NationStates Jolt Archive

Vote. Or else. :tongue:

It shares that trait with reality.

The trend I notice is a large following of rather moderate lefties with a smattering of righties most of which are fucking crazy righties.

nsg is a section of the internet. it has no bias.

we do seem to have more (american defintion) lefties than we do righties though.

Your poll is full of fail. I only like zombie stalins.

Left by what standards. The US?

It is probably slightly to the left when compared to general American society, but in terms of the rest of the world I doubt it. The forum is certainly *not* generally communist or even socialist, as some who have the idea that not wanting to abolish tax entirely automatically makes you a communist seem to like to alledge.

Left by what standards. The US?

Sure. Or by the wikipedia/dictionary definition.

........obviously. Conservatives are vastly outnumbered by Liberals here. Not saying it's a good or bad thing, but it is definitely true.

The entire Internet is biased to the left.

The entire Internet is biased to the left.

Clearly you havent been to nazi websites. :tongue:

........obviously. Conservatives are vastly outnumbered by Liberals here. Not saying it's a good or bad thing, but it is definitely true.

I have to point out that Adam Smith was a Liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism).

And there are some old polls about political opinions which confirm the subject of this thread.

The entire Internet is biased to the left.

The entire World is biased to the left.

So - it rather depends on your definitions, maybe.

If there was a bias towards the left the only option on this poll would be 'no'.

NS is a place where people can chew each other out and hope to claw at someone elses innards should they not agree with those opinions.

Oh wait, that's General...but NS in GENERAL would be more left leaning, I believe. I mean, you can do almost anything here in a Free Forum Based Discussion...so long as the topic isn't religious, saying Bush is the best President, and other stuff that is usually associated with the Right.

I don't see how an internetforum can be biased unless its admins, mods, etc., actively promote a certain political agenda, or actively discourage certain political views (as happens at a place like Stormfront). This doesn't happen here.

A lot of posters lean towards the libertarian left in their individual political views, but no political view is prevented from being discussed. So, no, NS:G isn't biased.

Of course NSG has a left leaning user population. I am not what you would call a neocon. I am Atheist, and my views are split right down the middle. I support the death penalty, gun rights, I am pro choice, I support further funding for education, am as anti animal rights as you can get, the list goes on and on.

Aye, it's left-leaning.

Of course NSG has a left leaning user population.
But that doesn't mean it has a bias (not that you're saying it is).

If a school's pupils are mostly caucasian, that doesn't mean the school is 'biased' towards caucasians.

But that doesn't mean it has a bias (not that you're saying it is).

If a school's pupils are mostly caucasian, that doesn't mean the school is 'biased' towards caucasians.

Like you said I never said it did. No, but the liberals on here seem to do is bash, degrade, and convert people that don't have a liberal point of view. Take CM for example. When he started, NSG completely changed him.

By American definition...
Yes we have more lefties than righties.

By European definition...
Almost everyone here is a righty.

FACT: Some Americans think that there are liberals in their nation while the whole nation sits on the right-wing spectrum of the political compass. Ralph Nader is the only politician who's close to liberal.

FACT: Some Americans think that there are liberals in their nation while the whole nation sits on the right-wing spectrum of the political compass. Ralph Nader is the only politician who's close to liberal.

Depending on your definition... if you use the classical definition, Ralph Nader is definitely not a liberal!

Like you said I never said it did. No, but the liberals on here seem to do is bash, degrade, and convert people that don't have a liberal point of view. Take CM for example. When he started, NSG completely changed him.

I wouldn't say completely but its been a progression (or regression perhaps from our point of view, iirc your political leanings)... very horrifying

Ralph Nader is the only US politician who's close to liberal.
What about Dennis "too-European-in-outlook-by-half" (may not be real nickname) Kucinich?

It ought to be, for various demographic reasons. :p

Like you said I never said it did. No, but the liberals on here seem to do is bash, degrade, and convert people that don't have a liberal point of view. Take CM for example. When he started, NSG completely changed him.

This is very true, but I daresay conservatives do the same thing, having witnessed it myself.

for there to be a bias you'd have to say that mods are shutting down "right leaning" posters which would be ridiculous.

so nope, no bias

What about Dennis "too-European-in-outlook-by-half" (may not be real nickname) Kucinich?

maybe not, but its a good nickname, I'll remember to use it the next time I find need t utter his name. Just makes me smile :)

(although by half may be a little low of an estimate)

No, but the liberals on here seem to do is bash, degrade, and convert people that don't have a liberal point of view.
I think there's a very vocal group of posters who tend to gang up on those who don't share their left-of-centre, libertarian leanings, but that's a minority of posters.

Take CM for example. When he started, NSG completely changed him.
Yes, but by his own admission IIRC, CM hadn't fully realised his political leanings before coming to the boards.

I find that most people on NSG are biased towards themselves >_>

By American definition...
Yes we have more lefties than righties.

By European definition...
Almost everyone here is a righty.

FACT: Some Americans think that there are liberals in their nation while the whole nation sits on the right-wing spectrum of the political compass. Ralph Nader is the only politician who's close to liberal.

Because the entire world is based on the European political spectrum, yah?

I mean, if I was, say, Thai, and said that all Americans were commie lefty scum, that'd be accurate, right? From a Thai point of view, I mean.

........obviously. Conservatives are vastly outnumbered by American Liberals here. Not saying it's a good or bad thing, but it is definitely true.

Fixed. Liberalism is different to what would be liberalism in the states.

NSG doesn't have a 'bias', that would give the impression that people are not being objective, based on what they believe.

Like you said I never said it did. No, but the liberals on here seem to do is bash, degrade, and convert people that don't have a liberal point of view. Take CM for example. When he started, NSG completely changed him.

