Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-09-2015, 11:36 PM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
30,976 posts, read 21,518,268 times
Reputation: 9675

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by halfamazing View Post
This is a serious question and I have no intention in bashing one or the other. To be honest, I watch MSNBC's morning joe in the AM, CNN during lunch, talk radio and 1010 wins in the car, and Fox in the evening. So I feel I get a well rounded dose of media and opinion. Also to be fair, I don't like extreme opinions and constant bashing. And actually, while living in Florida in 2005, I listened to both Air America and conservative radio and I always found that Air America was so nasty and it was like listening to sean hannity all day.

I think I am a reasonable person but tend to agree with many on the right. And many times, when some topics that a reasonable person would consider to be questionable come up, I find that the left really go out of their way to undermine it with counter points. For example, the Ben Netanyahu speech that has nothing or shouldn't have anything to do with bipartisanship and more concern for all but yet, the democrats really pushed back really hard rather than dealing with the substance. I was surprised at some of the democratic reaction. Even the tone the president took after the speech caught me by surprise.

Another thing is the differences in prime time cable news- I simply can't watch Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Melissa Harris-Perry, the others. I find that they use this humor that I simply can't relate to. On the contrary, watching other news you find a more serious tone and asking sensible questions.

So is it hard wired? Do we think differently? Look, I understand it's politics but each side seems to be set on their views.
You surely don't watch Fox News opinion shows on Sat. mornings and watch the conservatives gang up all at once on the liberal. Unfair and Unbalanced.

Last edited by StillwaterTownie; 03-09-2015 at 11:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-10-2015, 05:40 AM
 
Location: Boston, MA
14,460 posts, read 11,219,060 times
Reputation: 8974
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
No, it's how you are taught.

Same as racism, you are taught racism....
Neither my parents nor any of my schools taught me my political ideology.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2015, 08:28 AM
 
13,774 posts, read 5,505,525 times
Reputation: 8483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City View Post
Collectivism is about serving the common good, not the government.
Let someone from the past rebut that gem:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayn Rand
throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing the common good.
Hitler rose to power for the common good of the Fatherland. Every time you lose a right in the United States, it's for the common good. The common good always seems to require force, loss of freedom, and subjugation to some group, the primary one in this country being the various levels of Leviathan's thugocracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City View Post
If the government doesn't reflect the common good, then collectivists oppose the government.
Only to replace that government with one that will enforce their version of the common good that all must be subjugated to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City View Post
Leftists can be individualists as well-- egalitarianism doesn't necessarily change who a person is or reject what they have to contribute, it simply rewards a person's contributions differently (eg: intrinsic vs extrinsic rewards; respect, honor and appreciation vs material wealth).
Egalitarianism operates on the Marxist doctrine of "from each according to ability, to each according to need" in order to engineer equal outcomes. And it doesn't just reward one person's contributions differently, it also penalizes another person's contributions differently. If Person A does work that has 5 units of value, while Person B does work that has 15 units of value, and each are paid 10 units, the deal is great for Person A, and it sucks for Person B. Essentially, all egalitarianism does is switch which side of the bell curve it suck to be on, by making valuable input less valuable, thus something only suckers and fools engage in. It also flattens the entire theory of success, because there's no point in achieving greater success when you get decreasing reward/incentive for doing so. For more on this, see "USSR from 1930-1990."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City View Post
Egalitarianism also provides opportunities to people who wouldn't have them under a more stratified society... since class (and all of the trappings that force people into classes) are a non-issue, the individual isn't discouraged or injured by their socioeconomic standing and is more likely to develop into a productive, well-adjusted individual whose contribution is valued by society, and who feels the psychological benefits of that value. They are also given countless opportunities to develop themselves, and are encouraged to do so.
And how pray tell does one develop into a productive, well adjusted individual when the reward is the same regardless of input? When someone realizes that they get 10 units worth of output whether they do 0, 1, 10, or 100 units of input, it is not long before their brain solves the not_too_tough arithmetic that says doing nothing (0 input) and getting the 10 units of output is max profitability per unit of input labor. You are furthest ahead to do as little as possible when your reward is the same as that of people (suckers) who do work.

