• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Are left wing liberals more intolerant than right wing conservatives?

Do you want to speak to people with opposite views?

  • Yes, I will take every chance I get

  • Yes, but I'm not often allowed to

  • No, I prefer speaking with people of similar minds

  • No, it always ends in verbal fights


Results are only viewable after voting.

Sybb

Member
Nov 11, 2019
150
278
245
Since I want a balanced discussion, I will start to say there are many complete idiots on both sides. There are people who think that the white race is in threat of extinction by evil banker and media jews, and there are people who think that society owes them everything, that they have no personal responsibility and that they only have rights - but no obligations.

But in my experience, people on the left are more intolerant to other people's opinions. Compare 4chan to Resetera. What will happen if you preach about feminism or left wing ideology on /pol/? People will attack you, call you a lot of nasty things - but they won't ban you. They won't silence you. And what happens if you preach about Trump and biology (two genders) on Resetera? You will get banned immediately for having the "wrong" opinions. And these forums are not isolated, I have seen exactly the same in Sweden.

Flashback is a famous right wing forum in Sweden. They allow everything, but you have to be ready to take some heat. Kind of like 4chan. Meanwhile, Familjeliv is a left wing forum where you get banned immdiately for saying even the slightest nasty thing or questioning LGBTQ etc. I've been around for a long time, and I can see this trend everywhere: right wing forums allow people to call each other nasty things, but they won't ban very easily. Left wing forum bans as much as they can because they don't allow different opinions.

Left wingers often say that you can't be tolerant towards intolerance. And while there's some truth to that, I think they're taking it too far. What kind of world would we live in if people weren't allowed to question everything? I think this partly has to do with that leftist typically see righters as evil, while righters see leftists as dumb. You make fun of dumb people, but you ban evil ones.

The basic problem is polarization. I love to talk to feminists, because they have such different viewpoints than me. The problem is, I can rarely talk to them as they only want to speak to people who agrees with them on everything. And that is a common problem today. Everyone is so senstive and full of themselves that they can't speak to people with different views. The "my ideology is 100% right, yours is 100% wrong" mentality is a problem. But I experience that this is more problematic among left wing liberals. For example, this thread would have been impossible on Resetera.

What do you think?
 

accel

Member
Sep 11, 2015
897
395
520
I am always in favor of talking, but I find that in addition to things like activist moderation, there's also a big issue in that people frequently simply don't want to acknowledge each other's points. I regard this as a product of the last five or so years being such that honest debates are more an exception rather than a rule.

I voted "Yes, but I am not often allowed to" because this was the closest option.
 

brap’s dad

Formerly 'matt404au'
Apr 25, 2009
18,885
34,267
1,450
Australia
I think American political terminology is busted and incorrectly conflates leftists with liberals. I believe that liberalism is at the apex of the horseshoe where left and right are in balance and that the mistaken conflation of leftism and liberalism is an artefact of a time when the US culture was so heavily conservative that the apex was far to the left of it.

Liberalism doesn’t mean do whatever the fuck you want and shut out any criticism as hate speech like common parlance today seems to indicate. It means prioritise the rights of the individual over the wants of the collective for the benefit of the collective, i.e. the best way to create a rising tide that lifts all ships is to empower the individual. That last part seems to be completely forgotten nowadays and I believe that Western culture has swung so far left that the prioritisation of the individual is no longer for the benefit of society but solely for the benefit of the individual. That’s a big problem because it breeds narcissists who then act against the interests of the collective.

I believe that the intolerance you speak of happens when a collective establishes itself as a cultural authority because it then has to act to preserve its own interests. It has to impose its will in a top-down authoritarian manner that is completely antithetical to bottom-up liberal values. In recent decades, this was right wing Christian evangelicals, and we rightly kicked them out of cultural power. But we overcorrected, and today it’s left wing intersectional feminists and their indoctrinated lemmings. We now need to kick them out of cultural power like we did the Christian evangelicals before they evolve to a hegemony.

