Is "Left" Vs. "Right" Hard-coded Into Your Brain? 758
New submitter kyjellyfish writes "Research published in the journal PLOS ONE, suggests that your parents 'Left
or 'Right' party affiliations are not the only factor at work shaping a person's political identity. Differences in opinion between 'Lefties' and 'Righties' may reflect specific physiological processes. In research performed over 10 years ago, brain scans showed that London cab drivers' gray matter grew larger to help them store a mental map of the city."
From the article: "Other scans have shown that brain regions associated with risk and uncertainty, such as the fear-processing amygdala, differ in structure in liberals and conservatives. And different architecture means different behavior. Liberals tend to seek out novelty and uncertainty, while conservatives exhibit strong changes in attitude to threatening situations. The former are more willing to accept risk, while the latter tends to have more intense physical reactions to threatening stimuli."
So what the article is saying... (Score:4, Funny)
So what the article is saying is that conservatives are pussies. Gotchya.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All this debate about left and right, conservatives and liberals is so fucking stupid. For example in Europe, Communist parties have a base of blue-collar workers. Those are very family-oriented and conservative, yet they are left-wing! Parties which call themselves Liberal are all for individual choices in lifestyle issues, but they are also all for the concentration of wealth, hence proudly right-wing. There's a liberal left and a conservative left, there's also a liberal right and a conservative right.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Were that really the case, you'd think conservatives would be for gun control and liberals against it, rather than the other way around.
Or in simpler terms, bullshit.
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
yeah because they don't mind having their lives ever more micromanaged and sanitized by big daddy.. see I can stereotype and ad-hom too..
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot is populated almost exclusively by the extreme left.
You clearly wouldn't know "extreme left" if it bit you in the butt. What passes for "left" in the USA is middle-of-the-road most everywhere else. And in any case, Slashdot has more than its share of libertarian types and go-it-aloners.
Fixed it (Score:4, Interesting)
You clearly wouldn't know "extreme left" if it bit you in the butt. What passes for "left" in the USA is the extreme right most everywhere else.
For instance, the Dutch VVD is the closest we get to you democrats, they are a RIGHT wing party. Left wing is the SP and they are socialists. Real socialists. In France there still are communist parties AND they have quite recently been part of governments (Miterand, I think was the last).
The Republicans are in EU terms, extreme right and with that I mean one step away from goose stepping.
A thing to remember is that for instance the French LOVE big government, to them it means the system is working. Which it more or less is. The Germans KNOW what to much freedom can lead to, they know that some censorship is a price to pay for being the most evil country on the face of the earth, starting WW3 would not be appreciated by the world and so they ban certain books and parties. And it works so well that when they copied from the BBC the idea of Germany's greatest German they were so not worried about their citizens they excluded Hitler from the nominees... who could ONLY be included in the first place because they allowed Austrians in the list of greatest Germans... some people never learn.
The US was founded by people who LEFT the rest of the world because they didn't agree with the local systems. The rest of the world is populated by those who didn't find the local system objectionable enough to leave. This is a major issue with migration, it is rarely an entire balanced population that moves but rather a subset of a "normal" balanced population.
A clear example of this is/was Australia. They got more men then women because more men then women emigrated to find their fortune. Could it be that if a migration stream mostly consisted of say puritans fleeing from a country where they were not free to prosecute would influence they new home land and make it different from their old land because the "rest" is missing?
Mind you, that could lead to some nasty thoughts... what happens to a group of people who were picked for their properties as slaves... what if the only people to migrate are the poor who couldn't make a success in their old country? A population build up of fortune seekers?
Nasty... but if you are willing to entertain the thought that migration populations are subsets of a "normal" population, then some issues can be explained quite easily (why the US is so puritan and gun loving for instance.)
Mind you, a co-worker from Chili was forced to go through a course teaching him about Holland... in the book it told him that in Holland family is not as important as in other countries... right... I know several people who live in the same street as their parents and their grandparents are only a few minutes away. My co-workers LEFT his family on another CONTINENT and in 4 years had visited them ONCE!
To who does family then matter more? THINK before you answer. In CHILI family might matter more BUT not to THIS particular Chilian person who didn't MIND not seeing his family for years!
An emigrant/immigrants is a SPECIAL person DIFFERENT from all others in his home land because he LEFT IT BEHIND!
The US is made out of emigrants and slaves and tiny amount of natives. The EU is made of natives and a tiny amount of immigrants (really right wingers, it is less then 5% and that is counting everyone whose grandfather wasn't born in the same EU country).
It explains a lot, if you are willing to think.
Re:Fixed it (Score:4, Interesting)
It is foolish to assume that he left because family wasn't important. It is equally likely in this Senior that he left home to make better opportunities for the family that was so important. Proximity != importance.
Re: (Score:3)
In CHILE family might matter more BUT not to THIS particular Chilean person who didn't MIND not seeing his family for years!
An emigrant/immigrants is a SPECIAL person DIFFERENT from all others in his home land because he LEFT IT BEHIND!
You have an interesting perspective with some genuinely interesting points. I'm not so sure about the family thing overall though. I won't question the motives of that particular Chilean migrating to your country, but I have considerable experience with immigrants here in the US, and I think you're overlooking the extent to which people migrate just because their home situation is miserable.
Many of them come here to solve some problem back home, and they live in abject poverty packed at high density into
Re: (Score:3)
You clearly wouldn't know "extreme left" if it bit you in the butt. What passes for "left" in the USA is the extreme right most everywhere else.
For instance, the Dutch VVD is the closest we get to you democrats, they are a RIGHT wing party. Left wing is the SP and they are socialists. Real socialists. In France there still are communist parties AND they have quite recently been part of governments (Miterand, I think was the last).
The Republicans are in EU terms, extreme right and with that I mean one step away from goose stepping.
A thing to remember is that for instance the French LOVE big government, to them it means the system is working. Which it more or less is. The Germans KNOW what to much freedom can lead to, they know that some censorship is a price to pay for being the most evil country on the face of the earth, starting WW3 would not be appreciated by the world and so they ban certain books and parties. And it works so well that when they copied from the BBC the idea of Germany's greatest German they were so not worried about their citizens they excluded Hitler from the nominees... who could ONLY be included in the first place because they allowed Austrians in the list of greatest Germans... some people never learn.
Well, in Germany many of the really virulent right wing reactionaries and bitter enders were culled during WWII and their world view was thoroughly discredeted. So if your hypothesis is correct that would explain to some extent the relative moderation in modern German politics indicating that it is not just down to censorship and banning parties but down to a change in population demographics and a fundamental cultural change. In Holland you guys have right wing plonkers who are way more scary than anythin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fixed it (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Fixed it (Score:5, Insightful)
How is giving preferential treatment to the highest corporate bidder == small, constitutionally limited government? Or banning gay marriage? Or limiting women's choices? Or cutting entitlement programs to shift funding over to the military? I'm ok with the small, constitutionally limited government that conservatives always talk about, I just don't want the social and moral legislation that always seems to be mentioned in the next breath.
