|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 08 2022 06:27 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2022 06:14 L_Master wrote:On November 04 2022 05:08 JimmiC wrote:On November 04 2022 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2022 23:09 Gorsameth wrote:On November 03 2022 22:47 pmh wrote:On November 03 2022 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
I am curious what the Democrat supporter response is to the "Like please good faith give me some of the positive reasons to vote for a Democrat that has nothing to do with Republicans" question? Why would an answer or positive reason be needed? The republican platform should be more then enough reason by itself. If the most progressive segment of the left is very unhappy with the democratic party then they should break away and build their own party/movement. As long as they dont do that,the 2nd best option for them is to vote democratic. These elections i dont dare to call. Republicans are overwhelmingly favored to win the house (~95% on the betting sites). Uncertainty and variance is very high this cycle i think. It could be an overwhelming republican victory but i wont rule out the democrats outperforming the polls by a large margin either. Keeping a majority is probably out of the question though. The problem with the more progressive left breaking away is that it just means both parts of the Democratic party will not win elections, even many they would otherwise currently win, and Republicans would get to rule with control of all 3 branches with a super majority. Such is the nature, and problem, of a FPTP system. Whichever side breaks up consigns themselves to irrelevance. Democrats seem to be moving there themselves with the progressive left well under heel. Democrats never fully recovered from the 1000+ seats in government they lost under Obama and are now poised to lose both chambers while campaigning on the threat that Republicans are destroying democracy to win/keep them. So not only are they on the precipice of defeat, they've forecasted their own irrelevance. Is it your position that the Democrats should focus on their policy instead of attacking the Republicans to get more votes? While I appreciate the optimism of the position, has it not been shown time and time again that attack ads get more results at the polls? And wasn't stopping Trump the number one reason people stated they voted last general? When people do not have to vote you not only have to be their preferred party but you also have to motivate them to get to the polls. Stopping Trump and Pwning the libs are the current version of this. If it is a comparison of who does it more, it is clearly the Republicans, but asking the Dems to completely give up the attack is naïve at best given all the studies and market research done on what works in American elections given the system. These feel like the wrong frames to me. It's a totally different thing. Over the last few decades the left completed it's march through the intuitions. The right completed it's march through the court system. You have the judiciary looking to overturn, essentially, all of positive law restoring natural law as the only kind of law. Then you have the left wing controlled institutions of cultural production. I don't see how this divide comes back together. Seems impossible barring miracle (new energy source and decades of prosperity) or extreme crisis (massive depression, psudeo-collapse tier scenarios). Why? The two sides are fundamentally opposed. Responsibility across/over time and in time vs responsibility in-time(now). The former could restore to a rule of law based entity with classic liberalism and conservatism returning, but the in-time (now) orientation of the progressive left is incompatible with nature's feedback. It creates incentives that cause long term losses in cooperation because it doesn't align incentives in favor of cooperation and cultural production of responsibility, agency, and cooperation. The only solution I can see is to split into many federations, very loosely these would be city federations and rural federations governed by there own preferences, which ought to be agreeable to all. Progressive left can govern as they want. Conservative right can govern as they want. Small government providing only for common defense and basic services. I strongly think anything else leads to increasing polarization and eventually civil war type scenario. But, if someone has a way that you can cross the responsibility now vs responsibility across time divide and "bring back" or reconcile the other side, I might change that view. I haven't thought of anything yet though. I am an American communist and I can 100% ensure you that there is no institution in the US run by leftists. The most left-wing you'll get is like, Democratic Socialists that are barely centrist on a global scale. Any institution that would become far-left will be infiltrated by the FBI and dismantled and if someone poses a threat like Fred Hampton did, they will be executed. There is no leftist culture in the US. Anti-communist and anti-socialist propaganda and beliefs are present everywhere.
This seems like a definition thing.
Like, I read this and I think that you think I mean something close to communist poltical activism.
I don't.
By leftist, I mean those who are leftist by tempermant (high openness, high neuroticism, empathizing cognition) and thus generally "lean left" by US poltical spectrum. Some institutions are pretty solidly progressive left (e.g. woke), others have only a softer left flare, which presents as mild hostility to conservative viewpoints.
