Political Views
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-08-2017, 09:48 AM
RE: Political Views
(01-08-2017 07:52 PM)goldenarm Wrote:  ...
I should have clarified. You're 100% right. We should always be open to new ideas and new evidence. I should have clarified. I guess I meant a solid position for the time being unless changed otherwise?

So perhaps a distinction should be made (and some 'soul'-searching should be done) concerning principles vs. policies.

Policies are the rationalised controls (the detailed guidance on how to put principles into practice) required to achieve definable goals; principles are derived from an ethical framework.

Your own ethical baseline will be derived from your chemical wiring (desires; disgust, lust etc.) and your received wisdom to-date (received, that is, from your environment). From this you can ascertain some principles.

These are likely to be emotional-driven and relate to empathy, liberty, trust, community etc.

[Image: 14vjza9.jpg]

And this is where I think I disagree with your premise ...

(01-08-2017 02:59 PM)goldenarm Wrote:  ...
Just a reminder that I don't want to tie atheism and politics together and say that one determines the other. This is not the case,
...

... I'm not sure that the two can be entirely disconnected.

A while back I turned over a rock and found Richard Shweder’s idea of three ethical or moral themes:

[Image: Worldviews+Approach:+3+Ethics.jpg]

Digging a bit deeper I found this site which I think is quoting Jonathan Haidt's Righteous Mind from which I have borrowed to create this:

[Image: jt55de.jpg]

Regarding the extra bits relating to atheism, I was thinking of starting a thread called "Two Types of Atheist" after reading the exchanges generated from this bizarre little entry into the canon.

The two types are described rather well by JF in this video from 4:25 to 15:56:

Having mulled this over, I'm not altogether happy with the granularity of these positions in that even though the emphasis is on the principle of "the right to self-determination" they do not take into account what different people might consider the unit of self-determination e.g. a nation's right to defend itself or a mother and child as a bonded unit.

I considered adding a 4th column:
A = Autonomy
B = Bond (e.g. pair-bonding)
C = Community
D = Divinity

After more mulling I have created this, which I think contains more nuance and also embeds the notions of Material vs. Conceptual and also Public vs. Private.

[Image: kdr2v4.jpg]

It's a first draft so I'm open to suggestions / criticisms of this diagram but I think it gives a clue as to where the misconception of "atheists can't have morals without gods" might come from and also undermines the notion of an "atheist worldview" - the bottom half of the circle does not a worldview make.

So for rationally (rather than emotionally) derived political positions, one has to consider the underlying principles that emerge from a given ethical position (and perhaps, for validity, compare and contrast with opposing ethical positions).

But it's not as simple as spotting that liberty/liberal would be on the left and conservative would be in the middle and that nationalism and socialism would be on the right. There is also the consideration of constraint vs. outcome. For example, take the 'value' of justice:

A political stance regarding justice could be to see it as applying the rules (or laws) of the game blindly. There’s one set of rules that applies to everybody and everybody follows them regardless of outcome.
This form of justice relates to constraints (or removal of constraints).

Another stance could be to regard justice as 'social justice': It is manipulating the game through interpreting and executing the laws so that every player has a roughly equal chance of a positive outcome. This form of justice relates to supporting performance / outcome.

Another example is fairness:
The constraint form of fairness would mean that if everyone follows the rules of the game and nobody cheats then the game is fair. Outcome-fairness would mean that if one player is so much better than all the others that they win the majority of the hands, then the game is NOT fair.

I'm working on some diagrams for this idea too.

And yet another factor when it comes to determining an appropriate policy (rather than principle) is context. For example, a country that is emerging from a debilitating civil war will have very different policies from a country that has decades of economic stability; a growing economy will have different policies from one that is shrinking.

I guess what I'm saying is that one has to know how one feels about various principles before one can consider what one thinks is wise policy / course of action i.e. politics.

Blink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
04-08-2017, 09:49 AM
RE: Political Views
(02-08-2017 11:51 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(01-08-2017 02:59 PM)goldenarm Wrote:  I will hear people say that ( such as Stephan Molyneux) and others a lot of anti-left things and he has used Europe as an example saying they are falling apart. One reason he gives is because of all the Muslims coming in and trying to take over. I can't remember where, but I'm pretty sure that's the gist of a lot of what he says ( feel free to correct or "enlighten" me).

