Socially Conservative Left Wing

[Dr. Zaus]

Typical BothSides idiocy. https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...rest-to-be-as-degenerate-as-possible.2498580/, https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...endents-wont-bothsides.2499400/#post-38741210

Diversity also doesn't mean purposely mixing in negative traits like backwardness, any more than sticking hardened criminals into refined environments.

It does when that's what helps you question your key limiting assumption. Your being mindlessly reductive and judging people as good or bad, right or wrongs, as opposed to recognizing that we are all some part all.

Even if the ratios are skewed silly in the case of some people.

 

[Moonbeam]

So then it's likely that I'm only posting here about these folks I see as 'less than', in the same way as the social conservatives that are conservative, because I myself am struggling with a sense of worthlessness.

Probably a prime motivation for all the egoistic behavior I see all around me; and if I see it everywhere, i'm probably the source.

I don't know. If I understand you correctly it depends on whether you observe this problem of 'left normative conservatism' as a fact, or as something that is causing you a negative emotional reaction. I would however say that people who do not struggle with a sense of worthlessness are extremely rare, whether they are conscious of it or not. But knowing why others react with such force to the challenge of their sacred beliefs can help to separate the two reactions. On the one hand the reactionaries are at fault for their reactions because they are sourced in their feelings of inferiority and you are not morally responsible or guilty of causing them even if you may also feel threatened by their criticism. It can't be helped that truth is a mirror and what we see is the reflection of the eye of the beholder. An evil person sees evil in everything and a saint sees only God. But if you do see only the good it doesn't mean you don't see that others may not or the danger they may represent.

 

[Jaskalas]

Typical BothSides idiocy. https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...rest-to-be-as-degenerate-as-possible.2498580/, https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...endents-wont-bothsides.2499400/#post-38741210

Diversity also doesn't mean purposely mixing in negative traits like backwardness, any more than sticking hardened criminals into refined environments.

There are people with "negative traits" who would be convinced to vote in our common interest if lines were not drawn around them.
It's a matter of whether they feel threatened or assaulted, or whether we can reach out and inspire them to hope for a better future.
The tone of how people are approached makes a difference in the outcome of a Democracy where their votes count.

I mean, unless you plan to "final solution" them, what other answer is there than a Sanders like gentle resolve to inspire them?
Given what needs be done, being inclusive, educational, and positive should be the core of progressive traits, should they not?

Falling short of that purpose is when I will call out "BothSides". Not that they stand equal, but that both stand short of what is needed.

 

[Chiropteran]

>Is it ever a good idea to make any kind of abortion illegal?

Yes.

Too complex to go into all the nuance here, but basics are late terms, and men's rights issues (i.e. wife threatens husband with abortion after they previously both agreed to have a child unless he gives her whatever she wants).

>Is it ever appropriate to say the N word?

Yes. Freedom of speech. Accurate historical films. Humor.

>Should we ever fail to spend as much as is needed to try to save a life?

Yes. Money is not a limitless resources. Money spent to save one life could help dozens of others.

>Are there any good reasons to use nuclear power?

Absolutely. Clean energy with low pollution.

 

[blankslate]

Moonie?
MOONIE!

I have no idea what you are saying, bro.
You sometimes dont make sense to me.

John Titor maybe.... it makes sense that way.

He knows what is going to happen but time displacement muddles his thoughts...

Or something....

 

[Jhhnn]

There are people with "negative traits" who would be convinced to vote in our common interest if lines were not drawn around them.
It's a matter of whether they feel threatened or assaulted, or whether we can reach out and inspire them to hope for a better future.
The tone of how people are approached makes a difference in the outcome of a Democracy where their votes count.

I mean, unless you plan to "final solution" them, what other answer is there than a Sanders like gentle resolve to inspire them?
Given what needs be done, being inclusive, educational, and positive should be the core of progressive traits, should they not?

Falling short of that purpose is when I will call out "BothSides". Not that they stand equal, but that both stand short of what is needed.