Nobody is talking like blatant, leftwing, or certainly not communist or even socialist direct politcal activism.
|
On November 08 2022 07:22 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2022 06:27 plasmidghost wrote:On November 08 2022 06:14 L_Master wrote:On November 04 2022 05:08 JimmiC wrote:On November 04 2022 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2022 23:09 Gorsameth wrote:On November 03 2022 22:47 pmh wrote:On November 03 2022 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
I am curious what the Democrat supporter response is to the "Like please good faith give me some of the positive reasons to vote for a Democrat that has nothing to do with Republicans" question? Why would an answer or positive reason be needed? The republican platform should be more then enough reason by itself. If the most progressive segment of the left is very unhappy with the democratic party then they should break away and build their own party/movement. As long as they dont do that,the 2nd best option for them is to vote democratic. These elections i dont dare to call. Republicans are overwhelmingly favored to win the house (~95% on the betting sites). Uncertainty and variance is very high this cycle i think. It could be an overwhelming republican victory but i wont rule out the democrats outperforming the polls by a large margin either. Keeping a majority is probably out of the question though. The problem with the more progressive left breaking away is that it just means both parts of the Democratic party will not win elections, even many they would otherwise currently win, and Republicans would get to rule with control of all 3 branches with a super majority. Such is the nature, and problem, of a FPTP system. Whichever side breaks up consigns themselves to irrelevance. Democrats seem to be moving there themselves with the progressive left well under heel. Democrats never fully recovered from the 1000+ seats in government they lost under Obama and are now poised to lose both chambers while campaigning on the threat that Republicans are destroying democracy to win/keep them. So not only are they on the precipice of defeat, they've forecasted their own irrelevance. Is it your position that the Democrats should focus on their policy instead of attacking the Republicans to get more votes? While I appreciate the optimism of the position, has it not been shown time and time again that attack ads get more results at the polls? And wasn't stopping Trump the number one reason people stated they voted last general? When people do not have to vote you not only have to be their preferred party but you also have to motivate them to get to the polls. Stopping Trump and Pwning the libs are the current version of this. If it is a comparison of who does it more, it is clearly the Republicans, but asking the Dems to completely give up the attack is naïve at best given all the studies and market research done on what works in American elections given the system. These feel like the wrong frames to me. It's a totally different thing. Over the last few decades the left completed it's march through the intuitions. The right completed it's march through the court system. You have the judiciary looking to overturn, essentially, all of positive law restoring natural law as the only kind of law. Then you have the left wing controlled institutions of cultural production. I don't see how this divide comes back together. Seems impossible barring miracle (new energy source and decades of prosperity) or extreme crisis (massive depression, psudeo-collapse tier scenarios). Why? The two sides are fundamentally opposed. Responsibility across/over time and in time vs responsibility in-time(now). The former could restore to a rule of law based entity with classic liberalism and conservatism returning, but the in-time (now) orientation of the progressive left is incompatible with nature's feedback. It creates incentives that cause long term losses in cooperation because it doesn't align incentives in favor of cooperation and cultural production of responsibility, agency, and cooperation. The only solution I can see is to split into many federations, very loosely these would be city federations and rural federations governed by there own preferences, which ought to be agreeable to all. Progressive left can govern as they want. Conservative right can govern as they want. Small government providing only for common defense and basic services. I strongly think anything else leads to increasing polarization and eventually civil war type scenario. But, if someone has a way that you can cross the responsibility now vs responsibility across time divide and "bring back" or reconcile the other side, I might change that view. I haven't thought of anything yet though. I am an American communist and I can 100% ensure you that there is no institution in the US run by leftists. The most left-wing you'll get is like, Democratic Socialists that are barely centrist on a global scale. Any institution that would become far-left will be infiltrated by the FBI and dismantled and if someone poses a threat like Fred Hampton did, they will be executed. There is no leftist culture in the US. Anti-communist and anti-socialist propaganda and beliefs are present everywhere. This seems like a definition thing. Like, I read this and I think that you think I mean something close to communist poltical activism. I don't. By leftist, I mean those who are leftist by tempermant (high openness, high neuroticism, empathizing cognition) and thus generally "lean left" by US poltical spectrum. Some institutions are pretty solidly progressive left (e.g. woke), others have only a softer left flare, which presents as mild hostility to conservative viewpoints. Nobody is talking like blatant, leftwing, or certainly not communist or even socialist direct politcal activism.
