What does it take to be liberal? (Kicked out of the liberal club).

The sheeple who are in power and the sheeple who are out of power.

If you haven't noticed, I am prochoice, pro gun (second amendment, anyway). Good candidates are hard to come from with that perspective.

Not unless either issue is all you care about.

I consider myself to be a liberal. I am also a registered democrat. My views and opinions are my own personal views. I am far left on some issues. I am center left on some issues. I am left of center on some issues. So, I am somewhere on the political left regarding the specific issues that are important to me. Just because my views may be the same or very similar to a group is not a bad thing. We just happen to think alike. I'm not going to change my views just for the sake of being different. I'm going to be who I am. I consider myself knowledgeable of the issues that are important to me. I do articulate my liberal views with a clear understanding of the statements I make, and can discuss intelligently the reasons for my statements. For anyone who wants to be different just to be different, that is their prerogative. My ideological narratives are based on facts as well as opinions. Yes I am very aware that some facts can be subjective. It's okay to be different. Just don't be different just for the sake of being different. Just as long as you have a grasp and understanding of the issues and can articulate your views intelligently, there is absolutely nothing wrong with sharing the same or similar views as a group. Some people think alike and there is nothing wrong with that.

You are missing the point. The problem is not the stances you hold.

The problem is when ideology is more important than facts or reason.

- When you are unwilling to see when someone on the other side of the political chasm has a valid point.

- When you are unable to see the flaws in your own positions or admit when your points aren't certain.

- When you are unable to challenge people in your own ideological camp when they make statements that are clearly illogical, or take positions that are clearly ridiculous.

I have no problem with someone who take liberal beliefs, or with someone who takes conservative beliefs. The issue is when these ideological sides become more important than thinking critically about issues or questioning positions.

maxdancona describes maxdancona, farmerman, Setanta, Blickers, coldjoint, Beth, Roger, oralloy, ci, hightor, blatham, McG, Baldimo, mm, rev, the vast majority of A2Kers, ... .

Such stunning hypocrisy from you, max!!!! And you think RM is missing the point?

Why can't you, this stunning hypocrite, max, see how your own words capture your essence, the essence of all those described above.

No. That is not correct. My ideology is a direct result of the facts. Let me be very clear, I do understand that some facts can be subjective. That still doesn't change the fact that my ideology is a direct result of the facts.

If I believe that you made a valid point, I have no problem saying so. On the other hand, just because you say a particular point is valid doesn't necessarily make it valid.

Everyone says this... but there is an easy test about whether you your facts come from your ideology or your ideology comes from facts.

The problem the ideological bubbles is that no one questions the dogma, and no one challenges their own side when the facts clearly don't match up. Anyone who values facts over ideology admits it. There will be times when the facts don't support your ideology.

I will give a perfect example... in the Kavanaugh thread you made the claim that "Dr. Ford has no reason to lie". I am pretty sure you don't know Dr. Ford. I am pretty sure you don't know anything about her, and you probably have never spoken to her. You not only state this as a fact (which it is not), but you use it to justify the conclusion that your ideology has been right all along.

People who are honest about the facts sometimes contradict their ideology. There is no ideology that has a monopoly on the facts. People who live as if the facts always support their political ideology are deceiving themselves.

The Kavanaugh thread post you quoted, did not come from me.
That post came form coluber2001

Just for the record, I completely agree with coluber2001 post.
Just as a matter of my personal opinion, I believe coluber2001
to be absolutely correct.

Good dog almighty!!!

Sure, and I think it is a good example of where ideology leads to beliefs that aren't supported by facts.

When you are in a bubble, your ideological narrative deteemines what you believe, and then you pick out the facts to suuport your beliefs after the fact.

Liberals who questioned Paula Jones for her accusations against Bill Clinton are upset that Conservatives are questioning doctor Ford. This is about ideology and partisan politics, not about facts.

You seem to be confused. I will try to clarify myself, so that you can better understand where I am coming from.

First of all my liberal ideology is a direct result of the facts.

My personal opinions are based on my gut feelings which are sometimes backed up by facts. My personal opinion is sometimes based on bits and pieces of incomplete and missing information.

You seem to get the two confused.

Those two things are not necessarily the same.

For example:
I find you Max, to be conceited and snotty from reading your many post on many different threads. I also find you Max, often to be a hypocrite.

Answer me this.
1. Is it a fact that you Max, are a conceited snotty person?
2. Is it a fact that you Max, are a hypocrite?
3. Or is that just my personal opinion of you Max?

I ask that question, to show you Max, the difference between factual ideology and personal gut opinions.

