User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 14 of 14

  1. #11
    Senior Member tinker683's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,659

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    IRL yes.

    Here there isn't usually any common ground to be had.
    This.
    "The man who is swimming against the stream knows the strength of it."
    ― Woodrow Wilson

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ceecee View Post
    If this happened to me it wouldn't even be about views or politics. You don't put your hands on my vehicle. End of story. If someone asks me who I support I'd tell them I don't feel it is polite to ask someone about something I do in the privacy of the voting booth. How would they like it if a perfect stranger asked them if they like the missionary position or doggy style?
    That's pretty interesting, I never thought of that but its a good analogy maybe.

    In the early ninties I remember the BBC running a story about how politics as an ideal topic in the UK for small talk, it must be the south of england or something and different from here because I remember a friend in the ROI telling me that politics, religion and sport (in that context Gaelic Athletic Association because there are strong loyalties to locality on that basis) were totally unsafe for small talk.

    On the other hand its also strange because some people will consider their sexuality politicised AND a topic for public discourse, I know exactly what you're meaning and I'd agree with it but its not universally held ot be true.

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 93JC View Post
    I try to not make the mistake of talking politics with other people because the majority of the people who are interested enough in politics to want to talk about also tend to be fervently biased in favour of a particular party or politician. I have my own personal political beliefs, only a few of which jive with any one party's policies, so I tend to make enemies pretty quick when I talk about politics.

    'Conservatives' see in me a kindred spirit when I say I support laissez-faire economics in principle, and then they'll froth at the mouth when I say I have no problem with gay marriage or abortions and other such things. 'Liberals' then think I'm a bleeding heart, but then I say bad things about the Kyoto Protocol and I become some corporate fat-cat in their eyes.

    Politics, when you get right down to it, really should be called something else because it's not about policies. It's about jingoism and demagoguery.
    I think it is a sensitive topic because, especially some of the things you mentioned in the body of your post, it crosses over so much with the "ferocious moral attachments" or norms and mores to which someone can be easily attached, I really dont believe that it is jingoism and demoagoguery and it shouldnt be. In a degenerate state of being it could be, there's far too much of a cross over between politics and entertainment or even reportage, news, media and entertainment but that is not the fault of politics per se.

    I'm inclined to really value politics and political thinking and discourse, what disappoints me is that people are satisfied with the simplifications and ideological bear traps which have the greatest currency, you're right to say that the most politically interested are often the most blinkered though. I agree with Habermass, its very possible that when opposing politics meant that the individuals involved arent even speaking the same language, the meanings attached to and attributed to each other and to words themselves can be very different.

    For a long time I strove to try and understand those so opposed to myself, I've gotten less and less convinced its worthwhile.

  4. #14
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I do think the narcissism of small differences is bizarre, to me, especially in the US context, there's no difference between conservatives and libertarians, its six and half a dozen really. They both DO believe that liberals are lazy/idlers, unsuccessful/envious and unhappy and annoying them is a good idea, there's a big consensus there, besides that I'm not sure why a conservative would have different views to a libertarian on militarism, if anything I'd suspect a libertarian would be less militaristic since there is the aversion to conscription and I'd have suspected that military intervetions would have been considered as worthwhile as domestic welfare interventions.
    Conservatives (at least, the standard, rank-and-file, never-read-Buckley or Burke types in the United States) operate out of spite and a disdain for remote authority. Therefore, they like militarism, because it allows them a means of taking out their aggression on the less fortunate in the world, and keeps the government (hated oppressor) out of their hair. Libertarians operate out of disdain for outside authority impeding on opportunities for personal utility. They oppose militarism because it costs money, and indirectly impedes on their ability to maximize their own personal utility because of this shared cost.

    Libertarians dislike social programs because they cost money. Conservatives (and once again, this refers to the less educated majority in the group) dislike social programs because they make others' lives less miserable.

    Finally on the economy there'd be no difference between the conservatives and libertarians what so ever, in all seriousness I havent heard ANY conservative policy or propaganda which has attacked free markets in my life besides historical sources, the most recent of which that I can think of was Ian Gilmour's keynesian attacks on Monetarism in the eighties. They dont exist any more because the right wing consensus has been SO successful that even moderate keynesianism is considered anathema and akin to communism. Hayek prevailed.
    Of course, because they're all proponents of neoliberal policy. American conservatives don't talk about things like balanced budgets and deficit reduction unless it scores political points, or ensures that someone's going to get their piece of the pie taken away from them. Neoliberalism is a step toward neofeudalism, which is why it ultimately is a profoundly reactionary ideology.

