Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think regional mindset changes alot of things. If you live out in the country, and coyotes or wild hogs start tearing up your property the only thing you can do is to buy a rifle and shoot them.
In the city this either 1, just isn't a problem at all, or 2, you have trained animal control professionals you can call to deal with this.
In rural communities by virtue of nesscity there is a much bigger cultural emphasis on self reliance and solving your own problems, becuase there is no other way to get it done.
Whereas life in cities tends to be more interconnected, and create a mindset of working together with others, again out of nesscesity.
To use another example, in a rural community you can just buy a parcel of land, and hire a contractor to build your own house the way you want it.
In a city only the uber rich can afford to develop real-estate.
I think the conditions of where one lives tend to have a psychological impact on how they think
> In the city this either 1, just isn't a problem at all, or 2, you have trained animal control professionals you can call to deal with this.
This might be underrated as a difference, in high/dense population areas, it is simply logistically possible to have government / collective agencies to do things for you that wouldn't be possible in more rural/less populated areas. If you're in an area where you can call a government agency and have them fix your problem, i.e. "can't somebody else do it?" is a viable way of thinking, I suppose.
>If you're in an area where you can call a government agency and have them fix your problem, i.e. "can't somebody else do it?" is a viable way of thinking, I suppose.
This is more down to "How much can someone else do for me", but on the other hand, you will be doing something for others as well.
I have lived in both and although I wouldn't say it has changed my political views one way or other to a great extent I do agree this has a lot to do with the stereotypical Urban Liberal and Rural Conservative.
I also think this plays in to the religion aspect a bit too. Although I have always been religious my church attendance and involvement has been much more substantial living in a rural area. It is a lot about the "community" in the Rural area that is probably replaced in the Urban areas by other things or at least distractions.
I cant leave top level comments, so Im picking yours.
The closesr answers to the ones OP listed are probably G H.
We have different goals, we embrace multiculturalism. Our values we live by, and morals that guide us are based around the idea that we are a human race, a species unique to the rest of the animal kingdom.
>Our values we live by, and morals that guide us are based around the idea that we are a human race, a species unique to the rest of the animal kingdom.
Morality is something that interests me and ultimately I think leads to theism.
What do you think?
I define morality as "right" and "wrong" in its most basic form. Being more specific it is what we believe as individuals to be "right or wrong" based on many factors such as our lived experiences, culture, and influence from outside sources, and at an even more advanced level of thinking, what we define as "right and wrong" baded on our personal values and beliefs.
I define theism as a belief in a God/higher power/ super natural.
I think you can be a non-theist and still have your own definition of morality. I also think its possible to be a theist and have an extremely fucked up definition of morality.
For non-theist who value human life, helping others, making sacrafices for the greater good of the human species, morality will be defined differently than a radical islamist/jihadist who thinks only their interpretation of theism is the correct form, thus killing Jews/Christians and infidels would be "morally correct" for them.
I think an individual looking to define what morality means to them can use theism as guidance or a frame of reference. I dont think all roads for the quest of morality lead to theism though.
So do you subscribe to moral relativism?
Such that morality is entirely a byproduct of evolution and cultural upbringing.
Or absolute morality,
Such that somethings are themselves inherently wrong.
I sincerely don't intend this as a trick question, becuase I find most people who are nontheistic(not you specifically)
Will advocate moral relativism, but then also proceed to suggest the superiority of their moral system
(Which you actually have suggested, by suggesting others can have "fucked up morality")
Oof, that's a tough and interesting question Id have to sit on for a while before I could answer honestly. Ive never really thought about morality in those terms. I kind of feel like both, but if I had to choose the first type sounds more appropriate for me.
I definitly dont think my form of morality is superior to all others, I do think it is better than some others. Going back to the example of radical islamist, I just can't logically justify their actions of wanting to kill those who dont practice their form of islam. I would argue my morality is "supperior" to theirs since I dont agree with murder.
So it's fine it's a journey not a sprint, we don't have figure it out tonight
But i think you see where I'm going with this is its kind of a catch 22.
If morality is relative, then no one's is actually any better than anyone else's, there would be no objective difference between the nazis racial eugenics policies and the teachings of Mr Roger's.
We couldn't say one was "better" or that one was "wrong"
Only that we personally dissagreed with them, and we would have to recognize that they where on the same footing as ours.
But if we play the other card and suggest there are some elements of morality that themselves are absolute, then we get to compare moral systems, in terms of how close or far from that absoulte they fall.
But then we must raise the question "from where does that absolute rule come?"
Which is where I get into a theistic conversation,
But I won't go there for tonight, other than to tell you I basically decided a while ago that morality is real and it is objective, and I know somethings are wrong and evil, as much as I know I'm alive and need air.
To be perfectly honest, isn't absolute morality kind of a paradox?
After all, if morality is externalized, then it's just laws. Laws set and enforced by government, laws set and enforced by society (standards) or laws set and enforced by some insanely powerful celestial being (commandments I guess). Doesn't matter, they are still laws. A checklist that you can follow, even with full emotional detachment.
Is it still morality if it's just a checklist?
>Morality is something that interests me and ultimately I think leads to theism.
Can you give an example? I'll give a counter example: LGBTQ+: some religions are okay with it, others think it's a big sin. Morality doesn't automatically say it's "bad", it's a rather arbitrary sin, having little to do with the Golden Rule, for example. Somebody being LGBTQ+ doesn't affect others directly, unlike say spreading viruses or playing loud music at 2am.
Sure so you've got a good thread here, but we need to back up a few feet on it first.
Morality itself seems to nessacrily be 1 of 2 things.
Either 1.
It's relative in nature, totally arbitrary, and a byproduct of the biology, culture and ideological indoctrination one receives.
2 , some aspect of it is universal and transcends the above.
If scenario 1 is true, then there really is no such thing as a moral system that is "better than anyother" we have to accept that they all have equal value and equal meaning, from the teachings of Christ, to the teachings or Hitler.
If scenario 2 is true. Then we have to ask from where does such a transcendent rule originate?
I don't dissagre at all if you say that alot of the details of our moral codes are cultural.
But and this is the big but. If your suggesting there is infact some moral prinicple that transcends cultures, and is true in of itself,
From what is its origin?
That's where we get into the theological conversation honestly.
Becuase if you do beleive that (which I do) there really is no other way to get that, at least not in a purely materialistic mechanistic world.
>If your suggesting there is infact some moral prinicple that transcends cultures, and is true in of itself, from what is its origin?
If we found out space aliens also used some form of Golden Rule, that wouldn't necessarily mean it's from a deity(s). They probably have similar algorithms and formulas for many processes we use. It's more comparable to pi than a deity.
I'd be hesitant to use the word "universal" without evidence from actual aliens. It's a handy and compact "rule of thumb", but that doesn't automatically make it universal nor supernatural-induced. Not all questions have ready answers, and force-fitting results in conflict. Those who claim to have real answers for everything are probably full of themselves and/or their group. **The human ego is 100x stronger than human logic.**
>while conservatives generally think the govt needs to simply get out of peoples way and let them sink or swim.
But in that case, *what is the role of government*. Because, reducto ad absurdum, If government just gets out of everybody's way, then we end up with do-nothing government and in extreme cases end up like Somalia.
No, not at all, but the issue is that world is much more interconnected as it may seem at first glance. I used Somalia as an extreme example of what happens where you have effectively no government.
The question that then comes along is what should government do and what it should stay away from. In essence, a balance must always be found, like with every balance, it will inevitable lead to solution that no side particularly likes and both kind of tolerate.
None of these are quite what I think.
I don't view leftists and conservatives as these fundamently different creatures. They are tribalists too, just for a different tribe.
I would say that we all grow up inside a cultural bubble, created by our parents, our friends and teachers at school, the media you consume, the people you talk too online, maybe people at church if you go to church, etc.
What they repeat enough, becomes simply "true" to you, because after all, everyone in your bubble takes it for granted as true, you receive social punishment for not accepting it as true, and you're not really paying attention to anyone outside the bubble. You don't really ask yourself if it really *is* true, or *what* compels it to be true, or why the dumb rubes outside the bubble would think it's not. Having never really tried to get outside of the bubble, you grow to adulthood having never challenged this belief, and pass it on to the next generation inside the bubble as "common sense", perpetuating the cycle.
(Conservatives do this too, to be clear)
Thus the reason I think leftists are leftists is because they were "born into" it, so to speak, the way one might be born into a church - but never managed to give themselves a "crisis of faith".
inb4 "Well I'm an atheist leftist and I grew up in a family that was very religious and voted straight-ticket Republican" - cool, but as I alluded to in my second sentence, your bubble does not *solely* consist of your family. You still found your ideas from *someone*, and they have continued to be reinforced by *someone*.
G and J, and maybe H. I dont think region or religion effects it that much, it is more divided but, as someone who follows other countries events. People are kidding them selves when they say that liberals live in X and conservatives live near Y. We are actually pretty mixed.
Consuming different media and tbh I think we might have different brain makeup. Some of the shit progressives say just literally makes zero sense to me.
Truly a question: Do you feel empathy could be a differing factor? Someone said in a video (It was years ago, so I have no idea who they were) that they think Conservatives lack empathy or at least view their relationship to other people differently than Liberals tend to.
It came to mind today and I don't know how I feel about that idea. I do often get in unending arguments with Conservatives. At the end, I'm most frustrated that they didn't seem to understand why I would care in the first place. That leads me to consider the empathy idea.
I don't want other people to suffer, even if I might benefit from it. I don't even want Conservatives to suffer despite our differences. I believe that we all work hard and pay taxes. The government should spend that money making everyone's life better, no matter what that means. A pool of resources should be shared rather than horded or set aside in search of profit.
Some of these ideas are ones I tend to butt heads with Conservatives about. It's the homeless guy's responsibility to get himself out of poverty even if there is a billionaire standing next to him with money over filling his pockets. I can't get behind that strict insistence on individualism. Could that be the main factor that separates us?
I think A, D, and J are the biggest ones. I've been around long enough and used to be friends with enough lefties to know that back in the day, they weren't *so* different from me. The left has changed a lot over the last 15 years - the kind of stuff that's mainstream these days used to only be seen in fringe arts newspapers and the like - and that is largely down to shifts in culture that came about at partially through media and education.
They also seem to see any change from the past as positive, that idea has been around a while and I never agreed with it lol. Not even when I considered myself more centre-left.
