Acceptable Behaviour and Political Leanings

[Lady tehMa]

Left, right, centrist and mixes; all have different viewpoints. However, these viewpoints lead to different views on what is deemed acceptable behaviour.

The point of this thread is not to denounce but to objectively observe.

I have also noticed that acceptable behaviours have changed. There used to be dialogue and debate between various parties as each tried to explain to the other their own viewpoint. I haven't seen much of that lately. What I have noticed over the past few years is an increase in levels of tribalism and aggression.

Let's start with the right first. The right has always been passionate about their stance, and convinced. The more passionate are usually the first to go to name calling. However, they do recognize and condemn the extremist version of their stance. For example, even the most passionate Conservative on this board will not support the white supremacist/nazi movement. We can all agree that regardless of our leanings that it is simply wrong. The right leaning have firmly entrenched beliefs of right and wrong, and draw lines which they do not cross over.

Centrists tend to be observers, whether they lean to left or right they have a tendency to not comment as much because their voices get lost in the furor. They have been the voice of reason in the past attempting to see both sides of the issue.

Leftists used to be the idealistic foil to the agressived right - used to be. They have become increasingly aggressive over time. That is not a bad thing, except they don't seem to have a stopping point for it. They left has gone from debating, past name calling. It is becoming more and and more extremist but the less extremist of the left are not recognizing this. There seems to be an opinion that as long as the perpetrators are firmly in their camp that that what they do is okay because it is somehow justified. The antifa faction see themselves as heros, despite their tendency towards rabid violence.

If a left-leaning group were to have a seminar and it was interrupted and shouted down by the extremist right, there would be immediate condemnation from all. However, when it happens to a right-leaning group the bulk of the left says "well, it's okay because they shouldn't believe that in the first place". Currently the extremist left is attempting to control what is acceptable and right - as long as it agrees with their stance, they're good. Disagree, and violence will happen. They call themselves "antifa" but they are behaving in the most facist way.

Is debate and dialogue possible anymore? Can we come back from this increasingly Orwellian nightmare?

I have examined both viewpoints in the past. I have learned a lot from various posters on the board by examining their "Why". I hold my own position very strongly, but I have changed over the years. The forum for debate failed, because people aren't interested in dealing in facts.

Extremists are dangerous. The right will at least recognize it. The left needs to as well. And the centrists need to speak up more - we need to hear their voices.

[f/22]

Thanks, Lady tehMa, for posting this topic.

I find your views interesting because currently I have my nose stuck in The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion by: Jonathan Haidt, 2012.

Why can't our political leaders work together as threats loom and problems mount? Why do people so readily assume the worst about the motives of their fellow citizens? In The Righteous Mind, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt explores the origins of our divisions and points the way forward to mutual understanding. <snip>

http://orl.bibliocommons.com/item/show/157725111

I haven’t reached the end of the book yet, to read about the ‘way forward’, but here’s a ‘graph from page 161 regarding the MFQ test on ‘political’ morals.

Perhaps the divergence – convergence points for morals might be surprising to some people.



YourMorals.org:

http://www.yourmorals.org/

Questionnaires:

http://www.moralfoundations.org/questionnaires

[Lady tehMa]

That is pretty interesting! I'm working my way through the tests now. What are your own beliefs on the subject?

[EricLeRed]

Those links are awesome! It's nice to see surveys of this ilk being created by actual universities rather than, say...Buzzfeed. :)
Very curious indeed.

[f/22]

Oh my . . ..

I signed up and contributed to the MoralFoundatons research when that section came up in the book that I mentioned above. So I have my results, which I might share when I’m finished with my reading.

Also, for others who are interested, here’s a link to the self-scorable MFQ30 (downloads in Word).

http://www.moralfoundations.org/sites/d ... orable.doc

And, Lady tehMa, this is what I believe at this point.

From my experience on this forum, as a means to include this as a ‘hive’ in my quest of life-long learning, I suggest . . .:

CivilPolitic.org

http://www.civilpolitics.org/

Educating the Public on Evidence-based methods for improving inter-group civility.

Creating a More Civil Social Media Feed

Research shows that people are more likely to click on negative information and more likely to share information that resonates with their values, leading our collective social media feeds to be full of negative information that fits with our partisan worldview. Help us promote positive social media stories that show partisans working together as research suggests that this "extended contact effect" can reduce polarization. . . ..

[Glacier]

The left seems to celebrate death. That is not to say all leftists do or that many right-wingers don't either, it's merely a general trend I see. Whenever there's a controversial topic, the left almost always sides with death. Then when they protest, the thank God for death.

Democrats:

[f/22]

How interesting, Glacier, did you take those pictures?

[tremendous]

Uh Glacier, the Westboro Baptist Church are not Democrats, left leaning or anything other than *bleep* crazy religious zealots. And either.you know this and are willfully misrepresenting to provoke or you're too misinformed to really contribute to this discussion.

[Ka-El]

The point of this thread is not to denounce but to objectively observe.

If a left-leaning group were to have a seminar and it was interrupted and shouted down by the extremist right, there would be immediate condemnation from all. However, when it happens to a right-leaning group the bulk of the left says "well, it's okay because they shouldn't believe that in the first place". Currently the extremist left is attempting to control what is acceptable and right - as long as it agrees with their stance, they're good.

