On liberals and conservatives

[boomerang]

When it comes to economics it's probably the reverse - liberals tend to see a vast conspiracy of evil rich people from whom the "little guy' needs protection, to be provided by those same liberals of course. Another important dividing line is whether the person prizes fairness of process or fairness of results.

And of course fairness of results is a pipe dream.

At my last checkup at the Doctor, the two of us got into a political discussion. The subject of utopia came up. He said that the liberal quest for utopia is doomed and unobtainable and described the basic flaw in the plan that is insurmountable. He said imagine a world where everyone was compensated the same. The same income, the same quality of residence, the same form of transportation, the same everything. Now factor in the human brain. The variations in IQ, that some tend towards dishonesty, some towards criminality in its various forms. Some are predators in various flavors and conversely some are meek. This is why utopia is not attainable and never will be. Everyone does not receive the same brain. Everyone does not think alike. Even if everyone were provided the same basic essentials there would be those that are convinced that they deserve more. Some will act out to get more and will do that by taking from others.

 

[nickqt]

When it comes to economics it's probably the reverse - liberals tend to see a vast conspiracy of evil rich people from whom the "little guy' needs protection, to be provided by those same liberals of course. Another important dividing line is whether the person prizes fairness of process or fairness of results.

Liberals don't see a vast conspiracy of evil rich people. They see some rich people using their money and power to get laws passed that protect their wealth and power to the detriment of everyone else.

Remember how we're all receiving checks from George Soros, as Limbaugh and Beck have trained you to repeat? Well, the reason we receive those checks is that Soros actually funds organizations that seek to level the playing field, e.g. legislating against laws that protect the rich and wealthy to the detriment of everyone else.

I mean, fuck, y'all are totally against Nafta and job outsourcing now, after supporting it for the past 30 years, so you can clearly see that the rich and powerful use their money and power to serve themselves. Of course, the cognitive dissonance required to be a modern US conservative who continues to believe that cutting taxes on the richest and most powerful people in the solar system, while arguing that the middle class needs help and that the Republican tax plan to cut taxes on the rich will trickle down, is hilarious, but tragic.

Seriously. Spend some time critically thinking about the last 30+ years of Republican neoliberal economics, d.b.a Trickle Down, Supply Side, voodoo economics. It was enacted in the UK in the last 70s and early 80s under Thatcher, and the same thing happened there: deindustrialization with the financial industry inflating bubbles to snatch up Fees, Bonuses and Commissions to enrich themselves.

And after it became clear that the voodoo economics of Reagan (h/t to Bush Sr. for that term, btw) was going to be permanent, now y'all bitch and complain that the Democratic party has left the middle class behind by operating under the neoliberal economics that Republicans have put in place.

It's all very complicated, so it's much easier to just assume that libruuls hate them evil rich people.

And of course fairness of results is a pipe dream.

At my last checkup at the Doctor, the two of us got into a political discussion. The subject of utopia came up. He said that the liberal quest for utopia is doomed and unobtainable and described the basic flaw in the plan that is insurmountable. He said imagine a world where everyone was compensated the same. The same income, the same quality of residence, the same form of transportation, the same everything. Now factor in the human brain. The variations in IQ, that some tend towards dishonesty, some towards criminality in its various forms. Some are predators in various flavors and conversely some are meek. This is why utopia is not attainable and never will be. Everyone does not receive the same brain. Everyone does not think alike. Even if everyone were provided the same basic essentials there would be those that are convinced that they deserve more. Some will act out to get more and will do that by taking from others.

A political conversation regarding utopia just popped up fully formed at your last doctor's appointment?

Liberals don't want everyone compensated the same, all living in the same exact style of house, in the same neighborhood. The whole, "libruuuls want a communist utopia" is extremely lazy thinking by conservatives, which is the strawman y'all carefully construct before napalming with rhetorical devices about how people are, like, different and stuff, and that Soviet-style communism won't work in 'Merica.

No shit.

That you believe this is the most fundamental problem you have. You start out believing that liberals don't want anyone to have different jobs, different incomes, or different situations, and then start making arguments from this non-existant position that real life libruuls don't have, unlike the libruuls you've attributed the made-up argument to.