Re:Fixed it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re the military - surely you're not saying that is a right v left thing are you? Which party was the isolationist party for generations? Under which party in the white house has the anti-terrorism war expanded to many new countries?
Re building walls around are border - are you saying that a state cannot dictate who crosses its borders? Are you saying that anyone can cross anytime, for any reason, walk over other people's property and nothing can or should be done about it?
Re the jails - I see both the democrats and republicans increasing gov't control. If the government regulates you and you don't follow the regulation - what happens? You get fined. If you don't pay the fine what happens? You go to jail. I don't see the democrats legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling. I don't see the democrats fighting back against ever encroaching gov't micro-management (don't buy these large-sized sugary drinks, put on your seat-belts, wear your helmets.) Instead the left - ie the democrats are in the forefront of an ever larger, ever more intrusive government.
And you call those opposing this government intrusion goose-steppers? Talk about Orwellian double-speak.
Re: (Score:3)
If there is no true imminent danger of any jews actually being burnt, then yes I support it. I won't join them of course, but I support their right to say it.
If on the other hand it sounded like a real plan - something like "Tomorrow at 6:00 am, we gather here and burn this neighborhood of jews to the ground!", then that is punishable because it is tied to a specific actionable plan to do damage.
But if I walk around saying "I will KILL all brown eyed people on the planet!", that just makes me a loony, not a
Re:Fixed it (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody here thinks the Democrats are far left.
Sadly, I think the Fox News pundits have convinced a lot of people in the United States that the Democrats really are communists. Out here in the real world, though, there are very few members of Congress who are even borderline socialists.
Re: So what the article is saying... (Score:4, Interesting)
What is so extreme about San Francisco then? I ask out of ignorance, not challenging you.
Re: So what the article is saying... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not that SF is really all that extreme, it's that its politics are so far left that the place is run like a circus.
Special interest groups run the city.
They make ill-informed 'green' decisions which have drastic negative reprecussions for the city, resulting in 3rd world like conditions (see: their sanitary system - google 'why does san francisco always smell like shit')
They do asinine things to the flow of traffic and eliminate parking spots to 'penalize' people for driving, such as removing lanes and parking spaces. Net result: everyone suffers, and driving in the city just becomes more difficult.
Public transit, the liberal dream, is only given lip service, in so far as it serves the city to milk it for funding and claim they've got a good public transit system. (NYC MTA puts these chumps to shame.)
They 'patch' roadways with steel, not even diamond pattern steel. They do this in San Francisco, one of the dirtiest, grimiest cities in the US. Want to guess what happens to that steel when it rains?
I got modded down, significantly, for the GP post. Why? Because they didn't like what I had to say, not that there was anything actually factual with what I said.
Where a city like NYC would have built a dozen bridges and/or tunnels to deal with traffic demand, San Francisco does.... nothing. Or rather, they shut down an existing bridge so they can widen it.
San Francisco is a "one party" city. (Hopefully I don't have to explain why a single party environment is bad for accountability; the expected corruption from such an environment is quite evident.)
The city doesn't really need a reason to raise taxes. They just do, and you better hope you aren't an actual property owner or you'll likely be hurt by it.
SF area people are more in favor of illegal immigrants than they are people from "flyover country". Racial and cultural ad hominem will abound for the people who they disagree with - their fellow countrymen.
They elected Nancy Pelosi. Multiple times. This is the woman who has abused federal coffers excessively (eg. demanding Air Force planes to fly her around and frequently back/forth to SF from DC). Her voting record aside, she's one of the 'entitled' members of Congress who think they're better than the rest, and act accordingly.
The populace takes pride in hedonistic displays as a whole, with multiple city-wide festivals per year.
I've never visited or worked anywhere in the US where people seem so incredibly lazy.
Pick a view, any view, and hold it: it's valid, accepted, and celebrated, as long as it's not traditional Christianity or a conservative American lifestyle.
Whereas in somewhere like NYC, you can have some guy tell you to go fuck yourself and then pick up a conversation with the person 5 minutes later in a line about the weather, in San Francisco someone's liable to throw paint on you for wearing the wrong style or generally be confrontational and hostile for no apparent reason. Even the homeless/beggars are obnoxious and in your face.
Re: So what the article is saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: So what the article is saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: So what the article is saying... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just in case you're inferring that liberal views play a role in wealth generation: The prosperity of SF, LA, NYC, Boston, etc. has very little to do with liberal views. Any arrogant pricks from those coastal cities who think that are kidding themselves.
Instead, the wealth comes from their geography (i.e. sea ports). Throughout history, cities along important trade routes have always been places of wealth and prosperity. They create wealth just by EXISTING where they do because they steal from... er, add duties to goods bound for... everyone inland who wants those goods, whether it be union bosses and their crony friends, greedy bankers/merchants, "liberal" politicians with their rich friends, etc... And the sea ports in the United States are no different.
Yes, wealth does lead to education and enlightenment, which can dispel some incorrect notions that poorer, less-enlightened people fall prey to (bad religion, ignorance, prejudice, etc.). However, that wealth also leads to comfort, which almost invariably leads to pride, and eventually decadence - and you can't easily be decadent with a socially conservative viewpoint.
In other words, wealth from trade leads to liberal views - not vice versa. And if SF (and all of its smug) were picked up and thrown inland 100 miles, it would lose its liberal viewpoint within a generation as the wealth left the city - along with all of the freeloaders at all levels of society who mooched off of it.
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:5, Funny)
> I'm glad I don't have a visa...
So are we :-)
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you trying to tell me that most of everywhere else in the world considers the level of retarded behavior and thought process in somewhere like San Francisco is "middle of the road"? I'm glad I don't have a visa...
The problem is actually that the WAY that "middle of the road" is implemented in such places is retarded.
Both traditional "left" (as practiced in parts of Europe) and traditional "right" (the US Conservatives) have their advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I lean significantly more "left" than "right", but I can certainly see some disadvantages to my preferences and some advantages to the other way of looking at things. However, when you take a "right" stance and then implement ONLY SOME "left" policies, you end up with a complete shitstorm that fails to work at all.
You can't have "a bit" of public transport and then ignore your road infrastructure - you need a LOT of WELL PLANNED public transport in order to even consider reducing your investment in roads. Likewise, you can't have a half-hearted attempt at a public health system and expect it to help everyone as it should. Nor can you simply throw in free education without changing a lot of the systems around it in order to compensate for the financial upheaval it would cause.
