The exodus of the blue avatars

[Calthrina950]

this might be the single biggest reason there are so few blue avs.  The sh**tty ones can't hack it or freak out and get banned.  sh**tty red avs can and do stick around for years.  Some of them are Atlas "institutions".

And the low quality of the median red avatar contributes greatly to creating the climate I spoke of where the forum simply isn't worth making serious contributions to anymore. Sometimes I see a thread I want to post in, but scrolling through and seeing a wall of Reddit-tier takes from Democrats disabuses me of any interest in participating.

"We are more than happy to participate, but you're all too stupid that it's not even worth it!"

Wow, great argument there. It sounds like you're very secure in your belief system.

I am in the minority on a number of issues on Atlas (particularly trans rights), but I always defend my beliefs no matter how many people disagree with me.

Look, Atlas is unlike most social media giants in that there's no algorithm stacking the deck against you. We're a relatively small community, we're completely anonymous, and moderation here is generally lax enough that you don't have to worry about getting your posts removed unless you engage in a personal attack. There's nothing holding you back from defending your beliefs and engaging with red avatars, unless you're afraid that they're going to get more recommends than you.

If blue avatars/conservatives aren't able to defend their arguments on Atlas of all places, then that's not on red avatars. That's on blue avatars.

Your argument then, is that the forum is a fair place for both sides to make their arguments? That there is no bias present among moderation, or generally? I have said in the past that this forum certainly does give considerable leeway to posters, far more so than what you see on many other websites. I've constantly raised the example of AlternateHistory.com, whose administrator, Ian the Admin, and moderators, primarily CalBear, are utterly ruthless towards those who they see as violating their forum's policies. Oftentimes, they tend to be particularly harsh with those who express right-leaning or conservative viewpoints. We are lucky that such is not the case here.

But I think it would be wrong to say that this forum is without its faults. There a number of right-leaning or conservative posters who do make an effort to engage on here, and who are interested in debate. But they oftentimes find that the other side is not willing to give some credit to their arguments, even in the sense of conceding that a poster made a decent point. There have been instances in which right-leaning posters have suffered disproportionate punishment, compared to what has been meted out to their left-leaning counterparts. And there are times where it seems as if there ought to be only one correct viewpoint on a particular issue, and if anyone deviates from that viewpoint, they are ostracized.

Atlas is far from being one of the worst forums on the Internet, but there can be an effort to lower the tempo of arguments we have seen here, and to enforce standards that are more equitably applied.

[T'Chenka]

I think a big disconnect here is that blue avatars deep down might not believe leftists and Democrats when they say that...

- if the Democratic Party and Joe Biden had done January 6th against Trump who won the election
- Newsom was acting like Mastriano is now regarding the 2024 electoral college
- Democrats were engaging in voter suppression tactics
- Hundreds of Democrats in the federal and state congresses were approving of all of this

... if that were happening, and not the other way around, red avatars and burgundy avatars would begin temporarily voting Republican to make sure that the Democratic Party paid very deeply for doing that and was forced to become pro-democracy again in order to win back support of the voters.

I think that a lot of blue avatars think the red avatars are full of s__t when they say that they would be doing that, even though it's true. The idea that Democrats would actually value democracy over policy sounds like bulls__t to them.

[Ferguson97]

Your argument then, is that the forum is a fair place for both sides to make their arguments? That there is no bias present among moderation, or generally? I have said in the past that this forum certainly does give considerable leeway to posters, far more so than what you see on many other websites. I've constantly raised the example of AlternateHistory.com, whose administrator, Ian the Admin, and moderators, primarily CalBear, are utterly ruthless towards those who they see as violating their forum's policies. Oftentimes, they tend to be particularly harsh with those who express right-leaning or conservative viewpoints. We are lucky that such is not the case here.

I haven't been to AH.com in years, so I can't speak to their moderation practicies.

But no, I do not believe that there is left-wing bias among the moderators. They are exceptionally fair. If anything they give slightly more leeway to conservatives so as not to appear biased. (See, for example: the fact that DeadPrez, Mr. Reactionary, Fuzzy et al. haven't been permabanned.)

[T'Chenka]

And there are times where it seems as if there ought to be only one correct viewpoint on a particular issue, and if anyone deviates from that viewpoint, they are ostracized.

