posted
"What would be nice is LESS extreme liberalism."
Geoff said this in an earlier post on this thread, and I was a little baffled by this.
Who on Hatrack is an extreme liberal? We've got one or two people who're pro-life socialists, and one pro-choice socialist; we have a handful of social libertarians who believe in federalized medicine but are otherwise pretty laissez-faire about capitalism. And these are the most liberal people I can think of off-hand. Are these extremely liberal positions? If so, perhaps we should stop using the word "extreme" in general, because it's obviously become meaningless.
posted
But, y'know, I'm not sure their actual political positions are all that extreme. Heck, I don't think they know what their political positions even are; they don't strike me as particularly conservative.
They are, rather, very PARTISAN; they are passionate -- even hostile -- members of Team Conservative, even if they don't know what that team stands for, and they root for the leaders of Team Conservative and attack its enemies without pausing to think much.
It is, I suspect, precisely this "attitude" that they think is inherent to "true" conservatism, and they bemoan its lack here; no one here is sufficiently partisan and/or insulting enough for them, so they don't think the other conservatives on the site are showing enough Team Spirit.
That they don't even recognize why this is a bad thing is something that I find somewhat depressing.
quote:Oh, I dunno Tom, I think extreme is an excellent word to describe Jay and Occasional
If these two are extreme in position, then we undoubtedly have extreme liberals on the board. And, frankly, there's nothing in their behavior I haven't seen from liberals here.
posted
I honestly don't get why everyone is jumping on Occasional so hard. Yeah, I understand why some of the other conservatives are pissed at him, because he said they weren't really conservative. But I don't think he voiced his opinion in a mean or obnoxious way, and he's been polite throughout the whole thread.
I think it's obvious that the terms conservative and liberal are very subjective, to some degree. I think Occasional has shown that he understands this and has been more than happy to discuss what does constitute conservative and liberal in an honest, forthright, polite fashion. Maybe y'all should give him some slack?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a little bit late responding to this, but...just wanted to add that I'm conservative, and I have never been made to feel unwelcome here. In fact, all of my best friends consider themselves Very Liberal, and a few of them are here on this board, and I don't have a problem with that at all. I'd like to think they don't have a problem with my beliefs either, but I have learned anyway to try and avoid political discussions with them, because I know we will not agree on it, and nothing productive ever happens from our arguments. Looking back on my past posts here on the 'rack, I realize that I've definitely come across as a liberal, because, well, I used to be one. My political views have changed quite a bit.
I try to avoid any sort of politics here on Hatrack because I have noticed that they tend to get out of hand and people lose their tempers too easily, and I like you all too much to argue about stuff like that. Just wanted to say my piece about this topic.
Posts: 1225 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your last sentence probably explains why you might not have noticed what Occasional is talking about.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But again, how am I extreme? I believe in- Reasonable gun control, keeping guns out of the hands of ex-felons, background checks and 5 day waiting periods Funding the arts (Especially opera, the Met radio broadcasts could really use some help) I have mixed feelings about abortion. Banning it won't end it, just force it underground and make the problem worse. The key is education, birth control, things like that. gay rights. Gays, if they wish to should marry or have civil unions. Churches shouldn't be forced to join them if they do not want to, but they should still be able to have benefits. *thinks of one of my best friends I lost years ago* And I don't think gays should be denied housing or jobs either. I think that the education system has to be improved, having come from schools that had trouble keeping spanish or science teachers. More resources should be put towards public schools and there should be less buracasy? grah. spelling >.< When it comes to affirmative action I don't like the concept of quotas, or the accusation that a person was only hired because of their race and not their skills. Really it's a bandage solution. But, it's not much different from the children of rich alumni being able to get into schools easier. Again, it's something that requires middle ground. Really, what I believe in is doing things that work. I don't think that billionaires should get tax cuts, trickle down isn't very effective when it hurts people like this girl I know who worries that her disability will be cut. I don't believe in laissez faire capitalism, it has done a lot of damage to society socially, economically and environmentally. I think small businesses and farmers should get tax cuts. I think that middle class families need more help so the companies that they work for should provide them with health care, child care and days off so they can take care of their children when they need them. I, most importantly believe in the thread principle and in doing things that work that are effective whether or not they are conservative or liberal.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"In fact, all of my best friends consider themselves Very Liberal, and a few of them are here on this board, and I don't have a problem with that at all."
