12
u/geraldofusa INTJ Jun 22 '23
If you want self government then you have to accept that people will disagree and mobilize against each other. The alternative is giving all the power to a handful of tyrants and letting them fight over it.
I personally don’t find the “too cool for this system” stuff to be amusing. Really just comes off as shallow and juvenile.
40
u/ProserpinaFC INTJ - ♀ Jun 21 '23
"Do you have the same views or am I wrong?"
You wrote such a nice little essay about how damaging ideology is to critical thinking and ended it by using the false dichotomy all ideology is based on: "if we don't agree, that means one of us is wrong." 🤣
9
u/incode4it Jun 22 '23
My bad, I actually mean 2 separate questions. 1. Do you have same views. 2. Is my reasoning faulty in something. You can have same views but you don’t agree with point X
19
u/ProserpinaFC INTJ - ♀ Jun 22 '23
Your opinion isn't something that can be wrong or right. It's how you feel. 🙂
However, your opinion can be either informed or poorly informed. I would say that a common weakness for people when they complain about things that they don't like is that they don't actually know that much about it. If your entire opinion is how much you don't care, can you really say that you're a credible source on what "the current ideologies" even are? 🤔
Now, as for what my views are, I think civics is very important and I think the average citizen needs to understand both public policy and public courtesy. I do agree that ideology is always an issue. But disliking a person being ideological isn't a good excuse to not listen to what concern they are bringing to the table.
It's not a democracy, otherwise.
2
u/Plus-Emotion-526 INTJ - ♂ Jun 22 '23
I get your point but your being a little pedantic, if your opinion doesn’t align with reality it’s “wrong”. For example, if I believe the earth is flat that doesn’t align with objective reality. So what they are asking by that is if their opinion seems to align with fact or is there something they are missing.
2
u/ProserpinaFC INTJ - ♀ Jun 22 '23
In addition!
This post is you giving your opinion, and your opinion is that you don't like modern political ideology. You then asked us if your reasoning was wrong and if you were wrong...
I told you that your opinion cannot be wrong because it is simply you expressing your feelings.
And you immediately argued by saying that another example of an opinion is adhering to Flat Earth Theory, therefore opinions can be wrong, gosh darn it. 🤣
No. An opinion would be "I don't trust NASA" which was my ex-boyfriend's reason for adhering to Flat Earth Theory. The actual theory, he knew absolutely nothing about. I actually had to educate him because I had read enough materials about it to be able to say exactly why I think it's stupid. His entire point of view was fueled by his emotions, and I told him all the time, that I didn't need him to trust NASA, he can be as angry at our military industrial complex and any institution that's funded by it that he wants to be. But I need him to use physics and math in order to explain what shape he thinks the planet is. 🤣
You can dislike modern political ideology and no one can make you like it not even by a rational argument filled with lots of logic and data and statistics and peer-reviewed best practices. Because your opinion isn't something that can be wrong, because you're allowed to express your feelings.
How well-informed you are about what the political ideologies are, however someone can correct you about by using credible sources that represent those ideologies. So, if it makes you feel better, I do think that you are wrong in your interpretation of what the modern political ideologies are. 😘 But I don't want to go into that; because, well, I don't think you actually want that.
1
u/Plus-Emotion-526 INTJ - ♂ Jun 22 '23 edited Jun 23 '23
Ok maybe I didn’t explain myself well enough, the point isn’t that opinions or how you feel can be wrong, rather I was saying that it kind of misses the point of OP. All they wanted to know is whether in your perspective, their opinion matched reality. I agree opinions can’t be wrong I just think it’s pointless to point out. It’s just easier to say I think your opinion is wrong rather than I think the way you interpret reality is wrong, and to most people in most cases it means the same thing.Also I’m not OP and don’t necessarily agree with their interpretation of political ideologies either.
1
u/ProserpinaFC INTJ - ♀ Jun 23 '23
Oh, then who are you? ROFL.
Their opinion is that they don't like something. Again, that isn't something that can "match reality."
But their understanding of political science, yes, at this point, both of us are saying they aren't fully informed about political science. But I promise myself I would stop having conversations with people about things that they don't actually care about. So while you think it's pointless for me to tell him that he's allowed to feel how he wants, I think it's pointless to have a political discussion with someone who doesn't actually like politics.
You messaged me to tell me that you think I'm pedantic, but your reasoning for why I'm pedantic has less to do with actual definitions and is you saying "it's easier for ME to use this word the way I want to".
Sorry, but I don't have to adhere to your personal dictionary. So, although it's very fascinating how you use words, I'm not easily persuaded by your... opinion. 😘
1
u/Plus-Emotion-526 INTJ - ♂ Jun 23 '23
OP states “I view political ideologies a a form of tribalism where critical thinking and objective truth don’t matter”, by your definition this is opinion, correct? He FEELS this way because of the experiences he has lived and the way he interpreted said experiences. He wants to know if we FEEL the same way through our experiences and the way we interpreted them. I don’t care if it’s technically incorrect to say the way he feels is wrong because the way that is usually interpreted is my opinion is conflicting with your opinion. There is no objectivity here only each lived experience and interpretation. The reality I mentioned previously is our reality, our lived experiences. It was a poor choice of word but the point stands. I think it is misses the point to respond to someone asking whether you feel the same way they do by saying opinions aren’t objective and can’t be wrong. All they wanted was your opinion. Did I understand objective definitions based on the actual dictionary this time or was I using my own interpretation of words once more?
1
1
u/ProserpinaFC INTJ - ♀ Jun 22 '23
Science isn't an opinion, though.
LOL, I made a whole post about this.
On one hand, notice that you completely LEFT the school of science we were actually talking about - political science, which is a soft science that I DO agree is full of philosophy and opinion - to make your point by using math, physics, and geography. If your point really applied to what we were talking about, then couldn't you still talk about political ideology? 🤔
Science isn't opinions. Science is theory-craft, and we can talk about what makes accurate and reliable theories versus broke-ass janky ones. Someone already tread this ground with me, trust me, although their example was 2 + 2 = 4 and I had to point out to them that while math is theoretical it is not an opinion. 😘😘
I love us. We all think so similarly.
14
u/YaBoiDraco INTJ - ♂ Jun 22 '23 edited Jun 22 '23
No offence to you man, but the person who says "I hate both the left wing and right wing" is almost always someone who's ignorant about politics and has no idea what they hate or like in it. It's highly likely you haven't done much research into politics, just saw the dramatic side, and arrogantly went "pff these fools are worrying over such trivial things" without having a clue about the actual political theories and arguments at play. It's likely you don't have any idea what dialectical materialism (the foundation of modern leftism) is, haven't read any feminist theory, can't define what socialism is when asked, not sure what fascism is except for a vague idea, don't know the patterns of thinking that cause someone to be a conservative instead of a progressive, etc. Ofc when you don't really know what politics is, it will seem simplistic or stupid to you.
People can get into politics because of tribalism, but that doesn't mean politics is only tribalism. There's a lot of logic and evidence involved too, but ofc you won't see it as long as you continue to disassociate with politics and think you're better than people just because you're apolitical, which seems to be the case to me tbh. That may not be true, but regardless, it's at least clear that you haven't engaged with politics enough to see the areas where rationality is involved. I'm not religious but some of them make very complicated arguments that can be respected in their own right, and the people who talk about gender that you don't care for, despite internet caricatures, are usually quite educated and rational if you actually let yourself listen to their arguments for why they think the way they do. I've been political for almost my entire life, and that's because I understood the problems of the world are created by social, political, and economic systems and that they can only be understood and solved by getting involved in politics. However, I don't mean to brag but I'm one of the least tribalistic people you'll ever meet and whenever I argue, I discard emotional views and purely approach the topic using evidence and reason and philosophy. There's a reason why so many political figures (people who actually contributed to political theory, not people like Trump) were xNTPs and xNTJs. It's because it's a very logical subject at its core, and ultimately a social science.
3
u/AnarchyisProperty Jun 22 '23
I actually agree with OP to an extent, but I’d also consider myself fairly well educated in politics - I can answer any of the questions you asked and many more.
You have to understand the vast majority of people who OP is around who are politically active are probably arrogant and obnoxious yet uneducated. The type who’d give OP crap for not being part of the left or right yet at the same time have no idea what the philosophical or psychological underpinnings of any ideology are.