There ARE many situations where there is only one correct viewpoint, and expressing other viewpoints results in being ostracized. And that's a good thing. Let me give you some examples.

"Democracy is bad."
"Political violence is not only acceptable, it's good."
"Genocide is good."
"Trump won the election due to Democratic voter fraud."
"Non-white and non-heterosexual people do not deserve the same rights as white heterosexuals."
"The majority of LBGTQ people are groomers / pedophiles."
"The medical community is in a woke conspiracy to sterile trans kids as a form of genocide."

If you want to lay out multiple good arguments for these kinds of viewpoints, you might not be ostracized for SOME of them, seeing as how you are operating on a logical basis and can defend your position in a debate, but otherwise, you probably will be (and should be) regarded as an idiot or a bigot or both, depending which one we're talking about.

[It’s so Joever]

Im sorry, as someone who routinely used to go on Trump supporting YouTube channels in 2016 and try and argue against the conservative talking points there (yeah I doubt I changed anyone’s mind but at least it was an experience lol) I really just don’t have much sympathy here beyond the bot accusations which are an actual annoying bias that needs to stop.

[Calthrina950]

And there are times where it seems as if there ought to be only one correct viewpoint on a particular issue, and if anyone deviates from that viewpoint, they are ostracized.

There ARE many situations where there is only one correct viewpoint, and expressing other viewpoints results in being ostracized. And that's a good thing. Let me give you some examples.

"Democracy is bad."
"Political violence is not only acceptable, it's good."
"Genocide is good."
"Trump won the election due to Democratic voter fraud."
"Non-white and non-heterosexual people do not deserve the same rights as white heterosexuals."
"The majority of LBGTQ people are groomers / pedophiles."
"The medical community is in a woke conspiracy to sterile trans kids as a form of genocide."

If you want to lay out multiple good arguments for these kinds of viewpoints, you might not be ostracized for SOME of them, seeing as how you are operating on a logical basis and can defend your position in a debate, but otherwise, you probably will be (and should be) regarded as an idiot or a bigot or both, depending which one we're talking about.

Obviously, there are situations where there is only one valid viewpoint - at least, a viewpoint that the vast majority of civilized people can agree to. But I'm talking about issues of policy, such as abortion, immigration, and energy, to give a few examples, where there is a "consensus", as established among red avatars, and that anyone who breaks that "consensus" is to be regarded with scorn or with contempt. Even the most mundane kinds of issues can be cause for this to be the case. I encountered this many times over the last several years. There is a difference between criticizing someone for promoting violence or for wishing ill upon other people, and criticizing someone in the same vein for not sharing your viewpoint on a particular policy or political issue.

[dead0man]

this might be the single biggest reason there are so few blue avs.  The sh**tty ones can't hack it or freak out and get banned.  sh**tty red avs can and do stick around for years.  Some of them are Atlas "institutions".

And the low quality of the median red avatar contributes greatly to creating the climate I spoke of where the forum simply isn't worth making serious contributions to anymore. Sometimes I see a thread I want to post in, but scrolling through and seeing a wall of Reddit-tier takes from Democrats disabuses me of any interest in participating.

"We are more than happy to participate, but you're all too stupid that it's not even worth it!"

nobody but you have said "all"

Wow, great argument there. It sounds like you're very secure in your belief system.

if that was true, why wouldn't we find our own echo chamber like most red avs here?  And that's not to say people do it consciously, it's just something that happens to a certain type of person.  It can happen to people of any political stripe, it just happens to be red avs here.

I am in the minority on a number of issues on Atlas (particularly trans rights), but I always defend my beliefs no matter how many people disagree with me.

k

Look, Atlas is unlike most social media giants in that there's no algorithm stacking the deck against you. We're a relatively small community, we're completely anonymous, and moderation here is generally lax enough that you don't have to worry about getting your posts removed unless you engage in a personal attack.

maybe, and red avs have to worry about it even less.

There's nothing holding you back from defending your beliefs and engaging with red avatars, unless you're afraid that they're going to get more recommends than you.

that's some weird projection you've got going on there

If blue avatars/conservatives aren't able to defend their arguments on Atlas of all places, then that's not on red avatars. That's on blue avatars.

agreed, which is what we've been saying this entire time and you just spent several paragraphs saying wasn't true.  That's weird bro.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Your argument then, is that the forum is a fair place for both sides to make their arguments? That there is no bias present among moderation, or generally? I have said in the past that this forum certainly does give considerable leeway to posters, far more so than what you see on many other websites. I've constantly raised the example of AlternateHistory.com, whose administrator, Ian the Admin, and moderators, primarily CalBear, are utterly ruthless towards those who they see as violating their forum's policies. Oftentimes, they tend to be particularly harsh with those who express right-leaning or conservative viewpoints. We are lucky that such is not the case here.

I haven't been to AH.com in years, so I can't speak to their moderation practicies.

But no, I do not believe that there is left-wing bias among the moderators. They are exceptionally fair. If anything they give slightly more leeway to conservatives so as not to appear biased. (See, for example: the fact that DeadPrez, Mr. Reactionary, Fuzzy et al. haven't been permabanned.)

Really Ghost of Ruin made a post calling Republicans terrorists and how the justice department should go after them as that and then when I called him a fascist it was my post that was deleted. You don't think there is a left wing bias because you think left wingers should be allowed to use whatever super charged rhetoric you want against right wingers but we can't do the same back plain and simple.

If this forum didn't have biased moderation: Badger, Ghost of Ruin for example would have been temp banned by now.

[Vosem]

I think a big disconnect here is that blue avatars deep down might not believe leftists and Democrats when they say that...

- if the Democratic Party and Joe Biden had done January 6th against Trump who won the election
- Newsom was acting like Mastriano is now regarding the 2024 electoral college
- Democrats were engaging in voter suppression tactics
- Hundreds of Democrats in the federal and state congresses were approving of all of this

... if that were happening, and not the other way around, red avatars and burgundy avatars would begin temporarily voting Republican to make sure that the Democratic Party paid very deeply for doing that and was forced to become pro-democracy again in order to win back support of the voters.

I think that a lot of blue avatars think the red avatars are full of s__t when they say that they would be doing that, even though it's true. The idea that Democrats would actually value democracy over policy sounds like bulls__t to them.

I don’t think “red avatars” are a monolith, so it’s tough for me to say anything about them, but surely you can agree this isn’t true of the present leadership of the Democratic Party? Complaints along the lines of “stole the election” were widespread in 2016, and Democrats are funding candidates who believe the 2020 election was stolen on a (frankly questionable) theory that these candidates would be weaker in general elections. (The evidence that “progressives” underperform in generals is much stronger, but note that you don’t see the NRCC funding people like, say, Alessandra Biaggi; fear of Democratic policies seems much more widespread).

The “voter suppression” line is notable because no Republicans would see their election reform policies that way (which have broad support throughout the party, and as recently as the early 2010s many of them had support on the Democratic right flank as well); it feels like a way to define the terms of a conversation before it starts. (Note that both parties are operating on fundamentally flawed premises here, though: Republicans are cripplingly afraid of Democratic policies allowing voter fraud, when the evidence for that verges on nonexistent, while Democrats are cripplingly afraid of Republican policies causing turnout declines, when the evidence for that too verges on nonexistent. Which you are comes down to whether you see fraud or low turnout as more damaging to democratic legitimacy — I don’t really think low turnout affects democratic legitimacy at all, so I come down on the former side, but I assume most Democrats would beg to differ.)

[T'Chenka]

I think a big disconnect here is that blue avatars deep down might not believe leftists and Democrats when they say that...

- if the Democratic Party and Joe Biden had done January 6th against Trump who won the election
- Newsom was acting like Mastriano is now regarding the 2024 electoral college
- Democrats were engaging in voter suppression tactics
- Hundreds of Democrats in the federal and state congresses were approving of all of this

... if that were happening, and not the other way around, red avatars and burgundy avatars would begin temporarily voting Republican to make sure that the Democratic Party paid very deeply for doing that and was forced to become pro-democracy again in order to win back support of the voters.

I think that a lot of blue avatars think the red avatars are full of s__t when they say that they would be doing that, even though it's true. The idea that Democrats would actually value democracy over policy sounds like bulls__t to them.

I don’t think “red avatars” are a monolith, so it’s tough for me to say anything about them, but surely you can agree this isn’t true of the present leadership of the Democratic Party?

I don't really understand what you're asking me here...