The basic argument as I understand it when stripped of its hyperbole is that what we consider to be "Western" culture on include but are not limited to, the right of self-determination, equal treatment under the law, gay rights and women's rights, free speech, due process and so forth. It's nearly universally true in nations where Islam is the dominant force either religiously or politically that those values don't exist, or more precisely that they are not enshrined in law.

The argument they are making is that taking two cultures with radically different and often incompatible values will be problematic in the long run.

(01-08-2017 02:59 PM)goldenarm Wrote:  •Why do you lean left?
• Why do you lean right?
•Why are you neither?

I have so many problems with both sides that it's fully impossible for me to throw my hat in for either side. In a very very broad sense, so broad as to be basically useless, I'd be considered liberal on most social issues but conservative on most economic issues.

There are so many things from both sides that I just can't stand though from the increasing radicalization on both sides, where the mainstream elements of both parties have started to increasingly pander to the most toxic element of their side, to Liberals think they can legislate prosperity conservatives think they can legislate morality, to the fact that no one seems to have a political memory longer than 13 minutes.

On the conservative side of things:
1.)I have said this before, black rights, women's, rights, the right to interracial marriage, the right of gays to marry or adopt or serve in the military, and transsexual rights today ....time and time again they are on the wrong goddamn side of history when it comes to individual liberty.

2.)Their constant placating and pandering towards religious institutions is frustrating as shit and I want nothing to do with it. The sentiment that being opposed to religiously inspired persecution is persecution of the religious is on its face ridiculous and vulgar.

3.)So many of them don't seem to understand the difference between a "strong national defence" which the Constitution makes provisions for and a "globe spanning empire" which seems to be what a lot of American conservatives argue for now.


On the liberal side of things:
1.) The fact that, especially in universities, there is a growing trend among youth on the left of open hostility to the freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas. A growing tendency towards the censorship of any ideas they don't like. The bigger problem here is not that it's happening, it's not that we should be nipping that shit in the bud but are not, but the fact that more and more politicians are pandering to it.

2.)So many don't seem to understand the difference between a right and a commodity or even what the government's role in rights even is under the American tradition. This is exacerbated by the seeming dearth of economic illiteracy on the left.

3.)I don't wanna sound like I'm picking on liberals disproportionally here but this is a huge personal bug bear of mine so bear with me (or skip over the incoming wall of text). My biggest problem with "the left" is who in the world they choose to throw their support behind and why. While the USSR was starving millions of people to death, many people and media outlets on the left were singing it's praises or like the absolute cunt Walter Duranty of The New York Times actively engaged in covering up and lying about the on going starvation in the Ukraine, or like what happened to Malcolm Muggeridge sacking journos who were critical of Stalin's Russia.

They are constantly pointing to examples of socialist economic success that either isn't socialist or are goddamn failures and when the failure is exposed they move on to a new example. Take Bernie Sanders praise of Denmark for the former and Venezuela for the later. This has been going on for decades, I remember back when the big go to was Sweden but Sweden had been trending away from socialism towards more free market policies for nearly two decades. Selling off government property and enterprises, deregulating industries, lowering or abolishing certain taxes, to even partially privatizing its pension programs and so forth. Then the example changed and changed and changed. Once it was Venezuela that was going to be a shining example of socialism triumphant, with its government seizure of private property and control of industry, extensive programs of wealth redistribution, and anti-capitalist rhetoric. There were people on the left praising the country and lying about the extent of government oppression of the media, dissenting political parties, and a host of human rights violations. How's that country now? Pretty fucking horrible to be honest. So bad it's #1 on the Misery Index with a score of 573.4 with the next highest having a score of 83.8. So bad that 15% of Venezuelans have to feed on waste. (Rough English translation here)

What's been the response from those that praised the government of the country and it's socialist market interference? You find more noise in a graveyard. It's been swept under the rug and we are off to pick a new example. It was Denmark for all of 5 minutes before Denmark's own government pointed out they don't have a socialist economy, so who knows what's next.

What about the opposite? What about free market economies in places like Hong Kong with it's Income tax rate of 15% and Corporate Income tax of 16.5%? Or Singapore with it's Income tax rate of 22% and Corporate Income tax of 17%? Tax rates among the lowest in the industrialized world and among the most open and voluntary economies as well, with Singapore occupying the #1 spot.
Are these heavily free market nations with low rates of government regulation on business hell holes of worker violation, and corporate oppression where the people cry out for liberation through government as the more radical elements of the left narrative suggest is the inevitable outcome of free market capitalism? Nope. Singapour has the 3rd highest per capita GDP according to both the IMF and the World Bank, with Hong Kong at #10 (IMF) and #9 (World Bank). (Socialist Venezuela sits at .....#87).
Singapore's GDP growth is 2.5 times it's inflation rate and half the Unemployment of the US, Hong Kong GDP growth is 2 times it's inflation rate. For contrast Venezuela Growth was -14% and it's inflation was 720% in 2017. Oh and the poverty rate is near 82%.

