Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IMO, the media and pop culture (who no coincidence) is predominantly far left leaning, predominantly democrat, liberal, globalist, etc..
They do not believe in individual responsibility and they put their faith in the government as their savior. They want everyone to worship and depend on the government for as much as they can.
They do not want people to be able to be independent and not need to rely upon the government.
If people do not need the government and can be independent then they are harder to control. The left wants people who are easy to control.
I do believe in UN agenda 21 or 2020. I think the globalists want to continue the urbanization of America and to gradually erode our national sovereignty.
I definitely think there is a political element to why preppers and survivalists are collectively mocked. I also think that gun culture and support is very strong in those groups and that's another "low hanging fruit" for the leftists and pop culture talking heads to mock. People mock or fear what they don't understand.
And many of the liberals, academics and pop culture types live on either the densely populated right or left coasts. The majority or preppers/survivalist live in the middle. Many actively seek out areas that are very sparsely populated. The elites on the coast can't understand that.
People also fall into the normalcy bias and lack critical thinking skills to challenge ideas.
Our country also is being over run by a militant politically correct movement that is all but destroying any possibility of productive debate so those who disagree with each other or those who don't understand one another are less likely to even bother with dialogue and trying to share ideas any more. I think preppers/survivalists stopped caring what others think, realize they will be portrayed as outcasts and no longer care what others think and don't care if they change anyone else's opinions but would rather spend their energy and resources on their own pursuits.
Just my rambling .02 cents take it for what it's worth
While I agree that the left tend to disagree about everything, they are very good at coming together as a united front for their causes. Just reading these forums, they all say the exact same thing using the same talking points.
You see one news anchor say something, and pretty soon, you can see all the MSM talking heads and the left on social media parroting word for word what was said.
I don't see most of the left as being independent, rather, they just like to argue about anything with anyone.
Most of the prepper/survivalist folks I know are pretty insular. They don't trust a lot of what they hear on the news, they don't trust most of what the government or politicians tell them, they tend to stay away from a lot of social media outside of a few specific forums or platforms where they can discuss things anonymously with other's of a like mindset.
I'm more self sufficiency, but because of my work (blacksmithing), I meet a lot of off grid types because I make traditional tools and repair old machinery, so they come to me.
They kind of break down into 2 major subtypes, the hippy-commune-global warming types and the I don't trust anyone to take care of me, I'll do it myself types.
Each of those break down into multiple subtypes, but those are gross basic separations that also seem to mirror their political bent.
While there is a definite paranoid element to some of the more radical survivalists, the majority of preppers and self sufficiency types tend to be people that just want to be left alone to do what they want, I would call them more traditional libertarians. They share some of the same distrust of power from people in politics and media.
They are far from an unified front. They don't even agree on what kind of dangers are out there, or why it's necessary to prep, they just agree it's necessary.
I would agree that the main reason there is a stigma against preppers is twofold, one: they don't fit into regular society because they have their own ideas, and two: they tend to be less social.
People tend to look for other's that share common experience, and when a prepper doesn't watch TV or know what the Kardashians are doing don't fit the superficial popular culture. If you can't talk about the latest celebrity breakup, or the latest Oscar winning flop of a movie, or discuss the latest football game, you don't fit into the rest of the office.
People tend to ostracize things that are different, and independent minded preppers are different.
One of the issues with generalizations such as "left" and "right" is that the range of variation is not fully taken into account, the intelligence of the individual is not taken into account, and the independence of thought of the individual is not taken into account. When either side wants to make a jab, the easiest targets are the non-thinking followers. When either side feels threatened, the tendency is to circle the wagons around one major talking point.
Throughout my upbringing and life, I have never been a "member" of any group. I mean that literally, including clubs and even bands. I simply never fit in as a passive member. Leader, yes. Member, no. That has provided me with a perspective where I don't HAVE the social cravings to be part of any contingent, I see positive and negative aspects to things where most people are highly opinionated one way or the other, and I frankly don't much care what people think - as long as they are thinking.
As you point out, group membership or approval is touted by most everyone, psychologists included, as a healthy and positive part of a well rounded individual. In point of fact, much of the desire and much of the striving towards being accepted and popular has a LOT in common with addiction. I would go so far as to say that social addiction is promoted by groups - including the right, left, religious, family-oriented, sports-loving, etc. Such addictions serve their own purposes and tend to keep people "in line" and generally law abiding. To the extent that preppers are not subject to those addictions, others who are addicted have fears.
Tossing out an idea: If you try to pin down any consistencies, the left tends towards compassion at any cost, and the right tends towards raw evolution at any cost, with the possible exception of immediate family and progeny. Those are generalizations, but seem to hold true in most situations.
