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

If the facts support one of your ideological beliefs then that's good. You don't need to change it. Of course, you should always open to new facts, and when new facts challenge your beliefs, it is my opinion that your beliefs should change.

If facts never challenge your beliefs... I feel safe in suggesting that maybe your aren't being intellectually honest (either ignoring facts, or changing them). We can all see examples where other people are doing this. It is more important to be honest with ourselves.

With group think you have a set of ideological beliefs that are held by a number of people that are never challenged. The "facts" are carefully selected and manipulated to support the group's shared ideological beliefs.

- The liberals see full well that conservatives distort and ignore facts.
- The conservatives see full well that liberals distort and ignore facts.
- I bet that everyone reading this acknowledges one of these two statements. (If you want to disprove what I am saying, tell me that the other ideological side doesn't distort and ignore facts).

Intellectual honesty means that you can acknowledge when your own side distorts or ignores facts.

I suppose, but there are paradigmatic aspects of conflicting ideologies that cannot be resolved by facts. Liberty, i.e. voluntarily taking personal responsibility for good self-governance, may in fact fail in many instances where people simply put other interests ahead of doing what's right. That fact, however, leads liberals to submit to what they see as a necessity to regulate human behavior using external structural authority. They may have facts on their side, for the most part, but the real issue is whether to give up on liberty as a governing principle or whether to approach the task of external governance with the achievement of good self-governance by means of individual liberty as an objective.

Let's take the example of recreational drug use. Ideally, liberty would allow people to 'just say no to drugs' out of the simple awareness that dependency is too high a price to pay to indulge in pleasure. However, when people give up their liberty by submitting to addictive drug (ab)use, it becomes necessary to regulate it. Whether the goal of regulation is to manage people who aren't capable of choosing to 'just say no' on their own; or whether the goal is to induce the willpower to independently 'just say no' are two different objectives.

Drug-regulation liberals will insist that the war on drugs doesn't work and cite facts because they want to move toward the managed-addiction approach. Those who support the war on drugs, on the other hand, aren't satisfied with managing addiction, even if there are factual bases that it works. Rather, they want to deter people from (ab)using by dispensing heavier penalties that are strong enough to motivate people to fully avoid using.

Shifting the discussion to 'facts,' ends up favoring managed-addiction, because those are the people who can be studied and data collected. Everyone who exercises the liberty to just say no may be motivated to avoid using by the fear of criminal justice, social stigma, or just be afraid of addiction and being out of control of their desires; but those deterrents can't be measured as easily because they are subjective and in many cases probably subconscious.

So really the theoretical understanding of the different approaches to recreational drug regulation is more useful than focusing on 'facts,' though liberals will aggressively accuse conservatives of ignoring/denying facts and relying on 'unproven theories' because that gives the impression that their views and approaches are more valid. Common sense can tell you that being completely drug-free is better than being a managed-addict, yet liberals will use facts to spin the discourse toward denying that 'just say no' is even an option for addiction-prone people, and so they will manipulatively effectuate the belief that criminal justice, incarceration, etc. can't or shouldn't be used to induce the willful choice to avoid recreational drug use completely.

Now, if people were really honest about facts, they would admit the fact that they are simply desirous of using these pleasurable substances and they are terrified by the prospect of being arrested, fined, locked up, etc. for doing so. That desperate desire to have the freedom to use without fear of punishment is what drives their angry crusade to stop criminalization of recreational drugs, yet they will insist that they are just dispassionately basing their position on facts, because that makes their argument appear to be more reasonable than if it is just desire-driven rationalizations.

Hopefully you can see from this example how talking in terms of 'facts' actually hides the fact that 'facts' can be cited as part of an overall ideological/propaganda strategy that is not truly honest. Really it is no different from when racism used to cause people to cite 'facts' about crime, unemployment, IQ, etc. in defense of racist prejudices and discriminatory practices. To be truly honest, you have to go beyond citing facts to unpack the theoretical frameworks behind how the facts are woven together into narratives. Only then do you go beyond propagandizing to engage in real critical analysis for the sake of understanding different POVs more lucidly.

If I understand correctly, you are a conservative pointing out what you believe to be logical inconsistencies in liberal ideology. You are ignoring any logical inconsistencies in your own ideological side.

This is exactly lack of critical thinking I am talking about. Criticizing the other side of the political battle line is easy... anyone can do it.

Camlok, your analysis and description of Max are absolutely spot on.
You are absolutely correct regarding Max.
No matter how hard people attempt to have an actual conversation with Max, he gets even worse.