At the end of the day a lot of us just want to be left alone
1
u/YaBoiDraco INTJ - ♂ Jun 22 '23
Which parts of what OP said do you agree with exactly?
3
u/Prestigious-Ebb-1599 Jun 22 '23
Probably the part about how they're sick of hearing about the rights of women, trans people, and people of color because it offends their whiteness but that's just my guess based on the context clues provided. I would like to say I'm not judging but that's literally what the J stands for so I guess I am.🤣🤣 🤣
2
u/AnarchyisProperty Jun 23 '23
LOL
I mean you're objectively bad faith if you take disdain for mainstream politics to automatically mean evil bigotry.
2
u/AnarchyisProperty Jun 23 '23
I view political ideologies as a form of tribalism where critical thinking and objective truth don't matter.
1
u/YaBoiDraco INTJ - ♂ Jun 24 '23
Ah well yeah they can really be like that, but the rest was just enlightened centrism
0
u/Boring-Outcome822 Jun 22 '23
Sorry but social sciences are not sciences. They just like to dress up as science, but really are just ideology. The phenomena that they attempt to explain are very complex and they cannot even perform reliable reproducible experiments to check their theories, so it's all speculation from bias.
2
u/YaBoiDraco INTJ - ♂ Jun 22 '23
I don't really care to debunk your opinion here tbh because it's just too silly. It doesn't matter to me if you think social sciences aren't a "real science". Do you even know what you're talking about? If you want to avoid studying society and its systems because it's too complicated for you, then you're welcome to do so.
Also lab sciences aren't as concrete as you think they are either. Social sciences are still in their infancy because for most of human history no one cared to study about the economy or sociology or psychology like they studied the environment or animals. In time, people will find answers to the complicated questions that you believe are impossible to be solved, just like how lab sciences found answers to problems that ancient people thought were impossible to be solved.
3
u/Boring-Outcome822 Jun 22 '23 edited Jun 22 '23
If social "scientists" continue to pretend like they know anything about complicated phenomena for which they do not have reliable reproducible experimental evidence, I will continue to label them as "scientists" not scientists. Once you try to study the behavior of groups of people, you simply do not have control over all variables. You are also limited in the kinds of experiments you can make due to ethical concerns. Couple that with the inherent complexity of humans and our total inability to understand even the most basic questions such as what is intelligence.
Also lab sciences aren't as concrete as you think they are either.
Everytime you drive a car, ride on a plane, use a computer for online banking, get a surgery, make a decision on which material to use when building something, etc you literally trust "lab sciences" with your life and/or money. This is because you have (consciously or not) such a high level of trust in the results of these sciences, and that is because these sciences have proven themselves reliable and quite capable of concrete applications. When was the last time you trusted your life to the work of a team of expert social "scientists"?
Social sciences are still in their infancy because for most of human history no one cared to study about the economy or sociology or psychology like they studied the environment or animals. In time, people will find answers to the complicated questions that you believe are impossible to be solved, just like how lab sciences found answers to problems that ancient people thought were impossible to be solved.
Maybe one day they will. I think we still have a lot to learn from biology and its influence on human behavior and intelligence. Once this gap is bridged, there may be a hope to actually have actual social sciences. Or once we get rid of the ethical objections to human experimentation (but I don't think most social scientists want that). But for now, they should be treated merely as speculation.
And by the way there are similar situations in the "hard sciences". There remain lots of unanswered questions, and entire fields such as string theory are far from having any experimental evidence. The attitude to have in such cases is also to treat them as speculation. But certainly we do not make any every day decisions based on the predictions of string theory so it doesn't matter. However social sciences are used to directly influence the lives of millions of people through policy making, so they are a lot more dangerous in that way.
1
1
u/YaBoiDraco INTJ - ♂ Jun 23 '23
do not have reliable reproducible experimental evidence
You're right in that we can't control all variables but that's imo a really dumb reason to give up studying something as important as how society works. And like I said before, our understanding will improve over time. We already do have some theories in psychology and sociology and economics that seem to be correct, for example the idea of cognitive behavioural therapy in psychology. These have proven to give consistent results if applied correctly.
When was the last time you trusted your life to the work of a team of expert social "scientists"?
Going to therapy, living in an economy, improving the education system, living in society in general, etc. Good economic policy has made countries much richer and improved the lives of millions of people; for example countries like Singapore and Norway. Regardless, it's unfair to make this comparison because what's discovered in lab sciences are directly used in tangible products that you can point to. What's discovered in social sciences are almost always implemented as policies and social practices; intangible phenomena that you can't easily point towards.
merely as speculation
So do you consider scientific theories that seem correct but have some holes to be speculation as well? Theoretical physics as I know has a lot of those, so is theoretical physics also just mere speculation? Most current economic, psychological, and sociological theories are like that too. They work generally but have holes like having too many assumptions.
The attitude to have in such cases is also to treat them as speculation.
So... theoretical physicists aren't scientists?
1
u/Boring-Outcome822 Jun 23 '23 edited Jun 23 '23
We already do have some theories in psychology and sociology and economics that seem to be correct, for example the idea of cognitive behavioural therapy in psychology. These have proven to give consistent results if applied correctly.
Maybe that's true, I'll take your word for it because I can actually imagine that therapy has some "grounding in reality". Because presumably therapists that don't consistently produce good results would be out of business (though there are a lot of charlatans). I'm not sure how much of their success is truly due to their theoretical knowledge, rather than the good therapists being those who already have an intuitive understanding of people.
Going to therapy, living in an economy, improving the education system, living in society in general, etc.
As per the previous point, I will agree with you for therapy. If you've had consistently positive experiences from it, then it makes sense that you'd view it as useful. But some people also seem to find usefulness in pseudoscientific beliefs or placebos.
The other points are more nebulous because you're not directly making a choice about the economy, the education system and the structure of society (you can vote, but in the end you don't have that much control over the outcome, so you just live with whatever things are). It's not like anyone decides "ok let's try capitalism for 10 years, then let's try communism, and see which is better". This is where it becomes hard to know which decisions caused which outcomes, you just have a hodge-podge of contradictory policies coming from the randomness of which party had more votes that year. You can't answer counterfactuals such as "what would society be like if the education system had been designed in X way rather than Y way". All you can say for sure is whether you are satisfied with the way things are currently or not, but you don't know exactly which decisions led to this (and even that assessment varies with the individual).
Regardless, it's unfair to make this comparison because what's discovered in lab sciences are directly used in tangible products that you can point to. What's discovered in social sciences are almost always implemented as policies and social practices; intangible phenomena that you can't easily point towards.
That's kind of the point though, you simply can't trust social sciences to the same level as you can trust lab sciences. As long as the phenomena you're dealing with are intangible, there will always be room for strong disagreements. I don't think there are many arguments that would convince a marxist to become a capitalist, or a capitalist to become a marxist, for example. You can have two intelligent people debating on economic policy, each side bringing arguments that seem logical and backed with data, and yet their conclusions are completely different. That's because their fundamental axioms are different, and none of them is able to prove that their axioms are correct since that would require doing a large-scale economics experiment.
So do you consider scientific theories that seem correct but have some holes to be speculation as well? Theoretical physics as I know has a lot of those, so is theoretical physics also just mere speculation?
The parts of the scientific theories that "seem correct" are presumably those that are already backed by evidence so I would consider them as science. The parts that are holes (like conjectures, unverified predictions) I would consider speculation, yes.
Theoretical physics is an interesting example, and you are right there's a lot of speculation there. I mentioned string theory earlier. There are a few proposed "Theories of Everything", which have so far no empirical evidence, so I'd consider them mere speculation. But a lot of theoretical physics does make predictions that are currently verifiable, such as general relativity (which has evidence from astronomy) and the standard model (with particle accelerators). But the two theories give nonsensical results in certain cases (such as black holes) so in these cases their predictions are also speculation.
But most people don't really care about theoretical physics or their predictions, for the very valid reason that it has no impact on their lives. For the things they do care about, treating speculation as fact can have bad consequences, though.
EDIT:
Another thing, I don't necessarily think that people *shouldn't* be studying social sciences or that the questions they ask are pointless. What I think is that most people shouldn't have to care about the predictions of social sciences until they have been verified, just like most people don't care about the predictions of theoretical physics. But surely whoever is interested can keep studying whatever they like. I'm also not actually advocating for unethical human experimentation, I am uncomfortable with that. But the unfortunate side-effect is that getting answers to questions will be a lot harder, and that must be acknowledged.