Now, I'm in favour of good public transport, public health-care, and free education; but to me, the way such things get discussed in the US miss the point entirely. The European left and the US left both share the goals of having these things, but the European left at least pays attention to how it can be achieved without fucking everything else up badly in the process; something I feel the US left ignores on the vast majority of occasions.
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:4, Informative)
It's because the US left isn't left. They're not held accountable by voters, who vote however the idiot box tells them, so they are free to sell out to corporate interests — and indeed, if they don't, they won't get re-elected. The economic influence has homogenized American politics. The only way to fix it short of a revolution is to convince people to listen to something other than the mass media on political issues. I'm all ears as to how we can accomplish that...
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the terrified imagination of Glen Beck
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:5, Funny)
I've never heard of the bucket-filling concept before. It sounds ever so childish.
It seems like a very dangerous thing, this encouraging kindergarten kids to say nice things about each other. Far better they be trained to use free-speech to be nasty to each other, and defend themselves from the nastiness of others with guns.
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the liberals I know like guns, explosives and all kinds of interesting things. Although it does help that most of the liberals I know are also engineers so I don't know what we qualify as. Although I do know some strange liberals since they also like creating custom lifeforms to do interesting things like bacteria to clean up environmental damage, make medications etc.
Most see magazine limits as pretty stupid since you can print your own. Most I know are also completely okay with universal background checks since from what myself and others have read most of the weapons used in illegal crimes are coming from legal dealers that are selling without the checks or they come from gun shows where the checks are not required.
I don't see how universal background checks are at the expense of freedoms anymore than a driver's license, fishing license, hunting license etc is.
Often I wonder what engineers really qualify as. Most I know end up with the same end results as liberals on many issues but for radically different reasons. They also agree with conservatives on many issues but for radically different reasons. It seems to be more about practically and what works for the given situation. If the situation changes so does the solution but it doesn't matter if someone slaps a liberal or conservative sticker on an idea, So long as the idea is the best we have for the given problem under the given circumstances that is all that matters.
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:5, Informative)
Often I wonder what engineers really qualify as.
Meritocratic.
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
All those who scream meritocracy do not know any better, or the fact that the guy who coined the term meant it as a derogatory phrase for the scary future we're headed into. [economist.com]
Meritocracy sounds great on paper but is terrible in terms of social consequences. It allows entrenched elites to stay entrenched and over time, removed generational mobility. It's a term thrown around so casually in the US that people think of it as a positive trait. It's anything but.
Re: (Score:3)
Meritocracy sounds great on paper but is terrible in terms of social consequences. It allows entrenched elites to stay entrenched and over time, removed generational mobility.
So, basically what the US has now, then.
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:4, Informative)
I remember another Ducati owner commenting to me once that "I prefer my bikes to be made by Communists, they want things to work in this world but Catholics don't care if you end up in the next one."
Re: (Score:3)
But a (personal) meritocracy is also opposed by the right. They don't want people to have the same standard of healthcare, education, environment regardless of who their parents were. They want a meritocracy that keeps running through the generations. So if you parents were lazy slobs you need to work 10 times harder to even reach the same level a child of wealth parents will start at.
Businesses should be subsidized according to how many of their friends own them everyone and every business should pay exact
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:5, Informative)
Or as Stephen Colbert famously put it [youtube.com], "Reality has a well-known liberal bias!"
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or as Stephen Colbert famously put it [youtube.com], "Reality has a well-known liberal bias!"
As we see from the resounding success of social policy in Europe, where every country has coffers full of tax revenues and a vibrant, healthy workforce to support the millions upon millions of pensions.
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
As we see from the resounding success of social policy in Europe, where every country has coffers full of tax revenues and a vibrant, healthy workforce to support the millions upon millions of pensions.
Ah, you mean like Germany? Yes, you are right, they have implemented it very well.
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:5, Informative)
It's funny, I'm surrounded by mostly conservatives, and some (maybe most) don't object to the "universal background checks" so much as they object to what it'll really be. Most of us already go through background checks in our states. This is the sort of thing we might admit when nobody is listening, though of course I do not speak for the whole forty-something percent of the nation. ;)
First, we know what happens when you have databases of people that possess firearms. You've probably seen the google maps plots of everyone's home addresses. If you're a gun owner in a state that has firearm licensing, you know that even when required by law, they can take months longer than allowed to process a one page form, and there's nothing you can do about it. During that time, all manner of nasty things can happen, not least of which is having your card expire and having your firearms suddenly become illegal. Now you're a felon. Imagine how that makes you feel if you live anywhere near this scumbag [washingtontimes.com]. We also know that people that shouldn't clear often do, while people that should clear often don't. They have to hire lawyers to help them through the process, and it's a nightmare. We'll skip past the really scary bits of national gun owner databases for the sake of brevity (too late, I know).
Straw purchases are a problem in some places. With handguns, specifically. And only around cities where handguns are already illegal (let's face it, the gun control laws don't actually work). But it's still a problem everyone wants solved. What we don't want is a running leap down the slippery slope, coupled with the issues listed above.
The magazine size thing is just bullshit. Almost no crime is committed with rifles, only a tiny subset of those are committed with "the black rifles", and you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that in any of those very, very rare cases, magazine size had anything to do with the commission of the crime. It's just another thing to ban, for no reason other than political points... and it's at the expense of lawful people.
Again, slippery slope with no benefit to society.
There's probably common ground to be had on some of this stuff, somewhere, but it's obscured by decades of awful politics perpetrated by liberals in office against normal, law-abiding citizens. Those of us who are old enough know better have noticed that the President has been using the phrase "common sense" over and over and over. There's a reason for that... nothing about it is "common sense." He's selling BS legislation.
And so we fight. Some of us even give money to groups we may not particularly love, like the NRA. When you know you have to do something to defend your constitutional rights, and there's a good chance you're about to lose the battle to the 24hr news cycle. Remember, we live among a population that would trade their own children if you promised it would make them safer.
Remember how easy it was to sell everyone on bogus wars over "tururrism"? Yeah, we remember too. Tell people you're going to "Stop the senseless bloodshed by banning these ultra-mega-high-capacity magazines for ruthless killers", and they'll sign on the dotted line, even if it doesn't make any sense.
We did exactly this, already, just a few years ago. If you don't remember, go hit the wiki. It did absolutely nothing, for anyone except the politicians that pushed it. But memories are short, and it's possible we'll end up doing this dance again. That's the feeling that makes people belt out some pretty silly stuff about the direction this country is headed.