The reality is that the extremes don't work except as examples of what not to do. In my mind, the left/right debate is only a side discussion when it comes to self-sufficiency and preparedness. I might lean left on some subjects, right on others, but I almost always not only have a plan B, but plans C & D to resort to if that doesn't work. I can tap into the positive of both left and right without much angst. I paid my social security taxes and I'll reap the benefits of that social program, I drive on roads that are socially maintained. I also will defend my rights to my time and property and independence from the encroachment of others.
That might be true in some cases, but when I consider some of the rigid thinking of elitists on the right in regard to power structures and group think, the argument holds there as well.
(I had to chuckle about the idea of the left being troubled by independent thought, when trying to get a consensus in that group is like herding cats.)
Don't know of any Elitists on the Right.
Could you elaborate?
(I suspect your definition of elitist, and mine, are different.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by drinkthekoolaid
That's because they give the same coordinated message
This was 5 seconds of searching. I'm sure there are far better examples
Tossing out an idea: If you try to pin down any consistencies, the left tends towards compassion at any cost, and the right tends towards raw evolution at any cost, with the possible exception of immediate family and progeny. Those are generalizations, but seem to hold true in most situations.
The reality is that the extremes don't work except as examples of what not to do. ...
Recently, however, we don't find many examples of extremists on the Right,
but extremists on the Left are proliferating like tribbles.
One of the issues with generalizations such as "left" and "right" is that the range of variation is not fully taken into account, the intelligence of the individual is not taken into account, and the independence of thought of the individual is not taken into account. When either side wants to make a jab, the easiest targets are the non-thinking followers. When either side feels threatened, the tendency is to circle the wagons around one major talking point.
Throughout my upbringing and life, I have never been a "member" of any group. I mean that literally, including clubs and even bands. I simply never fit in as a passive member. Leader, yes. Member, no. That has provided me with a perspective where I don't HAVE the social cravings to be part of any contingent, I see positive and negative aspects to things where most people are highly opinionated one way or the other, and I frankly don't much care what people think - as long as they are thinking.
As you point out, group membership or approval is touted by most everyone, psychologists included, as a healthy and positive part of a well rounded individual. In point of fact, much of the desire and much of the striving towards being accepted and popular has a LOT in common with addiction. I would go so far as to say that social addiction is promoted by groups - including the right, left, religious, family-oriented, sports-loving, etc. Such addictions serve their own purposes and tend to keep people "in line" and generally law abiding. To the extent that preppers are not subject to those addictions, others who are addicted have fears.
Tossing out an idea: If you try to pin down any consistencies, the left tends towards compassion at any cost, and the right tends towards raw evolution at any cost, with the possible exception of immediate family and progeny. Those are generalizations, but seem to hold true in most situations.
The reality is that the extremes don't work except as examples of what not to do. In my mind, the left/right debate is only a side discussion when it comes to self-sufficiency and preparedness. I might lean left on some subjects, right on others, but I almost always not only have a plan B, but plans C & D to resort to if that doesn't work. I can tap into the positive of both left and right without much angst. I paid my social security taxes and I'll reap the benefits of that social program, I drive on roads that are socially maintained. I also will defend my rights to my time and property and independence from the encroachment of others.
In response to the bolded:
I've never found the left to worry too much about compassion, they accept anything that is counter to tradition no matter how unintelligent. If it is an accepted part of societal norms, they will fight it. They seem to equate government support with compassion, while they don't want to dirty their hands they are more than happy to take away from the producers to give to the those that won't provide for themselves.
The right isn't completely heartless either, but see that standards are necessary to promote the general welfare where responsible individuals care for others through their private endeavors, (churches, giving to those in disasters etc.) instead of demanding the government do it. Teaching someone to provide for themselves and be independent, productive citizens brings pride in accomplishment.
Charity is great, but without any requirements for personal responsibility to provide for yourself, you end up with a dependent class that will vote for the party that promises them more free stuff so they don't have to work take care of themselves.
That is pretty much one of the defining factors for preppers and survivors, they want to take care of themselves, they don't want to depend on anyone.
Providing for those that can't provide for themselves such as the developmentally disabled or the elderly is great and fine, but giving free housing, medical care, food, and everything else to the healthy able bodied is an anathema to me and many that don't see a problem kicking the baby bird out of the nest, (or their parent's basement), and making them fly on their own.
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach him to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime is a good motto for what I see most of the right promoting.
As a self sufficiency type, I've tried to teach skills to young folks that the parent's have brought me, and as soon as they find out that blacksmithing means you have to put down the smart phone and get dirty and sweaty, I never see them again.
I don't really get into politics as both sides tend to start saying the same things from different viewpoints, and that is probably the most determining factor in my withdrawal from a lot of popular culture. Just too shallow and self absorbed.