Huh, my bad
|
On November 08 2022 07:22 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2022 06:27 plasmidghost wrote:On November 08 2022 06:14 L_Master wrote:On November 04 2022 05:08 JimmiC wrote:On November 04 2022 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2022 23:09 Gorsameth wrote:On November 03 2022 22:47 pmh wrote:On November 03 2022 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
I am curious what the Democrat supporter response is to the "Like please good faith give me some of the positive reasons to vote for a Democrat that has nothing to do with Republicans" question? Why would an answer or positive reason be needed? The republican platform should be more then enough reason by itself. If the most progressive segment of the left is very unhappy with the democratic party then they should break away and build their own party/movement. As long as they dont do that,the 2nd best option for them is to vote democratic. These elections i dont dare to call. Republicans are overwhelmingly favored to win the house (~95% on the betting sites). Uncertainty and variance is very high this cycle i think. It could be an overwhelming republican victory but i wont rule out the democrats outperforming the polls by a large margin either. Keeping a majority is probably out of the question though. The problem with the more progressive left breaking away is that it just means both parts of the Democratic party will not win elections, even many they would otherwise currently win, and Republicans would get to rule with control of all 3 branches with a super majority. Such is the nature, and problem, of a FPTP system. Whichever side breaks up consigns themselves to irrelevance. Democrats seem to be moving there themselves with the progressive left well under heel. Democrats never fully recovered from the 1000+ seats in government they lost under Obama and are now poised to lose both chambers while campaigning on the threat that Republicans are destroying democracy to win/keep them. So not only are they on the precipice of defeat, they've forecasted their own irrelevance. Is it your position that the Democrats should focus on their policy instead of attacking the Republicans to get more votes? While I appreciate the optimism of the position, has it not been shown time and time again that attack ads get more results at the polls? And wasn't stopping Trump the number one reason people stated they voted last general? When people do not have to vote you not only have to be their preferred party but you also have to motivate them to get to the polls. Stopping Trump and Pwning the libs are the current version of this. If it is a comparison of who does it more, it is clearly the Republicans, but asking the Dems to completely give up the attack is naïve at best given all the studies and market research done on what works in American elections given the system. These feel like the wrong frames to me. It's a totally different thing. Over the last few decades the left completed it's march through the intuitions. The right completed it's march through the court system. You have the judiciary looking to overturn, essentially, all of positive law restoring natural law as the only kind of law. Then you have the left wing controlled institutions of cultural production. I don't see how this divide comes back together. Seems impossible barring miracle (new energy source and decades of prosperity) or extreme crisis (massive depression, psudeo-collapse tier scenarios). Why? The two sides are fundamentally opposed. Responsibility across/over time and in time vs responsibility in-time(now). The former could restore to a rule of law based entity with classic liberalism and conservatism returning, but the in-time (now) orientation of the progressive left is incompatible with nature's feedback. It creates incentives that cause long term losses in cooperation because it doesn't align incentives in favor of cooperation and cultural production of responsibility, agency, and cooperation. The only solution I can see is to split into many federations, very loosely these would be city federations and rural federations governed by there own preferences, which ought to be agreeable to all. Progressive left can govern as they want. Conservative right can govern as they want. Small government providing only for common defense and basic services. I strongly think anything else leads to increasing polarization and eventually civil war type scenario. But, if someone has a way that you can cross the responsibility now vs responsibility across time divide and "bring back" or reconcile the other side, I might change that view. I haven't thought of anything yet though. I am an American communist and I can 100% ensure you that there is no institution in the US run by leftists. The most left-wing you'll get is like, Democratic Socialists that are barely centrist on a global scale. Any institution that would become far-left will be infiltrated by the FBI and dismantled and if someone poses a threat like Fred Hampton did, they will be executed. There is no leftist culture in the US. Anti-communist and anti-socialist propaganda and beliefs are present everywhere. This seems like a definition thing. Like, I read this and I think that you think I mean something close to communist poltical activism. I don't. By leftist, I mean those who are leftist by tempermant (high openness, high neuroticism, empathizing cognition) and thus generally "lean left" by US poltical spectrum. Some institutions are pretty solidly progressive left (e.g. woke), others have only a softer left flare, which presents as mild hostility to conservative viewpoints. Nobody is talking like blatant, leftwing, or certainly not communist or even socialist direct politcal activism.
Then I would suggest avoiding certain terms like "leftism" or "leftist" because those specifically refer to anti-capitalist ideologies and anti-capitalist indviduals. It can make conversation a bit difficult when we don't adhere to the same definitions.
|
Yeah, "leftist by temperament" is new to me.
|
Northern Ireland23792 Posts
On November 08 2022 09:00 NewSunshine wrote:
Yeah, "leftist by temperament" is new to me.
