Saturday Audience Participation Post
These reader response posts will be a weekly feature. Last Saturday, I asked how open readers are regarding their HBD and other un-PC beliefs. This week's topic is the primary motivations of modern liberals.
I was previously quite apathetic with regards to political issues. I always had an innate aversion to liberalism, but outright conservative views, especially as they're presented in the Steveosphere, were relatively rare growing up. My "intellectual awakening" came through religion and the connected themes of skepticism and metaphysics. This eventually led to HBD, its commensurate conservatism, and ultimately, an outright disdain for the damages engendered by modern liberalism. As such, I have little personal background in understanding the liberal psyche. I can codify it, describe it, and muse on its repercussions, but I have trouble providing an explanation for these radically misguided and perpetually failing initiatives.
Why do seemingly sane individuals view the world in such an inaccurate manner? Why do they readily form tenuous collectives instead of championing the individual's resolve and success? Why do they hate the productive classes and wish to appropriate wealth for the lazy and stupid? What motivates the anti-white, anti-male obsessions of liberals, always castigating the creators of society as evil and exclusive? Why do they care so much about pet minorities and collective achievement? Why do they hate the West and view America as an imperialistic force of harm? Why do they ignore the maledictions caused by their "anything goes" relativism?
Basically, why do liberals think the way they think when it's so obvious they're wrong?
49 comments:
"Why do they hate the productive classes and wish to appropriate wealth for the lazy and stupid?"
Because they believe those people are in that position because of various injustices wrought over the years by white males or institutions developed by them.
If it weren't for unequal opportunities other groups would be doing better, so various positive discrimination measures are justified to level the playing field.
Also, perhaps an almost paternal sense of defending those they feel are less well off due to some unfairness.
This is one reason why HBD is fiercely resisted - it threatens this worldview.
Depends on which kind of liberal you're talking about.
SWPL intellectuals/elites do it mainly because of their liking for novelty and of their disdain for middle American values and manners. And because they really believe that socialism is the humane way of structuring society. It will eventually lead to a more equitable/entangled world.
SWPL lower castes (working/middle/gov employee whites) are liberal because they hate their upwardly-mobile, business-owning neighbors (petit Republicans). They are also enraptured by the cornucopia of societal bogeymen proffered by Big Lib Media (rampant and pervasive racism, sexism, homophobia).
Blacks aren't really all that liberal, they just get the message that Democrats are out to make them happy and comfortable, so they vote that way, and Democrats happen to be more liberal. New immigrants get that same message.
The younger or dumber ones uncritically believe what they've been told to believe, because they lack the experience or the brains to figure out that it's all lies. The more knowledgeable ones often don't really believe it - it's like a cross between the emperor's new clothes and a "noble lie" to them.
i think the unabomber really nailed the psychology of the left/liberasl/collectivist here:
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM
6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.
7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)
8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th century.
9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.
cont'd:
http://www.newshare.com/Newshare/Common/News/unifesto1.html#2
url to the rest was cut off
http://www.newshare.com/Newshare/Common/News/unifesto1.html#2
This may sound mean, but most liberals are simply not assholes like conservatives. You have to be real asshole to believe that certain people are less capable than other people, without becoming a nazi, inorder to be conservative. Conservativism is an ideological system for a very ruthless world. Many liberals are simply too nice to believe that certain people can not succeed. This is the fundimental division between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives are assholes, and liberals are not. I'am not saying it is wrong to be an asshole, since most asshole beliefs are true. I consider myself to be an asshole, so this not arguement against conservativism. It is just that the blunt truth about white political divisions in America, tend to revolve around whether your an asshole or liberal. As I said early, I'am an asshole, so I do not want to hear all these complaints about the mean liberal who called you an asshole. I'am conservative and an asshole like you. The Republican party should rename itself the asshole party. Come on, you know it would be cool to start refering to ourselves as assholes. LOL
PS: Dudes, James Watson was on Charlie Rose last night, and he totally pussied out over his statements about black IQ. He tried to blame it on being an old man who took a psychology course about IQ in 1947. He also went on telling Charlie Rose that he does not have an high IQ. It was an otherwise interesting program, even with the usual flurting between Rose and Watson. Charlie Rose is so gay for Watson. Watson is always strangely game for all the flurting, but it is not any gayer than when its Charlie with Al Gore or Thomas Friedman. Al Gore and Charlie Rose almost runoff the stage and move to Canada during interviews. Thomas Friedman, however, usually always comes on to strong for Charlie, and repulses him a bit during interviews.
It's not an asshole belief in the least to believe that some people can't succeed for what they are. Under your parameters, I'd say the belief that some people can't succeed due to an innate, largely genetic reason, and that social outcomes are strongly correlated with this (IE the idea of IQ being a major detriment in many of these) is, well, an asshole belief.
ONSTDV:"Basically, why do liberals think the way they think when it's so obvious they're wrong?"
Because they've been brainwashed by the mass-media, the public schools, their politically correct elders, and so on.
Is this not a straw man argument about Liberalism/Leftism? Leftism is a broad sweep that encompasses many views that many people who consider them Leftist don't automatically embrace just because it's considered 'leftist'. It's the same with Conservatism/Rightism. Not everyone who consider themselves Rightist don't automatically embrace everything that's considered 'rightist'.
Anyway here's a interesting couple of articles:
Where Liberals are wrong:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/MissBoatLib.HTM
Where Conservatives are wrong:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/MissBoatCons.HTM
This sounds a bit like a Straw Man - I'm not sure all Liberals "hate the productive classes and wish to appropriate wealth for the lazy and stupid?", or are all anti-white and anti-male.
A simpler explanation is that liberals believe that being liberal is better (more moral, more "true", better for society, more admirable, more likely to get them laid, smarter, hipper) than being conservative. That doesn't require them to hate men, rich people or white people. And when you look at some of the things found on the conservative side (Creationists, Sarah Palin, ...), the general idea that liberals have a better case than conservatives makes sense.
Age is also a factor: the worldview of a student is quite different from that of someone who had to deal with the "real world" for some time.
Liberals are some of the most vindictive, controlling, groupthink-prone people around. They would have been in the Klan 100 years ago. Nowadays, since all "right thinking" people are leftists, so are they.
I was a Socialist until I was ~30 because of the Frankfurt School/Critical Theory. This video (especially beginning at 6:30) explains my mindset:
http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_with_Bill_Whittle/___MSNBC_%26_The_Great_Liberal_Narrative%3A_The_Truth_About_The_Tyranny_of_Political_Correctness/2343/
Unfortunately, people who've spent their lives doing this work (Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky) have an easy job because their primary push-back comes from Conservatives who espouse rot like Columbus day and invading Iraq.
Additionally, it's hard for liberals to envision how markets can produce wealth without massive government intrusion (I mean, even CONSERVATIVES want to limit trade so that the 'Japs don't kill our auto industry') and even though I went to a top-notch public school, I never heard names like Hayek, Adam Smith, etc. Had I not heard consistent arguments from pro-freedom interlocutors of Thom Hartman (on his radio show) I'd probably be thinking like a red diaper baby today.
Basically, why do liberals think the way they think when it's so obvious they're wrong?
I can imagine a Liberal asking the same question about conservatives on his blog - especially if the conservatives he has in mind are Knuckle-dragging bible thumpers. And I'm not sure that his view of conservatives would be any more exaggerated than yours.
It's obvious that liberals are wrong from a conservative point of view. But the converse is also true.
It's also obvious that Islam is wrong from a Christian point of view, and the other way around too.
It is good to recognize that a great deal of liberal talk is mere posturing, if you see what liberals actually DO it is usually much different than what they SAY is their ideal system for the greater society. The liberal position is basically, do as I say! (but don't look at what I and my family are doing...).
So upscale educated people in modern Western societies are expected to profess fervent belief in Boasian liberal views--even though nearly everyone, including most astute liberals, secretly realizes that the beliefs are not really factually true. Thus Boasian liberal views are sort of like a modern secular religion, you are supposed to pretend that you believe in all of the major tenets of the Boasian religion(race is only skin deep, everyone has the same innate ability etc.).
Just like most educated mainstream Christians and Jews do not REALLY believe in God, Angels, Heaven and Hell etc., in the same fashion most Boasian liberals do not REALLY believe that blacks are just as smart as whites or that Jews and East Asians are just as dumb.
There is a lot of code talk amongst liberals, e.g. when liberal parents describe a school as a "bad school" it REALLY means a school where the student body is more than 35% NAMs but they pretend that it means that the teachers are bad or that the building is not nice enough.