So while the following may sound counterintuitive to someone adhering to the broken US political terminology, based on what I have described above I believe that we currently lack liberalism and to restore it we need to shift culture back to the right of where we currently are.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
6,416
9,494
910
Much of what is considered modern “conservative” ideology has roots in liberalism. They wish to conserve the ideals of free thought and free markets.

Yes, it also get co-opted by reactionaries and regressive types who want to utilize the state to return to a “better” time. Those people are not conservatives as they are reactionaries.

The far left on the other hand has shifted outside of liberalism into collectivism. Sadly that faction has a lot of power right now, much like the religious right did in decades past.

It’s too late to fully flesh this out, I’ll try to remember to come back tomorrow to this to better explain.
 
Dec 15, 2011
6,213
15,145
1,090
I've been around. I've seen things.
One lesson I've learned that applies to all aspects of life is the critical importance of communication.

In my professional life, whenever there's been some mess to clear up and then, afterwards, efforts to understand what went wrong I've always found it started with some type of communication error. Always.

As such, any entity, person or group that seeks to stifle, limit, control or silence communication is not helping themselves and will ultimately come off worse.

Communication is a door that swings both ways though. If you believe in it then be prepared to be challenged and to rise to that challenge.

Words are not violence. The only power they have is that which the recipient gives them.
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
15,359
4,276
1,590
32
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
I think American political terminology is busted and incorrectly conflates leftists with liberals. I believe that liberalism is at the apex of the horseshoe where left and right are in balance and that the mistaken conflation of leftism and liberalism is an artefact of a time when the US culture was so heavily conservative that the apex was far to the left of it.

Liberalism doesn’t mean do whatever the fuck you want and shut out any criticism as hate speech like common parlance today seems to indicate. It means prioritise the rights of the individual over the wants of the collective for the benefit of the collective, i.e. the best way to create a rising tide that lifts all ships is to empower the individual. That last part seems to be completely forgotten nowadays and I believe that Western culture has swung so far left that the prioritisation of the individual is no longer for the benefit of society but solely for the benefit of the individual. That’s a big problem because it breeds narcissists who then act against the interests of the collective.

I believe that the intolerance you speak of happens when a collective establishes itself as a cultural authority because it then has to act to preserve its own interests. It has to impose its will in a top-down authoritarian manner that is completely antithetical to bottom-up liberal values. In recent decades, this was right wing Christian evangelicals, and we rightly kicked them out of cultural power. But we overcorrected, and today it’s left wing intersectional feminists and their indoctrinated lemmings. We now need to kick them out of cultural power like we did the Christian evangelicals before they evolve to a hegemony.

So while the following may sound counterintuitive to someone adhering to the broken US political terminology, based on what I have described above I believe that we currently lack liberalism and to restore it we need to shift culture back to the right of where we currently are.
In terms of US politics, just read "liberal" as "left" and "libertarian" as "liberal". Of course there is still the issue of traditional left (social democratic or democratic socialism) and some modern interpretation of the term (intersectionalism) being grouped as "left" wholesale, even though in many cases, intersectionalism is not grouped with left-wing fiscal policies, but liberal ones (and vice-versa, social democrats are often not heavily invested in intersectionalism).
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,232
4,652
540
Moore Park Beach
Today, absolutely yes.
20 years ago, absolutely no.

We are well past the woke peak right now so in just 3-4-5 years people will look at all these woke retards just like we look back at the evangelical right and church lady from the 90s.
A few people will still remain and "I am on the right side of history" but they will just be put on the garbage dump of history, next to Jack Thompson and friends.

We will have movies that exaggerate, mock and humiliate the woke left just 5 years from now. Just like it was free for all to go all out and humiliate the evangelicals from the early 2000.


Young vocal people that has never seen the pendlum turn or even left high school will be just as surprised when the world turns against them as church-lady was when her time was up and she became a meme.
Our job is just to remember and mock them relentlessly for ever.
 