We have high neuroticism, apparently. Wish I wasn’t a leftist now…
|
On November 08 2022 07:43 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2022 07:22 L_Master wrote:On November 08 2022 06:27 plasmidghost wrote:On November 08 2022 06:14 L_Master wrote:On November 04 2022 05:08 JimmiC wrote:On November 04 2022 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2022 23:09 Gorsameth wrote:On November 03 2022 22:47 pmh wrote:On November 03 2022 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
I am curious what the Democrat supporter response is to the "Like please good faith give me some of the positive reasons to vote for a Democrat that has nothing to do with Republicans" question? Why would an answer or positive reason be needed? The republican platform should be more then enough reason by itself. If the most progressive segment of the left is very unhappy with the democratic party then they should break away and build their own party/movement. As long as they dont do that,the 2nd best option for them is to vote democratic. These elections i dont dare to call. Republicans are overwhelmingly favored to win the house (~95% on the betting sites). Uncertainty and variance is very high this cycle i think. It could be an overwhelming republican victory but i wont rule out the democrats outperforming the polls by a large margin either. Keeping a majority is probably out of the question though. The problem with the more progressive left breaking away is that it just means both parts of the Democratic party will not win elections, even many they would otherwise currently win, and Republicans would get to rule with control of all 3 branches with a super majority. Such is the nature, and problem, of a FPTP system. Whichever side breaks up consigns themselves to irrelevance. Democrats seem to be moving there themselves with the progressive left well under heel. Democrats never fully recovered from the 1000+ seats in government they lost under Obama and are now poised to lose both chambers while campaigning on the threat that Republicans are destroying democracy to win/keep them. So not only are they on the precipice of defeat, they've forecasted their own irrelevance. Is it your position that the Democrats should focus on their policy instead of attacking the Republicans to get more votes? While I appreciate the optimism of the position, has it not been shown time and time again that attack ads get more results at the polls? And wasn't stopping Trump the number one reason people stated they voted last general? When people do not have to vote you not only have to be their preferred party but you also have to motivate them to get to the polls. Stopping Trump and Pwning the libs are the current version of this. If it is a comparison of who does it more, it is clearly the Republicans, but asking the Dems to completely give up the attack is naïve at best given all the studies and market research done on what works in American elections given the system. These feel like the wrong frames to me. It's a totally different thing. Over the last few decades the left completed it's march through the intuitions. The right completed it's march through the court system. You have the judiciary looking to overturn, essentially, all of positive law restoring natural law as the only kind of law. Then you have the left wing controlled institutions of cultural production. I don't see how this divide comes back together. Seems impossible barring miracle (new energy source and decades of prosperity) or extreme crisis (massive depression, psudeo-collapse tier scenarios). Why? The two sides are fundamentally opposed. Responsibility across/over time and in time vs responsibility in-time(now). The former could restore to a rule of law based entity with classic liberalism and conservatism returning, but the in-time (now) orientation of the progressive left is incompatible with nature's feedback. It creates incentives that cause long term losses in cooperation because it doesn't align incentives in favor of cooperation and cultural production of responsibility, agency, and cooperation. The only solution I can see is to split into many federations, very loosely these would be city federations and rural federations governed by there own preferences, which ought to be agreeable to all. Progressive left can govern as they want. Conservative right can govern as they want. Small government providing only for common defense and basic services. I strongly think anything else leads to increasing polarization and eventually civil war type scenario. But, if someone has a way that you can cross the responsibility now vs responsibility across time divide and "bring back" or reconcile the other side, I might change that view. I haven't thought of anything yet though. I am an American communist and I can 100% ensure you that there is no institution in the US run by leftists. The most left-wing you'll get is like, Democratic Socialists that are barely centrist on a global scale. Any institution that would become far-left will be infiltrated by the FBI and dismantled and if someone poses a threat like Fred Hampton did, they will be executed. There is no leftist culture in the US. Anti-communist and anti-socialist propaganda and beliefs are present everywhere. This seems like a definition thing. Like, I read this and I think that you think I mean something close to communist poltical activism. I don't. By leftist, I mean those who are leftist by tempermant (high openness, high neuroticism, empathizing cognition) and thus generally "lean left" by US poltical spectrum. Some institutions are pretty solidly progressive left (e.g. woke), others have only a softer left flare, which presents as mild hostility to conservative viewpoints. Nobody is talking like blatant, leftwing, or certainly not communist or even socialist direct politcal activism. Huh, my bad
If it makes you feel better, there are more open communists at Yale than registered Republicans.
|
On November 08 2022 09:32 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2022 07:43 plasmidghost wrote:On November 08 2022 07:22 L_Master wrote:On November 08 2022 06:27 plasmidghost wrote:On November 08 2022 06:14 L_Master wrote:On November 04 2022 05:08 JimmiC wrote:On November 04 2022 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2022 23:09 Gorsameth wrote:On November 03 2022 22:47 pmh wrote:On November 03 2022 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
