5 ms·

One thing I am increasingly noticing as I get older is that the most interesting people hold wildly different political stances on different topics, meaning you

by nojs 5y ago

One thing I am increasingly noticing as I get older is that the most interesting people hold wildly different political stances on different topics, meaning you can’t predict their stance on any given topic based on political affiliation alone. In fact, I think this alone would be one of the be best predictors of a person’s intellect and interest in thinking deeply about things: ask 10 politically polarising questions in different areas and score responses based on how diverse they are.

dataangel 5y ago
I’m going to answer your questionnaire randomly and look like a genius.
noduerme 5y ago
Looked at another way, the real measure of intellect is how consistent a person's views are within a logical framework. I'm not sure this writer's opinions are actually "diverse". They're pretty logically consistent, (and I happen to agree with all of them, which is rare). They just appear heterodox from the perspective of one or the other party platform in the US. But it is those party platforms which hold truly diverse policy ideas - in the sense that their policies are logically inconsistent and conflicting. To illustrate what I'm trying to say, consider the two polarizing issues of abortion and capital punishment. The standard right-of-center view in the US - if you asked almost any Republican - is to be pro-life when it comes to individuals not killing fetuses and pro-death when it comes to the State killing grown adults. This is not only inconsistent in its logical application of whether anyone has a right to kill anyone, but also wildly inconsistent with the right wing's antipathy toward state power over the individual. Meanwhile, the other party in this country is anti-death-penalty by the state and pro-choice for the individual, while preferring state power over individual autonomy in most other cases. Now who's holding wildly different, inconsistent political stances on polarizing questions? Probably the 70% or so of Americans who hew to either the standard liberal or conservative platforms, without considering their internal contradictions.
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  It's not true, though, that 70% of Americans hew to standard partisan platforms. Polling consistently shows that support is heterogeneous (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/06/22/5-views-of-parties-positions-on-issues-ideologies/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/06/22/5-views-of-p...): positions on individual issues have strong majority support within each party, but a strong majority of individual people disagree with some of their party's positions.
- clavicat 5y ago
  There is no logical contradiction at all in simultaneously opposing abortion while supporting capital punishment or vice versa. A right-winger believes that the state should serve to enforce the social contract and punish violators—they believe that a fetus is entitled to protection because it has done nothing to violate the social contract whereas a serial killer is clearly a menace to the interests of society. Right-wingers don’t object to state power over the individual in the abstract—they object to it situationally because they think state power is largely controlled by people who are hostile to their preferences and interests.
  - noduerme 5y ago
    Is objecting to state power, or really anything, only situationally - when it doesn't suit you - just another way of saying you're willing to argue logically inconsistent positions from one day to the next?
    - _dain_ 5y ago
      No.
      - noduerme 5y ago
        If your only logic is a boot to the face of anyone you're told to hit, or to kill people you never even met, you aced the test. Today you're the victim of a lot of conspirators. Tomorrow you're the hero. Nevermind the people driving you to kill those other people are also conspirators, using you to kill their personal rivals. Must be easy to see the world this way. I've never been dumb enough to do it, but maybe you could spare a couple words and explain why it's so great. "No".

by nojs 5y ago

dataangel 5y ago

I’m going to answer your questionnaire randomly and look like a genius.

noduerme 5y ago

Looked at another way, the real measure of intellect is how consistent a person's views are within a logical framework. I'm not sure this writer's opinions are actually "diverse". They're pretty logically consistent, (and I happen to agree with all of them, which is rare). They just appear heterodox from the perspective of one or the other party platform in the US. But it is those party platforms which hold truly diverse policy ideas - in the sense that their policies are logically inconsistent and conflicting. To illustrate what I'm trying to say, consider the two polarizing issues of abortion and capital punishment. The standard right-of-center view in the US - if you asked almost any Republican - is to be pro-life when it comes to individuals not killing fetuses and pro-death when it comes to the State killing grown adults. This is not only inconsistent in its logical application of whether anyone has a right to kill anyone, but also wildly inconsistent with the right wing's antipathy toward state power over the individual. Meanwhile, the other party in this country is anti-death-penalty by the state and pro-choice for the individual, while preferring state power over individual autonomy in most other cases. Now who's holding wildly different, inconsistent political stances on polarizing questions? Probably the 70% or so of Americans who hew to either the standard liberal or conservative platforms, without considering their internal contradictions.

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
It's not true, though, that 70% of Americans hew to standard partisan platforms. Polling consistently shows that support is heterogeneous (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/06/22/5-views-of-parties-positions-on-issues-ideologies/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/06/22/5-views-of-p...): positions on individual issues have strong majority support within each party, but a strong majority of individual people disagree with some of their party's positions.
clavicat 5y ago
There is no logical contradiction at all in simultaneously opposing abortion while supporting capital punishment or vice versa. A right-winger believes that the state should serve to enforce the social contract and punish violators—they believe that a fetus is entitled to protection because it has done nothing to violate the social contract whereas a serial killer is clearly a menace to the interests of society. Right-wingers don’t object to state power over the individual in the abstract—they object to it situationally because they think state power is largely controlled by people who are hostile to their preferences and interests.
- noduerme 5y ago
  Is objecting to state power, or really anything, only situationally - when it doesn't suit you - just another way of saying you're willing to argue logically inconsistent positions from one day to the next?
  - _dain_ 5y ago
    No.
    - noduerme 5y ago
      If your only logic is a boot to the face of anyone you're told to hit, or to kill people you never even met, you aced the test. Today you're the victim of a lot of conspirators. Tomorrow you're the hero. Nevermind the people driving you to kill those other people are also conspirators, using you to kill their personal rivals. Must be easy to see the world this way. I've never been dumb enough to do it, but maybe you could spare a couple words and explain why it's so great. "No".