I could go on.


As a giant econ nerd and a person who WANTS to move more to the left because I dislike so much of the conservative platform and history it's mind-crushingly frustrating to watch the left refuse to learn from history again and again and again or worse to actively lie about it.


(01-08-2017 02:59 PM)goldenarm Wrote:  How do you feel about people such as Stephan Molyneux who are not religious, but speak against a lot of what the left does?
He is a giant self-aggrandizing, hyperbolic, cunt who uses disparate and often unrelated facts to try to weave a narrative which is frequently not congruent with reality. That said just like people on the left I would describe that way *cough* Young Turks *cough* there is a lot on both sides to speak out against.

I just wish less assholish people were the ones doing it, but the fact remains in a free society they have a right to be as asshole-ish as they want.


(01-08-2017 02:59 PM)goldenarm Wrote:  What research can I do to educate myself and have some more concrete views on my politics? Are there any books, articles, or other sources you recommend?

For me, it's more of a mindset that's important and that is like we would with religious claims, critical evaluation of claims and not trusting arguments just because they come from something/someone claiming authority. I wish more people would recognize that a government funded, supplied, and written education which features numerous assertions about how wonderful and helpful the role of government in society is...is probably not the most unbiased of educations but I digress.

OK as for educational materials I'll stick to the same recommendations as ever when it comes to Economics. First, start with Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics by Henry Hazlitt. It's an extremely valuable book not least of all because it's easy to read and easy to grasp, and is by far and away my most oft recommended book on economics.

Then pick up The General Theory Of Employment, Interest, And Money by John Maynard Keynes. It's the basis for a lot of current economic thought, though large sections of it fell out of favour after the '70s, in the political class and (at least here in Canada) might as well be the only book they have you read in University Econ courses. It's painful to read and if you stop there you will actually be less informed on economics than if you had spent your time reading the backs of shampoo bottles but absolutely required reading for the next book none the less.

Which is The Failure of the New Economics by Henry Hazlitt which is a chapter by chapter and often point by point complete refutation of the entire General Theory book. I really can not stress how important this book is to understanding sound economics.

Now if you are REALLY looking to be no fun at parties where the host is more left leaning I'd recommend The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek because it explains why economic socialism has problems (mostly what came to be known as the Hayekian Knowledge Problem).

If however, you are looking for something lighter and easier to digest I'd recommend I, Pencil which you can read in full here. It's a defense of what Adam Smith called "the invisible hand" and the markets ability to organically steer production towards lower prices and increased efficiency. Or you can read Frédéric Bastiat's satirical Candlestick Makers' Petition here, which was a short bit of writing lampooning the idea of using protectionist tariffs to protect domestic industry from competition (something the right loves to do, especially Trump). Basically, a satirical petition by candlestick makers to "call upon the French government to take protective action against the unfair competition.... of the sun."

Honestly at the end of the day for me I always come back to a single quote from Hayek when it comes to economics in politics:
[Image: Quote-Hayek-Curious-Task-of-Economics.png]

On a more general sense one piece of advice I wanna give is to avoid the Social media echo-chamber. It has a tendency to throw related content at you and almost all of it is in support of what you just read or watched. The US election is a great example as you can see how fast a fucking stupid story spreads because instead of giving you a "here is something you need to know" it gives you a "here is something you might also enjoy" and it creates and Ouroboros of bullshit. Every crap story during the election was easily refuted it's just the refutation never pops up in the feed, you have to go looking and most people wont.


Well...that's about it I think. I'm happy to expound on any questions you have cause other than a few things I left most kinda vague. However right now I'll be busy bracing for impact lol

That's a lot of good information. I see where you're coming from and I agree with you about TYT. I don't like them. When I became atheist for whatever reason I jumped on the bandwagon of the left immediately. This was mainly because the right was so religious and bigoted. In doing so I didn't understand what I was getting myself into. I eventually started re evaluating and I've been doing that for a year now probably. I will come back and re read everything you have mentioned and continue to do my own research. I think you make good points. Also, with the books you listed I will eventually purchase and read them all! Thank you so much I will always use this post as a resource.

