What issues have you evolved on in your time at the Atlas?

[JerryArkansas]

Gay rights, and that's it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Maybe gay marriage.  It's never been a major issue for me, so I'm unsure.  Even now, my concern is more over the process than whether it happens.

[Lambsbread]

Everything to do with Economics, as well as my stance on Immigration.

[Leftbehind]

When I started posting here, I was very interested in political debate and in hearing others' political opinions. Now I have little interest in the opinions of people who disagree with me.

lol'd at this.

Been here for two years and the only difference is, like Hashemite, I've simply grown even more cynical about contemporary politics, and what actual use or change it will bring. Was naively attracted by the International forums, hoping to take some sort of 'refuge' there, having wanted to get to know European politics more intimately for a while now, and seeing the opportunity to become immersed - with UK politics being so unremittingly bleak. But everywhere's the same more or less: extra green seat here, minus a few socialists elsewhere - no meaningful difference.

[Hash]

having an ideology is pretty dumb

I don't see anything dumb about trying to root your political position in a coherent set of beliefs. Ideology has become easy to bash in recent times for obvious reasons, but I think this kind of attitude is seriously misguided.

I would like to think that I have a coherent set of beliefs and political opinions, even if they may change and even if I keep pretty quiet about them because I dislike political debate. I am not a Moderate Hero, I don't adapt my opinions to circumstances and in some cases I feel pretty strongly about certain issues. Push comes to shove, I lean more to the left than to the right.

But why is there an absolute necessity to attach a label to me? Why is there a need to conform to established ideological labels? One of the reasons I don't identify with any of the existing labels is because I feel that I do not 'conform' to the main ideological labels out there ('social democrat', 'social liberal' etc), in addition to the fact that those labels are pretty useless and increasingly devoid of meaning. Given that those ideologies (like most) are quite vague, what constitutes a 'coherent set of beliefs' which conforms to said ideology? I'm pretty sure there is no one 'coherent set of belief' which defines you as a social demcorat and nothing else.

Besides, even I did have a label attached to me, what good would it be? An ideology is not like food and water, it is not something which I 'need' to have, it's not some kind of consumer product either. I'm some random poster on some internet forum who writes a blog. Why would anyone give a sh**t about what my ideology is? Certainly only few people are genuinely interested about your random opinions about political issues and even fewer people will reconsider their own random opinions based on my own random opinions. What purpose would it serve to have an ideological label attached to my beliefs? It's not like I'm a politician or something, there's no need for me to attach myself to labels.

Again, I do have an ideology: anti-reactionary Mustafinism-Komovism. It's not one of the prepackaged products on the markets? Well, that's really too bad.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I've been here since July 2005 so quite a bit, I guess.  Most notably I'm in favor of gay marriage and didn't need Biden to drag me there, and I've become in total favor of legalization of drugs and prostitution because we waste too much money on the war on them.  Also, I'm probably just war weary but we need to stop bleeding $2 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Kitteh]

When I started posting here, I was very interested in political debate and in hearing others' political opinions. Now I have little interest in the opinions of people who disagree with me.

lol'd at this.

Been here for two years and the only difference is, like Hashemite, I've simply grown even more cynical about contemporary politics, and what actual use or change it will bring. Was naively attracted by the International forums, hoping to take some sort of 'refuge' there, having wanted to get to know European politics more intimately for a while now, and seeing the opportunity to become immersed - with UK politics being so unremittingly bleak. But everywhere's the same more or less: extra green seat here, minus a few socialists elsewhere - no meaningful difference.

Heh, this is very true for me as well. Reading the International Elections threads has made me realize politics in other countries is just as ed as in the US. I guess I had this naive view that European (and Canadian, etc) politics was more sane and intelligent than American politics...lol

[Tetro Kornbluth]

What Hash said basically.

What I have learnt from this forum is really how rhetoric doesn't so much hug reality in some all embracing glow as rather strangle it violently trying to remove all life from it but, like in consentual BDSM, it needs the victim to keep breathing so it can keep on going.

