Social People who appear to be on the wrong side

[Big Nasty Edison]

You're every bit the inspiration you think you are.

I inspire people to go against genocide and protecting pdfs.

You try to inspire people to support genocide and protect pdfs.

We are not the same.

 

[NadaRekowski]

I don't think anyone should be on the side of genocide, but that's just me.

Not very efficient genoziding then.

 

[nhbbear]

What are some political alignments that seen like they should be the opposite?

For example, liberals should be on the side of Israel, since that country is more supportive of women's rights and more tolerant of LGBTQ people. Yet they side with anyone who hates Israel which often puts them in bed with countries that treat women and gay people horribly.

Republicans should love illegals from Mexico because they provide cheap labor for farms and other businesses.

And illegals from Mexico should be Republicans because the majority are religious Catholics that believe in traditional family values.

What other examples are there of people who should align with the other side based on their own beliefs?

It’s exactly for reasons like this that I don’t have a side. This and because I am all over the place politically. Pro-second amendment, pro choice for women, further left than right when it comes to healthcare and drug/mental health care, and several other topics that prevent me from fitting neatly into one side or the other.

 

[Seano]

I inspire people to go against genocide and protecting pdfs.

You try to inspire people to support genocide and protect pdfs.

We are not the same.

Nah, you're a pathetic virtue signaling douche who creates narratives about people he doesn't know and can't seem to help mentioning how great he thinks he is literally all the time. Its incredibly embarrassing and reeks of the insecurity you surely suffer from.


I don't try to inspire anyone to do anything and neither do you. You're just seeking validation. From strangers at that. I can't even imagine giving half a shit what someone like you thinks of anything.

 

[Siver!]

Not very efficient genoziding then.

They've slaughtered more than enough.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Nah, you're a pathetic virtue signaling douche who creates narratives about people he doesn't know and can't seem to help mentioning how great he thinks he is literally all the time. Its incredibly embarrassing and reeks of the insecurity you surely suffer from.


I don't try to inspire anyone to do anything and neither do you. You're just seeking validation. From strangers at that. I can't even imagine giving half a shit what someone like you thinks of anything.

Yawn. No one needs to create a narrative, even Stevie Wonder could see you and your comrades spend your days running defense for the most indefensible and reprehensible people and actions. Insecurity is attaching yourself and identity to a political movement and its leader for 10 years, unable to think independently.

No run along and tell us some more how totally normal it is for sex offenders to get moved to club fed for saying nice things about a president.

 

[The XL]

Anyone who is still doing the left vs right stuff at this point is objectively low IQ. All of these politicians are bought and paid for by the same people who were on Epstein Island. In some instances, like with Trump, Clinton, Bush 1, etc they were actually on the island.

 

[Gamer2k4]

Because it's all about trendiness rather than personally held convictions. Consider even the recent ICE situation - liberals were for masks until they were against them, against borders until they were for them, and against gun rights until they were for them. And conservatives flipped just as quickly on the same topics in the opposite direction.

You can tell pretty easily whether or not people think for themselves by how quickly they change their argument based on the people involved.

 

[Fedorgasm]

I think one of the weirdest ones is how being anti-vax went from a far left, hippie dippie tree hugger position to a fairly mainstream right wing position.

Yes!!! That one was bizarre to watch.

In the early pandemic days everyone on both sides wanted drug companies to create a vaccine. Then after it came out, you could see in real time people figuring out which side they were supposed to be on, because the lines hadn't been drawn yet.

 

[curryjunkie]

the "sides" arent monolithic, there are strongly differing opinions on things in both left and right.

 

[BFoe]

Because it's all about trendiness rather than personally held convictions. Consider even the recent ICE situation - liberals were for masks until they were against them, against borders until they were for them, and against gun rights until they were for them. And conservatives flipped just as quickly on the same topics in the opposite direction.

You can tell pretty easily whether or not people think for themselves by how quickly they change their argument based on the people involved.

