Is liberalism a mild form of insanity?

[mothythewso]

In the interest of fairness, just seems like a reasonable question to ask.

[imatfaal]

In the interest of fairness, just seems like a reasonable question to ask.

 

"They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me."

 

Nathaniel Lee 1653-1692 upon his release from Bedlam

[overtone]

 

 

In the interest of fairness, just seems like a reasonable question to ask.

 

Sure.

 

One would also, in the same spirit of fairness, discuss the answer - which is "No", btw, pending some reasonable argument and evidence (such as has been provided in similar threads).

[Phi for All]

No.

 

I think most conservatism is rooted in fear. Knowledge and reason help put fear into perspective. To me, liberalism is all about using as much of our knowledge and reason as possible to make decisions in all our best interest. Humanism tells us we're worth it.

[MigL]

Oh come-on, now its just silly.

 

By 'labelling' the other side of the argument as mad or insane, you are just trying to lower the value of that argument without having to do the 'heavy lifting' of proving that argument to be invalid.

 

No-one with any intelligence/integrity minds if their opinion is proved wrong with facts.

No-one likes their opinion to be discounted simply because of a label.

[iNow]

^Harumph. That's just what a liber-tard WOULD say. Ha! Idiots. 'Murica!

[mothythewso]

If I had started the thread with a statement: "Liberalism is a mild form of insanity", y'all would have a point. I merely posed a question. And why is my question more inherently offensive than "Is political conservatism a mild form of insanity?" I was trying to prove a point, and I think I have.

I really have no interest in this thread, even though I started it. And I won't be posting on this thread any more. See my posts #36 and #37, My personal thoughts on death and the Universe, under General Philosophy. I personally haven't time to waste on such vacuous blather as will result from this discussion, whether it's from the left or the right. But I will miss you, dear Overtone, you're so much fun to piss off.

[Phi for All]

I personally haven't time to waste on such vacuous blather as will result from this discussion, whether it's from the left or the right.

 

I don't think it would have been a very long thread anyway.

[iNow]

I merely posed a question. And why is my question more inherently offensive than "Is political conservatism a mild form of insanity?"

It's not. There is a deeper ideological issue at play here, however, and that is how conservatism has become synonymous with a rejection of scientific reality and elevation of personal ideology over fact while liberalism has become synonymous with social welfare at the expense of free market and libertarian principles and a lazy short-hand attack for anything different and ergo wrong.

 

It'd be one thing if we were using labels to discredit mere opinions, a preference for chocolate over vanilla or for tennis over cricket, but that's not what's happened. This has become a tribal war writ large across our entire culture and entire globe. It's us/them, ingroup/outgroup, yer either with us er yer agin us.

 

What is insanity though? Is it ignoring facts and reality in favor of worldview and predisposition; a general preference for the existing order of society, and an opposition to efforts to bring about sharp change? Or, is it about elevating a greater good, prioritizing decisions rooted in evidence, a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality?

 

Surely, one is more enlightened than the other. Perhaps a better question is whether or not we should accept or resist that aforementioned enlightenment.

Edited February 7, 2015 by iNow

[imatfaal]

If I had started the thread with a statement: "Liberalism is a mild form of insanity", y'all would have a point. I merely posed a question. And why is my question more inherently offensive than "Is political conservatism a mild form of insanity?" I was trying to prove a point, and I think I have.

 

Who said it was more or less offensive apart from you? MigL was the only one who alluded to offence - and following his long and dogged attempt to stop the term being used in the other thread - he also tried to stop it being used in this thread as well; consistent, honourable, and in the case of the other thread arguably wrong.

 

Did you actually read the replies you received - or had you already determined how your intemperate response would read:

overtone - answered your question and agreed it was a reasonable question to ask in the circumstances

phi - answered your question and gave some of his preliminary reasoning

inow - mocked MigL's notion that we will or have ever done without name-calling.

and I just provided a quote to sum up the view that the mad always think it is everyone else who is mad

 

I really have no interest in this thread, even though I started it. And I won't be posting on this thread any more. See my posts #36 and #37, My personal thoughts on death and the Universe, under General Philosophy. I personally haven't time to waste on such vacuous blather as will result from this discussion, whether it's from the left or the right. But I will miss you, dear Overtone, you're so much fun to piss off.

 

So what were you expecting? People answered your question, raised the notion that such nomenclature was unhealthy in political debates from either side, and agreed it was a valid question to ask. Why so irate- are you upset that no one actually took offence?

[swansont]

In the interest of fairness, just seems like a reasonable question to ask.