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:4, Insightful)
Conservatism is the politics of fear. What you describe is typical. They're not opposed to what's actually being proposed, they are opposed to where they fear it might lead. Their imaginations always follow the worst case imaginable, even if it's improbable, and assume that's what will be.
Interesting. I'd say the whole issue is defined by fear. The left is using fear, the only tool at their disposal, to sell changes to the constitution for political points. Gun owners are simply afraid, and it's because they've actually watched this happen before. In their lifetime.
So tell me again how it's a one-sided affair. Then tell me which is worse.
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:4, Insightful)
At the end of the day it has to be a complete lack of confidence in yourself and your country that makes you want to own these kinds of guns.
You had me until you blamed me, the victim. I have plenty of confidence in myself. The only confidence I have in my nation is that it will misbehave. This nation was founded upon genocide and we continue to treat the scattered remnants like subhumans. Illegal acts are par for the course for our government, on a daily basis. Police commit crimes at at least the same rate as the general population.
Either you need a clip full of "do over" bullets because you need to feel good about your lack of shooting skill
Everything is wrong with what you said here.
or you need to stock up on weapons to protect yourself from the boogeyman because you don't believe in the local, state and federal law enforcement to keep your property and life safe.
Why would I?
I get the last one.
So why did you use the inlammatory word "Boogeyman"? Oh right, simply to discredit your imaginary opponent, because you know you have no valid argument with which to do so.
However by making high powered auto rifles legal and available at all you make it nearly impossible for them to do their job
What? [citation needed]
You shouldn't need more than a handgun at most to protect against a similarly armed bad guy.
You don't understand the second amendment, and should cease commenting on this issue until you do. It's not there just for self-defense or for hunting. It's there for defense against enemies foreign and domestic.
Regardless of whether they are responsible for a majority of killing or not there just isn't a defensible reason for civilian owned auto style rifles. Get them off the streets and out of homes.
Again, you don't understand the second amendment. Those of us interested in preserving freedom would prefer that people like you who are only interested in putting your head in the sand and trusting proven criminals to protect you and server your interests would stop dispensing advice intended to turn others into malleable cowards to justify your own irresponsible, cowardly decisions.
Re: (Score:3)
> Most I know are also completely okay with universal background checks since from what myself and others have read most of the weapons used in illegal crimes are coming from legal dealers that are selling without the checks or they come from gun shows where the checks are not required.
Nowhere in the U.S. Is the proceeding true. If you are an FFL dealer YOU MUST with threat of prison fill out a 4473 and call it in. Dealers at gun shows must do a background check, it is federal law.
Now in many (most) stat
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see how universal background checks are at the expense of freedoms anymore than a driver's license, fishing license, hunting license etc is.
You don't need a government license to do any of those things on your property, depending on the state, you can hunt, fish, and drive all you want with no licenses, it is only when you start hunting, fishing, and driving on public roads, lakes, and land that you need a license. When one person sells a good to another there is no use of pubic lands to do so, it is out of the public realm.
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:5, Interesting)
1. I've never called for censorship. I do like people to act civilly, but in any kind of public forum that can't be enforced, it's just a wish.
2. I'm not so much pro-gun control as I am opposed to letting one organization have such a powerful pull on what laws get made that we can't even expect our lawmakers to engage in a legitimate discourse on the topic.
3. I have no idea what you are talking about.
4. Seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Maybe you need to talk to some real liberals instead of listening to stereotypes of them on TV.
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't come from a country that uses the term 'liberal'. However, I *think* I'm a liberal, and OP is easy to rebuff.
1. Freedom of speech must be balanced against those that seek to cause harm, i.e. by inciting violence. The state should press charges if you for yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre. This means, don't be surprised if I object to your poorly worded 'critical expression' if I feel as if it will incite violence.
2. I'm not *for* guns, or else I'd be *for* guns for everyone, especially those that cannot afford them. I don't see anyone argue *for* subsidised guns for everyone.
3. I'm not afraid of self-empowerment. It just shouldn't come at the cost of not restricting the freedoms of others. The bucket filling program that you write about is probably less a liberal position, but more a tool to manage a classroom. Anything to help kids think about their actions is a good thing.
4. I don't prefer either. The end of the scale, aggression, is generally a form of coercion. If you need to be aggressive towards someone, you're probably removing their ability to make their own decisions.
I finish off my post with some sweeping generalisations, and then a emotive, rousing call to arms. Just kidding.
Note that being 'out-numbered' isn't an excuse to be an asshole.
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
This in fact highlights the difference between how the left and right perceive freedom of speech.
To the left, the most important aspect of freedom of speech is being able to constructively criticise without fear of censure.
To the right, the most important aspect of freedom of speech is being able to verbally abuse others.
This is why from the left we get laws against inciting racial hatred, but from the right we get "free speech zones".
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:4, Insightful)
This in fact highlights the difference between how the left and right perceive freedom of speech. To the left, the most important aspect of freedom of speech is being able to constructively criticise without fear of censure. To the right, the most important aspect of freedom of speech is being able to verbally abuse others.
This is why from the left we get laws against inciting racial hatred, but from the right we get "free speech zones".
To the left, the most important aspect of freedom of speech is that they get to define what is "construstive criticism" and what is "verbal abuse". To conservatives the most important aspect of freedom of speech is freedom of speech.
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:5, Informative)
The Democratic Party was a racist party until 1960, although it had started moving in that direction during the Truman administration. The Kennedy administration, and Robert Kennedy in particular, were explicitly anti-racist. When Lyndon Johnson passed the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act in 1964, that was the final straw for most of the racists in the Democratic Party, and they left for the Republican Party. At the same time, Barry Goldwater specifically appealed to racism, and that strategy continued to be tapped progressively more carefully by Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Newt Gingrich. It occasionally rises to the surface too, with "macaca" moments and the like.
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:5, Funny)
No, the article says that conservatives are corrupt, authoritarian fascists, and that liberals are drug taking, fuck-anything-that-moves, dirty hippies
Re: (Score:3)
What if I'm a corrupt drug-taker who likes to fuck but who also bathes regularly?
Re:So what the article is saying... (Score:5, Funny)
We like to call ourselves Libertarian.
Reversed in America? (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps it is explained that what the conservatives fear is not risk, but loss of control. American conservatives are afraid to place their fates into the hands of the elected experts on human happiness.
Re: (Score:3)
American conservatives are afraid to place their fates into the hands of the elected experts on human happiness.
Experts? No, these are the people who make it through a popularity contest every few years. Popularity is the only expertise most of them have.
Remember that giving a government too much control has really bitten us in the ass many times over many centuries... especially the last. Europeans should understand this, yet those who fail to learn history...
