dangerous territory/devil's advocate

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Inspired by events in the Discordian Feminism thread. I don't want to threadjack that one too much so I'm starting this thread. The following are questions that are maybe rhetorical, but I think deserve to be asked and considered (even if not answered).

- Do you hold any beliefs or adhere to any political positions which could be construed as "Conservative" by current and popular use of that word?

- Is it possible that "Liberalism" assumes itself to be correct in the same self-congratulatory, evidence-deficient way that "Conservatism" does? If so, what issues may be examples of that?

- Could it be that PDCOM engages in openly, by-the-book Liberal philosophy (moral and political), and eschews all Conservative approaches almost as predictably as the Huffington Post, while claiming a title of "beyond the left/right paradigm" anyway?

I ask these only because I think that there may be some truth to some claims by Conservatives in some areas, which are dismissed out of hand by Liberals because of all the nutjobbery that goes on at the extremities of the Right. And I'd hate to think that PD is guilty of flushing good ideas, or even bad ideas that are worth exploring, just because of a predisposition toward certain mainstream political positions.

[Junkenstein]

Interesting, I'll consider this a little more carefully before giving a detailed reply. I tend to be quite concious and wary of any potential label that enters my thinking. That evolved into a kind of "question beliefs until a flaw is found". So far, everything has had a flaw somewhere.

Out of interest, which "conservative" ideas do you think bear more examination?

[The Johnny]

Vex, you stated on the other thread that you hold conservatard postures in regards to welfare, maybe thats an example we can work with ?

[AFK]

- Do you hold any beliefs or adhere to any political positions which could be construed as "Conservative" by current and popular use of that word?

My views and position on a rather notorious topic has been construed as a Conservative position, though I think that is incorrect and in fact most of the people I work with in the field are Democrats.  I'm, comparatively, more conservative when it comes to environmental policy, though again, I rather think of it as a centrist, independent position.  And I mean mostly in terms of how environmental policy intersects with the economy.  For example, I oppose locking up huge tracts of land in Maine as part of an enormous National Forest and completely off limits for  development.  I'm all for protecting the environment but not at the expense of the poor and lower income.

- Is it possible that "Liberalism" assumes itself to be correct in the same self-congratulatory, evidence-deficient way that "Conservatism" does? If so, what issues may be examples of that?

I think so but they just aren't as overt an "in your face" about it.  Individuals like Michael Moore and Janeane Garafalo come to mind.  I think they tend to give Liberalism a bad name.  But, I imagine there are many Conservatives who feel the same way about Glenn Beck and Victoria Jackson. 


One of the things that annoyed me the most about Liberals during the GWB presidency was the talking points and caricature of him being a mindless moron.  When you create a narrative like that, you almost give him a pass for some of his nefarious policies because he is just a bleeting moron who doesn't know any better.  That doesn't help your cause when you are trying to get the public as mad as you are about those policies.

Could it be that PDCOM engages in openly, by-the-book Liberal philosophy (moral and political), and eschews all Conservative approaches almost as predictably as the Huffington Post, while claiming a title of "beyond the left/right paradigm" anyway?

I wouldn't go THAT far, but I think sometimes the ship does list in that direction.  But I think your average noob happening upon this place might more often than not have that kind of impression.

I ask these only because I think that there may be some truth to some claims by Conservatives in some areas, which are dismissed out of hand by Liberals because of all the nutjobbery that goes on at the extremities of the Right. And I'd hate to think that PD is guilty of flushing good ideas, or even bad ideas that are worth exploring, just because of a predisposition toward certain mainstream political positions.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.

Where I differ from Liberals is that I dont think society owes a paycheck to anyone who could be working, period. Where I differ from Conservatives is that I dont believe in just dumping people into poverty. To eliminate the welfare expenses we dont just need to cut them off, but train them for real jobs that can earn real money.

[AFK]

Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.

Where I differ from Liberals is that I dont think society owes a paycheck to anyone who could be working, period. Where I differ from Conservatives is that I dont believe in just dumping people into poverty. To eliminate the welfare expenses we dont just need to cut them off, but train them for real jobs that can earn real money.

Vex is cruising on the correct motorcycle here.

[The Johnny]

Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.

Where I differ from Liberals is that I dont think society owes a paycheck to anyone who could be working, period. Where I differ from Conservatives is that I dont believe in just dumping people into poverty. To eliminate the welfare expenses we dont just need to cut them off, but train them for real jobs that can earn real money.

That doesnt seem conservatard to me, it seems like a rational position.

(Just as an aside comment, here in Mexico welfare doesnt exist, so if your friends and family dont help you out in a time of need, you are fucked. BIG time.)

[Juana]

- Do you hold any beliefs or adhere to any political positions which could be construed as "Conservative" by current and popular use of that word?

Doubtful.

- Is it possible that "Liberalism" assumes itself to be correct in the same self-congratulatory, evidence-deficient way that "Conservatism" does? If so, what issues may be examples of that?

Yes, definitely. As RWHN said, it's less in your face, but it's there all the same. I tend to find that the take certain things out of context.

- Could it be that PDCOM engages in openly, by-the-book Liberal philosophy (moral and political), and eschews all Conservative approaches almost as predictably as the Huffington Post, while claiming a title of "beyond the left/right paradigm" anyway?

I don't think so. We, as a whole, tend to lean more left, but we still pick things apart no matter the source.

Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.

Prove it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Inspired by events in the Discordian Feminism thread. I don't want to threadjack that one too much so I'm starting this thread. The following are questions that are maybe rhetorical, but I think deserve to be asked and considered (even if not answered).

- Do you hold any beliefs or adhere to any political positions which could be construed as "Conservative" by current and popular use of that word?

- Is it possible that "Liberalism" assumes itself to be correct in the same self-congratulatory, evidence-deficient way that "Conservatism" does? If so, what issues may be examples of that?

- Could it be that PDCOM engages in openly, by-the-book Liberal philosophy (moral and political), and eschews all Conservative approaches almost as predictably as the Huffington Post, while claiming a title of "beyond the left/right paradigm" anyway?

I ask these only because I think that there may be some truth to some claims by Conservatives in some areas, which are dismissed out of hand by Liberals because of all the nutjobbery that goes on at the extremities of the Right. And I'd hate to think that PD is guilty of flushing good ideas, or even bad ideas that are worth exploring, just because of a predisposition toward certain mainstream political positions.

WELL, DUH! 

[E.O.T.]

- Do you hold any beliefs or adhere to any political positions which could be construed as "Conservative" by current and popular use of that word?

Doubtful.

- Is it possible that "Liberalism" assumes itself to be correct in the same self-congratulatory, evidence-deficient way that "Conservatism" does? If so, what issues may be examples of that?

Yes, definitely. As RWHN said, it's less in your face, but it's there all the same. I tend to find that the take certain things out of context.

- Could it be that PDCOM engages in openly, by-the-book Liberal philosophy (moral and political), and eschews all Conservative approaches almost as predictably as the Huffington Post, while claiming a title of "beyond the left/right paradigm" anyway?

I don't think so. We, as a whole, tend to lean more left, but we still pick things apart no matter the source.

Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.

Prove it.

EH,

          "prove it" isn't really a counterpoint, it's kinda ridiculous. Challenge vex on this point with an argument

[Juana]

It's not intended to be a counter point per se. It's intended to be a demand for evidence to support a trite old Conservatard bullshit talking point.

[The Johnny]

He also didnt say it was the majority of people on welfare, just some.

I think i can agree with the general statement, but it boils down to what is considered appropiate enforcement, and what line is drawn for "he can work but he doesnt".

Because ive read about this thing called "fares" as in, the government considering that giving aid isnt unconditional, and that it gives them the right to meddle in private affairs such as what one can do or cant do.

[Juana]

Maybe. I just think Conservatives have a valid point that Welfare needs to be reformed because when people get on it, they often never get off. But where they see the "Welfare Queen," I se a welfare trap. There ARE people who are on welfare despite being able to work, and there does need to be enforcement to eliminate that.

Emphasis mine, JN.

ETA: yes there are people who are on it and can work. That's inevitable. But that's not what I'm asking about.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

In the US, a lot of people do get stuck in a welfare trap, that has complex origins including a loss of self-worth and the fact that it is made time-and-labor intensive enough to remain on welfare that the effort required to remain on it sometimes takes the place of fulfillment that people would otherwise find in a job.

There are many negative emotional ramifications to being on welfare, some of which in themselves hinder a person from getting off it, especially over extended periods of time. However, my thoughts are that welfare should not be made more difficult to be on, but easier and less time-consuming so that it becomes less of a disabling factor in itself. But yes, it should still have checks and balances to help prevent abuse.

[E.O.T.]

It's not intended to be a counter point per se. It's intended to be a demand for evidence to support a trite old Conservatard bullshit talking point.

THAT'S

          The ridiculous part. he's supposed to hit you with a library's worth of human experience?