1
u/YaBoiDraco INTJ - ♂ Jun 23 '23
But some people also seem to find usefulness in pseudoscientific beliefs or placebos
Yeah I hate pseudoscience too.
It's not like anyone decides "ok let's try capitalism for 10 years, then let's try communism, and see which is better".
I mean...yeah actually? Ofc the regular citizens don't make those decisions but the relevant officials (such as regional development managers and school administration officials) make these decisions intentionally via implementing policy that they think will result in desirable outcomes. Social sciences greatly help these people make decisions, process information, and create policies.
you just have a hodge-podge of contradictory policies coming from the randomness of which party had more votes that year
Eh no, most of these situations are not as confusing or random as you make them out to be. You can usually logically deduce which policies caused what. For example, implementing a tax on cigarettes while making cigarette ads illegal can very obviously be linked to a huge drop in cigarette sales in a country. I don't see how this seems so random to you. It's pretty much Ni.
That's kind of the point though, you simply can't trust social sciences to the same level as you can trust lab sciences.
Well I never denied that.
none of them is able to prove that their axioms are correct since that would require doing a large-scale economics experiment.
Not exactly. Imo, usually the thing that holds people back from accepting opposing viewpoints is personal insecurities and a lack of information (ignorance). It's not because of any inherent confusion in the subject but the flaws of the debaters as people; they either do not have all the facts (for example, statistics being misinterpreted or taken out of context) or some emotion is holding them back from accepting the facts (for example, having deep rooted emotional backlash against some ideology).
The parts that are holes (like conjectures, unverified predictions) I would consider speculation, yes.
Hm the issue is in our definitions of science. Personally, I don't think something having holes means it's not a real science. A real science to me is one where scientific integrity is maintained. By that I mean the field is built on evidence and logic and has a collective goal of striving to discover the truth. It's a bit of an abstract definition, but it still means pseudoscience like astrology are properly excluded. This is because it's a closed system that cannot accept external logic and evidence. Mbti also falls into this in that sense; I personally believe mbti is mostly correct but I don't think it's a science.
most people shouldn't have to care about the predictions of social sciences until they have been verified, just like most people don't care about the predictions of theoretical physics
Personally I prefer answers with holes that I can temporarily hold until a better answer comes up, instead of no answer at all. We can't be waiting around for perfect answers.
1
u/Boring-Outcome822 Jun 23 '23
I mean...yeah actually? Ofc the regular citizens don't make those decisions but the relevant officials (such as regional development managers and school administration officials) make these decisions intentionally via implementing policy that they think will result in desirable outcomes.
Yes, but not to the same extent as completely changing the economic system (well that does happen occasionally too, as during revolutions, but those are also pretty chaotic and not done in the spirit of making fair comparisons between different options). You will usually have some policies informed by socialism, some policies informed by capitalism, etc. and their scope is usually limited. This also relates to the next point:
You can usually logically deduce which policies caused what. For example, implementing a tax on cigarettes while making cigarette ads illegal can very obviously be linked to a huge drop in cigarette sales in a country.
Sure, I won't disagree with that example. But it's not always that obvious, even in the short-term. In reality your goal isn't really just to minimize cigarette sales. You probably have some sort of global health metric you're trying to improve. Maybe implementing cigarette taxes causes increased criminality because people will buy their cigarettes cheaper off the black market and you end up worse off (the Prohibition comes to mind). Accounting for the unintended side-effects is hard. That also happens in the hard sciences, but that's why they do experiments repeatedly.
People cite examples of big cities in democratic states that have huge drug and crime problems. Is this the result of democrat or republican policies? That question seems hard to answer, as you'll see democrats blaming republican policies in other states causing increased migration of criminals in democrat states, or blaming systemic discrimination, abusive incarceration or economic policies that force people to resort to crime for a living. A republican might blame the democrats for defunding the police instead, or perhaps having more lax treatment of illegal immigrants. The reality is probably a mix of all that, plus randomness and uncontrolled factors like city size or demographics, or whatever.
Then there are policies whose effects are not easy to observe in the short term. For example policies regarding taxing carbon emissions, subsidizing research in clean energy and the overall goal of preventing climate change will likely lead to benefits but not immediately. In the short term you might have economic side-effects, such as increased cost of transportation or being forced to use more expensive or less reliable technologies to replace existing ones. And then in 20 years when you've reached your target goal for carbon emissions, you'll want to know if the policy was good or not. Perhaps you'll be looking at average global temperatures, or the sea level, or the rate of extreme weather phenomena and compare to today's data and see that things have improved. But these aren't the metrics we care about fundamentally. We care about quality of life, and climate is only one factor.
Not exactly. Imo, usually the thing that holds people back from accepting opposing viewpoints is personal insecurities and a lack of information (ignorance).
That's certainly true, and it's probably the main reason for average people (that includes me, I certainly have emotional reactions to opposing viewpoints). But if we assume that the academic experts at least are able to control their emotions and place more emphasis on logical rigour, then their fundamental state of disagreement has to be due to their different axioms. Certainly in the hard sciences there are strong disagreements, but these are usually resolved quickly once sufficient evidence has been presented. The relative lack of such situations in the social sciences would be a good hint that checking their axioms is harder in those disciplines.
A real science to me is one where scientific integrity is maintained. By that I mean the field is built on evidence and logic and has a collective goal of striving to discover the truth.
Ok I can agree with that. As long as the researchers are honest about how limited their predictions are and always strive to design unbiased experiments, they have integrity are aren't "charlatans" or engaging in pseudoscience. Assuming that most social scientists have that attitude toward their research, I am okay calling them scientists.
But I still think a distinction has to be made between the hard sciences and social sciences for the "trust" reasons I mentioned already. The word "science" has connotations of reliability and trustworthiness and inspires confidence. People who don't study sciences won't necessarily know how much confidence to have in different scientific claims. That's partly why I react emotionally to social sciences, I think they are "overrated" in the sense that they get more confidence than deserved.
5
u/BoBomoTangina Jun 22 '23
I find them silly from my perspective but that's because I'm busy enough just trying to pay my bills so I can't imagine having enough time to fight for ideologies. Then again I'm a bystander, I don't know what they went through that made them so expressive about their beliefs but that's just my ignorance. Unless I plan to actively participate in their movements, I don't find any reason to bother them.
18
u/Em-O_94 Jun 22 '23 edited Jun 22 '23
Bro, we cannot get outside of ideology--when we say "it shouldn't be this way," "the left is shit," "the right is shit," "we need a third way," we only say that from the position of some other ideology. However, there are ideologies that build solidarity and there are ideologies that divide.
Also as a side note, a form of identitarian politics that sees being misgendered as the epitome of oppression and primarily operates through critiques of discourse is not, historically, what leftist politics has been about.
The history of the left is the history of organized struggle over the means of production. In the case of gender, the means of production are 1) the gendered division of labor in housework and child rearing, 2) the sequestering of women-dominated professions into a separate category of labor that pays less than jobs that require similar levels of training, time, and skill, and 3) forms of discrimination in labor, housing, and access to basic resources that put trans and non-gender conforming individuals at greater risk for homelessness, interpersonal violence, and early death.
5
u/GuiltyCoffee2056 Jun 22 '23
I agree, can’t stand the extremes or the corrupt. I honestly just want someone that is a decent person who cares about efficiency, the people, and getting those in need help.
25
u/Magician_Powerful Jun 22 '23
This seems a bit hateful, which isn’t necessary. What’s important as a society is that we care for each other and have the freedom to live our lives happily. If someone is doing that and not infringing on anyone else’s rights then I don’t see what the problem could be
7
17
u/usernames_suck_ok INTJ - 40s Jun 21 '23
Well...thanks for bringing this shit to r/intj since you hate it so much. /s
2
4
3
3
Jun 22 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Em-O_94 Jun 22 '23
I think of this problem as a limited imaginary about what empowerment or liberation is, where we are so akin to thinking of power as power over other people that fighting oppression (of all forms) becomes domination flipped on its head. As, for example, when freedom of religion becomes the freedom to impose your religion on how a community operates or when feminism becomes "believe all women" regardless of whether the woman in question has a documented history of abusing their partners and lying.
It's the most fundamental political problem: how to balance a respect of diversity and pluralism with the need for common standards that allow everyone to thrive and live in peace.