Re:Reversed in America? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I would give you mod points if I could.
America needs to wake up and understand that there are other election systems out there. Plurality voting, which results in "lesser of two evils", is killing our ability to function politically.
I'm starting to research the Modern Whig party [modernwhig.org]. One thing that interests me is that they explicitly promote the Approval Voting system. It's not the best, but is much better than Plurality while making very little change to the current ballot system.
Re:Reversed in America? (Score:5, Interesting)
So how does this work in a traditionally free country like America...
Please stop. You're suggesting that the brains from one country are somehow different from that of another country. If we change 'country' out for 'race', it should be painfully obvious what the problem here is.
American conservatives are afraid to place their fates into the hands of the elected experts on human happiness.
You really shouldn't comment on the complex political landscape of another country whose citizens you apparently have little regular contact with. It makes you look like an idiot. No, "american" conservatives are just like "british" conservatives which are just like "african" conservatives, which are just like every conservative. Ever. The definition of conservativism doesn't change because of the country you're in. Perhaps its expression does, but the study here isn't about expression, but reaction. In that, conservatives broadly and as an aggregate group, are simply risk-averse. And because of how the human mind operates, an unknown risk is almost always subjectively larger in a person's mind than a known one. This is why we spent trillions of dollars combatting terrorism (an unknown risk) while both retrospectively and at the time, it could have easily been shown that a known risk (drunk driving) costs far more lives.
To extrapolate from a specific behavior (risk aversion) a complete political ideology is... at best... dubious.
Re:Reversed in America? (Score:5, Interesting)
Islamic conservatives provide another example of "conservative" that is very different from an American conservative (and actually pretty different from an American liberal too). Although I suppose if you really look at some of the societies the Islamic conservatives are actually very conservative because they are attempting to change (or have recently changed) their countries to be very different from what they were before. For example, women in Iran and Egypt used to walk around with their heads uncovered, now the so-called "conservatives" have forced them to start covering their hair or face harassment.
An American conservatives my be similar to a British conservative - I don't follow British politics much so I can't say for sure, but an American conservatives is very different from many conservatives throughout the world.
Re: (Score:3)
This is where the terms "conservative" and "liberal" become politicized. Conservatism favors maintaining the status quo over the increased risk of change.
Therefore, when you said "return to a time of ...", you were actually forming a liberal statement by changing the status quo. It disguises itself as a conservative thought process because people generally assume that enacting policies focused on returning to a past way of life would actually result in the life that people had before (but, such movements
Re: (Score:3)
Please stop. You're suggesting that the brains from one country are somehow different from that of another country. If we change 'country' out for 'race', it should be painfully obvious what the problem here is.
Maybe the brains actually are different from country to country, depending on cultural and environmental influences. What you shouldn't suggest is that either brain would be better than another. Difference doesn't mean that actually something has to be better, just that it works differently, while maybe achieving the same goal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, American conservatives are very fearful. They fear terrorists, and demand the government protect them, even if that means loss of rights. They fear criminals, and demand guns to defend themselves, even though statistics clearly show that having a gun in your home puts you at greater risk. They fear gays and Muslims and commies and immigrants and regulations. They're not bad people, they just like life as it is, and are fearful of anything that might cause changes in their current life style.
Re: (Score:3)
No, American conservatives are very fearful. They fear terrorists, and demand the government protect them, even if that means loss of rights. They fear criminals, and demand guns to defend themselves, even though statistics clearly show that having a gun in your home puts you at greater risk. They fear gays and Muslims and commies and immigrants and regulations. They're not bad people, they just like life as it is, and are fearful of anything that might cause changes in their current life style.
But American liberals are fearful in the same way. Out of fear of those around them they demand those around them be controlled, even if it means loss of rights (such as the right to bear arms and the right to freedom of speech (see speech codes)). Out of fear of consequences for their actions they demand the government insulate them with "free" birth control, "free" health care, "free" income, and "free" whatever else they think of. Out of fear of corportations they demand heavy regulation of every huma
Re:Reversed in America? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, American conservatives are very fearful. They fear terrorists, and demand the government protect them, even if that means loss of rights. They fear criminals, and demand guns to defend themselves, even though statistics clearly show that having a gun in your home puts you at greater risk. They fear gays and Muslims and commies and immigrants and regulations. They're not bad people, they just like life as it is, and are fearful of anything that might cause changes in their current life style.
What I can't disagree with anything you said, it is incomplete. In addition, "liberals" are fearful of personal responsibility and a free market.
Both sides are based on fear of freedom.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Reversed in America? (Score:4, Insightful)
In the US, the labels are wrong and everything is forced into a false dichotomy. In fact, there are a number of identifiable groups of voters: Christian conservatives, nationalists/fascists, progressives/socialists, liberals/libertarians, and a few smaller ones like environmentalists. A different way of looking at it is the four combinations of fiscal/social conservatives/liberals.
Fiscal liberals and social conservatives are both motivated by fear, the former by fear of economic disaster, and the latter by fear of social change. The only group reasonably free of fear is those who are fiscal conservatives and social liberals.
Re:Reversed in America? (Score:5, Interesting)
see thats a weird crossover, conservatives want you to take individual risk, but tell you exactly what you can and cant do, liberals on the other hand want you to live your live as free as possible, as long as the government oversees each aspect of it
so, do you want a bunch of GOD fearin, Jesus lovin, gun totin, conservatives telling you how to live your life, or do you want big brother, oppressive, if your not a victim your the problem liberals telling you how to live your life?
I want them to both fuck off
Not odd at all (Score:3, Insightful)
conservatives want you to take individual risk, but tell you exactly what you can and cant do
Incorrect. Conservatives are for individual risk, and ALSO states rights which are inherently letting people do what they want to do.
liberals on the other hand want you to live your live as free as possible
HA HA HA HA HO HE HO HA HA HA HO HE
Oh yeah, that's why they like regulation so much, because it grants you so much "freedom" - freedom from being able to choose anything but a "safe" path the government agrees is
Re:Not odd at all (Score:4, Insightful)
Conservatives are for individual risk, and ALSO states rights which are inherently letting people do what they want to do.
Then why do they tend to be in favour of banning abortion and opposed to drugs decriminalisation.
Re: (Score:3)
Conservatives are for individual risk, and ALSO states rights which are inherently letting people do what they want to do.
Why are they opposed to gay marriage, if that's what some people want to do?
Re: (Score:3)
Conservatives don't oppose the government staying out of the way when gay people hold wedding ceremonies officiated by religious officials as the gay couples make lifetime commitments to each other. What conservatives oppose is the government taking an active role in promoting such things.