By the way, what political party are you registered as? I know you disagree with what both sides say on many issues so I'm curious how you go about handling that? Thanks!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goldenarm's post
04-08-2017, 12:40 PM
RE: Political Views
(04-08-2017 09:49 AM)goldenarm Wrote:  That's a lot of good information. I see where you're coming from and I agree with you about TYT. I don't like them. When I became atheist for whatever reason I jumped on the bandwagon of the left immediately. This was mainly because the right was so religious and bigoted. In doing so I didn't understand what I was getting myself into.
Funnily enough, it was largely the same for me. I remember being a huge fan of Keith Olbermann during the Bush years, not least because I love a good rant haha, but also because I felt he was championing transparent and accountable government and really holding the administration's feet to the fire. Now on the flip side of that were assholes on the right like Sean Hannity who bent over backwards to make excuses for the Bush administration. I remember a lot of pro-torture talk at the time which sickened me to my core.

Then Obama got elected, and everything flipped. Olbermann became toothless, showing that he didn't give one tiddly fuck about transparent or accountable government just that he hated the fact it had been a Republican government. The assholes on the right that had defended freakin' war crimes now found everything the president did to be the end of America! I remember watching the same man who rail against people who objected to Gitmo's existence and said it was absolutely necessary to American security, condemn Obama for not shutting it down like he said he would and that keeping it open was an affront to human decency and liberty. It was goddamn frustrating, to say the least, to deal with this political theatre.

(04-08-2017 09:49 AM)goldenarm Wrote:  I eventually started re evaluating and I've been doing that for a year now probably. I will come back and re read everything you have mentioned and continue to do my own research.
Continuing to do your own research is the single most important thing you can do. Always read and listen to people you don't agree with and never be afraid of admitting when they have a good point. You will see a lot of people on both sides who won't give a single inch just because the idea originates on the other side. The most intellectually dangerous mindset you can have is that your side has 100% of the answers and the other side has 0%.

(04-08-2017 09:49 AM)goldenarm Wrote:  I think you make good points. Also, with the books you listed I will eventually purchase and read them all! Thank you so much I will always use this post as a resource.
[Image: giphy.gif]
I'm just glad I could help.

(04-08-2017 09:49 AM)goldenarm Wrote:  By the way, what political party are you registered as? I know you disagree with what both sides say on many issues so I'm curious how you go about handling that? Thanks!
I'm Canadian, though I used America as a base line mostly cause it's easier to understand, there is more widely available data to pull from, and I have spent far more of my time studying American politics and history.

That said if I was American I'd be registered as a Democrat (assuming it's that or Republican) as it's to me anyway a matter of priorities. Trans and gay rights for example. Once you get those into the moral fabric of a country it's hard to get out, basically, once you got it you more or less have it for good. Bad economic policies can and will eventually be reversed or corrected but if we lose our way on the trans and gay rights issue we are kinda fucked, and probably won't see it again for a long time. So to me, it's a fairly pressing concern, one that the right seems to either want to avoid or be openly hostile.
That said I get why a lot of people vote Republican, and it does not cause they are all bigoted racists, there are really clear and justifiable reasons to do so and I could swing to that side if they got rid of the policy and elements of their party that are more backwards. The religious pandering would be what kills the party for me if I had to pick something specific.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
04-08-2017, 06:58 PM
RE: Political Views
I'm an American and I've always been registered as independent, and I suspect I always will be. I'm not against parties, but they're of no use to me.

Socially, I am very much behind LGBT rights, and I think I identify with that group because so much of the hatred directed at them is holy book-based.

Race, OTOH, is kind of hard to talk about. I want to do the right thing, but it's hard to know what that is at times, besides just treating humans as humans. I hate the idea of quotas (which I think are illegal here anyway), but I was part of an interesting conversation in my neighborhood one day where it was heavily implied that it's possibly rather advantageous to have a minority-centered society, or at least minority-tilted. I found myself actually agreeing with what was said (I don't even remember now exactly, but it went substantially beyond "diversity is kewl 'n stuff", which I am neutral on, except for diversity of thought, which is indeed absolutely crucial, imho. I'd just rather not get to counting heads to achieve equality. We just can't at all times represent every. Single. Minority. in every. Single. Situation.).

The trans issue is something that entered my consciousness around the time of HB2, which occurred in a former home state, North Carolina. It caught be off guard, but then I realized, as a person with a specific disability, I need availability of restrooms. And guess what? We all do. So, from then on, I felt like I'm in their corner unless proven that I shouldn't be.

Pronouns is an interesting issue. As a cisgender, it appears crucially important to the trans community. However, it also seems like a losing battle in a way, because I can't just look at you and automatically know your preferences with that. So, I feel like I'm liable to screw up on occasion if I am at the beginning having to talk about you before I get a chance to talk to you.

Spending is interesting as well. I do believe we need to maintain a military, and a good one. But we need to put it into a much more defensive posture. Much of the rest of the world hates us, and largely because we get into world events that sometimes don't really affect us (possibly creating a future 9/11). And in dealing with these world events, we create more disabled people. Folks that get injured fighting for our country. And we seem not to have enough money for their care because we are spending so much fighting in the Middle East or somewhere.

And on that subject of healthcare, I am very much in favor of socialized health care. I think I good government provides for its weakest, and healthcare is a massive part of that. I know it's not perfect, but it seems better than what we have these days.

I think environmental research goes with healthcare, and I think it should be a priority. My parents are environmental hobbyists. They live for this political plank. For me, it's not all that interesting, per se, but it has become very relevant with my heat sensitivity. I need a cooler environment, so I need research to that end.

I could go on, but I don't want to lose this post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Skyhawk's post
05-08-2017, 10:26 PM
RE: Political Views
(04-08-2017 09:48 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(01-08-2017 07:52 PM)goldenarm Wrote:  ...
I should have clarified. You're 100% right. We should always be open to new ideas and new evidence. I should have clarified. I guess I meant a solid position for the time being unless changed otherwise?

So perhaps a distinction should be made (and some 'soul'-searching should be done) concerning principles vs. policies.

Policies are the rationalised controls (the detailed guidance on how to put principles into practice) required to achieve definable goals; principles are derived from an ethical framework.

Your own ethical baseline will be derived from your chemical wiring (desires; disgust, lust etc.) and your received wisdom to-date (received, that is, from your environment). From this you can ascertain some principles.

These are likely to be emotional-driven and relate to empathy, liberty, trust, community etc.

[Image: 14vjza9.jpg]

And this is where I think I disagree with your premise ...

(01-08-2017 02:59 PM)goldenarm Wrote:  ...
Just a reminder that I don't want to tie atheism and politics together and say that one determines the other. This is not the case,
...

... I'm not sure that the two can be entirely disconnected.

A while back I turned over a rock and found Richard Shweder’s idea of three ethical or moral themes:

[Image: Worldviews+Approach:+3+Ethics.jpg]

Digging a bit deeper I found this site which I think is quoting Jonathan Haidt's Righteous Mind from which I have borrowed to create this:

[Image: jt55de.jpg]

Regarding the extra bits relating to atheism, I was thinking of starting a thread called "Two Types of Atheist" after reading the exchanges generated from this bizarre little entry into the canon.

The two types are described rather well by JF in this video from 4:25 to 15:56:

Having mulled this over, I'm not altogether happy with the granularity of these positions in that even though the emphasis is on the principle of "the right to self-determination" they do not take into account what different people might consider the unit of self-determination e.g. a nation's right to defend itself or a mother and child as a bonded unit.

I considered adding a 4th column:
A = Autonomy
B = Bond (e.g. pair-bonding)
C = Community
D = Divinity

After more mulling I have created this, which I think contains more nuance and also embeds the notions of Material vs. Conceptual and also Public vs. Private.

[Image: kdr2v4.jpg]

It's a first draft so I'm open to suggestions / criticisms of this diagram but I think it gives a clue as to where the misconception of "atheists can't have morals without gods" might come from and also undermines the notion of an "atheist worldview" - the bottom half of the circle does not a worldview make.

So for rationally (rather than emotionally) derived political positions, one has to consider the underlying principles that emerge from a given ethical position (and perhaps, for validity, compare and contrast with opposing ethical positions).

But it's not as simple as spotting that liberty/liberal would be on the left and conservative would be in the middle and that nationalism and socialism would be on the right. There is also the consideration of constraint vs. outcome. For example, take the 'value' of justice:

A political stance regarding justice could be to see it as applying the rules (or laws) of the game blindly. There’s one set of rules that applies to everybody and everybody follows them regardless of outcome.
This form of justice relates to constraints (or removal of constraints).