Similarly, most Boasian liberal parents say that they find the notion of ability-tracking in schools to be abhorrent and that they love the idea of public schools with a "vibrant ethnically diverse" student body. However, if you look at which schools they actually decide to send their own children to, of course they are the very schools that have have the most ability-tracking (i.e. special classes for the gifted, or else a whole school just for the gifted), or else they opt for private schools or elite suburban schools where of course the proportion of NAMs is very low.
"
It's obvious that liberals are wrong from a conservative point of view. But the converse is also true.
"
From an OBJECTIVE standpoint, leftist economic policies are inefficeint and unjust at best, and lead to national suicide at worst.
That has nothing to do with a right vs left dichotomy.
"I can imagine a Liberal asking the same question about conservatives on his blog - especially if the conservatives he has in mind are Knuckle-dragging bible thumpers."
The frequenters of the HBDosphere are generally "conservative" not due to some obdurate adherence to tradition, but rather because conservatism squares most appropriately with human nature, evo psych, and, simply, much of it just works.
"It's also obvious that Islam is wrong from a Christian point of view, and the other way around too."
You bring this up because HBDers are supposedly a religious bunch?!?! Do you read the Steveosphere?
Islam is wrong because it's a pernicious worldview and ideology.
I agree with James Watson is Right except I would not agree with the paired analysis of "asshole" vs "liberal". The term "asshole" is too vague and too fucking vulgar, but I think he is on to something.
After careful deliberation I have determined that the underlying psychological difference between Conservatives and Liberals is that Liberals want:"To live in a dream world where everyone is as good and capable as them and also CHOOSES to live in a dream world where everyone is as good as them" ..... versus....Conservatives who: "Also want to live in a dream world where everyone is as good and capable as them BUT ACKNOWLEDGES THE FACT that everyone IS NOT as good and capable as them and accepts this as reality and choose to live in this reality"
A good example is Conservative unmarried men who have been cheated on vs Liberal unmarried men who have been cheated on. The Conservative man say to himself "Damn, I really wish that stupid slut hadn't cheated on me, things were really starting to go well, I was really starting to like her, oh well on to the next one, I am done with that lying slut"
While the Liberal guy says to himself: "Well she said it wasn't her, but when I caught her in bed with that other guy it look and sounded so much like her,,,but she said it wasn't her, so maybe it wasn't, God I love her so much, maybe she won't do it again"
From an OBJECTIVE standpoint, leftist economic policies are inefficeint and unjust at best, and lead to national suicide at worst.
Possibly true, but then, who has a really objective point of view ? Things aren't as obvious when you don't consider economic efficiency as the main criterion ("fairness" seems more common in leftist circles).
You bring this up because HBDers are supposedly a religious bunch?!?! Do you read the Steveosphere?
I bring this up because the pattern of "my group can't understand why the opposite group hold it's obviously wrong position, so they must be evil" is pretty widespread. Yet often, how "obvious" things are heavily depends of context, of what kind of information you were exposed to, etc.
I certainly don't see HDBers as a religious bunch, and yes, I have wandered around the stevosphere a bit.
Variation just is, right? Otherwise natural selection would have nothing to act on.
So, there will inevitably be people with different personality types (thinking the Big 5 here) who will gravitate towards different ways of thinking and behaving politically.
It would be strange if there were no liberals; or, rather, no variation in the ways humans think/behave politcally. We'd be one, oddly unique species if we all believed in the same political ideals (i.e. all had the same personlity types).
You would think, also, that in some environments, the personality traits that lead to politically correct liberalism would be selected for (or wouldn't be selected against) -- say in really good times when one can afford to be generous to low-IQ people, illegal immigrants, etc., etc.
In bad times, you'd think those sorts of behaviors would be selected out.
Galtonian: that's a very good point about the difference between professing to believe "diversity is good" and actually acting as if one really believed that. It seems that when people vote with their feet, they vote much more conservative.
It reminded me of these posts by Eliezer Yudkowsky:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/i6/professing_and_cheering/
Fun politics blog.
Has HBD potential.
http://neuropolitics.org/
"http://neuropolitics.org/"
Thanks silly girl. That site looks fantastic.
I was a liberal during college. For me I think was a personality thing. I'm open to experience and soft-hearted and became convinced that liberalism is the view of the compassionate middle-class. I recognized that Democrat blacks, women, and white blue-collar guys seemed self-interested, but thought it was understandable that lower status people would be out for themselves. Middle-class or wealthy white conservatives seemed narrowly self-interested and unfeeling about the downtrodden.