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We already know what we're gonna get with Rs in control more of the same because we have a Filibuster in the Sen that's preventing Gun control ending SOFT MONEY AND ending  Gerrymandering but more Ukraine funding and WVA pipeline it's an illusion that we have a Securlar TRIFECTA when we nix the Filibuster and pass DC Statehood we will have Secular Trifecta.

Biden did the Student Loans Discharge by executive order the reason why he is SURGING on Oct 15th were gonna get 20K in student loans Discharge

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1573439146336702471?t=3BQpi4DcI0s3uFxdC6aBcw&s=19

Biden is at 48/50 Approval that's why I don't follow others and make R nut maps you never know what happens

I feel Biden was always at 52/48 not 41% we only lost VA after 2T and won Cali recall and he was near that on EDay 2020 and Rs lost both special Elections
.
But we have a chance at a do over replicate the map we should of gotten on EDay 2020 Espy, McGrath and Harrison should of won, just like my map shows wave insurance

Just think athletes and Trump has 250M the only way we get that and the monarch if we win the lottery and people are leaving Cali because cost of Housing is to expensive not WC but blacks and Latinos that moved from Midwest for better life move back home and Latinos moving from AZ and CA to NM and CO

[Aurelius]

None of the people being mentioned in this thread should be banned. If they hurt your sensitive feelings so badly just put them on ignore. I cannot stand self-victimization!

[Aurelius]

this might be the single biggest reason there are so few blue avs.  The sh**tty ones can't hack it or freak out and get banned.  sh**tty red avs can and do stick around for years.  Some of them are Atlas "institutions".

And the low quality of the median red avatar contributes greatly to creating the climate I spoke of where the forum simply isn't worth making serious contributions to anymore. Sometimes I see a thread I want to post in, but scrolling through and seeing a wall of Reddit-tier takes from Democrats disabuses me of any interest in participating.

"We are more than happy to participate, but you're all too stupid that it's not even worth it!"

Wow, great argument there. It sounds like you're very secure in your belief system.

I am in the minority on a number of issues on Atlas (particularly trans rights), but I always defend my beliefs no matter how many people disagree with me.

Look, Atlas is unlike most social media giants in that there's no algorithm stacking the deck against you. We're a relatively small community, we're completely anonymous, and moderation here is generally lax enough that you don't have to worry about getting your posts removed unless you engage in a personal attack. There's nothing holding you back from defending your beliefs and engaging with red avatars, unless you're afraid that they're going to get more recommends than you.

If blue avatars/conservatives aren't able to defend their arguments on Atlas of all places, then that's not on red avatars. That's on blue avatars.

Nobody is obligated to post in any particular thread. This is not a collegiate debate society. I post here for three reasons: for my own amusement, to learn about history and international affairs, and to exhaust my seemingly insatiable desire to argue about politics and philosophy so that the normies in my life don't have to be at the receiving end of it. People are going to post in discussions that they find interesting or relevant. I know that Trump is corrupt, I have spent the past 7 years hearing about him nonstop on news and in conversation, none of this is new to me. I have absolutely no interest in following the latest minutiae of "FBI says flunkie did crimes with other flunkie if testimony of flunkie #3 is to be believed; here are the latest warrants and subpoenas and hearings". It does not interest me. I have better things to do with my life. So yeah I have absolutely no interest in going into a red avatar circlejerk thread full of reddit tier "Republican voters want to put a Hitler in power and kill all the gays and jews, treason insurrection yada yada yada" alternating with "wHeRe aRe tEh BlUe AvAtArS?!?!?!?!?!111oneoneone" I spend my time on what I feel like spending my time on and I am under no obligation to use this website in ways that I don't enjoy.

I also don't particularly care about how many recommendations I get! Especially when a lot of the posts with 30 or 40 recs are full of recs from the sort of mindless white noise dunce who would have never lasted two seconds on here if they had a different avatar color. You know that I spout insane hot takes on here all the damn time lol.

[Wormless Gourd]

My account has only been around since 2020 but have lurked here for years before that, this is my two cents.

- People under 30 or 40 don't split 50-50 politically and are of course the primary demographics of a given nerdy forum. You're more likely to get a surplus of very online college graduates and not a lot of retirees or rural small business owners when people come to discuss politics online. This isn't something unique to Atlas, there's a liberal lean to most things online.