"Promote" is classic conservative double speak. Does the government "promote" heterosexual marriage. By your standards they must do. So are you against that? A libertarian probably should be. Conservatives typically aren't.
Marriage for gays is only marriage if it means the same thing as it does for heterosexuals. And that includes things under the law such as next of kin, divorce proceedings and tax breaks. If you allow these things for one groups, but not for another, then you are not "letting people do wh
Re: (Score:3)
As for drugs, conservatives are divided. See William F. Buckley and the National Review, for example.
Re:Reversed in America? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see them favoring the rights of women very much or gays. That is the major reason that I just can not support them.
It doesn't matter what my views on abortion are. I don't have the right to impose them on someone else.
My views are the same on gay marriage. It is not something I will do but that does not change that others want to do it and they should have that option.
The republicans say they are the party of small government and getting government out of peoples lives but they don't act like it. Also I will say the democrats are just as bad but on different issues.
If the republicans would actually accept these social issues and actually be the party of smaller government it would be much easier to support them. However their history indicates this is just a talking point and not an actual action they take when given power.
I don't like the democrats either but they have tended to be far more accepting of other lifestyles and choices over the last 20 years or so and do more to push technology. Right now most people still don't realize that many of the jobs are gone and will never be coming back and our society is not really trained for the kinds of work that is needed now.
I am not saying that everyone needs a college education but there are good jobs that do need trained technicians that we should be teaching people to do and it doesn't matter if you are a democrat or republican. If you can find a program that costs $x and pays back >$x in tax revenue it is a good idea to do it since it puts more people to work and makes them productive citizens.
It is so tiring to hear ideas painted with liberal or conservative and then automatically thrown out. In many areas we need welders, electricians, etc but the funding is not there to get people out of poverty to train for those jobs and end the cycle. We also have a pretty decaying infrastructure in this company and are losing a LOT of jobs to places like germany with better infrastructure.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of what I've seen recently presented as anti-women is really just pro-freedom. Sandra Fluke wanted to force other people to pay for her recreational activities. Conservatives said that was ridiculous because it was. It wasn't a matter of women's rights - it was a demand for a government subsidy at the expense of other people.
Re:Reversed in America? (Score:5, Insightful)
Put another way, conservative brains are all like, "Well, I would never let myself get into that position. Even if I did, I'd get myself out of it. I don't see why they deserve help." and liberal brains are all like, "Even if that person didn't make the best choices at every juncture in their life (or even made lots of bad ones), I can totally understand how they made the choices they did. At some less wise point in my life, I might have made the same decisions. They deserve our help."
Structural? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not hardwired: If it were, we'd be able to do these scans at birth or an early age and find similar patterns. But we don't. Which means the brain's structure changes in order to specialize in certain thought and behavior patterns. The fact that this applies to politics as well as, say, geospatial, tasks, should be absolutely no surprise.
It's disengenuous to suggest these things are hard-wired because they imply they cannot be changed. Except they can: I've known many people who, after experiencing a significant emotional event, altered their politics, religious affiliation, and even base personality traits. The human brain is exceptionally malleable. This study only offers a snapshot at a particular point in time and suggests that if certain structural properties are present, the thinking pattern is likely to be of a certain type. It does not say whether that structure was present before, after, or the extent to which it can be changed, and if so, how quickly.
It's like taking a photograph of a car driving down the road and assuming that it's on that road, and only that road, forever.
Two party bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Conservative and liberal are valid ideologies outside of the US they just have a different meaning, which is not really left vs right. In fact, the antithesis of conservative is not liberal but progressive. Conservativism simply seeks to avoid fast changes and preserve the status quo. Which is why in a leftist society it incorporates quite a few leftist ideas, like modern English or German conservativism.
Conservatives believe that society can't tolerate fast changes, and that every new thing we want to do s
I don't believe it (Score:4, Insightful)
"Liberals" (in the modern US sense of progressives / left wing) are enormously fearful and risk averse: they want governmental protection against unemployment, against medical expenses, against global warming, against guns, and lots of other things. Granted, the nature of these fears are seemingly more rational and plausible than those of conservatives (who seem to fear anything from the wrath of God to being tempted into homosexuality by gay marriage), but they are still driven by fear.
The only group who isn't driven by fear is libertarians, people who actually have trust in their ability to make a living somehow and survive in an uncertain and changing world, independent of God or government help. Libertarians are often linked with "conservatives", but they are more accurately described as classical liberals.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's why I am basically a libertarian in outlook. I don't want help from the public, and really kind of resent being made to support people who should be doing for themselves. I'm fine with some programs to help the old, sick, or infirm... but demmit get off your ass and do something if you can.
And I say this after being unemployed, living hand-to-mouth, and refusing to take benefits.
Life can suck, get a fucking helmet and get to work! And after the hard times comes good times!
Re:You're not a libertarian (Score:5, Insightful)
i don't see anything about the rat race in his post. The deal is simple - if it's your choice to be more social and grind less at work, accept the consequences (eg lower standard of living, low disposable income) like an adult. The choice is fine, but the oversized sense of entitlement would be wrong, as it would have to be funded by people who might hate work just much as you if not more, but don't skip the hard parts of life, who have the fruits of their labor taken from them.
Re:I don't believe it (Score:5, Insightful)
What about those of us that want a universal health care system because the system we have now costs society more in things like crime, lower productivity and inefficiency that a universal system would?
It has nothing to do with fear, it is just practicality. The profit motive for medicine is not really working and it leading to pretty poor health outcomes. Based on various recent studies our computer systems give about 40% better patient outcomes at about 50% of the cost.
I think the medical system is due for a massive overhaul to make it work better and cheaper but I don't see that happening with the corporate system we have now and I also doubt that the kind of universal health care system we can get in this country would get us there either but it would still be better than what we have now.
For global warming the way I see the problem is companies are allowed to damage private and communal property without paying for it. If companies that damaged underground aquifers by fracking had to actually play the FULL COST to clean up the damage they would do it safely or stop pretty quickly. The entire reason that companies can do all this polluting is they are externalizing the costs to the taxpayer and future generations in return for profits for them right now. Look at BP, the fine they got for polluting the gulf of mexico is insignificant compared to the costs of the cleanup. So long as that remains true they are going to keep doing it because that is the way the incentive structure is setup. You get the behavior you incentivize for, not the behavior you claim to support.
For guns I just want universal background checks. I don't care about the clip sizes or the types of weapons very much. Especially given that pistols are the most common weapon used to kill people not rifle type weapons.
I do like government protection against unemployment. Mostly because I like that more than desperate people doing whatever they can to get food for themselves and their family which costs a lot more to the society than just helping them. However I don't think we help people effectively. If you lose your job it would be nice if your skills could be evaluated and training offered for indemand positions. So a welding company that can't fill a position could basically tell a government jobs program about the position and a person could be offered to be trained for that position.
