that might be because conservatives tend to be the poorest or the richest people. the poor folk would go to the waffle house, the rich folk would throw up if someone drank out of their glass.
liberals btw are the middle class folk who have enough money that they can find time to be offended by almost everything, but not so much money that they become power-crazed dragon-people hunched over their hoards of wealth rubbing coins on their genitals
You sir are a Prophet.
And like most prophets, completely wrong (although he shares this piece of conventional wisdom with many people). When you control for education, the poorer you are the more likely you are to vote Democrat. The richer you are, the more likely you are to vote Republican. Which isn't a perfect liberal/conservative tracker, but is a pretty good approximation.
there are a great deal of poor rural communities that are majority conservative. the fact is, education means you vote democrat, and education costs money.
on the other hand, a great deal of poor urban communities vote democrat, especially minorities.
I think the lesson is that income alone is meaningless in determining American political views.
True. Actually, there is almost nothing social or economical that can firmly put you in one category or the other. No matter what traits you posses, you could root for either side, or somewhere in the middle.
Honestly, if you are going to worry about any disease from drinking out of a glass I would worry about Mono. It is harder to tell if someone has it, and it is far easier to spread then herpes. Your chances of getting oral herpes through a drink when there are no sores present on the other party is far more unlikely and harder to do. Mono doesn't need signs to infect, it just does.
Shadow_Dancer88 on
0
Options
kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
If you want to tell whether someone is conservative or liberal, what are a couple of completely nonpolitical questions that will give a good clue?
How’s this: Would you be willing to slap your father in the face, with his permission, as part of a comedy skit?
And, second: Does it disgust you to touch the faucet in a public restroom?
Studies suggest that conservatives are more often distressed by actions that seem disrespectful of authority, such as slapping Dad. Liberals don’t worry as long as Dad has given permission.
Likewise, conservatives are more likely than liberals to sense contamination or perceive disgust. People who would be disgusted to find that they had accidentally sipped from an acquaintance’s drink are more likely to identify as conservatives.
He offers the perhaps obvious, but I think still accurate, observation that our morals inform our beliefs, and not vice versa. He also goes on to note that the extent to which we engage with "the opposite viewpoint" isn't always as altruistic as we might believe:
Simply exposing people to counterarguments may not accomplish much, he said, and may inflame antagonisms.
A study by Diana Mutz of the University of Pennsylvania found that when people saw tight television shots of blowhards with whom they disagreed, they felt that the other side was even less legitimate than before.
The larger point is that liberals and conservatives often form judgments through flash intuitions that aren’t a result of a deliberative process. The crucial part of the brain for these judgments is the medial prefrontal cortex, which has more to do with moralizing than with rationality. If you damage your prefrontal cortex, your I.Q. may be unaffected, but you’ll have trouble harrumphing.
One of the main divides between left and right is the dependence on different moral values. For liberals, morality derives mostly from fairness and prevention of harm. For conservatives, morality also involves upholding authority and loyalty — and revulsion at disgust.
Personally, I think it's important to understand that well formed conservative viewpoints, to which I am generally opposed, have understandable underpinnings. It's not just stupid preachers or weird fundies who have over zealously swallowed every word in the Bible, there are legitimately people who just have opposing moral systems which one can understand and engage. Until liberals understand this, the dialogue between the two sides will continue devolving in the final culmination of Karl Rove's greatest wet dream.
The extent to which the Left is blindly dismissive to many opposing viewpoints, and having lived in far left communites, I've definitely seen it, is just as unattractive to me as anything that comes out of your average Fox News blowhard's mouth. If the Left is going to claim a monopoly on rationalism and progressive thought, it would help to display some more of it.
He also links these sites, which might be fun to tool around with:
Frustrating concern trolling. In Ann Arbor, Berkeley, and a handful of other towns, there may be some knee jerk liberals that match the concerns that upset you. But generally, most people realize that other people aren't evil for their beliefs - especially on the left. This is especially untrue for southern baptists. Southern baptists outnumber unthinking liberals by a large margin. Your post imparts some sort of false moral or ethical equivalence. It's not "the left" keeping dialogue from moving forward.
Democratic politicians (with the exceptions of bernie sanders(not a democrat), paul wellstone (rip), and maybe 20 or so house members) are all incredibly wonkish and good-government oriented. They believe in rational policy-making and empirically-oriented approaches to problem solving. They're incredibly boring and centrist as a result, but tend to make things run better as technocrats when their assumptions are in line with reality.
Republicans, held this mantle of technocratic competence and responsibility to the democrats' hard-charging populism until the southern strategy and the rise of the religious right shifted a lot of the bases around. The corresponding change has pushed a lot of people who are essentially rockefeller/good-gov't republicans to voting democratic and running as democratic politicians, when they are at best in the "middle" of the country.
The fight really isn't a right/left one. It's about people who believe in empirics and people who don't. Conservative commentators and academics generally fall into a few categories - but it all boils down to they're paid, often by the Mellon or Scaife foundations, or corporations, to produce scholarship and approaches that justify their self-interested policy moves. They all genuinely believe in what they're saying - at least most of the time - but unless they're religiously motivated they're all on the take and pretty compromised by it.
When they're not, the end up like Andrew Sullivan or even Megan McArdle, and quickly stop being conservative or republican.
I think there's some wiggle-room here in foreign-policy discussions (people like dinesh d'souza or victor davis hanson are ideologically motivated and honest), but they are around because their conservative, principled stances give cover to a lot of uglier things in the republican base - fear of brown people, foreigners, strong women who don't seem sexually available, gay people. Again, the elites are often well-educated, pleasant and either middle class or wealthy. I have had better conversations at republican cocktail events in DC than democratic ones. But what Kristof sees of the conservative movement and who votes conservatively are two very different things.
A lot of the psychology stuff has already been explored in better detail by political psychologists and sociologists - conservatism, in this country and this context, usually accompanies a greater-than-normal deferral to authority and aggressive, outward displays of discomfort from cognitive dissonance. Judge Bybee's behavior and personality - meek, passive and eager-to-please, yet writing the worst example of authoritarian thinking in recent history in his OLC memo about torture - is a good example of this.
Who knew that "Whites Only" water fountains being supported by conservatives was all just a big misunderstanding?
Actually, the fewer people using a water fountain the cleaner it will be, so it fits with that at least.
Maybe I'm just not getting the joke but I thought the Republican party was formed around racial equality.
The name Republican was adopted at a mass meeting on July 6, 1854, at Jackson, Michigan; prior to this, however, while the repeal of the Missouri compromise was pending in Congress, a similar mass meeting at Ripon, Wisconsin, had resolved that in the event of such repeal old party organizations would be discarded and a new party would be built "on the sole issue of the non-extension of slavery." Elsewhere in the country local conventions followed suit; and by late summer of 1854 the new party movement was well under way. Made up of old-line Whigs, many of whom, such as Bates of Missouri and Browning of Illinois, preserved the Southern conservative tradition, together with radical anti-slavery men such as Sumner and Julian, Know-Nothings, and Free-Soil Democrats such as Trumbull and Chase, the new party combined many diverse ingredients; the force that cemented them (at the outset) was common opposition to the further extension of slavery in the territories.
Honestly, if you are going to worry about any disease from drinking out of a glass I would worry about Mono. It is harder to tell if someone has it, and it is far easier to spread then herpes. Your chances of getting oral herpes through a drink when there are no sores present on the other party is far more unlikely and harder to do. Mono doesn't need signs to infect, it just does.
There are quite a few, actually. The flu is probably the most dangerous, though not generally in this forum's demographic range. As for HSV-1, some people shed virus even when showing no symptoms. That said, the vast majority of HSV-1 cases are not a major health concern, and some areas have up to 90% infection rates, so most of the people in this thread probably already have it.
I really wanted to just make a herpes joke. In all seriousness, you will likely get more communicable diseases by sharing drinks on a regular basis, but many of them will be fairly benign, so it's a personal decision either way. But if you are already making out with them, as one poster mentioned, you don't really have anything to lose.
Who knew that "Whites Only" water fountains being supported by conservatives was all just a big misunderstanding?
Actually, the fewer people using a water fountain the cleaner it will be, so it fits with that at least.
Maybe I'm just not getting the joke but I thought the Republican party was formed around racial equality.
The name Republican was adopted at a mass meeting on July 6, 1854, at Jackson, Michigan; prior to this, however, while the repeal of the Missouri compromise was pending in Congress, a similar mass meeting at Ripon, Wisconsin, had resolved that in the event of such repeal old party organizations would be discarded and a new party would be built "on the sole issue of the non-extension of slavery." Elsewhere in the country local conventions followed suit; and by late summer of 1854 the new party movement was well under way. Made up of old-line Whigs, many of whom, such as Bates of Missouri and Browning of Illinois, preserved the Southern conservative tradition, together with radical anti-slavery men such as Sumner and Julian, Know-Nothings, and Free-Soil Democrats such as Trumbull and Chase, the new party combined many diverse ingredients; the force that cemented them (at the outset) was common opposition to the further extension of slavery in the territories.
I don't buy the direct correlation between purity as a basis for morality and actual dirtiness. There's a huge difference between being unclean and thinking uncleanliness is actively sinful. I don't think dirt is at all sinful, yet I still don't wallow in filth.
There's also there part where lots of people are hypocritical fuckwads. Recall the statistical correlation between, say, conservative leaning and propensity to consume state welfare. Or religious upbringing and number of abortions. Someone can easily prattle on the internet about the relative locations of cleanliness and Godliness from under his pile of dirty underwear and discarded Cheesy Poof cartons.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Someone can easily prattle on the internet about the relative locations of cleanliness and Godliness from under his pile of dirty underwear and discarded Cheesy Poof cartons.
I want to Photoshop a picture of Billy Corgan peeking out from a pile of dirty underwear and cheesy poofs, but I'm too lazy.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The whole conservatives v. liberals is so tiresome, it does seem that they hinder good deliberative political decision-making. It's become this giant narrative which posits us in a real combative mode of thinking: being dismissive, reactionary, and reductive in our thinking.
Both paradigms share so fucking much, positing capitalism as the moral answer to our social ills, but differ where minor reforms should be enacted: socialism for corporations v. working class. I'm not arguing for a marxist revolution or anything, I'm just saying we need to pull back and look at what's going on with our thinking, Christ, were re-fighting the trench wars again. I'm not pointing my finger to media pundits so much as the educated-voting citizens who too often cry corporate pig or dirty hippie.
I do admit to love blaming the goddamn baby boomers for their selfish-ways, who went all puritanical and Adam Smith on us, professing their self-made statuses after having benefited from the our post-WII social policy; the GI Bill: proliferating home ownership, unemployment & SSI benies, and college education. But this sort of blaming doesn't get me anywhere -- unless you're talking about arguing with your republican uncle at thanksgiving. Moreover, it obscures our real concerns and hinders our ability to communicate them to each other.
Posts
there are a great deal of poor rural communities that are majority conservative. the fact is, education means you vote democrat, and education costs money.
on the other hand, a great deal of poor urban communities vote democrat, especially minorities.
True. Actually, there is almost nothing social or economical that can firmly put you in one category or the other. No matter what traits you posses, you could root for either side, or somewhere in the middle.
Honestly, if you are going to worry about any disease from drinking out of a glass I would worry about Mono. It is harder to tell if someone has it, and it is far easier to spread then herpes. Your chances of getting oral herpes through a drink when there are no sores present on the other party is far more unlikely and harder to do. Mono doesn't need signs to infect, it just does.
Frustrating concern trolling. In Ann Arbor, Berkeley, and a handful of other towns, there may be some knee jerk liberals that match the concerns that upset you. But generally, most people realize that other people aren't evil for their beliefs - especially on the left. This is especially untrue for southern baptists. Southern baptists outnumber unthinking liberals by a large margin. Your post imparts some sort of false moral or ethical equivalence. It's not "the left" keeping dialogue from moving forward.
Democratic politicians (with the exceptions of bernie sanders(not a democrat), paul wellstone (rip), and maybe 20 or so house members) are all incredibly wonkish and good-government oriented. They believe in rational policy-making and empirically-oriented approaches to problem solving. They're incredibly boring and centrist as a result, but tend to make things run better as technocrats when their assumptions are in line with reality.
Republicans, held this mantle of technocratic competence and responsibility to the democrats' hard-charging populism until the southern strategy and the rise of the religious right shifted a lot of the bases around. The corresponding change has pushed a lot of people who are essentially rockefeller/good-gov't republicans to voting democratic and running as democratic politicians, when they are at best in the "middle" of the country.
The fight really isn't a right/left one. It's about people who believe in empirics and people who don't. Conservative commentators and academics generally fall into a few categories - but it all boils down to they're paid, often by the Mellon or Scaife foundations, or corporations, to produce scholarship and approaches that justify their self-interested policy moves. They all genuinely believe in what they're saying - at least most of the time - but unless they're religiously motivated they're all on the take and pretty compromised by it.
When they're not, the end up like Andrew Sullivan or even Megan McArdle, and quickly stop being conservative or republican.
I think there's some wiggle-room here in foreign-policy discussions (people like dinesh d'souza or victor davis hanson are ideologically motivated and honest), but they are around because their conservative, principled stances give cover to a lot of uglier things in the republican base - fear of brown people, foreigners, strong women who don't seem sexually available, gay people. Again, the elites are often well-educated, pleasant and either middle class or wealthy. I have had better conversations at republican cocktail events in DC than democratic ones. But what Kristof sees of the conservative movement and who votes conservatively are two very different things.
A lot of the psychology stuff has already been explored in better detail by political psychologists and sociologists - conservatism, in this country and this context, usually accompanies a greater-than-normal deferral to authority and aggressive, outward displays of discomfort from cognitive dissonance. Judge Bybee's behavior and personality - meek, passive and eager-to-please, yet writing the worst example of authoritarian thinking in recent history in his OLC memo about torture - is a good example of this.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Actually, the fewer people using a water fountain the cleaner it will be, so it fits with that at least.
Maybe I'm just not getting the joke but I thought the Republican party was formed around racial equality.
There are quite a few, actually. The flu is probably the most dangerous, though not generally in this forum's demographic range. As for HSV-1, some people shed virus even when showing no symptoms. That said, the vast majority of HSV-1 cases are not a major health concern, and some areas have up to 90% infection rates, so most of the people in this thread probably already have it.
I really wanted to just make a herpes joke. In all seriousness, you will likely get more communicable diseases by sharing drinks on a regular basis, but many of them will be fairly benign, so it's a personal decision either way. But if you are already making out with them, as one poster mentioned, you don't really have anything to lose.
Yes that's when they were liberal.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
There's also there part where lots of people are hypocritical fuckwads. Recall the statistical correlation between, say, conservative leaning and propensity to consume state welfare. Or religious upbringing and number of abortions. Someone can easily prattle on the internet about the relative locations of cleanliness and Godliness from under his pile of dirty underwear and discarded Cheesy Poof cartons.
I want to Photoshop a picture of Billy Corgan peeking out from a pile of dirty underwear and cheesy poofs, but I'm too lazy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The whole conservatives v. liberals is so tiresome, it does seem that they hinder good deliberative political decision-making. It's become this giant narrative which posits us in a real combative mode of thinking: being dismissive, reactionary, and reductive in our thinking.
Both paradigms share so fucking much, positing capitalism as the moral answer to our social ills, but differ where minor reforms should be enacted: socialism for corporations v. working class. I'm not arguing for a marxist revolution or anything, I'm just saying we need to pull back and look at what's going on with our thinking, Christ, were re-fighting the trench wars again. I'm not pointing my finger to media pundits so much as the educated-voting citizens who too often cry corporate pig or dirty hippie.
I do admit to love blaming the goddamn baby boomers for their selfish-ways, who went all puritanical and Adam Smith on us, professing their self-made statuses after having benefited from the our post-WII social policy; the GI Bill: proliferating home ownership, unemployment & SSI benies, and college education. But this sort of blaming doesn't get me anywhere -- unless you're talking about arguing with your republican uncle at thanksgiving. Moreover, it obscures our real concerns and hinders our ability to communicate them to each other.