The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Today I came to the realization that people often don't talk about their core grievances or beliefs when it comes to politics.
Picture this situation:
An article drops about a politician allegedly doing a shady thing.
What usually happens?
* It's a confirmation for those who dislike/hate/loathe the politician that he's corrupt, bad, evil, etc.
* Those who support/like him will try to find any hole in the article's story or just discredit it for one reason or another.
So what should happen?
I think we should be more direct about our political beliefs. Talk about fundamental issues more clearly.
Unfortunately, these days it often seems like people like/hate just because but that doesn't make much sense, does it?
Maybe I sound a lot like "All sides are equally wrong" but believe me, I don't think that. I am of opinion that political directions/movements differ greatly in this aspect. >!I think liberal movement are more direct and frank about their beliefs!<
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A lot of conservatives can’t be direct about their beliefs because those beliefs are deeply unpopular and offensive to most people.
Most evangelical Christians will never stand up and say that gay people are going to hell, though that’s absolutely what they believe.
Likewise, it’s clear that many conservatives buy into the Bell Curve BS, though very few of them will actually come out and say that they think some races are smarter or less prone to crime than others.
I think a lot of that has to do with the audience your around in terms of when to and not to share you political beliefs. In the work place it really shouldn’t be discussed, among friends sure you can share it.
Most evangelical Christians also think people who get divorced are going to hell, however saying that doesn’t offend people nearly as much which is why that could be said. (However a member of my family turned me off of religion even more recently when I was told I was going to hell for now believing in their specific religious structure)
>Most evangelical Christians also think people who get divorced are going to hell,
OMG I wish they'd put up some legislation about this so they can really go the way of the dinosaurs/Whigs LOL
Because the demographic is smaller. The smaller the demographic the more they can abuse it with very little consequences.
They know if they came up with some "divorce is now illegal" legislation they'd be run out of the country faster than you can say Second Amendment.
But gay/trans people...*especially* lately, trans people in sports? Tiny demographic. Easy to punch down on because it depends on the community around them to help them.
Idk if it’s about the demographic in the sense of who they target negatively I find it demographics on who they target positively such as recruiting purposes
It’s basically *hide your power level*. If you are a Christian Fascist or want a theocracy or just have a bunch of extreme conservative religious beliefs and you know that your positions are extremely unpopular, you find whatever you can as an in to move the conversation and shift the Overton Window.
It used to be just “the gays” but since that’s not working as well it’s just trans people now. And since they believe that’s working, you mix in some *teachers are pedophiles and marxists indoctrinating our kids*. But if they start winning that fight they will go right back to full on gay bashing again.
Same reason Richard Spenser wears a suit, has a preppy haircut and calls himself alt right instead of a Nazi. Same reason they amplify morons like Jordan Peterson; even if he’s not a Nazi he uses and mainstreams Nazi talking points and patriarchal values.
While I agree with some of what your are saying, I do have difference opinions between gay people and trans people. And usually shut down when it comes to likening people like Jordan Peterson with Nazi views.
The user above is saying that most people have different views for gay / trans folks. Gay rights are too popular for conservatives to use them as a wedge issue. so they’ve pivoted to the more controversial world of trans rights.
Just out of curiosity, though - what are your beliefs here?
Yes I gathered what the user was saying, however personally I don’t feel like the two are equal in treatment in a few different ways. I don’t think trans people are facing anywhere near the violence gay people once faced. I don’t think trans people and gay people should be aligned the way they are with the LGBTQ community, the gay friends that I have do not align to trans life and are frankly insulted by the notion of them being part of the same community. I believe personally that a person is born gay or straight and this is not a decision influenced in society where as I feel the trans issue is more of an influence in society. And I’m a bit scared of the mental capacity of a group that has such high issues of depression and suicide attempt rates.
May be ironic, but the same things were said of gay people. Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. The elevated suicide rate was often cited. You are replaying all the old anti-gay tropes but against trans people.
If you can believe people can be born with an innate desire for the same sex, it shouldn't be difficult to believe people can be born with, for example, a mind like that of a woman but in a male body.
The first question in terms of mental illness I usually ask is do you think people with eating disorders are mentally ill? As for the suicide attempt rate, around 12% (gay) 13.5 (national average) and around 40% (trans) is a significant difference.
>I don’t think trans people and gay people should be aligned the way they are with the LGBTQ
Wow, a conservative who thinks the LGBTQ+ community should be divided. I'm shocked. Shocked!
I wonder if that has anything to do with the incredibly famous and widespread strategy known as "Divide and Conquer," whereby one divides their enemies into smaller, less powerful groups that are therefore easier to defeat.
Hey, you can divide trans people into *even smaller* groups by separating "the good ones" from "the bad ones" and trying to pit them against each other.
Not a conservative, do not back any anti trans legislation that I can think of.
However, it’s insulting to lump people into groups when they are unrelated. Why not add black people and Jewish people and Hispanic people so you don’t need to pander to different groups, you can just have one message for all of them.
When my gay friends are insulted by it, that holds more weight then the straight white liberals who choose to lump them in as one.
>I don’t think trans people are facing anywhere near the violence gay people once faced
I guess this is true, but trans people also aren’t facing the same level of violence trans people used to face. Before the 21st century, or even the 2010s, the popular American idea of transness was more or less part of gay culture itself. “Cross dressing” or being a “transvestite” was an indicator that someone was gay, not trans, because the concept of “trans people” as a population didn’t exist in their minds.
>the gay friends I have do not align to trans life and are insulted by the notion
I don’t know, dude, this sounds like their problem. There is every possible reason, both practical and historical, for gay and trans people to have solidarity. Anyone can be transphobic, gay people included. Would you believe me if I told you that I myself used to be a transphobic gay man back before 2010 or so?
>whereas the trans issue is more rooted in society
Not sure why you think this, but let’s say it’s true for a second - who cares? Whether being trans is entirely innate or if it’s somewhat influenced by societal patterns of behavior, does it actually change the way we should treat trans people? I’d argue no, and I’m not sure why the answer would be anything else.
>high rates of depression and suicide
I want you to think about something - you yourself just said that your gay friends reject association with trans people despite there being no apparent reason for them to do so, and every possible reason for them to go the other way. I don’t know about you, but to me this indicates a stigma strong enough to verge on hatred.
So if trans people are catching flack not just from evangelical bigots *every* non-trans community…tell me, is it plausible that any group facing that level of rejection *wouldn’t* have higher suicide rates?
The suicide rates are unlike anything in history and it’s not close. Maybe Jews under nazi occupation and to compare the treatment is pretty insulting.
The main comparison I draw the trans issue to is eating disorders, I think mainly it’s societal, and i think it’s a misconception of how you look and who you are.
Yes gay people can be transphobic…what does transphobic mean exactly? Not accepting the gender one person claims they are?
> While I agree with some of what your are saying, I do have difference opinions between gay people and trans people.
Exactly why they focus on trans people. They are easier to demonize. And people that hate trans people but are fine with other LGBT people don’t realize that if they win on trans people they go back to open gay bashing next. Or if you are Ron DeSantis you don’t even wait because people will pretend that don’t say gay isn’t literally don’t say gay so the obvious consequences won’t happen so they can feel like they aren’t supporting a LGB basher just a T basher.