Sometimes social programs are just the cheapest way to solve a given problem. It is a nice idea to say that everyone needs to stand on their own and deal with their own problems. However humans are also pretty violent when pushed into a corner and if someone has no other way to get food they will tend to just take it which is more expensive for all of us.
Re:I don't believe it (Score:4, Insightful)
The only group who isn't driven by fear is libertarians, people who actually have trust in their ability to make a living somehow and survive in an uncertain and changing world, independent of God or government help.
Interestingly enough, you didn't once consider concern for the plight of others in your post, but managed to make it all about the trust in your own abilities. Is it not possible that some may feel perfectly safe in their own position, but believe even the bum down the street has a right to medical care if he gets sick?
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to have forgot the fear of government common to most Libertarians.
As a small-"L" libertarian, I don't stick my hand into a fire because I "fear" it, but because there's a damned good reason not to. Likewise, being that government is like fire*, wanting to keep it small as possible while still accomplishing the minimum it must, and under strict limits, is equally not "fear". It's simply common sense and self-preservation of the very same sort on a larger scale.
Strat
*"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearf
The Genetic Influence on Political Beliefs (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article Not by Twins Alone: Using the Extended Family Design to Investigate Genetic Influence on Political Beliefs [wiley.com]
Variance components estimates of political and social attitudes suggest a substantial level of genetic influence, but the results have been challenged because they rely on data from twins only. In this analysis, we include responses from parents and nontwin full siblings of twins, account for measurement error by using a panel design, and estimate genetic and environmental variance by maximum-likelihood structural equation modeling. By doing so, we address the central concerns of critics, including that the twin-only design offers no verification of either the equal environments or random mating assumptions. Moving beyond the twin-only design leads to the conclusion that for most political and social attitudes, genetic influences account for an even greater proportion of individual differences than reported by studies using more limited data and more elementary estimation techniques. These findings make it increasingly difficult to deny that—however indirectly—genetics plays a role in the formation of political and social attitudes.
The article can be found here [152.98.160.29].
This is complex indeed.
Life is not that simple (Score:3)
Real political philosophy is not a one-dimensional "right" or "left". I know it is hard for some people to grasp, but you can't describe everything political on that stupid scale.
Not likely... (Score:4, Insightful)
... since americans are among the most uninformed electorates on the planet today. The average american, and average slashdot poster is CLUELESS about politics.
The reality is america is totally hard right, obama would have been not long ago a moderate republican (which is hard right the rest of the world). So you have a bunch of clueless americans who are voting between basically what amounts to the same flavor of hard right ideology with little difference. Many americans then make a big stink about their uninformed political views and opinions.
Reality is the average american is too ignorant/stupid to have any kind of informed political view of america given the huge amount of propaganda that pervades their media and education system.
Re:Not likely... (Score:5, Interesting)
The average american, and average slashdot poster is CLUELESS about politics.
As opposed to the average citizen of any other country? Why is it necessary to hold the average american up to some special standard?
Reality is the average american is too ignorant/stupid to have any kind of informed political view of america given the huge amount of propaganda that pervades their media and education system.
Reality is... every first world country has a government with a bureaucratic process so dense as to blunt, if not entirely dissipate, any creative process for change. You say they're ignorant and stupid, but that's an ignorant and stupid attitude. The truth is, most people aren't interested in politics because its emotionally painful if one becomes overly-involved. That's not an unintelligent response to a hopelessly and needlessly complex system designed specifically to be resistant to intelligent and thoughtful discourse.
You simply picked the one with the largest military and economy in the world to shit on, for no other reason than because you want to pull it down for your own emotional gratification. How you managed to get this to be labelled "+5 insightful" is simply saying that a great many people also have such emotional needs... but having offered no proof or objective analysis, "insightful" is not the word I would use to describe your reaction. But then, there is no "+5, I Agree Because I Have Emotional Needs That Depend On Crapping On Others" option.
My brain ... (Score:3)
... seems to be wired for big-endian.
What are Left and Right? (Score:3)
This journal should try to answer that question first before making silly correlations between party affiliation and personality traits.
Left and Right, Liberals and Conservatists, was originally a distinction that made sense at the beginning of democracy: do we try to keep a system similar to what was before (conservatists) or do we try for something new and different (liberals).
Obviously, you don't want to ever keep trying for something new and different. All you end up with if you do that is change for the sake of change, instability, and needlessly complicated laws piled on top of each other. In current times, it is actually the right wing that enacts the most new laws, which is quite opposed to what you'd expect since they're therefore the ones doing change. Oh, there certainly are some real evolutions wanted by the lefties, such as legislating marijuana, which probably should have happened decades ago but hasn't due to ill-placed conservatist convictions, but it's mostly a small mediatic issue with little relevance in the grand scheme of things.
So what is the difference between left and right, really? You could say it's that right wing governments want to minimize government spending and taxation, while left wing wants to use taxpayer money to provide a baseline of quality to a variety of services (health, pension, transport, telecommunications...). A savvy person would think the first approach is best as governments are not able to efficiently run services, while it is good to have a minimum service for the latter. Yet in the past decades government spending has always been highest with right wing governments.
There are actually many issues where you'll find that the distinction is not clearly cut or has varied considerably among history.
In the end, Left or Right, it doesn't mean anything other than who's sponsoring you.
Political flame wars aside... (Score:3)
Loaded language and incompetent summary, as usual (Score:3)
Look, I know it's hard enough to get editors that perform basic functions like "make sure the link isn't just blog or product pimping" or "make sure that article hasn't been posted already", so asking them to actually PARSE the text and edit it is expecting a lot....but really, could you slant the language in the summary more?
"From the article: "Other scans have shown that brain regions associated with risk and uncertainty, such as the fear-processing amygdala, differ in structure in liberals and conservatives. And different architecture means different behavior. Liberals tend to seek out novelty and uncertainty, while conservatives exhibit strong changes in attitude to threatening situations. The former are more willing to accept risk, while the latter tends to have more intense physical reactions to threatening stimuli.""
So when liberals do it, its 'novelty, uncertainty' or 'risk'.
When conservatives do it, it's 'threatening'.
No, no editorial bias there.
Would it read differently if we reversed the words used, and said that liberals seek out 'threatening' situations and conservatives avoid risk and uncertainty? Meaning (roughly) the same, but it kinda makes liberals look rather stupid in turn.