I think you discount just how far Conservatives' headsets have been reduced to shitty attitudes & a collection of mindless slogans. It had to be made that way by their leadership in order to get them to vote for trickle down economics. It was inevitable that a monstrous personality like Trump would see it & commandeer it to serve their own purposes.

It's also important to understand that it's a self fulfilling prophesy of sorts. It reached critical mass, a tipping point, with the election of Trump & a Repub Congress. Now it has to cycle through in all its awful glory. They'll break the system in some way that will enrich the power of the uber wealthy at the expense of everybody else. We barely pulled our chestnuts out of the fire in 2008 & they'd forgotten completely by 2010, however, so expect it'll need to get worse than that to induce the necessary epiphany.

 

[Moonbeam]

I would like to get clearer on what you mean by this comment, DC:

i think I figured out why my side (progressives) fail when they should win - we are backed by people who are socially conservative.

I see a given, that progressives should win and an insight that they don't because they are backed by people who are socially conservative.

What I have gathered so far is that progressives are not bound by normative thinking, that they are free to question assumptions that others assume as absolutes and are not and that even pointing that out can be dangerous career wise and that this is a disease of so called progressive backers.

So if Ii have this right I would ask where do you want to go with that?

Personally I have looked at this issue in terms I would call the authoritarian left, those who are basically mirror images of the authoritarian right with all the same internalized unconscious fear of being dominated ideologically because they actually are dominated ideologically, just with a different but equally oppressive kind.

I see this as the result of two different routes children can take to deal with the psychic death we were made to experience as children by our 'loving parents' to save us from social contempt. We can acquire Stockholm syndrome and become the authoritarian right or rebel against all authority and hold it in contempt. Either path saves us from experiencing (feeling) the crushing anguish of being told our real selves are worthless.

I also assume that you post for a reason, that you are a seeker, a person intent on shedding light, a man of moral purpose, that you have some good intention behind what you post. This is why I want to get back to what you see and what you intend by posting.

Starting a thread is like dumping chickens in the road. They wonder off everywhere.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I would like to get clearer on what you mean by this comment, DC:

i think I figured out why my side (progressives) fail when they should win - we are backed by people who are socially conservative.

I see a given, that progressives should win and an insight that they don't because they are backed by people who are socially conservative.

What I have gathered so far is that progressives are not bound by normative thinking, that they are free to question assumptions that others assume as absolutes and are not and that even pointing that out can be dangerous career wise and that this is a disease of so called progressive backers.

So if Ii have this right I would ask where do you want to go with that?

Personally I have looked at this issue in terms I would call the authoritarian left, those who are basically mirror images of the authoritarian right with all the same internalized unconscious fear of being dominated ideologically because they actually are dominated ideologically, just with a different but equally oppressive kind.

I see this as the result of two different routes children can take to deal with the psychic death we were made to experience as children by our 'loving parents' to save us from social contempt. We can acquire Stockholm syndrome and become the authoritarian right or rebel against all authority and hold it in contempt. Either path saves us from experiencing (feeling) the crushing anguish of being told our real selves are worthless.

I also assume that you post for a reason, that you are a seeker, a person intent on shedding light, a man of moral purpose, that you have some good intention behind what you post. This is why I want to get back to what you see and what you intend by posting.

Starting a thread is like dumping chickens in the road. They wonder off everywhere.

Good point.

In what I write and say, should I be so honored as to have anyone remember any of it a week later, I want to give voice to those whose stories are suppressed- often by the powerful in favor of their "one true story"

I think this will help better democratically distribute privileges in society- my particular focus being privileges of economic legitimacy.

To be honest, being from Texas I'd only ever met the authoritarian right - I had some myth in my mind that the authoritarian left was policing for the good, in some rational manner.

Recently, though, they have begun to sound exactly like the authoritarian right I rebelled against- literally arguing that ideas were invalid because they were too intellectual.

I've realized you can be just as much afraid of things that are different and be in the Left - it just depends on where you're from.


I wanted to see if this is a "thing" I'm observing, or if my thinking has gone off the rails somewhere.

 

[Moonbeam]

Good point.