I think, by Occasional's definition -- and certainly by Jay's -- this would mean you aren't a real conservative.
------
BTW, Synth, whatever your motivations, the net result of your reasoning is that you hold positions which are traditionally liberal across the board. That said, none of those positions are very liberal -- but every single one of them is to the left of center. IMO, you're one of the more liberal people on the board -- which I think says a lot about how few really "extreme" liberals we have, if merely leaning a bit left on all the major issues makes you more liberal than most of us by comparison.
posted
It's depressing because I agree that conservative viewpoints are attacked and their holders dogpiled and vilified, and this thread highlights why that isn't going to change. Also, people are more complicatd than a binary choice of designations could ever describe, and I hate that issues devolve into that kind of partisan wrangling. It happens from both sides, and every time it does, my opinion of the people who do it bottoms out. I like people, and I like to like people, and so this is distressing.
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"this thread highlights why that isn't going to change"
Because the conservatives who visit Hatrack are rude, confrontational jerks?
See, I don't think that's the case. I would prefer not to believe that inherent in conservative thought is the need to be a complete asshole. And I believe quite strongly that people with passionately conservative viewpoints have been treated with respect and fairness on this board, provided that they're capable of extending the same respect to others.
Please don't tell me that conservatives can't do that, Katie, Because that would be depressing.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I know you're upset, but I didn't say what you're implying that I said. I didn't even come close.
Rereading my post, apparently the ambiguity was in saying that this thread points out why it isn't going to change. The thread has said different things to us. You see it as saying that conservatives will continue to be dogpiled because they act uncivily, and I see as saying conservatives will continue to be dogpiled because the people that do so intend to continue acting uncivily.
[ January 26, 2005, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do think that a lot of conservative concepts are the cornerstone to society and its foundation. We need conservative concepts. I am, however, not to fond of neo-conservative thought or people who think like Ayn Rand. I just think we need to take care of each other and be compassionate. Most people view that as wimpy, but I don't really care. Liberal concepts are useful because they have done a lot to improve things for millions of people. Rather than just dismiss certain concepts, why not embrace them and try to understand them better?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, who called in and made sure I’m busy today? Thanks….. now I can’t keep up. Great….. And this one looks so fun. Oh well.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's depressing because I agree that conservative viewpoints are attacked and their holders dogpiled and vilified, and this thread highlights why that isn't going to change.
But I think the thread demonstrates that it's not the possession or expression of conservative viewpoints that leads to the dogpiling and vilification, it's the mode of expression that leads to it.
I do think that when certain liberals act like this, there is more of a tendency to simply ignore them rather than dogpile. I'm not sure why that is.
posted
And yet you said that conservative viewpoints are "vilified" by a "dogpile."
Oddly, I can't think of a time when this has been true of any viewpoint expressed in a respectful fashion. So you must be referring to those times when idiots come on here spouting rhetoric; I certainly do recall dogpiles of that sort.
But I would prefer not to associate conservatism with rhetoric. It's certainly possible for Porter or Dag or Farmgirl or you -- or any of our other resident righties -- to come out with an opinion that is not "vilified." It's harder for you to come out with an opinion that is unchallenged, but then when was the last time you saw me get away with voicing an unchallenged political opinion? Have I become a conservative without knowing it? (If so, the definition must have changed even faster than Occasional expected.)
What I think has historically bothered conservatives on this board is that some of their positions are quite accurately depicted as unsympathic and/or uncaring by those who are directly affected by them. I know several people were offended when Karl and Telp and Caleb made a point of demonstrating why anti-gay-marriage rhetoric was a personal attack on their lives; I know I offended many Christians by pointing out that, by any sane measure, worship of an apocalyptic God is an evil act. And yet these are easily the harshest and most confrontational arguments ever lobbied towards Hatrack conservatives, mainly because they seek to undermine basic assumptions through personal connection.
Is this "vilification?" Hardly.
So, then, Katie, who is the liberal majority on this thread who have acted uncivilly toward Occasional and Jay? In what way have they been uncivil? Do you not agree that Occasional and Jay were, themselves, uncivil from the start in their political threads?
Perhaps you are defining "vilify" and "civil" and "dogpile" in ways that I don't recognize.
quote:I do think that when certain liberals act like this, there is more of a tendency to simply ignore them rather than dogpile.