Protip: this type of thinking has been shit into your skull by demagogues for the past 50+ years.

Stop listening to the demagogues who want you to be scared of everything. They're fucking lying to you. Over and over and over again. And they're taking your money, making you act like fools in public, and consistently laughing as you vote them into office so that they can cut their own taxes while increasing the burden for everyone else in the middle and working class...just to maintain a sub-standard middle 20th century infrastructure.

And then you base your political decision making on those lies. And you elect imbeciles like Bush Jr., or Strongman Trump, who literally use you for your votes, and then intentionally fail to deliver what they promise in re: social wedge issues, because they only care about maintaining their own wealth and power, so please go back to binge watching Duck Dynasty and Storage Wars in your flyover trailer park, until the next set of midterms. Life in DC is great, and y'all have some weird hobbies, what, with working and making budgets and all. See ya in 2018, and make sure you vote for Freedom, the Troops, and Christmas!

 

[glenn1]

Liberals don't see a vast conspiracy of evil rich people. They see some rich people using their money and power to get laws passed that protect their wealth and power to the detriment of everyone else.

But of couse "using their money and power to get laws passed..." isn't a conspiracy, right?

It's all very complicated, so it's much easier to just assume that libruuls hate them evil rich people.

Because things like your post affirm that assumption.

liberals don't want everyone compensated the same, all living in the same exact style of house, in the same neighborhood.

Yeah, this part is true. You want to have simpler jobs with less responsibilities (or no job) and take money from those with jobs to give the same benefits to the first group. And you definitely don't want those minorities living next to you or attending your schools, NYC has some of the most segregated schools in the entire country for example and white progressives freak the fvck out when redistricting occurs and their precious snowflakes might need to go to a "colored" school.

 

[nickqt]

But of couse "using their money and power to get laws passed..." isn't a conspiracy, right?
Because things like your post affirm that assumption.

Holy shit.

Some rich people use their money and power to get laws passed that benefit themselves. It's called politics. Does your delusional reality not allow you to understand that rich and powerful people want to protect their wealth and power? What a warped world you must live in.

Regardless of the objective reality that, yes, politics really exists(!) it doesn't make it a "conspiracy" that is illegal or nefarious. You're so caught up in semantics that you can't even rationally discuss objective, observable reality, because the delusions that make up your world are easily shattered once we get past semantics.

Two or more people planning to pass laws isn't a conspiracy in the legal sense. It's politics. Google it if you've never heard of the term.

Yeah, this part is true. You want to have simpler jobs with less responsibilities (or no job) and take money from those with jobs to give the same benefits to the first group. And you definitely don't want those minorities living next to you or attending your schools, NYC has some of the most segregated schools in the entire country for example and white progressives freak the fvck out when redistricting occurs and their precious snowflakes might need to go to a "colored" school.

Holy.
Fucking.
Shit.

This is YOU, telling me what I believe, without any bit of evidence, found anywhere in the entire universe. AFTER I told you that I and other libruuls don't believe it.

This is a perfect example of a strawman argument.

Just like the demagogues have trained you to do, you've just made up bullshit arguments and attributed them to me...and then destroyed the argument I haven't made. The hilarious and tragic part is where you congratulate yourself after literally making shit up, and then claiming that you're right, somehow.

Seriously, bro. You need stop making shit up and saying that I and other libruuuls have said it.

It'll make you look a whole lot less like an idiot.

 

[DrDoug]

A political conversation regarding utopia just popped up fully formed at your last doctor's appointment?

Obamacare even covers stupid conversations you have with your Doctor? Damn, what a great program!!

 

[Jhhnn]

But of couse "using their money and power to get laws passed..." isn't a conspiracy, right?

It's not conspiracy. It's trickle down economics. Cut taxes & regulations on the Job Creators so that a rising tide will lift all boats. But that's not what happened. It seems clear that it delivers only to those at the top yet remains the core of Repub ideology.

Because things like your post affirm that assumption.




