NationStates Jolt Archive

Have you noticed differences? It seems to me that right-wingers tend to be more aggressive, while leftists tend to be more judgemental of their opponents. Am I wrong?

Have you noticed differences? It seems to me that right-wingers tend to be more aggressive, while leftists tend to be more judgemental of their opponents. Am I wrong?

yes, and i think you're stupid

Have you noticed differences? It seems to me that right-wingers tend to be more aggressive, while leftists tend to be more judgemental of their opponents. Am I wrong?
LOL! Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men! Da Shadow Do! :D

I have always wanted to conduct a study of the correlation between left-right tendencies and the degree of influence of fathers in the raising of their children. It has always seemed to me that the greater the influence of the father in a family, the more likely a child would be to become rightist. Just supposition on my part as of now. :)

*blinks* Spend some time on the DU boards, that will quickly quash any notion of lefties being non-aggressive. Both sides are agressive.

yes, and i think you're stupid
Which are you?

*blinks* Spend some time on the DU boards, that will quickly quash any notion of lefties being non-aggressive. Both sides are agressive.

They also go after anyone who disagrees with the accepted dogma. It's also the same with Free Republic's "dogma police" (their arch enemy), so it's true for the extreme on both sides.

I'm economically conservative and socially libertarian, and rarely act aggressive or judgemental. That doesn't mean I don't keep up the attack, just not in an aggressive manner.

I'm economically conservative and socially libertarian, and rarely act aggressive or judgemental. That doesn't mean I don't keep up the attack, just not in an aggressive manner.
This is true. I don't really believe that stuff I wrote. I just needed to put in some original thought! I really just wanted to see if people thought there were differences.

PS Ravenshrike, I think I'll pass on the invite to the DU boards.

Have you noticed differences? It seems to me that right-wingers tend to be more aggressive, while leftists tend to be more judgemental of their opponents. Am I wrong?
I judge you to be totally wrong. But in a very passive way I pass my judgement upon thee. :D

This is true. I don't really believe that stuff I wrote. I just needed to put in some original thought! I really just wanted to see if people thought there were differences.

PS Ravenshrike, I think I'll pass on the invite to the DU boards.

I think it depends on how far from the center you get; the extremes' beliefs are so diametric to each other that they can't remain civil but flare up aggressively; the extreme left tends to be more condescending and elitist/judgemental to the right while the extreme right tends to use more ad-hominem attacks and labelling on the left.

Although on NS, the far-left posters are more eloquent and civil than the far-right, which is mostly semiliterate trolling. That doesn't mean they can't be abrasive from time to time, but overall they are civil debators.

It has always seemed to me that the greater the influence of the father in a family, the more likely a child would be to become rightist.

I volunteer to be the exception that proves your rule. My father was very involved (until he died when I was 16) and also very rightist, but I'm about as far leftist as it gets in ?America. My younger brother has always been right of center but as he grows up, he's moving left. (That's backwards, isn't it? Most people move right as they age and gain wealth.)

Yes, more right...........*falls down*

I'm a lefty. Both political and left handed.

Which are you?

:rolleyes: That's the point. It doesn't matter.

Yes, more right...........*falls down*

I'm a lefty. Both political and left handed.

Hey! Me too. Who else is with us?

They also go after anyone who disagrees with the accepted dogma. It's also the same with Free Republic's "dogma police" (their arch enemy), so it's true for the extreme on both sides.

I'm economically conservative and socially libertarian, and rarely act aggressive or judgemental. That doesn't mean I don't keep up the attack, just not in an aggressive manner.
I think it comes down to whether your political beliefs are very personal and you approach each issue as a new problem to be solved rationally, or whether you joined a team and have a predetermined answer for everything.

Have you noticed differences? It seems to me that right-wingers tend to be more aggressive, while leftists tend to be more judgemental of their opponents. Am I wrong?
If you ask me, the PC left tends to be, well, just that. Way to f--king PC for me.

I think it comes down to whether your political beliefs are very personal and you approach each issue as a new problem to be solved rationally, or whether you joined a team and have a predetermined answer for everything.