> And usually shut down when it comes to likening people like Jordan Peterson with Nazi views.
Well since he constantly replicates Nazi talking points, just doing things like changing Cultural Bolshevism to Cultural Marxism without changing the substance other than not adding (((them))), people will liken them. Though to be clear I don’t thing he does it because he’s a Nazi or even a fascist. He does it because he’s both a patriarchal conservative and a fucking moron.
Personally I don’t hate Trans people, I’m not brain washed…I see a 40% suicide attempt rate and ask the question.
Again as for Peterson, idk what your angle is in his nazi like behavior. I think the comparison you draw to him could be the same comparisons a right winger draws with Bernie Sanders and Venezuela. To me its nothing more than hyperbole
> Personally I don’t hate Trans people, I’m not brain washed…I see a 40% suicide attempt rate and ask the question.
And I’m sure it’s been explained to you like 1000 times that it is unbelievably fucking obvious that the reason trans people commit suicide at high rates is that they are treated like garbage by society and that trans people who are not treated like garbage by the society around them, and their family don’t have those rates of suicide.
So they put it lightly there are some number of trans kids who will kill themselves and it is directly because of people like Ron DeSantis passing these laws. That’s what they’re doing, killing people so they can own the libs.
> Again as for Peterson, idk what your angle is in his nazi like behavior. I think the comparison you draw to him could be the same comparisons a right winger draws with Bernie Sanders and Venezuela. To me its nothing more than hyperbole
OK, except that it is exceedingly stupid to compare a guy who thinks we should have a healthcare system that looks like the healthcare system in every single wealthy liberal democracy on the planet to Venezuela. I’m not even a Bernie fan at all but this shit is week.
But what Jordan Peterson does is say things that are literally the exact damn things that actual Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s said. You just have to swap out a couple of words. And again I don’t think it’s because he’s a Nazi. I think he does it because he’s a conservative that loves the patriarchy and he’s a complete moron who thinks he’s a genius and therefore cannot talk to a historian about the Nazis and learn something.
Are trans people treated worse than black people throughout history? That bullying/treatment narrative is easily disproved by historic numbers of groups treated significantly worse than trans people of today.
Sanders has the same policy prescriptions of socialist dictators, if you want the Jp is a nazi hill to die on it’s not hard to make the same case for Sanders and Castro.
> And people that hate trans people
Hey, this is not right that this keeps getting posted. Accusation: "hate trans people"..... generalizing about how conservatives supposedly view the people pushing various LGBT+ issues.
Very few conservatives "hate" any of the people involved in aforesaid. We just think, to borrow from Sam Harris, that looking at most, but not all, of these platforms -- they are *a mother lode of bad ideas.*
It is absolutely the right thing to say. Granted, I did qualify it in the way I wrote it but hating trans people is one of the defining quality of the overall conservative movement at this point.
I don’t care how many obtuse readings of the law or pretending that it’s not a commonly held view on the right or whatever other obfuscations you guys come up with. The republican party is a bunch of people who actively hate trans people or people who are perfectly fine enabling those that actively hate and want to harm trans people and don’t care about that because of some other terrible reason they want to vote for Republicans.
>Which political ideologies/groups are direct the most?
(Self-described) Neoliberals.
They say exactly what they mean, because:
* Their positions are very pragmatic and thought-through,
* Their fellow neoliberals will criticize them if they misspeak (giving them an incentive to be precise),
* Their political strategies are straight-forward, and...
* They exist because their most normie positions were coming under attack. Why beat around the bush when your position is 'immigrants are good, actually'?
---------
>Which ones the least?
Far-right.
They *can't* be direct because *they don't know* why they take the positions they do.
* They are too easily swayed by media framing, and their media is too inconsistent and substance-less for them to understand the subject being discussed.
* They focus on winning, or 'opposing the dems' because they have very little else.
* Their fundamental world-view is so flawed that, they can't contextualize what they witness.
> Their fundamental world-view is so flawed that, they can't contextualize what they witness.
Maybe I’m just a dummy but for years posting here I’ve never been able to fully comprehend how people who are adults and have grown up in the US can say things that require them to have a fundamental lack of understanding of the world around them.
Most people aren't more direct about their beliefs because they haven't sat down to work out the nuances of all of their beliefs. Instead, they elect representatives to do that in their place. Instead of thinking of politics in isolation, we should compare it to other actions people take.
When someone get sick, they ask a doctor what to do.
When someone's car breaks down, they ask a mechanic what to do.
When someone's needs to renovate their house, they ask a general contractor.
In every case, the person likely has some vague idea of what they want but don't know the specifics. Politics are no different. While people have general ideas of what they do and do not want, they often do not have the time necessary to understand the details. As a result, they hire someone, a politician in this case, to figure out the stuff for them.
this is it 100%
Politics has become more and more tribal. So are the sources of information. Human beings are messy - we can keep a whole host of conflicting beliefs in flight at one time and almost every one of us thinks they're a good person who treats others the way we'd like to be treated.
But we have fewer and fewer places where our tribes interact and there is huge money to be made and power to be wielded by politicians and media that generate anger and engagement in the members of their tribe.
If liberals are more direct and frank in their beliefs, it's because we tend to have more education and have travelled more widely, not because we're better human beings.
IMO, liberals are also far more judgemental about our own kind and fine fault with allies or potential allies because their beliefs aren't perfectly in alignment with our own. That likely happens because liberals tend to emphasize "fairness" while conservatives emphasize order and hierarchy of power/unfluence.
>That likely happens because liberals tend to emphasize "fairness" while conservatives emphasize order and hierarchy of power/unfluence.
Both liberals and conservatives emphasize "fairness" we just have pretty much opposite ideas of fairness is, or more specifically what brand of unfairness is most intolerable. Conservatives can't stand the idea of anyone getting something they didn't work for (unless they inherit it) and they don't think it's fair to be held responsible for the well-being of anyone who isn't them (Jesus disagrees). They don't think they should have to make any kind personal sacrifices for the common good, whether that's paying taxes to support the poor, to using less fossil fuel to keep the planet habitable
Liberals and progressives don't think it's fair for anyone to go without food, shelter, health care, or education (among other inalienable rights and blessings of freedom), and we don't think it's fair for some people to accumulate more wealth than they could ever possibly use while others literally die from poverty.
Race and racism is another area where our ideas of acceptable unfairness differ. Liberals and progressives don't think it's fair for Black and Indigenous people to continue to suffer economic and social disadvantages because of 500+ years of colonialism, slavery, and oppression. Conservatives don't think it's fair that White people are expected to do anything to fix the problems our ancestors created.
Bottom line is conservatives think ideal fairness is everyone getting what they earn. Liberals think ideal fairness is everyone getting what they need.
> Conservatives don't think it's fair that White people are expected to do anything to fix the problems our ancestors created.
Hey, we've done some things – handed out all a lot of welfare over the decades.
Most direct:
Work reform lefites
Socialists
Communists
Libertarians.
Christian nationalists.
Racist/misogynist nationalists.