Another stance could be to regard justice as 'social justice': It is manipulating the game through interpreting and executing the laws so that every player has a roughly equal chance of a positive outcome. This form of justice relates to supporting performance / outcome.

Another example is fairness:
The constraint form of fairness would mean that if everyone follows the rules of the game and nobody cheats then the game is fair. Outcome-fairness would mean that if one player is so much better than all the others that they win the majority of the hands, then the game is NOT fair.

I'm working on some diagrams for this idea too.

And yet another factor when it comes to determining an appropriate policy (rather than principle) is context. For example, a country that is emerging from a debilitating civil war will have very different policies from a country that has decades of economic stability; a growing economy will have different policies from one that is shrinking.

I guess what I'm saying is that one has to know how one feels about various principles before one can consider what one thinks is wise policy / course of action i.e. politics.

Blink
That's a lot to think about. I will continue to examine your charts as I have nothing I disagree with so far. I'm curious what diagram you will make for the "fairness" point as well. As far as what you said about atheism and politics I think they can go together to an extent. Such as one not being a Republican because of the Christian Propaganda they perpetuate. Anyways thanks for the response I'm going to continue to look into these principles, etc. Thank you so much!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2017, 10:37 PM
RE: Political Views
(04-08-2017 12:40 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(04-08-2017 09:49 AM)goldenarm Wrote:  That's a lot of good information. I see where you're coming from and I agree with you about TYT. I don't like them. When I became atheist for whatever reason I jumped on the bandwagon of the left immediately. This was mainly because the right was so religious and bigoted. In doing so I didn't understand what I was getting myself into.
Funnily enough, it was largely the same for me. I remember being a huge fan of Keith Olbermann during the Bush years, not least because I love a good rant haha, but also because I felt he was championing transparent and accountable government and really holding the administration's feet to the fire. Now on the flip side of that were assholes on the right like Sean Hannity who bent over backwards to make excuses for the Bush administration. I remember a lot of pro-torture talk at the time which sickened me to my core.

Then Obama got elected, and everything flipped. Olbermann became toothless, showing that he didn't give one tiddly fuck about transparent or accountable government just that he hated the fact it had been a Republican government. The assholes on the right that had defended freakin' war crimes now found everything the president did to be the end of America! I remember watching the same man who rail against people who objected to Gitmo's existence and said it was absolutely necessary to American security, condemn Obama for not shutting it down like he said he would and that keeping it open was an affront to human decency and liberty. It was goddamn frustrating, to say the least, to deal with this political theatre.

(04-08-2017 09:49 AM)goldenarm Wrote:  I eventually started re evaluating and I've been doing that for a year now probably. I will come back and re read everything you have mentioned and continue to do my own research.
Continuing to do your own research is the single most important thing you can do. Always read and listen to people you don't agree with and never be afraid of admitting when they have a good point. You will see a lot of people on both sides who won't give a single inch just because the idea originates on the other side. The most intellectually dangerous mindset you can have is that your side has 100% of the answers and the other side has 0%.

(04-08-2017 09:49 AM)goldenarm Wrote:  I think you make good points. Also, with the books you listed I will eventually purchase and read them all! Thank you so much I will always use this post as a resource.
[Image: giphy.gif]
I'm just glad I could help.

(04-08-2017 09:49 AM)goldenarm Wrote:  By the way, what political party are you registered as? I know you disagree with what both sides say on many issues so I'm curious how you go about handling that? Thanks!
I'm Canadian, though I used America as a base line mostly cause it's easier to understand, there is more widely available data to pull from, and I have spent far more of my time studying American politics and history.

That said if I was American I'd be registered as a Democrat (assuming it's that or Republican) as it's to me anyway a matter of priorities. Trans and gay rights for example. Once you get those into the moral fabric of a country it's hard to get out, basically, once you got it you more or less have it for good. Bad economic policies can and will eventually be reversed or corrected but if we lose our way on the trans and gay rights issue we are kinda fucked, and probably won't see it again for a long time. So to me, it's a fairly pressing concern, one that the right seems to either want to avoid or be openly hostile.
That said I get why a lot of people vote Republican, and it does not cause they are all bigoted racists, there are really clear and justifiable reasons to do so and I could swing to that side if they got rid of the policy and elements of their party that are more backwards. The religious pandering would be what kills the party for me if I had to pick something specific.

Regarding what you said about priorities was a great point. I see where pure coming from and yea I'm trying to stay open minded. I already have a better understanding of how to look into things and prioritize, etc. Thanks!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goldenarm's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: