The Actual Threat to Democracy

[immortalfrieza]

Humanity innately goes towards one sort of extreme or the other. People like Extremism because Extremism is easier and simpler. Extremism means you don't have to think about the intricacies of something. Extremism means you can just dismiss all the complicated stuff and just say "Everything is X and that's the end of it."

What's more, it feeds into the tribalism that is inherent in all human beings. Once we choose a side, we defend that side even if we don't completely agree with it, because it's "our side." We become blind to our side's faults and the more heavily our side is attacked, the more resolute we become in sticking with our side's positions even if they're obviously bologna.

Any remotely sensible and intelligent human being is not an extremist, or even takes sides. Any remotely sensible person only concerns themselves with what works and not which side espouses it. Even the worst sides in human history had ideas that would benefit mankind if they were to be implemented. Any remotely sensible person's only thought is "does/will this work? Yes? Then do it. No? Then don't do it."

In this context, both Liberal and Conservatives have good ideas, decent ideas, bad ideas, and terrible ideas. Unfortunately, thanks to how humanity as a whole functions people are only concerned with the side that says the ideas rather than whether those ideas are any good or not. Sensible people will always be the exception and extremists will always be the norm because of our innate natures.

 

[SilentPony]

In this context, both Liberal and Conservatives have good ideas, decent ideas, bad ideas, and terrible ideas. Unfortunately, thanks to how humanity as a whole functions people are only concerned with the side that says the ideas rather than whether those ideas are any good or not. Sensible people will always be the exception and extremists will always be the norm because of our innate natures.

Is this true? 'cause I can't think of a single thing conservatives think that's a good idea. Immigrants in camps? Bad idea. No gun control? Bad idea. Low/no taxes for the super wealthy? Bad idea. Right wing Christian white nationalism? Bad idea.
Like is sounds smart to say both sides have their pros and cons, but honestly its a pretty lazy take. Once you start breaking it down issue by issue, the right and wrong side start to become clearer. Not everything is shades of gray, and pretending that it is is just an excuse to be lazy and shrug off both sides as equally bad.

 

[meiam]

Humanity innately goes towards one sort of extreme or the other. People like Extremism because Extremism is easier and simpler. Extremism means you don't have to think about the intricacies of something. Extremism means you can just dismiss all the complicated stuff and just say "Everything is X and that's the end of it."

What's more, it feeds into the tribalism that is inherent in all human beings. Once we choose a side, we defend that side even if we don't completely agree with it, because it's "our side." We become blind to our side's faults and the more heavily our side is attacked, the more resolute we become in sticking with our side's positions even if they're obviously bologna.

Any remotely sensible and intelligent human being is not an extremist, or even takes sides. Any remotely sensible person only concerns themselves with what works and not which side espouses it. Even the worst sides in human history had ideas that would benefit mankind if they were to be implemented. Any remotely sensible person's only thought is "does/will this work? Yes? Then do it. No? Then don't do it."

In this context, both Liberal and Conservatives have good ideas, decent ideas, bad ideas, and terrible ideas. Unfortunately, thanks to how humanity as a whole functions people are only concerned with the side that says the ideas rather than whether those ideas are any good or not. Sensible people will always be the exception and extremists will always be the norm because of our innate natures.

I think people like being extremist because they like feeling like they're the little guy fighting against the Goliath. I think if suddenly the alt right (or alt left) position became mainstream, a lot of them would move on to other position.

Is this true? 'cause I can't think of a single thing conservatives think that's a good idea. Immigrants in camps? Bad idea. No gun control? Bad idea. Low/no taxes for the super wealthy? Bad idea. Right wing Christian white nationalism? Bad idea.
Like is sounds smart to say both sides have their pros and cons, but honestly its a pretty lazy take. Once you start breaking it down issue by issue, the right and wrong side start to become clearer. Not everything is shades of gray, and pretending that it is is just an excuse to be lazy and shrug off both sides as equally bad.

It depends on your position and what you consider important, a big issue with societal policy is that something that's good for the individual people (ex: very low tax) is often bad for society in general, ie it does more harm than good overall. Some of the more left wing policy like guaranteed jobs would be great for people, no need to worry about job, but would have absolutely disastrous effect on society as a whole. By opposing those issue right wing have an important place, when done in careful moderation. It's not so much that both side have good idea, but both side have bad idea and there need to be something to oppose those.

 

[tstorm823]

It is age that correlates with conservatism.

It isn't only age that correlates with conservatism. As SilentPony said, time in higher education correlates to more liberal positions, which logically means time in the workforce correlates to more conservative opinions. The people who aren't in college are predominantly working, and are more conservative than those in college. And I'm sure you can imagine I have all sorts of ideas on why that is, but acknowledging that correlation is step one.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It's important to remember that conservative (the thought process) and Conservative (the political ideology) are not even remotely the same thing

Like, I consider myself conservative: I need a solid theory backed by facts, studies, small and large scale experiments, etc. I'm *very* slow to change my mind or to adopt a new stance and I view sweeping changes with skepticism.

I am also, somehow, a radical leftist, even though my most radical opinions are backed up by arguments, data, experiments, and outright policy examples that are typically older than I am. Hell, technically speaking my far left thoughts on taxes are reactionary.

But I'd never be a big-C Conservative. It really just ties in to how most left-leaning ideas have broad spectrum support amongst everyone, conservatives included, as long as you can phrase it in such a way as to avoid certain trigger words. A government-owned and run grocery store is fine...as long as you don't call it socialism

Coronavirus: Baldwin’s government-run grocery keeps town well stocked

BALDWIN | The closest Winn-Dixie is 10 miles away. The closest Publix is 15 miles away. But as residents of Duval...

www.jacksonville.com

 

[Silvanus]

It isn't only age that correlates with conservatism. As SilentPony said, time in higher education correlates to more liberal positions, which logically means time in the workforce correlates to more conservative opinions. The people who aren't in college are predominantly working, and are more conservative than those in college. And I'm sure you can imagine I have all sorts of ideas on why that is, but acknowledging that correlation is step one.

Less time in higher education doesn't necessarily equal more time spent in the workforce. There are dozens of confounding variables at work there.

Not to mention the fact that someone will spend a smaller proportion of their adult life in higher education than work even if they go above what is the norm. 4 years for an UG and Masters degree? OK, so by the time they're 27 or so they've already spent more time in work than HE. And they'll be more liberal than someone who has spent the same amount (or even substantially more) time in work, who lacks the HE.

Its very clear that it's not just less time in work + the liberal atmosphere in HE. The balance makes that untenable. The skills and knowledge they earn last them a lifetime, and the impact on one's politics tends to last far more. Missing a couple years of work-- which you then make up tenfold afterwards anyway-- doesn't explain that.

 

[Summerstorm]

Is this true? 'cause I can't think of a single thing conservatives think that's a good idea. Immigrants in camps? Bad idea. No gun control? Bad idea. Low/no taxes for the super wealthy? Bad idea. Right wing Christian white nationalism? Bad idea.
Like is sounds smart to say both sides have their pros and cons, but honestly its a pretty lazy take. Once you start breaking it down issue by issue, the right and wrong side start to become clearer. Not everything is shades of gray, and pretending that it is is just an excuse to be lazy and shrug off both sides as equally bad.

It's important to remember that conservative (the thought process) and Conservative (the political ideology) are not even remotely the same thing

Like, I consider myself conservative: I need a solid theory backed by facts, studies, small and large scale experiments, etc. I'm *very* slow to change my mind or to adopt a new stance and I view sweeping changes with skepticism.

I am also, somehow, a radical leftist, even though my most radical opinions are backed up by arguments, data, experiments, and outright policy examples that are typically older than I am. Hell, technically speaking my far left thoughts on taxes are reactionary.

This shows a good point. I am always tending towards: Conservative thinking. I mean it is "conserving" the moment not just any random historic moment or perceived or imagined moment, or something removed somewhere else.

The things SilentPony says are mostly not conservative itself from a perspective: Is it "customary and well established" to have no taxes for the wealthy? Well no. That is pretty "new", even in the U.S. Immigrants in camps? Well here in Germany absolutely not They are divided up and seeded out into all kinds of shitty housing or container homes all over the country. Right-Wing Christian Nationalists... well maybe. Seems the U.S. always had those factions since the beginning... That might be tradition, hehe.

Is it conservative to beat the helots and partake in the carneia? That was a total normal thing in the past. You can't just pick anything you want to conserve and you HAVE to see that change was always there and you will change the future. Gradual. You see the "IS" point, question why it became so while also experimenting with new idea and mutate, dream

Both extremes:
Trying to break Change according to a narrow perspective without reflecting what else needs to change and, before that, understanding why you want that change and why the "Is" state is even different to begin with
and:
holding on to societal norms without understanding why they are and without questioning what change would bring (and dreaming of betterment)
is pretty bad and willfully obtuse. Defending or attacking without understanding, empathizing and communicating with different viewpoints is bullshit.