Yeah, this part is true. You want to have simpler jobs with less responsibilities (or no job) and take money from those with jobs to give the same benefits to the first group. And you definitely don't want those minorities living next to you or attending your schools, NYC has some of the most segregated schools in the entire country for example and white progressives freak the fvck out when redistricting occurs and their precious snowflakes might need to go to a "colored" school.

You go on like that all the time, obviously lacking any clue whatsoever.

 

[Victorian Gray]

But of couse "using their money and power to get laws passed..." isn't a conspiracy, right?



Because things like your post affirm that assumption.




Yeah, this part is true. You want to have simpler jobs with less responsibilities (or no job) and take money from those with jobs to give the same benefits to the first group. And you definitely don't want those minorities living next to you or attending your schools, NYC has some of the most segregated schools in the entire country for example and white progressives freak the fvck out when redistricting occurs and their precious snowflakes might need to go to a "colored" school.

I hope you don't allow matches in that straw world you live in.

 

[brycejones]

Yeah, this part is true. You want to have simpler jobs with less responsibilities (or no job) and take money from those with jobs to give the same benefits to the first group. And you definitely don't want those minorities living next to you or attending your schools, NYC has some of the most segregated schools in the entire country for example and white progressives freak the fvck out when redistricting occurs and their precious snowflakes might need to go to a "colored" school.

What's sad is I think you actually believe this and aren't just trolling.

 

[Moonbeam]

M: in order to better address the intentions of your thread I think it would help me to get some feedback on what you said.

interchange: "The polarized versions of the liberal and conservative camps are in my mind 2 different solutions to the same conflict:
separation/dependence

M: I suggested earlier that I didn't understand this and you said it wasn't different than what I said I saw. OK to that, but I still can't figure the relationship. Maybe you can flesh out this separation/independence thingi as you see it applying to my perp/victim identification thingi.

i: The conservative side is more projectiseeing others as threats and responsible for their own failures
The liberal side is more introjective -- taking on an exaggerated sense of controlling the external environment

M: The language here seems clear and I can see a connection between identifying with victims and social concerns. I'm not so clear on how identification with authority leads to conspiracy theorizing.

i: Naturally, conspiracy theorists are going to align with the former. latter is probably more polarized with extreme socialist/communist viewpoints.

Personally, I wish society better supported alternative compromises to the need for autonomy and the reality of dependence."

M: I assume tour intention is to explore that possibility.

i: I would further state that this is in my mind the most influential conflict which is satisfied by our political affiliations, but it is not the only one involved, and there are some people who have done well in this conflict which use political affiliation to primarily address other ones, but I think it is a significant minority.

M: I think you are saying that the themes generalized under the concepts of projection and social control are what you see as the primary, manifestations of liberal conservative brain differences, but that you see other ways differences express politically. Did you want to go into those or stick to the major theme?

At any rate, I would suggest that as a liberal who seems little impressed by authoritarianism of any kind, including forced socialism or communism other than by democratic and well informed vote, my preference would be to describe the l/c difference as one of inclusion and exclusion, the viewpoint that we are all worthy and the same vs we are good and they are evil.

To me that does not mean that everybody is mentally healthy and capable of the same respect for others as some may be, that not everybody can be trusted to act responsibly, but rather that most of us are born with that potential. I would think the task humanity should be pursuing is how that can best be achieved. I don't think naive idealism like communism or repressive authoritarianism offer a rational path to that.

 

[fskimospy]

And of course fairness of results is a pipe dream.

At my last checkup at the Doctor, the two of us got into a political discussion. The subject of utopia came up. He said that the liberal quest for utopia is doomed and unobtainable and described the basic flaw in the plan that is insurmountable. He said imagine a world where everyone was compensated the same. The same income, the same quality of residence, the same form of transportation, the same everything. Now factor in the human brain. The variations in IQ, that some tend towards dishonesty, some towards criminality in its various forms. Some are predators in various flavors and conversely some are meek. This is why utopia is not attainable and never will be. Everyone does not receive the same brain. Everyone does not think alike. Even if everyone were provided the same basic essentials there would be those that are convinced that they deserve more. Some will act out to get more and will do that by taking from others.