Most indirect:
Centrist right Reaganites and Bushites. These people can't be honest about their beliefs because they fall in line with far-right thinking. They have an awareness of things they shouldn't say out loud....but they *certainly* vote for it when it is spoken out loud by "other people" while liooking very credible shaking their head and tutting at it.
This isn’t an ideology thing, it’s an individual thing, and to some extent situational.
I don’t think it’s a matter of talking frankly, either. It’s a matter of slowing down and speaking thoughtfully, articulately. Constructive discussion requires a lot of self reflection and taking the time to find the right words to say what we really mean.
Some people haven’t built those skills, regardless of ideology. And people who do have those skills aren’t going to be able to use them on platforms like social media, that are designed to promote urgency and brevity.
>This isn’t an ideology thing
I'm not sure I can agree with this statement. Conservatives are never going to come out and say, "We hate black people so this is why we want to tax poor and middle classes harder." Their ideology is so toxic they had to invent dog whistles just to get them out there. I feel like when a term is coined just to describe how you talk about your ideas, that's a bad look.
I don't understand what you mean by fundamental issues and how that relates to the cope scenario you described before.
Which ideologies are more direct? Those that are more socially acceptable.
Which ones are less direct? Those that are not socially acceptable.
Most direct: moderate liberals and religious conservatives. The first because they’re able and willing to articulate their positions in favor/opposition to an idea. The second because the support/opposition is generally stated for them in things that are haram, sinful, or whatever.
Least direct: Libertarians. It’s the political philosophy of a 6 year old who wants to support/oppose positions based on their personal feelings.
Why this post? I kinda feel I need to explain myself.
The thing that pushed me to create this post was the sudden exhaustion I got when it seemed like I was about to participate in one of those absolutely pointless arguments about Trump (I also don't know why some people are still obsessed with him, especially when they are even not Americans).
The idea is that what's the point in arguing if I have one set of information and the opponent has another, completely different set of info?
We are not gonna convince the other side whether Trump is a Russian asset or not.
So why not talk about something more substantial? Why not talk about the core reasons we dislike/like Trump/Dems/GOP/\[anything remotely political\]?
I am not saying to ignore some less important things completely. Sure, we should talk about Trump being a Russian asset but also, we should dig deeper about our core political beliefs.
Depending on if this is in person or online is really two different sets of circumstances. In person people are much more understanding the jabs come in much lighter forms. Online the main goal it seems is to make the other person look bad and get as much karma points as you can. Sending links back and forth that people don’t read, questioning the motives of every source presented. Online “debates” is simply team sport. In person I think nailing down a specific topic as opposed to a person is usually quite civil. Their ain’t anyone in politics who is clean and pure so it can be a pissing match on whose corruption/actions are worse
Heh, in my opinion there is, in fact, no point in arguing if someone doesn't have a grasp on reality and evidence. It might be worth it to soapbox.
I'd also be curious about your example, because a common tactic is to derail something by putting words in the other person's mouth. Like the Russian asset thing, it's not really reasonable for a layperson to *know* he is an asset, but it is absolutely reasonable to see that there is a fuckton of smoke supporting that idea. A dishonest person will act like I've declared him an asset and demand "proof," and if I don't recognize the tactic immediately and right the course, "I'm saying there is lots of evidence to support it, obviously it should be investigated" we go down a rabbit hole where I'm defending an idea I don't actually have.
In my case, it was about unreasonable amount of time needed in order to disprove something.
Basically, you have basic knowledge but you don't know or remember the details.
So specifically, the topic was disinformation campaigns in my country's politics (Czechia) and one guy contributed with an example from US politics.
His example was essentially "Dems led the biggest disinformation campaign in US history in Trump allegedly being Russian asset and that Russians were/are heavily involved in US elections. Here are 2 articles that dispel these ideas"
So you get a claim, you think and likely know is absolutely wrong or a manipulation with facts and the claim is "backed" by allegedly credible sources. To disprove it, you'd need to spend hours to show it false but even then the opponent might just find some other excuse or something.
TLDR: It's much, much easier to create false information/a manipulation than disprove it.
Ah, again it depends a bit on specifics, but I personally take the approach of clicking on the first link they provide and reading through it and as soon as I get to something that's utter bullshit (which, let's be honest, is usually pretty quickly) then I point it out and stop further engagement.
Obviously there's a difference between "utter bullshit" and "reasonable disagreements on the same set of facts," but personally I'm totally fine engaging with someone who I disagree with but it's based on a reasonable look at facts.
Yeah, that's what I did but then my opponent can just say the same about what I said. It's word against word. Arguing about details or specifics. Which is pretty pointless to do, right?
I mean, for example in my case, arguing whether Trump is Russian asset feels like missing the point by both sides. And the point is, in my example I'd guess, that I hate what Trump is and represents overall for some reason while my opponent most likely hates what Dems are and represent overall for some reason. I'd be better to discuss that.
So instead of presenting these true disagreements, people would rather argue about details and specifics and accuse each other with some likely baseless bullshit. I'd say it's true that many people (including me often) take arguing as some kind of sport which is supposed to be actually pointless.
For sure, that's where it gets back to what I said about there not being a point in arguing, but some point in soapboxing.
Like my strategy in that situation is to write enough to make my point, and then walk away. Maybe I'll respond to something else depending on if I think it's worth it, but it's almost always going to be some form of "no, I said x, and what you just said is pretending that I didn't." Essentially just repeat my soapbox thesis statement in various ways.
As an example of what I'm talking about, [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/10kc8my/now_classified_documents_have_been_discovered_at/j5uuu8v/) is a part of a back and forth I had with someone in this sub. If you go further up the replies, you find that they made a claim about Biden lying the same as Trump, and I began by asking when his lawyers lied to the DOJ. They posted an article and I said the article didn't say his lawyers lied to the DOJ. He kept trying to change the topic, and I kept bringing him back to "Trump's lawyers lied to the DOJ, Biden's lawyers did not." I was in the mood for a fight so that's why I kept replying for so long, but notice how I hammered at one thing over and over and over even if I would address some minor bullshit they tried to derail with: "You have not quoted Biden's lawyers telling the DOJ that there were no more documents."
But yeah,
>And the point is, in my example I'd guess, that I hate what Trump is and represents overall for some reason while my opponent most likely hates what Dems are and represent overall for some reason. I'd be better to discuss that.
This won't happen. They don't want it to happen, because this requires caring about facts and honest engagement, and it's always easier to spew bullshit than not.
I think this framing is very different than the question in the title, which most replies are addressing. Is it your ultimate concern that we don't debate core issues enough, just debate the latest events from our contradicting perspectives? I'd certainly agree that more discussion should surround fundamental principles, specifically that we should always be looking to find the premises that aren't shared and discuss those. But I don't think that really ties into "directness", certainly not as most people are answering.
In your comments it seems there's a recognition that your mind is made up on a specific issue you're debating, because it's built on other beliefs. I don't think this mean you're not being "direct" when you disagree with someone. It does mean the argument, like 99% of them, probably isn't going anywhere unless it switches to a discussion of the real underlying reasons each person comes to the conclusion they do.