I don't mind helping my neighbors, or contributing to my community, but when they start demanding it, I don't give a damn penny that I don't have to or a minute of my time.
Charity at gunpoint isn't charity, it's mugging.
Last edited by MTSilvertip; 01-29-2019 at 02:51 PM..
In response to the bolded:
I've never found the left to worry too much about compassion, they accept anything that is counter to tradition no matter how unintelligent. If it is an accepted part of societal norms, they will fight it. They seem to equate government support with compassion, while they don't want to dirty their hands they are more than happy to take away from the producers to give to the those that won't provide for themselves.
The right isn't completely heartless either, but see that standards are necessary to promote the general welfare where responsible individuals care for others through their private endeavors, (churches, giving to those in disasters etc.) instead of demanding the government do it. Teaching someone to provide for themselves and be independent, productive citizens brings pride in accomplishment.
Charity is great, but without any requirements for personal responsibility to provide for yourself, you end up with a dependent class that will vote for the party that promises them more free stuff so they don't have to work take care of themselves.
That is pretty much one of the defining factors for preppers and survivors, they want to take care of themselves, they don't want to depend on anyone.
Providing for those that can't provide for themselves such as the developmentally disabled or the elderly is great and fine, but giving free housing, medical care, food, and everything else to the healthy able bodied is an anathema to me and many that don't see a problem kicking the baby bird out of the nest, (or their parent's basement), and making them fly on their own.
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach him to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime is a good motto for what I see most of the right promoting.
As a self sufficiency type, I've tried to teach skills to young folks that the parent's have brought me, and as soon as they find out that blacksmithing means you have to put down the smart phone and get dirty and sweaty, I never see them again.
I don't really get into politics as both sides tend to start saying the same things from different viewpoints, and that is probably the most determining factor in my withdrawal from a lot of popular culture. Just too shallow and self absorbed.
I don't mind helping my neighbors, or contributing to my community, but when they start demanding it, I don't give a damn penny that I don't have to or a minute of my time.
Charity at gunpoint isn't charity, it's mugging.
I'm guessing you have, but have you ever read "Atlas shrugged"?
Elitist and far right leaning - The ex-head of Fox News, certain Hollywood types like Weinstein and the ex-head of Disney, who PLAY a good liberal game, but dig down and they are anything but. I would place almost of of the stock market manipulators on the far right and in a rarefied space where they are immune from prosecution except in the most egregious of cases. These are not your "stay out of my yard and I'll stay out of yours" honest folk, but walk on your land, take it, chew you up, drink your blood, and spit you out offspring of the robber baron set.
Of course, by teaching people how to fish and provide for themselves, once you begin teaching beyond basic needs you are teaching in a way that supports a particular type of social structure (that is a type of socialism ). When people trade items of equal value, both benefit. When people trade items of unequal value (far more common) one benefits at the expense of the other. Sadly, many people simply don't have the smarts to recognize when they get shafted. In a way, the shafters get an easier time in a complete free market economy, and the shaftees get an easier time in a more left economy. Those with agendas such as "save the wild rutabaga" seem do do alright in either, just shifting tactics slightly to fit the times.
Of course, all of this leaves out people in countries torn by war and in complete social turmoil. In those places, survival depends on being able to go with the flow and know when to be silent or escape.
Elitist and far right leaning - The ex-head of Fox News, certain Hollywood types like Weinstein and the ex-head of Disney, who PLAY a good liberal game, but dig down and they are anything but. I would place almost of of the stock market manipulators on the far right and in a rarefied space where they are immune from prosecution except in the most egregious of cases. These are not your "stay out of my yard and I'll stay out of yours" honest folk, but walk on your land, take it, chew you up, drink your blood, and spit you out offspring of the robber baron set.
Of course, by teaching people how to fish and provide for themselves, once you begin teaching beyond basic needs you are teaching in a way that supports a particular type of social structure (that is a type of socialism ). When people trade items of equal value, both benefit. When people trade items of unequal value (far more common) one benefits at the expense of the other. Sadly, many people simply don't have the smarts to recognize when they get shafted. In a way, the shafters get an easier time in a complete free market economy, and the shaftees get an easier time in a more left economy. Those with agendas such as "save the wild rutabaga" seem do do alright in either, just shifting tactics slightly to fit the times.
Of course, all of this leaves out people in countries torn by war and in complete social turmoil. In those places, survival depends on being able to go with the flow and know when to be silent or escape.
It appears that not only is your definition of elitist not the same as mine,
you definition of Leftist and Rightwing are not the same as mine.
On the far Left, socialist society always breaks down into three classes.
The Aristocracy, or rulers, do very well.
The Enforcers, who displace the middle class of civil society.
The Peasants. Yeah that would be everyone else.