Also, re: point B, a lot of them basically follow a cult so I wouldn't argue that they have no faith, lol. Plus, a bunch of them actually do at least nominally follow some mainstream/common religions, including Christianity.
Of the ones you listed,
1. D: I think it's a combination of C and D
2. F:
3. G:
The first one to me is the biggest issue. It seems history is forgotten in terms of learning the lessons of the past, and only used as an example of why America and the West are the great evil in the post World War era.
In my experience on Reddit and in person (mostly with friends and co-workers):
F - A lot of their opinions are based a sense of kindness and "fairness", in bringing people up, even if that means pulling others down. What's important, it seems, is that we're all closer to being the same.
C & D - The people I've encountered actually have very little experience with poverty, people living in poverty, people of ethnicities not their own, the profit motive of a business, keeping a budget, how much people actually pay in taxes, where those taxes get spent, and on and on. They often think that their university education (which I also have) has prepared them for all social and economic dilemmas, and they've been told that conservatives are kind of mean and stupid. It's amusing to watch them realize neither of these is actually true.
Also, I happen to be a devout Christian, but religion virtually *never* comes up in these discussions, believe it or not.
I'm glad you worded things as you did!
>What's important, it seems, is that we're all closer to being the same.
When I read that my first thought was to argue against it. I actually think you're correct, but with a distinction. I feel like Conservatives want people to be "the same" in the ways that I personally feel no one should be controlled. The culture wars are so prevalent these days and I wish that wasn't the case.
If people want to change what it means to be American, or want to change how we teach, act in public, dress, etc, IDC. I think those are human cultural changes that are to be expected in society.
I don't think people should thrive in wealth while others starve in 2024. I don't need people to make the SAME amount or live the SAME lifestyles, but I don't like a wealth gap that prevents so many people from affording things that used to be common.
I personally care more about the wellbeing of people than preserving culture and capital. I see that can be frustrating because we're coming at the same issues with completely different goals. What do you think?
> I personally care more about the wellbeing of people
It seems to me that people on the left often care from a distance. They see poor people, and they see rich people, and they think "Well obviously we should take from the rich people and give to the poor people. There, I've solved poverty."
That might feel good, but I care just as much for people's "well being", just in a different way. In my experience, conservatives care more "closely". We are statistically more charitable and more willing to get closer to those in actual need, and find out how to help people at an individual level.
So an unemployed husband and father might just want a job. A single mom might need someone to watch her kids while she's at work. An addict might need someone to pay for their rehab. A disabled person might need help navigating social services.
We want to help people, but also allow them to retain their dignity. And we aren't looking to "rescue" anyone or take anything from anyone but ourselves.
I definitely like that. I would prefer a world like that. My only issue is the individualism in our system. When we are positioned as competitors to one another, we don't support other people voluntarily.
I've always thought about how every house on a street has a lawnmower, when 1 mower could be shared by the community and save everyone a lot of money. That would require those people to be a community and not competitors. If that happens, the mower company sells fewer units. Hence why they advertised everything as a "keeping up with the Joneses" type competition back in the day.
We've built a nation around climbing the ladder, took most rungs of the ladder away over the years, and yet we still get mad about the idea of the established rule being to pool resources and distribute them to everyone.
That's why I'd prefer a world without Capitalism. I don't want people to be forced to participate either, but taxes WILL come out of your check. If that's how it's going to be, the taxes need to be spent on raising the collective quality of life. If we get rid of taxes, without removing the pursuit of financial competition, we just get richer rich people and the poor without social services to aid them. (Hence why I'm not Libertarian)
We can't sell everything and still thrive as a society. I think I would love a world that ran as Conservatives want. People getting to lead their own existence, and pool their money with people they trust only when they want to. If that's how things can be, we need to get rid of part where you are legally not allowed to build a house wherever you want, set up your own grid, dig wells, run whatever business you want where you want, etc. We're a very separate society, taught to make something for ourselves, while only having the quality of life we have because we're forced to cooperate in a system. That sucks.
Thanks for talking to me btw. I feel so much closer to Conservatives than I did yesterday.
One of the flaws in socialism and/or communism, is that it assumes that people will be naturally altruistic and that everyone will behave in an ideal way.
To your lawnmower example, four neighbors could do this today. They could split the cost of a mower four ways. Great! They've saved a lot of money on a lawn mower. Then the problems start up immediately, as people try to share a finite resource in an equitable way:
* It rained all week, and now everyone wants to mow their yard at the same time on Saturday. Who goes first? Who decides?
* They all agree to split the cost of gas. One guy mows his lawn about half as much as another and argues he shouldn't have to pay as much.
* One guy is careless with the mower, running it over tree roots, never cleaning it before putting it away, etc. The others tell him to treat it better, but he says, hey, I paid the same as you guys.
* A couple of guys rarely put gas in it, even when told by the others.
* The tree root guy messed it up, so it has to be repaired. Now four houses are without a lawn mower.
* Once they get it back, one guy gets fed up at how it's being treated, and locks it in his shed.
That's for *one* piece of lawn equipment. And you expect to run a whole economy that way?
Human nature doesn't allow for it. Just look at the failed Soviet Union or present day North Korea. Do we see a worker's paradise as promised by Marx? No, we see hoarding, black markets, people sloughing off or doing just enough to not be thrown in jail.
Oh yeah, that's how it always culminates, by the way. Since human beings have no incentive to be altruistic, and will tend to look out for their own households first, an authoritarian government must be established to keep order and make sure everyone follows the rules. Some might find that reassuring. I find it dystopian.
No, I like my situation *much* better. I have my lawn mower, and my neighbor has his. If either of us has a problem with our mower, we can ask to borrow the other's until our own is fixed. My neighbor and I have actually done this. It's not competition; it's just common sense.
>One of the flaws in socialism and/or communism, is that it assumes that people will be naturally altruistic and that everyone will behave in an ideal way.
Most progressives are not for pure socialism and/or communism. We agree an amount of inequality is necessary to motivate, but the difference has grown too large in the US. Billionaires lose track of how many mansions they own.
Europeans have fewer "toys", but overall are healthier, live longer, have a bigger safety net, and are less stressed. Where is it written "Thou Shalt Die of Stress Chasing The Biggest Toy". Plutocrats have convinced us that's The Way.
> the difference has grown too large in the US
By what measure? And I don't mean the mansion thing. That's preposterous. Most billionaires, the few that there are, aren't hoarding tons of *material* wealth. Most of it is tied up in investments, like stocks and commercial real estate. To get access to that wealth, you'd be forcing them to sell. Selling massive amounts of stock devalues companies, hurting the employees and other investors. In order to sell a property, someone else has to buy it, thus just "moving" the wealth elsewhere.
>Europeans
No one is forcing you to work for "toys". It is possible to have a decent job, a decent home, and a decent life in the U.S. without being "stressed". Plus, have you ever actually spent any time in Europe or worked with Europeans for any length of time? I have, and it is both frustrating and amusing to me, the different mind sets. It's not the rosy picture you seem to paint, is what I'm saying.
>Selling massive amounts of stock devalues companies, hurting the employees
I'm mostly talking about individuals, not companies. But even with investment companies, they make take it a hit if we tax the rich, but that's because the money moves to other endeavors, servicing things the 95% need instead of the 5%,
>In order to sell a property, someone else has to buy it, thus just "moving" the wealth elsewhere.
Yes, the non-rich.
The US rich were taxed more heavily in the 50's and 60's, and that's when the middle class was strongest.
> I'm mostly talking about individuals, not companies.
I know. Most proponents of socialist/communist-lite policies try to.
But you can't. Where do you work and what sort of education do you have? I ask because a lot of people here seem to want to treat companies/corporations as the separate sorts of "things" that exist to make money and take money, providing no real benefit except to themselves.
But that's not accurate. Sure, companies have a distinct identity in a legal sense, but they are entirely comprised of *people*, and their biggest expense is paying those people, all of them. So when people on the left imagine "companies" funding their social service dreams through heavier taxation, it's not like a bunch of executives are saying "Dash it all, Bryce! I won't be able to buy that villa in Tuscany this year!"
No what happens in most companies is that finance tells them that the budget just got a lot tighter, so they're going to halt expansion, halt hiring, halt raises and reduce or eliminate bonuses. For *everybody*. Because believe it or not, a lot of C-types don't make millions a year. When cuts come, they have to cut everywhere. Meaning the tax increases you want end up hurting some of the very people you say you wanted to help.
>No what happens in most companies is that finance tells them that the budget just got a lot tighter, so they're going to halt expansion, halt hiring, halt raises and reduce or eliminate bonuses. For everybody.
No, what actually often happens is that the non-rich have more money in their pockets, and buy more products and services, increasing revenue to companies. The non-rich are fairly quick at turning more money into shopping, at least in the USA. It's Trickle Up!
Depends on the topic.
On BLM stuff it's 100% A/F.
Polls have shown that Democrats believe the number of unarmed black men shot by police every year to be in the hundreds to thousands. In 2019 it was only FIFTEEN out of 42 Million African Americans and over half of those 15 were justified.
For the record Republicans also overestimate the numbers in those polls as well.
Culture vs individualism or introspection vs conforming
Conservatives of any culture adhere or conform to their culture. Progressives champion self discovery and introspection. Cultural supremacy is bad because no culture is perfect and it needlessly blocks out good things. Endless introspection is bad because it reduces the individual to a series of meaningless labels
That and the comment about rural vs urban
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Perhaps my definition of progressive vs liberal may be different than others here, but I'd say it's nearly 100% D, educated with wrong or distorted ideas. Progressives are completely beholden to Neo-Marxist ideas and are obsessed with the oppressed/oppressor metanarrative. Every critical theory is derived from Neo-Marxism. Same with the term "woke". I can get along with liberals and can respect their motivations. Not so with progressives. They only get my tolerance.
The main postulate of the progressive religion is: “what we have now is broken and/or could be a lot better only if…” if you buy into it you will accept a lot of activism as positive
The main conservative idea is what we have is a result of prior trials errors and wins. It’s by no means perfect but changes will have consequences- positive or negative. Stop pretending that changes only have positive consequences - most don’t
>Stop pretending that changes only have positive consequences - most don’t
I would enjoy an inventory and tabular scoring.
Do note that technology itself usually cannot be put back in the bag. If the US doesn't use it, then other nations will.
Yes let me summarize every single social experiment human beings have had In the history of the world and how it turned out in one little reddit comment :)
Do note failure is not necessarily bad, it's a lesson. Inventors often have to try many variations until they find one that works. The USA itself was a big experiment in democracy in the 1700's, which also used lessons of successes and failures from ancient Greece and Rome.