(Have watched the original video completely now, and that seems more or less the gist of that guy too)

On the other hand: Yes, that can lead to stagnation, idiotic "compromises" serving neither way, or straight up frustrated conflicts. And that is the point where i myself prefer to err on "progressive experimentation" side. Just don't be too proud to reverse or change the goal altogether later

EDIT: I have deleted, crafted around this response and upon reading: all that is left is gibberish: Communication is hard - which is also something which might be a problem to democracy and discourse in general.

 

[Silvanus]

Humanity innately goes towards one sort of extreme or the other. People like Extremism because Extremism is easier and simpler. Extremism means you don't have to think about the intricacies of something. Extremism means you can just dismiss all the complicated stuff and just say "Everything is X and that's the end of it."

What's more, it feeds into the tribalism that is inherent in all human beings. Once we choose a side, we defend that side even if we don't completely agree with it, because it's "our side." We become blind to our side's faults and the more heavily our side is attacked, the more resolute we become in sticking with our side's positions even if they're obviously bologna.

Any remotely sensible and intelligent human being is not an extremist, or even takes sides. Any remotely sensible person only concerns themselves with what works and not which side espouses it. Even the worst sides in human history had ideas that would benefit mankind if they were to be implemented. Any remotely sensible person's only thought is "does/will this work? Yes? Then do it. No? Then don't do it."

In this context, both Liberal and Conservatives have good ideas, decent ideas, bad ideas, and terrible ideas. Unfortunately, thanks to how humanity as a whole functions people are only concerned with the side that says the ideas rather than whether those ideas are any good or not. Sensible people will always be the exception and extremists will always be the norm because of our innate natures.

Hmm nah, I'm pretty sure conservatism is just wrong.

 

[tstorm823]

Less time in higher education doesn't necessarily equal more time spent in the workforce. There are dozens of confounding variables at work there.

Not to mention the fact that someone will spend a smaller proportion of their adult life in higher education than work even if they go above what is the norm. 4 years for an UG and Masters degree? OK, so by the time they're 27 or so they've already spent more time in work than HE. And they'll be more liberal than someone who has spent the same amount (or even substantially more) time in work, who lacks the HE.

Its very clear that it's not just less time in work + the liberal atmosphere in HE. The balance makes that untenable. The skills and knowledge they earn last them a lifetime, and the impact on one's politics tends to last far more. Missing a couple years of work-- which you then make up tenfold afterwards anyway-- doesn't explain that.

But after that degree, are they doing work, or doing "work"? At this point, I would say that more people than not who go to college have the end goal of a "good job", which is a funny thing, as the etymology of "liberal arts" is to describe the studies worthy of a free person, as opposed to a servant or laborer. It is designed for the wealthy to be educated in ways that are explicitly not training them for any sort of vocation. And then somewhere along the line, college degrees became work requirements because high school degrees weren't sufficient for corporations to weed out the "undesirables" from the pool of resumes. The "good jobs" are for people trained to not work, expecting not to work, because that's what the degree was meant to do, make it so they can sit around typing on a keyboard and get paid a middle-class salary for it.

And then if you look at the degree programs with genuine career focus, things like engineering and medicine, the "more education, more liberal" correlation disappears completely. Even among the highly educated, the more hands on your work is, the more politically conservative you are. Doctors are highly educated, and they are not overwhelmingly liberal; among doctors, surgeons are predominantly Republicans, pathologists are predominantly Democrats. Engineers are highly educated, and they are not overwhelmingly liberal; among engineers, civil engineers lean right, computer engineers lean left.

 

[Satinavian]

And then if you look at the degree programs with genuine career focus, things like engineering and medicine, the "more education, more liberal" correlation disappears completely.

That is wrong.

 

[Silvanus]

But after that degree, are they doing work, or doing "work"? At this point, I would say that more people than not who go to college have the end goal of a "good job", which is a funny thing, as the etymology of "liberal arts" is to describe the studies worthy of a free person, as opposed to a servant or laborer.

I really couldn't care less about the "not proper jobs!" reverse snobbery stuff. You can't just exclude the occupations you don't like until the data fits what you want.