No RealMusic, liberal ideology is not a direct result of the facts. Nor is conservative ideology or any other ideology. That is the problem with ideology, everyone claims that they have the truth. Ideology starts with a narrative, and the facts are carefully selected to support it. That is the very nature of ideologies.

If you honestly look at the facts, you will find some of the support your ideological narrative, and some challenge it. Nobody has a monopoly on facts.

It is very easy for liberals to get up and point out all the inconsistencies and factual errors on the other side. That is how the political game works. It is far more impressive for a person to stand up against their own side. When your own ideological side goes to far, it is important for people to stand up against their own side.

Right now we have a society of extremes. The left is going crazy with claims that are simply nonfactual. The right, of course is too.

The liberal punishes dissent with personal attacks, public shaming or worse. That is certainly true here (where it doesn't really hurt). It is also true is society at large.

Someone who values facts will push back when any political ideology make claims that are unsupported by the facts, and both sides do it.

Actually, can you clarify this statement for me?

If someone has a conservative philosophy, can she correctly claim that is also a "direct result of the facts"?

Are you making a claim that "liberal ideology" is the only ideology that can be a direct result of the facts and that other ideologies that disagree with it are flawed? Or, is liberal ideology on equal footing with competing ideologies that make the same claim?

I will attempt to answer the questions you are presenting. I am speaking as a liberal democrat. My response is based on my prior interactions with you, as well as other posters interactions with you. I personally believe that the problem is not necessarily what you say. I think the problem is more to do with how you say the things you say. That is just my personal observation. I don't think the occasional disagreement is the real issue. I believe you just rub people the wrong way. This is just my honest assessment. I am perfectly fine with you arguing opposing points of view. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree.

If a group of people truly and honestly agree with each other on specifics, I don't see anything wrong with group thinking.

I present ideological narratives when I genuinely and honestly believe in that narrative. I also will articulate and present evidence to why I believe the narrative I am presenting. I also have no problem with other posters, such as yourself, presenting opposing views to my narratives. On the other hand, if you present your opposing views in a conceited or snotty way, then you should expect your points of view to be attacked.

I am speaking as a liberal. When engaging in a debate with someone, some level of conflict is to be expected. Some level of conflict is not unusual when debating. You might find that when you challenge the group thinking, that the conflict probably wouldn't be as bad if you did it in a non-conceited and non-snotty way.

When I am on a political thread, I expect opposing views. In fact I welcome opposing views. The fun is in the debating of opinions, facts, and evidence. If I didn't have opposing views to debate with, it would get real boring real fast.

If you challenge my ideological narrative in a conceited snotty way, I will definitely respond in a very negative way. I would never want to prevent dissent, but I do relish and enjoy exposing conceited snotty people.

What you refer to as liberal dogma may be what other liberals truly and genuinely believe in, with well thought out reasons for their belief. You can call yourself whatever label you wish to call yourself. It's no big deal.

Just for the record, I have occasionally observed you being attacked unfairly here on A2K.

You might want to at least consider that people might be telling you their honest opinion that happens to be the same as the group. I have no problem having a group of people thinking the same as I do, especially if they are sharing their true honest opinions.

My question to you Max is, have you ever been guilty of dismissing, ignoring, or downplaying a point of view that you disagree with?

There is nothing wrong with a group of like-minded people presenting a counter argument to your argument. I don't consider like-minded people presenting counter arguments as being attacks against dissent.

Do you Max, believe it is wrong for like-minded people to present counter arguments to your points of view?

I don't recall ever reading any post of yours that would warrant you being called a racist. I may have disagreements with you, but I have never considered you to be a racist.

I consider myself to be a liberal. I am also a registered democrat. My views and opinions are my own personal views. I am far left on some issues. I am center left on some issues. I am left of center on some issues. So, I am somewhere on the political left regarding the specific issues that are important to me. Just because my views may be the same or very similar to a group is not a bad thing. We just happen to think alike. I'm not going to change my views just for the sake of being different. I'm going to be who I am. I consider myself knowledgeable of the issues that are important to me. I do articulate my liberal views with a clear understanding of the statements I make, and can discuss intelligently the reasons for my statements. For anyone who wants to be different just to be different, that is their prerogative. My ideological narratives are based on facts as well as opinions. Yes I am very aware that some facts can be subjective. It's okay to be different. Just don't be different just for the sake of being different. Just as long as you have a grasp and understanding of the issues and can articulate your views intelligently, there is absolutely nothing wrong with sharing the same or similar views as a group. Some people think alike and there is nothing wrong with that.

My ideology is a direct result of the facts. Let me be very clear, I do understand that some facts can be subjective. That still doesn't change the fact that my ideology is a direct result of the facts.

If I believe that you made a valid point, I have no problem saying so. On the other hand, just because you say a particular point is valid doesn't necessarily make it valid.

You seem to be confused. I will try to clarify myself, so that you can better understand where I am coming from.

First of all my liberal ideology is a direct result of the facts.

My personal opinions are based on my gut feelings which are sometimes backed up by facts. My personal opinion is sometimes based on bits and pieces of incomplete and missing information.

You seem to get the two confused.

Those two things are not necessarily the same.

For example:
I find you Max, to be conceited and snotty from reading your many post on many different threads. I also find you Max, often to be a hypocrite.

Answer me this.
1. Is it a fact that you Max, are a conceited snotty person?
2. Is it a fact that you Max, are a hypocrite?
3. Or is that just my personal opinion of you Max?

I ask that question, to show you Max, the difference between factual ideology and personal gut opinions.

1. My last post is just a summary of all the things I've previously said to you Max on this particular thread.

2. This is to prevent me from repeating myself over and over, and going in circles with you.

3. This is also to make sure that my previous statements I made to you, stay in some type of context.

4. I also put in big bold letters the questions I previously posed to you, that I don't think you ever answered.

5. Of course you don't have to answer any of my questions. It is your right not to answer my questions. I just wanted to point it out.

First of all, let me ask your first two big bold questions (the rest are personal attacks). I think they are irrelevant as I will explain below. But I will answer them all the same.

1. There is nothing wrong with dismissing, ignoring or downplaying points of view.

I routinely dismiss, or ignore that I don't feel are worth discussing. If everyone did this, Able2know would be a nicer place. I don't really know what "downplay" means... if I don't think a point is relevant or important, I make it clear (if I feel the topic is worth discussion). I don't mind when anyone dismisses ignores or downplays any of my views that they don't find compelling, in fact I encourage it. Any of these things is far better than personal attacks, or stifling discussion.

2. Yes, I absolutely want people to present arguments counter to my point of view. That really is the best part having a public forum. There have even been times when I have lost arguments (I am very proud of this) where people have presented arguments that I judged to be valid and I admit that they were right. I don't think many people are open minded enough to lose an argument... in fact I think very few people have ever done so.

I found it humorous; I once admitted that DrewDad was right and that I was wrong about a point in a political argument. Izzy attacked me for "changing my mind". It made me chuckle.

Now that I have addressed your questions; here is the problem with group think.

1. Group think punishes people who disagree with them. They attack the people. They don't argue the areas of disagreement (your question #2) and they don't ignore disagreement (your question #1). Instead they make personal attacks to stifle disagreement.

2. Group think discourages questioning. In an ideological bubble you have people with the same set of assumptions and beliefs all supporting each other... and actively discouraging each other from dissent.

Look on any thread (between the personal attacks against dissenters) and you will see videos, articles, quotes all supporting a point of view, and zero discussion or even admission that there is evidence that challenges that point of view. It is the ideology version of shouting "lalala" to avoid hearing something.

3. The biggest problem is the personal attacks (here) and public shaming (in the world at large).

- I have no problem with anyone ignoring me. I have no problem with anyone telling me that my argument is "silly" or irrelevant or not worth arguing. In fact I would prefer that, if you engage with me, than you are jumping into an interaction with me. If you don't want to interact with me, then simply don't respond. It isn't that difficult.

- I have a big problem with the personal attacks, the nastiness and the slurs. It isn't enough for people to disagree, or to ignore, there is an active and nasty attempt to prevent discussion through attacking and discrediting anyone who dares to question the ideological narrative.

This makes able2know a nastier place, and it is responsible for the political nastiness we have in the country at large.

Hillary Clinton lost the election after referring to American voters as "Deplorables". This isn't good for the country, but it isn't even a very smart political strategy.

There are two different issues here.

1) Questioning your own ideological beliefs, and being able to see your own biases, is an habit of mind. It is an important intellectual process. If every new fact perfectly matches an ideological narrative then facts are useless and likely the ideological narrative is controlling to process. Facts are only really useful if they challenge your current way of thinking.

Whether you choose to think critically about your own beliefs or to question the impact of your ideology on your reaction to a new story is your own decision. It doesn't directly impact anyone else.

2) The group is actively silencing dissent. People are who express ideas that challenge the group ideology are being attacked and discredited. It is the people who are being attacked, not the ideas. By attacking people, the group attempts to prevent undesirable opinions from being expressed without honest debate.

It is not only shutting down your own though processes, it is working as a group to shut down discovery for everyone.

This is one of my main criticisms of modern liberals in the US.

But what about when the facts support your current way of thinking because it is actually valid?

I don't accept this stance.

My side is simply right,
the other side is wrong,
and anyone who doesn't choose a side is snotty and conceited.