- Moderation requires removal of users that make harmful posts, which can include opinions that are more common offline than online. The partisan that would give a cogent defense of law enforcement, the Supreme Court and the free market also strongly believes transgender people are perverts and should be imprisoned, which would inevitably result in a ban here. That filters out a number of people that would otherwise be willing to post all day under different rules, who instead opt for niche forums or think that online moderation is left-biased. Also not unique to Atlas.

- I wouldn't think being called categorically fascist, literally pro-genocide, demonstrably anti-democracy, etc. compels people to leave(as I'd assume online Republicans would be rather used to?) but repeat ad nauseum and I can see why some would choose to stop trying to participate. There's realistically nothing you can do except be aware you're in the minority in most forums you could go and that Atlas remains among the more quality ones with moderation I think is fairer than most.

- I think the belief that there's been a blue avi flight is dubious in general.

[Goldwater]

The partisan that would give a cogent defense of law enforcement, the Supreme Court and the free market also strongly believes transgender people are perverts and should be imprisoned, which would inevitably result in a ban here.

What? I fail to see how supporting the free market requires thinking that all trans people are perverts that deserve to be imprisoned...

[Aurelius]

The partisan that would give a cogent defense of law enforcement, the Supreme Court and the free market also strongly believes transgender people are perverts and should be imprisoned, which would inevitably result in a ban here.

What? I fail to see how supporting the free market requires thinking that all trans people are perverts that deserve to be imprisoned...

I don't think he's saying one requires the other; rather, he's saying that holding all of the other beliefs he mentioned has some correlation with the one about trans people. Which is certainly true to some extent, due to simple partisan backfill of worldviews.

[Wormless Gourd]

The partisan that would give a cogent defense of law enforcement, the Supreme Court and the free market also strongly believes transgender people are perverts and should be imprisoned, which would inevitably result in a ban here.

What? I fail to see how supporting the free market requires thinking that all trans people are perverts that deserve to be imprisoned...

Your typical partisan Republican that could add to a quality discussion is likely to also be transphobic to a bannable extent.

[Vosem]

I think a big disconnect here is that blue avatars deep down might not believe leftists and Democrats when they say that...

- if the Democratic Party and Joe Biden had done January 6th against Trump who won the election
- Newsom was acting like Mastriano is now regarding the 2024 electoral college
- Democrats were engaging in voter suppression tactics
- Hundreds of Democrats in the federal and state congresses were approving of all of this

... if that were happening, and not the other way around, red avatars and burgundy avatars would begin temporarily voting Republican to make sure that the Democratic Party paid very deeply for doing that and was forced to become pro-democracy again in order to win back support of the voters.

I think that a lot of blue avatars think the red avatars are full of s__t when they say that they would be doing that, even though it's true. The idea that Democrats would actually value democracy over policy sounds like bulls__t to them.

I don’t think “red avatars” are a monolith, so it’s tough for me to say anything about them, but surely you can agree this isn’t true of the present leadership of the Democratic Party?

I don't really understand what you're asking me here...

Whether you recognize that, in general, the present leadership of the Democratic Party is more motivated by will to power than sincere ideological belief, while the present leadership of the Republican Party is more motivated by sincere ideological belief than will to power.

[jamestroll]

I do admit that I do believe site moderation is bit biased against conservatives. That plays a role in chasing them out.

But of course, I try to play fair.

[jamestroll]

Conservatives answer this for me:

Why do some, obviously not all, conservatives hold the following views?

1) Everyone has completely equal chances.

2) Dismissive about concerns about the environment and climate change.

3) Hold an extreme anti-immigrant attitude

4) Dismissive about hardships faced in the black community.

5) Ignore the hardships and just do not care about people with disabilities. Especially they are not visible.

6) Only care for themselves but no one else.

Why? Why? Why?

In real life I have one close conservative friend and she is in Utah and supports McMullin and supported McAdams and Matheson in the past. I have had a few socialist friends and acquaintances but those never last to be fair.

All that I mentioned above is why I voted for the same candidate as people Nova did last year despite myself complaining, whining, moaning, bitching, kicking doors, and throwing stuff about the same issues the Republicans in VA were complaining about.

[Vosem]

Conservatives answer this for me:

Why do some, obviously not all, conservatives hold the following views?

I'll try to "steelman" these positions (present them in the strongest possible light), or explain why I think some people would hold them.

1) Everyone has completely equal chances.

I'm not sure anyone literally thinks this; in fact I think conservatives are likelier to say that accidents of biology play a role in what kind of chance you get (but probably less likely to say that about accidents of class). However, some more limited version of this highlighting how much easier things are today relative to the past is true; for example in the modern United States if you do not make certain seemingly easily avoidable mistakes, it is basically certain that you will not live in poverty (linked to Google search results just to demonstrate this is so often repeated). Your chances really are much better today.

2) Dismissive about concerns about the environment and climate change.

Probably a mixture of numerous recent well-publicized scientific failures (like the replication crisis in psychology, sociology, and medicine, or, of great interest to me, the failure of the leading paradigm in genetics from 1995-2010, or the fact that contemporary scientific standards of proof are weak enough to allow a field studying psychic powers to exist) and an assumption that government functionaries, or ideological progressives, are incentivized to come up with theories that would support greater powers given to government, since most proposals to fight climate change revolve around heavy regulation of commonly used technologies, like cars or agricultural products.

Understanding that climate change is real even though much of science is fake, and you are right to be skeptical about it, takes some level of subtlety and sophistication.

3) Hold an extreme anti-immigrant attitude

Dunno; this one might make sense in certain countries (like Nordic nations?) where immigrants really do disproportionately commit crimes or depend on welfare, but that isn't true in the United States. Some people are also very protective of their country's culture, but again in the US it's generally the case that immigrants assimilate pretty well.

4) Dismissive about hardships faced in the black community.

I think lots of people object to the racialized attitude that things are presented in here; many other ethnic groups have similar histories of oppression (consider the discrimination Asian-Americans faced in the late 19th century, or Jews who fled the Holocaust, etc. etc.; in my ancestors' country, Russia, slavery wasn't abolished until 1861, or 4 years before the end of the American Civil War) but better performance among many economic metrics, and especially among immigrant groups there's resentment that the black community has been in the US for centuries but has still not become rich in spite of the massive advantage that comes from 'being in the US'. On top of this, among ideological conservatives you see a push for judging individuals separately, so the framing that there is a problem unique to 'the black community', rather than certain black individuals, is one that there is a strong instinct to reject.

5) Ignore the hardships and just do not care about people with disabilities. Especially they are not visible.

I'm not sure this is a common attitude among conservatives. More generally, I think the usual ideological conservative picture of how policy can lead to a better society is something along the lines of
1) less government control leading to more enterprise/opportunity (especially by repealing regulations, but also by lowering taxes and spending); there is lots of empirical evidence that this works
2) leading to a richer society across the board (ditto)
3) leading to everyone having a better standard-of-living through trickle-down (I think there is substantial empirical evidence that this works, but of course it is very controversial)

(I think given referendum results that some version of this is believed by an outright majority of the American public, but especially point 3 is actually moderately fringey in other parts of the First World). If you don't think trickle-down works, then it's possible for you to interpret points 1 and 2 as rich people trying to set up a society that works better for them, though given that right and left in the US aren't particularly tied to income or wealth I think this idea is a real stretch.

6) Only care for themselves but no one else.

I can't imagine that people like this go into politics -- surely there are better-paying opportunities elsewhere. People who go into politics really do care for others and want to change society, even if often (usually?) an outside observer would see those changes as mostly negative.

In real life I have one close conservative friend and she is in Utah and supports McMullin and supported McAdams and Matheson in the past. I have had a few socialist friends and acquaintances but those never last to be fair.

All that I mentioned above is why I voted for the same candidate as people Nova did last year despite myself complaining, whining, moaning, bitching, kicking doors, and throwing stuff about the same issues the Republicans in VA were complaining about.

I've often written about this, but it's amazing how well-sorted the US population is becoming, and how much of the sorting seems to happen in subconscious or non-obvious ways. I've lived basically my whole life in an urban area, went to a decently liberal university for undergrad and then a very liberal one for law school, and then went into tech, and I've absolutely never had a problem having a social group consisting mostly of right-libertarians. I get approached (this has happened, like, a high-single-digit number of times) by people at parties wanting to tell me about Ayn Rand.

If not for, like, being a polling nerd I think I would assume that maybe, like, 60-80% of society is right-libertarians. But, no, the answer is that something in my presentation just selects for these people. I think a phenomenon like this goes for most people, and you have to be very interested in society as a whole to notice that you (yes, you) invariably live in some kind of bubble.

