left, because there are a lot of liberals here.

Coming to the realization that liberals are different from leftists casts almost every political topic discussed here in an unflattering light, and reveals how shallow much of the conversation actually is. And for much of my nearly 10 years of posting on this forum, I was lockstep with the liberals, thinking I was a member of the left wing because I enjoyed "progressive" politics and disliked Republicans. Now I'm starting to see how the overton window has moved so far to the right that not even liberals are aware of their position on the center-right, such that any challenge to their ideological principles from the left is simply incomprehensible, and must be the product of some Kremlin plot and not a genuine tendency in the population.

Few are even willing to entertain the thought of a political spectrum that includes people who reject capitalism and think we should try to move beyond it, rather than trying to preserve or repair it. The notion doesn't inspire curiosity or charity, it sends a signal through a very old and well-worn bit of circuitry that immediately terminates in one of a handful of superficial stock responses. From there, since nobody can even bring themselves to consider the possibility that what they have learned about concepts like socialism, communism, Marxism, and anarchism was not accurate and was never intended to be accurate, all of our efforts go into bickering back and forth about definitions and attacking strawmen.

Another segment of the forum are clearly not interested in engaging in good faith, ever, and have succumbed to the siren call of Winning On The Internet. It has taken me a long time to recognize these people and stop wasting my energy trying to communicate with them. Honestly, the internet itself is kind of a lullaby for the disaffected, where they can feel satisfied that they've contributed to whatever social or political cause they favor because they owned somebody in a thread about Venezuela. Gradually, I've been questioning the productivity of such online crusading, compared to taking direct action in real life. Probably I won't hang around here too much anymore, if I'm correct about this, because it not only frustrates and irritates me, but it steals away any motivation I might have to do something worthwhile with my principles.

For what it's worth, I am something like a libertarian socialist, an anarcho-communist, an autonomist Marxist, etc... basically an anti-capitalist who recognizes that capital can be wielded by both private and state apparatuses without making much progress either way, and that meaningful social change happens from the bottom up, not through any official parties or organizations. It bothers me that people consider state regulations on private corporations socialism, or nationalizing the railways of America as socialism, or a government stimulus package as a socialism, and think that this is what it means to be on the left (hence anyone who points out that those are all mechanisms of preserving capitalism must be smoking something potent).

I've been trying to disabuse people of the notion that "socialism is when the government controls things, and the more government control there is, the socialister it is", but it seems most are too far gone, too married to the Cold War-era propaganda that still pollutes the brains of boomers everywhere.

Can the schism between the liberals and the leftists be summed up as the difference between those who evince what they think should be done, vs those who evince what they think can be done?
 
Can the schism between the liberals and the leftists be summed up as the difference between those who evince what they think should be done, vs those who evince what they think can be done?

Not really, because even within the left there is always the "reform or revolution" debate, and strains of leftists that are more pragmatic (democratic socialism) and more radical (libertarian communism for example). All, however, are in agreement that any stance that indefinitely postpones any major overhaul to the structure of either the organization of surplus production (if you're a Marxist) or the hierarchies of authority (if you're not a Marxist) is at this point in history a waste of everybody's time. Of course, it may very well be that liberals and leftists disagree about what can be done, but I don't think this is a primary disagreement. Liberals are supportive of, at most, a Nordic model of social democracy, capitalism with a friendly face, whereas many on the left would call that only an incremental improvement, always vulnerable to being reversed as long as the overall structure remains unchanged.
 
I used to think this place was a leftist hangout because there are a lot of liberals here.

Now I know that it's actually pretty hostile to the left, because there are a lot of liberals here.

Coming to the realization that liberals are different from leftists casts almost every political topic discussed here in an unflattering light, and reveals how shallow much of the conversation actually is. And for much of my nearly 10 years of posting on this forum, I was lockstep with the liberals, thinking I was a member of the left wing because I enjoyed "progressive" politics and disliked Republicans. Now I'm starting to see how the overton window has moved so far to the right that not even liberals are aware of their position on the center-right, such that any challenge to their ideological principles from the left is simply incomprehensible, and must be the product of some Kremlin plot and not a genuine tendency in the population.