Again I don’t think that tells the entire story—context matters.

There is a world of difference between masks worn by law enforcement so that they can’t be identified (esp. when they are abusing people’s rights) and wearing a mask to try and help slow a pandemic.

On guns, we have all sorts of views. But I’d say that while a lot of us oppose open or concealed carry, the POV is, “hey Righties, you seem to have won the battle on open carry—so why is it an issue for you when this guy did it?”

I don’t know what “against borders until they were for them” refers to exactly.

 

[Gamer2k4]

I think one of the weirdest ones is how being anti-vax went from a far left, hippie dippie tree hugger position to a fairly mainstream right wing position.

It's really bizarre because plenty of people, myself included, had no issue with an immunization schedule but also had no interest in temporary vaccines like the flu vaccine. That was considered a common and reasonable approach. But now, you can't just be against experimental Covid vaccinations, but apparently have to be skeptical of all vaccines as well, even ones that have been harmless and effective for decades.

 

[Gamer2k4]

I don’t know what “against borders until they were for them” refers to exactly.

I'm talking about the ICE protesters being unable to see the irony in barricading their roads and controlling traffic through their communities while being vehemently opposed to border control on a national level.

 

[that Indian]

OK, I'll break it down. There are basically 3 types of beliefs people have.

1) What is - beliefs about the nature of reality, which allow us to live our daily lives. e.g., 2+2=4, gravity, gas makes car go etc. Virtually zero disagreement here.

2) What ought to be - beliefs to guide one's life and community, guided by ethics and rationality. e.g., parenting, community norms, principled voting and advocacy. group differentiation starts, but strong overlap. many GOP and Dems parent the same, and generally live the same lifestyles.

3) What am I - beliefs that signal to others community membership, tribal allegiance, common enemies. necessarily involves accepting the hypocrisies that come with in-group identification. e.g., a gas-loving Dem drives a car everyday while advocating immediate decarbonization; a GOP raging against philia while ignoring the entanglement of their own politicians. massive group separation, like people living on two different planets.

Unfortunately, politics--and social policy in general--is ideally founded on leaders who inspire thoughtful engagement with the first two sets of beliefs, however, it is easier to control the populace if the leaders marshal allegiance through the valorization of identity

 

[Gamer2k4]

OK, I'll break it down. There are basically 3 types of beliefs people have.

1) What is - beliefs about the nature of reality, which allow us to live our daily lives. e.g., 2+2=4, gravity, gas makes car go etc. Virtually zero disagreement here.

2) What ought to be - beliefs to guide one's life and community, guided by ethics and rationality. e.g., parenting, community norms, principled voting and advocacy. group differentiation starts, but strong overlap. many GOP and Dems parent the same, and generally live the same lifestyles.

3) What am I - beliefs that signal to others community membership, tribal allegiance, common enemies. necessarily involves accepting the hypocrisies that come with in-group identification. e.g., a gas-loving Dem drives a car everyday while advocating immediate decarbonization; a GOP raging against philia while ignoring the entanglement of their own politicians. massive group separation, like people living on two different planets.

Unfortunately, politics--and social policy in general--is ideally founded on leaders who inspire thoughtful engagement with the first two sets of beliefs, however, it is easier to control the populace if the leaders marshal allegiance through the valorization of identity

Insightful, but let's add one more thing: 4) What gets priority when two situations conflict. For example, in the abortion debate, both sides believe that humans have the right to bodily autonomy and that those rights must be respected. But pro-lifers prioritize the rights of the child over the mother, while pro-choicers prioritize the rights of the mother over the child. Or with Covid, both sides agreed the impact to society should be limited as far as possible, but liberals prioritized the short remaining lifespans of the elderly who would have died early without the vaccine, while conservatives prioritized the development of children who were being stunted educationally and socially with the lockdowns.

In general, "what ought to be" tends to align among people within the same society, as you said. And it's that "what I am" that tends to blind people to the reason of the opposing side. But linking those two things is "what gets priority in case of conflict."