Where as my views have strengthened since starting to post on NSG. CM was never really on the right side and besides he is only 13 (I hope I am thinking of the right person) and young minds are impressionable.

It always puzzles me why people see a bias to the left. It seems overall more right-leaning, if anything.

A better question might have been, is, do the majority of posters on NSG have a bias towards the left? The actual forum, as stated before, cannot. Unless the mods and admins advocate it.

Which we know they do. Secretly. Of course. :p

A better question might have been, is, do the majority of posters on NSG have a bias towards the left?
Why involve the word 'bias' at all?

Is it possible that NSG seems biased to the left to certain people because those people have a strong misconception of where the center is?

Political COmpass would support that idea.

As for me, I lean toward Wacky. :)

Why involve the word 'bias' at all?

Which word would you have used?

Which word would you have used?
"Does NS:G have more people on the lib-left?" or, much more simply, "What's your political leanings?".

Talk of bias implies posters are treating oposing views unfairly.

A lack of precise definitions and the usage of the term "bias" makes this debate rather worthless.

"Does NS:G have more people on the lib-left?" or, much more simply, "What's your political leanings?".

Talk of bias implies posters are treating oposing views unfairly.

That's already been done. I was hoping to spice things up a little more.
:tongue:

It shares that trait with reality.
... I clicked the thread and it took forever to load and I spent the time thinking about how to say effectively that (would have been a disjointed essay, if I know myself) - and there it is, perfectly concise in the second post.

<3

Obviously.

Political COmpass would support that idea.


And yet in every political compass census we do, the vast majority is left of the political compass's centre as well.

It is probably slightly to the left when compared to general American society, but in terms of the rest of the world I doubt it. The forum is certainly *not* generally communist or even socialist, as some who have the idea that not wanting to abolish tax entirely automatically makes you a communist seem to like to alledge.

Well, there was a political compass survey some time back. The forum average falls somewhere around -5,-5 --- slap bang in the middle of the libertarian left

It always puzzles me why people see a bias to the left. It seems overall more right-leaning, if anything.

Depends where you're looking at it from. From where I am, that's definitely true. But a reasonable comparison mechanism such as the political compass shows us it's definitely weighted lib-left.

I always figured NS was a libertarian crack house myself :confused:

start a thread on free trade and watch the crazy bees swarm over the poking stick!

Because the entire world is based on the European political spectrum, yah?

yes.

the rest of the planet tends to have a labour bloc and a conservative bloc which is how sociaty is generally drawn up politically

I mean, if I was, say, Thai, and said that all Americans were commie lefty scum, that'd be accurate, right? From a Thai point of view, I mean.

yeah sure, though [insert Thai prostitute joke]

Like you said I never said it did. No, but the liberals on here seem to do is bash, degrade, and convert people that don't have a liberal point of view. Take CM for example. When he started, NSG completely changed him.

And for the better I might add. I started as a ConserVative, and ended up a Libertarian. *Thanks everybody again, even those who didn't mean it*:tongue:

I always figured NS was a libertarian crack house myself :confused:

start a thread on free trade and watch the crazy bees swarm over the poking stick!

I didn't realize that three or four people was a swarm.

I didn't realize that three or four people was a swarm.

Indeed, in fact there are very few people who support free trade at all on NSG.

And for the better I might add. I started as a ConserVative, and ended up a Libertarian. *Thanks everybody again, even those who didn't mean it*:tongue:

now all we need to do is persuade you to go to the dark woods alone :p

I didn't realize that three or four people was a swarm.

welcome to the internet :wink:

Indeed, in fact there are very few people who support free trade at all on NSG.

hmm maybe you see more if you disagree with them :confused:

hmm maybe you see more if you disagree with them :confused:
Are you drunk again?:p

hmm maybe you see more if you disagree with them :confused:

Well again, all you need to do is look at the political compass results. Around the bottom right corner would be considered libertarian, there was very few people situated there. The majority of the people were squeezed into the middle of the bottom left quadrant.

Well, there was a political compass survey some time back. The forum average falls somewhere around -5,-5 --- slap bang in the middle of the libertarian left

Depends where you're looking at it from. From where I am, that's definitely true. But a reasonable comparison mechanism such as the political compass shows us it's definitely weighted lib-left.

I've got some reservations with the political compass as an accurate measurement.

Just from the first couple of pages I have a problem with these:

1. "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."

2. Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.

Example 1: Few apart from dogmatic free marketers would say no here. Its effectively asking if the interests of the few should be taken to outweigh those of the rest of society. Clearly if something acts contrary to humanity's interests, but benefits corporations, it would be considered bad by most.

Example 2: Again, fairly obvious to all but the dogmatic free marketers. If you say you are anything other than a unwavering adherent to free market ideology in its most dogmatic form, you come out as left wing on many questions. That is nonsense. Throughout the test, most questions are also phrased from the left wing viewpoint, and people also have a recorded tendency to agree with a point when they don't have a strong opinion

In both cases, agreeing with what is surely the mainstream opinion (i.e. the CENTRE) puts me on the political left. Nonsense.

EDIT: I agree that I am personally left wing (though not to the extent the compass says), I'm questioning the general validity of the survey.

And yet in every political compass census we do, the vast majority is left of the political compass's centre as well.

Really? :confused:

Well again, all you need to do is look at the political compass results. Around the bottom right corner would be considered libertarian, there was very few people situated there. The majority of the people were squeezed into the middle of the bottom left quadrant.

Not just the bottom-right. The whole bottom is libertarian.

Not just the bottom-right. The whole bottom is libertarian.

Well these days the term libertarian is generally used to actually mean right libertarian (thanks to the Americans).

Well these days the term libertarian is generally used to actually mean right libertarian (thanks to the Americans).

What the hell do they know?!?

;)

Indeed, in fact there are very few people who support free trade at all on NSG.

Certainly haven't been given that impression in the RP forums though

It has more lefties. That is not bias.

It has more lefties. That is not bias.

Exactly. It's just an example of the fact that the smarter you are, the further to the left you lean.

Most rightwingers can't use a computer without help, so they are under-represented in online communities.

Exactly. It's just an example of the fact that the smarter you are, the further to the left you lean.

Most rightwingers can't use a computer without help, so they are under-represented in online communities.

Although the old saying is that right wingers are too busy with their jobs to be debating on internet forums.

Although the old saying is that right wingers are too busy with their jobs to be debating on internet forums.

Right wingers work every hour they're not asleep? GnI is right, they are idiots.

I dont have a problem with the Moderators right or left.

Most fellow NS nations are to the left. Socialists, liberals, communists, ect, ect.

Although the old saying is that right wingers are too busy with their jobs to be debating on internet forums.

The obvious response would be that rightwingers don't actually have real jobs, they just exploit other people all day, leaving them free to debate on internet forums.

Their absence, then, must be explained by lack of ability.


If us leftwingers can get on, despite doing all our good works for charity, and basic betterment of the world, rightwingers have no excuse.

Exactly. It's just an example of the fact that the smarter you are, the further to the left you lean.

Einstein was a socialist although so was Mussalini before he went fascist.

Sure. Or by the wikipedia/dictionary definition.

Wiki is not a reliable source for definitions, and which dictionary?

The reason for the question is that in the US 'left' includes positions that are in other parts of the world considered to be 'near right' of center.

Left, for Europe anyway, tends to imply statism to some degree. The US never gets close to this, so from the European perspective politics in the US is a matter of choosing between right or very right, with a few fringe candidates who do not fit on the left - right axis at all.

This is not in any way claiming that either group is correct in their definition, I was simply wanting to be able to locate the frame of reference being used.

As this frame is US, then yes, there is a distinct majority of pro left members in NS. That simply reflects, however, the political make up of the first and parts of the third world.

Exactly. It's just an example of the fact that the smarter you are, the further to the left you lean.

Most rightwingers can't use a computer without help, so they are under-represented in online communities.

Is that because the left hemisphere is heavier?

Obviously I disagree with being smart implies leaning to the left. It may do in the US where the options are centre or ridiculous, thus pushing the intelligent to the centre. In other parts of the world, where there really do exist left wing political options, the distribution of intelligence over political allegiance tends towards
Smart -> independent close to centre
Dumb - > Party monkey; left or right

I've got some reservations with the political compass as an accurate measurement.

Just from the first couple of pages I have a problem with these:

1. "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."

2. Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.

Example 1: Few apart from dogmatic free marketers would say no here. Its effectively asking if the interests of the few should be taken to outweigh those of the rest of society. Clearly if something acts contrary to humanity's interests, but benefits corporations, it would be considered bad by most.

Example 2: Again, fairly obvious to all but the dogmatic free marketers. If you say you are anything other than a unwavering adherent to free market ideology in its most dogmatic form, you come out as left wing on many questions. That is nonsense. Throughout the test, most questions are also phrased from the left wing viewpoint, and people also have a recorded tendency to agree with a point when they don't have a strong opinion

In both cases, agreeing with what is surely the mainstream opinion (i.e. the CENTRE) puts me on the political left. Nonsense.

EDIT: I agree that I am personally left wing (though not to the extent the compass says), I'm questioning the general validity of the survey.

All very true, and it's by no means perfect. However, there are plenty of questions which are phrased from the right wing viewpoint, and so someone just clicking agree will end up fairly close to the center*. For example, across the first four questions, two are phrased from what could be considered the 'leftist' angle, and two are phrased from what could be considered the 'rightist' angle.

Also, given that we have such a significant push towards the left. Even if one assumes that the test is weighted slightly left-liberal, one would have to conclude NSG is still vaguely left of center. Unless it was so strongly out there that -5 on economic left right indicated where a true centrist fell, which doesn't seem likely to me.

So while it's not perfect, it's a reasonable method of looking for relative comparisons, and we can see from it that NSG is definitely vaguely leftist on average.

*This (http://politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=0.38&soc=2.41), for reference, is the result of clicking "agree" to every question on the political compass. It seems that presuming someone with no strong opinions on something clicks agree, they will end up fairly near the center economically. The biggest problem is that most of the moral questions are phrased from one side, and push it up the social authoritarian axis.

saying Bush is the best President, and other stuff that is usually associated with the Right.I'm wondering if so many threads with obvious, announced fallacies about them don't get immediately moved to the Spam Forum.
Suppose i'll have to look there some time.

The obvious response would be that rightwingers don't actually have real jobs, they just exploit other people all day, leaving them free to debate on internet forums.

Their absence, then, must be explained by lack of ability.


:hail:
Heheheh. :)

:hail:
Heheheh. :)

Actually has potential for it's own thread maybe... :wink:

Actually has potential for it's own thread maybe... :wink:I even have a working workplace anecdote to support it, if need for one should come up. :)

Most fellow NS nations are to the left. Socialists, liberals, communists, ect, ect.
Ah ha ha ha. This reminds me of a complaint you left in a different thread about "the usuals".

Right wingers work every hour they're not asleep? GnI is right, they are idiots.

no point in exploiting the poor and getting rich if you can't enjoy your wealth at some point, be such a waste...

I would agree that NSG is decidedly left-leaning, though not for the various right-bashing reasons that this thread outlined.