Last edited:

brap’s dad

Formerly 'matt404au'
Apr 25, 2009
18,885
34,267
1,450
Australia
In terms of US politics, just read "liberal" as "left" and "libertarian" as "liberal". Of course there is still the issue of traditional left (social democratic or democratic socialism) and some modern interpretation of the term (intersectionalism) being grouped as "left" wholesale, even though in many cases, intersectionalism is not grouped with left-wing fiscal policies, but liberal ones (and vice-versa, social democrats are often not heavily invested in intersectionalism).
But that’s the thing about the horseshoe: it’s not a binary scale. You can split it into quadrants. The top two quadrants aligned with the apex are the rational/individualist left and right. They balance each other and produce true liberalism which is the basis of Western cultural success and prosperity. The bottom two quadrants are the ideological/collectivist left and right. Recent world history has been a constant ebb and flow of these dangerous ideologies rearing their ugly heads and having to be fought off before they destroy society. Nazism, communism, doesn’t matter if it’s left or right: any collectivist ideology is dangerous.

Intersectionalism is definitely left because it purports to act on behalf of the lower classes, but it’s corrupted because it’s ideological and not rational as it asserts that class is a function of immutable characteristics. This is clearly absurd because it suggests that a white crack baby born in rural Kentucky is of a higher social class than Malia Obama. The rational left also acts on behalf of the lower classes, i.e. the welfare and working classes, but it does so from a position of opportunity and social mobility irrespective of immutables. In terms of the quadrants, intersectionalism is as proximal to Nazism as it is to rational leftism, and it’s diametrically opposed to the rational right. I think that’s why you feel such disdain when you are lumped in with the intersectional left. It’s equivalent to the rational right being lumped in with Nazis. In my opinion, you and others who see themselves as rational leftists need to expend less effort denouncing the right as though they’re a monolith and more effort embracing the rational right. They’re your true allies in this culture war.
 

Razvedka

Member
Oct 20, 2018
152
182
225
According to research, Leftists are actually less able to empathize with out group thought patterns vs political conservatives. This is to say, in the studies conservatives were better able to 'put themselves in [leftists] shoes' on certain issues, whereas leftists were less capable of emulating a conservative frame of mind.

While leftists emphasize empathy and inclusion far more than conservatives, any beyond their 'group' identity are treated worse relative to their political opposition iirc.

Source: Studies quoted in The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. This book tackles the subject in this thread extensively. I bring up the book so often because of how pertinent it is to a lot of the talks on poligaf.
 
Last edited:
Apr 12, 2013
6,305
398
620
I think the extremes on both sides are bonkers, and it will calm down once we have a good leader in office.

In a general sense the far left is more intolerant imo, the question though is, is that the right way to go about this? Is it completely justified? And to that I'd think the answer is no, not completely.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: brap’s dad

Grinchy

Gold Member
Aug 3, 2010
23,701
8,419
1,115
a cave outside of Whoville.
I feel like the most telling proof of this is that anywhere you look that is extreme left, it requires very strict moderation of very vague rules to keep the ideas in line. Science has to be re-written because of feelings, and no one can question what information they're being fed because everything comes crumbling down if you were to allow that.

You could say the same thing about the extreme right, but what even is that? The KKK? The Nazis? Those ideas are so niche and are dismissed so quickly by everyone else, including conservatives. The extreme left has essentially invaded academia, entertainment, and anything they can, and because they're pretending it's with righteous morality, once again, you'd better not question them and get on board, because otherwise, you're banished into the Nazi camp.
 

brap’s dad

Formerly 'matt404au'
Apr 25, 2009
18,885
34,267
1,450
Australia
According to research, Leftists are actually less able to empathize with out group thought patterns vs political conservatives. This is to say, in the studies conservatives were better able to 'put themselves in [leftists] shoes' on certain issues, whereas leftists were less capable of emulating a conservative frame of mind.

While leftists emphasize empathy and inclusion far more than conservatives, any beyond their 'group' identity are treated worse relative to their political opposition iirc.