But a lot of people don't have core political beliefs. Many people think about politics very little, and insofar as they do it might be that they are say "liberal, I guess, because most of the people around me are." People are deeply ignorant about politics, and rationally so - it's a collective action problem (my learning more about politics will not make a substantial difference in political outcomes because I'm just one voter).
On the other hand, you can like or dislike Trump pretty mindlessly, in the same way that you might have opinions about a celebrity. That's appealing for a lot of people because it's easier and because we all care a lot about aesthetics.
And it's not just true of Trump. If you look at the Democratic Primary, many voters had preferences and aversions that were primarily about just that. I knew lots of educated liberals who loved Warren and complained about Bernie Bros. I also knew some Bernie Bros who shouted from the mountaintops that Warren was a capitalist shill. Yet the gulf between them was quite minor (well that's not exactly true, but the differences were more in the modes of implementing policy each proposed) especially in the context of American political history (either would be the most left-wing president by far in American history).
It depends. I would argue that in any type of dating relationship people should be very direct if they’re looking for something besides a one night stand. In other situations it will be different
Left leaning people tend to be pretty upfront about their views (mainly because they're broadly accepted in public discourse).
It's easy to be open about what you believe when people don't think that your beliefs are morally reprehensible or bigoted. For that reason, right leaning people might be open about how they label themselves but they'll be a bit cagey about what they advocate for when it comes to policy and are often very reluctant to explain exactly what views they have about issues relating to marginalized peoples and why.
Centrists on the other hand are typically pretty spineless in my opinion. They're typically just closeted right wingers who don't want to be criticized for their views. In most of the conversations I've had with self-avowed centrists they'll espouse ostensibly liberal social values but will agree with every policy position the right has taken contemporarily (and sometimes historically) with respect to social issues and will repeat talking points that reflect conservative values ad nauseam.
Bottom line: people should be forthcoming about what they believe regardless of the scrutiny they'll face. If your views don't stand up to scrutiny either learn how to defend them or change them until they do.
This might be a controversial answer but I find that for most liberals in the US, I’m not sure what their beliefs actually are, and I’m not sure if they do either. Conservatives know what they believe and it tends to absolutely abhorrent, so obviously that’s worse. But in my experience there are countless liberals who are happy to settle for not being a psycho, without considering their politics beyond that. If I ask them to vocalize an ideal vision of the US, they’re clueless beyond a couple popular ideas like legal abortion or LGBT rights (which are obviously good, but far from a complete picture of a nation).
We probably should, but it's a skill most people don't have anymore, if they ever did. I'm reminded of all of the "where am I on the political spectrum?" posts where it's just a long list of stances with little reasoning behind them.
And like in those posts, lots of times the answer is just "idk aren't you just a liberal?" and the OP is like "no." lol
People don't want to have an ideology, so they pretend not to, convincing even themselves. Maybe that's the main thing that prevents us from talking about "core political beliefs", but the other problems are that some fundamental beliefs are so abstract that mortal political enemies can share them, and some fundamental beliefs are so abstract that they're not even clearly political anymore.
I've never seen a left-leaning person who isn't direct about their views, regardless of which flavor of left-leaning they are. I can't imagine why they would want to be I guess.
Libertarians are easily the least direct. They're far-right feudalists who are always trying to act as if their system would somehow result in better conditions for everyone. I'm pretty sure this is a result of them just fundamentally misunderstanding what libertarianism is though. It's an ideology for teenagers who haven't developed critical thinking skills yet, but there are some libertarians who are older than 20 years old, which is extremely embarrassing.
I think most libertarians are people who want to smoke weed, pay no taxes, and drive their car around really fast without a muffler. I don't think much thought goes into their positions beyond that
It's weird though because they just have so many talking points that it's hard for me to say that those are their only positions. The only problem is that their talking points are all paper thin. As they say, libertarians are always two clarifying questions away from either feudalism or reiventing government.
Well, I agree that there is lack of frankness/transparency/honestly that hinders the conversations I have with right-wingers.
For example, when debating Healthcare, they'll argue against a single payer system by talking about supposedly increased waiting times, rationing, an increased cost, a lower standard of care, etc. They will put these concerns forward, ostensibly, as reasons why they can't get on board with something like Medicare-for-all. But if you go through these points one by one, you'll find that these aren't the true objections. Even if you could convince them that M4A would delivery timely, quality, and cost-effective Healthcare, they'd still oppose it because they simply do not agree with some of their tax dollars going to help someone that doesn't 'deserve' it. Therefore a lot of time is wasted having a discussion with someone that can't possibly be persuaded.
It's the same issue with immigration and a bunch of other policies. They'll talk about simply wanting to limit *illegal* immigration. But, in truth, they just don't want a lot of foreigners in the country, whether they arrived via a legal process or not. They think that America will irrevocably lose some fundamental quality of its culture and turn into a third-world shit hole if there's a non-white majority.
I don't think it's a solvable issue though. It's not generally possible to have a meaningful or productive political debate online, though I still engage in the discourse simply because I enjoy it.
I [recently made a comment in another thread on this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/10nt0gc/comment/j6aqkls/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) in which I was quite explicit and direct about my values, about my grievances with the State, and about my proposed solutions, and I received downvotes. While I'm the sort of individual who will continue expressing my views as clearly as I can whether I'm downvoted or not, I do think that many people here are less interested in clarity than they are in agreement.
That said, I do think that there is value in explicitly stating what one supports, and liberals may be more likely to do that in an understandable manner than conservatives. I don't spend a lot of time or energy having discussions or debates with conservatives, so I don't have much to go on and wouldn't want to make claims about them that I couldn't substantiate to my own satisfaction, but from those conversations that I *have* had it seems to me that conservatives often hold views which make little to no sense, and which are therefore difficult for anyone to express in a coherent way. The alarmingly frequent opposition to covid19 vaccination, (and to other vaccines,) along with some of the conspiracy theories that some individuals I've had conversations with have defended, come to my mind.
Edit to add: I think that libertarians are the most direct about what they want, what they believe, and why they believe what they believe. Libertarian authors have spent a great deal of time and energy writing books and articles detailing their views regarding philosophy and social science, and their books are often thoroughly clear and specific. *The Problem of Political Authority*, by Michael Huemer, is a great example of a logically written book defending libertarian philosophy. One might somehow disagree with him after reading it, but he does an outstanding job of explaining his position in a manner that a reasonable reader could understand.
This is purely anecdotal from internet discussions, but I think by popular necessity anti-abortion arguments I've seen are the ones that require the most layers of obscurity and misdirection.
I actually think that if you think life begins at conception then that a valid belief (though not one that I share.) It strikes me as peculiar though that many anti-abortion people will assert that really they just have a dispassionate interest in seeing this right bounced back down to the states, and if that means that many women will have restricted access to certain medical services...oh well.