Also, as with nearly any such discussion, I must note the difficulties with the typical left-right axis, and particularly the liberal/conservative labels.* They vary so widely based on the context, and can lead to useless, semantic disputes. These disputes have come up in--I believe--all of the recent threads on this general subject which are cropping up lately. I have to say about online quizzes, there tend to be various problems with them all. Political compass is a popular one, and I have noted problems with it in the past, such as the idea that having a moral objection to something equates to wanting the government to regulate it and the random stuff about art. A generally good quiz is the politics forum quiz, which separates the concerns out into quite a few axes, which avoid the liberal/conservative labels and the like.

Also, a side note, I find it rather annoying that many on the left like to apply the label "libertarian" to those who make exception for economic liberty. If you honestly maintain and defend political positions, I respect that (provided it is not knee jerk stupidity, on either side of the spectrum), but don't mislabel it (the best case of this I recall was an a true socialist who described himself as a libertarian not in the Ron Paul mold). I believe wholeheartedly in liberty, but realize that my positions on certain issues mean that to describe myself as a libertarian would be misleading. I am a conservative, albeit a libertarian leaning one in many respects.

*I continue to use the single dimensional axis and liberal/conservative labels in contexts in which their meanings are clear, as they are quite useful insofar as people recognize them

Exactly. It's just an example of the fact that the smarter you are, the further to the left you lean.

Most rightwingers can't use a computer without help, so they are under-represented in online communities.

Or it may have to do with a younger crowd that frequent NSG.

If you are 20 and are a conservative then you have no heart, if you are 40 and are not one then you have no brain.

Now Andaras has gone the balance of lefties to righties has changed, cause he was worth like 500 lefties.

Now Andaras has gone the balance of lefties to righties has changed, cause he was worth like 500 lefties.

To be fair, Andaras was no Progressive. He was as Reactionary as any of the farthest Right on this site, and maybe just a little more.

I would agree that NSG is decidedly left-leaning, though not for the various right-bashing reasons that this thread outlined.

Also, as with nearly any such discussion, I must note the difficulties with the typical left-right axis, and particularly the liberal/conservative labels.* They vary so widely based on the context, and can lead to useless, semantic disputes. These disputes have come up in--I believe--all of the recent threads on this general subject which are cropping up lately. I have to say about online quizzes, there tend to be various problems with them all. Political compass is a popular one, and I have noted problems with it in the past, such as the idea that having a moral objection to something equates to wanting the government to regulate it and the random stuff about art. A generally good quiz is the politics forum quiz, which separates the concerns out into quite a few axes, which avoid the liberal/conservative labels and the like.

Also, a side note, I find it rather annoying that many on the left like to apply the label "libertarian" to those who make exception for economic liberty. If you honestly maintain and defend political positions, I respect that (provided it is not knee jerk stupidity, on either side of the spectrum), but don't mislabel it (the best case of this I recall was an a true socialist who described himself as a libertarian not in the Ron Paul mold). I believe wholeheartedly in liberty, but realize that my positions on certain issues mean that to describe myself as a libertarian would be misleading. I am a conservative, albeit a libertarian leaning one in many respects.

*I continue to use the single dimensional axis and liberal/conservative labels in contexts in which their meanings are clear, as they are quite useful insofar as people recognize them

That's primarily because the US has reversed the terms compared to how the rest of the world has traditionally used them.

"Liberal" has traditionally referred to the right wing, lassez-faire, low intervention free market side.

"Libertarian" was originally the left wing socially free position, broadly where the US now puts 'liberal', but normally slightly more socially permissive.

Just because you're using the terms backwards doesn't mean we have to.

Or it may have to do with a younger crowd that frequent NSG.

doubtful. the leftward skew looks pretty independent of age (just like it does in reality, now that i mention it).

Exactly. It's just an example of the fact that the smarter you are, the further to the left you lean.

Most rightwingers can't use a computer without help, so they are under-represented in online communities.

That's not true, right-wingers can be just as intelligent as leftists.

hey guys i don't have much time until mr limacon catches on. i'm the secretary he dictates to for all of his internet forum discussions and i have to say this man disproves both natural selection and intelligent design he is the dumbest, most reactionary oops he's looking over my shoulder now got to go before he finishes reading the first sentence.

Like you said I never said it did. No, but the liberals on here seem to do is bash, degrade, and convert people that don't have a liberal point of view. Take CM for example. When he started, NSG completely changed him.

If by that you mean "disagree with 1010102", then yes. I think "bashing" is the province of the far extremes here at NSG. I've seen very little of it overall, and it's never constructive anyway.

"Liberal" has traditionally referred to the right wing, lassez-faire, low intervention free market side.


Classic liberals tend to be a wee bit more accepting of social programs than right libertarians, though.

"Liberal" has traditionally referred to the right wing...

only because the liberals have so totally destroyed their conservative opponents in the past few centuries

NSG has a liberal bias in the sense that few people here are conservatives. There are a few people around who think gay people are horrid and that abortion should only happen in illegal backalley butcheries, and perhaps a few more who think immigration should be curtailed or regulated (and the latter isn't necessarily a conservative view) - but by en large the majority of people have socially liberal views here.

Economically on the other hand, I don't think any bias is significant. Even if there are fewer 'free market' types here than the opposite, they seem to make up for it in activity and occasionally in quality of argument.

Or it may have to do with a younger crowd that frequent NSG.

If you are 20 and are a conservative then you have no heart, if you are 40 and are not one then you have no brain.

Then I am gradually making the transition from no heart to no brain. :)

Then I am gradually making the transition from no heart to no brain. :)

You started as a young conservative and are becoming an old liberal?

doubtful. the leftward skew looks pretty independent of age (just like it does in reality, now that i mention it).