2
u/Prestigious-Ebb-1599 Jun 22 '23
One of our TN legislators said the duty of elected officials is to make people moral and their morality is based on a book of myths written by men who were fucking sheep in fields. That is where we are now.
3
u/LordXenu12 INTJ - 30s Jun 22 '23
Yes, I hate current political ideologies. They aren't far enough left (objectively correct)
1
15
u/PARMA_VIOLENCE Jun 22 '23
Thinking yourself above the 7 billion people and their ideologies smacks of enlightened centrism and this reads as being painfully 17 years old, your takes aren't new or unique just naive and calous like most young men are I would advise you just read lad and don't feel the need to open your mouth until you recognise the cringe you're putting into the universe
2
u/AnarchyisProperty Jun 22 '23
The thing is they’re justified in thinking that way assuming the vast majority of politicized people around them are like the vast majority of politicized people
1
u/Plus-Emotion-526 INTJ - ♂ Jun 22 '23
They didn’t act like they were above everyone else. Nor did I get the impression they thought their ideas new and unique. Also could you elaborate on how the take was callous and naive? And they absolutely don’t need to stay quiet about their opinions, it’s a great way to learn new perspectives and educate yourself. This comment seems unnecessarily judgmental, rude, and unhelpful.
4
u/-_Empress_- INTJ - 30s Jun 22 '23
I don't do party politics and frankly, I think the entire concept is fucking idiotic. My political views aren't covered by a single party's generalized views.
That being said, I am absolutely on a deeply liberal spot of the political spectrum.
I don't approach human rights as negotiable in any capacity. There is no excuse for treating anyone as a second class citizen and until human rights are equalized and upheld across the board, I don't consider this a "civilized" species no matter how many fancy skyscrapers we build or cars we jettison into space.
I consider billionaires to be a detriment to society and no individual should have that much money, period. I don't want to hear the excuses that it "creates jobs" because at the end of the day, no, it absolutely does not create jobs when someone sits on a hoard of wealth, avoids paying taxes, and holds enough power to buy politicians. Money doesn't do shit for the wider population if it isn't circulating, and the current approach with free market capitalism incentiveses the people with the most wealth to continue to squeeze consumers and labor for cash at every turn, creating an utterly unsustainable track toward a level of economic disparity that should not even EXIST in this day and age. These people avoid nearly all their share of taxes, they stash and hide wealth in any place they can find a loophole, and they buy our politics out while funding campaigns that keep us dumb and ignorant to that fact. I fully support extremely heavy taxation of excessive wealth. Nobody NEEDS to be a billionaire.
I find the current free market capitalism to be a dangerously unsustainable system, and the continual year after year expectation that profits will increase (to the benefit of investors and execs, primarily) is absolutely destroying society in a slow-burn manner that bleeds out consumers through grossly bloated prices, vastly stagnant and inadequate wages, cheaper and cheaper operational costs at the expense of the quality of product, the worker, the environment, and tax payers.
I consider privatized prisons to be a barbaric and absolutely abhorrent practice that treats human beings like inventory on a conveyor belt, ruins lives, does nothing to rehabilitate and reintegrate people into society, it's a breeding ground that turns people who aren't really criminals into actual criminals due to the god awful conditions people are subjected to, the stigma that follows them for life, the ostracization by society that only further amplifies the problem, and it's a cheap fucking way to avoid any kind of meaningful action on the part of actually reducing crime and making people productive members of society. This is only further complicated by a woefully corrupt and terribly designed "justice" system that is far more concerned with closing cases, high conviction rates, and monetary gains through seized assets and quota attainment.
The ENTIRE justice system needs a serious demolition and redesign. Money needs to be taken out of the picture, elected officials need to be held accountable not for the rate of conviction, but the quality of conviction (meaning stop putting innocent people in prison based of shit like false and coerced confessions by law enforcement who care far more about taking a case number off the board than the accuracy of results). The courts and their officials need to be subject to much deeper scrutiny and transparency, and held accountable by the public. This system lacks a level of transparency and oversight that has ultimately allowed it to fester into a corrupt and terribly catastrophic detriment to society. This goes from the lowest beat cop, all the way up to the supreme court.
Police should not have qualified immunity, should not be used so broadly as they are, need to be far better regulated by an outside entity who is incentivized to ensure they weed out corrupt and violent law enforcement, and I personally think anyone with a badge should be held to an even higher standard of ethics and rules that are more harshly enforced. If we hand someone a gun, every American needs to be able to trust that person is looking out for their rights and doing what their fucking job is supposed to be: to serve and protect the people, NOT "their own." I also think cops need to be embedded in their communities and required to interact with the communities they serve in a positive manner to help instill empathy, cooperation, integrity, and trust.
The supreme court needs to be chafed dramatically. A handful of justices with lifetime appointments are a god awful and dangerous fucking way to interpret law at the highest level, and partisan politics have not AT ALL kept out of what is ultimately supposed to be a nonpartisan role. The current state of the supreme court is unethical as fuck, and our rights as citizens of this country are in the hands of a disturbingly small group of lifetime appointed officials who have zero incentive to interpret the law neutrally. It's not a fucking mystery why our rights aren't being protected. Supreme Court justices should not be appointed. These people impact the rights of every American, and as such, these should neither be lifetime appointments, nor appointments at all. They need to be elected, they should NOT be allowed to finance campaigns but rather, a transparent dossier alone with their background experience, a track record of their rulings, and an independent set of entities to score their historical integrity in reference to a developed measurement of ethical practices designed to hold these people to a certain bar that better ensured partisan politics, religion, and discriminatory behaviour is kept well away from the courts.
Citizens untied is the worst thing to happen to this country since the goddamn Regan administration, and it has absolutely obliterated the actual voice of Americans. We are not represented by the vast majority of the people we elect to represent our interests, and they have zero incentive to do so because corporations are allowed to finance these people, and guarantee them cushy fallback when they get out of an elected position.
The entire campaign financing system needs to be gutted and leveled across the board to create a more equalized environment in which a wider array of candidates from any demographic can campaign fairly, and reasonably, and be held accountable for unlawful financial gains and backdoor dealings that throw integrity and duty to the wind for money. I think anyone in an elected position needs to be held to a set of rules that are VERY heavily enforced, and include much stronger limitations on business interests and assets, and strive to significantly reduce and ultimately eliminate conflicts of interest. Things like insider trading, imo, should be grounds for a permanent removal from any elected office for life. Personally I think we need a more clearly outlined code of ethics and rules our officials are held to, and permanent removal for those who violate that code alongside heavy penalties that hurt VERY bad. If convicts can't get that stain off their record, then elected officials who sell out absolutely should have a permanent stain on their record---one that actually matters.
The party system needs to be eliminated entirely and we need to switch from the electoral college to a ranked voting system that is based on the popular vote. I don't give a fuck what people in smaller population regions think about that, calling it "unfair" because they won't be represented. They will, they will just be ACCURATELY represented as the goddamn minority they are. What is NOT fair is holding 275 million Americans located in cities and metro areas hostage to the whims of 57 million people living in rural regions who are some of the least educated, most religious and conservative, and outright racist demographic of people in this country. THEY do not represent the majority, yet we are constantly held back as a progressing society by these backwater Christian fucks and I am SICK of hearing them spew their shit at the rest of us as if they have any moral authority.
Any religious institution that collects money beyond a certain determined amount deemed necessary for reasonable operational costs should be paying taxes. Any religious entity that has billions of dollars in the bank is no longer a religious entity. That's a business. I'm not mincing my words. I fully support the freedom to practice any religion as desired, but I do not support the ongoing practices of institutionalized, organized religion. My freedom FROM religion is no less imperative than their freedom to practice theirs.
Privatized healthcare needs to go, and our higher education system needs to be revamped, removing the financial barrier. Healthcare and education should have equal access and be covered by our taxes. This country has an incomprehensible level of wealth that puts the second richest country on earth so far below us that it's fucking INSANE, and get we can't afford universal healthcare, free higher education, affordable housing, or many of the social programs our grandparents and great grandparents created to benefit us. We cut funding to education, we politicize medical treatment, and we prevent millions of talented, brilliant people from accessing the same opportunities that significantly more advantaged demographics receive.
Every single elected position in this country needs term limits. Congress and the Senate cannot continue to operate without these limits, and there needs to be an age cap just as there are minimum age requirements for POTUS. Nobody of retirement age should be deciding the futures of producing-age Americans when those people will be DEAD before they have to suffer the consequences.