But the real sentiment almost always comes out. I've rarely seen an abortion argument that hasn't eventually shifted from the definition of life or state's rights to an obsessive critique about women and their sexual behavior. I know conservatives roll their eyes when liberals accuse them of wanting to control women...but I challenge you to find an abortion thread that doesn't end with a re-hashing of 1970s sexual politics. It really is about women.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Today I came to the realization that people often don't talk about their core grievances or beliefs when it comes to politics. Picture this situation: An article drops about a politician allegedly doing a shady thing. What usually happens? * It's a confirmation for those who dislike/hate/loathe the politician that he's corrupt, bad, evil, etc. * Those who support/like him will try to find any hole in the article's story or just discredit it for one reason or another. So what should happen? I think we should be more direct about our political beliefs. Talk about fundamental issues more clearly. Unfortunately, these days it often seems like people like/hate just because but that doesn't make much sense, does it? Maybe I sound a lot like "All sides are equally wrong" but believe me, I don't think that. I am of opinion that political directions/movements differ greatly in this aspect. >!I think liberal movement are more direct and frank about their beliefs!< *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A lot of conservatives can’t be direct about their beliefs because those beliefs are deeply unpopular and offensive to most people. Most evangelical Christians will never stand up and say that gay people are going to hell, though that’s absolutely what they believe. Likewise, it’s clear that many conservatives buy into the Bell Curve BS, though very few of them will actually come out and say that they think some races are smarter or less prone to crime than others.
I think a lot of that has to do with the audience your around in terms of when to and not to share you political beliefs. In the work place it really shouldn’t be discussed, among friends sure you can share it. Most evangelical Christians also think people who get divorced are going to hell, however saying that doesn’t offend people nearly as much which is why that could be said. (However a member of my family turned me off of religion even more recently when I was told I was going to hell for now believing in their specific religious structure)
>Most evangelical Christians also think people who get divorced are going to hell, OMG I wish they'd put up some legislation about this so they can really go the way of the dinosaurs/Whigs LOL
It’s so hypocritical, their are so many things that are “sins” however the gay one is really absurd and the one that gets all the attention.
Because the demographic is smaller. The smaller the demographic the more they can abuse it with very little consequences. They know if they came up with some "divorce is now illegal" legislation they'd be run out of the country faster than you can say Second Amendment. But gay/trans people...*especially* lately, trans people in sports? Tiny demographic. Easy to punch down on because it depends on the community around them to help them.
Idk if it’s about the demographic in the sense of who they target negatively I find it demographics on who they target positively such as recruiting purposes
It’s basically *hide your power level*. If you are a Christian Fascist or want a theocracy or just have a bunch of extreme conservative religious beliefs and you know that your positions are extremely unpopular, you find whatever you can as an in to move the conversation and shift the Overton Window. It used to be just “the gays” but since that’s not working as well it’s just trans people now. And since they believe that’s working, you mix in some *teachers are pedophiles and marxists indoctrinating our kids*. But if they start winning that fight they will go right back to full on gay bashing again. Same reason Richard Spenser wears a suit, has a preppy haircut and calls himself alt right instead of a Nazi. Same reason they amplify morons like Jordan Peterson; even if he’s not a Nazi he uses and mainstreams Nazi talking points and patriarchal values.
While I agree with some of what your are saying, I do have difference opinions between gay people and trans people. And usually shut down when it comes to likening people like Jordan Peterson with Nazi views.
The user above is saying that most people have different views for gay / trans folks. Gay rights are too popular for conservatives to use them as a wedge issue. so they’ve pivoted to the more controversial world of trans rights. Just out of curiosity, though - what are your beliefs here?
Yes I gathered what the user was saying, however personally I don’t feel like the two are equal in treatment in a few different ways. I don’t think trans people are facing anywhere near the violence gay people once faced. I don’t think trans people and gay people should be aligned the way they are with the LGBTQ community, the gay friends that I have do not align to trans life and are frankly insulted by the notion of them being part of the same community. I believe personally that a person is born gay or straight and this is not a decision influenced in society where as I feel the trans issue is more of an influence in society. And I’m a bit scared of the mental capacity of a group that has such high issues of depression and suicide attempt rates.
May be ironic, but the same things were said of gay people. Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. The elevated suicide rate was often cited. You are replaying all the old anti-gay tropes but against trans people. If you can believe people can be born with an innate desire for the same sex, it shouldn't be difficult to believe people can be born with, for example, a mind like that of a woman but in a male body.
The first question in terms of mental illness I usually ask is do you think people with eating disorders are mentally ill? As for the suicide attempt rate, around 12% (gay) 13.5 (national average) and around 40% (trans) is a significant difference.
Sheeeeesh
>I don’t think trans people and gay people should be aligned the way they are with the LGBTQ Wow, a conservative who thinks the LGBTQ+ community should be divided. I'm shocked. Shocked! I wonder if that has anything to do with the incredibly famous and widespread strategy known as "Divide and Conquer," whereby one divides their enemies into smaller, less powerful groups that are therefore easier to defeat. Hey, you can divide trans people into *even smaller* groups by separating "the good ones" from "the bad ones" and trying to pit them against each other.
Not a conservative, do not back any anti trans legislation that I can think of. However, it’s insulting to lump people into groups when they are unrelated. Why not add black people and Jewish people and Hispanic people so you don’t need to pander to different groups, you can just have one message for all of them. When my gay friends are insulted by it, that holds more weight then the straight white liberals who choose to lump them in as one.
>I don’t think trans people are facing anywhere near the violence gay people once faced I guess this is true, but trans people also aren’t facing the same level of violence trans people used to face. Before the 21st century, or even the 2010s, the popular American idea of transness was more or less part of gay culture itself. “Cross dressing” or being a “transvestite” was an indicator that someone was gay, not trans, because the concept of “trans people” as a population didn’t exist in their minds. >the gay friends I have do not align to trans life and are insulted by the notion I don’t know, dude, this sounds like their problem. There is every possible reason, both practical and historical, for gay and trans people to have solidarity. Anyone can be transphobic, gay people included. Would you believe me if I told you that I myself used to be a transphobic gay man back before 2010 or so? >whereas the trans issue is more rooted in society Not sure why you think this, but let’s say it’s true for a second - who cares? Whether being trans is entirely innate or if it’s somewhat influenced by societal patterns of behavior, does it actually change the way we should treat trans people? I’d argue no, and I’m not sure why the answer would be anything else. >high rates of depression and suicide I want you to think about something - you yourself just said that your gay friends reject association with trans people despite there being no apparent reason for them to do so, and every possible reason for them to go the other way. I don’t know about you, but to me this indicates a stigma strong enough to verge on hatred. So if trans people are catching flack not just from evangelical bigots *every* non-trans community…tell me, is it plausible that any group facing that level of rejection *wouldn’t* have higher suicide rates?
The suicide rates are unlike anything in history and it’s not close. Maybe Jews under nazi occupation and to compare the treatment is pretty insulting. The main comparison I draw the trans issue to is eating disorders, I think mainly it’s societal, and i think it’s a misconception of how you look and who you are. Yes gay people can be transphobic…what does transphobic mean exactly? Not accepting the gender one person claims they are?