Source: Studies quoted in The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. This book tackles the subject in this thread extensively. I bring up the book so often because of how pertinent it is to a lot of the talks on poligaf.
Empathy is not intrinsically good. In fact, it is often misplaced and engaging it benefits the giver more than the receiver. Empathy is giving a man a fish; compassion is teaching him to fish. Giving him the fish makes you feel good but doesn’t actually help him.
 

brap’s dad

Formerly 'matt404au'
Apr 25, 2009
18,885
34,267
1,450
Australia
I think the extremes on both sides are bonkers, and it will calm down once we have a good leader in office.

In a general sense the far left is more intolerant imo, the question though is, is that the right way to go about this? Is it completely justified? And to that I'd think the answer is no, not completely.
Trump is the symptom, not the cause. Jesus Christ, can you people ever take responsibility for your own actions?
 

Turnt

Member
Jul 21, 2018
310
439
275
No, people are just people. You can’t view everything through the lens of right/left.
 

Mihos

Gold Member
May 10, 2009
6,914
2,573
1,105
steamcommunity.com
Honestly, I don't talk to politics in real life to anyone. Might bitch about property tax to the wife, or maybe laugh at something dumb that some politician said, but other than that, I have designed my life to avoid crazy.
 
Apr 12, 2013
6,305
398
620
Trump is the symptom, not the cause. Jesus Christ, can you people ever take responsibility for your own actions?
You're conflating two different things. Trump is president because people are sick and tired of the bullshit in politics. So correct, he is not the cause of the bullshit.

At the same time, Trump is a human piece of garbage who is currently running the country. When some misguided people see a "leader" like Trump they think it's ok to act like him. It should be ok to act like and/or listen to the great leader of the good ol' USA, shouldn't it??

When we have a real leader in office things will change.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2, 2017
436
494
315
If we are talking about liberals that unironically hate white people or anyone that has differing political thoughts, then sure. Funny thing is that most of these people are white and think they are an exception to their own rule because they are "woke" or some nonsense.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: brap’s dad

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
20,180
41,282
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
People that follow after organized, dogmatic ideologies tend to be more intolerant unless said ideology has in-built systems to specifically encourage adherents to be gracious, to consider other viewpoints, etc. When you believe you are "right" it is only natural to be intolerant of all the other incorrect standpoints out there. There's nothing inherently wrong with this attitude, but it can lead to entrenchment and ignorance, especially if one is being told they are "smart" and "righteous" for believing it.

This is neither unique to the left wing or the right wing side of politics. It just so happens that currently left-wingers are swept up in their own secular "evangelical" movement.
 

belmarduk

Gold Member
Nov 19, 2019
501
489
450
Well, you have a candidate who is leading nationwide and in most states who has discussed having a Republican as a running mate. ResetERA is a declining echo chamber which is not indicative of the wider left.
 

dkny1121

Member
Mar 23, 2018
108
135
235
100% today it is like that. 20 Years ago Liberals were way different and actually stood for something, inequality was an actual thing. I think now that everyone is pretty much equal, they have to keep moving left to "fight the good fight"
 

zeorhymer

Gold Member
Nov 9, 2013
2,654
2,315
750
San Francisco, CA
It's either in one ear and out the other or I get bullied out. Why do I even bother talking with people?

Edit: When one side calls you a Nazi, bigot, racist, -phobe just because they don't agree with you, then yeah....
 
Last edited:

Katsura

Gold Member
Aug 7, 2019
1,175
1,688
475
Yes, they are are. No question

I just want to mention the whole 'don't tolerate the intolerable' that the fools on twatter likes to throw around. Popper did not mean what they think. Like at all. Of course none of them have actually read his works. He was talking about how to safe guard against something like the real nazis. People that were violent and could not be reasoned with. Who did not respect the rules of society and wanted to overthrow it. People like Antifa

The way the left uses it is the exact definition of intolerance. You don't tolerate things you already like. You tolerate things you dislike or even hate. If you only tolerate things you already agree with, you are the poster boy for intolerance

Here is a quote from the same work - something the left always seem to ignore
I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise
 

Woo-Fu

incest on the subway
Jan 2, 2007
14,927
2,188
1,515
5. No, I don't like talking to anybody.

In my experience neither side talks to the other. If somebody brings it from one side the other side invariably has nothing to say. It isn't even worth the effort of discussion.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Katsura

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,885
1,735
1,325
Taylorsville, Ky!
It may be just a matter of who is in control of a culture. (I'm far right, but I am being a devil's advocate here) Since the left is in full control of the cultural heights of our society, they have and use the power to suppress dissent. Now if we take a "right" (or at least pre-liberal) control of the heights of society, let's say the medieval church, they did the same thing.

So It may be that leftism is inherently intolerant, or it may just be human nature that when any group "wins" the argument and takes over the cultural milieu, they attempt to cement themselves in place by suppressing dissent.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: brap’s dad

Woo-Fu

incest on the subway
Jan 2, 2007
14,927
2,188
1,515
So basically you have everyone on ignore and use GAF as your blog? :messenger_winking:
I don't think I have any one on ignore. A couple console warriors who got banned a long time ago, maybe.

And yeah, GAF does feel like a blog sometimes. You either have people who radically disagree with your opinion or people who mostly/entirely agree. Usually not much room for an actual discussion, at least in the Political forum.

Take the recent Iran stuff, for example. You have a bunch of people whose brain can only process one thought at a time and that thought is currently, "War is bad and should be avoided it any cost." They're not interested in what led up to the situation or how it develops if simply ignored. Can't have a discussion with somebody like that because they don't consider anything in context, can't see any of the potential negatives to what they think is the only choice.
 
Last edited:

Katsura

Gold Member
Aug 7, 2019
1,175
1,688
475
I don't think I have any one on ignore. A couple console warriors who got banned a long time ago, maybe.

And yeah, GAF does feel like a blog sometimes. You either have people who radically disagree with your opinion or people who mostly/entirely agree. Usually not much room for an actual discussion, at least in the Political forum.
It was just meant as a joke. I found the thought of someone going on a forum and putting everyone on ignore kinda funny :pie_ssmiling:
 

brap’s dad

Formerly 'matt404au'
Apr 25, 2009
18,885
34,267
1,450
Australia
You're conflating two different things. Trump is president because people are sick and tired of the bullshit in politics. So correct, he is not the cause of the bullshit.

At the same time, Trump is a human piece of garbage who is currently running the country. When some misguided people see a "leader" like Trump they think it's ok to act like him. It should be ok to act like and/or listen to the great leader of the good ol' USA, shouldn't it??

When we have a real leader in office things will change.
“human piece of garbage”

NPC alert

 

brap’s dad

Formerly 'matt404au'
Apr 25, 2009
18,885
34,267
1,450
Australia
Option 4 for me. In my experience it always ends in insults directed at me when I try to discuss politics with people on the Right. It's just not worth the hassle and harassment in my opinion to try anymore in either real life or online.
No one makes fun of you when you’re engaging honestly. Quit being a perpetual victim and take responsibility for yourself.
 

AmazingLook

Member
Jul 19, 2019
193
1,021
315
I don’t browse conservative forums often, reddit being my main social media so I don’t have a full grasp but I’ve browsed the_donald a handful of times and and every time there was racist, hateful shit front and center. Of which the mods on that subreddit are known for banning people who speak against Trump. This forum also has an issue with many people mocking others inherently with the traditional soy/cuck/NPC insults, when no argument has even been made and just to do it for the sake of insulting. That isn’t tolerant and I ain’t gonna respond to those people . My preference is being around people who don’t spout ignorant shit in either direction. Which is why I stick to the butt thread, but even then people come in and ruin it with stupid shit when it isn’t needed 🥱
 
Last edited:

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,232
4,652
540
Moore Park Beach
If we are talking about liberals that unironically hate white people or anyone that has differing political thoughts, then sure. Funny thing is that most of these people are white and think they are an exception to their own rule because they are "woke" or some nonsense.
That is actually pretty common in totalitarian far-left movements. It happens over and over and in part of the DNA for far left authoritarianism.

They often justify why they are so special by saying things like ordinary peole are too busy trying to make a living to have time to spend on politics. That is why these "woke" people will lead until the time the proletariat are ready.

