DescentBB

We are all unique people with unique perspectives. We tend to seek out and identify with a larger group of similar minded people with an emphasis on issues that matter most to us. I'm of the opinion that focusing on what makes us similar to our ideological brethren divides the whole. It squashes nuance. It lightens white and darkens black, when life is actually grey.

With that in mind, what are some areas where you differ with those you mostly agree with?

One area where I differ with my liberal comrades is hate crime legislation. I lean toward the "all crime is hate crime" side of the spectrum. Is a murderer "less bad" if his actions are not directed toward a specific group? If not, then how can they be "more bad" if they are? Unequal application of punishment only furthers the divide it seeks to remedy.

Another area would be corporate taxes. I think it was someone on this board that made me think about corporate taxes differently. Citizens bear the ultimate burden of all taxes, no matter at which point money is taxed. Corporate taxes result in sort of a "hidden fee" that divorces citizens from the cost of government, and promotes greater corporate influence on government. Of course, with shifting the corporate tax burden to the citizenry, the devil is in the details, and I doubt I would have the same ideas as someone in the top 1%.

There are probably a lot of areas where I differ with my ideological brethren, but these are just a couple to get discussion started. Where do you differ with yours?

1. Drugs and other vice laws
2. Capital Punishment
3. Climate Change
4. Islam
5. Cutting Defense Spending

There are more, but many are only partial disagreement.

Capital Punishment might be another area where I differ, but it's nuanced. I'm not against a death sentence for someone who has indisputably committed a crime worthy such a sentence, but if it's possible a single person can be wrongly sentenced to death, I'm against the punishment as a whole.

From my youth to not-so-youth I moved from being decidedly right-wing to much more moderate, if not even a bit liberal (at least by the US scale), but the biggest issue where I split with most of that ilk is on the legality of abortion. While I think most of the tactics used by social conservatives are ineffective at best and often entirely miss the true root causes of the issue, I definitely come down on their side ideologically.

Vander wrote:We are all unique people with unique perspectives. We tend to seek out and identify with a larger group of similar minded people with an emphasis on issues that matter most to us. I'm of the opinion that focusing on what makes us similar to our ideological brethren divides the whole. It squashes nuance. It lightens white and darkens black, when life is actually grey.

With that in mind, what are some areas where you differ with those you mostly agree with?

One area where I differ with my liberal comrades is hate crime legislation. I lean toward the "all crime is hate crime" side of the spectrum. Is a murderer "less bad" if his actions are not directed toward a specific group? If not, then how can they be "more bad" if they are? Unequal application of punishment only furthers the divide it seeks to remedy.

Another area would be corporate taxes. I think it was someone on this board that made me think about corporate taxes differently. Citizens bear the ultimate burden of all taxes, no matter at which point money is taxed. Corporate taxes result in sort of a "hidden fee" that divorces citizens from the cost of government, and promotes greater corporate influence on government. Of course, with shifting the corporate tax burden to the citizenry, the devil is in the details, and I doubt I would have the same ideas as someone in the top 1%.

There are probably a lot of areas where I differ with my ideological brethren, but these are just a couple to get discussion started. Where do you differ with yours?

I wouldn't call anyone 'my tribe' in terms of ideological stances- and although many lefties here regard me as a hardcore conservative, I'm most definitely NOT.

I'm an atheist.

I believe in secular government- a division of church and state; though not going overboard to hunt down every Christmas tree and baby Jesus in 'the wrong place' in small town America.

In my heart, I do not agree with abortion except in the cases where a woman has been impregnated against her will (by rape, statutory rape, etc.) If people (ADULTS) willingly take the risks of RISKY behavior- they should have to accept the consequences.

On capital punishment- like Vander said, I would probably be against it unless there is indisputable proof (like the Boston Marathon bombers on tape planting the bombs that killed several people.) You can't bring people back from the dead if you wrongly convict someone.

Weird, I was thinking hard about this and realized I don't have a "tribe." My network of friends is widely varied. However, there is one thing that seems to be a dividing line between me and a fairly sizable chunk of friends, and that has to do with those who are categorically against vaccines, GMO's, and anything that sounds too "science-y." Most of them have convinced themselves they have looked at the facts, yet can't answer simple fact-based questions about the subjects they are against. I usually just shake my head and feel embarrassed for them.

vision wrote:Weird, I was thinking hard about this and realized I don't have a "tribe." My network of friends is widely varied. However, there is one thing that seems to be a dividing line between me and a fairly sizable chunk of friends, and that has to do with those who are categorically against vaccines, GMO's, and anything that sounds too "science-y." Most of them have convinced themselves they have looked at the facts, yet can't answer simple fact-based questions about the subjects they are against. I usually just shake my head and feel embarrassed for them.

Without genetic modification (which has been done for essentially hundreds of years through selective breeding- not just the last few decades,) we would not be able to support the population of human beings that exist on this planet.

That being said, like any advancement- GMOs have the potential to be just as destructive through unintended consequence and outright greed. (Terminator seeds, unintended pollination outside of GMO fields, super viruses created out of 'scientific curiousity' that are 200% more lethal to humans, etc.)

Vaccines are wonderful tools to have and have saved millions of lives, but there have been accidents with bad batches, allergic reaction deaths and so on (small isolated incidents on the whole.)

There isn't an 'all or nothing' answer.

Honestly Jeff, I'm so individualistic that I disagree with roughly 50% of what the people I know agree with. I simply cannot think of anyone who I agree with completely on everything, or even mostly everything. So it's really hard for me to actually pin down a definite area.

I worry about the unintended consequences of things like GM crops and vaccines. They have undeniable benefits, but they raise issues, for me, in their disturbance of the natural order. Is artificially "curing" a disease better in the long run than allowing those susceptible to the disease to be culled and allowing our species to evolve immunity? Are these diseases necessary population control?

I don't know the answers, and I worry not enough are asking the questions.

as another said, my range of people in my life are so varied as to not really have a 'tribe'. Since many of you lump me into the left side of the political spectrum, I differ in many senses from that camp on environmental issues. I feel it to be unrealistic to demand an immediate end to the extraction and use of oil and gas, while rejecting nuclear and coal, because that simply isn't realistic at the present time. While I see the end goals, I know we use far too much electricity for the alternatives to cover the needs. In short, I tend to militantly reject any position that demands absolute solutions, right or left.

Ooh, that brings up another good point: I find anyone who's pushing for cleaner energy production yet treats nuclear power as a taboo boogeyman to be an utter fool. Nuclear energy causes by far the least harm per capita out of any power generation source (yes, even including wind turbines), and the only gas you're producing is water vapor. Yes, waste mitigation remains an issue, but a manageable one, and if fusion research can produce concrete net-gain results, it largely becomes a non-issue. Three Mile Island was a non-event, Chernobyl an antiquated design that still would have worked just fine if its operators hadn't intentionally sabotaged every single failsafe, and Fukushima (another older design) actually successfully survived one of the strongest earthquakes ever recorded, and was only done in by a nigh-apocalyptic scenario and poor backup generator placement. I hate when FUD gets in the way of what should be an obvious choice.

Top Gun wrote: Fukushima (another older design) actually successfully survived one of the strongest earthquakes ever recorded, and was only done in by a nigh-apocalyptic scenario and poor backup generator placement. I hate when FUD gets in the way of what should be an obvious choice.

Fukushima isn't done yet- as a disaster. Tepco has only recently admitted that their attempts at containment have utterly failed and tons of contaminated water are pouring into the Pacific. Heaven knows when/if we'll know the full impact.

Not only that- but the piles of spent and broken fuel rods still have to be plucked out of leaky cooling ponds like some kind of nightmarish game of Jenga or pick-up sticks. Apocalyptic ravings about how these could irradiate us all abound:

Will it kill us all? Probably not. It's most likely some nasty middling thing that will haunt Japan like Chernobyl haunts Ukraine.

Of course, there's the opposite side: Backyard nuclear reactors for everyone!

what could possibly go wrong with one's own nuke reactor in the backyard?

Fukushima is definitely a major issue and will probably remain as such for decades, but it is frustrating to see these dire predictions from people who don't have any real grasp of how radiation works. (I watched that first video...Japan gone? Evacuate the west coast? Do you even geography, bro?) Like I alluded to above, even given how apocalyptic that earthquake and tsunami were, something as simple as placing those backup diesel generators at the highest point in the complex would have stabilized the situation...or in the broader sense, perhaps avoiding building nuclear reactors along the coastline of a country that's historically tsunami-prone. In that sense, the form of power generation shouldn't be blamed, but instead simple lack of foresight, which applies universally (see: BP in the Gulf).

callmeslick wrote:...In short, I tend to militantly reject any position that demands absolute solutions, right or left.

As long as you actively fund and vote for either the R's or the D's, using the typical excuses that you 'need to stop the D's or R's'....well, you aren't even close to 'rejecting the absolute'!
The most dangerous and harmful absolute is the status quo, and any part you play in perpetuating that is the antithesis to militant rejection.

I tend to be a cat and very individualistic. I don't agree with most people, except my husband, who is part of my small tribe anyway.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...In short, I tend to militantly reject any position that demands absolute solutions, right or left.

As long as you actively fund and vote for either the R's or the D's, using the typical excuses that you 'need to stop the D's or R's'....well, you aren't even close to 'rejecting the absolute'!
The most dangerous and harmful absolute is the status quo, and any part you play in perpetuating that is the antithesis to militant rejection.

funny, you have no real clue what the details of my work(both parties in the past 20 years) or voting record(never voted a straight ticket, ever), yet you chose to, rather than state you own thoughts about yourself, attack me. Now, get back in line with the rest of the lemmings and allow this discussion to continue apace.

callmeslick wrote:...funny, you have no real clue what the details of my work(both parties in the past 20 years) or voting record(never voted a straight ticket, ever), yet you chose to, rather than state you own thoughts about yourself, attack me. Now, get back in line with the rest of the lemmings and allow this discussion to continue apace.

Lol, I tell you that support for either of the two parties is proof of maintaining the status quo and you try to prove you aren't that person by....bragging about how you....support both parties?!?!

You are so defensive you don't even understand how silly that is. Well, I guess we know I struck a nerve...

And you consider it an "attack" when someone challenges you with an alternate opinion. Ideologue 101.
You then call me a lemming...lol. Projection 101.

Freshmen, lol.

Ok, you two. In keeping with this thread, what do you two like about each other?

This forum is nothing more than a dick waving competition. Mine is bigger than yours blah blah blah.
the sides have been chosen. Maybe everyone should take an objectivity break and read this forum for a few weeks without making a post. There is little to no discussion on a topic. There is little to no middle ground on a topic. No one wants to listen to or even cares what the other has to say. And there are several posters that go straight to ★■◆● mode with the intent of doing nothing but stirring up descension. And the rest of us devolve into that in 3 to 4 posts.

frankly, I thought Vander had a great post, and that all but one post subsequent in reply was speaking to his question. Odd point for you to jump in, CUDA, with a complaint, rather than put forth your take about yourself......

the fact still remains.

and FYI. I was speaking directly to his point

Yea, I was thinking this was a pretty good thread myself.

CUDA wrote:This forum is nothing more than a dick waving competition.

Maybe there's value in seeing everyone's dick.

I think the thread is great but Cuda is right on target. I started to list all the ways I depart from the conservative tribe I have been assigned to by many here. I am anti-conservative in many ways and listing it would do nothing.
The threads qualities are a dichotomy. Maybe it serves best by causing reflection and there is no need to take it outward. A great question with no proper 'forum'.

So instead I commented on something I saw wrong within it. Someone stretching their dick too much.

As to the question of what I like about slick, after thinking about it for a while, honestly, I don't know.
Maybe I truly don't like anything about him other than he is a fellow human. If Mars attacks I've got his back.

Vander wrote:

CUDA wrote:This forum is nothing more than a dick waving competition.

Maybe there's value in seeing everyone's dick.

beyond sheer amusement at the spectacle, I'm not so sure.....

CUDA wrote:This forum is nothing more than a dick waving competition. Mine is bigger than yours blah blah blah.
the sides have been chosen. Maybe everyone should take an objectivity break and read this forum for a few weeks without making a post. There is little to no discussion on a topic. There is little to no middle ground on a topic. No one wants to listen to or even cares what the other has to say. And there are several posters that go straight to ★■◆● mode with the intent of doing nothing but stirring up descension. And the rest of us devolve into that in 3 to 4 posts.

Hence, the main reason human beings start wars. The reason, "My tribe is better than your tribe and I'm going to prove it".

Will Robinson wrote:The threads qualities are a dichotomy. Maybe it serves best by causing reflection and there is no need to take it outward. A great question with no proper 'forum'.

The discussion is definitely meant to encourage reflection, which is a reward in and of itself, but it is also to find common ground. This is discussion, not war. Agreeing with "an opponent" on some issues may encourage respect for opposing views on other issues. Maybe not, but maybe! I don't see a negative. Unless the NSA is archiving this to disappear people in the dystopian future, in which case I was totally kidding about that thing I said.

I was talking to my dad today. We were discussing some history concerning his grandfather, my great grandfather. It came up that my dad's grandfather worked with another broker in a real estate firm in the early to mid-1900's selling property in an exclusive area of Portland. That other agent made a comment to my dad's grandfather that if any Negros or Jews came around looking to buy property, to turn them away posthaste. This agent didn't consider those people as the right type for that area. Not from the right white Anglo-Saxon tribe I'm guessing.

[youtube]xTkKSJSqU-I[/youtube]