Yeah quite a lot of people still cling on to old ideas that just don't work in real life.

Of course it depends on what you may define as people being on the 'left' after all quite a few people may have 'left' wing ideals but in other cases they will also have 'right' ideals. I would say that in the world most people are center rather than left or right which is why many political parties around the world have also moved into the center rather than being exactly on the right or left.

Then I am gradually making the transition from no heart to no brain. :)

Well you never know you may one day realise that a lot of what you* used to believe in is ridiculous. But do you mean you are currently a conservative and then you will be a 'lefty'?

*You is not referring to GnI specifically.

I would say that in the world most people are center rather than left or right

this is either meaningless because it is true by definition, or it is meaningless because the concept of 'center' is itself meaningless

Well you never know you may one day realise that a lot of what you used to believe in is ridiculous. It makes one think about what kind of conversations transpire here on NS to make that particular argument. You know, where religion will obviously trump politics (where the parameters are better drawn)

Does voting for option 4 count as flaming?

Does voting for option 4 count as flaming?Wouldn't that make it a trick option?
Good question nonetheless.

this is either meaningless because it is true by definition, or it is meaningless because the concept of 'center' is itself meaningless

And around we go, but it is in fact a truer statement than saying more people in the world are on the left.

It makes one think about what kind of conversations transpire here on NS to make that particular argument. You know, where religion will obviously trump politics (where the parameters are better drawn)

Umm, what?

Umm, what?
Consider how many peoples' opinions are tested here.
Does this make them come to the conclusion you were alluding to here:
Well you never know you may one day realise that a lot of what you used to believe in is ridiculous.
As in, when people are presenting what other people would deem "ridiculous" here, are they brought to their senses?
Or in this,
Yeah quite a lot of people still cling on to old ideas that just don't work in real life.
kinda like with religion, where there's no real vindication of said beliefs, so any real proof is somehow revealed with a persons' death?

What i was asking about is whether a person might find that their beliefs are better not left untested into old age so much as dealt with in the here and now, and how one might see it's simply a matter of personal faith in an issue that would override sensibilities in the face of reason. And given the faculty of the internet, evidence?

Consider how many peoples' opinions are tested here.
Does this make them come to the conclusion you were alluding to here:

As in, when people are presenting what other people would deem "ridiculous" here, are they brought to their senses?
Or in this,

kinda like with religion, where there's no real vindication of said beliefs, so any real proof is somehow revealed with a persons' death?

What i was asking about is whether a person might find that their beliefs are better not left untested into old age so much as dealt with in the here and now, and how one might see it's simply a matter of personal faith in an issue that would override sensibilities in the face of reason. And given the faculty of the internet, evidence?

But if we are talking about political beliefs it is hard to test them, if say someone said that countries have the right to deport people which have arrived in the country illegally then where is the evidence to counteract this belief and vice versa.

So yes some people despite being told otherwise or even seeing something with their own eyes will continue to keep their own ideals, because the fact of the matter is that there is a lot of ideals where there isn't much evidence.

Some of my beliefs is that people should have freedom of association, freedom of thought and freedom of speech. Now where is the evidence on the internet which proves me wrong? Where is the evidence that proves me right? Other people may have different beliefs on other topics and they may change them as the get older due to what they have seen or experienced during their lives.

But if we are talking about political beliefs it is hard to test them, if say someone said that countries have the right to deport people which have arrived in the country illegally then where is the evidence to counteract this belief and vice versa.Well, that's where knowing the laws about where you're talking about help, so in this particular case it would be a matter of faculty, and not so much opinion - unless, of course, the conversation would be about what *should* be done, for which there's likely an endless supply of conversation fuel.

So yes some people despite being told otherwise or even seeing something with their own eyes will continue to keep their own ideals, because the fact of the matter is that there is a lot of ideals where there isn't much evidence.In this case, it probably will take quite a while to come to the realisation that a person's beliefs when they were young were ridiculous.

Some of my beliefs is that people should have freedom of association, freedom of thought and freedom of speech. Now where is the evidence on the internet which proves me wrong? Where is the evidence that proves me right? Other people may have different beliefs on other topics and they may change them as the get older due to what they have seen or experienced during their lives.Again, a situation where a better argument is made with evidence. Perhaps, as a United States citizen, you can look upon legally binding documents like the U.S. Constitution as the basis for agreement. Arguments are obviously more flexible based upon someone's region and upbringing as well as their desires.
Of course, in the U.S., apparently it doesn't take long to abridge rights and such so long as you get in with a zealous party that's keen on taking advantage of insecurities, and aiming for "moral" decisions and judgments for everyone else to follow. *grrr*

Well, that's where knowing the laws about where you're talking about help, so in this particular case it would be a matter of faculty, and not so much opinion - unless, of course, the conversation would be about what *should* be done, for which there's likely an endless supply of conversation fuel.

Yes but we aren't talking about laws we are talking about whether people think the law should be the way it is or not. SO yes we are talking about what *should* be done, similar to when Marx and Engels said this is what it should be like.

In this case, it probably will take quite a while to come to the realisation that a person's beliefs when they were young were ridiculous.
Again, a situation where a better argument is made with evidence. Perhaps, as a United States citizen, you can look upon legally binding documents like the U.S. Constitution as the basis for agreement. Arguments are obviously more flexible based upon someone's region and upbringing as well as their desires.

Yes but people may won't realise this until their ideals have changed so an older person may still have the same beliefs as when they were young.

Using the law is meaningless as a basis of evidence when arguing about ideals. While people may still abide by the law doesn't mean they agree with it. After all I will go the speed limit yet I hold the belief that the speed limit isn't correct.