I am curious what the Democrat supporter response is to the "Like please good faith give me some of the positive reasons to vote for a Democrat that has nothing to do with Republicans" question? Why would an answer or positive reason be needed? The republican platform should be more then enough reason by itself. If the most progressive segment of the left is very unhappy with the democratic party then they should break away and build their own party/movement. As long as they dont do that,the 2nd best option for them is to vote democratic. These elections i dont dare to call. Republicans are overwhelmingly favored to win the house (~95% on the betting sites). Uncertainty and variance is very high this cycle i think. It could be an overwhelming republican victory but i wont rule out the democrats outperforming the polls by a large margin either. Keeping a majority is probably out of the question though. The problem with the more progressive left breaking away is that it just means both parts of the Democratic party will not win elections, even many they would otherwise currently win, and Republicans would get to rule with control of all 3 branches with a super majority. Such is the nature, and problem, of a FPTP system. Whichever side breaks up consigns themselves to irrelevance. Democrats seem to be moving there themselves with the progressive left well under heel. Democrats never fully recovered from the 1000+ seats in government they lost under Obama and are now poised to lose both chambers while campaigning on the threat that Republicans are destroying democracy to win/keep them. So not only are they on the precipice of defeat, they've forecasted their own irrelevance. Is it your position that the Democrats should focus on their policy instead of attacking the Republicans to get more votes? While I appreciate the optimism of the position, has it not been shown time and time again that attack ads get more results at the polls? And wasn't stopping Trump the number one reason people stated they voted last general? When people do not have to vote you not only have to be their preferred party but you also have to motivate them to get to the polls. Stopping Trump and Pwning the libs are the current version of this. If it is a comparison of who does it more, it is clearly the Republicans, but asking the Dems to completely give up the attack is naïve at best given all the studies and market research done on what works in American elections given the system. These feel like the wrong frames to me. It's a totally different thing. Over the last few decades the left completed it's march through the intuitions. The right completed it's march through the court system. You have the judiciary looking to overturn, essentially, all of positive law restoring natural law as the only kind of law. Then you have the left wing controlled institutions of cultural production. I don't see how this divide comes back together. Seems impossible barring miracle (new energy source and decades of prosperity) or extreme crisis (massive depression, psudeo-collapse tier scenarios). Why? The two sides are fundamentally opposed. Responsibility across/over time and in time vs responsibility in-time(now). The former could restore to a rule of law based entity with classic liberalism and conservatism returning, but the in-time (now) orientation of the progressive left is incompatible with nature's feedback. It creates incentives that cause long term losses in cooperation because it doesn't align incentives in favor of cooperation and cultural production of responsibility, agency, and cooperation. The only solution I can see is to split into many federations, very loosely these would be city federations and rural federations governed by there own preferences, which ought to be agreeable to all. Progressive left can govern as they want. Conservative right can govern as they want. Small government providing only for common defense and basic services. I strongly think anything else leads to increasing polarization and eventually civil war type scenario. But, if someone has a way that you can cross the responsibility now vs responsibility across time divide and "bring back" or reconcile the other side, I might change that view. I haven't thought of anything yet though. I am an American communist and I can 100% ensure you that there is no institution in the US run by leftists. The most left-wing you'll get is like, Democratic Socialists that are barely centrist on a global scale. Any institution that would become far-left will be infiltrated by the FBI and dismantled and if someone poses a threat like Fred Hampton did, they will be executed. There is no leftist culture in the US. Anti-communist and anti-socialist propaganda and beliefs are present everywhere. This seems like a definition thing. Like, I read this and I think that you think I mean something close to communist poltical activism. I don't. By leftist, I mean those who are leftist by tempermant (high openness, high neuroticism, empathizing cognition) and thus generally "lean left" by US poltical spectrum. Some institutions are pretty solidly progressive left (e.g. woke), others have only a softer left flare, which presents as mild hostility to conservative viewpoints. Nobody is talking like blatant, leftwing, or certainly not communist or even socialist direct politcal activism. Huh, my bad If it makes you feel better, there are more open communists at Yale than registered Republicans.
Not really, to be honest. I could get into a whole spiel about how the Ivy League helps contribute to American interests by providing a place for legacy applicants to elevate to even more prominence in conservative economics, national security, politics and the like. It's hard for me to really find there being more open communists at Yale any sort of meaningfully good thing when Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. all went there
|
On November 08 2022 09:00 NewSunshine wrote:
Yeah, "leftist by temperament" is new to me.
Conservatives are usually higher in conscientiousness, especially orderliness, higher in disgust sensitivity (which made rona pretty funny), lower in trait openess, bias towards systematizing cognition.
All are just functions of evolutionary computation (instinct) resulting in intuitions (instinct iterated over time) that tend to lead towards certain beliefs.
Once you see the pattern, it's fairly easy to understand for example how high disgust sensitivity, orderliness, low openness lead to conservatism
(Obviously, as I'm sure Wombat knows, these are general trends over a distribution; and, while useful over a population, don't predict individuals)
|
|
|
On November 08 2022 10:41 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2022 10:24 L_Master wrote:On November 08 2022 09:00 NewSunshine wrote:
Yeah, "leftist by temperament" is new to me. Conservatives are usually higher in conscientiousness, especially orderliness, higher in disgust sensitivity (which made rona pretty funny), lower in trait openess, bias towards systematizing cognition. All are just functions of evolutionary computation (instinct) resulting in intuitions (instinct iterated over time) that tend to lead towards certain beliefs. Once you see the pattern, it's fairly easy to understand for example how high disgust sensitivity, orderliness, low openness lead to conservatism (Obviously, as I'm sure Wombat knows, these are general trends over a distribution and while useful over a population but don't predict individuals) Pretty sure the era of Trumpism has done away with the whole disgust sensitivity.
Personality trait.
Tendency towards.