That's what it is. The more extreme you get, the less and less your beliefs are tied to rationality, and you have to band together to defend your dogma against it; the end result is the tendency to spout predetermined answers and then insult anyone who disagrees with your dogma. The extreme right/left really are a political cult, if you look at it.

That being said, there are people whose beliefs may be "extreme" on certain issues, but formed them rationally and defend them as such. They tend to be the ones who conflict with the dogmatic right/left.

Have you noticed differences? It seems to me that right-wingers tend to be more aggressive, while leftists tend to be more judgemental of their opponents. Am I wrong?
I'm a right-handed lefty.

*judges you aggressively*

Although on NS, the far-left posters are more eloquent and civil than the far-right, which is mostly semiliterate trolling.
Yes I have noticed this too. Melkor Unchained is a very notable exception to this, however.

Yes, more right...........*falls down*

I'm a lefty. Both political and left handed.

Hey! Me too. Who else is with us?

Sinister sons of bitches. ;)

Yes I have noticed this too. Melkor Unchained is a very notable exception to this, however.

Exception to the rule; unfortunately, he's outshadowed by the "jews/fags/communsts r gonig to hell!" tripe from the neofascists.

That's what it is. The more extreme you get, the less and less your beliefs are tied to rationality, and you have to band together to defend your dogma against it; the end result is the tendency to spout predetermined answers and then insult anyone who disagrees with your dogma. The extreme right/left really are a political cult, if you look at it.

That being said, there are people whose beliefs may be "extreme" on certain issues, but formed them rationally and defend them as such. They tend to be the ones who conflict with the dogmatic right/left.

I really couldn't agree with you more here. It really does beg the question as to why moderation is so uncommon these days. :confused:

Though referring to a different situation, I think the following old adage used by the mechanicly inept also sums up the style differences between left-wing and right-wing:
Righty tighty, lefty losey.

I really couldn't agree with you more here. It really does beg the question as to why moderation is so uncommon these days. :confused:

Really, it stems from the 2000 election, and was intensified by 9/11, Iraq, and the 2004 election. Those two killed moderate voices because the extremes have been so good at demonizing them on the public stage. Those events also caused a lot of irrational thinking; I mean, immediately after 9/11 66% of Americans supported ceding civil liberties for security, and 70+% supported sealing the borders for the duration of the War on Terror!

The 2004 election was probably the crest of the extremist voice in America; that is combined with the nearing pullout from Iraq and improving domestic affairs (like the economy).

...right-wingers tend to be more aggressive, while leftists tend to be more judgemental of their opponents. Am I wrong?
Which is hilariously ironic because most Leftist philosophies do not like the idea of an individual making a moral pronouncement or judgement. At least to me it seems that the collective morality is vastly more important to these people: it's Primacy of Consciousness at it's worst.

But no, you're not exactly wrong either. My views are generally denounced as being 'too selfish' rather than in any constructive or rational fashion [with a few rare exceptions]: tell me something I don't know, for once.

EDIT: And I hate that "far right wing" label: I hate conservatives and reactionaries with equal vigor. In fact, it may surprise you to learn that I have a more pronounced distate for the political right in my country than I do for the left.

The thing I hate the most about the Democrats right now is the fact that I hate them less than the Republicans.

LOL! Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men! Da Shadow Do! :D

I have always wanted to conduct a study of the correlation between left-right tendencies and the degree of influence of fathers in the raising of their children. It has always seemed to me that the greater the influence of the father in a family, the more likely a child would be to become rightist. Just supposition on my part as of now. :)

Well, influential in a positive or in a negative way?
And, assuming that the father is a firm communist, in what way would his influence determine the political orientation of his children?
Assuming he is extreme right, would that then mean his kids will turn out the same?

Really, it stems from the 2000 election, and was intensified by 9/11, Iraq, and the 2004 election. Those two killed moderate voices because the extremes have been so good at demonizing them on the public stage. Those events also caused a lot of irrational thinking; I mean, immediately after 9/11 66% of Americans supported ceding civil liberties for security, and 70+% supported sealing the borders for the duration of the War on Terror!