Unlike most liberals, I did think that blacks were probably less intelligent and industrious than others but attributed it to social conditions that we should make sacrifices to remedy.
Self-interest seemed tawdry to me. I wanted to be a good person, but some of it was probably self-righteousness because I worked harder to develop the right views than to do much about it.
Many evolutionary psychologists have offered theories on why liberalism has evolved. A good place to start reading about them is the topic of reciprocal altruism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism
"I can codify it, describe it, and muse on its repercussions, but I have trouble providing an explanation for these radically misguided and perpetually failing initiatives.
Why do seemingly sane individuals view the world in such an inaccurate manner? "
I really identify with these statements because I have always been results oriented. The proof of the pudding argument. If a given plan is so wonderful, it should yield wonderful results. Bad results are the evidence that the plan evidently sucked even if we thought we had it right before it started. Liberals don't seem to evaluate policies for the actual cause-effect relationships.
"I can imagine a Liberal asking the same question about conservatives on his blog "
I can too, but it still seems possible to me that one side is correct and the other is incorrect.
It seems to me there is a simple way to tell who is right and who is wrong, which is to make predictions based on each view and see which ones come true.
For example, suppose there is a proposal to spend massive amounts of money improving a black school district. The liberal point of view predicts that the educational performance of the students will improve a lot. The conservative (actually HBDer) point of view predicts that the students will continue to perform poorly.
Then we can look at what actually happens and see who is right and who is wrong. In fact, this experiment has been done and the HBDer prediction came true.
The conclusion is that the HBD (or conservative) view is correct and the liberal view is wrong.
Anyway, like another poster pointed out, even liberals don't seriously believe in the liberal point of view. If they had to secretly bet $50,000 about whether the black/white performance gap will continue after the latest educational reform, I'm pretty confident that 99% would take the conservative side of the bet.
What's really going was explained very well by Ian Jobling's excellence article on competitive altruism.
It's not that liberals are nice and conservatives are assholes. Liberals are assholes too, but they try to look to others (and feel better about themselves) by pretending to be nice.
Liberals would like all human beings to be afforded equal dignity and respect.
For people who would like to think we live in a civilized society, this is an appealing world view. This is especially true if you analyse liberal issues at face value eg shouldn't a civilized society provide all participants of that society a right to life? Shouldn't women have as much opportunity as men? Shouldn't homosexuals have the same right to love as heterosexuals?
The opposite if this progressive utopia is an uncivilized, harsh Darwinian society where the strong may oppress the weak, where the value of equality and human dignity are placed behind corporate profits and wealth building.
I am not a liberal but can you really not understand their worldview? I would have thought it obvious for a crowd claiming to have high IQs. I would go so far as to say it is far more obvious than most conservative ideologies.
Now, you can compound the matter further by looking at the redneck, low rent, vulgur demographics of middle America conservatives and ask who would want to be associated with them? Even when you look at the the demographics of the conservative elite, it is easy to find people with highly vested interests in slashing income/corprate tax rates, depressing the minimum wage, boosting the military industrial complex ... Etc ... All of which lend themslves of painting a picture of calculated, selfish evilness, as opposed to the politics of good intentions and actually wanting to make the world a better place.
Now you can't understand why a lot of people are liberals? Then you are either deliberately closed minded or retarded.
"Liberals would like all human beings to be afforded equal dignity and respect.
For people who would like to think we live in a civilized society, this is an appealing world view. This is especially true if you analyse liberal issues at face value eg shouldn't a civilized society provide all participants of that society a right to life? Shouldn't women have as much opportunity as men? Shouldn't homosexuals have the same right to love as heterosexuals?"
I wasn't speaking of these ideals in particular. Most of these I understand and some I believe in myself. In fact, I've written that we should accept some inefficiency in healthcare because the price (human life) can so huge.
But I don't understand much of modern liberalism in regards to the stuff I mentioned. I don't feel like repeating it.
The problem with believing that you have a natural right to screw others is that others might think likewise and do that you...
just ask white south africans.. they are getting what they dished out.
"All of which lend themslves of painting a picture of calculated, selfish evilness, as opposed to the politics of good intentions and actually wanting to make the world a better place."
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I mean real hell right here on Earth, not some mystical someday. You don't have to believe in any afterlife to see that the good intentions of welfare have had devastating consequences.
I can be a "nice" well meaning mom and let my son do whatever he wants and he could grow up to be an idiot SOB. Or I can be a "mean" mom and use harsh methods like depriving him of fun so that he does his homework and learns to be responsible.
Remember that vulgar things like punishing kids lead to good outcomes. However, well meaning things like appeasement don't.
Intentions don't matter. Results matter.
Using reason with the unreasonable is a fool's errand. I prefer conditioning. Repetition, positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement because they have a proven track record of thousands of years. Liberal idealism has a wretched track record.
"just ask white south africans.. they are getting what they dished out."
Exactly. South Africa was a primitive's heaven on Earth. Tribal warfare, no sanitation or medicine.
Ah, for the good ole days of the natural human condition of suffering noble savagery at the hands of one's own racial peers.
While the ideals of liberalism might SEEM to come from a good place, I imagine many are supporting it for mere social posturing or because they think conservatism/right wing politics is for lunk-headed idiots and libelaism is for the enlightened.
Liberalism is a faith-based ideology, much like religion. You must accept certain dogma as truth, even though it runs counter to the evidence, or else everything falls apart.
Science, evolutionary studies, and the heuristic nature of life's experiences should in an intelligent and open-minded person erode the folly, naivete, and liberalism of youth. Darwin showed us that nothing is equal, and that inequality and the suffering of the weak brought on the survival of the strong.
But who likes a cynic? Who likes a cold-hearted realist? People are dreamers, much like I used to be. People like stories with happy endings, that's why Rushton, Hernstein, Richard Lynn, et.al. are not best sellers.
Liberals, for all their criticism of religion, are the quintessential parishioners of a faith that has been undermined by science. But like Hoffer said, "It's easier to love humanity than to love your neighbor."
Western society is a lot like a middle class nuclear family. The liberals are the caring, generous and forgiving mom (i.e. women, pussies). The conservatives are the strict, disciplinary dads who tell their kids to stand up on their own to feet and deserve all the punishment they get when they are naughty.
NAM's are the semi-retarded homeless people who couldn't get their own family's shit together, and show up at the doorstep asking for some change and a room for the night.
The caring mom wants to take them in, but the dad is like 'hell naww, are we going to turn our house into a refugee camp?'
The mom sees the NAM's suffering, then looks at all the nice things they have in their house, their abundance of food, their nice car, etc. Surely we can help them out right? It might be a bit of an inconvenience for us, but it would make a huge difference in the life of the homeless guy. Anyway, Liberal Mom kind of likes talking to the bum, and learning about his interesting life on the road.
Conservative dad has less sympathy, warning that the floodgates will be opened, that the NAM will have a bad influence on the kids, and the homeless guy will stink up the living room.
Liberal mom is less concerned with the costs, because she doesn't really work that hard. Conservative dad is the one slugging it out at 12 hours a day at the office to bring home money, while she works part time at the municipal children's library.
Then little Peter turns 19 and tells his parents he is gay. Mom is like 'oh, we love you for who you are darling'. Dad is like 'Wtf!?'
I agree with James Watson is Right except I would not agree with the paired analysis of "asshole" vs "liberal". The term "asshole" is too vague and too fucking vulgar, but I think he is on to something.
After careful deliberation I have determined that the underlying psychological difference between Conservatives and Liberals is that Liberals want:"To live in a dream world where everyone is as good and capable as them and also CHOOSES to live in a dream world where everyone is as good as them" ..... versus....Conservatives who: "Also want to live in a dream world where everyone is as good and capable as them BUT ACKNOWLEDGES THE FACT that everyone IS NOT as good and capable as them and accepts this as reality and choose to live in this reality"
A good example is Conservative unmarried men who have been cheated on vs Liberal unmarried men who have been cheated on. The Conservative man say to himself "Damn, I really wish that stupid slut hadn't cheated on me, things were really starting to go well, I was really starting to like her, oh well on to the next one, I am done with that lying slut"
While the Liberal guy says to himself: "Well she said it wasn't her, but when I caught her in bed with that other guy it look and sounded so much like her,,,but she said it wasn't her, so maybe it wasn't, God I love her so much, maybe she won't do it again"
Richard, you get the point of my comment. Conservatives are not pussies. Liberalism is about being nice, while conservativism is about standing your ground, which requires you to be an asshole sometimes. While nice people die, assholes will survive.