George Orwell has some good quotes from his book Animal Farm that describes exactly this too :
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

That book was written in 1945. Already then it was well known that this was how authoritarian far left operated.
 

Razvedka

Member
Oct 20, 2018
152
182
225
Empathy is not intrinsically good. In fact, it is often misplaced and engaging it benefits the giver more than the receiver. Empathy is giving a man a fish; compassion is teaching him to fish. Giving him the fish makes you feel good but doesn’t actually help him.

True, plus there are practical boundaries on altruism. Good will directed to people (geographically) distant from you is likely to be considerably less optimal vs directing your focuses locally (parochial altruism). Haidt suggets that emphasizing parocial altruism is a far better way to allocate resources and foster community, but us affluent westerners seem to be much less interested. Part of it I suspect, getting back to your remark, is that helping the inner city homeless 12 miles from you is considerably less 'fashionable' than contributing to a Sudan relief effort (liberal) or taking a missionary trip (theo-conservative).

Both are well intended, but I'm pretty ambivalent to them in practice. I view it as a well meaning waste at best, an excursion in self-righteous narcissism at worst.

I mean, you guys saw Bohemian Rhapsody right? Remember the big concert at the end of the movie called Live Aid, and the plot revolving around how much money they donated to that effort? Just watching that film and being unfamiliar with the history, I was immediately suspicious that the end result was actually something productive.

Lo and behold, it wasn't and the movie never draws any attention to that fact.

Straight from Wikipedia:

The impact of Live Aid on famine relief has been debated for years. One aid relief worker stated that following the publicity generated by the concert, "humanitarian concern is now at the centre of foreign policy" for western governments.[4] Geldof states, "We took an issue that was nowhere on the political agenda and, through the lingua franca of the planet – which is not English but rock 'n' roll – we were able to address the intellectual absurdity and the moral repulsion of people dying of want in a world of surplus."[5] He adds, Live Aid "created something permanent and self-sustaining", but also asked why Africa is getting poorer.[4] The organisers of Live Aid tried, without much success, to run aid efforts directly, channelling millions of pounds to NGOs in Ethiopia. Much of this, however, went to the Ethiopian government of Mengistu Haile Mariam – a regime the UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher wanted to "destabilise"[6] – and was spent on guns.

...

In 1986 Spin published an exposé on the realities of Live Aid's actions in Ethiopia. They claimed that Geldof deliberately ignored warnings from Médecins Sans Frontières, who had complained directly to Geldof even before Live Aid, about the role of the Ethiopian Government under Derg leader Mengistu Haile Mariam in causing the famine and that by working with Mengistu directly, much of the relief funds intended for victims were in fact siphoned off to purchase arms from the Soviet Union, thereby exacerbating the situation even more. Geldof responded by deriding both the articles and Médecins Sans Frontières, who had been expelled from the country, and reportedly saying, "I'll shake hands with the Devil on my left and on my right to get to the people we are meant to help".[56][57]

According to the BBC World Service, a certain proportion of the funds were siphoned off to buy arms for the Tigrayan People's Liberation Front.[58] This coalition battled at the time against Derg. The Band Aid Trust complained to the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit regarding the specific allegations in the BBC World Service documentary, and their complaint was upheld.[59]

Arguing that Live Aid accomplished good ends while inadvertently causing harm at the same time, David Rieff gave a presentation of similar concerns in The Guardian at the time of Live 8.[60] Tim Russert, in an interview on Meet the Press shortly after O'Reilly's comments, addressed these concerns to Bono. Bono responded that corruption, not disease or famine, was the greatest threat to Africa, agreeing with the belief that foreign relief organisations should decide how the money is spent. On the other hand, Bono said that it was better to spill some funds into nefarious quarters for the sake of those who needed it than to stifle aid because of possible theft.[61]
But that doesn't matter, does it? The intentions were pure and the people in the concert, the bands -and of course the viewer watching the movie- feel good about themselves right?

Other Sources:



It is amazing when short sighted, ineffectual, empathy has results that are pretty indistinguishable from blind hatred.
 
Last edited:

zeorhymer

Gold Member
Nov 9, 2013
2,654
2,315
750
San Francisco, CA
This forum also has an issue with many people mocking others inherently with the traditional soy/cuck/NPC insults, when no argument has even been made and just to do it for the sake of insulting. That isn’t tolerant and I ain’t gonna respond to those people . My preference is being around people who don’t spout ignorant shit in either direction. Which is why I stick to the butt thread, but even then people come in and ruin it with stupid shit when it isn’t needed 🥱
If you want to be in an echo chamber, more power to you.
 

brap’s dad

Formerly 'matt404au'
Apr 25, 2009
18,885
34,267
1,450
Australia
True, plus there are practical boundaries on altruism. Good will directed to people (geographically) distant to you is likely to be considerably less optimal vs directing your focuses locally (parochial altruism). Haidt suggets that emphasizing parocial altruism is a far better way to allocate resources and foster community, but us affluent westerners seem to be much less interested. Part of it I suspect, getting back to your remark, is that helping the inner city homeless 12 miles from you is considerably less 'fashionable' than contributing to a Sudan relief effort (liberal) or taking a missionary trip (theo-conservative).

Both are well intended, but I'm pretty ambivalent to them in practice. I view it as a well meaning waste at best, an excursion in self-righteous narcissism at worst.

I mean, you guys saw Bohemian Rhapsody right? Remember the big concert at the end of the movie called Live Aid, and the plot revolving around how much money they donated to that effort? Just watching that film and being unfamiliar with the history, I was immediately suspicious that the end result was actually something productive.

Lo and behold, it wasn't and the movie never draws any attention to that fact.

Straight from Wikipedia:



But that doesn't matter, does it? The intentions were pure and the people in the concert, the bands -and of course the viewer watching the movie- feel good about themselves right?

Other Sources:



It is amazing when short sighted, ineffectual, empathy has results that are pretty indistinguishable from blind hatred.
Geldof and Bono, two of the most self-righteous wankers the world has ever known. This kind of thing is why I’m so cynical towards charity these days. True charity is done to help those in need get back on their feet and provide for themself; it is not done to boost the ego of the one carrying it out. Another case of mistaking empathy for compassion and doing more harm than good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Razvedka

Razvedka

Member
Oct 20, 2018
152
182
225
Geldof and Bono, two of the most self-righteous wankers the world has ever known. This kind of thing is why I’m so cynical towards charity these days. True charity is done to help those in need get back on their feet and provide for themself; it is not done to boost the ego of the one carrying it out. Another case of mistaking empathy for compassion and doing more harm than good.

I think skepticism towards charity is pretty defensible. I'm in the same boat there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brap’s dad

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
5,654
7,298
460
I don’t browse conservative forums often, reddit being my main social media so I don’t have a full grasp but I’ve browsed the_donald a handful of times and and every time there was racist, hateful shit front and center. Of which the mods on that subreddit are known for banning people who speak against Trump. This forum also has an issue with many people mocking others inherently with the traditional soy/cuck/NPC insults, when no argument has even been made and just to do it for the sake of insulting. That isn’t tolerant and I ain’t gonna respond to those people . My preference is being around people who don’t spout ignorant shit in either direction. Which is why I stick to the butt thread, but even then people come in and ruin it with stupid shit when it isn’t needed 🥱
Bullshit
 

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
6,371
7,895
1,590
In terms of US politics, just read "liberal" as "left" and "libertarian" as "liberal". Of course there is still the issue of traditional left (social democratic or democratic socialism) and some modern interpretation of the term (intersectionalism) being grouped as "left" wholesale, even though in many cases, intersectionalism is not grouped with left-wing fiscal policies, but liberal ones (and vice-versa, social democrats are often not heavily invested in intersectionalism).
Oh, come on. Show me a large swaths of proponents of intersectionalism that have Libertarian economic views.
 

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
6,371
7,895
1,590
The liberal branch of the German Greens (prominent example: Göring-Eckardt), corporate Democrats such as H. Clinton.
Hillary uses intersectional rhetoric when it comes to women. And is not a Libertarian in the slightest, just a corporatist.