The Right isn't really focused on the enemy within, its more focused on precautionary actions against percieved threats to stability (that can be inside)
First off, I was referring to the differences in the formation of conspiracy theories: socioeconomic structures (left) v. foreigners/cabals/bogeymen (right). In no way does that condemn or undermine "the right" as such, only the kooks who parrot Protocols of Zion narratives.
Second, it is mind-boggling how you can claim that it is not about focusing on the enemy within, only to confirm that this is the case in the following clause. Maybe you need to take a deep breath and think through what you're trying to get across.
Its been scientifically proven people on the Right are better at detecting trouble.
No, it hasn't. But feel free to send me studies drenched in confirmation biases.
The Left is more about Group think, and social class issues to a degree that I would call fanatical.
It is frankly bizarre how you can promote tribalism in one breath yet condemn group think and class solidarity in the next.
Ever heard the phrase "The truth is stranger than fiction"? I do not think just because something sounds insane, doesn't mean it is impossible. So its good to apply what I call the macro-micro comparison. If it can happen on a small scale, its definately happening on a large scale.
If an explanation sounds insane, is logically incoherent, and is simultaneously constructed and promoted by neo-Nazis, then your gut should tell you that something is terribly wrong.
It actually raises a number of questions as to why you'd suddenly suspend disbelief and swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
My comment on Science isn't wrong, and I am not talking about blind faith (though there are many who see science like religion and do follow it blindly) If you didnt do the experiments yourself, you are using faith. You've never been to the moon, so you cannot say anything about it with 100% certainty. You have to trust the people who did. Evidence can be tampered with as well, or have flawed or inconclusive data.
This naive realism beggars belief. You do realize that such a myopic approach completely obfuscates the core of science: method reliant on perspicacity and continuous critique. (Give Popperian testability a look-see.)
It is also shockingly bizarre how you can apply such contradicting standards. On the one hand, you're willing to entertain the most insane explanation as an ersatz for an established consensus, no questions asked; on the other, you're ceaselessly questioning and undermining even the most mundane and obvious conclusions.
Basically speaking, irrespective of logical cohesion, what benefits your tribe will be accepted as gospel, while that which threatens your tribe will be questioned beyond reasonable doubt. This is close-mindedness
par excellence.
Openness has nothing to do with ideology. This is because openness means understanding another person's perspective. It doesn't mean that you agree with another's perspective. This distinction is important. [...] So it is wrong to draw conclusions about people based on their perspectives, because you think they think a specific way.
Openness has everything to do with ideology, hence the adjective
liberal. One can easily draw the conclusion that people who adhere to a bigoted set of ideas will act in a bigoted manner, i.e., be close-minded. And those who welcome or conform to close-mindedness are themselves close-minded.
Being critical of things isnt always logical. Humans are flawed, and see things how they want. So there is no objective truth, or right and wrong. Its just the clashing of perspectives, because no one knows the whole truth. There is no authority on truth.
Of course there are scientific tools in place to establish truth. It feels as though I'm conversing with a prehistoric man, for whom natural science is yet to be developed. As before, you are conflating insight and power with truth.
When I am talking about tribalism, I am talking about the social inclination to segregate ourselves and follow our groups without much questioning.
Yes, I know,
tribalism. And I'm assuming it's because of tribalists--ethnic separatists, white nationalists--that the politics subforum is currently off limits. Tribalists may be authentic in their bigotry, but don't fool yourself into thinking that it's anything but close-mindedness on display.
I personally, do not view all ideologies and cultures equally.
Out of interest, and in the spirit of authenticity, would you care to share your views on which culture is superior?
Also, morality is relative, culture is not.
Culture most definitely is relative. All morality begins with cultural mores, a collection of lore, myths, and stories sustained by groups/collectives/tribes. It is through time, molded by constant interaction and scrutiny, that morality can be sublimated and reflect something more than arbitrary remnants of a long-lost culture.