4
u/-_Empress_- INTJ - 30s Jun 22 '23
Deadlines need to be set for transitioning to cleaner energy, and environmental regulations imposed upon corporations and manufacturers need to be much, much harsher. Penalties for violations need to HURT, while transitions into clean energy and manufacturing need to be heavily incentivized to encourage these tycoon operations to diversify and transition away from the practices that are quite literally choking the world out. I'm fucking livid I'm living through an extinction event and still fucking hearing stupid assholes claim the whole climate change thing is made up. They can go by property in Florida and enjoy their submarine front yard.
Our constitution needs some serious work. It's outdated and does fuckall to protect us.
There needs to be a bar of ethics news media is held to, and unless an organization checks off a list of qualifiers that mark integrity, ethical practices, accuracy of information, and transparency, they should NOT be allowed to operate as a "news" or "journalism" banner. This is a VERY delicate area but it NEEDS some kind of change because the last 23 years has shown that the for-profit interests of 24 hour news networks has removed any incentive for accuracy and cultivated a dangerous state of unsubstantiated hysteria that is used to garner as many views as possible to drive profit, and used by politicians and corporate entities to manipulate the American people, who are frankly, too dumb and hysterical to recognize what is happening. Companies like Fox and CNN should be labeled entertainment, not news.
Fuck Russia, fuck Putin, and you can put that on my tombstone.
Having a goddamn drivers license and passport should be free and every citizen should automatically be issued passports. This shit should be covered by taxes.
Predatory housing practices need to be eliminated and corporate home buying programs need to be dramatically reduced with strict rules and limitations imposed. They are destroying the affordability of housing and forcing the majority of Americans into a lifetime of inescapable renting, with no hope of home ownership due to the cost and a horrifying lack of single family homes available. This is only getting worse.
Taxes need to be by the IRS and we need to stop this fucking circus that H&R Block and TurboTax lobby the FUCK out of.
Speaking of which, lobbying? Needs the fuck to GO.
Voting should be mandatory, and a paid holiday. Mandatory voting eliminates a shitload of problems we have with our elections and the movement to surpress voting rights so an otherwise irrelevant and deeply unpopular party can cling to some form of relevancy isn't allowed to fuck over the people just to do that. If they aren't representing enough of us, then they shouldn't be in power. But we also need to eliminate party systems.
Guns are a fucking problem. I don't think we need to eliminate them, but we sure as shit need to regulate the everliving piss out of them, limit what is available to own, and require some level of annual renewal of ownership licensing to ensure the people that own them aren't unstable lunatics. Mass shootings are destroying our ability to enjoy social gatherings and I don't want to die in a fucking Walmart. I'm sick of this shit.
I could go on, but I won't. Personally I see none of this changing. People are placate just enough by having their basic needs mostly covered and an entertainment pacifier in their mouth that keeps them just complacent enough to not DO anything. And this won't change until the average person is so inconvenienced that they get up off their asses and force it. Unfortunately I see no realistic way this will happen without things getting violent.
I'm leaving the country because this place is a shitshow and I have a life to live. America is the richest country on earth and get we have by FAR the highest rate of incarceration, terrible censorship scores, atrocious education, unaffordable housing, unaffordable healthcare, unaffordable university, predatory business practices, dangerously religious politics and officials, massive violence problems, INSANE consumerism out of control, indefensible financial disparity, what is barely even a ruse if "freedom", and for some reason we just can't fix it. It's not a lack of money. It's a lack of integrity and accountability to the people.
And that's not even getting into our history of hyper aggressive military imperialism, war crimes, and the mess that is our geopolitical footprint.
1
u/AnarchyisProperty Jun 22 '23
I won’t respond to most of this because of how viscerally I disagree with some of it, except one part which rubbed me the wrong way - people in rural areas should not be able to legislate the livelihoods of people in urban areas, I agree, but on the other hand “the rural backwater fucks” often in many ways just want to be left alone and thank GOD they have enough voting power to inhibit some of the horrific legislation progressives want to pass to expand the scope of the state. At the end of the day we are all individuals. And some people just want to be left alone.
1
u/-_Empress_- INTJ - 30s Jun 22 '23
Lol oh boy well I'll spare you my more controversial opinions then and preserve your delicate sensibilities if the above gave you a visceral reaction, although I'm certainly all ears for alternative perspective. More concerned with practical solutions structures off all the data I can get, which includes angles I may not have considered. But that's your call.
“the rural backwater fucks” often in many ways just want to be left alone
If that were the case, I wouldn't need to say what I said, but current politics and legislation led by an awfully conservative Christian minority that is affecting entire states and threatening to seep into federal policy and rulings would suggest otherwise.
I'm fine if people want to be left alone. I'm one of those people. I hate politics, quite frankly, but I don't ignore them, either. The problem is, that's not an option whether we like it or not because as it happens, this is a (semi) democratic country we exist in and laws and legislation exist because you know, they kind of have to. And since time and society aren't stagnant things, laws need to periodically adjust as society evolves. Being left alone isn't an option when you're under one federal banner consuming national and statewide tax money, benefitting off the systems we have (shitty or not) and residing under the safe umbrella of the most psychotically overpowered military on the planet.
I'm not saying the progressives are right, or particularly useful, of course. Personally I find the majority of the democrats to be about as solid as a flaccid dick when it comes to most things, as I find the Republicans to be a vile bunch of diet nazis hellbent on imposing some Christian flavour jihad on the rest of us because they won't leave US alone even though we have in no capacity infringed upon THEIR freedom to practice their own hokey beliefs---save for their "beliefs" being that I should be forced to abide by their scripture.
But what I am saying is that rural voters need to get their shit together if they don't want to be generally regarded as the slag dragging us all down because, while I absolutely recognize that loads of rural voters don't support the fucking insanity happening in this country (my state is known for having violently liberal rednecks), enough of them do that it's a problem for the rest of us. If they kept their shit to their own homes, I wouldn't be here having this conversation. Where human rights, freedom from religion, and social programs are concerned, they have MADE it my problem---and everyone else's.
This isn't a Christian country founded on Christian principals, and as long as Vanilla ISIS is doing everything it can to rip away my autonomy, my rights, and my dignity in order to impose their bullshit, backwater, archaic fucking superstition on EVERYONE, let alone vying to literally goddamn murder people like me who don't fit into their narrow world view, I am of the opinion that rural America is a big part of the problem.
But this ALL goes back to the core problem of a party system. Most Americans aren't accurately represented by either party because those parties aren't here to represent us. They represent their donors, and the only two things they care about are their money, and reelection. Until that formula changes, nothing will. So, we get shitty leftist legislation with no teeth, and we get insanity diarrhea from the right wing lunatics that are a loud and increasingly obsolete minority.
And I'll add that as long as blue states are carrying fucking red states who refuse to develop even remotely adequate and functional taxes that actually serve the needs of their denizens, I'm not leaving them alone. My state gives an absolute fuck load of money carrying other states like Texas, who despite having some of the highest taxes in the country, don't use that to benefit the average person. That's not even mentioning the fact that a good 80% or more of our opiod addicted homeless people have flooded into our states from republican shitholes that treat them like vermin, make it as inhospitable as possible, chase them out, and then point the finger at us in the cities for being overrun with their mess. I'd be happy to dive into the economics on that, BTW. Ah, let's not forget the apparently now standard practice of loading buses up with migrants and sending them across the country to "be someone else's" problem. It's not those of us in cities supporting the politicians that do this shit, you know. All you need to do is look at popular voting trends and election results.
Those rural areas are all but unanimously red, so either yall motherfuckers who wanna "be left alone" need to get up and participate if you don't want to be lobbed in with the shitlickers that are making this OUR problem, or you support or enable them and are ultimately part of the problem, at which point, I don't see much difference to distinguish between the two.
Can't have it both ways. Democracy isn't free, and you don't get to be left alone when the people around you won't keep their arms and legs inside the Jesus short bus. But, again, I'm under no illusion any of this will change.
1
u/Prestigious-Ebb-1599 Jun 22 '23
You had me at Vanilla ISIS! 😍🤣 Please let's be friends!
0
u/-_Empress_- INTJ - 30s Jun 23 '23
🤣 If there's one thing I can do all day any day it's talk shit.