The other thread was based on an article which referred to "A meta-analysis culled from 88 samples in 12 countries, and with an N of 22,818". i.e. there was something concrete to begin the discussion (regardless of where it went afterwards) rather than simply trolling. Do you have a similar study/article that you can cite?

[John Cuthber]

Oh come-on, now its just silly.

 

By 'labelling' the other side of the argument as mad or insane, you are just trying to lower the value of that argument without having to do the 'heavy lifting' of proving that argument to be invalid.

 

No-one with any intelligence/integrity minds if their opinion is proved wrong with facts.

No-one likes their opinion to be discounted simply because of a label.

That would be valid if someone had said " Liberalism is a form of insanity".

But they didn't.

They did not actually label anyone.

They asked if the label was applicable.

 

 

The question has been answered.

Based on the evidence (or rather, the lack of evidence), we can reject the idea that liberalism is a form of insanity.

So, unless someone actually has evidence supporting the idea that liberals are all nuts, this should be the end of the thread.

[MigL]

I beg to differ John.

Just asking the question degrades the discussion of 'ideas'.

That is the problem with labeling "ideas' as liberal/conservative/enlightened/progressive/insane/etc.

 

And no, I'm not offended, Imatfaal, I just expect better in an intelligent discussion.

[Phi for All]

That is the problem with labeling "ideas' as liberal/conservative/enlightened/progressive/insane/etc.

 

But that's where the label should go, imo, rather than on the person who has them. It's trivially evident that ideas can be any of those things individually, or a combination thereof. But people aren't just one idea, or philosophy, not in multiple contexts and perspectives.

[Ten oz]

Many thoughts and feelings people hold are motivatived by things other than tangible facts. Everyone has preferences based on their cultural upbringing, biases, fears, confidence levels, education, etc, etc. I see nothing wrong with having a discussion about the various motivations or causes for belief between competing political views. Nothing wrong with point out things that narcissistic, sociopathic, or insane. Just as religious people immaturely argue that their supernatural beliefs should be respected out of tradition or equal rights it is just as silly to insist ones political beliefs are beyond examination.

Is liberalism a mild form of insanity? Since the creator to this thread asked the question without making any case one way or another I assume a simple no will suffice?

Edited February 7, 2015 by Ten oz

[Phi for All]

And no, I'm not offended, Imatfaal, I just expect better in an intelligent discussion.

 

You take one narrow perspective about labeling ideas, a perspective that really doesn't make sense when you look at it hard, and dismiss the intelligence of the participants in the discussion.

 

I'd rather someone try to compile a list of liberal political moves that support mild insanity. Compare it with the list in the other thread.

[John Cuthber]

I beg to differ John.

Just asking the question degrades the discussion of 'ideas'.

That is the problem with labeling "ideas' as liberal/conservative/enlightened/progressive/insane/etc.

 

And no, I'm not offended, Imatfaal, I just expect better in an intelligent discussion.

Please provide a list of questions we can't ask.

Incidentally, to me the term "Republican" means a particular sort of loony (based on my experience of those so named).

So, from my point of view, as you put it,

By 'labelling' the other side of the argument as mad or insane or Republican , you are just trying to lower the value of that argument without having to do the 'heavy lifting' of proving that argument to be invalid.

[overtone]

By 'labelling' the other side of the argument as mad or insane, you are just trying to lower the value of that argument without having to do the 'heavy lifting' of proving that argument to be invalid.

Not in this case. The label was the consequence of the heavy lifting, not a precursor or presumption. It was argued for, not argued with.

 

And the label was not applied to any "side" of an argument. Sanity is not a property of a side in a genuine argument, but of the people who do the "arguing". It is certainly possible to be sane and conservative, for example - one does not have to be crazy to value a working tradition and require that change prove itself against the presumption of doubt - but the current crop of "conservatives" in the US are, in fact, crazy.

 

The label was applied to a group of people who had earned it, several times over, by people who had done the heavy lifting of analysis and remembrance. So an analogous attempt to label would be similarly supported - the void awaits.

Edited February 7, 2015 by overtone

[Wolfhnd]

Your Brain on Politics: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Liberals and Conservatives

 

"Recent converging studies are showing that liberals tend to have a larger and/or more active anterior cingulate cortex, or ACC—useful in detecting and judging conflict and error—and conservatives are more likely to have an enlarged amygdala, where the development and storage of emotional memories takes place. More than one study has shown these same results, which is why I felt it was worth investigating."

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/09/07/your-brain-on-politics-the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-liberals-and-conservatives/#.VNa4APmjN8E

 

Looks like this guy covers it pretty well.