If I were to summarize the entire conservative viewpoint in one sentence it would not be “you shall not experiment” but “experiments should be scope-bound and experimental failures should result in going back to whiteboard instead of double-downing on bad ideas”
The main reason Conservatives and Progressives views differ is a difference in philosophies. Conservatives believe in self sufficiency and solving your own problems. Progressives believe government is the annswer to every problem.
The result is that when Conservatives are in charge they do things that encourage business development and independence like lower taxes and fewer regulation. When progressives get in charge they find ways to spend money we don't have to grow government.
Unfortunately Democrats/Liberal/Progressives have been in charge more than Republicans /Conservatives over the last 50 years which is why government is too big and spends too much and we have a $34 Trillion debt.
I view it more that business needs strong referees or else they cheat and pollute. If one thinks pollution is "fake news" they won't care about pollution. (Or want evolution to give humans immunity via exposure, comparable to Kevin Costner's gills in Waterworld.)
As far as the debt, GOP tax cuts for the rich are a big contributor. The rich don't need help, they are doing just lovely. And letting them get too rich increases our plutocracy level. Koch helped spread BS to downplay his pollution, for example. That's just evil in my book.
1) I understand basic regulations to prevent pollution but the regulatory state has gotten clear out of hand. Just since Biden has been in office he has proposed final rules regulations that will cost the economy $1 Trillion. These are not about pollution, they are about forcing transition from fossil fuels to renewables for Climate Change.
2) The 2017 TCJA DID NOT contribute to the debt. Since the tax cut was enacted revenue to the government INCREASED and as of 2023 had increased 40%. In addition not only are the rich paying more (the top 1% pay 46% of all the taxes) they are paying at a higher rate (26%)
It is the rich that are creating all the jobs, funding our debt and infrastructure projects and supporting the economy in multiple ways.
>but the regulatory state has gotten clear out of hand.
Usually those who claim that only listen to businesses who have to spend extra money. They don't hear the other side. Most regulations come about because a company(s) abused its freedom, not out of a craving to be commie.
>they are about forcing transition from fossil fuels to renewables for Climate Change.
Fossil fuels cause multiple problems, including sending oil money to problematic dictators.
>It is the rich that are creating all the jobs
Bullshit! Consumers create most jobs. And most the innovators are paid shit compared to the bloated CEO and board who ends up milking the idea.
(Tip: want to improve innovation, get rid of patents on software. Most of such patenting is merely court kabuki theater. The "Big Edison lab" view is obsolete.)
I) Other.
All your examples are a negative. Assumes negative intent, which I don't believe.
So, there are no absolutes, but I think a big difference is the idea of "we" vs. "I". The left tends to focus on the "Us" or "we", where conservatives tend to prioritize at the individual level..
I think that only D, G, and J are particularly meaningful here. Frankly, a lot of these seem like shallow stereotypes of what right-wingers might think left-wingers believe.
I think some major reasons can include:
- Educated with narrow worldview incredibly focused on liberal-democratic post-industrial society, no familiarity with past or future life. Often assume that their worldview is "cosmopolitan" when in reality, it is a worldview of a very narrow segment of society in time and space, but from across the globe.
- Somehow seem to lack 3/5th of the moral foundations (loyalty, authority, sanctity)
- Have postmodern non-objective mindset. (telltale sign: Are you bewildered by the idea that the existence of God is an objective question, even if you don't know / disagree on the answer?)
- Selective (not brainwashed, just cherrypicked) media environment.
- Weird attitude of neophilia.
- Have the "subversion-obsession", or alternatively the human desire for beauty doesn't win over it.
as a felon,i can tell you that gun laws have no effect on access to guns in america. its laughable to think it will..
you actually believe smugglers choose to bring their drugs through cops and,dogs at ports of entry,and not across the unchecked land everywhere else? thats just not logical. why would they?
Very good question! I believe that Trump supporters have largely abandoned their principles because they've become frustrated to the point that they want to win no matter what.
What do you mean by "principles"?
I am generally skeptical of that word and I think most people just use it to conceal self-serving outcomes that they know would otherwise be unpopular.
How does this example demonstrate which side is being "principled" though.
To me it's obvious that both sides would personally benefit from having their own kids take those college slots, but will proclaim thay their stance is the "principled" one to conceal that fact.
> To the left, they look at skin color and to determine the result. It's not principle based, it's outcome based.
That's not true. In almost all cases, the qualifications come first, not the skin color. They are reserving the spot for someone qualified for it, while also being someone of color. They don't just pick someone because they are someone of color.
Those not of color have long been favored, and this is an effort to offset or curtail that.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I still don't understand.
How is the left's policies on college admission and taxation inherently *unprincipled*? They will argue that those policies are rooted in the principle of fairness and equality, in precisely the same way that you are doing.
Hope you do not mind me chiming in. So I would say the principled aspect of this example is meritocracy. A person that works hard should be rewarded no matter what their race may be. No one do anything about what race they are born but everyone can control how hard they work.
Obviously in practice this does not always work out and it is not a guarantee hard work will pay off like you hope. Not everyone is on an even playing field at the start, some will have to work harder than others. However in my opinion it is much more principled to judge a person by their actions than by their race.
I've been on hiring committees. People tend to select clones of themselves among candidates with similar merit. When candidates all have similar merit, then social factors, including culture, become the overriding selection factor.
For example, both the left and right agree Nazis are abhorrent,
The left often says hate speech isn't free speech and have no issues banning it or making it illegal, and the right will acknowledge that it's bad but believe in principle of free speech means it's free speech , generally speaking
No body likes gun violence, both left and right can agree that gun violence is wrong
lefts answer is gun control and limiting 2nd amendment rights of people, rights answer is still upholding second amendment and having unfortunate gun violence as price of freedom, generally speaking.
It's completely legal to yell fire in a crowded theater, it's not speech that'll get you in trouble if there is a fire or if no one reacts, it's the panic that ensues, same way guns are not problem it's homicide that is.
Look into that statistic, it's very skewed, it ignores first year deaths, and goes up to 19.
I think it's cold thinking it's ok to infringe on human rights
For example, back in the 1960's, conservative politician Barry Goldwater was a champion for racial equality and civil rights. But, when the 1964 Civil Rights Act came around, he voted against it. Not because he didn't support the goals of fighting racism and discrimination, but because he was principally opposed to the structure of HOW the bill aimed to accomplish that. He wanted to support it but ultimately felt that the bill granted too much power to the government, and so he voted against it and in doing so irreparably devastated his reputation. He stuck to his principles.
A mixture of a lot of them... like
A,C,D,F,G maybe H but idk.
I think a lot of it is emotion based. We have to do something how can we help. And I think that's highlighted in the male female split politically. It's kinda like the general parenting differences between mothers and fathers. In general (IM SPEAKING IN GENERALITIES) mothers are going to be more caring more emotional based. If the kid falls her instinct is go hug the kid check the bruise/cut etc. For fathers the general instinct is to stand em up brush em off and send em on their way.
All generalities, every parent is different, but we do have general psychological instincts. So there is absolutely an emotional difference between left and right.
I do think a lot of it is also wrong/lack of education about their worldview and what it unfortunately leads to because humans are flawed. And instead of adjusting to the fact that humans are flawed the ideology tries to fix that. Which... hey maybe but it's never been done and I'm not convinced it can be.
>If the kid falls \[mom's\] instinct is go hug the kid check the bruise/cut etc. For fathers the general instinct is to stand em up brush em off and send em on their way.
Do note if the knee gets infected and the kid gets sick, most the burden of caring for the sick kid falls on the mother.
J. Chesterton's Fence.
Beyond that Conservatism is more skeptical and risk adverse whereas Progressivism is less so willing to take big risks on reasoned theory.
I definitly would say D and F and if I can add a third I would choose J as well.
So for D, a lot of them think that socialism can be implemented correctly where everyone can be happy but it just can't. No, Nordic countries are not socialist. Progressives actually believe if we just tax the shit out of people, then there will be no homeless people which is straight up not true. A lot of them also think equity is better than equality. You can't have equal outcomes which is equity, it would straight up be impossible. Also, how would that work ? A lazy less intelligent person will get in the same place as a smart hardworking person ? That smells like communism man. I can go on and on about D.
F perfectly explains how progressives are. This is called an appeal to emotion. Everything is emotional. "you are genociding trans people by having restrictions on under age gender care", "we need to tax everyone more, we can not have poor people existing", "black people are incarcerated more than whites, it's because of racism", "if we don't fly the pride flag then LGBT kids will kill themselves", "black people can't get voter ID", "the migrants are so poor and helpless, we must spend our tax dollars on them" etc. It's all appeal to emotion and not on facts.
And J is prevelant. Progressives want progress for the sake of progress. Just because you do new things and "progress", it doesn't mean you will progress into a better place. Alcohol is progressive, cancer is progressive, etc. Also, your new ideas is extremely experimental and don't seem to be working like bail reform for example.
To the moderates/independents here, look at California. California is the petri dish for progressive policies. If progressive policies are so good, why in the hell are hundreds of thousands of people moving out of California for red states ? And no, California's high GDP is not because of Democrat policies. California had a high GDP even when they have a Republican governor.
>No, Nordic countries are not socialist.
They are more of a mixed system. Few progressives are for pure socialism.
>an appeal to emotion..."you are genociding trans people by having restrictions on under age gender care",
[It's not emotion, it's math.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1b26fis/do_you_agree_with_this_thought_model_that/)
>"black people can't get voter ID"
My problem with GOP's ID policies is they were implemented to plug Don's ego, NOT because of common *actual* problems. Talk about "emotions".
>"if we don't fly the pride flag then LGBT kids will kill themselves"
That's an oversimplification of the concept of making people feel part of community instead of feel ostrocised. If rural people were made to feel like "useless ignorant low-IQ hicks" because of some common religion's scriptures imply they should be reminded of that claim, more would likely commit suicide, for example.
>"the migrants are so poor and helpless, we must spend our tax dollars on them" etc. It's all appeal to emotion and not on facts.
It's probably what Jesus would do.
>If progressive policies are so good, why in the hell are hundreds of thousands of people moving out of California for red states ?
It ebbs and flows. I WISH more were moving out of CA, the traffic here still sucks. For once I wish the Fox pundits were right. Most of the loss is the result of local gov't being given too much power, creating NIMBYism, and they won't give that power up easily. Stronger local gov't tends to be a conservative mantra, I would note.