Your milk & honey, chicken in every pot version of egalitarianism has been tried, most recently and famously by the USSR and its member satellite nations. Tell me, by all means, what methodology did they employ to get around the basic human nature of doing nothing when you know nothing pays just as well as something? Everyone already knows the answer, but let's see how intellectually honest you are where this egalitarianism thing is concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City View Post
One of the biggest problems with having discussions like these is people tend to assume that all of these terms fit into one of two all-encompassing categories. They don't.
I wasn't making any assumptions. People generally fall somewhere on the individualist-collectivist scale. They also fall somewhere on the "how much force should be applied to others to make them believe as I do scale."

For example, there's horizontal and vertical collectivism. Horizontal tends to be the more voluntary version of collectives, like an HOA for example. Vertical is the autocratic state version, where collectivism is enforced top down. The horizontal collective will require less force for compliance because membership in the group is voluntary. You are not part of that collective against your will, so you're more likely to go along with the collective's goals/demands/needs without coercion. The vertical collective conscripts its members without their choice, as in nations/states. Since the members of the collective have no choice in being part of the collective, more force applied on a more constant basis is required to keep that machine running effectively. A good example of the difference is K-12 public school vs college. Colleges tend to need fewer (if any) truancy rules, conduct policies, or other forms of coercion to get students to attend, do their work, etc than their K-12 counterparts. The reason is not age and maturity so much as college being PURELY VOLUNTARY while K-12 is PURELY COMPULSORY. In college, the members of that collective chose to be there, and in K-12, they were forced to be there. The group forced into their circumstance requires more force to elicit compliance.

But in general, collectivist systems put the needs/wants of the group over the needs/wants of the individual, and people choose a collective path because of their faith in the collective to do/solve/cure/fix that which they do not think can be done individually. And when it comes to how to be treated by government, a collectivist tends more towards accepting hat government decrees to be the common good and how best to achieve it, while the individualist will be more distrustful and antagonistic towards the government's definitions and mandates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2015, 08:36 AM
 
7,359 posts, read 5,444,592 times
Reputation: 3141
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen View Post
Naive is blindly following partisan leaders assuming they know what's best instead of carefully considering each issue which is what far too many Americans are doing. Most of the posters on this site represent the absolute worst of what partisan politics has become. Politics is not a team sport where you unequivocally cheer for your team no matter what they do, and hate the other. Political decisions affect our lives in significant ways, the choices our representatives make can change the course of our country for better, or worse. It is up to us to make sure they make decisions they are best for the majority of Americans, not just the few who have money and influence.

Just because someone holds a different opinion does not mean they are ignorant, or stupid. This sort of knee jerk reaction to someone on the other "team," along with hyperbolic assumptions of what they about are a huge problem. We will never reach point where everyone agrees on everything, but we must stop fighting simply based on whether someone is on team D, or team R, or conservative/liberal. If instead we start actually discussing the issues with civility, and respect for opposing viewpoints, we have a chance at coming to a consensus on some of the most important issues.

Politicians, and the big money they represent want us to be too busy fighting with each other to question what they are doing, and who is receiving most of the benefits. Anyone who honestly believes that the problems of this country are all caused by the fact that there are too many Rs, or too many Ds in power, and it would all be fine if only their team had all the power is being foolish.
People do not pick opinions that they know are wrong. It is, in fact, impossible to do that. Calling people foolish for thinking that the solutions they believe in are the right solutions is itself being foolish. It's one thing to call for civil discussion on the issues, but it's quite another to say people are foolish for following leaders whose viewpoints they agree with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2015, 08:42 AM
 
13,774 posts, read 5,505,525 times
Reputation: 8483
And back on topic....

Like anything else, one's ideology tends to be the product of life experience, teaching, surrounding culture, etc. It is cultivated over many years, and evolves in stages distinct to the individual.

I am a voluntaryist libertarian based on life experience, education, reading, cultural surroundings, etc. I've evolved to this point. At one point in life, I actually bought into two distinct parties, voted Republican mostly, put hope in government, etc. I am no longer that way. Life itself has taught me a great deal concerning ideology, and every day I get more libertarian, more voluntaryist, more individualistic, etc. Every day I see groups claiming their miraculous powers of problem solving, and every day I see them failing at solving any problems. Coupled with a life experience that taught me early on to depend on nobody but myself, and I am distrustful of collectives, group dynamics, etc, and tend to always choose myself as the first and best resource for solving my problems.