 

[tstorm823]

I really couldn't care less about the "not proper jobs!" reverse snobbery stuff. You can't just exclude the occupations you don't like until the data fits what you want.

You wouldn't be so keen to paint with broad strokes if the broad strokes weren't insulting towards your preferred targets.

That is wrong.

In what way?

 

[Ag3ma]

And then if you look at the degree programs with genuine career focus, things like engineering and medicine, the "more education, more liberal" correlation disappears completely.

I think you'll find that on average medical professionals lean left these days.

I would also suggest that when you think about the nature and ethics of medicine, certain strands of the current right wing can be... quite problematic. Medicine is fundamentally a profession that's supposed to be about caring. The attitudes and rhetoric of current right wing across much of the West look sort of awkward, because they are hostile and othering. One can consider for instance from the Declaration of Geneva: "I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient." This is the sort of stuff that right-wing media calls the globalist woke agenda.

 

[Silvanus]

You wouldn't be so keen to paint with broad strokes if the broad strokes weren't insulting towards your preferred targets.

Spoken as if you didn't do exactly the same thing in reverse to insult your preferred targets. It's unavoidable when we're discussing trends this diluted and broad.

At the very least mine was based on an attested correlation. Whereas yours was based on... uhrm, a personal prejudice against certain kinds of jobs, combined with sheer speculation.

 

[tstorm823]

Spoken as if you didn't do exactly the same thing in reverse to insult your preferred targets. It's unavoidable when we're discussing trends this diluted and broad.

At the very least mine was based on an attested correlation. Whereas yours was based on... uhrm, a personal prejudice against certain kinds of jobs, combined with sheer speculation.

There is speculation in what I'm saying, but certainly not all of it. Surgeons are overwhelmingly conservative. They are also highly educated. The simplistic "being smart and knowledgeable makes you lean left" explanation does not account for that.

I think you'll find that on average medical professionals lean left these days.

Mildly left overall, but that's also where the general population stands. This discussion is about the educated being more left leaning than the less educated, being the same amount left leaning as the general population still undermines the point.

I would also suggest that when you think about the nature and ethics of medicine, certain strands of the current right wing can be... quite problematic.

The certain strands that exist only to cause chaos that you should be ignoring. You put more weight in the words of extremists and grifters on the right than you do any common viewpoints. Not that right wing media is actually out there saying doctors should let certain people die, that's almost certainly your imagination.

 

[CaitSeith]

The major threat to democracy is populism; as it's the easiest way to create insurmountable division within a democratic environment.

 

[Silvanus]

There is speculation in what I'm saying, but certainly not all of it. Surgeons are overwhelmingly conservative. They are also highly educated. The simplistic "being smart and knowledgeable makes you lean left" explanation does not account for that.

Similarly, plenty of those very experienced in work lean left. The equally simplistic "knowing about the real world of work makes you conservative" explanation doesn't account for that.

None of this negates the correlation. It is generally true that greater education correlates with aligning to the left. If you find something insulting, it's not the description we've given to an existing trend, which has been broadly accurate. Its the trend itself. But its also true.

 

[tstorm823]

Similarly, plenty of those very experienced in work lean left. The equally simplistic "knowing about the real world of work makes you conservative" explanation doesn't account for that.

None of this negates the correlation. It is generally true that greater education correlates with aligning to the left. If you find something insulting, it's not the description we've given to an existing trend, which has been broadly accurate. Its the trend itself. But its also true.

This tangent began not only with a causative claim, "the more educated you are, the more liberal your stance is going to be", it outright said "very specifically, they're not intelligent enough to be liberal". I'm arguing with that nonsense, you're not going to defend that, you're doing the thing again.

 

[Silvanus]

This tangent began not only with a causative claim, "the more educated you are, the more liberal your stance is going to be", it outright said "very specifically, they're not intelligent enough to be liberal". I'm arguing with that nonsense, you're not going to defend that, you're doing the thing again.

I'm not defending whatever original statement set this off. But in response to it, you made a series of specious statements to counter the idea of a correlation existing at all, including equally derogatory comments aimed at the left. Its perfectly fair to address them.

 

[tstorm823]

I'm not defending whatever original statement set this off. But in response to it, you made a series of specious statements to counter the idea of a correlation existing at all, including equally derogatory comments aimed at the left. Its perfectly fair to address them.

A) I did not dispute the correlation existing, I suggested a different causal relationship leading to that correlation.
B) If they're equally specious and derogatory, why are you only arguing with me?