In what I write and say, should I be so honored as to have anyone remember any of it a week later, I want to give voice to those whose stories are suppressed- often by the powerful in favor of their "one true story"

I think this will help better democratically distribute privileges in society- my particular focus being privileges of economic legitimacy.

To be honest, being from Texas I'd only ever met the authoritarian right - I had some myth in my mind that the authoritarian left was policing for the good, in some rational manner.

Recently, though, they have begun to sound exactly like the authoritarian right I rebelled against- literally arguing that ideas were invalid because they were too intellectual.

I've realized you can be just as much afraid of things that are different and be in the Left - it just depends on where your from.


I wanted to see if this is a "thing" I'm observing, or if my thinking has gone off the rails somewhere.

Nice!

A couple of things:

I do not know what exactly you mean by privileges of economic legitimacy though I am sure you have something real in mind those words refer to. It's OK that I don't but I mention it because I often find myself at a loss in complex conversations where there's a lot of symbolic language used I have no experience with. I see it as a form of short hand we use to express things more compactly but it doesn't work if the other person is uneducated or not academic like me. I try to use plain old English and long hand where I can because I seem to confuse others enough as it is.

Also, I would not say that 'if my thinking has gone off the rails' because I do not 'think' that what you call thinking is the product of thinking alone. I would call it the crystallization into words as an expression of what you feel. In my opinion you didn't just start thinking that something was wrong on the left, you felt it, felt that something was wrong and then looked for a way to express that.

I make this distinction because what I call intellectualism is thinking where those subtle feelings of inauthenticity are not lighting the way. I am anti-intellectual using my sense of what intellectualism is. I know that most people see intellectualism more as a kind of education produced thinking and mental sophistication which I'm fine with so long as it isn't used as a way to mask or avoid one's real feelings.

And yes, I definitely see there are problems on the left. I found the video you posted to be most interesting especially as the speaker diagnosed something that I have been trying to express on this forum, the lack of a progressive vision that makes sense from the left instead of their natural reliance that reason prevails or there is great value in identity politics. Vision and a meaningful message, a message of truth and hope are what I think the left needs to present as your video seemed to suggest as I heard it anyway.

One thing that crossed my mind in thinking about this thread is that it is so difficult to deal with the insanity of the right that it is too exhausting to try. There are a thousand misconceptions surrounding any sound idea that you can drown in the effort.

For example. There is only love. There IS only love. All you need is love love love..... we were told in the 60s. But the fool on the hill is standing there still and we're going to ride that wave a long time.

 

[Jaskalas]

And yes, I definitely see there are problems on the left. I found the video you posted to be most interesting especially as the speaker diagnosed something that I have been trying to express on this forum, the lack of a progressive vision that makes sense from the left instead of their natural reliance that reason prevails or there is great value in identity politics. Vision and a meaningful message, a message of truth and hope are what I think the left needs to present as your video seemed to suggest as I heard it anyway.

I found someone walking the progressive path with recent comments from Justin Trudeau.

“Increasing inequality has made citizens distrust their governments. Distrust their employers,” Mr. Trudeau said Friday evening at the banquet. “And we’re watching that anxiety transform into anger on an almost daily basis. It follows that people’s natural defence mechanism in times of stress and anxiety is to hunker down and recoil inward. To give into cynicism. To retreat from one another. But it’s time for us, as leaders in politics and business, to step up.”​

But I fear not many people are looking left and listening, while they are too preoccupied looking right, raising fists, and raising barriers.

 

[Moonbeam]

I found someone walking the progressive path with recent comments from Justin Trudeau.

“Increasing inequality has made citizens distrust their governments. Distrust their employers,” Mr. Trudeau said Friday evening at the banquet. “And we’re watching that anxiety transform into anger on an almost daily basis. It follows that people’s natural defence mechanism in times of stress and anxiety is to hunker down and recoil inward. To give into cynicism. To retreat from one another. But it’s time for us, as leaders in politics and business, to step up.”​

But I fear not many people are looking left and listening, while they are too preoccupied looking right, raising fists, and raising barriers.