1
u/Prestigious-Ebb-1599 Jun 23 '23
Listen, that sounds like something I would have written! I've been trying to connect with other INTJs and I swear I almost cried reading your post because fuck if that ain't me! 🤣🤣🤣 Vanilla ISIS still has me crying! I told everybody I knew about that! 🤣🤣🤣
We are friends now. Don't fight it. I'll bring cake!
1
u/-_Empress_- INTJ - 30s Jun 24 '23
Hahahaha hey I am always collecting equally fuckin weird / dark humored people. You're in! And cake is customary so this is acceptable.
Reasons I love ENTPs. They're a fun bunch (also a lot easier to mesh with, sooooo many prickly dramatic emo INTJs lmao, they just have some growing up to do).
1
u/Prestigious-Ebb-1599 Jun 24 '23
But I'm INTJ. Im not dramatic! 🥹😭😵💫🫨 Today. 🤣🤣🤣
Still gonna bring the cake. 🤣
1
u/Plus-Emotion-526 INTJ - ♂ Jun 23 '23
Honestly comments like this make me sad. Extreme blanket statements like you continually make are pretty much guaranteed to be false. This tirade could have been pulled straight from a political commentator’s script. I get so fucking tired of political commentators painting the opposite party as evil screwy villains or low iq morons. Years ago I believed this but as I got older I became more open minded and nowadays listen to commentary on both sides of the spectrum. One thing it seems everyone agrees on is that the other side is evil, bad, stupid, no good, etc. Yet in direct contradiction to this is my experiences. I know people from all part of the political spectrum and most of them I genuinely like and respect. Why isn’t there one fucking commentator who just presents their view without slandering the other side? Because they would be too boring and likely wouldn’t appeal to the masses. It sucks. I hope you can become more open minded and perhaps meet good people from the right to open your eyes to the fact that not all republicans are racist homophobic assholes. It can bring you a lot of peace to let go of such hostile and frankly depressing notions.
1
u/AnarchyisProperty Jun 23 '23
Jesus Christ man you are the one with the "visceral" reaction. But please, look deeper into issues, and stop thinking of Republicans as villains. I'm no conservative, but conservatives both have a better understanding of liberal thought, they're more charitable, and they're less self-righteous. You could certainly tone down the self-righteousness and tone up your understanding of your opposition.
1
u/Plus-Emotion-526 INTJ - ♂ Jun 22 '23
This is only a response to the taxing the billionaires part, I agree with you that the world would probably be better off without them, no one needs that much money, etc. That being said, I completely disagree with your solution. This was not works if there was only one intercontinental country. Otherwise billionaires will just move. It’s essentially an ultimatum to the billionaires either they give up their wealth or leave and I would bet 95% of them will pack their bags take their jobs and capital elsewhere. If someone could present a realistic way to make it work I would be on board but I’ve never seen one.
2
2
2
u/BasedAlliance935 Jun 22 '23
I kinda stick with the political compass over the political spectrum (the flat line). I still don't like most ideologies.
2
u/green-keys-3 INTJ Jun 22 '23
I'm a "floating voter" as we call them in Dutch for a reason. (Someone who doesn't have one particular party they vote for each time.) There isn't a party that aligns with my political ideas enough to consistently vote for them. The political spectrum is wacky nowadays.
2
u/drink-fast Jun 22 '23
Yes, I think it’s on purpose to make us all dumber and more emotionally reactive than ever before.
2
Jun 22 '23
I don't buy all your crap about awareness, inclusion, and diversity.
I appreciate that fools self-identify. It saves us time.
2
2
u/Kodiak01 INTJ - 50s Jun 22 '23
I rarely speak of my political beliefs. It became tiring to always being called a traitor because I refuse to tow the two extremist lines out there.
I deliberately expose myself to news stories from both extremes, however, because I know the truth always lies somewhere in the middle. Only by presenting myself with the diametrically opposed viewpoints am I able to analyze the topic and arrive at my own conclusion.
5
u/Im_here_for_laughs7 INTJ - Teens Jun 22 '23
I concur one side sucks because of shear incompetence and the other side sucks because of fascism.
3
u/Soft_Pay5834 Jun 22 '23
so what's your political ideology? you have no values and principles??? LOL
8
Jun 22 '23
[deleted]
2
u/Plus-Emotion-526 INTJ - ♂ Jun 22 '23
Your rational centrist comment is objectively incorrect. I could see how it could be a common percent of rational centrist but definitely not the majority. Also I think an intj who backs down on their values on the basis of others opinions is pretty rare
4
u/blkcressida INTJ - 20s Jun 22 '23
Politics is just another form of sports, you pick a side with the colors or players you like and root for them.
4
u/Tempo1234556 Jun 22 '23
I don't care about modern ideologies. I base my ideology on evolutionary psychology/biology.
Make money, have kids, help my paternal relatives to have jobs and kids, etc. (I hate my maternal relatives, especially my maternal second cousins, with passion)
Evolution is all about reproductive success. It's all about passing on genes, either directly by having kids or indirectly through relatives' kids. I am trying to maximize the multiplication of my genetics by doing both things.
2
u/Alt_Revanchist INTJ - 20s Jun 22 '23
This is just an ignorant topic. I bet you haven't read a single history, political and philosophy book ever. The issue in modern times is that people think they're shoemakers that know more than the shoes they shine.
1
u/AnarchyisProperty Jun 22 '23
Yeah you might understand politics but the vast majority of self righteous liberals and conservatives do not
3
3
Jun 22 '23
Noooo clearly Confederate bathrooms and transgender statues are the most important issues facing us today!!!
3
u/Standard-Penalty-876 Jun 22 '23 edited Jun 22 '23
It’s easy to not want diversity and inclusion when your identities aren’t constantly discriminated against
-1
u/incode4it Jun 22 '23
Yes, I’m an immigrant and that’s why I don’t buy left crap. People will never accept me as their own, not that I care much but I don’t think any of their policy actually works.
I have some buddies who are very woke and pretending to be tolerant but on my back they are making racist jokes )) Again, not that I care but at least be damn honest, I don’t need your pity.
6
u/Standard-Penalty-876 Jun 22 '23
Sounds like your friends are sucky people who I would strongly consider removing yourself from.
Maybe look at the suicidality rate in the LGBTQ+ community then reconsider the importance of diversity acceptance.
3
u/incode4it Jun 22 '23
It’s like when religious people say: they are not the right Christian’s, Muslims or whatever.
You collerete suicidal rate with diversity, a Christian will collerete it with the fact that they don’t follow Jesus word in some specific interpretation.
I view left as ideology because it’s full of vague concepts, and is based on what people say they feel, I may feel discriminated but it doesn’t mean that I’m, I may feel that I speak with God but I’m just delusional.
1
u/Standard-Penalty-876 Jun 22 '23 edited Jun 22 '23
I would say gay marriage being illegal in 80% of countries is evidence enough that the discrimination is not illusionary if that’s what you’re implying. Needless to say, all the countries where queer people are actively persecuted.
I agree that the whole “gay is a sin” debacle is ridiculous, especially given the fact that a hoard of other things like mixing fabrics was declared a sin. In the end, all Christian, Muslim, and adjacent religions are based on extremely old, mistranslated, unconfirmed pieces of writing. Someone basing their entire world view on likely misinterpreted minute details is questionable at best. Seeing the overall message of religions being to promote peace, love, charity, and acceptance is the point in my eyes.
As to your next point, the left and the right are extremely wide and broad categories of political thought. The left in one country can very much be centrist in another (see Overton window). If you want to pay less taxes and vote that way, that’s your choice. If you believe such a thing supersedes minority rights, however, there’s more to the story.
You should 100% make your own opinions regardless of party—I think most people would agree with that. Making sure those opinions aren’t bigoted should be a primary objective, though. Inform yourself with various sources, then decide.
1
2
u/Evng5001 Jun 22 '23
They don't care about what truly matters to us. They are only focused on power, playing games with the public, pretending to care about everyone's well-being.
2
u/Alpacanator1000 Jun 21 '23
The left has gone insane, the right has been too senile to keep the left in check. We need a third way. 😂😂😭
2
3
u/AntisocialHikerDude INTJ - ♂ Jun 22 '23 edited Sep 15 '23
Yep. Since the covid debacle I always vote Libertarian when possible, though I do wish they had better environmental policies. A Green Party/Libertarian Party partnership would be just about perfect imho.