Exactly. I could come up with some reasons:
1. The conservative party is in power, so when a liberal acts like an idiot while expressing their views, it easy to dismiss them as irrelevant anyway. 2. Liberals who dogpile loathe to do it to one of their own, while conservatives have no problem with doing it to one of their own. 3. Conservatives have a greater belief in free speech, and so both speak more freely than liberals and hence get a greater response, and also allow others to speak freely, secure in their belief that their correct viewpoint will win out. 4. It isn't a political thing at all, and those who dogpile just happen to liberal, and hence conservatives are the main target.
All of the above are plausible, but I don't know if any are the reason. If any, I actually suspect the fourth is the most correct.
---------- Tom: To be honest, I'm thinking of me. No, I don't express political opinions now, and it's because of stuff that has happened.
I doubt Occ or Jay would label me as a conservative.
[ January 26, 2005, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Most of us are pretty capable of ignoring obvious trolls. Many of our younger and most, um, "exuberant" members lean left, and are more likely to take that sort of bait. Moreover, it's been my experience that conservative trolls are like brambles or perhaps pit bulls; they get stuck where they post, hoping that their words will bring enlightenment to the masses, and merely ignoring them won't encourage them to move on. Instead, a conservative troll will become more and more inflammatory until somebody finally does reply, at which point it turns into a thread. A liberal troll, by contrast, blows like a tumbleweed into LiveJournal if no one's replied within thirty seconds (a period in which they'd've hit "Refresh" about sixty times already.)
posted
I think the entire issue is just too complicated to divide people along such binary lines.
Added: At least, such division makes me feel homeless, because I don't belong in the dyed-in-the-wool liberal camp I know, but I also do not place myself in the Occ and Jay camp as a conservative.
[ January 26, 2005, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"No, I don't express political opinions now, and it's because of stuff that has happened."
Katie, I think I can recall specifically the circumstance you're talking about, and I can say with some certainty that the issue was more of a personal one than a political one for everyone involved, even if the fight was framed by a political conversation. By the time y'all got down to brass tacks, none of the hurt feelings were being caused by politics.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
A political discussion turned personal when political arguments failed to sway. If you can't shut someone up one way, then try another. Because it turned personal doesn't mean it wasn't sparked by politics. If I'd had different politics, it never would have turned personal.
Added: I don't know - maybe I have a different perception of what happened. I can barely remember most of it - it's become an emotional memory where I'll have a reaction to a person or a topic and I have to think for a second to remember why.
[ January 26, 2005, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want to discuss this elsewhere, Katie, drop me an E-mail. You've been avoiding political conversations ever since out of a memory of that incident, and I think it's a shame; I really do believe that it was a unique combination of factors, most of which involved cliquishness and only incidentally had anything to do with politics at all.
If you recall, I actually excoriated the people involved for pretending that it was about politics at the time. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I know several people were offended when Karl and Telp and Caleb made a point of demonstrating why anti-gay-marriage rhetoric was a personal attack on their lives; I know I offended many Christians by pointing out that, by any sane measure, worship of an apocalyptic God is an evil act.
Your explanation of who is offended in these two scenarios puzzles me. Belief in an apocalyptic God is as essential to my being as being gay is to those who believe it is a deep part of their essential identity. But maybe I don't understand your definition of an apocalyptic God. But as I've said before, it probably has to do with me not thinking death and suffering is the worst thing that can happen to a person. If I did think that I would cease to find meaning in life and kill myself immediately. This is not the same as other philosophical statements I have made, like that there must be a Satan.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's certainly possible for Porter or Dag or Farmgirl or you -- or any of our other resident righties -- to come out with an opinion that is not "vilified."
I felt a surge of fan-boy glee to see myself lumped in with such cool people. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that i am probably just repeating what everyone else in here has already said, but the problem is not having 'extreme' conservgatives, or 'extreme' liberals. What has been pointed out, i will echo, even though it will have no further influence from me. extreme is a very relative word, and one that, realistically, should be used at all.
The problem is that no matter where you belong on the political scale, be left or right, or even up or down(JOKING), we attack everyone. there should be some calm explanation as to why you believe what you believe and why you believe that the other person is wrong, because what you believe (politically) is exactly that, what you believe. It is you opinions. I disagree with everyone here on at least one thing, and agree with everyone here on at least one thing.