The 2004 election was probably the crest of the extremist voice in America; that is combined with the nearing pullout from Iraq and improving domestic affairs (like the economy).

I hate to burst your bubble but if you think any mainstream political movement in this country is "radical" you are really in for a surprise.

... on NS, the far-left posters are more eloquent and civil than the far-right, which is mostly semiliterate trolling. That doesn't mean they can't be abrasive from time to time, but overall they are civil debators.
LOL! You've obviously not been reading the same posts I have been. :D

I hate to burst your bubble but if you think any mainstream political movement in this country is "radical" you are really in for a surprise.

Radical in the sense of US politics, of course. This statement applies to those organizations whose political views are extreme by our standards.

LOL! You've obviously not been reading the same posts I have been. :D

I guess I don't attract the same...emotion...as you. :D

Man I thought this was going to be a thread about the differences about how right handed vs left handed people speak. What a waste of a good thread name.

I think many on NS whether right, left,moderate have been judgemental and aggressive. The stereotype presented in this thread is constantly being proven and disproven on this board daily. I have seen posters who were rightist and leftist who were very judgemental. I have seen leftist and rightist who were very aggressive. I have seen both sides be eloquent and again I have seen both sides act in trollish manners. There are too many other factors in play to say it is a right/left tendency. Examples of other variables that could explain anyones tendency torwards being judgemental and or aggressive;education level, life experiences, environment, age, culture and so on.


Oh btw... I forgot my favorite variable... sleep deprivation lol.

Well, influential in a positive or in a negative way?
And, assuming that the father is a firm communist, in what way would his influence determine the political orientation of his children?
Assuming he is extreme right, would that then mean his kids will turn out the same?
Interesting questions, but ones to which I don't have answers, perhaps because ... the study hasn't been like ... conducted yet! :D

Just as side note, I'd just like to point out that being judgemental is not necessarily a bad thing: it can be when you allow your emotions to get the better of you, but the fact of the matter is we judge things and people every day. This "Judge not, that ye be not judged" garbage is bullshit because if we were to go our entire lives without judging a human being we'd never make any friends or forge any lasting relationships: any time you appreciate someone it is invariably because s/he/it appeals to your values in some manner. Taking away the ability to make that evaluation would be taking away part of what makes us human.

Judge, and prepare to be judged.

Just as side note, I'd just like to point out that being judgemental is not necessarily a bad thing: it can be when you allow your emotions to get the better of you, but the fact of the matter is we judge things and people every day. This "Judge not, that ye be not judged" garbage is bullshit because if we were to go our entire lives without judging a human being we'd never make any friends or forge any lasting relationships: any time you appreciate someone it is invariably because s/he/it appeals to your values in some manner. Taking away the ability to make that evaluation would be taking away part of what makes us human.

I would say judging is perfectly fine; after all, no criminals would go to jail if we didn't judge and no one would report crimes based upons suspicious behavior. Judging is fine as long as your judgements are reasonable and based upon observation and logic; what is wrong is prejudice without observation or logic (there are some situations where prejudice is inevitable; if I see a crowd of threatening-looking young men late at night in the inner city, I'm going to be suspicious. It's a survival mechanism).

Just as side note, I'd just like to point out that being judgemental is not necessarily a bad thing: it can be when you allow your emotions to get the better of you, but the fact of the matter is we judge things and people every day. This "Judge not, that ye be not judged" garbage is bullshit because if we were to go our entire lives without judging a human being we'd never make any friends or forge any lasting relationships: any time you appreciate someone it is invariably because s/he/it appeals to your values in some manner. Taking away the ability to make that evaluation would be taking away part of what makes us human.

Judge, and prepare to be judged.

I have to agree with you. Judgement as a term is often perceived as being negative. The word itself is neutral. Like a tool it can be misused or used effectively. Another term that is often seen in a negative light is discrimination. The term again is neutral.. It however has been used frequently to define the negative choices of others thus it now conveys to many a negative aura.

EDIT: And I hate that "far right wing" label: I hate conservatives and reactionaries with equal vigor. In fact, it may surprise you to learn that I have a more pronounced distate for the political right in my country than I do for the left.