Further, from the article: "The researchers found that liberals and conservatives donâ(TM)t differ in the risks they do or donâ(TM)t take" and âoeIf you went to Vegas, you wonâ(TM)t be able to tell whoâ(TM)s a Democrat or whoâ(TM)s a Republican". The summary says that they react very differently (when in fact, the article only says their brains 'light up' differently), but their actual behavior is indistinguishable.
Finally, the conclusion of the article says it quite clearly that the dynamic nature of the brain constantly reconfiguring itself means that we really cannot assert that anything is hard-coded...in DIRECT opposition to the summary header.
The actual studies are fascinating, shitty /. summary notwithstanding, for a couple of reasons:
1) to me it seems obvious, that the articles have the cause/effect reversed as well. It's not that our politics set our brain patterns; our brain patterns no doubt are expressed in our worldview/politics.
2) it's even more curious that the differences in response are NOT reflected in behavior - that's absolutely bizarre.
Re:How does this account for those who change part (Score:4, Insightful)
I was a hard-core conservative a few years ago, now I'm a hard-core liberal.
Did my brain rewire itself?
Nope, your brain is just fucked up; "hard-core" leanings toward any political party these days is insane.
Re:How does this account for those who change part (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither "hard-core conservative" nor "hard-core liberal" refer to any political party. Ideologies perhaps. You could equate Tea-Partiers to the former and Occupiers to the latter, but neither group appears to have much faith in their "designated party" from the 2-party system we've got. Liberals complain that Obama is perpetuating and strengthening heavily criticized policies from GWB. Meanwhile, the conservatives have been throwing their stalwarts (Arlen Spector, John McCain, and now Chuck Hagel, et al) under the bus for not being suitably uncompromising about their core ideologies. And the GOP is torn apart as their try to pander to this group while distancing themselves from nutjobs such as Todd Akin.
Re: (Score:3)
Mod parent up. I wish we could count on our respective parties to uphold some core values. I don't vote for Democrats because I expect some return in the form of liberalization of government or society. Disappointment after disappointment has taught me not to do that. I vote for Democrats because I don't want more Scalias and Thomases deciding what the Constitution really means, and because I don't want the Bushes and Palins and Ryans and Romneys of the world pushing their crazy world views on us all.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, you're just bipartisan.
Re:How does this account for those who change part (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a whole bunch of evidence for Neuroplasticity (your brain rewiring itself due to input, behaviour changes and illness), so it is possible.
Re:How does this account for those who change part (Score:5, Insightful)
I was a hard-core conservative a few years ago, now I'm a hard-core liberal.
Did my brain rewire itself?
It's more likely that your definition if conservative and liberal changed.
My people call themselves conservative or liberal, while meaning totally different things.
Infact, the original meaning isn't left right :
the normal opposite of "conservative" would be "progessive" ( sticking to what's known to work versus taking the risk of trying new things ).
the normal opposite of "liberal" , would be authoritarian ( liberalism favoring more freedom , whereas authoritarianism favoring less freedom ( more control by state ) ). Although there is also the distinction between liberal (state should ensure freedom ) and libertarian ( state should be minimized, thus providing more freedom)
Left : more personal freedom, less economic freedom.
Right : more economic freedom, less personal freedom.
For example, you could be a left-leaning conservative liberal, which would mean that you value freedom, with emphasis on personal freedom, but prefer to stick to tried and true policies for achieving this ( just an example, I'm not saying you are ) .
Re:How does this account for those who change part (Score:4, Insightful)
Right : more economic freedom
Well...Maybe, if you happen to be a corporation.
Re:But I've been told the opposite. (Score:5, Interesting)
The biggest threat I see in this regard is the government. I mean, I need a minimal level of government to enforce the law that says no one else can use force against me. But if the government does just that, then I can just walk away from anyone else who wants to harass me. Microsoft can push a lousy OS, but I don't have to buy it. NBC, CBS, and ABC can produce hours and hours of lousy reality TV programming, but I don't have to watch.
Only the government remains as being able to come to where I live or work, tell me what to do, and use force to back it up. If there is some question about whether what I did is ok, then at best I get a trial where the same poor social skills and poor persuasion skills that made me a victim in school are likely to make me a victim of a lawyer and a jury.
Perhaps one might argue that because we live in a democracy, the laws will be just and good and I shouldn't mind following them. That's true if the laws are minimal. But if the laws are numerous and easily made, they are likely to be based on the whims of the public and whatever mood their in. Part of the reason I didn't fit in at school is that I like different things. Chances are that I won't have the same tastes and passions as the majority of voters. And did I mention my poor persuasive skills? I won't be the one who is able to get a majority of voters to see things my way.
I want a government that will protect my rights and the rights of those around me, and do very little beyond that because whenever the government does more, my freedom to be different diminishes, and the freedom to be different is the very core of all freedoms.
Re:But I've been told the opposite. (Score:4, Insightful)
You have a point on gays. That is one of the few areas where conservative rhetoric has been very out of line with the general conservative philosophy. The marriage thing isn't really an issue of freedom - nothing stops gays from having religious ceremonies and making lifetime commitments - it's more an issue of forcing others to agree that gay marriage is good, or at least to pretend to - for example note the recent lawsuits against a photographer and a cakemaker who refused to participate in a gay wedding. However the laws against sodomy were a violation of freedom and too many conservatives supported those laws. (though as a constitutional issue the laws were valid - the Supreme Court unsuprisingly screwed up again - but just because the Constution allows a state to make a law doesn't mean the statue should make that law.)
Re: (Score:3)
And the government grants certain rights and responsibilities to heterosexual couples that do that by taking the simple step of registering the marriage. By the principle of equal treatment under the law how is it equal treatment to deny the same status to gays who make that lifetime commitment?
Re:But I've been told the opposite. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, I know I'm just setting it up for the "omg teh gays r destroying ur marriage, see!! see!!" response.
Re:But I've been told the opposite. (Score:5, Insightful)
The marriage thing isn't really an issue of freedom - nothing stops gays from having religious ceremonies and making lifetime commitments - it's more an issue of forcing others to agree that gay marriage is good
You know, I'd have no problem with churches banning gay marriage and stopping gay people from having the religious ceremonies. They are free to have pretty much any views - consistent or self-contradictory - that they want, and I'm free to point and laugh at them. The thing I find indefensible is that a gay person who has been in a monogamous relationship with another for 20 years is not permitted to be their next of kin for legal purposes, while a drunk heterosexual couple that just met and stumbles into a wedding chapel can get this - along with certain tax breaks - immediately. These legal rights should be granted to any couple (or even group) that wishes to have them, not reserved for certain combinations of genitalia.
Re: (Score:3)
Here is the main claim made, stated quite confidently:
-This is an misinterpretation of the result of their analysis. All they can say is that it would be unlikely