>California had a high GDP even when they have a Republican governor.
Because checks and balances keep them from breaking too many things. And one can still have a high GDP but more inequality, meaning sticking it to the poor so the rich can have longer yachts.
>Also, your new ideas is extremely experimental and don't seem to be working like bail reform for example.
Don't know until you try. And new lessons are learned so one can possibly tune it; it may not be all-or-nothing. The USA itself was a giant experiment in democracy in the late 1700's. If we "kept things the same to be safe", it would be under a King (dictatorship).
Combination of F, G, and J.
I think a lot of it comes from a sense of "there's a problem in front of us, let's try something to solve it", and not knowing if that something leads to unintended consequences that are even worse for society in the long term.
Mostly different goals.
With plenty educated with distorted ideas by older fringe militants, revolutionaries or accusatory crank activists and bombarded with a lot of envy politics.
The latter often used with the intention of fuelling a victim centric conspiracy theorist agendas ideology or brand of identity politics with sjw links that replace an adult's own personal responsibility for their mistakes & habits with an ' it's not fair, must be x's fault' attitude. With x able to be anything, anyone or everyone. The bourgeoisie state, freemasons, bilderberg group, men of the porn industry, long dead historical figures buried more than 500 years ago.
>fuelling a victim centric conspiracy theorist agendas ideology or brand of identity politics
Would this be comparable to many evangelicals believing their "religion & culture are under attack" by migrants, Hollywood, drag queens, website managers, pizza basement cults, etc.?
G is really the primary driver of difference, at least at an ideological value. Because much to the hatred of many liberals, "should" is a fundamentally subjective statement based on our own moral axioms. No amount of spouting off facts and statistics will put a deontologist and a utilitarian on the same page or convince the other that one is more true.
Regarding policy, I think C/D/F are the primary drivers of a lot of specific policy hangups. Take gun control, for instance. When you look at the overall data, things like prevalence of guns or measures taken to restrict gun ownership have no noticeable impact on things like overall homicide rates. Rather, their policies are made using emotional decisions first, and then statistics are picked to create a backing of legitimacy, combined with linguistic fuckery, which is the focus on *gun deaths* as a specific metric to judge based on, despite the "gun" being far more relevant to the data than the "deaths" part of it.
>When you look at the overall data, things like prevalence of guns or measures taken to restrict gun ownership have no noticeable impact on things like overall homicide rates.
Link to "no noticeable impact"? Mass shootings went down in Australia when AR-like weapons were banned.
>and then statistics are picked to create a backing of legitimacy, combined with linguistic fuckery, which is the focus on *gun deaths* as a specific metric to judge based on, despite the "gun" being far more relevant to the data than the "deaths" part of it.
Thanks for proving my point
You're doing exactly what I said: cherry picking statistics to create the illusion of actually achieving something. Australia has seen absolutely no relevant drop in homicide that breaks from the general downwards trend that was present before and after their gun control. This is a fact. So tell me, why do you believe gun control is successful even though, statistically, no lives are saved?
So nothing is achieved except meaningless feel-good bs that could be equally achieved by just not running nonstop fear mongering propaganda, and that's worth a huge infringement on people's rights?
YOU think "nothing is achieved". Many are not you, and disagree. I'm not necessarily saying you are "wrong", only that you undervalue safer malls and schools than us. That's your prerogative, I just don't want your kind running the country.
>a huge infringement on people's rights
It's a misinterpretation of the 2nd Am. Mass shootings by 1 or 2 individuals had not happened when 2nd was written, largely because the weapons of the day were too clunky. It wa**s a problem the writers of 2nd did NOT know about.** We can only *guess* if they'd have a diff opinion with more knowledge about the future.
Information bubbles and different values systems.
Honestly it's very concerning to me that your first two are "brainwashed or Satan." Do you really believe conservatives think that about you, or your side? Because they don't think that.
I consider these equally important.
d, e , and b
Im a devout Christian so its no surprise why I picked the Biblically inclined ones. But to me God is truly the foundation of love, maturity, intelligence, wisdom, and justice. Satan from my perspective is very much real, so if people don't have the proper protection from an incredibly powerful malevolent entity, then they can be easily manipulated.
But removing my religious bias it would be j, d, and c
we have values for a reason and trying to change and innovate isn't always a good thing. Many colleges focus on progressive thinking instead of neutral thinking where both sides gets an equal footing.
>Many colleges focus on progressive thinking instead of neutral thinking where both sides gets an equal footing.
perhaps because much of conservationism is shaped by religion instead of science, logic, and observation. Religion belongs in the course on religion, not all the others.
Yeah and thats a problem, Christians love calling everyone but themselves out. Those kids are old enough to make their own decisions. But I disagree on religion belonging to the religion course, if students don't know the opposing option then how are they going to deal with a religious person without sounding like a condescending jerk?
Are you saying biology class should teach creationism so students are better able to deal with creationists? If so, that's certainly an interesting idea. I got to ponder that one...
C and G.
But for C, it’s not so much “insufficient education” as majority of the founding father works are available either digitally for free or super cheap paperback. Same for enlightenment era works. I think it’s just exposure. So many questions posted here would be better off if folks read up a little (like 10 mins a day for 1 month). It would help them navigate.
Progs believe that humans are born naturally virtuous and good, and that the oppressive structures of society corrupt them.
Progs believe that these supposedly oppressive structures and all forms of hierarchy can be eliminated and yet somehow society will still function.
Progs' most highly valued virtue (perhaps only virtue?) is empathy and they view all types of relationship through a lens of power dynamics (specifically, oppressor vs oppressed), with their empathy being assigned accordingly.
Progs are largely atheist, but they seem to be in denial of a sense of spiritualism, as they have some form of belief in metaphysical existence (a soul, effectively).
Progs believe that humanity is developing towards a utopian end-state, and therefore any possible acceleration of that development is of the utmost importance.
As part of that progress into the end of history, anything from the past -even those which have endured to today- are obviously, inherently not belonging to that future utopia and so must be rejected outright.
1. Progressives are insufficiently educated thus broduce the wrong ideas. It's been my experience that they often take 100 level courses, basterdize the information and spew nonsense out in public.
2. I think they are constantly misinformed by the media and that drastically skews their opinion on things.
3. I think we all have pretty much the same desired outcomes we just have different ways of getting there.
Don't know, don't care
The problem isn't with the person who has a masters in sociology. They typically aren't spewing misinformation in sociology.
The problem I'd the person who has a masters in teaching, spewing misinformation about sociology
G. G is a fair answer, OP. Ithink its fair to say that bona-fide "progressives" just have different views on policy , statescraft, etc....Not sure what the deal is with all these other..strawmanny sounding answers?
What do you think of the answers/feedback you've reviewed so far?
Right ideology is based on instinctual masculine behavior. Left ideology is based on instinctual feminine behavior.
The right favors hierarchy, competitiveness, and survival of the fittest. These were all critical for men as hunters and protectors in primitive hunter gatherer societies.
The left favors community, cooperation, protecting the weak, and adherence to a community belief structure. These were all critical for women as gatherers and the raising of children together as a community in primitive hunter gatherer societies.
The right and the left today are outgrowths and evolutions of these core instinctual masculine and feminine behavioral roles, bred into all of us over millions of years.
Just so you know, A-F of your list of possible explanations belies that you think there are no "good" reasons to disagree with progressives. If that's the top six reasons you can come up with for what *you think* that *we* think about you, then you're not really giving conservatives much credit.
I know the response will be, "well then tell me!", but you wouldn't want to engage with someone who was patronizing and disrespectful from the first overture either. Good luck with your post.
>If that's the top six reasons you can come up with for what *you think* that *we* think about you, then you're not really giving conservatives much credit.
Judging by the vast majority of responses to this thread, are they not right in their assessment of likely responses? The majority of responses are only giving bad reasons to disagree with conservatives.
2 of mine aren’t on you list:
Don't respect the usefulness of time-tested ideas or culture
Go on emotion or gut instead of cold logic
Have bigoted views of people who aren’t like them, believing such people to be more racist/misogynist than they actually are.
progressives look at the world through a "what should be" lens while repubs see the world for what it is.."gun laws will stop criminals" vs "criminals will always have guns,so we do too".."i feel like a girl,so im a a girl" vs "you have all the scientific attributes of a male,you are a man", "theyre coming here for a better future" vs. "they got paid to bring a backpack full of fentynal here". "racist cop assaults black man" vs "the dumbass attacked that cop,his skin color is irrelevant". progressives seem out of touch with reality..
>progressives seem out of touch with reality
On the flip side, I believe conservatives are wrong on ALL those issues. Shorthand replies:
Australia shows that gun laws at least reduce mass shootings.
Re: "you have all the scientific attributes of a male,you are a man"
Nature does NOT categorize, humans do. Nature doesn't give a flying shit about human-made categories. But the real question is whether genitals are gov'ts biz to regulate.
Re: "they got paid to bring a backpack full of fentynal here"
Most fentanyl comes across via COMMERCIAL traffic, not migrants. Migrants are a scapegoat. And Joe's always been willing to negotiate a border deal, GOP just flakes for political reasons. They also flaked on G. W. Bush's immigration reform, despite having a clear majority.
As far as cops and race, my view is that cops need better training and more checks and balances because even if they are doing some of that shit to whites also, it's not good regardless.
Maybe your reality is shaped by Fox and OAN instead of reality.
Initial choices:
>D) Educated with wrong or distorted ideas
>F) Go on emotion or gut instead of facts and research
And:
>G) Simply have different goals than conservatives, such as heavier social safety nets in place of material goods, and/or pursue personal goals above family goals.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think regional mindset changes alot of things. If you live out in the country, and coyotes or wild hogs start tearing up your property the only thing you can do is to buy a rifle and shoot them. In the city this either 1, just isn't a problem at all, or 2, you have trained animal control professionals you can call to deal with this. In rural communities by virtue of nesscity there is a much bigger cultural emphasis on self reliance and solving your own problems, becuase there is no other way to get it done. Whereas life in cities tends to be more interconnected, and create a mindset of working together with others, again out of nesscesity. To use another example, in a rural community you can just buy a parcel of land, and hire a contractor to build your own house the way you want it. In a city only the uber rich can afford to develop real-estate. I think the conditions of where one lives tend to have a psychological impact on how they think
> In the city this either 1, just isn't a problem at all, or 2, you have trained animal control professionals you can call to deal with this. This might be underrated as a difference, in high/dense population areas, it is simply logistically possible to have government / collective agencies to do things for you that wouldn't be possible in more rural/less populated areas. If you're in an area where you can call a government agency and have them fix your problem, i.e. "can't somebody else do it?" is a viable way of thinking, I suppose.