Ideologically, this manifests in simple dismissal of government as anything but unnecessary tyrant. They do nothing but harm me, and always for someone else's common good. This is additional cement in the foundation of my libertarianism. Again, it's an evolving thing.

And of note, my family tends more towards Democrat than anything else, and I am the sole libertarian independent of the entire bunch. So my thinking is not based on following a crowd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2015, 09:11 AM
 
Location: NH
4,187 posts, read 3,719,740 times
Reputation: 6713
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
No, it's how you are taught.

Same as racism, you are taught racism....
I disagree, it is learned. My sister and I grew up together with the same parents and we have two totally different political views. Racism is the same way, Its all about what you are subjected to, its based on perception.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2015, 09:54 AM
 
Location: NYC
5,235 posts, read 3,573,724 times
Reputation: 15904
I've found that as people age they will gravitate to one of two poles: sticking with what they knew/thought/hope/fantisized to be true or "good", or keeping a more flexible mind to change/adapt/evolve to new times & situations with modified attitudes/ethics. Both sides probably agree on core values: truth, justice, freedom... but define them differently according to which pole they have gravitated towards: more rigid categories or constantly reevaluating & resetting terms.

I also believe at heart humans are tribal &, uniquely in modern western society, we get to choose our tribes & identify ourselves as that, we may be born into some of it, like religion, & then go on to refine or reject it & become part of a tribe.

When I talk with my mother, who came from another country & is "of a certain age".... she identifies with her old country's religion, though more culturally now than absolutely or ritually, but doesn't identify at all with new immigrants. When questioned about her political beliefs really has no concept about policies or politics: certain pols "seem nice", always white & male, the paternal society she came of age in, & when asked about specifics she will just wave her hand & say "all my friends vote this way." And I think she probably represents the majority of voters who vote according to varying feelings of kinship according to their tribe.

I think once you choose a tribe only a traumatic event will cause us to reconsider: death, sickness, loss of religious faith, child coming out as gay, etc...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2015, 10:32 AM
 
2,777 posts, read 1,772,982 times
Reputation: 2418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Let someone from the past rebut that gem:

Hitler rose to power for the common good of the Fatherland. Every time you lose a right in the United States, it's for the common good. The common good always seems to require force, loss of freedom, and subjugation to some group, the primary one in this country being the various levels of Leviathan's thugocracy.

Only to replace that government with one that will enforce their version of the common good that all must be subjugated to.
Totalitarianism, fascism and collectivism aren't the same thing. There is no point in even responding to that, because later in your own post you seem to acknowledge that collectivism can exist without the threat of force.

And of course government enforces its vision-- are you serious? Where does a government NOT do this?

If we had a libertarian government and I decided I wanted everything to be public and decided to use private roads or whatever without paying... are you saying there would be no legal repercussions?