Well, as long as we're being "objective"

[f/22]

As I promised earlier, here’s how Jonathan Haidt concludes his book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

<snip> If you bring one thing home . . . may I suggest that it be the image of a small bump on the back of our heads—the hive switch, just under the skin, waiting to be turned on. We’ve been told for fifty years now that human beings are fundamentally selfish. We’re assaulted by reality TV programs showing people at their worst. Some people actually believe that a woman should shout “fire” if she’s being raped, on the grounds that everyone is so selfish that they won’t even come out to investigate unless they fear for their own lives.
It’s not true. We may spend most of our waking hours advancing our own interests, but we all have the capacity to transcend self-interest and become simply a part of a whole. It’s not just a capacity, it’s the portal to many of life’s most cherished experiences.

This book explained why people are divided by politics and religion. The answer is not, as Manichaeans would have it, because some people are good and others are evil. Instead, the explanation is that our minds were designed for groupish righteousness. We are deeply intuitive creatures whose gut feelings drive our strategic reasoning. This makes it difficult—but not impossible—to connect with those who live in other matrices, which are often built on different configurations of the available moral foundations.
So the next time you find yourself seated beside someone from another matrix, give it a try. Don’t just jump right in. Don’t bring up morality until you’ve found a few points of commonality or in some other way established a bit of trust. And when you do bring up issues of morality, try to start with some praise, or with a sincere expression of interest.
We’re stuck here for a while, so let’s try to work it out.

Pages 317 and 318

Also, as I suggested that I might share, here’s my ‘moral matrix’ according to the self-administered Moral Foundations Questionnaire that I posted earlier from http://www.moralfoundations.org/questionnaires .

Harm / Care 28
Fairness / Reciprocity 30
In-Group / Loyalty 10
Authority / Respect 20
Purity / Sanctity 20

I scored above average in morality for four of the categories, but below average for one.

LOL. This appears to make me a sort of political mongrel.

However, for privacy reasons, I’m not going to share what my online Foundations participation revealed, although the basics came out much the same despite the 'migrating circumstances' that I fed into the study.

[neilsimon]

The left seems to celebrate death. That is not to say all leftists do or that many right-wingers don't either, it's merely a general trend I see. Whenever there's a controversial topic, the left almost always sides with death. Then when they protest, the thank God for death. ..

Yes, they're definitely the ones chanting "Blood and soil", "Death to Jews", and driving a car into people. Oh, sorry I sometimes mix up my left and right. Seriously though, you are talking about extremism and both sides have their share of it. It just so happens that right-wing extremists have killed far more than left-wing extremists, so I'm quite sure you are just wrong.
Anyway, yes, there certainly are differences and I find Pew research to be pretty good source.
This shows that Democrats are more likely to favour education and Republicans favour religion:
http://www.people-press.org/2017/07/10/ ... titutions/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... eparation/
Democrats, well educated and not Christian evangelists are more likely to favour abortion legality:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... parties-2/
Democrats, well educated, and younger people believe that being open to foreigners is essential to US identity:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... -a-nation/
Republicans are less likely to support federal spending for scientific research:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... -research/
Republicans against free trade (interesting anti-capitalist approach for them to take):
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... es-remain/
Interestingly, education level has little impact on Republican views of climate change, but strong impact on Democrat ones, and has no effect on Democrat support for nuclear power, but strong influence on Republican support (increases with education level and it's one area I agree with Republicans):
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... gy-issues/
Republicans and ordinary educated people (not postgrad) more likely to support use of torture in anti-terror efforts:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... r-efforts/

[GordonH]

Deleted by poster

[Glacier]

Uh Glacier, the Westboro Baptist Church are not Democrats, left leaning or anything other than *bleep* crazy religious zealots. And either.you know this and are willfully misrepresenting to provoke or you're too misinformed to really contribute to this discussion.

Leftists are about feelings; the right is more about facts. There is nothing wrong with this; we need both (without feelings we become too cold), and yes, there is a spectrum and overlap, but in general that's how it works. For example, I posted a fact, and your first response "liked" by two of your fellow feelings based leftists was to deny a simple fact.

Instead of denying the simple fact that some of the most hateful groups are Democrats like WBC and Antifa, you could have said, "yes, not everyone in the Democrat tent is honourable. Same goes for the Republican side." Nope, you instead denied reality, which is to paint one side as good and the other side as pure evil, and thus justifying the likes of violence and other totalitarian actions against even centrists and liberals who don't align perfectly with the progressive agenda.

[Ka-El]

Leftists are about feelings; the right is more about facts.

Glacier, you’re far too intelligent to fall for such an erroneous overgeneralization. I’m not going to get into some lengthy discussion of comparative ideology here, but as just one example: when it comes to issues around addiction the left would invest proactively in education, prevention and treatment because the facts from research shows this costs ten time less than the rights approach to reactively spend on enforcement and punishment because of their feelings that addicts are losers and don’t deserve care. It is also the right who are more likely to defund scientific research, especially once the evidence from that research begins to contradict their ideological stance and makes them feel uncomfortable.

[Glacier]

I don't mean to sound too harsh. There is bad and good on both sides. The bad tends to be at the extremes.

As for facts, yes, people deny the facts they don't like on both sides for the most part, so there is strong overlap here. There's a difference on average, but you can't tell how factual or caring or racist for that matter someone is by their political views.

(That reminds me, Neilsimon made a statement of faith about racism and political persuasion, which I'd like to hear a defense of beyond a hunch.)

People who are high in openess and agreeableness are oriented toward the left. People who are oriented to the right are high in conscientiousness. Again, both are needed for a functioning society: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolic ... -election/