Of course, in the U.S., apparently it doesn't take long to abridge rights and such so long as you get in with a zealous party that's keen on taking advantage of insecurities, and aiming for "moral" decisions and judgments for everyone else to follow. *grrr*

Quite, but then all laws are just peoples beliefs for everyone else to follow, if many of your beliefs were placed into law it is still making people follow your beliefs.

Yes but we aren't talking about laws we are talking about whether people think the law should be the way it is or not. SO yes we are talking about what *should* be done, similar to when Marx and Engels said this is what it should be like.I would say there's already a basis of fact, though, not so much unsubstantiated opinion to start with, in that case.
I think i'm making the point that it's better to base your opinion on more than just "belief" alone.

Yes but people may won't realise this until their ideals have changed so an older person may still have the same beliefs as when they were young.Well, for reason of me having replied, do you think there might be a way to help facilitate said realisation?

Using the law is meaningless as a basis of evidence when arguing about ideals. While people may still abide by the law doesn't mean they agree with it. After all I will go the speed limit yet I hold the belief that the speed limit isn't correct.



Quite, but then all laws are just peoples beliefs for everyone else to follow, if many of your beliefs were placed into law it is still making people follow your beliefs.True, but there's methods of testing these kinds of things before instituting them, though i admit not all laws are in place as such. Like blue laws, for example.

I would say there's already a basis of fact, though, not so much unsubstantiated opinion to start with, in that case.
I think i'm making the point that it's better to base your opinion on more than just "belief" alone.

Yes and I agree with you, but then how do you explain that two people could have vastly different beliefs despite both having some form of 'evidence'

Oc course that is just your belief do you have anything to provide rather than your belief in our point.;)

Well, for reason of me having replied, do you think there might be a way to help facilitate said realisation?

Yes as it is part of their experiences.

True, but there's methods of testing these kinds of things before instituting them, though i admit not all laws are in place as such. Like blue laws, for example.

Methods of testing these laws, well I suppose some laws are (certainly not all) but then again after testing these laws to prove that their beliefs are right and will place their beliefs in the law.

Yes and I agree with you, but then how do you explain that two people could have vastly different beliefs despite both having some form of 'evidence'

Oc course that is just your belief do you have anything to provide rather than your belief in our point.;)That's fair, since there's been incidence in that manner on a few things, certainly. If i were to give an example that would help with this, i would give the "Iraq had WMD's" assessment, coupled with "Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were in cahoots" assessment that certain despicable news corporations were so fond of spouting for a while.
Using that fallacious reference alone, a person thinks they have evidence in line, whereas of course it's been disproven by much more reputable sources ... even though the person will still use that as the base for their belief. Similar in regards to the "hockey-stick graph" issue in the climate change arena.
I tend to think that getting as precise information about a topic *before* establishing a "belief" in it certainly helps.

Yes as it is part of their experiences.I mean, more, to test them in a cross-examination-type setting.

Methods of testing these laws, well I suppose some laws are (certainly not all) but then again after testing these laws to prove that their beliefs are right and will place their beliefs in the law.Case in point, as you'd mentioned, speed limits .... so if we were to go maybe 5 or 10 miles below the speed limit, by our choice in many situations, the speed limit adjustment would have already matched an understanding a person might've had about engine efficiency that someone else might've already proven for the majority of road-faring vehicles, even though the majority of road-traveling folk found it to be too constrictive and inconvenient.

That's fair, since there's been incidence in that manner on a few things, certainly. If i were to give an example that would help with this, i would give the "Iraq had WMD's" assessment, coupled with "Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were in cahoots" assessment that certain despicable news corporations were so fond of spouting for a while.
Using that fallacious reference alone, a person thinks they have evidence in line, whereas of course it's been disproven by much more reputable sources ... even though the person will still use that as the base for their belief. Similar in regards to the "hockey-stick graph" issue in the climate change arena.
I tend to think that getting as precise information about a topic *before* establishing a "belief" in it certainly helps.

Ok, but what about those beliefs where there isn't something that is either a yes or no subject, such as Iraq has WMD's now that is either yes or no. Take someone who says people should have freedom of association, there is no yes or no answer as the WMD example yet people have different beliefs on this, what would we use as precise information about this topic, we may be able to get information which support our beliefs but then so to does the other guy.

I mean, more, to test them in a cross-examination-type setting.

Well yes, isn't that a part of a reasonable debate to cross examine their arguments, and if successful you may just change their beliefs.

Case in point, as you'd mentioned, speed limits .... so if we were to go maybe 5 or 10 miles below the speed limit, by our choice in many situations, the speed limit adjustment would have already matched an understanding a person might've had about engine efficiency that someone else might've already proven for the majority of road-faring vehicles, even though the majority of road-traveling folk found it to be too constrictive and inconvenient.

Well if the point of the law was to make sure everybody used their engines more efficiently because they thought people should be using them more efficiently then yes it is still placing their beliefs into law.

Ok, but what about those beliefs where there isn't something that is either a yes or no subject, such as Iraq has WMD's now that is either yes or no. Take someone who says people should have freedom of association, there is no yes or no answer as the WMD example yet people have different beliefs on this, what would we use as precise information about this topic, we may be able to get information which support our beliefs but then so to does the other guy.I would say that's what differentiates the argument from a "should be" argument to "is" argument, which is kinda what my original point is.

Well yes, isn't that a part of a reasonable debate to cross examine their arguments, and if successful you may just change their beliefs.There actually was a thread about that a little while back ... i say "little while", but it may be more like a year or two ago. I can think of very few people here who did anything but get more convinced of what they were already thinking.