There is a saying, when oppression exists even the bird dies in the nest. Stress, in childhood, particularly, the fear of punishment and ridicule, is what creates the conservative brain defect, in my opinion. Testing has shown that people become more conservative when they are drunk or under threat. Daily exposure to catastrophic depicting media has made people afraid. Our children are rarely allowed out of our sight when many adults grew up playing creatively outside. We have become a people under constant reminder that the world is an evil place. It's hard to maintain a rational calm mind in all of that. We seem profoundly ineffective in rational assessment of risk and all the while more and more paranoid.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

There is a saying, when oppression exists even the bird dies in the nest. Stress, in childhood, particularly, the fear of punishment and ridicule, is what creates the conservative brain defect, in my opinion. Testing has shown that people become more conservative when they are drunk or under threat. Daily exposure to catastrophic depicting media has made people afraid. Our children are rarely allowed out of our sight when many adults grew up playing creatively outside. We have become a people under constant reminder that the world is an evil place. It's hard to maintain a rational calm mind in all of that. We seem profoundly ineffective in rational assessment of risk and all the while more and more paranoid.

Part of it comes from mothers eating meat.
https://youtu.be/kXty_-3o7X8

Nice!

A couple of things:

I do not know what exactly you mean by privileges of economic legitimacy though I am sure you have something real in mind those words refer to. It's OK that I don't but I mention it because I often find myself at a loss in complex conversations where there's a lot of symbolic language used I have no experience with. I see it as a form of short hand we use to express things more compactly but it doesn't work if the other person is uneducated or not academic like me. I try to use plain old English and long hand where I can because I seem to confuse others enough as it is.

I reflecting I was thinking "no one really cares, so I'll just get on with it."

Also, I would not say that 'if my thinking has gone off the rails' because I do not 'think' that what you call thinking is the product of thinking alone. I would call it the crystallization into words as an expression of what you feel. In my opinion you didn't just start thinking that something was wrong on the left, you felt it, felt that something was wrong and then looked for a way to express that.

That does get at it - however in the latter seeking of truth I get caught in "this statement is logically indefensible." However, I do find it useful to reframe things for myself to uncover the logic of the "illogical" response.

I make this distinction because what I call intellectualism is thinking where those subtle feelings of inauthenticity are not lighting the way. I am anti-intellectual using my sense of what intellectualism is. I know that most people see intellectualism more as a kind of education produced thinking and mental sophistication which I'm fine with so long as it isn't used as a way to mask or avoid one's real feelings.

Probabily I'm pissed at being told I should STFU because of my race and gender. Which is odd, because reducing the influence of the general voice of the rich white guy is my goal.

But applied as individual bigotry makes me really angry.

And yes, I definitely see there are problems on the left. I found the video you posted to be most interesting especially as the speaker diagnosed something that I have been trying to express on this forum, the lack of a progressive vision that makes sense from the left instead of their natural reliance that reason prevails or there is great value in identity politics. Vision and a meaningful message, a message of truth and hope are what I think the left needs to present as your video seemed to suggest as I heard it anyway.

I agree. That's why I'm trying to advance hope and authentic compassion.

One thing that crossed my mind in thinking about this thread is that it is so difficult to deal with the insanity of the right that it is too exhausting to try. There are a thousand misconceptions surrounding any sound idea that you can drown in the effort.

Were all just doing what we can...

 

[Moonbeam]

Probabily I'm pissed at being told I should STFU because of my race and gender. Which is odd, because reducing the influence of the general voice of the rich white guy is my goal.

But applied as individual bigotry makes me really angry.

Hehe, getting criticized for what you see as your greatest virtue can sting. A wife can help to inure you to that. Nothing like constant garaging and beatings to create scar tissue insulation or so I've heard.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Hehe, getting criticized for what you see as your greatest virtue can sting. A wife can help to inure you to that. Nothing like constant garaging and beatings to create scar tissue insulation or so I've heard.

I'll need a different wife for that...

Or maybe a decade isn't long enough yet

 

[desura]

So you're basically saying that dogmatism of the Left which sees Leftist people get emotionally upset at any of those questions is "socially conservative."