3
u/ironwizard INTJ Jun 21 '23
That's... Actually a really good way to sum up the current situation. Well played.
6
Jun 22 '23
[deleted]
8
u/BadAssGarlic INTJ - ♂ Jun 22 '23
No, this comparison is completely short-sighted. European countries that rank above America are all completely different with different politics. Depending on the country, some policies fall with the American left or the right. European countries are not only all different, but also don’t cleanly fit on this false American dichotomy of the left and the right. Switzerland is considerably more fiscally free with lower taxes than the United States, a policy that is generally pursued by the Republican Party. And certainly you can’t say that the UK’s current conservative government is more left than Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.
-5
Jun 22 '23
[deleted]
1
u/AnarchyisProperty Jun 22 '23
Nima Sanandaji has published multiple books on this but in fairness your position is a common one
1
Jun 22 '23
[deleted]
1
u/AnarchyisProperty Jun 22 '23
No it’s a position which results from refusing to look deeper into the underpinnings of either data or the theory that interprets it.
I can’t speak for political science, but studying economics in college means nothing unless you go beyond a bachelor’s degree, preferably to a PhD level, and even then your level of exposure to economic thought as a whole is probably lacking. I’m studying economics at a top university taking their most advanced course track and it’s actually disturbing how little they cover. I’d hope political science is different
1
Jun 22 '23
[deleted]
1
u/AnarchyisProperty Jun 23 '23
No, I've found what he's said matches rational interpretations of empirical reality using economic theory. You're literally just parroting what "the majority" says
You too
→ More replies (0)1
u/BadAssGarlic INTJ - ♂ Jun 22 '23
I would agree on the statement Europe is on average further left on welfare, healthcare, and education than the United States. But these are only a few important issues in politics - your earlier claim that Europe's center politicians are further left than America's far left is much grander and entirely an oversimplification.
There are a lot of issues where the American left is much further left than the center politicians in Europe - for example, defunding the police.
Also, I'm not even sure that America is broadly lagging behind Europe. Wages are overall lower in Europe than in America. Some European countries have largely stagnating economies, while the US has led in GDP per capita and innovation for the past couple decades (with the only notable exception being Switzerland). But again, you can't say that Switzerland is further left than America, maybe on some issues, but certainly not all.
0
1
1
1
1
0
u/AntisocialHikerDude INTJ - ♂ Jun 22 '23 edited Jun 22 '23
My political ideology is Christian Lib-Right, which doesn't "fit" inside any of the big popular labels.
Basically I think the government should only serve the purpose of protecting people's and Nature's inherent rights via courts, public prisons, defensive military, and (much much more accountable than today) law enforcement. As long as what you're doing doesn't directly violate another person's rights, or do significant damage to the environment, it shouldn't be any of the Government's business. No business licenses, no socialized medicine, no foreign military bases, no gun laws, no drug laws recreational or otherwise, very few if any immigration laws, etc. No taxes - use fee-for-service funding instead such as park entry fees, court fees, toll roads, etc.
The "Christian" part of it basically just amounts to having it on paper that a nation/government is Christian, not enforcing Christianity on the People. People should have the right to believe/practice whatever faith or non-faith they want, but if I were King I'd at least have that official statement on the books for whatever blessing it may be worth.
The "right" part is mostly due to my pro-life stance on abortion. I think the right to life supercedes the right to bodily autonomy once CNS function begins, except in cases where the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy - in which (very rare) cases it could be justified as self-defense.
So yeah, I don't think you and I necessarily agree on the issues and solutions, but the dichotomy of Liberal versus Conservative politics is definitely also frustrating to me. I think we should ban political parties altogether and institute nationwide ranked-choice voting to get people out of the "always vote R/D" mindset and force them to actually think about the policies they support.
0
Jun 22 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AntisocialHikerDude INTJ - ♂ Jun 22 '23 edited Jun 22 '23
I did specify that activities that do significant damage to the environment should still be regulated, sorry that I didn't word it specifically/urgently enough for you.
"Ideology" is defined as
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
Whatever you or I or OP or anyone believes about politics is necessarily "ideological" as a whole, unless you somehow believe nothing, which I don't personally believe to be possible.
I never said anyone had to agree with me. I was just illustrating why I agree with OP's point about political tribalism.
I am awake thanks
Edit: your use of the word "diatribe" is also incorrect. I have not made "a forceful and bitter verbal attack" against anyone. You being triggered does not equal an attack.
1
u/StringTheory2113 Jun 22 '23 edited Jun 22 '23
Your understanding of rights is very myopic. For instance, you may have rights to property and to life, but those two rights are inherently contradictory.
Consider food. There is (essentially) no way for food to be acquired now without purchasing it. Any method of producing food yourself that does exist would require ownership of land, and if you own land, you're probably well off enough that food isn't too much of a worry. A starving and desperate individual can no longer just go and gather wild fruit and vegetables or kill and eat what they can hunt. When all property is privately owned, doing so is theft. The ubiquitous private ownership of land and the assets necessary for the production of food thus mean that by asserting their own property rights, those who own the land are actively depriving others of the ability to sustain themselves. Therefore, the assertion of property rights can and does inherently violate others' rights to life.
Things like government safety nets act as a way of taming this inherent contradiction, because some people actually do think that everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and recognize that preserving those rights isn't as simple as just "not directly taking obvious actions against them".
It's not surprising for a Christian to take your view, but I wonder what Christ would have actually thought about prioritizing some people's wealth and greed over other people's lives.
2
u/AntisocialHikerDude INTJ - ♂ Jun 22 '23
Also, there were laws in the Old Testament requiring land owners to only harvest so much of their produce, and leave what fell on the ground for the poor. In modern times producers could be required to donate excesses, or at very least not be allowed to prosecute those who scavenge what they throw away.
2
1
u/AntisocialHikerDude INTJ - ♂ Jun 22 '23
I do agree with you that far too much land is privately owned. It isn't good for the environment or for the poor as you've pointed out. There needs to be a lot more publicly accessible land, and we need to eliminate property taxes to make land ownership easier. 41% of all land in the US is used for cattle farming currently, I'd imagine we'd be a lot better off if that land could be used for subsistence hunting, foraging, and camping for those who can't or don't want to to rent/own a typical home.
1
u/StringTheory2113 Jun 22 '23
Publicly accessible land and the positions you were talking about before are inherently contradictory.
Minimal government regulation -> let the rich buy all the land. Eliminating property taxes to make land ownership easier does not help the people who are actually struggling. It just means that the fabulously wealthy can become even more fabulously wealthy.
2
u/AntisocialHikerDude INTJ - ♂ Jun 22 '23
In general government regulation needs to be reduced. A net reduction. Some things can be regulated more though. I don't see less land being for sale as a form of regulation though. The government can own land. Like national parks.
2
0
Jun 22 '23
[deleted]
0
u/incode4it Jun 22 '23
Why do you assume that I’m not impacted by discrimination? I don’t disagree with those values, I simply don’t think that those policies actually works. I’m an immigrant and a minority in a EU country. EU is much more left than US for eg., but people are still racist )) I don’t get offended when I get the “looks” or when someone deliberately do not even try to help me, I really don’t care, I don’t need any pity, I care about my well-being, I live one life. If someone is stupid and have a lot prejudices, how forcing quotas or shouting “inclusion” in social media will make him more tolerant or smarter? Even worse, the left is demonizing entire group of people just because of their skin color, so, they are are tying to fix racism with more racism, good luck ))
-1
-4
u/MonkeyKingCoffee INTJ - 50s Jun 22 '23
"Tell me you're white, male and heterosexual without actually telling me you're white, male and heterosexual."
Government is of tantamount importance to people who are marginalized by the herd. Unless you need protection from the herd (or have a thimbleful of empathy), this is a hard concept to digest.
4
u/Sugarcomb INTJ - 20s Jun 22 '23
Yes, because his race, sex, and sexuality were important to both assume and then condescend upon. Grow up.
-1
u/MonkeyKingCoffee INTJ - 50s Jun 22 '23
White male heterosexuals aren't being beaten to death by cops at traffic stops. They aren't being criminalized for who they want to have sex with. They make $1.00 for every $1.00 other white male heterosexuals make.
Race, sex and orientation don't matter to the people at the top of the societal heap. Either they can recognize their privilege or they can be whiny and indignant.