Your doctor sounds awfully stupid. I would suggest finding a new one. Liberals don't want a world where everyone is compensated exactly equally, which makes the entire rest of your post meaningless.

It's rare to see someone as inept as you are so frequently pat himself on the back for how smart and knowledgeable he is, haha.

 

[interchange]

I suggested earlier that I didn't understand this and you said it wasn't different than what I said I saw. OK to that, but I still can't figure the relationship. Maybe you can flesh out this separation/independence thingi as you see it applying to my perp/victim identification thingi.

The language here seems clear and I can see a connection between identifying with victims and social concerns. I'm not so clear on how identification with authority leads to conspiracy theorizing.

Perhaps I do not understand sufficiently what your paradigm is. Can you say more?

At any rate, I would suggest that as a liberal who seems little impressed by authoritarianism of any kind, including forced socialism or communism other than by democratic and well informed vote, my preference would be to describe the l/c difference as one of inclusion and exclusion, the viewpoint that we are all worthy and the same vs we are good and they are evil.

To me that does not mean that everybody is mentally healthy and capable of the same respect for others as some may be, that not everybody can be trusted to act responsibly, but rather that most of us are born with that potential. I would think the task humanity should be pursuing is how that can best be achieved. I don't think naive idealism like communism or repressive authoritarianism offer a rational path to that.

On the one hand we strive for autonomy and self-expression, to be free of any outside force which might restrain us from being free.

On the other hand we are truly dependent upon so many things. Even if we could become self-sufficient, we have remnants from a time where we were the exact opposite. And, should we become self-sufficient, we would be forced to leave our families, our society, and so much of our potential.

Quite a pickle.

 

[Moonbeam]

interchange: Perhaps I do not understand sufficiently what your paradigm is. Can you say more?

M: I have two, one that is gleaned from scientific studies as follows:

http://2016election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005927

and ideas of my own that are derived from what I have seen to be true of myself and other people. I thought I explained the latter in some detail, two ways that children deal with trauma. Did you want me to go over that again?

i: On the one hand we strive for autonomy and self-expression, to be free of any outside force which might restrain us from being free.

M: I would think this applies to liberals and conservatives alike.

i: On the other hand we are truly dependent upon so many things. Even if we could become self-sufficient, we have remnants from a time where we were the exact opposite. And, should we become self-sufficient, we would be forced to leave our families, our society, and so much of our potential.

M: This also seems to be true of everybody but perhaps requires some intelligence to realize and comprehend, but one might suppose not a great deal of smarts.

i: Quite a pickle.

M: It would be< I suppose, if one were committed to just one side of things. I would say, off hand, that the greater the capacity for self sufficiency, the more fearless one would be to concern one's self with the needs of others. Strong shoulder to lean on and all that......

 

[agent00f]

I will help you construct an argument:

1. What we know about the brain that constitutes "good science" is inadequate to explain what we observe about human life.

What we know about biology adequately explains many behaviors of animals, which includes humans. What we know about history & its wide selection of civilizations provided a rich data set for a selection of other reasonably convincing patterns to fit them.

2. Other attempts at understanding them come from our observations of ourself. One collection of general theories of mind are commonly applied and developed through something called psychoanalysis.

Self-reporting is one of the least reliable methods of observation, which is why the most effective method of validation assumes a neutral observer.

3. You hold these invalid because they are not based on "good science"

I hold them trivial because they are based on what someone feels is true.

4. You seem to more ambivalent about the importance of mind (that which is currently unexplainable by "good science") toward our discussion. You are making arguments that such a thing is irrelevant to this discussion, yet you are also making arguments that are quite contradictory to that, such as an observation that human beings hold ourselves to be better than we are, and that if we encounter something for which we do not have "good science" to prove, we use what we know of ourselves to explain it.

The Dunning Kruger phenomenon is reasonably good science.

Where politics, therefore, deviates from "good science", then it is by this definition precisely a result of the operations of our minds. I do not see very much "good science" when it comes to politics.

Politics is a collection of human behaviors, generally systemic in nature, and therefore conducive to study as any other. David Dunning and Justin Kruger are for example psychologists, politics is studied in sociology, and even political science is increasingly adopting a scientific approach.