Eh, it is a different use of the term. Kinda hard wrapping my head around it. I guess the dogmatism is kinda like religious dogmatism. But to me "socially conservative" means something else.

 

[Moonbeam]

So you're basically saying that dogmatism of the Left which sees Leftist people get emotionally upset at any of those questions is "socially conservative."

Eh, it is a different use of the term. Kinda hard wrapping my head around it. I guess the dogmatism is kinda like religious dogmatism. But to me "socially conservative" means something else.

Just to clarify, you do mean get upset not at the questions but certain answers to them that would define that kind of liberal as a normative conservative, having a fixed and absolute belief that only certain answers are permitted to anybody claiming to be liberal?????

 

[desura]

Just to clarify, you do mean get upset not at the questions but certain answers to them that would define that kind of liberal as a normative conservative, having a fixed and absolute belief that only certain answers are permitted to anybody claiming to be liberal?????

Er, yeah, like that.

 

[Moonbeam]

Er, yeah, like that.

I agree then that we should have some word or words that define this phenomena because socially conservative means something different to me too. Authoritarian liberal doesn't do it either though that is what I used. It is a new phenomenon according to the speaker in the video DC posted. it was quite interesting, in my opinion. We see to have lost as a left culture some pole star to reference for navigation of reality. We are like the right, beginning to make up our own, like the notion that if ones identity is offended the assumptions you make about who you are are all that matter when in fact they can be nothing but delusions we are emotionally attached to. You can see why terms like snow flake, safe space entitled have come to the fore in expression. They are reaching to describe that state.

I recommend good humor and humility. Together they make being a worthless nobody a gas.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

"if ones identity is offended the assumptions you make about who you are are all that matter when in fact they can be nothing but delusions we are emotionally attached to. "

That's about the size of it.

 

[Moonbeam]

"if ones identity is offended the assumptions you make about who you are are all that matter when in fact they can be nothing but delusions we are emotionally attached to. "

That's about the size of it.

I think so. The problem seems to be that the assumptions we make are not ones we are conscious we have made and thus create an invisible prison. Not only, then, is there the issue of figuring out what they are, but realizing that they are actually unconscious because we want them to be. To be emotionally attached to something I think really means to be terrified to re-experience the emotions that caused those identities to fix or attach in the first place. That is why people react aggressively and defensively if their ethos or world views are challenged. In the video a woman was described who felt her victim-hood entitled her to the validity of her opinion when in reality her victim-hood is a feeling she carries. We aren't victims of anything but our own belief in lies about who we really are. To attach to ones victim-hood is to create an attitude of entitlement to compensation. Nope, Feel how you were victimized, how it was a lie you assumed and heal via morning the loss of self worth you experienced. Grief is self healing. The anger, the rage, the sadness, the fear, the dead depression, all of these are not the real feeling. They are all there to keep away the memories and the real feelings the grief. That's what I think anyway.

 

[norseamd]

i think I figured out why my side (progressives) fail when they should win - we are backed by people who are socially conservative.

These are people that demand ethics and social behavior be simple.

Examples of "no" to questions that are more complex:

Is it ever a good idea to make any kind of abortion illegal?

Is it ever appropriate to say the N word?

Should we ever fail to spend as much as is needed to try to save a life?

Are there any good reasons to use nuclear power?

These sound like real questions, they are not, they are sociological flags - conservative stances which make no sense (all all-statements are wrong) but which one is required to believe.

Exactly.

 

[agent00f]

It does when that's what helps you question your key limiting assumption. Your being mindlessly reductive and judging people as good or bad, right or wrongs, as opposed to recognizing that we are all some part all.

Even if the ratios are skewed silly in the case of some people.

Assuming absolutely basic facts and notions about standard of living and such, it's completely uncontroversial that backwardness is disadvantageous and therefore negative. I mean, not even conservatives want to live without all the modern conveniences & benefits which resulted from the smart people figuring new things out using enlightenment virtues like objective reasoning.