 

[that Indian]

Insightful, but let's add one more thing: 4) What gets priority when two situations conflict. For example, in the abortion debate, both sides believe that humans have the right to bodily autonomy and that those rights must be respected. But pro-lifers prioritize the rights of the child over the mother, while pro-choicers prioritize the rights of the mother over the child. Or with Covid, both sides agreed the impact to society should be limited as far as possible, but liberals prioritized the short remaining lifespans of the elderly who would have died early without the vaccine, while conservatives prioritized the development of children who were being stunted educationally and socially with the lockdowns.

In general, "what ought to be" tends to align among people within the same society, as you said. And it's that "what I am" that tends to blind people to the reason of the opposing side. But linking those two things is "what gets priority in case of conflict."

Good question. I think it depends on the person and the circumstances they find themselves in. In this chat forum, for example, identity is the strongest marker of relevance. So beliefs that signal tribal identity are going to get prioritized above an effortful pursuit of "what is".

Someone, for instance, is going to assert the harms of capitalism without doing an even-handed, analytic exploration of this complex topic. Similarly, someone will deny the scientific near-consensus on climate change without trifling to check their confirmation bias.

 

[nixkid]

Politics is about coalition building. Each party is comprised of different factions and their interests don't always align perfectly.

The xenophobic wing of the Republican party wants to deport all the illegal immigrants. The business wing may not be so gung ho about it. The Reagan Republicans were less willing to act on behalf of the xenophobic wing. Trump has been more willing to act but there are limits. Notice how ICE will target a business and arrest the workers but the administration won't actually do anything to the business that is hiring them. That's how efficiently stop illegal immigration -- you stop the demand for their labor, they'll have no incentive to come here. But that's a bridge too far even for Trump. He'll just make a big show with ICE so the xenophobes have something to sink their teeth in but a large portion of the people deported will probably just cross the border again at some point. They wouldn't do that if they couldn't find a job and the people here would eventually self-deport. Throw a bone to one faction without totally alienating the other. That's politics.

 

[gatchaman]

What are some political alignments that seen like they should be the opposite?

For example, liberals should be on the side of Israel, since that country is more supportive of women's rights and more tolerant of LGBTQ people. Yet they side with anyone who hates Israel which often puts them in bed with countries that treat women and gay people horribly.

Republicans should love illegals from Mexico because they provide cheap labor for farms and other businesses.

And illegals from Mexico should be Republicans because the majority are religious Catholics that believe in traditional family values.

What other examples are there of people who should align with the other side based on their own beliefs?

"liberals should be on the side of Israel"
Godless commies should be on the side of a religious ethnostate? You sound retarded. The real argument is that godless commies should be on the side of Israel against the more powerful religion, Christianity, with the ultimate goal of eliminating all competing religions to the state.

"Yet they side with anyone who hates Israel which often puts them in bed with countries that treat women and gay people horribly."
The goal of the godless commies is to flood Christian countries with Islamic nutters, so that when you ban the hijab, to avoid hypocrisy, you must also ban the cross.

"Republicans should love illegals from Mexico because they provide cheap labor for farms and other businesses. And illegals from Mexico should be Republicans because the majority are religious Catholics that believe in traditional family values."
Borders are more of a statist vs libertarian divider than a left vs right divider. The statist left wants borders to keep people in (check points everywhere), while the statist right wants borders to keep people out (See Islamic nutters above).

 

[Bia]

I don't think anyone should be on the side of genocide, but that's just me.

I agreed, but I ponder what if it's other way around? What would the Palestinian/Hamas do to the Israelis if they got the capabilities to wipe them out

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

I agreed, but I ponder what if it's other way around? What would the Palestinian/Hamas do to the Israelis if they got the capabilities to wipe them out

They probably would try and then we would be condemning them. Unfortunately, as current situation shows, any formally oppressed group of humans will become the oppressors when given the chance. One of the many flaws of the violent human species