Well if the point of the law was to make sure everybody used their engines more efficiently because they thought people should be using them more efficiently then yes it is still placing their beliefs into law.I could also bring up the seatbelt issue, which apparently has a lot of statistics on its side about what its overall intent and effect is. I don't think it's an issue of beliefs without cross examination so much as a "belief" by results.

I would say that's what differentiates the argument from a "should be" argument to "is" argument, which is kinda what my original point is.

Well quite, and that is what a lot of beliefs are, and what I was leading to a lot of people will believe that this is what something should be like and then later on in life may change that belief to another way to how things should be.

There actually was a thread about that a little while back ... i say "little while", but it may be more like a year or two ago. I can think of very few people here who did anything but get more convinced of what they were already thinking.

I think that is true with most threads on here that deals with debate, some do change their minds though, I know I have in one or two debates.

I could also bring up the seatbelt issue, which apparently has a lot of statistics on its side about what its overall intent and effect is. I don't think it's an issue of beliefs without cross examination so much as a "belief" by results.

Yes, but with the results on their side, it is still a belief even if it is based on 'facts'.

Do you understand what I am trying to say here, people have beliefs now these may or may not be based on some facts that support those beliefs, and they will place them into law because they have the power to do this because they believe that this is the way things should be and so they go ahead and do it.

Well quite, and that is what a lot of beliefs are, and what I was leading to a lot of people will believe that this is what something should be like and then later on in life may change that belief to another way to how things should be.Hopefully at least one of those will be based on fact.

I think that is true with most threads on here that deals with debate, some do change their minds though, I know I have in one or two debates.Changed YOUR mind, or you changed someone ELSE'S mind? Which ones would those be?

Yes, but with the results on their side, it is still a belief even if it is based on 'facts'.I have problems with the idea that an opinion or belief is just as important as that, especially when you have colossal embarrassments like Don Young, who say, notably:
My opinion is as valid as any scientist's.
He's clearly wrong in that he's not a scientist and has very little experience with scientific matters, to say nothing of a reprehensibly irrational and emotional approach to matters that are best left to more level-headed professionals.

Do you understand what I am trying to say here, people have beliefs now these may or may not be based on some facts that support those beliefs, and they will place them into law because they have the power to do this because they believe that this is the way things should be and so they go ahead and do it.Oh i know this to be the case of argument, especially given the abominable track record of the republicans and evangelists in the U.S. for the past decade or so. And, they're wrong, not just on a semantic level but on a factual one as well.

Hopefully at least one of those will be based on fact.

My point exactly the beliefs change because they start to see the facts. Of course both could be based on 'facts'.

Changed YOUR mind, or you changed someone ELSE'S mind? Which ones would those be?

Changed my mind is what I meant, as for the other I couldn't tell

I have problems with the idea that an opinion or belief is just as important as that, especially when you have colossal embarrassments like Don Young, who say, notably:

He's clearly wrong in that he's not a scientist and has very little experience with scientific matters, to say nothing of a reprehensibly irrational and emotional approach to matters that are best left to more level-headed professionals.

Yes I agree with you there. But even professionals can use facts to prove their own beliefs.

Oh i know this to be the case of argument, especially given the abominable track record of the republicans and evangelists in the U.S. for the past decade or so. And, they're wrong, not just on a semantic level but on a factual one as well.

Well it isn't just republicans who will do it democrats will do it as well, in fact all political parties will place their beliefs into law (or at least as much as they can get away with). Some of these may be based on facts or at least facts that support their beliefs while others may not.

And around we go, but it is in fact a truer statement than saying more people in the world are on the left.

entirely depends on what you are using 'center' to mean.

if you mean whatever it is that most people believe, then it is true by definition but also not informative (and could, in fact, be true at the same time as most everyone on the planet being an anarchist). if you are instead using it to mean whatever is in the middle between the extremes, then it has no content - there is no such position as a coherent entity.

entirely depends on what you are using 'center' to mean.

if you mean whatever it is that most people believe, then it is true by definition but also not informative (and could, in fact, be true at the same time as most everyone on the planet being an anarchist). if you are instead using it to mean whatever is in the middle between the extremes, then it has no content - there is no such position as a coherent entity.

Yes I know exactly what you mean, the same could also be said for those that say in reality people are on the left.

Yes I know exactly what you mean, the same could also be said for those that say in reality people are on the left.

except the left has identifiable characteristics in a way that 'the center' just doesn't. so no, the same couldn't be said.

Well what is the left? And yes the center does it is neither the left or right but takes on elements of both sides.

You started as a young conservative and are becoming an old liberal?

Yep. And, if the common wisdom says it should be the other way round, then the common knowledge is wrong.

The way I figure it, conservatism is more about self, and liberalism is more about others - and the longer you live, the more 'others' you become responsible for - directly or indirectly. So, I'm just following the logical trajectory. :)

Or you could be wrong GnI ;)

Well you never know you may one day realise that a lot of what you* used to believe in is ridiculous. But do you mean you are currently a conservative and then you will be a 'lefty'?

*You is not referring to GnI specifically.

No - in my late teens and early twenties I was conservative. I even voted that way. But - as you say - a lot of what I* (* I does mean me specifically, here) believed in then was ridiculous. At least - that's how I see it now.

There is nothing intrinsic to conservatism that brings change - by definition - and I can see a lot of changes that are needed. In terms of personal freedoms and rights. In terms of equality and fairness.

If I just examine the "This I Believe" values in my life: no one should ever be persecuted for their race, gender, religion or sexuality; no one should be denied healthcare; no one should be hungry or homeless; no one should have a different law that applies to them... my core issues won't allow me to be anything but what the US considers liberal.

Or you could be wrong GnI ;)

I could. I could.

I have been before. Seven times, I think. ;)

No - in my late teens and early twenties I was conservative. I even voted that way. But - as you say - a lot of what I* (* I does mean me specifically, here) believed in then was ridiculous. At least - that's how I see it now.

There is nothing intrinsic to conservatism that brings change - by definition - and I can see a lot of changes that are needed. In terms of personal freedoms and rights. In terms of equality and fairness.

If I just examine the "This I Believe" values in my life: no one should ever be persecuted for their race, gender, religion or sexuality; no one should be denied healthcare; no one should be hungry or homeless; no one should have a different law that applies to them... my core issues won't allow me to be anything but what the US considers liberal.

Fair enough, I am not a conservative (in most cases), but I wouldn't consider myself to be a 'lefty' either, according to non-US standards I am a liberal.

I could. I could.

I have been before. Seven times, I think. ;)

:D nice one.

Fair enough, I am not a conservative (in most cases), but I wouldn't consider myself to be a 'lefty' either, according to non-US standards I am a liberal.

Which non-US standards? :)

Liberals in Europe range from all over the shop. The thing that unites them tends to be social permissiveness, but that could put you anywhere between 'rational market', 'socialism' and 'laissez faire' on economy.

:D nice one.

*bows*

Merci. :)

Which non-US standards? :)

Liberals in Europe range from all over the shop. The thing that unites them tends to be social permissiveness, but that could put you anywhere between 'rational market', 'socialism' and 'laissez faire' on economy.

I think, wether they know it or not, the majority of us can be said to lean more towards the left, then the right.

Well what is the left?

the whole cluster of ideologies centered on liberty and equality as the end goals to be reached, as opposed to obedience and hierarchy as ideals in themselves

And yes the center does it is neither the left or right but takes on elements of both sides.

so the center wants both radical egalitarianism and to bring back the ancien regime?

By American standards, you're goddam right NSG is "left wing."

By global/sane standards, I'd say it's pretty moderate.

That's primarily because the US has reversed the terms compared to how the rest of the world has traditionally used them.

"Liberal" has traditionally referred to the right wing, lassez-faire, low intervention free market side.

"Libertarian" was originally the left wing socially free position, broadly where the US now puts 'liberal', but normally slightly more socially permissive.

Just because you're using the terms backwards doesn't mean we have to.

That's quite a simplification, though it contains some truth.

"Liberal" never referred to right wing—in fact, the terms right wing and left wing came about from the seating arrangements after the French revolution, when the liberals sat to the left of the president while the monarchists sat to the right. Originally, liberalism (though not a unified movement at the time) was akin to what we would today call classical liberalism, which would roughly equate to libertarianism, supporting greater liberties all around (economically and socially), thus the term laissez-faire, approximately meaning let do; it was in opposition to the right wing, which supported monarchism and mercantilism. Socialists on the left came about a little later, in contrast to both liberals and the monarchist right. Now, that right is largely defunct in Europe (thanks a lot, world wars), where this contrast existed.

In the United States it was a different story, as the old European right was never really well established there, particularly after the revolution; the American Revolution was effectively a liberal revolution, in the sense of the time, though it was no where near as radical as its French counterpart, but I digress. Also, while some socialists did run around stirring up unrest, writing bad books and running for president while imprisoned, socialism never became mainstream in the US either. At least, not directly. What we Americans now call liberalism is, thanks to the emphasis on positive rights and the like it acquired as “progressivism,” closer to European socialism, while American conservatism is a child of what was once deemed liberalism. In fact, all American politics is really descended from European liberalism.

So your point was accurate insofar as Americans use the term “liberal” in a manner which is contrary to its original meaning.

However, to separate libertarianism on the left with classical liberalism on the right is strange and inaccurate. Libertarianism emphasizes liberty, not traditionally making exception for economic liberty vs. any other sort of private liberty. They are contrasted, in the mainstream understanding of the matter in the United States, with modern Liberalism, which emphasizes social freedoms and economic control, and modern Conservatism, which emphasizes economic freedom and social control. Now, the strict accuracy of many aspects of this very simplified model may be up to question, but the point that it illustrates makes it well worth noting.

NSG is not biased towards either side.

However, many of its users are. Probably because most are young and idealistic and so do not realise that their left wing beliefs are stupid, yet. Wait till they get divorced. Then they'll start being sensible as they realise some people are just not equal to normal humans

By American standards, you're goddam right NSG is "left wing."

By global/sane standards, I'd say it's pretty moderate.

I wouldn't say global standards. I think by the standards of the non-American industrialized world (basically western Europe) it may be moderate.

psh, i just want to :fluffle:

NSG is so biased to the left that the servers keep catching the commie cold and going on strike. Or rearranging posts in resistance to the bourgeois hierarchy of "earliest post first".

NSG is so biased to the left that the servers keep catching the commie cold and going on strike. Or rearranging posts in resistance to the bourgeois hierarchy of "earliest post first".

But it does have a ruling elite that is not elected.
And a capitalistic streak via the ads and gaming servers.
And a people divided, trough forums and sub-forums,
with a hierarchal structure.

meh, nvm.

However, to separate libertarianism on the left with classical liberalism on the right is strange and inaccurate.

If by "strange and inaccurate" you mean "completely in-line with the history of the term", then yes, yes it is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism) Libertarianism originally referred to various left-wing strains of anarchy. That's what the word was coined for.

It shares that trait with reality.

Stephen Colbert?

Changed my mind is what I meant, as for the other I couldn't tell
Were they blunt, subtle, persistent, insistent upon evidence, or just charismatic? Did they complete something in your thinking that you wouldn't have achieved alone? Curious.

Stephen Colbert?

nope

he is still dead to me over that, actually