PLEASE, i am incredibly sick of the arguing, it does nothing to prove you point and just drives the other person farther away. I know that i'll probably be blown off, but it's worth a try, eh?
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem is that no matter where you belong on the political scale, be left or right, or even up or down(JOKING)
Check out Annie's thread with the http://www.politicalcompass.org link in it. A political spectrum can have "up" and "down" just as easily as it can have left and right. And it makes for a better scale too.
Edit: I'm a dummy, thanks for the correction, Frisco.
[ January 26, 2005, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Nato ]
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I took the test and came up with scores of: Economic Left/Right: 3.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41
I guess I'm a somewhat right of center mild libertarian. And on their chart of noted political figures, there is NOBODY even in the same quadrant as me. I guess I'll have to start my own party. I don't know what I'll call it, but my symbol will be a hedgehog.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:But as I've said before, it probably has to do with me not thinking death and suffering is the worst thing that can happen to a person. If I did think that I would cease to find meaning in life and kill myself immediately.
I'm not getting this; if you thought death was the worst thing that could happen to you, you would instantly kill yourself? How does that make sense?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Death is not the worse thing, but suffering? If a person doesn't have to suffer, if it's preventable, why should it happen?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally would not be as happy right now if it weren't for some of the times I have suffered in the past. I am glad that all of my suffering wasn't prevented.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
porter, But that's a case for takinga longer view of things, not for a different valuing of suffering/happiness.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:3. Conservatives have a greater belief in free speech, and so both speak more freely than liberals and hence get a greater response, and also allow others to speak freely, secure in their belief that their correct viewpoint will win out.
Some people see free speech where I see cock-sure, potato po-tah-to.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: people are more complicated than a binary choice of designations could ever describe, and I hate that issues devolve into that kind of partisan wrangling. It happens from both sides, and every time it does, my opinion of the people who do it bottoms out. I like people, and I like to like people, and so this is distressing.
I agree with this completely,.
The problem I had with Occ, and it really was a fairly minor problem when all is said and done, is that he didn't document any of his claims, and that he was declaring himself the final arbitrator of what is and is not a Conservative these days. I don't really care about his politics at this point, I was more focused on his way of presenting it.
He did a much better job of it than Jay does, IMO.
I even agree with some of his points...not many, but some.
I wasn't trying to dog pile on him, but I don't like to let that type of arrogance/disrespect of others go unchallenged.
I have never jumped on anyone here for stating their opinion, as long as they don't slam others while doing it.
And as long as they can back up the facts they are presenting.
I think that most people are not black and white, party-line voters, and that depending on the specific timing and issues they can vote either way. I know that sometimes I have to vote for a candidate I disagree with, just to make sure there is some balance in representation. I might not agree with every view they have, but as long as most of the major points align with what I feel is best, I learn to live with the other stuff.
So Liberals don't like me much because I sometimes vote Republican...and Republicans don't like me much because I am sometimes too liberal-thinking.
Most often I don't particularly like either of them, so it all works out OK in the end.
posted
Player: 1 Label: A Actions: mix with other A's and bash all the other B's
Player: 2 Label: B Actions: mix with other B's and bash all the other A's
What I think about the solution to the problem? Player: 3 Label: none Actions: Bashing some A's and some B's, because I see that people are not labels. People can be reasoned with, labels CAN NOT. (If you don't believe me think about this just like racism.)
How do you know that these 'conservatives' aren't just keeping to themselves over issues they find to be petty?
Calling out all of the Liberals saying they need to change seems like a good idea, until you realize that users that post here are people, and have feelings, and are going to worry more about thier personal feelings than that of some group agenda.
Bottom Line: If you feel they are misrepresented, then you should represent them properly, not call for change in everyone else. Since you seem to understand let's look at these labels of conservative and liberal. I am what I am, and I do not follow any set 'ideal' other than what I feel I should, this means that instead of me just reacting to whatever happens, I will slow things down, think about it, and then act how I want to respond to things. Thus being more myself, and not having an agenda other than learning.
To me, you starting this thread is ludicrous. Why call for change in everyone else? Change starts with yourself. If you don't want to change, why should anyone else put forth effort?
(In other words: If you are really a conservative, why are you trying to be liberal?)
Definitions I used for: Liberal: "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry." Conservative: "Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change."
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Looking back on my past posts here on the 'rack, I realize that I've definitely come across as a liberal, because, well, I used to be one. My political views have changed quite a bit. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