Science isn't used much in politics itself because its broad audience doesn't know much about science.

Separately, there is a question of validity of the framework of mind I am stating. I agree it could never be rigorously defended. Except, it seems we both agree that no such theories could ever be rigorously defended.

Herein lies the question: can our theories of mind, though by definition flawed, do better than no theory of mind?

Why would conforming to some social norm or another be a matter of uniquely human individual mental expression? Even lower primates do it, yet you wouldn't psychoanalyzed them.

 

[interchange]

@agent00f

Either one has hope of finding keys in the dark or one does not.

Because you have found me searching in the dark, this does not imply that I think searching in the light is wrong, that I do not know how, or indeed that I have not already searched in the light.

 

[Moonbeam]

agent00f: What we know about biology adequately explains many behaviors of animals, which includes humans. What we know about history & its wide selection of civilizations provided a rich data set for a selection of other reasonably convincing patterns to fit them.

M: Stone tools were successfully used for millions of years.

a: Self-reporting is one of the least reliable methods of observation, which is why the most effective method of validation assumes a neutral observer.

M: That's why doctors ask about your symptoms.

a: I hold them trivial because they are based on what someone feels is true.

M: An accurate report of how you feel. I won't take it too seriously.

a: The Dunning Kruger phenomenon is reasonably good science.

M: Then allow me to assume your application of it suffers from it.

a: Politics is a collection of human behaviors, generally systemic in nature, and therefore conducive to study as any other. David Dunning and Justin Kruger are for example psychologists, politics is studied in sociology, and even political science is increasingly adopting a scientific approach.

M: What, based on nformation you assume incorrectly you are entitled to have?

a: Science isn't used much in politics itself because its broad audience doesn't know much about science.

M: Peer review studies to prove that, or was it an invention?

a: Why would conforming to some social norm or another be a matter of uniquely human individual mental expression? Even lower primates do it, yet you wouldn't psychoanalyzed them.

M: I would by observation and intuitive inference.

You show all the signs I need to assume your arguments fave ulterior motive. Are you afraid to know what you feel?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

An easier summary is Liberals believe the Government is capable of doing good things, Conservatives believe the Government is incapable of doing good things. Where as the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[Jhhnn]

An easier summary is Liberals believe the Government is capable of doing good things, Conservatives believe the Government is incapable of doing good things. Where as the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Repub ideology & governance are a self fulfilling prophecy of failure. They see govt as an impediment to corporate power & they're right. It's the only thing standing in the way, the only way we have to defend ourselves from a third world distribution of wealth & income.

 

[Moonbeam]

An easier summary is Liberals believe the Government is capable of doing good things, Conservatives believe the Government is incapable of doing good things. Where as the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Your summary makes a lot of sense but it is d description of behavior, not why we see that behavior. What causes liberals to act one way and conservatives another....

 

[Moonbeam]

Repub ideology & governance are a self fulfilling prophecy of failure. They see govt as an impediment to corporate power & they're right. It's the only thing standing in the way, the only way we have to defend ourselves from a third world distribution of wealth & income.

Why are they blind like that?

 

[bshole]

Your doctor sounds awfully stupid. I would suggest finding a new one. Liberals don't want a world where everyone is compensated exactly equally, which makes the entire rest of your post meaningless.

It's rare to see someone as inept as you are so frequently pat himself on the back for how smart and knowledgeable he is, haha.

Socialists want a world where everybody is guaranteed a decent standard of living under which society will not allow them the fall. They want a limit on the bottom.

 

[agent00f]

@agent00f

Either one has hope of finding keys in the dark or one does not.

Because you have found me searching in the dark, this does not imply that I think searching in the light is wrong, that I do not know how, or indeed that I have not already searched in the light.