Few are even willing to entertain the thought of a political spectrum that includes people who reject capitalism and think we should try to move beyond it, rather than trying to preserve or repair it. The notion doesn't inspire curiosity or charity, it sends a signal through a very old and well-worn bit of circuitry that immediately terminates in one of a handful of superficial stock responses. From there, since nobody can even bring themselves to consider the possibility that what they have learned about concepts like socialism, communism, Marxism, and anarchism was not accurate and was never intended to be accurate, all of our efforts go into bickering back and forth about definitions and attacking strawmen.

Another segment of the forum are clearly not interested in engaging in good faith, ever, and have succumbed to the siren call of Winning On The Internet. It has taken me a long time to recognize these people and stop wasting my energy trying to communicate with them. Honestly, the internet itself is kind of a lullaby for the disaffected, where they can feel satisfied that they've contributed to whatever social or political cause they favor because they owned somebody in a thread about Venezuela. Gradually, I've been questioning the productivity of such online crusading, compared to taking direct action in real life. Probably I won't hang around here too much anymore, if I'm correct about this, because it not only frustrates and irritates me, but it steals away any motivation I might have to do something worthwhile with my principles.

For what it's worth, I am something like a libertarian socialist, an anarcho-communist, an autonomist Marxist, etc... basically an anti-capitalist who recognizes that capital can be wielded by both private and state apparatuses without making much progress either way, and that meaningful social change happens from the bottom up, not through any official parties or organizations. It bothers me that people consider state regulations on private corporations socialism, or nationalizing the railways of America as socialism, or a government stimulus package as a socialism, and think that this is what it means to be on the left (hence anyone who points out that those are all mechanisms of preserving capitalism must be smoking something potent).

I've been trying to disabuse people of the notion that "socialism is when the government controls things, and the more government control there is, the socialister it is", but it seems most are too far gone, too married to the Cold War-era propaganda that still pollutes the brains of boomers everywhere.

Can the schism between the liberals and the leftists be summed up as the difference between those who evince what they think should be done, vs those who evince what they think can be done?
Exactly. There is the liberal and then there is the pragmatic liberal.

You have the liberal who didn't vote for Clinton and the liberal that did, the prior thinks we lost because Clinton wasn't liberal enough... not because they failed to vote for Clinton, and have helped cement an unchecked conservative Supreme Court.
 
Exactly. There is the liberal and then there is the pragmatic liberal.

You have the liberal who didn't vote for Clinton and the liberal that did, the prior thinks we lost because Clinton wasn't liberal enough... not because they failed to vote for Clinton, and have helped cement an unchecked conservative Supreme Court.

I'm not finding myself or anyone on the left in your description. Clinton was quintessentially liberal, in all the ways that appealed to liberal voters and repelled rust-belt ones. By an large, leftists are not blind to pragmatism, and given the constraints of our electoral system, will usually vote for whoever is least bad and has the best chance of winning against whoever is most bad. If they don't think there's a realistic scenario where their vote makes a difference, they might not even bother. But that's true of any population, not just people to the left of Clinton. I voted for her, and would do so again if she was the nominee, even though I disagree with almost everything she stands for. And I will also fight tooth and nail to force the Democrats to nominate somebody other than her.
 
And I will also fight tooth and nail to force the Democrats to nominate somebody other than her.

Since she's not running again, you don't have to fight tooth and nail, whatever that is supposed to mean. :p

I would like to know how much power you think you have as one individual, when it comes to who the party will elect. Don't we all get just one vote? Sure, we can try to convince our friends to think like we do, but you still only get to vote once. And, it's very difficult to change someone's mind. At best, we can convince people to actually vote. I've been successful at that a few times, but even that is difficult.

I'm not going to try and convince anyone who to vote for in the primaries because it would be a waste of my time.
 
And I will also fight tooth and nail to force the Democrats to nominate somebody other than her.

Since she's not running again, you don't have to fight tooth and nail, whatever that is supposed to mean. :p

I would like to know how much power you think you have as one individual, when it comes to who the party will elect. Don't we all get just one vote? Sure, we can try to convince our friends to think like we do, but you still only get to vote once. And, it's very difficult to change someone's mind. At best, we can convince people to actually vote. I've been successful at that a few times, but even that is difficult.