    So what is being discussed as politics, or argued over when I encounter that, is usually uninteresting to me, a lot of the time its very personal to people, they're discussing their family norms and possibly their parents/grandparents/great grandparents values writ large, or what they think those are writ large.
    Very true. Politics is generally a forum for reenacting family psychodrama. Especially in the US, where our two-party system plays the role of the parents in a deeply dysfunctional family.

    Very little point discussing that, challenging that. The only thing worse than that is the greater levels of ignorance you'll encounter among the even less politically interested, like the kid who recently told me that he learned in school that conservatism within Weimer Germany resulted in Nazism, that conservatives dont really like black people or people who are different and oppose equality, while commies are all about equality so probably "good".
    Eh, propaganda is intellectual abuse, regardless of the position it promotes.

    There are other versions of that simplistic and simplifying logic in print which drive me mad, most recently the book Comrade, world history of communism or something like that, which ignored all the cultural diversity, contexts and political disparity to conclude that not only where Russian, Chinese, Latin American, Eastern European sattellite state communisms all the same but they are also the same as Al Quida.
    See above.

    To be honest, even on this forum, I've got to believing that peoples political persuasions are held with almost religious conviction and when they encounter those of a different persuasion the only purpose they expect them to fufil is to confirm their worst suspiscions or prejudices, if they dont, well, they'll tell them they dont know anything about the beliefs they actually profess, probably have professed, for some time and reached through careful and lengthy processes of discrimination and elimination, not like choosing a sports team to support or brand of cereal which has been advertised better than its rivals. I'm not interested in that, its easier to ignore than expend the effort trying to educate them. Even simply encouraging them to educate themselves by looking at the available sources is a waste of time, I usually find I could school most of those whose opinion I oppose in their own professed opinion while they couldnt give a shit about being informed on mine.
    As previously mentioned, it's usually about family psychodrama. A particular belief system represents Mommy and/or Daddy, and Mommy and/or Daddy is all good, and anyone who disagrees must be bad. It's childish splitting, but that's the type of thinking that politics thrives off off (since it consists of groups that are trying to do nothing more than grab their own slice of the pie or deny that pie to someone else). It's the inability to sustain more complex modes of thought within the political framework that often drives people off from participation in civic institutions in the first place (which incidentally is, in my opinion, a particularly strong argument against democracy as a political system. Static classes of decision-makers would avoid this problem through being trained from birth in a nurturing environment to handle the rigors of statecraft. Unfortunately, people tend to have egos, and also tend to like defending those egos with armies).

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think it is a sensitive topic because, especially some of the things you mentioned in the body of your post, it crosses over so much with the "ferocious moral attachments" or norms and mores to which someone can be easily attached, I really dont believe that it is jingoism and demoagoguery and it shouldnt be. In a degenerate state of being it could be, there's far too much of a cross over between politics and entertainment or even reportage, news, media and entertainment but that is not the fault of politics per se.

    I'm inclined to really value politics and political thinking and discourse, what disappoints me is that people are satisfied with the simplifications and ideological bear traps which have the greatest currency, you're right to say that the most politically interested are often the most blinkered though. I agree with Habermass, its very possible that when opposing politics meant that the individuals involved arent even speaking the same language, the meanings attached to and attributed to each other and to words themselves can be very different.
    Again, the politics as psychodrama issue. It's not about determining the best policy, it's about proving that one's side is right, to show how good you are as a person. Thus, the satisfaction even without thinking things through. They've got the greatest currency because they've got the most emotionally compelling rhetoric.

    For a long time I strove to try and understand those so opposed to myself, I've gotten less and less convinced its worthwhile.
    Think of it less about understanding those opposed to you, and more about understanding why people might see something the way they do. Much more interesting that way.

    In the early ninties I remember the BBC running a story about how politics as an ideal topic in the UK for small talk, it must be the south of england or something and different from here because I remember a friend in the ROI telling me that politics, religion and sport (in that context Gaelic Athletic Association because there are strong loyalties to locality on that basis) were totally unsafe for small talk.
    A little different when relatives have been killed in living memory over politics, I would imagine.

Similar Threads

  1. [ENTP] How often do you talk about yourselves?
    By ALL-HAIL-ME in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-10-2014, 09:41 AM
  2. [INTJ] What You Talk About With Your INTJ
    By Sunshine in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 10-28-2008, 01:25 PM
  3. When you think about it...
    By The Ü™ in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-14-2007, 05:27 PM
  4. What excites you? What do you wish people would talk about with you?
    By ladypinkington in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 08-05-2007, 03:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO