Political Conservatism and Bad Driving

[Phi for All]

A recent study of traffic that determined most of the gridlock on the highways is caused by a few jerks driving badly and forcing everyone else to put on their brakes, robbing the system of its momentum. I say jerks mainly because these folks are completely oblivious to the fact that they ARE the problem they're spending so much time complaining about! They're so wrapped up in themselves and what THEY want, they fail to recognize themselves as the source of it all. When it's pointed out to them, they deny it vehemently, and insist that if everyone drove like them, everything would be fine.

 

Are political conservatives being the tailgaters, lane-changers, and cutter-offers in the political sense, causing everything to grind to a halt in a sea of brake lights, not realizing they're the culprits? People who label themselves as conservative seem to be at the heart of most of our woes in the US politically right now, yet they vehemently deny it's their fault, insisting it's all the folks who aren't conservative who are the problem.

 

I think they're mis-applying the broad-brushstroke conservative label, the way some folks call themselves "skeptics" as a way to remain negative forever about a subject. I think this leaves them very vulnerable to emotional appeals by media and Big Business. Most people labeling themselves as conservatives don't seem interested in educating themselves regarding what they're conservative/skeptical about.

[Prometheus]

I've often wondered whether it would be possible to alter a mathematical model of traffic flow to see the effects of increasing the number of individuals who only wish to minimise their time in travelling from A to B. I imagine a few would indeed decrease their travel times, but that the average would increase: not to mention increased risk of accidents. I have studied mathematical models of queues and average queueing time is shorter when people don't just try to minimise their own queue time.

 

It would be interesting to see whether such a model could be extended to financial systems in an attempt to see whether having some people maximise their wealth makes the average poorer. I suspect their is some limit to wealth accumulation which does not adversely effect the system average, but after which increasingly does so.

 

Another project idea to put on the back burner with the rest of them...

[iNow]

Checkout time point 17:20 to 18:20 in this video:

 

[Raider5678]

Trying to remain neutral and not trying to start an argument, may I just point out that this could be said about "non-conservatives" also? I mean, HARD evidence inside politics about who is to blame is almost always cherry picked to suit the person's needs. Let's say for example you brought up a study that shows how conservatives repeatedly stopped government laws from being passed that could help us alot. I could pull up ANOTHER study that shows the same thing, but that "non-conservatives" stopped those laws. In my opinion political debates usually never end up with people changing to the other party, which is a real shame. Try and use some logical reason here. I vote for whoever I think is a good candidate(technically, I'm too young to vote), regardless if their a conservative or not.

 

On a side note yes, usually the people blaming other people are the cause of the problem. But both parties are trashing each other currently, so who does the blame fall on?

[iNow]

I agree that there are examples of bad behaviors on each side of the aisle, but their frequency and magnitude are not the same and the equivalence you (and so many others so often) assert is remedially false.

[Elite Engineer]

So if the far right causes the traffic jam, wouldn't the far left be the frustrated drivers who speed past the jam, and cause an accident?

 

 

Edited May 16, 2016 by Elite Engineer

[Phi for All]

Let's say for example you brought up a study that shows how conservatives repeatedly stopped government laws from being passed that could help us alot. I could pull up ANOTHER study that shows the same thing, but that "non-conservatives" stopped those laws.

 

This is an incorrect assumption, but it will teach you a lot to investigate its veracity yourself, and find that there is no such equivalence with liberal policies. I sincerely encourage you to look for such studies. It's a real eye-opener.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying conservative measures are always bad. But I think it's horrible that a person would want to pigeonhole themselves by claiming to always be conservative. It's the issues that should be considered conservative, liberal, progressive, not the people discussing the issues.

 

I think most people who brand themselves that way think it sounds safe, sophisticated, and savvy. I think they equate "conservative" with "cautious choices", "common sense" and "wisdom". But the upshot really is that "conservative" means "vote against any kind of tax increases or stronger regulations on your employer, because they might have to fire you". Businesses are still preaching fear while posting record profits, and sitting on huge reserves of cash. I think conservatives are being played by Big Business, so BB can have their cake (high production, dedicated inexpensive workers, high profits) and eat it too (lower taxes, less regulation, get others to pay your fair share).

So if the far right causes the traffic jam, wouldn't the far left be the frustrated drivers who speed past the jam, and cause an accident?

 

I knew somebody would misapply the analogy.

 

I'm not suggesting it's conservatives causing traffic jams on the highway. I'm trying to equate, in a very limited way, the way some people cause traffic while thinking it's everyone else's fault, with the way conservatives behave in US politics.

[Raider5678]

http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2016/01/20/senate-democrats-block-bipartisan-law-requiring-enhanced-background-checks-syrian-refugees/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/20/senate-democrats-block-bill-restrict-syrian-refugees-entering-us/79063266/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-democrats-block-bill-to-halt-resettling-of-iraqi-syrian-refugees-in-u-s-1453325005

 

Thats them blocking laws. And number 3 sort of counteracts what they blocked before, so it's a little confusing. But that's politics for you, they talk and talk and never get anything done.

[Phi for All]

http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2016/01/20/senate-democrats-block-bipartisan-law-requiring-enhanced-background-checks-syrian-refugees/

http://www.usatoday....ng-us/79063266/

http://www.wsj.com/a...-u-s-1453325005

Thats them blocking laws. And number 3 sort of counteracts what they blocked before, so it's a little confusing. But that's politics for you, they talk and talk and never get anything done.

 

This is three links talking about the same single piece of legislation, not "them blocking laws". Let's be clear here.

 

You should investigate these if you're going to post them as evidence. This one was rejected because we already have legislation in place that vets refugees from Syria adequately. It's a freaking two year process that's already very thorough. This maneuver was fear-mongering after the Paris attacks, suggesting that we're letting just anybody in, and that we don't already have Homeland Security going over these folks with a fine-toothed comb.

 

If you don't believe this, perhaps you could show where our current vetting process is flawed.

[Raider5678]

 

You should investigate these if you're going to post them as evidence. This one was rejected because we already have legislation in place that vets refugees from Syria adequately. It's a freaking two year process that's already very thorough. This maneuver was fear-mongering after the Paris attacks, suggesting that we're letting just anybody in, and that we don't already have Homeland Security going over these folks with a fine-toothed comb.

 

If you don't believe this, perhaps you could show where our current vetting process is flawed.

Nah, I'll take your word for it.

 

In truth though, why are we so scared of terrorist? I mean it's not like your very likely to get attacked or killed by one considering theres like what, 330 million people in the united states? And your most likely not a high priority target either. Seems like the terrorist are doing their job, causing unnecessary and pointless terror.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/applying-refugee-status-is-hard_us_564bbf8ce4b045bf3df1a043

[iNow]

That would be a different topic entirely now, wouldn't it? It's like you're trying, through unintentional example, to demonstrate the validity of the OPs premise about obstruction and not realizing you're doing it.

[Phi for All]

In truth though, why are we so scared of terrorist?

 

Terrorism is a Red Herring that's been enormously effective at causing a lot of chaos that creates climates of opportunity for opportunists. Terrorism is being wielded as a tool, not a weapon, one that gives the illusion that we need militant leadership to protect what we love from extremists who can't even muster enough support from their own people to field a proper army.

 

It's being used as a tool for obstructionism, which also happens to make a lot of money for a select few. And any suggestions to the contrary, like more negotiations with countries that harbor terrorists, get pounced upon as weak and ineffectual (even though the Soviet Union fell more to economics rather than active warfare).

 

Once again, it's conservatives throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars at a handful of extremists, and then convincing themselves that it's the liberals who are at fault. Cause the problem, blame everyone but yourself, ignore reality, and consider yourself a wise American citizen. Manipulated Conservatism.

[Raider5678]

 

Terrorism is a Red Herring that's been enormously effective at causing a lot of chaos that creates climates of opportunity for opportunists. Terrorism is being wielded as a tool, not a weapon, one that gives the illusion that we need militant leadership to protect what we love from extremists who can't even muster enough support from their own people to field a proper army.

 

It's being used as a tool for obstructionism, which also happens to make a lot of money for a select few. And any suggestions to the contrary, like more negotiations with countries that harbor terrorists, get pounced upon as weak and ineffectual (even though the Soviet Union fell more to economics rather than active warfare).

 

Once again, it's conservatives throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars at a handful of extremists, and then convincing themselves that it's the liberals who are at fault. Cause the problem, blame everyone but yourself, ignore reality, and consider yourself a wise American citizen. Manipulated Conservatism.

Amen

[Elite Engineer]

 

I knew somebody would misapply the analogy.

 

I'm not suggesting it's conservatives causing traffic jams on the highway. I'm trying to equate, in a very limited way, the way some people cause traffic while thinking it's everyone else's fault, with the way conservatives behave in US politics.

I see what you're saying, lol I wasn't either are responsible for traffic incidents. It's a nice analogy

[Sirona]

Phi, hopefully self-driving cars will solve your traffic woes. Alternatively, you can join the cycling high club and whiz through the morning crawl.

Edited May 21, 2016 by Sirona