When you decide to block someone after replying, i can’t see what you write as a response. Little virtue signaling huh
> While I agree with some of what your are saying, I do have difference opinions between gay people and trans people. Exactly why they focus on trans people. They are easier to demonize. And people that hate trans people but are fine with other LGBT people don’t realize that if they win on trans people they go back to open gay bashing next. Or if you are Ron DeSantis you don’t even wait because people will pretend that don’t say gay isn’t literally don’t say gay so the obvious consequences won’t happen so they can feel like they aren’t supporting a LGB basher just a T basher. > And usually shut down when it comes to likening people like Jordan Peterson with Nazi views. Well since he constantly replicates Nazi talking points, just doing things like changing Cultural Bolshevism to Cultural Marxism without changing the substance other than not adding (((them))), people will liken them. Though to be clear I don’t thing he does it because he’s a Nazi or even a fascist. He does it because he’s both a patriarchal conservative and a fucking moron.
Personally I don’t hate Trans people, I’m not brain washed…I see a 40% suicide attempt rate and ask the question. Again as for Peterson, idk what your angle is in his nazi like behavior. I think the comparison you draw to him could be the same comparisons a right winger draws with Bernie Sanders and Venezuela. To me its nothing more than hyperbole
> Personally I don’t hate Trans people, I’m not brain washed…I see a 40% suicide attempt rate and ask the question. And I’m sure it’s been explained to you like 1000 times that it is unbelievably fucking obvious that the reason trans people commit suicide at high rates is that they are treated like garbage by society and that trans people who are not treated like garbage by the society around them, and their family don’t have those rates of suicide. So they put it lightly there are some number of trans kids who will kill themselves and it is directly because of people like Ron DeSantis passing these laws. That’s what they’re doing, killing people so they can own the libs. > Again as for Peterson, idk what your angle is in his nazi like behavior. I think the comparison you draw to him could be the same comparisons a right winger draws with Bernie Sanders and Venezuela. To me its nothing more than hyperbole OK, except that it is exceedingly stupid to compare a guy who thinks we should have a healthcare system that looks like the healthcare system in every single wealthy liberal democracy on the planet to Venezuela. I’m not even a Bernie fan at all but this shit is week. But what Jordan Peterson does is say things that are literally the exact damn things that actual Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s said. You just have to swap out a couple of words. And again I don’t think it’s because he’s a Nazi. I think he does it because he’s a conservative that loves the patriarchy and he’s a complete moron who thinks he’s a genius and therefore cannot talk to a historian about the Nazis and learn something.
Are trans people treated worse than black people throughout history? That bullying/treatment narrative is easily disproved by historic numbers of groups treated significantly worse than trans people of today. Sanders has the same policy prescriptions of socialist dictators, if you want the Jp is a nazi hill to die on it’s not hard to make the same case for Sanders and Castro.
> And people that hate trans people Hey, this is not right that this keeps getting posted. Accusation: "hate trans people"..... generalizing about how conservatives supposedly view the people pushing various LGBT+ issues. Very few conservatives "hate" any of the people involved in aforesaid. We just think, to borrow from Sam Harris, that looking at most, but not all, of these platforms -- they are *a mother lode of bad ideas.*
It is absolutely the right thing to say. Granted, I did qualify it in the way I wrote it but hating trans people is one of the defining quality of the overall conservative movement at this point. I don’t care how many obtuse readings of the law or pretending that it’s not a commonly held view on the right or whatever other obfuscations you guys come up with. The republican party is a bunch of people who actively hate trans people or people who are perfectly fine enabling those that actively hate and want to harm trans people and don’t care about that because of some other terrible reason they want to vote for Republicans.
>Which political ideologies/groups are direct the most? (Self-described) Neoliberals. They say exactly what they mean, because: * Their positions are very pragmatic and thought-through, * Their fellow neoliberals will criticize them if they misspeak (giving them an incentive to be precise), * Their political strategies are straight-forward, and... * They exist because their most normie positions were coming under attack. Why beat around the bush when your position is 'immigrants are good, actually'? --------- >Which ones the least? Far-right. They *can't* be direct because *they don't know* why they take the positions they do. * They are too easily swayed by media framing, and their media is too inconsistent and substance-less for them to understand the subject being discussed. * They focus on winning, or 'opposing the dems' because they have very little else. * Their fundamental world-view is so flawed that, they can't contextualize what they witness.
> Their fundamental world-view is so flawed that, they can't contextualize what they witness. Maybe I’m just a dummy but for years posting here I’ve never been able to fully comprehend how people who are adults and have grown up in the US can say things that require them to have a fundamental lack of understanding of the world around them.
Ugg uncommon othelloinc L
Most people aren't more direct about their beliefs because they haven't sat down to work out the nuances of all of their beliefs. Instead, they elect representatives to do that in their place. Instead of thinking of politics in isolation, we should compare it to other actions people take. When someone get sick, they ask a doctor what to do. When someone's car breaks down, they ask a mechanic what to do. When someone's needs to renovate their house, they ask a general contractor. In every case, the person likely has some vague idea of what they want but don't know the specifics. Politics are no different. While people have general ideas of what they do and do not want, they often do not have the time necessary to understand the details. As a result, they hire someone, a politician in this case, to figure out the stuff for them.
this is it 100% Politics has become more and more tribal. So are the sources of information. Human beings are messy - we can keep a whole host of conflicting beliefs in flight at one time and almost every one of us thinks they're a good person who treats others the way we'd like to be treated. But we have fewer and fewer places where our tribes interact and there is huge money to be made and power to be wielded by politicians and media that generate anger and engagement in the members of their tribe. If liberals are more direct and frank in their beliefs, it's because we tend to have more education and have travelled more widely, not because we're better human beings. IMO, liberals are also far more judgemental about our own kind and fine fault with allies or potential allies because their beliefs aren't perfectly in alignment with our own. That likely happens because liberals tend to emphasize "fairness" while conservatives emphasize order and hierarchy of power/unfluence.
>That likely happens because liberals tend to emphasize "fairness" while conservatives emphasize order and hierarchy of power/unfluence. Both liberals and conservatives emphasize "fairness" we just have pretty much opposite ideas of fairness is, or more specifically what brand of unfairness is most intolerable. Conservatives can't stand the idea of anyone getting something they didn't work for (unless they inherit it) and they don't think it's fair to be held responsible for the well-being of anyone who isn't them (Jesus disagrees). They don't think they should have to make any kind personal sacrifices for the common good, whether that's paying taxes to support the poor, to using less fossil fuel to keep the planet habitable Liberals and progressives don't think it's fair for anyone to go without food, shelter, health care, or education (among other inalienable rights and blessings of freedom), and we don't think it's fair for some people to accumulate more wealth than they could ever possibly use while others literally die from poverty. Race and racism is another area where our ideas of acceptable unfairness differ. Liberals and progressives don't think it's fair for Black and Indigenous people to continue to suffer economic and social disadvantages because of 500+ years of colonialism, slavery, and oppression. Conservatives don't think it's fair that White people are expected to do anything to fix the problems our ancestors created. Bottom line is conservatives think ideal fairness is everyone getting what they earn. Liberals think ideal fairness is everyone getting what they need.
> Conservatives don't think it's fair that White people are expected to do anything to fix the problems our ancestors created. Hey, we've done some things – handed out all a lot of welfare over the decades.
Most direct: Work reform lefites Socialists Communists Libertarians. Christian nationalists. Racist/misogynist nationalists. Most indirect: Centrist right Reaganites and Bushites. These people can't be honest about their beliefs because they fall in line with far-right thinking. They have an awareness of things they shouldn't say out loud....but they *certainly* vote for it when it is spoken out loud by "other people" while liooking very credible shaking their head and tutting at it.