It appears that not only is your definition of elitist not the same as mine,
you definition of Leftist and Rightwing are not the same as mine.
On the far Left, socialist society always breaks down into three classes.
The Aristocracy, or rulers, do very well.
The Enforcers, who displace the middle class of civil society.
The Peasants. Yeah that would be everyone else.
I don't have any particular issue with your definition of left - in the socialist sense. Then again, I see those same groups on the right, just with different cloaks.
Socialists yearn for slavery, that's why their talking points are repeated exactly. These people want to be taken care or, to be fed...they are scared of the big wicked world out there after getting their dose of Mother Propoganda....but she coos them to sleep saying everything is ok. They're a good little socialist. Morally they are wonderful and Mother Socialism will take care of them. As long as they stay close to Mother Socialism...they know they'll be protected.
I signed up for coaching and went to a session today. I learned some breakthrough things here that I never realized about the local culture. People hate 1 on 1 meetings here...it's considered punishment to make someone meet 1 on 1 because the expectation is that people will be bullied. When someone doesn't do their work, I'm not to say that. I'm to sandwich it in between 3 things that I think are really good about them, and that I wanted to help them improve upon this amazing base with (affected area) and then close with 3 more good things about the person.
Of course, I shouldn't do that one on one, but on the fly apparently.
I tried the notion and the coach began to laugh. I'd said I really like how you smile because it let's me know you're here and ready to work with the group. She stopped me and said...no no...that is sexual harassment. You should say you really like a person's positive energy.
I asked, "Where does it come from?" Well, it starts in education. I'm amazed at the majority of my kid's work being group work. She hates carrying idiots and tries to stick with her friends, but there's so many kids that are just really dumb that they are already coasting on the tails of others....by middle school. I said the problem is that the teachers don't throttle that kid, and the the administrators won't stand up for their staff to parents. At least we have the colleges. The coach broke protocol for a bit and said that it's mostly group work in the Cal system now.
Group work....at college?
She went further to explain that when you challenge someone as to why they didn't do something directly, you need to realize nobody's ever approached them like that before. They're going to stop listening and you'll be labeled a bully. You can't make people accountable for things here.
So I tell her, well, fine I don't want to work with them...let me just get the important job duties into someone who is capable of doing it and go from there....she said, oh no, that's being passive aggressive and that's very bad. She said, you're not going to be able to get people here to do more. They don't want to. They'll simply do their job terribly until you lash out, and then they'll report it as verification that you're a bully like they've said.
Sadly...it makes a lot of sense. There's just a lot of entitled, disgusting losers that don't want to achieve and don't want another to achieve what they couldn't.
All of this is at odds with the self-sufficient problem solving type.
I don't have any particular issue with your definition of left - in the socialist sense. Then again, I see those same groups on the right, just with different cloaks.
Again, I don't think we agree on definitions. You seem to be confusing The Right with Authoritarians, which are simply another version of The Left. As Barry Goldwater explained, Conservatives seek to enable liberty. That is why there are so very few on the Right in Washington DC. Of course, in order to do that, you have to defend responsibility and accountability, and that is what the minions under The Leftists are scared of.
We are endowed by our Creator, with certain Unalienable Rights. To secure those rights, governments are instituted among men.
When government goes outside those bounds, it is illegitimate, and Leftist.
That is when it is Wrong, not Right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77
... As long as they stay close to Mother Socialism...they know they'll be protected.
......it's considered punishment to make someone meet 1 on 1 because the expectation is that people will be bullied. When someone doesn't do their work, I'm not to say that. I'm to sandwich it in between 3 things that I think are really good about them, and that I wanted to help them improve upon this amazing base with (affected area) and then close with 3 more good things about the person.
... stopped me and said...no no...that is sexual harassment. You should say ...
...
Group work....at college?
She went further to explain that when you challenge someone as to why they didn't do something directly, you need to realize nobody's ever approached them like that before. They're going to stop listening and you'll be labeled a bully.
... oh no, that's being passive aggressive and that's very bad. She said, you're not going to be able to get people here to do more. They don't want to. They'll simply do their job terribly until you lash out, and then they'll report it as verification that you're a bully like they've said.
Sadly...it makes a lot of sense. There's just a lot of entitled, disgusting losers that don't want to achieve and don't want another to achieve what they couldn't.
All of this is at odds with the self-sufficient problem solving type.
You have discovered that you live in among snowflakes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). When people trade items of equal value, both benefit. When people trade items of unequal value (far more common) one benefits at the expense of the other. Sadly, many people simply don't have the smarts to recognize when they get shafted. In a way, the shafters get an easier time in a complete free market economy, and the shaftees get an easier time in a more left economy. Those with agendas such as "save the wild rutabaga" seem do do alright in either, just shifting tactics slightly to fit the times. 