I haven't observed the "niceness" of what Americans call "liberals". In my experience they quickly become thoroughly obnoxious if you disagree with them.
I have a couple of pet theories about leftists. One is that all their behaviour can be explained as being that of the cheeky child trying to piss off Dad at the dinner table. Thus their tendency to come up with more and more offensive and absurd ideas - it's all about annoying the Father. E.g. "Why shouldn't women marry each other!?"
The other theory is that leftism is an organised attempt to deny reality. A lot of leftists, especially academics, put a lot of intellectual effort into defending patent nonsense. There is a good recent essay on this by Bruce Charlton in Medical Hypotheses called The Clever Sillies". Worth a look.
The usual religion bashing and carticatures of Middle American real people, doing real things with their real lifes, you know being the backbone of this country mixed in with some really stupid "reasoning", i.e. Aa.
OneSTDV, where do your commenters come from?
James Watson is Right, I agree with what you said. I think we are saying the same thing. I just think my description is more accurate overall.
My example of Conservative Men vs. Liberal Men who have been cheated on and then what course of action they take is from working in a big corporate office and observing over many years the differences between how different men handle their relationships and I noticed a correlation between mens' approach to dealing with their personal relationship's and their political outlook.
Inevitably the guy who got cheated on and would not listen to the advice to "dump the bitch", I would go out to the parking lot and he would have an Obama08 bumper sticker on his car(or something similar).
I have observed this scenario happening some many times in so many similar ways over the years that I can now actually almost predict the reverse: Show the HopeAndChange08 bumper sticker on the back of a Prius driven by a white male and I can almost guarantee that if he is straight and in a relationship that his wife or girlfriend has cheated on him multiple times (or will in the future) and that if she is caught that her boyfriend/husband(liberal and usually white) will take her back as long as she promises not to do it again. Of course she does!!
After seeing this happen so many times, I asked myself how could any guy be so spineless and clueless and then I realized they just want to believe so badly that "she won't do it again" that they actually choose to not acknowledge reality,(hence living in a dream world)and that they take that same method of dealing with problems and apply to the rest of their world outlook.
If the liberal male can sacrifice genetic reproduction imperatives on the altar of their liberal world view than applying that same type of reasoning to other areas of reality (taxes, military defense, labor and business, etc) is a cinch......if you have just murdered someone than stealing a car is easy......
"My example of Conservative Men vs. Liberal Men who have been cheated on"
I haven't seen enough examples of infidelity (male or female) to form my own opinion on this point, but I do think that liberals have a much stronger tendency to indulge in the fantasy that all people are fundamentally decent and that wrongdoing is the result of an otherwise decent person being put into the wrong set of circumstances.
That (in my opinion) is why liberals support demonstratedly ineffective policies like gun control and Head Start.
So I wouldn't be surprised if a liberal were more likely to forgive a cheating spouse. On the other hand, liberals probably have more liberal attitudes about sex. A liberal guy whose wife cheats on him might be thinking to himself "great, now I can finally get some guilt-free poon on the side."
dsna - good idea in including Kaczynski's analysis of leftism; here are better links though:
- http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future#The_psychology_of_modern_leftism
- http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future#Oversocialization
- http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future#The_danger_of_leftism
because 95% of people cannot handle being rich, they degenerate, like Romans. $60,000/yr is rich (in the absolute sense}
"Now, you can compound the matter further by looking at the redneck, low rent, vulgur demographics of middle America conservatives and ask who would want to be associated with them? "
Democrats evidently. Prole white trash vote Dem. more than they vote Rep.
thanks for the links. after they didnt post twice i didn't want to keep trying like a moron! :)
"Why are liberals liberal"
If I had to chose between the liberal-conservative label I would consider myself a liberal. (I'm really just a pragmatist, but no one wants to hear about that; pragmatism doesn't make for good blog fodder) Why would I consider myself a liberal?...because I think the government should help people that *need* help. I don't think the government should fix every problem that an individual my have, but should help out in a few key areas, mainly, helping the needy poor, education and health care (as well as the basics that no one really disputes- infrastructure, natl. defense). This attitude comes from the fact that I was raised by a single mom. We didn't have much money, but we were helped by government assistance like free lunches at school, CHIP health insurance, and financial aid to go to college. These programs would not be in place but for liberals. It's pretty much as simple as that for me.