[Torie]

What Hash said basically.

What I have learnt from this forum is really how rhetoric doesn't so much hug reality in some all embracing glow as rather strangle it violently trying to remove all life from it but, like in consentual BDSM, it needs the victim to keep breathing so it can keep on going.

That's quite a mouthful Mr. Foyle. I had to read it three times to absorb it all into my decaying synapses. I am trying to get my mind around an example of the practice of torturing "reality" while taking care not to kill it. That might take awhile! 

[Хahar 🤔]

I'm not unsympathetic to Hashemite and Gully Foyle's points, but I find anti-ideological sentiment in general deeply pernicious. What it brings to mind is a politician who claims to be bound by neither the left nor the right, but merely wishes to "get the job done" by taking good ideas instead of ideological ideas. In practice that manifests itself as Shane Ross and Leo Varadkar. Antonio is right about an ideology being merely a coherent approach to viewing the world, and a named ideology is simply a clear shorthand to convey that worldview. It can take the place of intelligent thought, certainly, but you don't need to have an ideology to fail to think critically.

What Al points out is important:

Ideology isn't a consumer product. In fact, the idea that it is, is in fact deeply ideological.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I wouldn't just say pernicious, but in many cases, utterly pretentious. Labels for all things exist for a reason, they're not out to restrict growth and intellectual thought, they exist, like Xahar said, as clear and consistent shorthand for what you, with an exception or two, are.

I know it's very popular and almost edgy sounding to sit here and talk about how we "don't conform to what people want us to be, man, we're just free and independent" (which reminds me of people who do that "no labels" thing for sexuality, making me want to strangle them in their sleep) but opposing having an ideology just for the sake of it, while not Moderate Hero-esque, is just kind of stupid in it's own right.

If you don't perfectly fit into an ideology as a natural progression of how your beliefs fit together, that is fine. If you take from the outset a stubborn refusal to "fit in, man" then I kind of just think you need to get over yourself, because implicit in that belief is the idea that anyone who does fit in neatly within the confines of an ideology is somehow not legitimate or smart. It's a holier than thou sentiment that, like Xahar mentioned, just leads to the Max Baucuses or Francois Bayrous (who's entire persona consists of "centristcentristcentristcentristcentrist") of the world. Because I concisely and simply just refer to myself as a Socialist doesn't mean I'm not completely willing and capable to defend any aspect of my beliefs to anyone who challenges them, it is just the simplest way to describe my positions to an outsider and the best approximation of what my positions add up to.

I don't mean for it to sound like I feel like people have to pick an ideology to be taken seriously, because I don't, all I care about is people take clear and consistent positions (which Hash pretty much does), but we all need to get over our fascination with trying to come up with special sounding just-for-us alternative labels because it comes off as childish at best and aggressively snobbish at worst.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

What Hash said basically.

What I have learnt from this forum is really how rhetoric doesn't so much hug reality in some all embracing glow as rather strangle it violently trying to remove all life from it but, like in consentual BDSM, it needs the victim to keep breathing so it can keep on going.

That's quite a mouthful Mr. Foyle. I had to read it three times to absorb it all into my decaying synapses. I am trying to get my mind around an example of the practice of torturing "reality" while taking care not to kill it. That might take awhile! 

The key thing in that section is 'consensual' (which I gloriously misspelt in a rush) though in retrospect what I really wanted to say is 'parasitic'. But then again, we are talking about BDSM.

[Oakvale]

The Atlas has been somewhat important in that it's helped me realise that I don't like or particularly care about politics or even worse "policy". I think political "debate" is a sadistic waste of time, but I don't mean to imply I'm some kind of stoner nihilist or (although it's going to be hard to avoid that impression) but while obviously I care about some, even many 'issues' and like to think I have coherent views on those, I'm never going to formulate a list of 25 distinct political positions or whatever because I'm not and do not plan ever to be a candidate for elected office.