I'm not going to try and convince anyone who to vote for in the primaries because it would be a waste of my time.

I don't claim any special authority, just what people who are interested in participating in the political process would normally do. We all get one vote, but we also don't have to accept The Party as an entity distinct from our wishes as an electorate. This is what bugs me about people who constantly whine about Bernie, "he's not even a Democrat". I thought the idea was to start with the policies and positions that we want our government to represent, and then getting the closest mainstream political party to accommodate those things as much as possible, as we have with civil rights, voting rights, environmental reforms, and all the rest. But the charge of "not even a Democrat" implies we are supposed to start with the existing party as a private club with its own agenda, and to only nominate candidates who are consistent with its interests.

I look at my own situation, and notice how my views have shifted over time due to being exposed to other viewpoints, mostly on the internet but also through other forms of media. It's not just talking to people face-to-face, is what I'm getting at. A lot of people lurk in these forums without posting anything. Maybe they could benefit from hearing a different perspective on the Democrats, or the Republicans for that matter. Anyway, I only say what I say to show that it's possible to be all-around opposed to someone's politics while still voting for that person on a purely pragmatic level, regardless of where you are on the political spectrum.
 
A study by the Fed Reserve Bank of NY found that years after graduation (see Table 1 on p. 28), Business majors were more than twice as likely to be registered Republicans than Democrats, in contrast to what is true of college grads more generally. Note that this is not b/c learning about economics favors conservatism. Among those who have learned the most about economics, those with graduate degrees in it, they are about 2/3 Democrat.

The control group is people who have no degrees. The fact that business majors are more conservative doesn't disprove that any education increases progressiveness and leftism.
 
My political ideology is founded on an idiosyncratic notion that citizens' preferences should be honored when it comes to selecting representatives, even though that would be a "power grab".
IOW - I hate Republican partisans. Glad that we don't have any of those around here.
 
Exactly. There is the liberal and then there is the pragmatic liberal.

You have the liberal who didn't vote for Clinton and the liberal that did, the prior thinks we lost because Clinton wasn't liberal enough... not because they failed to vote for Clinton, and have helped cement an unchecked conservative Supreme Court.

I'm not finding myself or anyone on the left in your description.
Clinton lost by just enough a few states that Dems almost always win... so that speaks otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

A study by the Fed Reserve Bank of NY found that years after graduation (see Table 1 on p. 28), Business majors were more than twice as likely to be registered Republicans than Democrats, in contrast to what is true of college grads more generally. Note that this is not b/c learning about economics favors conservatism. Among those who have learned the most about economics, those with graduate degrees in it, they are about 2/3 Democrat.

The control group is people who have no degrees. The fact that business majors are more conservative doesn't disprove that any education increases progressiveness and leftism.
Or that getting a "business degree" means you got an education.
 
Clinton lost by just enough a few states that Dems almost always win... so that speaks otherwise.
It speaks... something, I guess. Whether it's about me, the left, Putin, Trump, or the ratio of circumference to diameter is nowhere near to demonstrated.
 
Clinton lost by just enough a few states that Dems almost always win... so that speaks otherwise.
It speaks... something, I guess. Whether it's about me, the left, Putin, Trump, or the ratio of circumference to diameter is nowhere near to demonstrated.

The idea that Clinton lost the because of extremist liberals not turning out to vote her in the Rust belt is prima facie absurd, and doesn't stand up to much scrutiny when you dig into the numbers, as far as I can tell.
 
Clinton lost by just enough a few states that Dems almost always win... so that speaks otherwise.
It speaks... something, I guess. Whether it's about me, the left, Putin, Trump, or the ratio of circumference to diameter is nowhere near to demonstrated.

The idea that Clinton lost the because of extremist liberals not turning out to vote her in the Rust belt is prima facie absurd, and doesn't stand up to much scrutiny when you dig into the numbers, as far as I can tell.
Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan aren't Rust Belt. That'd be Ohio and West Virginia.
 
Back
Top Bottom