Oh wait, I would simply be shot by the neo-feudal lord's private army. Point taken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Egalitarianism operates on the Marxist doctrine of "from each according to ability, to each according to need" in order to engineer equal outcomes. And it doesn't just reward one person's contributions differently, it also penalizes another person's contributions differently. If Person A does work that has 5 units of value, while Person B does work that has 15 units of value, and each are paid 10 units, the deal is great for Person A, and it sucks for Person B. Essentially, all egalitarianism does is switch which side of the bell curve it suck to be on, by making valuable input less valuable, thus something only suckers and fools engage in. It also flattens the entire theory of success, because there's no point in achieving greater success when you get decreasing reward/incentive for doing so. For more on this, see "USSR from 1930-1990."
Nice job proving that nobody ever does volunteer work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
And how pray tell does one develop into a productive, well adjusted individual when the reward is the same regardless of input? When someone realizes that they get 10 units worth of output whether they do 0, 1, 10, or 100 units of input, it is not long before their brain solves the not_too_tough arithmetic that says doing nothing (0 input) and getting the 10 units of output is max profitability per unit of input labor. You are furthest ahead to do as little as possible when your reward is the same as that of people (suckers) who do work.
Because in less barbaric societies, people don't only think of what's in it for them. I can't speak for the cynical heartless bastards of the world, but I personally don't think someone is a sucker or a fool for wanting to help sick people, or for wanting to teach children, or for wanting to provide others with clean water, healthy food and a nice place to live, and I don't mean because they're making fat stacks by doing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Your milk & honey, chicken in every pot version of egalitarianism has been tried, most recently and famously by the USSR and its member satellite nations. Tell me, by all means, what methodology did they employ to get around the basic human nature of doing nothing when you know nothing pays just as well as something? Everyone already knows the answer, but let's see how intellectually honest you are where this egalitarianism thing is concerned.
People feel lazy, guilty and depressed when they do nothing-- that's hardly what the majority of human beings aspire to. I would say the biggest reason defeatism occurs at all is because of how competitive, barbaric and brutal capitalist society is-- when it's easier to give up than to fight just for the chance that you might get hired (but probably won't), giving up is easier. But if society gives you everything you need to get the job of your dreams (or at least a job that will make you feel like you are contributing something of value), then it's easier to go after that than to wallow in misery and feel horrible about yourself.

Repetitive, demeaning or physically torturous work isn't the same as creative, empowering and challenging work... most people would pick the latter in a heartbeat.

And we're not living in the 20th century anymore and European socialism is a much better example of what the left wants for North America. Unless of course, you're the Green Party, which wants conscientious decentralization where a collectivist value system will prioritize social responsibility over profits.

Social pressures, self-efficacy and the desire for personal improvement are far more effective motivators than the 'carrot and stick' of riches and the threat of poverty. In fact, the latter can actually devalue the work itself and has given rise to occupations where people make a lot of money through acts that add zero value to society. It's all about what people are willing to buy, not what they actually need or even want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
I wasn't making any assumptions. People generally fall somewhere on the individualist-collectivist scale. They also fall somewhere on the "how much force should be applied to others to make them believe as I do scale."
Yes, and they're not the same thing.

Last edited by Spatula City; 03-10-2015 at 10:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2015, 10:38 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
18,132 posts, read 15,539,275 times
Reputation: 17119
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfamazing View Post
This is a serious question and I have no intention in bashing one or the other. To be honest, I watch MSNBC's morning joe in the AM, CNN during lunch, talk radio and 1010 wins in the car, and Fox in the evening. So I feel I get a well rounded dose of media and opinion. Also to be fair, I don't like extreme opinions and constant bashing. And actually, while living in Florida in 2005, I listened to both Air America and conservative radio and I always found that Air America was so nasty and it was like listening to sean hannity all day.

I think I am a reasonable person but tend to agree with many on the right. And many times, when some topics that a reasonable person would consider to be questionable come up, I find that the left really go out of their way to undermine it with counter points. For example, the Ben Netanyahu speech that has nothing or shouldn't have anything to do with bipartisanship and more concern for all but yet, the democrats really pushed back really hard rather than dealing with the substance. I was surprised at some of the democratic reaction. Even the tone the president took after the speech caught me by surprise.

Another thing is the differences in prime time cable news- I simply can't watch Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Melissa Harris-Perry, the others. I find that they use this humor that I simply can't relate to. On the contrary, watching other news you find a more serious tone and asking sensible questions.

So is it hard wired? Do we think differently? Look, I understand it's politics but each side seems to be set on their views.
Views and opinions change for folks. Age, and especially experiences, morph all. I am , hardly, the hard line, immoveable and , at times, quite violent, person I was 30 years ago. Certain emotions have been replaced by others. I don't court conflict and confrontation anymore. Traits that youngsters, of both viewpoints, cultivate and hold , oh , so dear. They LOVE to scream at each other, thinking it makes a difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2015, 10:52 AM
 
Location: Homeless
17,717 posts, read 13,445,178 times
Reputation: 11993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua View Post
Neither my parents nor any of my schools taught me my political ideology.

Same here my dad didn't vote & my mom these past 15 years leans to the right but her beliefs have a lot to do with that. I USED to lean towards the left, as I got older I now lean towards the idea that they are BOTH full of B.S. Just wish others could see it as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top