Poll: Liberals Can be Provoked to Violence

[Underhill]

Ask most conservatives what they would do to defend their 2nd amendment rights and the tough talk begins quickly.

But the same people get pissed off at people defending themselves against nazi's. Go figure...

 

[idav]

Violence is about getting others to submit to your control. How does this promote equality?

It doesn't, that's kind of the problem. Equality sort of means treating people like you want to be treated, so the line of reasoning begins to fall apart quickly if violence is advocated.

A curiosity - what makes you feel it might be a silly question? What about it strikes you as peculiar or strange?

I know humans will act as they do sometimes doing violent things but with liberalism there is an expectation of comradery and team play that humans with such label are supposed utilize, so I wonder if that is contradictory or it's merely having too high an expectation for what being a liberal might mean in practical terms.

 

[tytlyf]

Burning trash cans is 'violence' to GOP media.

 

[Quintessence]

I know humans will act as they do sometimes doing violent things but with liberalism there is an expectation of comradery and team play that humans with such label are supposed utilize, so I wonder if that is contradictory or it's merely having too high an expectation for what being a liberal might mean in practical terms.

Hmm. Perhaps.

I concluded a long time ago that hypocrisy is a fundamental part of human nature. We are all hypocrites - we all say one thing or believe one thing and do another. Such is the result when an organism doesn't have fixed and rigid programming like a computer or machine, which cannot deviate from given parameters and always remembers its directives. We forget our own intended directives. And we change them at a moment's notice, for some reason or another. Thus, the mismatches between creed and deed happen frequently and inevitably.

 

[shunyadragon]

This poll. as worded. reminds me of an incident before the election where I was asked, "Are you going to vote for Trump, or are you a Communist?"

 

[Laika]

You look at posts like #7, it can actually be pretty thought provoking. There is a reason the right wants to paint liberals hypocrites for not letting their heroes speak. There truly is a certain irony in trying to advocate tolerance while telling people they aren't allowed to be intolerant.

I like compliments, so here's a bit more if you're interested.

To put it in psychological terms, there are "in-groups" and "out-groups". An in groups is a group a person identifies with, whereas that person does not identify with the "out group". We show favouritism to our "in-group" based on a shared identity, but are derogatory towards the "out-group". There is also a tendency to view the "out-group" as a monolithic single entity, whilst be more aware of the in groups diversity.

If you look at RF's political compass results you can see where the "in-group" is on the chart- overwhelmingly in the Green (Libertarian Left) square. Basically, if you were to bring up an issue from the Authoritarian side (Blue being right wing, Red Being left wing) you'd run into problems very quickly. Discussions calling for Forced sterilisation/Eugenics, the use of Slave Labour, mandatory teaching of creationism in schools, treating homosexuality as a sin and banning it, or even just advocating prohibition of alcohol,etc would all be badly received on RF because they fall outside of the "in group".

If you think about it, roughly three quarters of the possible space in the political compass is not represented on RF at all amongst its members. There is whole universe of political views that exists outside of RF's "mainstream". It's called the "opinion corridor" (similar to the "Overtone Window" )as the scope of possible views that are considered "acceptable" on the forums. Basically the same principle is at work on a larger scale in society as those who fall outside of the Liberals "opinion corridor" are treated as the "out-group" and are not tolerated in the same way the "in-group" of liberals is.

There is this data about other forums which could help illustrate.

If you imagine the chart divided into four sides like the political compass, this is a plot for Christian Forums. The Red, orange and yellow bit shows the highest concentration of results. Given that you have the green "tail" if you will, it goes into the purple and blue area much like RF's results.

Here's the results from Stormfront.org, the White Nationalist site. If you mentally divide it up into four quadrants, you can see that the hot spot for Stormfronts results are slightly to the left and largely in the authoritarian side as its higher up. Antisemitism, holocaust denial and racism would be pretty normal here, but not in RF or Christian forums.

So, if you look at these are two different kind of online "eco-systems" of political ideas, Christian forums (like RF) would not be compatible with Stormfront. They are two groups with not alot of overlap- so effectively you'd have two "in-groups" treating each other as the "out-group".

I could be boring you right now, but it may help illustrate how "relative" our perceptions of what opinions are acceptable are. Liberals make up only a small section of the possible political views people can hold and because someone may be "inside" the group, they may not be aware of the limits to liberal tolerance as someone on the outside of it maybe.

[edit: if it helps to illustrate the kind of "bubble" of being in the in-group, below is a link to Survivalist boards.com as they ask someone to "explain liberalism". Its extremely offensive with people calling Liberalism a disease and a parasite as Survivalistboards is largely pro-Trump. It could still be useful to show how society divides down into "in-groups" and out-groups and how the same process is at work on the internet. Survivalism is the idea that you have to prepare for the "end of the world" and often attracts ultra-conservatives and ultra-libertarians who have lost faith in the governments ability/willingness to protect people from disaster and so want to "look out for themselves". they are therefore really hostile towards "big government" whoever is running it.
Can someone explain Liberalism? - Survivalist Forum ]

 

[esmith]

Sure you can anger a liberal, just ask Theodore Roosevelt

 

[Flame]

Sure you can anger a liberal, just ask Theodore Roosevelt

 

[idav]

Sure you can anger a liberal, just ask Theodore Roosevelt

Like when a conservative tells me the Truth that I am headed for the big furnace in the ground, it doesn't anger me, I accept full responsibility.

 

[esmith]

My post #28 is unproven but it sure is fun to see the responses.
Did I just anger some liberals? Will they turn violent?
Possible but I live to far away from their fortifications to find out

 

[idav]

My post #28 is unproven but it sure is fun to see the responses.
Did I just anger some liberals? Will they turn violent?

I don't know about others but I thought it was funny, or was Roosevelt trying to be serious?

 

[Politesse]

Seems like a pretty silly question to me, unless you imagine (very incorrectly) that our entire military and police force are made up of conservatives.

 

[idav]

Seems like a pretty silly question to me, unless you imagine (very incorrectly) that our entire military and police force are made up of conservatives.

Are you saying every Police Officer and Military Occupation advocate violence as the way to end conflict?

 

[idav]

I like compliments, so here's a bit more if you're interested.

To put it in psychological terms, there are "in-groups" and "out-groups". An in groups is a group a person identifies with, whereas that person does not identify with the "out group". We show favouritism to our "in-group" based on a shared identity, but are derogatory towards the "out-group". There is also a tendency to view the "out-group" as a monolithic single entity, whilst be more aware of the in groups diversity.

If you look at RF's political compass results you can see where the "in-group" is on the chart- overwhelmingly in the Green (Libertarian Left) square. Basically, if you were to bring up an issue from the Authoritarian side (Blue being right wing, Red Being left wing) you'd run into problems very quickly. Discussions calling for Forced sterilisation/Eugenics, the use of Slave Labour, mandatory teaching of creationism in schools, treating homosexuality as a sin and banning it, or even just advocating prohibition of alcohol,etc would all be badly received on RF because they fall outside of the "in group".

If you think about it, roughly three quarters of the possible space in the political compass is not represented on RF at all amongst its members. There is whole universe of political views that exists outside of RF's "mainstream". It's called the "opinion corridor" (similar to the "Overtone Window" )as the scope of possible views that are considered "acceptable" on the forums. Basically the same principle is at work on a larger scale in society as those who fall outside of the Liberals "opinion corridor" are treated as the "out-group" and are not tolerated in the same way the "in-group" of liberals is.

There is this data about other forums which could help illustrate.

If you imagine the chart divided into four sides like the political compass, this is a plot for Christian Forums. The Red, orange and yellow bit shows the highest concentration of results. Given that you have the green "tail" if you will, it goes into the purple and blue area much like RF's results.

Here's the results from Stormfront.org, the White Nationalist site. If you mentally divide it up into four quadrants, you can see that the hot spot for Stormfronts results are slightly to the left and largely in the authoritarian side as its higher up. Antisemitism, holocaust denial and racism would be pretty normal here, but not in RF or Christian forums.

So, if you look at these are two different kind of online "eco-systems" of political ideas, Christian forums (like RF) would not be compatible with Stormfront. They are two groups with not alot of overlap- so effectively you'd have two "in-groups" treating each other as the "out-group".

I could be boring you right now, but it may help illustrate how "relative" our perceptions of what opinions are acceptable are. Liberals make up only a small section of the possible political views people can hold and because someone may be "inside" the group, they may not be aware of the limits to liberal tolerance as someone on the outside of it maybe.

[edit: if it helps to illustrate the kind of "bubble" of being in the in-group, below is a link to Survivalist boards.com as they ask someone to "explain liberalism". Its extremely offensive with people calling Liberalism a disease and a parasite as Survivalistboards is largely pro-Trump. It could still be useful to show how society divides down into "in-groups" and out-groups and how the same process is at work on the internet. Survivalism is the idea that you have to prepare for the "end of the world" and often attracts ultra-conservatives and ultra-libertarians who have lost faith in the governments ability/willingness to protect people from disaster and so want to "look out for themselves". they are therefore really hostile towards "big government" whoever is running it.
Can someone explain Liberalism? - Survivalist Forum ]

Each forum may skew results because of various rules that may allow some groups to flourish on some sites but not on others. When I've talked with someone running a conservative Christian site they had huge issues with trolls and no way to regulate and even allow for conservative type discussion.

Apparently there could be some demographics involved. Take a look at this chart.

Nationwide survey reveals Crimson Tide has country's most Republican-leaning fanbase - Yellowhammer News

 

[tytlyf]

Sure you can anger a liberal, just ask Theodore Roosevelt

You mean this? An unproven quote isn't a reason to vote for corporate policies over the middle class. Especially if you're in the middle class. Usually if something doesn't make sense it's not true.

Teddy Roosevelt on Conservatives vs. Liberals

 

[Politesse]

Are you saying every Police Officer and Military Occupation advocate violence as the way to end conflict?

Obviously. They would be unable to function in their roles otherwise.

 

[idav]

Obviously. They would be unable to function in their roles otherwise.

Is that so? I have a brother-in-law whose role was a medic and I had a role that never had to see the front line neither role as such would be inherently violent. I mean I understand that its war, thats obviously violent, but individual soldiers don't necessarily advocate violence. But yeah a ton of us were conservatives(I was back when I was heaviest into Christianity), not all I don't think.

 

[Politesse]

Is that so? I have a brother-in-law whose role was a medic and I had a role that never had to see the front line neither role as such would be inherently violent. I mean I understand that its war, thats obviously violent, but individual soldiers don't necessarily advocate violence. But yeah a ton of us were conservatives(I was back when I was heaviest into Christianity), not all I don't think.

You're being purposefully obtuse. Obviously medics, chaplains, and accountants don't use violence as often and were not the focus of my observation. Though I have never met an army medic who altogether rejected violence as a potential resolution to a conflict, and again, I don't see how they could tolerate their role if they did.

 

[idav]

You're being purposefully obtuse. Obviously medics, chaplains, and accountants don't use violence as often and were not the focus of my observation.

Ok anyhow, I don't think all military are conservative nor do I think all military roles are inherently violent.

 

[Laika]

Each forum may skew results because of various rules that may allow some groups to flourish on some sites but not on others. When I've talked with someone running a conservative Christian site they had huge issues with trolls and no way to regulate and even allow for conservative type discussion.

Apparently there could be some demographics involved. Take a look at this chart.

Nationwide survey reveals Crimson Tide has country's most Republican-leaning fanbase - Yellowhammer News

That's a little depressing that conservative type discussions are so difficult to moderate and its a real shame too. It sounds like a really interesting discussion you had. I have sort of hoped that RF could have more conservatives on it (as a religious forum should make space for religious conservatives) but at the same time, the insistence on absolute standards of truth and falsehood, right and wrong are not conducive to a relatively "frictionless" environment.

On the other end to the spectrum from my time at Revleft (the far lefts main site), the sectarianism there was awful. [its put me off Stalin vs Trotsky threads as there were so many of them.] The mods had set up the forum in such a way that you could swear freely but certain topics would get you banned instantly. (e.g. pro-fascist, pro-life, anarcho-primitivism, Pro-ISIS and Pro- DPRK views were on the list). It wasn't helpful either that there was no list of what you could get banned for as it was left so much up to the staffs discretion. So its not unique to the right but may come up in the left as well for different reasons.