I'm sure you've read academic papers or such from time to time, and usually the first part surveys what's already been done and explains what this piece adds to or supplants in the existing puzzle. So what does psychoanalysis say about individual motivation for political affiliation that isn't already covered? I'll list some things already covered:

1. Kids are taught beliefs/behavior from parents or other authorities
2. Various people naturally prefer traditionalist or progressive roles
3. Our social environment encourages division along those lines

For example, the case/situation in the US might be that people more interested in progress their own livelihoods are prone to moving to urban areas, and these populations further distinguish themselves by educating their spawn the same way, and these proclivities conveniently map to political parties.

agent00f: What we know about biology adequately explains many behaviors of animals, which includes humans. What we know about history & its wide selection of civilizations provided a rich data set for a selection of other reasonably convincing patterns to fit them.

M: Stone tools were successfully used for millions of years.

The humans of now are more or less those using stone tools.

a: Self-reporting is one of the least reliable methods of observation, which is why the most effective method of validation assumes a neutral observer.

M: That's why doctors ask about your symptoms.

Hopefully not doctors that rely on self-reporting.

a: I hold them trivial because they are based on what someone feels is true.

M: An accurate report of how you feel. I won't take it too seriously.

It helps when how one feels things work, like the physical process of psychoanalysis, is same as the objective fact of how it's done.

a: The Dunning Kruger phenomenon is reasonably good science.

M: Then allow me to assume your application of it suffers from it.

It's pretty obvious above I'm not the one suffering from a lack of information.

a: Politics is a collection of human behaviors, generally systemic in nature, and therefore conducive to study as any other. David Dunning and Justin Kruger are for example psychologists, politics is studied in sociology, and even political science is increasingly adopting a scientific approach.

M: What, based on nformation you assume incorrectly you are entitled to have?

I have no idea what you're talking about here but it's a matter of fact that psychoanalysts weren't the first ones to ask these questions, and certainly not the ones using the most reliable methods.

Now, there's certainly a time and place where individual feelings & motivations are important, but hardly in broad demographic and social trends already more clearly visible.

a: Science isn't used much in politics itself because its broad audience doesn't know much about science.

M: Peer review studies to prove that, or was it an invention?

It's rather undeniable that political arguments/motivations & such aren't heavy on science. They are instead rather heavy on rationalizing/justifying instinctive behavior, the rationalizing part the only one particularly unique to the human experience. For example, traditionalists would as matter of definition instinctively resist systemic change, so it all rather makes sense arguments attuned to them would beg the question that what's coming is bad.

a: Why would conforming to some social norm or another be a matter of uniquely human individual mental expression? Even lower primates do it, yet you wouldn't psychoanalyzed them.

M: I would by observation and intuitive inference.

How does it make you feel if that revealed humans are often hardly smarter/better than other members of the animal kingdom?

You show all the signs I need to assume your arguments fave ulterior motive. Are you afraid to know what you feel?

There's hardly any ulterior motive necessary to point out how anyone feels about facts isn't as reliable as reasonably straightforward facts themselves, if this conversation/thread is presumably based on factual accuracy and not how we feel politics works. Can you observe and infer why you prefer analyzing ephemeral feelings instead?

 

[agent00f]

Why are they blind like that?

Most people don't take the effort to learn or think much. In terms of rhetoric they just repeat what they've been told, in his case gumbint=bad, capitalism=gud.

I would also think people in an advantageous position in the current system tend to prefer preserving that.

Socialists want a world where everybody is guaranteed a decent standard of living under which society will not allow them the fall. They want a limit on the bottom.

Socialism is by definition ownership of your means of production. Taxing the rich to prevent the lower classes from starving is just a way of keeping capitalism intact. I wouldn't call people trying to save capitalism socialists.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why are they blind like that?

The perps at the top of it all aren't blind, just utterly insincere. They are, in truth, anti-democratic economic predators.

The target audience on the other side of it just let their amygdalas run wild.

 

[Moonbeam]

The perps at the top of it all aren't blind, just utterly insincere. They are, in truth, anti-democratic economic predators.

The target audience on the other side of it just let their amygdalas run wild.

Why are perps insecure and what makes them predators? Why do people have amygdalae that can run wild?

 

[agent00f]

Why are perps insecure and what makes them predators? Why do people have amygdalae that can run wild?

The better predators and their prey survive. The perps provided socioeconomic status and promises about the afterlife, and the prey provides the votes. The lot made for a successful ecosystem.