The thing I hate the most about the Democrats right now is the fact that I hate them less than the Republicans.
That's because there isn't really a left wing in your country. Or at least, it's not as extreme as the right wing in your country.

Sinister sons of bitches. ;)

That was a dexter-ous joke.

Well it isn't too smart to call people by either left or right. If you were to classify ME by either left or right, I would be on the top (Bush is on the bottom).

That was a dexter-ous joke.

Yes... yes it was.

I think it depends on how far from the center you get; the extremes' beliefs are so diametric to each other that they can't remain civil but flare up aggressively; the extreme left tends to be more condescending and elitist/judgemental to the right while the extreme right tends to use more ad-hominem attacks and labelling on the left.

Although on NS, the far-left posters are more eloquent and civil than the far-right, which is mostly semiliterate trolling. That doesn't mean they can't be abrasive from time to time, but overall they are civil debators.



As if! Although the radical leftists do type better than the radical rightists...I chalk it up to coincidence :D

Have you noticed differences? It seems to me that right-wingers tend to be more aggressive, while leftists tend to be more judgemental of their opponents. Am I wrong?
hermmm...whatsh 'bout ush totalitarians?

i'm not so shure i'd be a good example, but what about someone like that person who's name i always forgot that start's with t and starts "join the american fasict party" threads every once and a while?

In my most honest oppinion I see the political right, the one that is currently in power as being very highly detached from reality and the future of this nation. They blab on with the war on terror dogma, and focus the majority of the nation's resources there while letting the economy slip and the state of education plummet. Not to mention, I don't see them bracing the nation for this whole "Rise of Asia" thing. Who knows, maybe some on the left are equally detatched from reality, but the Republicans seem to be the most well-advertised extremists.

In my most honest oppinion I see the political right, the one that is currently in power as being very highly detached from reality and the future of this nation. They blab on with the war on terror dogma, and focus the majority of the nation's resources there while letting the economy slip and the state of education plummet. Not to mention, I don't see them bracing the nation for this whole "Rise of Asia" thing. Who knows, maybe some on the left are equally detatched from reality, but the Republicans seem to be the most well-advertised extremists.



How odd that the leftists tend to forget that we have many people who want to blow us up. The War on Terror is not mere dogma but irrefutable reality.

LOL! Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men! Da Shadow Do! :D

I have always wanted to conduct a study of the correlation between left-right tendencies and the degree of influence of fathers in the raising of their children. It has always seemed to me that the greater the influence of the father in a family, the more likely a child would be to become rightist. Just supposition on my part as of now. :)

Hmm....This may or may not be true.

When my parents split and I moved in with my mom (5 years ago or so), I was quite liberal, at least a lot more so than I am now. I moved back in with my Dad 2 years ago, and lo and behold, I moved quite to the right. However, my ideology is not quite the same as his. He's a moderate conservative, and I'm more of a moderate libertarian. But both still republicans :D

sorry, I wanted to say "Iraq." Afghanistan was fine, but because people do want to blow us up doesn't mean we should throw everything else to the wind.

How odd that the leftists tend to forget that we have many people who want to blow us up. The War on Terror is not mere dogma but irrefutable reality.
And here comes NR, introducing bashing into what used to be a civil debate. :rolleyes:

(Psst. You're a leftist NR. Socialism is on the left. Stop confusing liberal with left.)

How odd that the leftists tend to forget that we have many people who want to blow us up. The War on Terror is not mere dogma but irrefutable reality.

The War on Terror is a straw man. People have wanted to blow the US up from the start, it's nothing new, indeed I doubt the danger at this time is massively greater than twenty years ago. Unfortunately, the more people you piss off, the greater the danger index rises...

And here comes NR, introducing bashing into what used to be a civil debate. :rolleyes:

(Psst. You're a leftist NR. Socialism is on the left. Stop confusing liberal with left.)

It wasn't her that started the bashing.

In my most honest oppinion I see the political right, the one that is currently in power as being very highly detached from reality and the future of this nation. They blab on with the war on terror dogma, and focus the majority of the nation's resources there while letting the economy slip and the state of education plummet. Not to mention, I don't see them bracing the nation for this whole "Rise of Asia" thing. Who knows, maybe some on the left are equally detatched from reality, but the Republicans seem to be the most well-advertised extremists.

LOL! Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men! Da Shadow Do! :D

I have always wanted to conduct a study of the correlation between left-right tendencies and the degree of influence of fathers in the raising of their children. It has always seemed to me that the greater the influence of the father in a family, the more likely a child would be to become rightist. Just supposition on my part as of now. :)

Actually, my father was extremely invested in my upbringing and I'm a rabid communist. I think it deals more with location.

It wasn't her that started the bashing.
Ah. Misread that post. She still should have ignored it.

This isn't the case at all, SwimmingPool. I think we've all seen our fair share of macho-flashers from the left and the right (it's a plitical board for all persuasions, this is to be expected).

However, if you're looking for honest comparisons, one couldn't be made due to the overwhelming majority of leftists on these forums (take a look at your map). There's a larger pool of all types of debators on the left, both reactionary and levelheaded.

It does seem to be the case that Social leftists tend to be more objective and proficient at posting. They are much better at discrediting the Right. There are differences between libertarians and leftists, and I, personally think that leftists tend towards more objectivity and use more facts, but this is not the case with everyone.

It does seem to be the case that Social leftists tend to be more objective and proficient at posting. They are much better at discrediting the Right. There are differences between libertarians and leftists, and I, personally think that leftists tend towards more objectivity and use more facts, but this is not the case with everyone.



Well I'm sure a leftist would think so, I, on the other hand, think social rightists do a better job of discrediting the left :D

Well I'm sure a leftist would think so, I, on the other hand, think social rightists do a better job of discrediting the left :D


I'm trying to be objective NR, let's put Cat-Tribe and the best Righty together, and see who would win in a best 2 out of 3 competition. Inevitably, the right does a worse job of discrediting the left, because they have a tendency to support the systems of government and political choices of their leaders. Naturally, governments do some very stupid things, and someone who rejects every notion of government, or at least most of it, has infinitely more ammunition to discredit someone who supports government.

Well I'm sure a leftist would think so, I, on the other hand, think social rightists do a better job of discrediting the left :D
There's no such thing as a "social rightist". Left and right refer to one's stance on economic issues. You are a socialist, and therefore a leftist, as I have pointed out. So why are you attacking the left and praising the right?

Well I'm sure a leftist would think so, I, on the other hand, think social rightists do a better job of discrediting the left :D

In America at the present, you are right. They don't do it by using reason and facts though. They do it by more effectively "name branding," ideas and having greater corporate support (funding.)

Funding fundies. say it three times fast. It's fun.

There's no such thing as a "social rightist". Left and right refer to one's stance on economic issues. You are a socialist, and therefore a leftist, as I have pointed out. So why are you attacking the left and praising the right?



Actually there is. There are two spectrums of left and right: The economic and the social. Now, the political compass put moralistic/permissive on the Y-axis, but most political scholars do recognize the two versions of left and right.

Have you noticed differences? It seems to me that right-wingers tend to be more aggressive, while leftists tend to be more judgemental of their opponents. Am I wrong?
Yeah, you're wrong. :D

In America at the present, you are right. They don't do it by using reason and facts though. They do it by more effectively "name branding," ideas and having greater corporate support (funding.)

Funding fundies. say it three times fast. It's fun.



Why are you trying to start a flame war? I always get accused to starting them, when I try to make peace...then someone comes in and posts flamebait that I inevitably bite :rolleyes:

Actually there is. There are two spectrums of left and right: The economic and the social. Now, the political compass put moralistic/permissive on the Y-axis, but most political scholars do recognize the two versions of left and right.
Wrong. The economic axis is left and right, and the social axis is generally referred to as liberal and conservative, but is more properly libertarian and authoritarian. I have yet to see a single political scientist who applies "left" and "right" to the social axis.

