3 ms·

That is at best simplistic, and at worst completely inaccurate. It is common for "liberal" governments, as in the UK at the moment, who are inclined to pass ce

That is at best simplistic, and at worst completely inaccurate. It is common for "liberal" governments, as in the UK at the moment, who are inclined to pass censorship, surveillance and control (of people's lives) laws. It is also common for "conservative" governments to do the same. What is very common is for people to think themselves and people like themselves to be naturally kind and people unlike themselves as fundamentally flawed.

9dev 1y ago
You’re talking about parties, while I was referring to ideology. And in ideological terms, while a HN comment isn’t scientific, I think I represented the ideology of conservatism and liberalism correctly here, so call out the social sciences over that.
- graemep 1y ago
  Parties are associated with ideologies and supported by people who share their ideologies. > I think I represented the ideology of conservatism and liberalism correctly here, so call out the social sciences over that. If you are saying that you there is a correct definition within the social sciences, can you cite an authoritative source for that? In any case you were talking about "the world view people have" and I think your definition correlates very poorly with those of people one would normally describe as "liberal" or "conservative". I am not even sure which mindset you associate with the "monitor and control" mentality. I think you mean its a conservative mindset, but a lot of the people I know who most strongly oppose it are conservative or Conservative (as in members of the party that has the word in its name). This might be a US vs UK difference, of course. These are not words that are really used very consistently within societies, let alone between them. > so call out the social sciences over that. Happy to do so if that is what they say!
  - 9dev 1y ago
    > If you are saying that you there is a correct definition within the social sciences, can you cite an authoritative source for that? You can start at Wikipedia, for example, which quotes Thomas Hobbes: > the state of nature for humans was "poor, nasty, brutish, and short", requiring centralized authority with royal sovereignty to guarantee law and order. And further: > Conservatism has been called a "philosophy of human imperfection" by political scientist Noël O'Sullivan, reflecting among its adherents a negative view of human nature and pessimism of the potential to improve it through 'utopian' schemes. I don’t mean to insinuate "conservatives are evil and want to spy on citizens", but merely that they are generally more inclined to believe people are inherently incapable of behaving well, so they need to be nudged towards the right thing. Really believing this makes it far more likely to view government monitoring as a plausible solution to the problem they see. And again, I’m saying this without implying any judgement.
- closewith 1y ago
  That's absurd. “Conservatives think people are bad, liberals think people are good” is primary-school-level reductionism. Conservatives generally see people as capable of self-direction and argue for minimal interference because virtue needs room to act. Progressives also tend to see people as capable of good, but assume outcomes depend on systems, so they push for more state involvement to improve those conditions. Neither thinks humans are irredeemable. Both generally believe humans are inherently kind. The difference is whether you trust individuals or bureaucracies to manage human weakness.
  - 9dev 1y ago
    Again, you are treating these terms as equal to their contemporary meaning in bipartisan US politics, when they are pretty well-defined terms for describing political ideology in general. Part of that is one of the pillars of conservatism, that humans are imperfect beings and thus need institutions to guide them. So i would say you’ve pretty much got it backwards. I’m not making this up, you can go and read up on this for yourself.
    - closewith 1y ago
      This is an even more absurd reply. > Again, you are treating these terms as equal to their contemporary meaning in bipartisan US politics, when they are pretty well-defined terms for describing political ideology in general. I’m neither American nor using US partisan definitions. I’m using the terms as they’re broadly understood in political theory and history. > Part of that is one of the pillars of conservatism, that humans are imperfect beings and thus need institutions to guide them. That’s a paternalist or technocratic premise, not a conservative one. Classical conservatism accepts human fallibility but trusts evolved social norms not bureaucracy to contain it. The belief that people must be centrally guided is the antithesis of that tradition. > So i would say you’ve pretty much got it backwards. I’m not making this up, you can go and read up on this for yourself. You might try the same. Hobbes wasn’t a conservative - he was an absolutist. Quoting him to define conservatism is like citing Marx to define capitalism.
      - deleted 1y ago

9dev 1y ago

You’re talking about parties, while I was referring to ideology. And in ideological terms, while a HN comment isn’t scientific, I think I represented the ideology of conservatism and liberalism correctly here, so call out the social sciences over that.

graemep 1y ago
Parties are associated with ideologies and supported by people who share their ideologies. > I think I represented the ideology of conservatism and liberalism correctly here, so call out the social sciences over that. If you are saying that you there is a correct definition within the social sciences, can you cite an authoritative source for that? In any case you were talking about "the world view people have" and I think your definition correlates very poorly with those of people one would normally describe as "liberal" or "conservative". I am not even sure which mindset you associate with the "monitor and control" mentality. I think you mean its a conservative mindset, but a lot of the people I know who most strongly oppose it are conservative or Conservative (as in members of the party that has the word in its name). This might be a US vs UK difference, of course. These are not words that are really used very consistently within societies, let alone between them. > so call out the social sciences over that. Happy to do so if that is what they say!
- 9dev 1y ago
  > If you are saying that you there is a correct definition within the social sciences, can you cite an authoritative source for that? You can start at Wikipedia, for example, which quotes Thomas Hobbes: > the state of nature for humans was "poor, nasty, brutish, and short", requiring centralized authority with royal sovereignty to guarantee law and order. And further: > Conservatism has been called a "philosophy of human imperfection" by political scientist Noël O'Sullivan, reflecting among its adherents a negative view of human nature and pessimism of the potential to improve it through 'utopian' schemes. I don’t mean to insinuate "conservatives are evil and want to spy on citizens", but merely that they are generally more inclined to believe people are inherently incapable of behaving well, so they need to be nudged towards the right thing. Really believing this makes it far more likely to view government monitoring as a plausible solution to the problem they see. And again, I’m saying this without implying any judgement.
closewith 1y ago
That's absurd. “Conservatives think people are bad, liberals think people are good” is primary-school-level reductionism. Conservatives generally see people as capable of self-direction and argue for minimal interference because virtue needs room to act. Progressives also tend to see people as capable of good, but assume outcomes depend on systems, so they push for more state involvement to improve those conditions. Neither thinks humans are irredeemable. Both generally believe humans are inherently kind. The difference is whether you trust individuals or bureaucracies to manage human weakness.
- 9dev 1y ago
  Again, you are treating these terms as equal to their contemporary meaning in bipartisan US politics, when they are pretty well-defined terms for describing political ideology in general. Part of that is one of the pillars of conservatism, that humans are imperfect beings and thus need institutions to guide them. So i would say you’ve pretty much got it backwards. I’m not making this up, you can go and read up on this for yourself.
  - closewith 1y ago
    This is an even more absurd reply. > Again, you are treating these terms as equal to their contemporary meaning in bipartisan US politics, when they are pretty well-defined terms for describing political ideology in general. I’m neither American nor using US partisan definitions. I’m using the terms as they’re broadly understood in political theory and history. > Part of that is one of the pillars of conservatism, that humans are imperfect beings and thus need institutions to guide them. That’s a paternalist or technocratic premise, not a conservative one. Classical conservatism accepts human fallibility but trusts evolved social norms not bureaucracy to contain it. The belief that people must be centrally guided is the antithesis of that tradition. > So i would say you’ve pretty much got it backwards. I’m not making this up, you can go and read up on this for yourself. You might try the same. Hobbes wasn’t a conservative - he was an absolutist. Quoting him to define conservatism is like citing Marx to define capitalism.
    - deleted 1y ago