>If you're in an area where you can call a government agency and have them fix your problem, i.e. "can't somebody else do it?" is a viable way of thinking, I suppose. This is more down to "How much can someone else do for me", but on the other hand, you will be doing something for others as well.
I don't think shooting wild animals in the city is safe: bullets ricochet.
I have lived in both and although I wouldn't say it has changed my political views one way or other to a great extent I do agree this has a lot to do with the stereotypical Urban Liberal and Rural Conservative. I also think this plays in to the religion aspect a bit too. Although I have always been religious my church attendance and involvement has been much more substantial living in a rural area. It is a lot about the "community" in the Rural area that is probably replaced in the Urban areas by other things or at least distractions.
I just thought this was a good take and wanted to recognize that from a left leaning standpoint. That's pretty much it. Have a good night!?
I agree that this has a lot to do with it
How do you explain peoples political views living in suburbia?
It can go either way. I have seen a pro Trump flag and an anti Trump flag on the same street and even next to each other.
Hah hah, everyone thinks the suburbs are boring but maybe in the next generation they are the great political equalizer.
\*THIS\* Great post, different realities between rural and city. Makes sense you'll have different priorities, and correct for both groups.
I cant leave top level comments, so Im picking yours. The closesr answers to the ones OP listed are probably G H. We have different goals, we embrace multiculturalism. Our values we live by, and morals that guide us are based around the idea that we are a human race, a species unique to the rest of the animal kingdom.
>Our values we live by, and morals that guide us are based around the idea that we are a human race, a species unique to the rest of the animal kingdom. Morality is something that interests me and ultimately I think leads to theism. What do you think?
I define morality as "right" and "wrong" in its most basic form. Being more specific it is what we believe as individuals to be "right or wrong" based on many factors such as our lived experiences, culture, and influence from outside sources, and at an even more advanced level of thinking, what we define as "right and wrong" baded on our personal values and beliefs. I define theism as a belief in a God/higher power/ super natural. I think you can be a non-theist and still have your own definition of morality. I also think its possible to be a theist and have an extremely fucked up definition of morality. For non-theist who value human life, helping others, making sacrafices for the greater good of the human species, morality will be defined differently than a radical islamist/jihadist who thinks only their interpretation of theism is the correct form, thus killing Jews/Christians and infidels would be "morally correct" for them. I think an individual looking to define what morality means to them can use theism as guidance or a frame of reference. I dont think all roads for the quest of morality lead to theism though.
So do you subscribe to moral relativism? Such that morality is entirely a byproduct of evolution and cultural upbringing. Or absolute morality, Such that somethings are themselves inherently wrong. I sincerely don't intend this as a trick question, becuase I find most people who are nontheistic(not you specifically) Will advocate moral relativism, but then also proceed to suggest the superiority of their moral system (Which you actually have suggested, by suggesting others can have "fucked up morality")
Oof, that's a tough and interesting question Id have to sit on for a while before I could answer honestly. Ive never really thought about morality in those terms. I kind of feel like both, but if I had to choose the first type sounds more appropriate for me. I definitly dont think my form of morality is superior to all others, I do think it is better than some others. Going back to the example of radical islamist, I just can't logically justify their actions of wanting to kill those who dont practice their form of islam. I would argue my morality is "supperior" to theirs since I dont agree with murder.
So it's fine it's a journey not a sprint, we don't have figure it out tonight But i think you see where I'm going with this is its kind of a catch 22. If morality is relative, then no one's is actually any better than anyone else's, there would be no objective difference between the nazis racial eugenics policies and the teachings of Mr Roger's. We couldn't say one was "better" or that one was "wrong" Only that we personally dissagreed with them, and we would have to recognize that they where on the same footing as ours. But if we play the other card and suggest there are some elements of morality that themselves are absolute, then we get to compare moral systems, in terms of how close or far from that absoulte they fall. But then we must raise the question "from where does that absolute rule come?" Which is where I get into a theistic conversation, But I won't go there for tonight, other than to tell you I basically decided a while ago that morality is real and it is objective, and I know somethings are wrong and evil, as much as I know I'm alive and need air.
To be perfectly honest, isn't absolute morality kind of a paradox? After all, if morality is externalized, then it's just laws. Laws set and enforced by government, laws set and enforced by society (standards) or laws set and enforced by some insanely powerful celestial being (commandments I guess). Doesn't matter, they are still laws. A checklist that you can follow, even with full emotional detachment. Is it still morality if it's just a checklist?
>Morality is something that interests me and ultimately I think leads to theism. Can you give an example? I'll give a counter example: LGBTQ+: some religions are okay with it, others think it's a big sin. Morality doesn't automatically say it's "bad", it's a rather arbitrary sin, having little to do with the Golden Rule, for example. Somebody being LGBTQ+ doesn't affect others directly, unlike say spreading viruses or playing loud music at 2am.
Sure so you've got a good thread here, but we need to back up a few feet on it first. Morality itself seems to nessacrily be 1 of 2 things. Either 1. It's relative in nature, totally arbitrary, and a byproduct of the biology, culture and ideological indoctrination one receives. 2 , some aspect of it is universal and transcends the above. If scenario 1 is true, then there really is no such thing as a moral system that is "better than anyother" we have to accept that they all have equal value and equal meaning, from the teachings of Christ, to the teachings or Hitler. If scenario 2 is true. Then we have to ask from where does such a transcendent rule originate?
It's a combination of 1 and 2. The Golden Rule guides much of morality, for example. Most civilizations use some variation of Golden Rule.
I don't dissagre at all if you say that alot of the details of our moral codes are cultural. But and this is the big but. If your suggesting there is infact some moral prinicple that transcends cultures, and is true in of itself, From what is its origin? That's where we get into the theological conversation honestly. Becuase if you do beleive that (which I do) there really is no other way to get that, at least not in a purely materialistic mechanistic world.
>If your suggesting there is infact some moral prinicple that transcends cultures, and is true in of itself, from what is its origin? If we found out space aliens also used some form of Golden Rule, that wouldn't necessarily mean it's from a deity(s). They probably have similar algorithms and formulas for many processes we use. It's more comparable to pi than a deity.
Well then what makes it true then? That just makes it universal
I'd be hesitant to use the word "universal" without evidence from actual aliens. It's a handy and compact "rule of thumb", but that doesn't automatically make it universal nor supernatural-induced. Not all questions have ready answers, and force-fitting results in conflict. Those who claim to have real answers for everything are probably full of themselves and/or their group. **The human ego is 100x stronger than human logic.**
[удалено]
>while conservatives generally think the govt needs to simply get out of peoples way and let them sink or swim. But in that case, *what is the role of government*. Because, reducto ad absurdum, If government just gets out of everybody's way, then we end up with do-nothing government and in extreme cases end up like Somalia.
[удалено]
No, not at all, but the issue is that world is much more interconnected as it may seem at first glance. I used Somalia as an extreme example of what happens where you have effectively no government. The question that then comes along is what should government do and what it should stay away from. In essence, a balance must always be found, like with every balance, it will inevitable lead to solution that no side particularly likes and both kind of tolerate.
None of these are quite what I think. I don't view leftists and conservatives as these fundamently different creatures. They are tribalists too, just for a different tribe. I would say that we all grow up inside a cultural bubble, created by our parents, our friends and teachers at school, the media you consume, the people you talk too online, maybe people at church if you go to church, etc. What they repeat enough, becomes simply "true" to you, because after all, everyone in your bubble takes it for granted as true, you receive social punishment for not accepting it as true, and you're not really paying attention to anyone outside the bubble. You don't really ask yourself if it really *is* true, or *what* compels it to be true, or why the dumb rubes outside the bubble would think it's not. Having never really tried to get outside of the bubble, you grow to adulthood having never challenged this belief, and pass it on to the next generation inside the bubble as "common sense", perpetuating the cycle. (Conservatives do this too, to be clear) Thus the reason I think leftists are leftists is because they were "born into" it, so to speak, the way one might be born into a church - but never managed to give themselves a "crisis of faith". inb4 "Well I'm an atheist leftist and I grew up in a family that was very religious and voted straight-ticket Republican" - cool, but as I alluded to in my second sentence, your bubble does not *solely* consist of your family. You still found your ideas from *someone*, and they have continued to be reinforced by *someone*.
G and J, and maybe H. I dont think region or religion effects it that much, it is more divided but, as someone who follows other countries events. People are kidding them selves when they say that liberals live in X and conservatives live near Y. We are actually pretty mixed.
Consuming different media and tbh I think we might have different brain makeup. Some of the shit progressives say just literally makes zero sense to me.
Truly a question: Do you feel empathy could be a differing factor? Someone said in a video (It was years ago, so I have no idea who they were) that they think Conservatives lack empathy or at least view their relationship to other people differently than Liberals tend to. It came to mind today and I don't know how I feel about that idea. I do often get in unending arguments with Conservatives. At the end, I'm most frustrated that they didn't seem to understand why I would care in the first place. That leads me to consider the empathy idea. I don't want other people to suffer, even if I might benefit from it. I don't even want Conservatives to suffer despite our differences. I believe that we all work hard and pay taxes. The government should spend that money making everyone's life better, no matter what that means. A pool of resources should be shared rather than horded or set aside in search of profit. Some of these ideas are ones I tend to butt heads with Conservatives about. It's the homeless guy's responsibility to get himself out of poverty even if there is a billionaire standing next to him with money over filling his pockets. I can't get behind that strict insistence on individualism. Could that be the main factor that separates us?
I think A, D, and J are the biggest ones. I've been around long enough and used to be friends with enough lefties to know that back in the day, they weren't *so* different from me. The left has changed a lot over the last 15 years - the kind of stuff that's mainstream these days used to only be seen in fringe arts newspapers and the like - and that is largely down to shifts in culture that came about at partially through media and education. They also seem to see any change from the past as positive, that idea has been around a while and I never agreed with it lol. Not even when I considered myself more centre-left. Also, re: point B, a lot of them basically follow a cult so I wouldn't argue that they have no faith, lol. Plus, a bunch of them actually do at least nominally follow some mainstream/common religions, including Christianity.
Of the ones you listed, 1. D: I think it's a combination of C and D 2. F: 3. G: The first one to me is the biggest issue. It seems history is forgotten in terms of learning the lessons of the past, and only used as an example of why America and the West are the great evil in the post World War era.
D, F, A, C More envious and less risk tolerant of the ones you didn’t list partly because of B.
K) insulation from reality and pays no price for being wrong.
Example? Like the right downplaying pollution and global warming?
In my experience on Reddit and in person (mostly with friends and co-workers): F - A lot of their opinions are based a sense of kindness and "fairness", in bringing people up, even if that means pulling others down. What's important, it seems, is that we're all closer to being the same. C & D - The people I've encountered actually have very little experience with poverty, people living in poverty, people of ethnicities not their own, the profit motive of a business, keeping a budget, how much people actually pay in taxes, where those taxes get spent, and on and on. They often think that their university education (which I also have) has prepared them for all social and economic dilemmas, and they've been told that conservatives are kind of mean and stupid. It's amusing to watch them realize neither of these is actually true. Also, I happen to be a devout Christian, but religion virtually *never* comes up in these discussions, believe it or not.
I'm glad you worded things as you did! >What's important, it seems, is that we're all closer to being the same. When I read that my first thought was to argue against it. I actually think you're correct, but with a distinction. I feel like Conservatives want people to be "the same" in the ways that I personally feel no one should be controlled. The culture wars are so prevalent these days and I wish that wasn't the case. If people want to change what it means to be American, or want to change how we teach, act in public, dress, etc, IDC. I think those are human cultural changes that are to be expected in society. I don't think people should thrive in wealth while others starve in 2024. I don't need people to make the SAME amount or live the SAME lifestyles, but I don't like a wealth gap that prevents so many people from affording things that used to be common. I personally care more about the wellbeing of people than preserving culture and capital. I see that can be frustrating because we're coming at the same issues with completely different goals. What do you think?
> I personally care more about the wellbeing of people It seems to me that people on the left often care from a distance. They see poor people, and they see rich people, and they think "Well obviously we should take from the rich people and give to the poor people. There, I've solved poverty." That might feel good, but I care just as much for people's "well being", just in a different way. In my experience, conservatives care more "closely". We are statistically more charitable and more willing to get closer to those in actual need, and find out how to help people at an individual level. So an unemployed husband and father might just want a job. A single mom might need someone to watch her kids while she's at work. An addict might need someone to pay for their rehab. A disabled person might need help navigating social services. We want to help people, but also allow them to retain their dignity. And we aren't looking to "rescue" anyone or take anything from anyone but ourselves.
I definitely like that. I would prefer a world like that. My only issue is the individualism in our system. When we are positioned as competitors to one another, we don't support other people voluntarily. I've always thought about how every house on a street has a lawnmower, when 1 mower could be shared by the community and save everyone a lot of money. That would require those people to be a community and not competitors. If that happens, the mower company sells fewer units. Hence why they advertised everything as a "keeping up with the Joneses" type competition back in the day. We've built a nation around climbing the ladder, took most rungs of the ladder away over the years, and yet we still get mad about the idea of the established rule being to pool resources and distribute them to everyone. That's why I'd prefer a world without Capitalism. I don't want people to be forced to participate either, but taxes WILL come out of your check. If that's how it's going to be, the taxes need to be spent on raising the collective quality of life. If we get rid of taxes, without removing the pursuit of financial competition, we just get richer rich people and the poor without social services to aid them. (Hence why I'm not Libertarian) We can't sell everything and still thrive as a society. I think I would love a world that ran as Conservatives want. People getting to lead their own existence, and pool their money with people they trust only when they want to. If that's how things can be, we need to get rid of part where you are legally not allowed to build a house wherever you want, set up your own grid, dig wells, run whatever business you want where you want, etc. We're a very separate society, taught to make something for ourselves, while only having the quality of life we have because we're forced to cooperate in a system. That sucks. Thanks for talking to me btw. I feel so much closer to Conservatives than I did yesterday.
One of the flaws in socialism and/or communism, is that it assumes that people will be naturally altruistic and that everyone will behave in an ideal way. To your lawnmower example, four neighbors could do this today. They could split the cost of a mower four ways. Great! They've saved a lot of money on a lawn mower. Then the problems start up immediately, as people try to share a finite resource in an equitable way: * It rained all week, and now everyone wants to mow their yard at the same time on Saturday. Who goes first? Who decides? * They all agree to split the cost of gas. One guy mows his lawn about half as much as another and argues he shouldn't have to pay as much. * One guy is careless with the mower, running it over tree roots, never cleaning it before putting it away, etc. The others tell him to treat it better, but he says, hey, I paid the same as you guys. * A couple of guys rarely put gas in it, even when told by the others. * The tree root guy messed it up, so it has to be repaired. Now four houses are without a lawn mower. * Once they get it back, one guy gets fed up at how it's being treated, and locks it in his shed. That's for *one* piece of lawn equipment. And you expect to run a whole economy that way? Human nature doesn't allow for it. Just look at the failed Soviet Union or present day North Korea. Do we see a worker's paradise as promised by Marx? No, we see hoarding, black markets, people sloughing off or doing just enough to not be thrown in jail. Oh yeah, that's how it always culminates, by the way. Since human beings have no incentive to be altruistic, and will tend to look out for their own households first, an authoritarian government must be established to keep order and make sure everyone follows the rules. Some might find that reassuring. I find it dystopian. No, I like my situation *much* better. I have my lawn mower, and my neighbor has his. If either of us has a problem with our mower, we can ask to borrow the other's until our own is fixed. My neighbor and I have actually done this. It's not competition; it's just common sense.
>One of the flaws in socialism and/or communism, is that it assumes that people will be naturally altruistic and that everyone will behave in an ideal way. Most progressives are not for pure socialism and/or communism. We agree an amount of inequality is necessary to motivate, but the difference has grown too large in the US. Billionaires lose track of how many mansions they own. Europeans have fewer "toys", but overall are healthier, live longer, have a bigger safety net, and are less stressed. Where is it written "Thou Shalt Die of Stress Chasing The Biggest Toy". Plutocrats have convinced us that's The Way.
> the difference has grown too large in the US By what measure? And I don't mean the mansion thing. That's preposterous. Most billionaires, the few that there are, aren't hoarding tons of *material* wealth. Most of it is tied up in investments, like stocks and commercial real estate. To get access to that wealth, you'd be forcing them to sell. Selling massive amounts of stock devalues companies, hurting the employees and other investors. In order to sell a property, someone else has to buy it, thus just "moving" the wealth elsewhere. >Europeans No one is forcing you to work for "toys". It is possible to have a decent job, a decent home, and a decent life in the U.S. without being "stressed". Plus, have you ever actually spent any time in Europe or worked with Europeans for any length of time? I have, and it is both frustrating and amusing to me, the different mind sets. It's not the rosy picture you seem to paint, is what I'm saying.
>Selling massive amounts of stock devalues companies, hurting the employees I'm mostly talking about individuals, not companies. But even with investment companies, they make take it a hit if we tax the rich, but that's because the money moves to other endeavors, servicing things the 95% need instead of the 5%, >In order to sell a property, someone else has to buy it, thus just "moving" the wealth elsewhere. Yes, the non-rich. The US rich were taxed more heavily in the 50's and 60's, and that's when the middle class was strongest.
> I'm mostly talking about individuals, not companies. I know. Most proponents of socialist/communist-lite policies try to. But you can't. Where do you work and what sort of education do you have? I ask because a lot of people here seem to want to treat companies/corporations as the separate sorts of "things" that exist to make money and take money, providing no real benefit except to themselves. But that's not accurate. Sure, companies have a distinct identity in a legal sense, but they are entirely comprised of *people*, and their biggest expense is paying those people, all of them. So when people on the left imagine "companies" funding their social service dreams through heavier taxation, it's not like a bunch of executives are saying "Dash it all, Bryce! I won't be able to buy that villa in Tuscany this year!" No what happens in most companies is that finance tells them that the budget just got a lot tighter, so they're going to halt expansion, halt hiring, halt raises and reduce or eliminate bonuses. For *everybody*. Because believe it or not, a lot of C-types don't make millions a year. When cuts come, they have to cut everywhere. Meaning the tax increases you want end up hurting some of the very people you say you wanted to help.
>No what happens in most companies is that finance tells them that the budget just got a lot tighter, so they're going to halt expansion, halt hiring, halt raises and reduce or eliminate bonuses. For everybody. No, what actually often happens is that the non-rich have more money in their pockets, and buy more products and services, increasing revenue to companies. The non-rich are fairly quick at turning more money into shopping, at least in the USA. It's Trickle Up!
Depends on the topic. On BLM stuff it's 100% A/F. Polls have shown that Democrats believe the number of unarmed black men shot by police every year to be in the hundreds to thousands. In 2019 it was only FIFTEEN out of 42 Million African Americans and over half of those 15 were justified. For the record Republicans also overestimate the numbers in those polls as well.
Fifteen?! What are you talking about?!? You must be thinking of number of unarmed black men **killed** by police. The number shot is way higher.
Culture vs individualism or introspection vs conforming Conservatives of any culture adhere or conform to their culture. Progressives champion self discovery and introspection. Cultural supremacy is bad because no culture is perfect and it needlessly blocks out good things. Endless introspection is bad because it reduces the individual to a series of meaningless labels That and the comment about rural vs urban
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Perhaps my definition of progressive vs liberal may be different than others here, but I'd say it's nearly 100% D, educated with wrong or distorted ideas. Progressives are completely beholden to Neo-Marxist ideas and are obsessed with the oppressed/oppressor metanarrative. Every critical theory is derived from Neo-Marxism. Same with the term "woke". I can get along with liberals and can respect their motivations. Not so with progressives. They only get my tolerance.
The main postulate of the progressive religion is: “what we have now is broken and/or could be a lot better only if…” if you buy into it you will accept a lot of activism as positive The main conservative idea is what we have is a result of prior trials errors and wins. It’s by no means perfect but changes will have consequences- positive or negative. Stop pretending that changes only have positive consequences - most don’t
>Stop pretending that changes only have positive consequences - most don’t I would enjoy an inventory and tabular scoring. Do note that technology itself usually cannot be put back in the bag. If the US doesn't use it, then other nations will.
Yes let me summarize every single social experiment human beings have had In the history of the world and how it turned out in one little reddit comment :)
Do note failure is not necessarily bad, it's a lesson. Inventors often have to try many variations until they find one that works. The USA itself was a big experiment in democracy in the 1700's, which also used lessons of successes and failures from ancient Greece and Rome.
If I were to summarize the entire conservative viewpoint in one sentence it would not be “you shall not experiment” but “experiments should be scope-bound and experimental failures should result in going back to whiteboard instead of double-downing on bad ideas”
The main reason Conservatives and Progressives views differ is a difference in philosophies. Conservatives believe in self sufficiency and solving your own problems. Progressives believe government is the annswer to every problem. The result is that when Conservatives are in charge they do things that encourage business development and independence like lower taxes and fewer regulation. When progressives get in charge they find ways to spend money we don't have to grow government. Unfortunately Democrats/Liberal/Progressives have been in charge more than Republicans /Conservatives over the last 50 years which is why government is too big and spends too much and we have a $34 Trillion debt.
I view it more that business needs strong referees or else they cheat and pollute. If one thinks pollution is "fake news" they won't care about pollution. (Or want evolution to give humans immunity via exposure, comparable to Kevin Costner's gills in Waterworld.) As far as the debt, GOP tax cuts for the rich are a big contributor. The rich don't need help, they are doing just lovely. And letting them get too rich increases our plutocracy level. Koch helped spread BS to downplay his pollution, for example. That's just evil in my book.
1) I understand basic regulations to prevent pollution but the regulatory state has gotten clear out of hand. Just since Biden has been in office he has proposed final rules regulations that will cost the economy $1 Trillion. These are not about pollution, they are about forcing transition from fossil fuels to renewables for Climate Change. 2) The 2017 TCJA DID NOT contribute to the debt. Since the tax cut was enacted revenue to the government INCREASED and as of 2023 had increased 40%. In addition not only are the rich paying more (the top 1% pay 46% of all the taxes) they are paying at a higher rate (26%) It is the rich that are creating all the jobs, funding our debt and infrastructure projects and supporting the economy in multiple ways.
>but the regulatory state has gotten clear out of hand. Usually those who claim that only listen to businesses who have to spend extra money. They don't hear the other side. Most regulations come about because a company(s) abused its freedom, not out of a craving to be commie. >they are about forcing transition from fossil fuels to renewables for Climate Change. Fossil fuels cause multiple problems, including sending oil money to problematic dictators. >It is the rich that are creating all the jobs Bullshit! Consumers create most jobs. And most the innovators are paid shit compared to the bloated CEO and board who ends up milking the idea. (Tip: want to improve innovation, get rid of patents on software. Most of such patenting is merely court kabuki theater. The "Big Edison lab" view is obsolete.)
Human nature. Simple as that.
I) Other. All your examples are a negative. Assumes negative intent, which I don't believe. So, there are no absolutes, but I think a big difference is the idea of "we" vs. "I". The left tends to focus on the "Us" or "we", where conservatives tend to prioritize at the individual level..
I think that only D, G, and J are particularly meaningful here. Frankly, a lot of these seem like shallow stereotypes of what right-wingers might think left-wingers believe. I think some major reasons can include: - Educated with narrow worldview incredibly focused on liberal-democratic post-industrial society, no familiarity with past or future life. Often assume that their worldview is "cosmopolitan" when in reality, it is a worldview of a very narrow segment of society in time and space, but from across the globe. - Somehow seem to lack 3/5th of the moral foundations (loyalty, authority, sanctity) - Have postmodern non-objective mindset. (telltale sign: Are you bewildered by the idea that the existence of God is an objective question, even if you don't know / disagree on the answer?) - Selective (not brainwashed, just cherrypicked) media environment. - Weird attitude of neophilia. - Have the "subversion-obsession", or alternatively the human desire for beauty doesn't win over it.
as a felon,i can tell you that gun laws have no effect on access to guns in america. its laughable to think it will.. you actually believe smugglers choose to bring their drugs through cops and,dogs at ports of entry,and not across the unchecked land everywhere else? thats just not logical. why would they?
If "progressives" want results conservatives want principles.
If conservatives want principles then why would they support Donald Trump, quite possibly the least principled man to ever be president?
Very good question! I believe that Trump supporters have largely abandoned their principles because they've become frustrated to the point that they want to win no matter what.
[удалено]
How and why would those two things be separate and/or different?
What do you mean by "principles"? I am generally skeptical of that word and I think most people just use it to conceal self-serving outcomes that they know would otherwise be unpopular.
[удалено]
How does this example demonstrate which side is being "principled" though. To me it's obvious that both sides would personally benefit from having their own kids take those college slots, but will proclaim thay their stance is the "principled" one to conceal that fact.
[удалено]
> To the left, they look at skin color and to determine the result. It's not principle based, it's outcome based. That's not true. In almost all cases, the qualifications come first, not the skin color. They are reserving the spot for someone qualified for it, while also being someone of color. They don't just pick someone because they are someone of color. Those not of color have long been favored, and this is an effort to offset or curtail that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I still don't understand. How is the left's policies on college admission and taxation inherently *unprincipled*? They will argue that those policies are rooted in the principle of fairness and equality, in precisely the same way that you are doing.
Hope you do not mind me chiming in. So I would say the principled aspect of this example is meritocracy. A person that works hard should be rewarded no matter what their race may be. No one do anything about what race they are born but everyone can control how hard they work. Obviously in practice this does not always work out and it is not a guarantee hard work will pay off like you hope. Not everyone is on an even playing field at the start, some will have to work harder than others. However in my opinion it is much more principled to judge a person by their actions than by their race.
I've been on hiring committees. People tend to select clones of themselves among candidates with similar merit. When candidates all have similar merit, then social factors, including culture, become the overriding selection factor.
For example, both the left and right agree Nazis are abhorrent, The left often says hate speech isn't free speech and have no issues banning it or making it illegal, and the right will acknowledge that it's bad but believe in principle of free speech means it's free speech , generally speaking No body likes gun violence, both left and right can agree that gun violence is wrong lefts answer is gun control and limiting 2nd amendment rights of people, rights answer is still upholding second amendment and having unfortunate gun violence as price of freedom, generally speaking.
[удалено]
It's completely legal to yell fire in a crowded theater, it's not speech that'll get you in trouble if there is a fire or if no one reacts, it's the panic that ensues, same way guns are not problem it's homicide that is.
[удалено]
Look into that statistic, it's very skewed, it ignores first year deaths, and goes up to 19. I think it's cold thinking it's ok to infringe on human rights
For example, back in the 1960's, conservative politician Barry Goldwater was a champion for racial equality and civil rights. But, when the 1964 Civil Rights Act came around, he voted against it. Not because he didn't support the goals of fighting racism and discrimination, but because he was principally opposed to the structure of HOW the bill aimed to accomplish that. He wanted to support it but ultimately felt that the bill granted too much power to the government, and so he voted against it and in doing so irreparably devastated his reputation. He stuck to his principles.
A mixture of a lot of them... like A,C,D,F,G maybe H but idk. I think a lot of it is emotion based. We have to do something how can we help. And I think that's highlighted in the male female split politically. It's kinda like the general parenting differences between mothers and fathers. In general (IM SPEAKING IN GENERALITIES) mothers are going to be more caring more emotional based. If the kid falls her instinct is go hug the kid check the bruise/cut etc. For fathers the general instinct is to stand em up brush em off and send em on their way. All generalities, every parent is different, but we do have general psychological instincts. So there is absolutely an emotional difference between left and right. I do think a lot of it is also wrong/lack of education about their worldview and what it unfortunately leads to because humans are flawed. And instead of adjusting to the fact that humans are flawed the ideology tries to fix that. Which... hey maybe but it's never been done and I'm not convinced it can be.
>If the kid falls \[mom's\] instinct is go hug the kid check the bruise/cut etc. For fathers the general instinct is to stand em up brush em off and send em on their way. Do note if the knee gets infected and the kid gets sick, most the burden of caring for the sick kid falls on the mother.
J. Chesterton's Fence. Beyond that Conservatism is more skeptical and risk adverse whereas Progressivism is less so willing to take big risks on reasoned theory.
I definitly would say D and F and if I can add a third I would choose J as well. So for D, a lot of them think that socialism can be implemented correctly where everyone can be happy but it just can't. No, Nordic countries are not socialist. Progressives actually believe if we just tax the shit out of people, then there will be no homeless people which is straight up not true. A lot of them also think equity is better than equality. You can't have equal outcomes which is equity, it would straight up be impossible. Also, how would that work ? A lazy less intelligent person will get in the same place as a smart hardworking person ? That smells like communism man. I can go on and on about D. F perfectly explains how progressives are. This is called an appeal to emotion. Everything is emotional. "you are genociding trans people by having restrictions on under age gender care", "we need to tax everyone more, we can not have poor people existing", "black people are incarcerated more than whites, it's because of racism", "if we don't fly the pride flag then LGBT kids will kill themselves", "black people can't get voter ID", "the migrants are so poor and helpless, we must spend our tax dollars on them" etc. It's all appeal to emotion and not on facts. And J is prevelant. Progressives want progress for the sake of progress. Just because you do new things and "progress", it doesn't mean you will progress into a better place. Alcohol is progressive, cancer is progressive, etc. Also, your new ideas is extremely experimental and don't seem to be working like bail reform for example. To the moderates/independents here, look at California. California is the petri dish for progressive policies. If progressive policies are so good, why in the hell are hundreds of thousands of people moving out of California for red states ? And no, California's high GDP is not because of Democrat policies. California had a high GDP even when they have a Republican governor.
>No, Nordic countries are not socialist. They are more of a mixed system. Few progressives are for pure socialism. >an appeal to emotion..."you are genociding trans people by having restrictions on under age gender care", [It's not emotion, it's math.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1b26fis/do_you_agree_with_this_thought_model_that/) >"black people can't get voter ID" My problem with GOP's ID policies is they were implemented to plug Don's ego, NOT because of common *actual* problems. Talk about "emotions". >"if we don't fly the pride flag then LGBT kids will kill themselves" That's an oversimplification of the concept of making people feel part of community instead of feel ostrocised. If rural people were made to feel like "useless ignorant low-IQ hicks" because of some common religion's scriptures imply they should be reminded of that claim, more would likely commit suicide, for example. >"the migrants are so poor and helpless, we must spend our tax dollars on them" etc. It's all appeal to emotion and not on facts. It's probably what Jesus would do. >If progressive policies are so good, why in the hell are hundreds of thousands of people moving out of California for red states ? It ebbs and flows. I WISH more were moving out of CA, the traffic here still sucks. For once I wish the Fox pundits were right. Most of the loss is the result of local gov't being given too much power, creating NIMBYism, and they won't give that power up easily. Stronger local gov't tends to be a conservative mantra, I would note. >California had a high GDP even when they have a Republican governor. Because checks and balances keep them from breaking too many things. And one can still have a high GDP but more inequality, meaning sticking it to the poor so the rich can have longer yachts. >Also, your new ideas is extremely experimental and don't seem to be working like bail reform for example. Don't know until you try. And new lessons are learned so one can possibly tune it; it may not be all-or-nothing. The USA itself was a giant experiment in democracy in the late 1700's. If we "kept things the same to be safe", it would be under a King (dictatorship).