Even if a tendency is strong, exposure and incentives can weaken that tendency (especially situationally) over exposure time
|
|
|
On November 08 2022 10:49 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2022 10:45 L_Master wrote:On November 08 2022 10:41 JimmiC wrote:On November 08 2022 10:24 L_Master wrote:On November 08 2022 09:00 NewSunshine wrote:
Yeah, "leftist by temperament" is new to me. Conservatives are usually higher in conscientiousness, especially orderliness, higher in disgust sensitivity (which made rona pretty funny), lower in trait openess, bias towards systematizing cognition. All are just functions of evolutionary computation (instinct) resulting in intuitions (instinct iterated over time) that tend to lead towards certain beliefs. Once you see the pattern, it's fairly easy to understand for example how high disgust sensitivity, orderliness, low openness lead to conservatism (Obviously, as I'm sure Wombat knows, these are general trends over a distribution and while useful over a population but don't predict individuals) Pretty sure the era of Trumpism has done away with the whole disgust sensitivity. Personality trait. Tendency towards. Even if a tendency is strong, exposure and incentives can weaken that tendency (especially situationally) over exposure time Or the move of the republican party moving away from conservatism to populism.
Expected. Predictable move.
Still conservative at core though, just a switch of the framing as a result of the liberal march through the institutions.
That said, conservatism marched through the court system.
I just don't see reconciliation as possible. As in mechanistically possible. Anybody see an actual mechanistic path?
Conservative tendency for responsibility across time and natural law vs Liberal focus on in time and positive law. Going to be fun watching it play out.
|
|
|
On November 08 2022 11:03 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2022 10:49 JimmiC wrote:On November 08 2022 10:45 L_Master wrote:On November 08 2022 10:41 JimmiC wrote:On November 08 2022 10:24 L_Master wrote:On November 08 2022 09:00 NewSunshine wrote:
Yeah, "leftist by temperament" is new to me. Conservatives are usually higher in conscientiousness, especially orderliness, higher in disgust sensitivity (which made rona pretty funny), lower in trait openess, bias towards systematizing cognition. All are just functions of evolutionary computation (instinct) resulting in intuitions (instinct iterated over time) that tend to lead towards certain beliefs. Once you see the pattern, it's fairly easy to understand for example how high disgust sensitivity, orderliness, low openness lead to conservatism (Obviously, as I'm sure Wombat knows, these are general trends over a distribution and while useful over a population but don't predict individuals) Pretty sure the era of Trumpism has done away with the whole disgust sensitivity. Personality trait. Tendency towards. Even if a tendency is strong, exposure and incentives can weaken that tendency (especially situationally) over exposure time Or the move of the republican party moving away from conservatism to populism. Expected. Predictable move. Still conservative at core though, just a switch of the framing as a result of the liberal march through the institutions. That said, conservatism marched through the court system. I just don't see reconciliation as possible. As in mechanistically possible. Anybody see an actual mechanistic path? Conservative tendency for responsibility across time and natural law vs Liberal focus on in time and positive law. Going to be fun watching it play out.
Only if you count revolutionary socialism.
|
On November 08 2022 10:24 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2022 09:00 NewSunshine wrote:
Yeah, "leftist by temperament" is new to me. Conservatives are usually higher in conscientiousness, especially orderliness, higher in disgust sensitivity (which made rona pretty funny), lower in trait openess, bias towards systematizing cognition. All are just functions of evolutionary computation (instinct) resulting in intuitions (instinct iterated over time) that tend to lead towards certain beliefs. Once you see the pattern, it's fairly easy to understand for example how high disgust sensitivity, orderliness, low openness lead to conservatism (Obviously, as I'm sure Wombat knows, these are general trends over a distribution; and, while useful over a population, don't predict individuals)
Yeah, I have to be honest, this sounds like when someone makes a sincere effort to explain everyone they know based on their astrological signs.
And as has been noted, "disgust sensitivity leading to conservatism" kind of rules out that the current crop of Republicans are anything resembling a conservative party. They are actively making a dive for all the power right now, abandoning all other principles and trying to actively dismantle democracy itself so that their decreasing popularity among Americans won't matter. "Disgust sensitivity" would mandate not voting for Herschel Walker, for instance. He may still win. I don't even know if it's appropriate to say they'll hold their nose for anyone, it's more that they enjoy the smell, and want to make everyone else smell it too.