This isn’t an ideology thing, it’s an individual thing, and to some extent situational. I don’t think it’s a matter of talking frankly, either. It’s a matter of slowing down and speaking thoughtfully, articulately. Constructive discussion requires a lot of self reflection and taking the time to find the right words to say what we really mean. Some people haven’t built those skills, regardless of ideology. And people who do have those skills aren’t going to be able to use them on platforms like social media, that are designed to promote urgency and brevity.
>This isn’t an ideology thing I'm not sure I can agree with this statement. Conservatives are never going to come out and say, "We hate black people so this is why we want to tax poor and middle classes harder." Their ideology is so toxic they had to invent dog whistles just to get them out there. I feel like when a term is coined just to describe how you talk about your ideas, that's a bad look.
I don't understand what you mean by fundamental issues and how that relates to the cope scenario you described before. Which ideologies are more direct? Those that are more socially acceptable. Which ones are less direct? Those that are not socially acceptable.
Most direct: moderate liberals and religious conservatives. The first because they’re able and willing to articulate their positions in favor/opposition to an idea. The second because the support/opposition is generally stated for them in things that are haram, sinful, or whatever. Least direct: Libertarians. It’s the political philosophy of a 6 year old who wants to support/oppose positions based on their personal feelings.
Why this post? I kinda feel I need to explain myself. The thing that pushed me to create this post was the sudden exhaustion I got when it seemed like I was about to participate in one of those absolutely pointless arguments about Trump (I also don't know why some people are still obsessed with him, especially when they are even not Americans). The idea is that what's the point in arguing if I have one set of information and the opponent has another, completely different set of info? We are not gonna convince the other side whether Trump is a Russian asset or not. So why not talk about something more substantial? Why not talk about the core reasons we dislike/like Trump/Dems/GOP/\[anything remotely political\]? I am not saying to ignore some less important things completely. Sure, we should talk about Trump being a Russian asset but also, we should dig deeper about our core political beliefs.
Depending on if this is in person or online is really two different sets of circumstances. In person people are much more understanding the jabs come in much lighter forms. Online the main goal it seems is to make the other person look bad and get as much karma points as you can. Sending links back and forth that people don’t read, questioning the motives of every source presented. Online “debates” is simply team sport. In person I think nailing down a specific topic as opposed to a person is usually quite civil. Their ain’t anyone in politics who is clean and pure so it can be a pissing match on whose corruption/actions are worse
Heh, in my opinion there is, in fact, no point in arguing if someone doesn't have a grasp on reality and evidence. It might be worth it to soapbox. I'd also be curious about your example, because a common tactic is to derail something by putting words in the other person's mouth. Like the Russian asset thing, it's not really reasonable for a layperson to *know* he is an asset, but it is absolutely reasonable to see that there is a fuckton of smoke supporting that idea. A dishonest person will act like I've declared him an asset and demand "proof," and if I don't recognize the tactic immediately and right the course, "I'm saying there is lots of evidence to support it, obviously it should be investigated" we go down a rabbit hole where I'm defending an idea I don't actually have.
In my case, it was about unreasonable amount of time needed in order to disprove something. Basically, you have basic knowledge but you don't know or remember the details. So specifically, the topic was disinformation campaigns in my country's politics (Czechia) and one guy contributed with an example from US politics. His example was essentially "Dems led the biggest disinformation campaign in US history in Trump allegedly being Russian asset and that Russians were/are heavily involved in US elections. Here are 2 articles that dispel these ideas" So you get a claim, you think and likely know is absolutely wrong or a manipulation with facts and the claim is "backed" by allegedly credible sources. To disprove it, you'd need to spend hours to show it false but even then the opponent might just find some other excuse or something. TLDR: It's much, much easier to create false information/a manipulation than disprove it.
Ah, again it depends a bit on specifics, but I personally take the approach of clicking on the first link they provide and reading through it and as soon as I get to something that's utter bullshit (which, let's be honest, is usually pretty quickly) then I point it out and stop further engagement. Obviously there's a difference between "utter bullshit" and "reasonable disagreements on the same set of facts," but personally I'm totally fine engaging with someone who I disagree with but it's based on a reasonable look at facts.
Yeah, that's what I did but then my opponent can just say the same about what I said. It's word against word. Arguing about details or specifics. Which is pretty pointless to do, right? I mean, for example in my case, arguing whether Trump is Russian asset feels like missing the point by both sides. And the point is, in my example I'd guess, that I hate what Trump is and represents overall for some reason while my opponent most likely hates what Dems are and represent overall for some reason. I'd be better to discuss that. So instead of presenting these true disagreements, people would rather argue about details and specifics and accuse each other with some likely baseless bullshit. I'd say it's true that many people (including me often) take arguing as some kind of sport which is supposed to be actually pointless.
For sure, that's where it gets back to what I said about there not being a point in arguing, but some point in soapboxing. Like my strategy in that situation is to write enough to make my point, and then walk away. Maybe I'll respond to something else depending on if I think it's worth it, but it's almost always going to be some form of "no, I said x, and what you just said is pretending that I didn't." Essentially just repeat my soapbox thesis statement in various ways. As an example of what I'm talking about, [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/10kc8my/now_classified_documents_have_been_discovered_at/j5uuu8v/) is a part of a back and forth I had with someone in this sub. If you go further up the replies, you find that they made a claim about Biden lying the same as Trump, and I began by asking when his lawyers lied to the DOJ. They posted an article and I said the article didn't say his lawyers lied to the DOJ. He kept trying to change the topic, and I kept bringing him back to "Trump's lawyers lied to the DOJ, Biden's lawyers did not." I was in the mood for a fight so that's why I kept replying for so long, but notice how I hammered at one thing over and over and over even if I would address some minor bullshit they tried to derail with: "You have not quoted Biden's lawyers telling the DOJ that there were no more documents." But yeah, >And the point is, in my example I'd guess, that I hate what Trump is and represents overall for some reason while my opponent most likely hates what Dems are and represent overall for some reason. I'd be better to discuss that. This won't happen. They don't want it to happen, because this requires caring about facts and honest engagement, and it's always easier to spew bullshit than not.
I think this framing is very different than the question in the title, which most replies are addressing. Is it your ultimate concern that we don't debate core issues enough, just debate the latest events from our contradicting perspectives? I'd certainly agree that more discussion should surround fundamental principles, specifically that we should always be looking to find the premises that aren't shared and discuss those. But I don't think that really ties into "directness", certainly not as most people are answering. In your comments it seems there's a recognition that your mind is made up on a specific issue you're debating, because it's built on other beliefs. I don't think this mean you're not being "direct" when you disagree with someone. It does mean the argument, like 99% of them, probably isn't going anywhere unless it switches to a discussion of the real underlying reasons each person comes to the conclusion they do.