I have to concur with hash's wonderful post - over the years I've talked to him on here it's been clear we tend to be on more or less the same page politically and his post summarises my own views on "ideology" far more articulately than I could. I don't have any ideological affiliation, and that doesn't mean I'm some kind of "ideology is dead blah blah fiscally conservative socially liberal blah blah blah" moderate hero. It means I don't see the point in consciously choosing an identity because I have opinions on a few things I think are important. I'm not part of a movement because of things I believe, I'm just an unimportant and irrelevant person. I don't even bother voting any more because politics is just the art of massaging the public into believing in dehumanising institutions. Something something alienation something.

That said, I still think poor people should get to go to hospital and not starve to death, though, so if someone runs against that I will show up, and vote appropriately. So that's something.

TL;DR What hash said, F[Inks] THE SYSTEM MAAAAAAN 4/20, I don't believe in Beatles or Jesus.

[Hash]

The Atlas has been somewhat important in that it's helped me realise that I don't like or particularly care about politics or even worse "policy". I think political "debate" is a sadistic waste of time, but I don't mean to imply I'm some kind of stoner nihilist or (although it's going to be hard to avoid that impression) but while obviously I care about some, even many 'issues' and like to think I have coherent views on those, I'm never going to formulate a list of 25 distinct political positions or whatever because I'm not and do not plan ever to be a candidate for elected office.

I have to concur with hash's wonderful post - over the years I've talked to him on here it's been clear we tend to be on more or less the same page politically and his post summarises my own views on "ideology" far more articulately than I could. I don't have any ideological affiliation, and that doesn't mean I'm some kind of "ideology is dead blah blah fiscally conservative socially liberal blah blah blah" moderate hero. It means I don't see the point in consciously choosing an identity because I have opinions on a few things I think are important. I'm not part of a movement because of things I believe, I'm just an unimportant and irrelevant person. I don't even bother voting any more because politics is just the art of massaging the public into believing in dehumanising institutions. Something something alienation something.

That said, I still think poor people should get to go to hospital and not starve to death, though, so if someone runs against that I will show up, and vote appropriately. So that's something.

TL;DR What hash said, F[Inks] THE SYSTEM MAAAAAAN 4/20, I don't believe in Beatles or Jesus.

I want to second this post, because it completes my original post and adds things which I forgot to say. Yeah, I don't give a sh**t about a lot of 'issues' and I have no interest in ever actually taking the time to learn about them, so I won't create a spergy list of 25 random political positions as if I'm writing a platform for a future run for office. That doesn't mean I'm some kind of 15 year old 'Blue Dog Democrat' moderate hero. And I really, really don't care about anybody else's random political views - unless they're some absolutely moronic that I can laugh at time and have a good time.

I still vote though, but mostly because I still find it kind of fun and in some cases (eg: Canadian politics) I vote because my government is the worst in the Western world.

[Marokai Backbeat]

That's all well and good, and I respect that completely since I understand the feeling, but it'd be nice if we could at least drop the condescending aura of the whole thing. Calling people who do care about issues "spergy" when you're willing to spend forever and a day writing treatises on obscure political histories of Latin America just comes off like overcompensating.

All-my-posts-here-TLDR: It's okay for others to care about some s**t even if you no longer do. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. So sperg on, bro.

[Lambsbread]

If it's of any merit, Feeblepizza is now a socialist.

[SPC]

I haven't really changed significantly since joining, and the few issues on which I have have not been by virtue of my membership here (which I guess explains why I have grown more libertarian). I no longer believe in monopolistic provision of public services, immigration restrictions, a hawkish foreign policy, or the death penalty.

[All Along The Watchtower]

People don't really "have" ideologies, I've found (the Atlas notwithstanding ) . Yes, people are influenced by ideologies, sure. But that's not the same thing as saying that someone "has" a Liberal, Conservative, Socialist, or whatever ideology, per se.