Here's my point of view as an ex-liberal.
Of course, I'm not quite sure I was ever "pure" in that regards. Seriously, I was a teenager dabbling in things ranging from outright Marxism to Ayn Rand. But the point is I was pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-federal regulations, pro-soak-the-rich, yadda yadda. I voted for Bill Clinton [when I was 18].
Thing is, I got disillusioned by Clinton [and thus have trusted no politician since then], I moved to NYC from NC [transgressive to be liberal in Raleigh, surrounded by my fellow transgressives at college...not so much at NYU in the Village] during Rudy's time, got confirmed in the Catholic Church, got married, lived through 2001 in NYC, dropped out of grad school, joined corporate US, and have had kids. Among many other things.
I've done a complete 180 on many of my old views. Mainly due to a collision with reality.
Here's the thing, though - it is really tough to admit that you were wrong and someone you dislike [for a variety of reasons] is right.
My husband has gotten many of our liberal neighbors to concede many of the facts we see, and yet they can't go that last step and admit that Republicans are right [or, God forbid, Sarah Palin is] on something, to vote for a non-liberal, etc.
In some cases, it makes rational sense for some of the people I know to vote for liberals - they're public employees, or they're on welfare, etc. Pure self-interest can cut either way.
As for the rich people I know voting liberal, they know how to dodge a lot of the taxes, but beyond that, for some reason they feel guilty for their wealth. To which I say - why not just drop a wad on a hospital or something? Why make me pay for your guilt?
In any case, quite a few of the middle-class people I know are true believers. Conservatives are evil - hate the poor, hate minorities, hate immigrants - and they do not want to associate with evil.
"Here's the thing, though - it is really tough to admit that you were wrong and someone you dislike [for a variety of reasons] is right."
Very interesting idea.
Is it harder to change your mind about a person or an idea?
I think people who like facts, data, math etc. are willing to see positions as they relate to facts more than ideology.
People who "hate math" scare the sh-- out of me because you know facts are not part of their understanding of the world.
Having taught remedial math [aka middle school math to adults who are trying to get GEDs], yes, I've dealt with people who hate math.
I don't find them particularly scary compared to the really intelligent people who have no connection to reality. I ran up against those in grad school [in math] all the time. I remember explaining to them the reality of living in a trailer park. Among many other things. Such as why not all teenage pregnancy is a mistake in the sense that the girl really did mean to get pregnant. Lord. Smart people who are so dumb are the worst.
Wouldn't be surprised to learn that cuckolds are liberal. I think liberalism is correlated with agreeableness and openness to experience (five factor model), which explains why women tend to be more liberal than men and liberals tend to prefer arts over sports.
I wonder if most players are conservative. Roissy certainly seems to be.
Incidentally, I was obsessed with politics and the first time I ever got behind the wheel of a car (I'm from NYC and started very late) I remember thinking that I felt very Republican--aggressive, greedy, and concerned with my own welfare.
I kind of liked it.
Hey meep: where'd you meet hubby? I've been looking for a cute nerdy girl myself and wondered if you had any pointers.
Speaking of dumbass "smart" people, take a look at this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427321.000-clever-fools-why-a-high-iq-doesnt-mean-youre-smart.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
Yes, Gould and Gardner are trotted out, but don't dismiss entirely. There's one bit which will tell you why I've never considered Mensa: look at how many believe in astrology. I think if you're "smart" and can't figure out how to find other smart people... you're probably in the dumbass range. Especially in the internet era.
As for how I met husband: through mutual friend. I've cultivated a circle of friends from high school through college, bunch of geeks, and there has always been a lot of dating in this crowd. This was back in NC - NY would've been a harder proposition.
Humans are predisposed to believe that which they cannot see or verify. Also the herd mentality of not wanting to stand out or be shunned plays a role. Also a good number of leftist grew up rich and sheltered from the reality of their policies. I was briefly a leftist in college because it felt "radical."
Modern rightist aren't exactly a great alternative as others have mentioned. Strip Mall culture, pointless wars, alleging that the Bible supports some truly harebrained schemes don't inspire many warm feelings.
A third way that embraces natural connections to family, history and geography along with common sense economics that do not pander the worst aspects of unrestrained human nature seems like the most logical solution. I think you know the name of this ideology and the baggage it entails.
Post a Comment