[satsuma]

It's hard to have a truly open forum that doesn't evolve towards some sort of loose consensus. People start to get a feel for what the average member likes and dislikes. People who would have otherwise posted there think, "Well, if that's the sort of person who uses this forum, maybe it's not for me."

It's just a natural thing to be annoyed when encountering disagreement. Debate is interesting and useful. People get something out of it, but it's not for everyone, and of course it's more stressful than sitting around agreeing with your friends.

The perceived quality of an opponent's rhetoric is lower than that of your allies. We essentially downgrade our opinion of people who often disagree with us. I do use some chats that lean left, but I would be pretty annoyed if these were not people I respect, consider intelligent, and/or have areas of agreement with.

Personally, I've never been a regular on this forum. I'll continue using it sometimes, for some purposes, but I'm not an election fanatic. I like playing around with maps sometimes. Since I don't really enjoy debates and I'm not a "classic conservative" who agrees with everything on Fox News, I don't feel obligated to use the more partisan sections of this forum. I change my mind when I learn new things, but "Republicans misbehaving, take 400" isn't very interesting. It's just a rehash of the mainstream news.

[jamestroll]

I'll respond to the above post in a bit.

But another thing about conservatives that irritate me is the fact that they want to end social security.

No, we shall not end social security. We will have to make policy changes such as no upper income limit in collecting a social security tax, and yes.. partially privatizing it. Whether people like it or not.

I'll be honest,  I do not give a sh**t about the very poor. I know they have government help. So they are fine imo. I am most worried about the lower working class.

[T'Chenka]

Whether you recognize that, in general, the present leadership of the Democratic Party is more motivated by will to power than sincere ideological belief, while the present leadership of the Republican Party is more motivated by sincere ideological belief than will to power.

I don't necessarily think this is true. I see more evidence that the GOP is willing to do whatever it takes to gain power than the Democrats.

[jamestroll]

I'm not sure anyone literally thinks this; in fact I think conservatives are likelier to say that accidents of biology play a role in what kind of chance you get (but probably less likely to say that about accidents of class). However, some more limited version of this highlighting how much easier things are today relative to the past is true; for example in the modern United States if you do not make certain seemingly easily avoidable mistakes, it is basically certain that you will not live in poverty (linked to Google search results just to demonstrate this is so often repeated). Your chances really are much better today.

One big reason I pushed back against conservatives in regards to their views that everyone has equal opportunities is because of biological reasons. The Southern United States has also virtually no economic mobility.

Poor people do have it easier in the United States compared to most of the world, but that does not mean we should dismiss their hardships. Also needs in the United States are different. In most of this country, you need a vehicle.

But it is difficult to end up in extreme poverty in the United States. It usually either through a mental condition or complete incompetence and major mistakes.

That being said, I find conservatives very unforgiving of mistakes while liberals will give more benefit of the doubt.

Probably a mixture of numerous recent well-publicized scientific failures (like the replication crisis in psychology, sociology, and medicine, or, of great interest to me, the failure of the leading paradigm in genetics from 1995-2010, or the fact that contemporary scientific standards of proof are weak enough to allow a field studying psychic powers to exist) and an assumption that government functionaries, or ideological progressives, are incentivized to come up with theories that would support greater powers given to government, since most proposals to fight climate change revolve around heavy regulation of commonly used technologies, like cars or agricultural products.

Understanding that climate change is real even though much of science is fake, and you are right to be skeptical about it, takes some level of subtlety and sophistication.

This I can understand the most.. as my views on Covid were well known. If we followed the science on covid, kids would still be virtual learning and there would still be mass unemployment and no one ever leaving their house.

However, it is anti science to assume the follow

-Children are high risk for covid.
-Children do not need social development.
-Vaccines would end the coronavirus. Remember this is a CORONAVIRUS.
-We could eradicate covid.
-There are no negative trade offs to covid measures.

Another reason I pushed back on the left on covid measures was because I was afraid it would increase the anti-intellectualism and anti-science side of the GOP.

But still... the science is clear the Western United States needs to conserve water. But you know who the people who have the lushest lawns always are? Republicans!

It is literally why Utah has the worst record on water conservation in the west.

Dunno; this one might make sense in certain countries (like Nordic nations?) where immigrants really do disproportionately commit crimes or depend on welfare, but that isn't true in the United States. Some people are also very protective of their country's culture, but again in the US it's generally the case that immigrants assimilate pretty well.