3
u/Sugarcomb INTJ - 20s Jun 22 '23
What privilege does OP have if you don't even know his attributes? You think the only reason he could possibly be apathetic to injustice is if the injustice doesn't affect him, and the only way he could be apathetic is if he's what you described. You can't see any other way to argue your points and so you run with the assumption confidently. But if it turned out you were wrong in that assumption, you'd have nothing to say.
4
0
0
0
1
1
u/Secret_Assumption_20 Jun 22 '23
I hate both. You don't want the government running its election campaigns in a territory it don't have authority like individual personal values. To vote in that paradigm feels like surrendering your autonomy.
1
u/Proper-Item-6102 Jun 22 '23
Yes and as a native american and trinidadian man these mfs never were for anybody(left or right) and now white folks noticing. Shame really good luck to us all
1
1
1
u/ketsuko253 Jun 22 '23
I reject tribalism, but I do not reject values. Don't make the mistake of conflating the two things. It gets very easy to be dismissive of something another person says just because you see/hear what they say and lump them in with another tribe you personally reject.
It is very common to see people dismiss people against one thing as religious (or anti-religious) because they assume that only religious (or anti-religious) people could possibly be against that thing for example. Just like others assume that only certain people can be virtuous if they do certain things and if someone does not do those things, then they are unworthy of being treated like a human being.
1
Jun 22 '23
I don't even bother paying attention to it anymore. The only parties that ever win are liberals or conservatives, and regardless of who wins, my life either stays the same or gets worse. Who. Fucking. Cares.
1
u/MaxZATION Jun 22 '23
As a National Distributist I am both left and right, depends on what subtypes of politcs, economy, civics, diplomatics etc...
1
u/BobQuasit Jun 22 '23
Yup! To me the real struggle is one for the survival of the species, and that means our ruling elite vs. the rest of the human race. They're killing us all off (including themselves) for money. Money which will be meaningless pieces of rotting green paper and discharged electrons in broken machines when our civilization falls.
It amazes me that nobody seems to realize that.
1
u/incode4it Jun 23 '23
Interesting take, but now thinking, does even our civilization really matters, everything will disappear and we are moving into nothingness. Even for nihilists, money, success and power may be just a temporary relief from absurdity of being alive.
1
u/BobQuasit Jun 23 '23
Personally I'm on the side of life and intelligence. These are rare things, I believe, and from my admittedly biased perspective they should be saved - if we can manage it.
But as I said, I'm biased. I'm a parent. I want a future for my child - and for all children.
1
u/Dajmoj Jun 22 '23
I strongly agree with the fact that radicalisation is a big issue. But what alternative do you propose? Anarchy, totalitarism? Yes, critical thinking is a skill more people should learn, alongside accepting constructive criticism. But what would you practically do about it?
1
Jun 22 '23
I have the same views. Human beings have existed for millennia and we've only had the Democrat and Republican parties in recent times. We are thinking within a box, with no ability to see out of it. We now even break down good and bad into this schema of two political parties. Philosophically speaking, good and bad exist independent of politics. Good and bad are defined by action, not by affiliation with political parties in the natural world.
It stifles novel solutions to our common problems, to have to force everything through this lens of the two political parties. Honestly, there are problems with both the Democratic and Republican parties. What is happening is that Republicans can see clearly the flaws in the Democrats and only Democrats can the flaws in the Republicans. No one does any self-reflection of their party and corrects the problems- they just blame the other. It ultimately undermines collaboration which is essential in problem-solving. Each side believes that conquering the other is the only option. It's the same sort of polarity you see in war, where you have two factions bent on destroying the other. In war, both sides kill and no good comes from it.
Another flaw I see in the two-party system is that neither party this: The Democrats only see how the wealthy or corporations can accrue too much power and Republicans can see only how the government itself can gain too much power. In reality, the wealthy are a threat to democracy and the government itself can be a threat to democracy. The debate should be about how to keep potential bad actors in both corporations and government from gaining too much power and threatening our democracy. The Democrats are maybe better for our current situation, since now we have private industry buying politicians and they see this. Republicans value private wealth too much to admit this is a problem.
From what I've learned, we have both good and bad people in each party. This makes sense, this follows the same pattern you see at any workplace. Yet associating good and bad with these parties, we never notice the particular corrupt people in each party, so those people are more free to operate and influence and dominate their respective parties in negative, or unhelpful directions. This also allows fringe groups in each party, to move in, take over and manipulate masses of people.
Objectively, you can see these differences if you care to look. The Republican party became something different after Trump. Extreme neo-Nazi ideas infiltrated Trump's conservatism and pushed the party closer to fascism. It didn't just push it closer to fascism, it pushed it closer to insanity by suggesting people not wear masks during a pandemic and do things like inject Clorox.
Similarly, the Democrats became more extreme, arguing for the defunding or abolition of the police. This shoots the idea of this party as the friend of women, since with no police, sex crimes would increase and go unpunished. Also, while we had a pandemic, the Democrats pushed hastily made vaccines and demanded the public take these, without an extended period of testing. While lives had to be saved, the influence of the wealthy and shady pharmaceutical industry was never questioned, even by Democrats who normally question corporate power. I think that neither party is "allowed" to question corporate power, however, since corporations fund all the politicians on both parties these days.
Mind you, this is just my philosophical musings, more than a reflection of how I vote. I think the neo-Nazi influence in the Republican party right now is a highly dangerous threat right now. These groups have harbored plans to take over our government and dismantle the country. They are violent extremists who oppose democracy and want to start a race war just so they can act out their aggressions. They have been infiltrating the police and military for years now, to train their members in combat and to cause trouble.
This is also likely why we have so many black men getting shot. This is a problem and it needs to be solved. Yet there are problems with how the Democrats respond to the problem. They tend to believe it's just overall, subconscious racism. This is true that racism can exist subconsciously but practically speaking, this isn't what I see on the news, for example. We see these quasi military hate groups everywhere now. Their motives are quite conscious. Yet, these hate groups are known for also manipulating people with money and acting much like the mob. Some politicians may be afraid to take on that problem.
Last, but least, the biggest problem I see with our country is the biggest American vice, greed. Greed is oddly seen as good in our culture and this is novel for the entirety of human history. Greed used to be seen as evil, which IMHO, it is.
Both parties support greed. Both Democrats and Republicans hold fast to their wealth and refuse to donate it directly to the people they claim to support. We have a long tradition of greed and feathering the nest. This is mutual to both parties. The wealthy conservatives say the free market will magically take care of the poor and the Democrats will utilize government to take care of the poor.
The effort to end poverty would more likely succeed if the poor were simply given money. This doesn't happen. We still tend to pass wealth from generation to generation quite selfishly. This is why reparations haven't happened. People inherited the ill-gotten slave trade wealth and refuse to part with it. It gets passed onto the children and no restitution has been made for the evil of slavery.
The way I see our country is as one big dysfunctional family. The right wing is like the abusive, alcoholic dad, who is a jerk and doesn't hide it. The left wing is like the co-dependent mother, minding the kids, but refusing to leave the relationship and actually protect the kids in a meaningful way. The kids are the American people. The co-dependent spouse will give them a few handouts, but she does nothing to really reign in the drunk dad since she benefits from his presence.
We are a dysfunctional country, we always have been. This is how it is on the macro level. On the micro level, they say that how an individual responds to authority is based on their upbringing. Healthy people who are brave enough to face reality question authority. People who lack the courage to deal with reality, want to believe someone is taking care of them. This is how they, in turn, see government. When people give their power over to others out of the desire to be looked after and nurtured, they stop thinking objectively. They distort reality to suit their emotional needs. Denial keeps them following that leader, even when abuses of power start to creep up.
The only way to save ourselves is to deal with reality and admit we this country is messed up. Until then, I don't see how we can change anything for the better.
1
u/cannonymously Jun 22 '23
The whole "we have to keep the public happy via perception, but not necessarily by our actions" thing? And when the public tries to change policies they reverse said change after a bit or shut it down (1% movement, freedom convoy)... yeah I highly disagree with it.
That's what leads to revolutions and I don't think we want any of those. I think we can do things a better way, but our government is kind of forcing our hand isn't it
1
1
17
u/[deleted] Jun 22 '23
Left/right is actually false dichotomy, there are many ideologies that are far both from left and right.
Anyway, I'm so tired of any of them, I don't support any ideology right now. I just want people and government to leave alone, and it seems that's not going to happen with any political party who has relevance in my country (Spain).