Have you noticed differences? It seems to me that right-wingers tend to be more aggressive, while leftists tend to be more judgemental of their opponents. Am I wrong?In my experience (and I stress it is only my experience) yes, you are.

There tend to be left/right divides through most issues, obviously. Generally speaking, in areas where the sides are brought into the most acute conflict (say, "pro-life" versus "pro-choice", or evolution versus creationism), I'm reminded strongly of the end of Orwell's "Animal Farm":

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.It seems to me that both sides use precisely the same tactics to oppose each other, even to the extent that they simply turn accusations made against them around and return them to the accuser. This is particularly noticeable in creation versus evolution discussions, where any science advocate calling creationists fundamentalist religious fanatics, for example, will themselves be accused of being fundamentalist religious fanatics. Science advocates claiming to have the advantage of reason will simply face creationists arguing that it is they, in fact, who have the advantage of reason. And so on.

And the reader looks from pig to man and from man to pig...

Why are you trying to start a flame war? I always get accused to starting them, when I try to make peace...then someone comes in and posts flamebait that I inevitably bite :rolleyes:

This was not intended as flamebait.

You're a biter, are you? Hmmmm.

Why are you trying to start a flame war? I always get accused to starting them, when I try to make peace...then someone comes in and posts flamebait that I inevitably bite :rolleyes:
Expressing one's opinion is not flamebait, NR.

I guess it's more upon where you fall on the spectrum, and of course, everyone is different, but broadly speaking, I see more rights dealing in absolutes. The more authorative or religious that poster is, the more black and white their world view is (Though economics seems to do so as well).

The lefts tend to be much more subtle in their posts and their world is filled with shades of gray.

As an example, NR would post that abortion is wrong due to God saying so. Period, no exceptions allowed.

Whereas Cat-Tribe would respond with posting (after quoting various laws and court decisions) that notes the rights of women to their bodies, and while abortion IS bad, what about in the cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother?

Of course I also agree that BOTH extreams end up running into each other and seem more alike than different. ;)

In my experience (and I stress it is only my experience) yes, you are.

There tend to be left/right divides through most issues, obviously. Generally speaking, in areas where the sides are brought into the most acute conflict (say, "pro-life" versus "pro-choice", or evolution versus creationism), I'm reminded strongly of the end of Orwell's "Animal Farm":

It seems to me that both sides use precisely the same tactics to oppose each other, even to the extent that they simply turn accusations made against them around and return them to the accuser. This is particularly noticeable in creation versus evolution discussions, where any science advocate calling creationists fundamentalist religious fanatics, for example, will themselves be accused of being fundamentalist religious fanatics. Science advocates claiming to have the advantage of reason will simply face creationists arguing that it is they, in fact, who have the advantage of reason. And so on.

And the reader looks from pig to man and from man to pig...


But the left has the greater proportion of people who will try to be reasonable, instead of using flagrant flaming.

But the left has the greater proportion of people who will try to be reasonable, instead of using flagrant flaming.



Not from what I've seen :p

Not from what I've seen :p


I've been on these forums a long, long time. That's what I've seen. BTW, we're both christians, if you haven't noticed already.

But the left has the greater proportion of people who will try to be reasonable, instead of using flagrant flaming.
Now there's an idea, flag down the next Mod and ask them to compile stats on who gets warned or banded the most often.

Not from what I've seen :p
Yeah, well you tend to view the world in a particularly self-righteous way, so I can't say I'm surprised by that statement.

Now there's an idea, flag down the next Mod and ask them to compile stats on who gets warned or banded the most often.

I'd also like to see which "side" goes to the mods with frivolous complaints more.

I'd also like to see which "side" goes to the mods with frivolous complaints more.
I could say something about that given the amount of complaints currently on the Mod page from some individuals, but I'll be nice.

I could say something about that given the amount of complaints currently on the Mod page from some individuals, but I'll be nice.
No kidding--I just started a thread over there about how it seems there an awful lot of really thin skins lately. What's up with that? I was accused of flaming a couple of nights ago when all I really did was make a snarky comment about the clumsy way a person phrased something. If I screw something up in a post, and I get called on it, I laugh it off, admit to being careless, and go on--I don't call it flaming.

No kidding--I just started a thread over there about how it seems there an awful lot of really thin skins lately. What's up with that? I was accused of flaming a couple of nights ago when all I really did was make a snarky comment about the clumsy way a person phrased something. If I screw something up in a post, and I get called on it, I laugh it off, admit to being careless, and go on--I don't call it flaming.

Plain talk sometimes causes people to come perilously close to questioning tightly held beliefs. That's why they find it offensive.

LOL! Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men! Da Shadow Do! :D

I have always wanted to conduct a study of the correlation between left-right tendencies and the degree of influence of fathers in the raising of their children. It has always seemed to me that the greater the influence of the father in a family, the more likely a child would be to become rightist. Just supposition on my part as of now. :)

My dad's been quite influencial on me, but I've never really leaned conservatively.

Oddly enough he seems to be moving alot to the left recently whereas before he was always centre/right.

We were going well, but people started jumping on Neo Rogolia. Not like that, you filthy, filthy boy. Anyway... there may be an element of truth in what SwimmingPool states in his opening post but there are, inevitably, subtleties. I wouldn't say that NS is dominated by the 'left', at least not in the traditional sense (though on the whole the broad left forms the clear majority). The preponderance of ordinarily minority views is what really stands out for me. Proper socialists, right and left libertarians - these aren't conventional views in the outside world. The group most notable for its absence is the political centre.

My father had very little influence on my views as I grew up. He's a proper woolly centrist liberal (remember liberal =/= left!) though, so chances are he would have had little influence on me anyway. As for my mother, she's all over the shop but voted Conservative, until I persuaded her to be less cynical. She then voted Green!

I'm not sure what made me a 'leftist'. Possibly the books I read in my teens were coming from a liberal and left wing perspective, though none were explicitly so. I grew up in a conservative area, went to a school with kids from conservative backgrounds but with teachers that, with hindsight, tended to the left, perhaps. The stereotype would suggest that I ought to have turned out a typical Lib Dem, but somewhere along the way I careered into the loonyleftville.

Still, NS is an undouubted influence - it's both radicalised my social liberalism and softened my economic leftism.

Please excuse the ramble; I hope some of this was in some way pertinent to the discussion.

I'm a centre-leftist, and I'd say its just about equal on this forum, in terms of people using bad language, poor arguments and an aggressive tone. Of course, there are vastly larger numbers of leftists here, so that may tip the scale somewhat.

The group most notable for its absence is the political centre.I'd like to present myself as one representative of that particular group.

I base that claim on observation more than a conscious decision to align myself in that way. I have spent many years on net forums of one sort or another and have been denounced more or less equally (you know what I mean) as authoritarian fascist and whinging lefty liberal who hates America (despite living in the UK). For example, I believe that capital punishment should be an option available for dealing with criminals who are an otherwise uncontrollable threat (fascist); and I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry (bleeding-heart liberal). Getting attacked by both sides must mean I'm similarly distant from both extremes.

Although... Maybe I'm not a centrist at all. Maybe I'm just confused. :eek:

It seems to me that rational views are seen by most people with complete apathy. Whilst I think that rational discussion is the best way to work something out, nothing gets people motivated more than an extreme founded in emotion rather than logic. Hence, a rational argument against this is usually ignored, so an irrational emotional argument is usually made to counter it. he best way to form an opinion is to play devils advocate with yourself, to make suyre your beliefs aren't hipocritical or ignorant.

I think what makes a difference is whether you're prepared to accept you're wrong, even in matters you're so self assured about. Other than that, I think in general liberals are more concerned with happiness and well-being, and conservatives about money and progress.

(I'm a liberal by the way)

I have noticed that leftwingers are more emotional and insulting, while conservatives are still emotional and insulting, generally more rational in criticism. The Left tends to attack the person, while the right attacks the idea and the person.
Right "These points are what is wrong with your belief"
Left "You nazi!"

I tend to find that when I argue with the left I get a constructed arguement back that attemps to convince me to their point of view. I tend to disagree and try put a constructed arguement back. Generally there is not much abuse.