There are people with "negative traits" who would be convinced to vote in our common interest if lines were not drawn around them.
It's a matter of whether they feel threatened or assaulted, or whether we can reach out and inspire them to hope for a better future.
The tone of how people are approached makes a difference in the outcome of a Democracy where their votes count.

I mean, unless you plan to "final solution" them, what other answer is there than a Sanders like gentle resolve to inspire them?
Given what needs be done, being inclusive, educational, and positive should be the core of progressive traits, should they not?

Falling short of that purpose is when I will call out "BothSides". Not that they stand equal, but that both stand short of what is needed.

We can all see that in a democracy the dummies are sometimes led one way or another. But it's problematic when people with integrity are disinclined to do this aggressively whereas their opposites have no such reluctance.

As an example, for a white person without much personal merit, there's a comparable benefit to either getting ahead via government handouts, or subjugating some "lesser" ethnic group, or maybe some long term growth prospect. #1 & 2 have the benefit of being much easier to understand and implement, and also tend to be favored by said less savory advocates. This is just the reality of things, to be understood before proposing and evaluating solutions.

 

[agent00f]

I would like to get clearer on what you mean by this comment, DC:

i think I figured out why my side (progressives) fail when they should win - we are backed by people who are socially conservative.

I see a given, that progressives should win and an insight that they don't because they are backed by people who are socially conservative.

What I have gathered so far is that progressives are not bound by normative thinking, that they are free to question assumptions that others assume as absolutes and are not and that even pointing that out can be dangerous career wise and that this is a disease of so called progressive backers.

So if Ii have this right I would ask where do you want to go with that?

Personally I have looked at this issue in terms I would call the authoritarian left, those who are basically mirror images of the authoritarian right with all the same internalized unconscious fear of being dominated ideologically because they actually are dominated ideologically, just with a different but equally oppressive kind.

I see this as the result of two different routes children can take to deal with the psychic death we were made to experience as children by our 'loving parents' to save us from social contempt. We can acquire Stockholm syndrome and become the authoritarian right or rebel against all authority and hold it in contempt. Either path saves us from experiencing (feeling) the crushing anguish of being told our real selves are worthless.

I also assume that you post for a reason, that you are a seeker, a person intent on shedding light, a man of moral purpose, that you have some good intention behind what you post. This is why I want to get back to what you see and what you intend by posting.

Starting a thread is like dumping chickens in the road. They wonder off everywhere.

What you call the authoritarian left are hardly liberal, by definition.

Also, humans are quite more complex than just something which invariably developed from feeling worthless, or else AI would be a lot easier than it is.

I found someone walking the progressive path with recent comments from Justin Trudeau.

“Increasing inequality has made citizens distrust their governments. Distrust their employers,” Mr. Trudeau said Friday evening at the banquet. “And we’re watching that anxiety transform into anger on an almost daily basis. It follows that people’s natural defence mechanism in times of stress and anxiety is to hunker down and recoil inward. To give into cynicism. To retreat from one another. But it’s time for us, as leaders in politics and business, to step up.”​

But I fear not many people are looking left and listening, while they are too preoccupied looking right, raising fists, and raising barriers.

It's a fact that the victims of inequality are predominantly lower class groups, in the US often ordered by ethnicity. Consider why these lower class minorities don't seek refuge in right wing politics, as the white folks implied in your comment are supposed to.

 

[interchange]

There's a division in the country because there's an inescapable substantial gap between pre-enlightenment vs modern thinking, that's only ever grown since the 50/60's.

Asking folks living in the 21st century to somehow accommodate the ignorant & worthless past is by definition backwards and an insult to human accomplishment.

Posts proclaiming the superior thinking of modern man, as if we have escaped the human condition by knowing better, are hilarious to me.

If we spent equal time reading the words of those that came before us as we do the Washington Post, CNN, Breitbart (etc.), we would be dumbstruck by how much we have regressed.

 

[senseamp]

Most liberals I know are fairly conservative in their own lives. They don't go around getting high, pregnant, divorcing, and aborting fetuses all around. They get educated, marry, have kids, raise them well. They just don't believe in legislating morality and telling other people how to live their lives.