[MigL]

Sorry Phi, I didn't realize my statement could be taken as dismissive of the intelligence of the members.

If anyone else took it that way, I apologize. I hold everyone in this discussion in high regard.

Yes, even overtone ( he finally admitted its possible to be sane and conservative ).

 

I meant to say that I know we can do better and discuss issues with the facts, not by putting down ideas or their originators.

Edited February 8, 2015 by MigL

[John Cuthber]

Indeed, we shouldn't go putting people down by, for example, accusing them of labelling their opponents when they put forward a question.

This

"Is liberalism a mild form of insanity?"

is a valid question, no matter who asked it, nor what their motivation was.

We should discuss that issue-well, it seems we already did.

Pending any evidence to the contrary, I think we can say that it has been answered, and the answer is "no".

[Ten oz]

Sorry Phi, I didn't realize my statement could be taken as dismissive of the intelligence of the members.

If anyone else took it that way, I apologize. I hold everyone in this discussion in high regard.

Yes, even overtone ( he finally admitted its possible to be sane and conservative ).

 

I meant to say that I know we can do better and discuss issues with the facts, not by putting down ideas or their originators.

In the other thread a case was made. Perhaps you disagree but it wasn't empty name calling. The thread was based on a book which posed the theory and supported it research. Posters added their two cents commenting on the rationality of various conservative dogmas. I don't see what the problem is?

Here in this thread the same has yet to be done. No one has listed behaviors or dogmas held by "liberals" which could be considered crazy or are provably incorrect.

[overtone]

If I had started the thread with a statement: "Liberalism is a mild form of insanity", y'all would have a point. I merely posed a question.

No, you made assertions: that the question was in the interest of fairness, and a reasonable one to ask.

 

Both those assertions require reasoned support, such as was immediately available in the model thread. No such support has been forthcoming. That makes the question a troll, rather than a query.

 

 

 

 

Yes, even overtone ( he finally admitted its possible to be sane and conservative ).

Finally? That has been central to most of my posting, from the beginning of my tenure here.

 

Not only me, but essentially no one here, has ever denied that possibility. Further, I and others have several times posted examples of sane conservative beliefs and approaches and behaviors - the contrast between them and the beliefs, approaches, and behaviors we see from self-identified US "conservatives" is striking.

 

So that would be one approach toward arguing for the legitimacy of the question, supporting it as "reasonable" and "fair": post examples of sane and reasonable liberal beliefs, approaches, and behaviors; contrast them with the incoherent, lunatic, reality-denying, and amnesiac gibberish emerging from the intellectual and political leadership of the dominant liberal factions of US public discourse.

Edited February 8, 2015 by overtone

[Wolfhnd]

I posted this in a history forum and thought it may be relevant here. The conservative "insanity" I'm most hostile to is uncompromising intolerance of alternative view points. Clinging to the idea of absolute truths in the face of repeated failure of those truths to produce the desired outcome is surely insane. Conservatives also seem to have forgotten why church and state (or absolute authority) must be separated in a democracy. The neo con platform can be nothing other than fascism to the extent that it could function only within a system of hierarchical obligations and religious values.

 

The question of why science developed faster in Europe than it did in other parts of the world doesn't have a simple answer but I think it is in part because of democracy or at least the idea of representative government. Below I outline my thinking as a continuation of the idea that non compromising absolutes are hostile to democracy and it's success. It also should be clear that an assumption is made that democracies are stable not because of agreement but because of tolerance.

The coevolution of democracy and science is no accident. Science struggles in an authoritarian environment. Social Systems based on a hierarchy of obligations may be highly successful but they do not evolve science readily because they have no need for it. Authoritarian system that are based on a hierarchy of obligations such as historical China and Sharia law could be seen as successful authoritarian systems. Western systems could be characterized as based on rights such as the divine rights of kings. It's only when rights became characterized as non exclusive or democratic that science blossomed in Europe. What characterizes the democracy of sciences is the rejection of absolute truth not it's embrace. Science can be seen as coevolving with democracy to favor theories over laws. Theories validated by democratic agreement in the community with the understanding that nobody can make the claim of absolute truth.

It is inherent then that democracies become unstable at least in part due to a lack of tolerance. Intolerant societies reject the necessary acceptance of change for science to blossom.

[Ten oz]

@ Woldhnd, other political systemsmplayed themselves out in Europe. Monarchs collasped as they became too thinly spread. Colonization proved unsustainable and empires failed under their one weight. Democracy didn't just thrive thanks to science because the people were more educated. Democracy was turned to by many out of war fatigue and economic doom. Millions died in war, millions died slaves, and millions died from plague before Europe turned the corner.