Congratulations, you explain exactly why I am so pro-immigrant.

And contrary to popular belief, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE INELIGIBLE FOR WELFARE!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think lots of people object to the racialized attitude that things are presented in here; many other ethnic groups have similar histories of oppression (consider the discrimination Asian-Americans faced in the late 19th century, or Jews who fled the Holocaust, etc. etc.; in my ancestors' country, Russia, slavery wasn't abolished until 1861, or 4 years before the end of the American Civil War) but better performance among many economic metrics, and especially among immigrant groups there's resentment that the black community has been in the US for centuries but has still not become rich in spite of the massive advantage that comes from 'being in the US'. On top of this, among ideological conservatives you see a push for judging individuals separately, so the framing that there is a problem unique to 'the black community', rather than certain black individuals, is one that there is a strong instinct to reject.

Thing is.. white people FEAR black people more than other minorities. Should they? Absolutely not. When I lived in St. Louis, did I avoid black areas? Absolutely not. But I know most whites fear blacks, which contributes to their lower economic success.

Look at Prince George's County, Maryland and African Americans in Nova.. they are just fine.. but they don't live in a society that fears them.

Asians and Hispanics were never enslaved here. It is easier for latinos to assimilate.

I'm not sure this is a common attitude among conservatives. More generally, I think the usual ideological conservative picture of how policy can lead to a better society is something along the lines of
1) less government control leading to more enterprise/opportunity (especially by repealing regulations, but also by lowering taxes and spending); there is lots of empirical evidence that this works
2) leading to a richer society across the board (ditto)
3) leading to everyone having a better standard-of-living through trickle-down (I think there is substantial empirical evidence that this works, but of course it is very controversial)

(I think given referendum results that some version of this is believed by an outright majority of the American public, but especially point 3 is actually moderately fringey in other parts of the First World). If you don't think trickle-down works, then it's possible for you to interpret points 1 and 2 as rich people trying to set up a society that works better for them, though given that right and left in the US aren't particularly tied to income or wealth I think this idea is a real stretch.

Thank you for explaining that, but I am certainly not a trickle down person and believe the government has a responsible to protect the most vulnerable in society.

I can't imagine that people like this go into politics -- surely there are better-paying opportunities elsewhere. People who go into politics really do care for others and want to change society, even if often (usually?) an outside observer would see those changes as mostly negative.

I care about society as a whole and other people. Conservatives will tend to  care for themselves and have a "f everyone else" atitude.

I've often written about this, but it's amazing how well-sorted the US population is becoming, and how much of the sorting seems to happen in subconscious or non-obvious ways. I've lived basically my whole life in an urban area, went to a decently liberal university for undergrad and then a very liberal one for law school, and then went into tech, and I've absolutely never had a problem having a social group consisting mostly of right-libertarians. I get approached (this has happened, like, a high-single-digit number of times) by people at parties wanting to tell me about Ayn Rand.

If not for, like, being a polling nerd I think I would assume that maybe, like, 60-80% of society is right-libertarians. But, no, the answer is that something in my presentation just selects for these people. I think a phenomenon like this goes for most people, and you have to be very interested in society as a whole to notice that you (yes, you) invariably live in some kind of bubble.

People in Nova live in a bubble I admit. Part of the reason they are so Democratic is because they are pretty damn insulated from the worst of Democratic policies. It is a low crime area, they didn't have to deal with extreme covid restrictions day to day unless they lived in DC, and liberal policies will generally not impact them in any negative way. Also the GOP will usually campaign on shrinking the federal government.. that would impact them indirectly at very least.

I have seen conservatives propose economic policies like just within the last few days. Not here though.

1) Flat percentage income tax- Nope not buying it. It literally is a give away to the rich. Especially when you consider the fact the first 100.00 to a poor person has a lot more value than to a rich person.

2) Flat dollar income tax even if it exceeds a persons income- That is a non starter. I do not even need to explain why.

3) End all social programs- As someone who has seen thugs trade food stamps for drugs, I can kind of understand the sentiment but we are not some third world country. There has to be a level of safety here. The consequences of no safety net would be to dire.

And I am someone who thought the covid relief was way over board, feels like minimum wage should be quite low (like around 12.00ish), and is a huge free marketer and free trader.