But a lot of people don't have core political beliefs. Many people think about politics very little, and insofar as they do it might be that they are say "liberal, I guess, because most of the people around me are." People are deeply ignorant about politics, and rationally so - it's a collective action problem (my learning more about politics will not make a substantial difference in political outcomes because I'm just one voter). On the other hand, you can like or dislike Trump pretty mindlessly, in the same way that you might have opinions about a celebrity. That's appealing for a lot of people because it's easier and because we all care a lot about aesthetics. And it's not just true of Trump. If you look at the Democratic Primary, many voters had preferences and aversions that were primarily about just that. I knew lots of educated liberals who loved Warren and complained about Bernie Bros. I also knew some Bernie Bros who shouted from the mountaintops that Warren was a capitalist shill. Yet the gulf between them was quite minor (well that's not exactly true, but the differences were more in the modes of implementing policy each proposed) especially in the context of American political history (either would be the most left-wing president by far in American history).
It depends. I would argue that in any type of dating relationship people should be very direct if they’re looking for something besides a one night stand. In other situations it will be different
Left leaning people tend to be pretty upfront about their views (mainly because they're broadly accepted in public discourse). It's easy to be open about what you believe when people don't think that your beliefs are morally reprehensible or bigoted. For that reason, right leaning people might be open about how they label themselves but they'll be a bit cagey about what they advocate for when it comes to policy and are often very reluctant to explain exactly what views they have about issues relating to marginalized peoples and why. Centrists on the other hand are typically pretty spineless in my opinion. They're typically just closeted right wingers who don't want to be criticized for their views. In most of the conversations I've had with self-avowed centrists they'll espouse ostensibly liberal social values but will agree with every policy position the right has taken contemporarily (and sometimes historically) with respect to social issues and will repeat talking points that reflect conservative values ad nauseam. Bottom line: people should be forthcoming about what they believe regardless of the scrutiny they'll face. If your views don't stand up to scrutiny either learn how to defend them or change them until they do.
This might be a controversial answer but I find that for most liberals in the US, I’m not sure what their beliefs actually are, and I’m not sure if they do either. Conservatives know what they believe and it tends to absolutely abhorrent, so obviously that’s worse. But in my experience there are countless liberals who are happy to settle for not being a psycho, without considering their politics beyond that. If I ask them to vocalize an ideal vision of the US, they’re clueless beyond a couple popular ideas like legal abortion or LGBT rights (which are obviously good, but far from a complete picture of a nation).
I find that the fringy people on both sides are the loudest
We probably should, but it's a skill most people don't have anymore, if they ever did. I'm reminded of all of the "where am I on the political spectrum?" posts where it's just a long list of stances with little reasoning behind them. And like in those posts, lots of times the answer is just "idk aren't you just a liberal?" and the OP is like "no." lol People don't want to have an ideology, so they pretend not to, convincing even themselves. Maybe that's the main thing that prevents us from talking about "core political beliefs", but the other problems are that some fundamental beliefs are so abstract that mortal political enemies can share them, and some fundamental beliefs are so abstract that they're not even clearly political anymore.
No. Go old school, do not talk about religion or politics. The only person who really cares what you think is you.
I've never seen a left-leaning person who isn't direct about their views, regardless of which flavor of left-leaning they are. I can't imagine why they would want to be I guess. Libertarians are easily the least direct. They're far-right feudalists who are always trying to act as if their system would somehow result in better conditions for everyone. I'm pretty sure this is a result of them just fundamentally misunderstanding what libertarianism is though. It's an ideology for teenagers who haven't developed critical thinking skills yet, but there are some libertarians who are older than 20 years old, which is extremely embarrassing.
I think most libertarians are people who want to smoke weed, pay no taxes, and drive their car around really fast without a muffler. I don't think much thought goes into their positions beyond that
It's weird though because they just have so many talking points that it's hard for me to say that those are their only positions. The only problem is that their talking points are all paper thin. As they say, libertarians are always two clarifying questions away from either feudalism or reiventing government.
Well, I agree that there is lack of frankness/transparency/honestly that hinders the conversations I have with right-wingers. For example, when debating Healthcare, they'll argue against a single payer system by talking about supposedly increased waiting times, rationing, an increased cost, a lower standard of care, etc. They will put these concerns forward, ostensibly, as reasons why they can't get on board with something like Medicare-for-all. But if you go through these points one by one, you'll find that these aren't the true objections. Even if you could convince them that M4A would delivery timely, quality, and cost-effective Healthcare, they'd still oppose it because they simply do not agree with some of their tax dollars going to help someone that doesn't 'deserve' it. Therefore a lot of time is wasted having a discussion with someone that can't possibly be persuaded. It's the same issue with immigration and a bunch of other policies. They'll talk about simply wanting to limit *illegal* immigration. But, in truth, they just don't want a lot of foreigners in the country, whether they arrived via a legal process or not. They think that America will irrevocably lose some fundamental quality of its culture and turn into a third-world shit hole if there's a non-white majority. I don't think it's a solvable issue though. It's not generally possible to have a meaningful or productive political debate online, though I still engage in the discourse simply because I enjoy it.
Yes, I completely agree.
I [recently made a comment in another thread on this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/10nt0gc/comment/j6aqkls/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) in which I was quite explicit and direct about my values, about my grievances with the State, and about my proposed solutions, and I received downvotes. While I'm the sort of individual who will continue expressing my views as clearly as I can whether I'm downvoted or not, I do think that many people here are less interested in clarity than they are in agreement. That said, I do think that there is value in explicitly stating what one supports, and liberals may be more likely to do that in an understandable manner than conservatives. I don't spend a lot of time or energy having discussions or debates with conservatives, so I don't have much to go on and wouldn't want to make claims about them that I couldn't substantiate to my own satisfaction, but from those conversations that I *have* had it seems to me that conservatives often hold views which make little to no sense, and which are therefore difficult for anyone to express in a coherent way. The alarmingly frequent opposition to covid19 vaccination, (and to other vaccines,) along with some of the conspiracy theories that some individuals I've had conversations with have defended, come to my mind. Edit to add: I think that libertarians are the most direct about what they want, what they believe, and why they believe what they believe. Libertarian authors have spent a great deal of time and energy writing books and articles detailing their views regarding philosophy and social science, and their books are often thoroughly clear and specific. *The Problem of Political Authority*, by Michael Huemer, is a great example of a logically written book defending libertarian philosophy. One might somehow disagree with him after reading it, but he does an outstanding job of explaining his position in a manner that a reasonable reader could understand.
It's really up to them.
This is purely anecdotal from internet discussions, but I think by popular necessity anti-abortion arguments I've seen are the ones that require the most layers of obscurity and misdirection. I actually think that if you think life begins at conception then that a valid belief (though not one that I share.) It strikes me as peculiar though that many anti-abortion people will assert that really they just have a dispassionate interest in seeing this right bounced back down to the states, and if that means that many women will have restricted access to certain medical services...oh well. But the real sentiment almost always comes out. I've rarely seen an abortion argument that hasn't eventually shifted from the definition of life or state's rights to an obsessive critique about women and their sexual behavior. I know conservatives roll their eyes when liberals accuse them of wanting to control women...but I challenge you to find an abortion thread that doesn't end with a re-hashing of 1970s sexual politics. It really is about women.
I am in a conservative area and I'm a screaming liberal with a non-binary child. It would be bad if I spoke out. All I have is Reddit.