When i argue with the right I tend to get all sorts of abuse, threats of burning in hell, called a fag, "we'll kill you all if we invade", "we could bomb your country any tme we want". You name it i've been called it by the right.

Where did you find all the intelligent lefties, all the ones in Australia are rabid.

The center goes unnoticed because they don't tend to have a set of talking points preselected and therefore have no reason to shout about every issue. By the time most of us that are unaffiliated have made up our minds, the right and left have devolved into personal attacks and we want nothing to do with it.

Either that, or nobody recognizes the center because the left thinks they are right wingers and the right thinks they are liberals. I venture to guess that is the way most people who have noticed me at all think of me so far.

The center goes unnoticed because they don't tend to have a set of talking points preselected and therefore have no reason to shout about every issue. By the time most of us that are unaffiliated have made up our minds, the right and left have devolved into personal attacks and we want nothing to do with it.

Either that, or nobody recognizes the center because the left thinks they are right wingers and the right thinks they are liberals. I venture to guess that is the way most people who have noticed me at all think of me so far.

Well said, I feel very much the same way. And I agree with a previous poster that rational arguments are viewed with apathy. I observe that on average the more extreme the views the less courteous the posters tend to be.

On a side note, I wonder what psychological testing would reveal? Administer the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory to a large sample of self-identified extremists from either side. Maybe that would answer one aspect of the question of what the difference is between liberals and conservatives. Maybe the disposition to view the world from a certain narrow perspective has its roots in personality.

I have noticed that leftwingers are more emotional and insulting, while conservatives are still emotional and insulting, generally more rational in criticism. The Left tends to attack the person, while the right attacks the idea and the person.
Right "These points are what is wrong with your belief"
Left "You nazi!"

That's funny, I've found the opposite. Maybe because before I knew anything I was fairly conservative, and I can now see the faults in a lot of my old arguments. It seems to me (maybe because of the Murdoch press), that a lot of people who I know that know little, but still voice an opinion tend to be conservative. That's not in anyway to say that conservatives know very little. You have just as many people saying 'Bush sux loz0r'. But it depends where you go and who your arguing.

Well said, I feel very much the same way. And I agree with a previous poster that rational arguments are viewed with apathy. I observe that on average the more extreme the views the less courteous the posters tend to be.

Have your read any Bertrand Russell? One of my favourite philosophers who was also a rationalist.

http://www.threads.name/russell/index.html
http://www.threads.name/russell/rationalist.html


On a side note, I wonder what psychological testing would reveal? Administer the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory to a large sample of self-identified extremists from either side. Maybe that would answer one aspect of the question of what the difference is between liberals and conservatives. Maybe the disposition to view the world from a certain narrow perspective has its roots in personality.

That would be interesting. You can usually guess whether someone is liberal or conservative if you have a long enough conversation with them, even if they don't care about politics.

Have your read any Bertrand Russell? One of my favourite philosophers who was also a rationalist.

That would be interesting. You can usually guess whether someone is liberal or conservative if you have a long enough conversation with them, even if they don't care about politics.

Yes, I've read him, but it's been far too long - so thanks for the opportunity to re-read a bit.

I thought this applicable to the current topic:

"...we ought merely to say that there are a great many propositions about which men and women feel pretty certain, but, concerning which they have no right to feel certain, and it is our business as Rationalists to try to make them see that those things are not certain."

Regarding rationalism, at least regarding myself, I see it as a a pursuit of perfection, perhaps not fully attainable, but a lofty goal. The human condition is such that we are prone to making judgements using "fuzzy logic", and I too, despite my best intentions, do the same. Hopefully I use it well and objectively, though.

Perhaps the extremists, the topic of conversation, have a particularly bad case of the "fuzzies" when they reject any fact contrary to their opinion. Facts can be such a confusing thing. Perhaps this is the charm of humanity, though, and that which differentiates us from computers - and from what I understand, computer programmers are desperately trying to program "fuzzy logic" into computers to create artificial intelligence. Maybe "fuzzy logic" is acceptable under some circumstances after all.