|
On November 08 2022 11:41 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2022 10:24 L_Master wrote:On November 08 2022 09:00 NewSunshine wrote:
Yeah, "leftist by temperament" is new to me. Conservatives are usually higher in conscientiousness, especially orderliness, higher in disgust sensitivity (which made rona pretty funny), lower in trait openess, bias towards systematizing cognition. All are just functions of evolutionary computation (instinct) resulting in intuitions (instinct iterated over time) that tend to lead towards certain beliefs. Once you see the pattern, it's fairly easy to understand for example how high disgust sensitivity, orderliness, low openness lead to conservatism (Obviously, as I'm sure Wombat knows, these are general trends over a distribution; and, while useful over a population, don't predict individuals) Yeah, I have to be honest, this sounds like when someone makes a sincere effort to explain everyone they know based on their astrological signs. And as has been noted, "disgust sensitivity leading to conservatism" kind of rules out that the current crop of Republicans are anything resembling a conservative party. They are actively making a dive for all the power right now, abandoning all other principles and trying to actively dismantle democracy itself so that their decreasing popularity among Americans won't matter. "Disgust sensitivity" would mandate not voting for Herschel Walker, for instance. He may still win. I don't even know if it's appropriate to say they'll hold their nose for anyone, it's more that they enjoy the smell, and want to make everyone else smell it too.
You must be a Gemini.
|
On November 08 2022 11:41 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2022 10:24 L_Master wrote:On November 08 2022 09:00 NewSunshine wrote:
Yeah, "leftist by temperament" is new to me. Conservatives are usually higher in conscientiousness, especially orderliness, higher in disgust sensitivity (which made rona pretty funny), lower in trait openess, bias towards systematizing cognition. All are just functions of evolutionary computation (instinct) resulting in intuitions (instinct iterated over time) that tend to lead towards certain beliefs. Once you see the pattern, it's fairly easy to understand for example how high disgust sensitivity, orderliness, low openness lead to conservatism (Obviously, as I'm sure Wombat knows, these are general trends over a distribution; and, while useful over a population, don't predict individuals) Yeah, I have to be honest, this sounds like when someone makes a sincere effort to explain everyone they know based on their astrological signs. And as has been noted, "disgust sensitivity leading to conservatism" kind of rules out that the current crop of Republicans are anything resembling a conservative party. They are actively making a dive for all the power right now, abandoning all other principles and trying to actively dismantle democracy itself so that their decreasing popularity among Americans won't matter. "Disgust sensitivity" would mandate not voting for Herschel Walker, for instance. He may still win. I don't even know if it's appropriate to say they'll hold their nose for anyone, it's more that they enjoy the smell, and want to make everyone else smell it too.
Hmm. Plenty of literature on the subject.
But, easy to confirm for yourself.
If you find a bunch of low orderliness, high empathizing, high trait openness conservatives be sure to let me know, especially if you find them in the normal range of intelligence (I've met a few titans that fit those traits and are conservative, it gets a little different at those levels).
|
On November 08 2022 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2022 11:03 L_Master wrote:On November 08 2022 10:49 JimmiC wrote:On November 08 2022 10:45 L_Master wrote:On November 08 2022 10:41 JimmiC wrote:On November 08 2022 10:24 L_Master wrote:On November 08 2022 09:00 NewSunshine wrote:
Yeah, "leftist by temperament" is new to me. Conservatives are usually higher in conscientiousness, especially orderliness, higher in disgust sensitivity (which made rona pretty funny), lower in trait openess, bias towards systematizing cognition. All are just functions of evolutionary computation (instinct) resulting in intuitions (instinct iterated over time) that tend to lead towards certain beliefs. Once you see the pattern, it's fairly easy to understand for example how high disgust sensitivity, orderliness, low openness lead to conservatism (Obviously, as I'm sure Wombat knows, these are general trends over a distribution and while useful over a population but don't predict individuals) Pretty sure the era of Trumpism has done away with the whole disgust sensitivity. Personality trait. Tendency towards. Even if a tendency is strong, exposure and incentives can weaken that tendency (especially situationally) over exposure time Or the move of the republican party moving away from conservatism to populism. Expected. Predictable move. Still conservative at core though, just a switch of the framing as a result of the liberal march through the institutions. That said, conservatism marched through the court system. I just don't see reconciliation as possible. As in mechanistically possible. Anybody see an actual mechanistic path? Conservative tendency for responsibility across time and natural law vs Liberal focus on in time and positive law. Going to be fun watching it play out. Only if you count revolutionary socialism.
I realize you probably don't mean revolutionary that way, but is there any way you get there without....revolution?
If we go the civil war/collapse route, then I think all kinds of new government are 100% on the table from across the spectrum. But I think most people would prefer to avoid that if possible.