And really, considering how narrow the ideological "spectrum" is in the United States (especially these days) and much of the rest of the "Western" world, or the fact that (for example) American political parties are divided more by differences in application of policies (policies that the Democratic and Republican Parties both essentially agree on), not ideology, the desire to label everyone and everything and divide everyone into different ideologies (based on "social" and "economic" categories-a pet peeve of mine, brought to you by the Political Compass people) just reeks of hyper-individualistic bourgeois narcissism (how's that for an ideological label? )

[courts]

People don't really "have" ideologies, I've found (the Atlas notwithstanding ) . Yes, people are influenced by ideologies, sure. But that's not the same thing as saying that someone "has" a Liberal, Conservative, Socialist, or whatever ideology, per se.

And really, considering how narrow the ideological "spectrum" is in the United States (especially these days) and much of the rest of the "Western" world, or the fact that (for example) American political parties are divided more by differences in application of policies (policies that the Democratic and Republican Parties both essentially agree on), not ideology, the desire to label everyone and everything and divide everyone into different ideologies (based on "social" and "economic" categories-a pet peeve of mine, brought to you by the Political Compass people) just reeks of hyper-individualistic bourgeois narcissism (how's that for an ideological label? )

in a way that's what led me to the right. if people are on the same page when it comes to basic values and culture then government (probably) isn't going to be that bad. the problem is we have don't have that thanks to "multiculturalism," "diversity," "pluralism," etc. we have an atomized society. so at best democratic government (to the extent that exists) is like a particularly long and boring committee meeting where everybody gets what nobody wants... except for the wealthy bankers and other financial interests. somehow they always get what they want. funny how that works.

or alternatively supporting a political party is treated like some high school clique or sports team. they're something to be supported simply because it is expected of you. they're not even supported because people expect to get something material ('voting your economic interests' ) out of them really. let alone higher ideals, those are out of the question.

[Oakvale]

I've started hating people on my own side of the aisle more than the other side.

As an addendum to my previous post, I've experienced this, too. When it comes down to it I fit in more on the "left" than the "right", whatever my distaste for ideological labels, but I find a lot of the left tedious and depressing - whether it's identity-obsessed new age liberals, unreformed Marxists, awful "moderates", the Naso Democrats strung out on the fantasy of a new age of American manufacturing, etc, etc, etc, I always seem to find myself rolling my eyes. It's worse because I don't really understand the moral principles those on the right start from so they don't feel familiar enough for me to bother being annoyed. With the worst of the left I can still see the root logic behind the tedious bullsh[inks] they end up talking about, and it's all the more upsetting.

It's kind of similar to the religion debates on here - I don't like the smug, condescending anti-rationalist posts from the religious side any more than the smug, condescending posts from the super-rationalist atheist side, but I understand the atheists more - I don't "get" believing in God etc. 'cause my brain's not wired that way, so their arguments are bound to annoy me far more, since I probably more or less agree with them when you get right down to it - the difference is I can't bring myself to care about whether Jesus said "burn the gays" or "go forth and listen to Madonna ironically" etc.

[Insula Dei]

I don't really do the whole 'issues' or 'views' smorgasbord. I suppose I have this affective attachment to social-democracy, which isn't really the product of long reflection but more of a purely moral impulse. The desire not to be a 'salaud', whatever else I might be.

 Yeah, that seems a pretty accurate description. 'Affective Socialist', I could live with that.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I've certainly shifted to the far left, especially over the past few days. Due to an array of reasons, including possible a kneejerk reaction to some of our more hedonistic members, I've also adopted a sort of moral traditionalism.

[Bacon King]

some of our more hedonistic members

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

some of our more hedonistic members

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I've certainly shifted to the far left, especially over the past few days. Due to an array of reasons, including possible a kneejerk reaction to some of our more hedonistic members, I've also adopted a sort of moral traditionalism.

The most Atlas comment ever... yes, only on Atlas can someone change their political views "over the past few days".