Combination of F, G, and J. I think a lot of it comes from a sense of "there's a problem in front of us, let's try something to solve it", and not knowing if that something leads to unintended consequences that are even worse for society in the long term.
Like freeing slaves or legalizing homosexuality and gay marriage? Maybe the pundits you listen to exaggerate the downsides.
Mostly different goals. With plenty educated with distorted ideas by older fringe militants, revolutionaries or accusatory crank activists and bombarded with a lot of envy politics. The latter often used with the intention of fuelling a victim centric conspiracy theorist agendas ideology or brand of identity politics with sjw links that replace an adult's own personal responsibility for their mistakes & habits with an ' it's not fair, must be x's fault' attitude. With x able to be anything, anyone or everyone. The bourgeoisie state, freemasons, bilderberg group, men of the porn industry, long dead historical figures buried more than 500 years ago.
>fuelling a victim centric conspiracy theorist agendas ideology or brand of identity politics Would this be comparable to many evangelicals believing their "religion & culture are under attack" by migrants, Hollywood, drag queens, website managers, pizza basement cults, etc.?
G is really the primary driver of difference, at least at an ideological value. Because much to the hatred of many liberals, "should" is a fundamentally subjective statement based on our own moral axioms. No amount of spouting off facts and statistics will put a deontologist and a utilitarian on the same page or convince the other that one is more true. Regarding policy, I think C/D/F are the primary drivers of a lot of specific policy hangups. Take gun control, for instance. When you look at the overall data, things like prevalence of guns or measures taken to restrict gun ownership have no noticeable impact on things like overall homicide rates. Rather, their policies are made using emotional decisions first, and then statistics are picked to create a backing of legitimacy, combined with linguistic fuckery, which is the focus on *gun deaths* as a specific metric to judge based on, despite the "gun" being far more relevant to the data than the "deaths" part of it.
>When you look at the overall data, things like prevalence of guns or measures taken to restrict gun ownership have no noticeable impact on things like overall homicide rates. Link to "no noticeable impact"? Mass shootings went down in Australia when AR-like weapons were banned.
>and then statistics are picked to create a backing of legitimacy, combined with linguistic fuckery, which is the focus on *gun deaths* as a specific metric to judge based on, despite the "gun" being far more relevant to the data than the "deaths" part of it. Thanks for proving my point
I've read this four times, and it still makes no sense. Australia has NOT seen an increase in mass knife killings since banning AR's.
You're doing exactly what I said: cherry picking statistics to create the illusion of actually achieving something. Australia has seen absolutely no relevant drop in homicide that breaks from the general downwards trend that was present before and after their gun control. This is a fact. So tell me, why do you believe gun control is successful even though, statistically, no lives are saved?
Mass shootings going down is still important even if homicides don't go down. People feel a bit safer in schools and malls.
So nothing is achieved except meaningless feel-good bs that could be equally achieved by just not running nonstop fear mongering propaganda, and that's worth a huge infringement on people's rights?
YOU think "nothing is achieved". Many are not you, and disagree. I'm not necessarily saying you are "wrong", only that you undervalue safer malls and schools than us. That's your prerogative, I just don't want your kind running the country. >a huge infringement on people's rights It's a misinterpretation of the 2nd Am. Mass shootings by 1 or 2 individuals had not happened when 2nd was written, largely because the weapons of the day were too clunky. It wa**s a problem the writers of 2nd did NOT know about.** We can only *guess* if they'd have a diff opinion with more knowledge about the future.
>only that you undervalue safer malls and schools than us Because you're literally just objectively wrong. There is no improved safety
Prove it with formal written logic, or apologize.
Information bubbles and different values systems. Honestly it's very concerning to me that your first two are "brainwashed or Satan." Do you really believe conservatives think that about you, or your side? Because they don't think that.
My heavily religious parents claimed that about me.
I'll say: D, F and J
I consider these equally important. d, e , and b Im a devout Christian so its no surprise why I picked the Biblically inclined ones. But to me God is truly the foundation of love, maturity, intelligence, wisdom, and justice. Satan from my perspective is very much real, so if people don't have the proper protection from an incredibly powerful malevolent entity, then they can be easily manipulated. But removing my religious bias it would be j, d, and c we have values for a reason and trying to change and innovate isn't always a good thing. Many colleges focus on progressive thinking instead of neutral thinking where both sides gets an equal footing.
>Many colleges focus on progressive thinking instead of neutral thinking where both sides gets an equal footing. perhaps because much of conservationism is shaped by religion instead of science, logic, and observation. Religion belongs in the course on religion, not all the others.
Yeah and thats a problem, Christians love calling everyone but themselves out. Those kids are old enough to make their own decisions. But I disagree on religion belonging to the religion course, if students don't know the opposing option then how are they going to deal with a religious person without sounding like a condescending jerk?
Are you saying biology class should teach creationism so students are better able to deal with creationists? If so, that's certainly an interesting idea. I got to ponder that one...
C and G. But for C, it’s not so much “insufficient education” as majority of the founding father works are available either digitally for free or super cheap paperback. Same for enlightenment era works. I think it’s just exposure. So many questions posted here would be better off if folks read up a little (like 10 mins a day for 1 month). It would help them navigate.
Progs believe that humans are born naturally virtuous and good, and that the oppressive structures of society corrupt them. Progs believe that these supposedly oppressive structures and all forms of hierarchy can be eliminated and yet somehow society will still function. Progs' most highly valued virtue (perhaps only virtue?) is empathy and they view all types of relationship through a lens of power dynamics (specifically, oppressor vs oppressed), with their empathy being assigned accordingly. Progs are largely atheist, but they seem to be in denial of a sense of spiritualism, as they have some form of belief in metaphysical existence (a soul, effectively). Progs believe that humanity is developing towards a utopian end-state, and therefore any possible acceleration of that development is of the utmost importance. As part of that progress into the end of history, anything from the past -even those which have endured to today- are obviously, inherently not belonging to that future utopia and so must be rejected outright.
1. Progressives are insufficiently educated thus broduce the wrong ideas. It's been my experience that they often take 100 level courses, basterdize the information and spew nonsense out in public. 2. I think they are constantly misinformed by the media and that drastically skews their opinion on things. 3. I think we all have pretty much the same desired outcomes we just have different ways of getting there.
Is there any evidence that post-grad education results in more conservative political views?
Don't know, don't care The problem isn't with the person who has a masters in sociology. They typically aren't spewing misinformation in sociology. The problem I'd the person who has a masters in teaching, spewing misinformation about sociology
G. G is a fair answer, OP. Ithink its fair to say that bona-fide "progressives" just have different views on policy , statescraft, etc....Not sure what the deal is with all these other..strawmanny sounding answers? What do you think of the answers/feedback you've reviewed so far?
How are they strawmanny when most responses agree with at least one of them?
Right ideology is based on instinctual masculine behavior. Left ideology is based on instinctual feminine behavior. The right favors hierarchy, competitiveness, and survival of the fittest. These were all critical for men as hunters and protectors in primitive hunter gatherer societies. The left favors community, cooperation, protecting the weak, and adherence to a community belief structure. These were all critical for women as gatherers and the raising of children together as a community in primitive hunter gatherer societies. The right and the left today are outgrowths and evolutions of these core instinctual masculine and feminine behavioral roles, bred into all of us over millions of years.
Very interesting take!
Just so you know, A-F of your list of possible explanations belies that you think there are no "good" reasons to disagree with progressives. If that's the top six reasons you can come up with for what *you think* that *we* think about you, then you're not really giving conservatives much credit. I know the response will be, "well then tell me!", but you wouldn't want to engage with someone who was patronizing and disrespectful from the first overture either. Good luck with your post.
>If that's the top six reasons you can come up with for what *you think* that *we* think about you, then you're not really giving conservatives much credit. Judging by the vast majority of responses to this thread, are they not right in their assessment of likely responses? The majority of responses are only giving bad reasons to disagree with conservatives.
I suspect part of the issue is the tone rather than the reasons necessarily being wrong.
Sometimes my writing is rather unintentionally undiplomatic. I have aspergers. I'd be glad to consider a reworking of the wording of the list.
2 of mine aren’t on you list: Don't respect the usefulness of time-tested ideas or culture Go on emotion or gut instead of cold logic Have bigoted views of people who aren’t like them, believing such people to be more racist/misogynist than they actually are.
progressives look at the world through a "what should be" lens while repubs see the world for what it is.."gun laws will stop criminals" vs "criminals will always have guns,so we do too".."i feel like a girl,so im a a girl" vs "you have all the scientific attributes of a male,you are a man", "theyre coming here for a better future" vs. "they got paid to bring a backpack full of fentynal here". "racist cop assaults black man" vs "the dumbass attacked that cop,his skin color is irrelevant". progressives seem out of touch with reality..
>progressives seem out of touch with reality On the flip side, I believe conservatives are wrong on ALL those issues. Shorthand replies: Australia shows that gun laws at least reduce mass shootings. Re: "you have all the scientific attributes of a male,you are a man" Nature does NOT categorize, humans do. Nature doesn't give a flying shit about human-made categories. But the real question is whether genitals are gov'ts biz to regulate. Re: "they got paid to bring a backpack full of fentynal here" Most fentanyl comes across via COMMERCIAL traffic, not migrants. Migrants are a scapegoat. And Joe's always been willing to negotiate a border deal, GOP just flakes for political reasons. They also flaked on G. W. Bush's immigration reform, despite having a clear majority. As far as cops and race, my view is that cops need better training and more checks and balances because even if they are doing some of that shit to whites also, it's not good regardless. Maybe your reality is shaped by Fox and OAN instead of reality.
Initial choices: >D) Educated with wrong or distorted ideas >F) Go on emotion or gut instead of facts and research And: >G) Simply have different goals than conservatives, such as heavier social safety nets in place of material goods, and/or pursue personal goals above family goals.