On November 08 2022 11:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2022 11:03 L_Master wrote:On November 08 2022 10:49 JimmiC wrote:On November 08 2022 10:45 L_Master wrote:On November 08 2022 10:41 JimmiC wrote:On November 08 2022 10:24 L_Master wrote:On November 08 2022 09:00 NewSunshine wrote:
Yeah, "leftist by temperament" is new to me. Conservatives are usually higher in conscientiousness, especially orderliness, higher in disgust sensitivity (which made rona pretty funny), lower in trait openess, bias towards systematizing cognition. All are just functions of evolutionary computation (instinct) resulting in intuitions (instinct iterated over time) that tend to lead towards certain beliefs. Once you see the pattern, it's fairly easy to understand for example how high disgust sensitivity, orderliness, low openness lead to conservatism (Obviously, as I'm sure Wombat knows, these are general trends over a distribution and while useful over a population but don't predict individuals) Pretty sure the era of Trumpism has done away with the whole disgust sensitivity. Personality trait. Tendency towards. Even if a tendency is strong, exposure and incentives can weaken that tendency (especially situationally) over exposure time Or the move of the republican party moving away from conservatism to populism. Expected. Predictable move. Still conservative at core though, just a switch of the framing as a result of the liberal march through the institutions. That said, conservatism marched through the court system. I just don't see reconciliation as possible. As in mechanistically possible. Anybody see an actual mechanistic path? Conservative tendency for responsibility across time and natural law vs Liberal focus on in time and positive law. Going to be fun watching it play out. Multi party system with proportional representation.
How do you plausibly *get* there though? That seems to be the kicker.
Even better than this would be a small government providing key essential services with everything else split into a bunch of small federations (very approximately city vs rural) that are free to self govern according to their own values).
If you want to talk genuine insurrection style things that at least feel vaguely plausible (maybe a 1-2% chance) that would be it. Elect a Republican president who backs the idea -> executive order basically setting up such a thing -> judiciary upholds.
Other than that, general GOP Republicans are *really* against (dare I say, disgusted by) the idea of any sort of insurrection.
That leaves only the dissident right.
The left is right about the dissident right.
They are a mix of small percentage sociopathic/psychopathic people preying on the majority of them, which are a mix of struggling (usually white) Americans who don't have alot going for them and are drawn to a chance to feel apart of something that gives them SOME sort of standing in hierarchy.
There are also a TON of both schizoid/schizotypal individuals mixed in, giving rise to the conspiracy (external) narratives you see over there. The left version of that is the extreme woke/oppression (internal) narratives over.
That group is dangerous in an individualistic, loose cannon sort of way; but anyone on the left as well as healthy, adjusted conservative types are actively repulsed by the dissident right. Strongly so. More importantly, they just don't have the cohesion and cooperation necessary to lead, nor do they have any high cooperation, high reciprocity, high intelligence leaders that could even attempt to organize such a dysfunctional to begin with group.
|
On July 16 2022 12:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2022 12:05 StasisField wrote:On July 16 2022 11:55 Kyadytim wrote:
This reads like a declaration of independence or something. Or an oath to join a conspiracy to overthrow the government.
Violence in the name of Christianity is a mainstream Republican ideal and if shit like this doesn't make people aware of that, then I think those people are a lost cause. They said they were granted legal power from heaven to exercise their authority for fuck's sake. Violence in the name of any and all religion. Corrupted, organized religion is probably the single biggest detractor of any advancement for humanity.
Religion is useful though.
It provided both a form of hierarchy for the underclass (e.g. be virtuous -> elevate in hierarchy) and created significant mindfulness across the underclass, something sorely lacking at all levels in modern society.
(Mindfulness = ability to set and achieve in a self directed manner their own goals and aims, so basically things like agency/impulse control/etc.)
The problem of course, is that religion is full of magical thinking and various lies. We "just" need to create a "True" religion that does the above, but takes out all of the arguably quite harmful magical thinking stuff that ends up serving as mental malware. Think.....something like stoicism with serious memetic power (stoicism is far from complete, but it's a good start).
|
On November 08 2022 12:28 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2022 12:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 16 2022 12:05 StasisField wrote:Violence in the name of Christianity is a mainstream Republican ideal and if shit like this doesn't make people aware of that, then I think those people are a lost cause. They said they were granted legal power from heaven to exercise their authority for fuck's sake. Violence in the name of any and all religion. Corrupted, organized religion is probably the single biggest detractor of any advancement for humanity. Religion is useful though. It provided both a form of hierarchy for the underclass (e.g. be virtuous -> elevate in hierarchy) and created significant mindfulness across the underclass, something sorely lacking at all levels in modern society. (Mindfulness = ability to set and achieve in a self directed manner their own goals and aims, so basically things like agency/impulse control/etc.) The problem of course, is that religion is full of magical thinking and various lies. We "just" need to create a "True" religion that does the above, but takes out all of the arguably quite harmful magical thinking stuff that ends up serving as mental malware. Think.....something like stoicism with serious memetic power (stoicism is far from complete, but it's a good start).
Had to go digging for that eh? I never said religion was bad in and of itself. I said violence in the name of religion. I don't mind it, but don't think your religion is better than anyone else's and cause violence to get more followers. That just creates a never ending spiral.
If there's any "religion" that I would get behind, it would be the Japanese Bushido.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