There are three words that accurately describes Max.
Those three words are:

1. Hypocrite (in the most extreme way possible)
2. Conceited (as if his **** don't stink)
3. Snotty (I'm definitely not talking about his nose)

It is obvious that Max is a conceited snotty hypocritical person.
I tried to give Max the benefit of the doubt.

At least for now, I will stop responding to any of Max post.

Thank you Real Music. That is really the main point I am making on this thread.

When someone challenges your ideological narrative there are three possible responses.

1. You can engage the ideas in a responsible and civil way. It is responsible to criticize ideas. It is also possible to disagree on some points and agree on others.

2. You can ignore them, choose not to respond. There is nothing wrong about choosing not to engage when the topic, or the specific argument doesn't interest you, or when you don't want to engage with a specific person.

3. You can attack them personally with insults. The goal here is not to avoid engaging (since you can do that respectfully by simply not responding). The goal is to maintain group think by attacking and punishing anyone who dissents.

I appreciate Real Music's illustrative example of how this process works. He obviously feels it is important for him to spend the time to respond to me, but he is not engaging intellectually. He is not expressing his own opinions. His personal attacks are an attempt to prevent anyone from questioning the ideas held sacred by his ideological group.

You forgot one:

4. Repeat your stance ad nauseam while telling others their opinion based on facts is wrong and your opinion is the only one that matters.


This forum has quite a few that fall into that category.


I really don't get what you're trying to get at. Of course people fall into certain groups based on group think. Professional organizations do it all the time. Doctors join the American Medical Association, lawyers join the Bar Association, there's the American Legion that veterans join, The Scouting program, horse shows. Anybody who wants part of a group conduct "group think."' How is that wrong in any way?

If you don't want to belong to a group, that's fine too. You can be in the non-group group. You be you, Max.

I may have forgotten a common trait amongst liberals!

They want to win. Everything they do is supposed to help them win elections. That is why they can be so dishonest, excuse themselves when they are caught lying and cheating and fixing elections, and making life in liberal cities worse than before. They are seen as either viable to the cause and therefore excusable from domestic abuse, or they go down, as with Charlie Rose, Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein, Dustin Hoffman, Richard Dreyfuss, Ben Affleck, Oliver Stone, and so many more.

The Me-Too movement was once an anti-Trump cause, which actually took on its own life, and began to mow down anyone who got in the way. Trump wasn't harmed by it, which is something that I think is irony. It looks as if the liberals are devouring themselves, however.

I wonder how all those accused will vote? Do you think they will vote Democrat anymore?

Such bull **** in this post, but this particular part I thought was funny.

You know who was harmed by this? Anybody on the right who would ever claim a 'moral majority' or that religious people have a greater ethical belief system.

Those people have been harmed tremendously.

For the rest of my life it will be hard to forget the Republicans spitting in the face of all their moral superiority over the last 20-30 years.

I know. I don't think it's funny for them. I liked watching Charlie Rose's show. He would get into it with some of his guests about physics, entertainment, and politics. He got interviews with kings and famous actors.

But the rub is this: The liberals newfound morality mirrors the Moral Majority. It's the same thing on the other side of the street. The Democrats decided to take the same high Road they loved to gouge the Moral Majority with every single time a Christian pastor was found in sexual deviancy. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Like the Evangelists, such as Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard, the Democrats have jumped feet first into a seedy world of self-righteousness. Just like the evangelists.

Which inconsistencies do you mean and I will try to make sense of them. I can't guarantee you'll be happy with the result, but I'll give my honest analysis and see if you deem it fundamentally ideologically biased. If you do, I might deem your perspective due to fundamental ideological bias as well.

If so, the question becomes which of us believes in truth and which thinks relativism is inevitable. I don't think relativism is inevitable, but you might and that might make you consider your truth superior to mine.

1. Group Think is not the not the same as group membership. I am a liberal... a member of a group. Yet I think critically, questioning facts and positions, rather than blindly accepting the group ideology. As such, I am a member of a group yet I reject the group think. That is the point of this thread.

2. You don't have to read my posts. You don't have to respond to my posts. And yet you choose to read and respond to my posts "ad nauseum" (your words). The real issue here is that you want the last word, and since you are sticking to the accepted liberal dogma, you think you are entitled to the last word.

The fact is that you could choose to ignore my posts (in fact there is a little button I am sure you about that would make all my posts disappear). Or, you could just choose not to respond to my posts. But you continue to participate, and you continue to complain about it.

3. I consider myself intelligent (I don't care if you agree). More important, I think I represent a unique viewpoint here, I play a role here that no one else is taking; questioning the irrational points made by both sides.

I like who I am here... I like the role I play here. If you don't, than please... hit the ignore button.

4. I have never said that you shouldn't here. I have never complained about you expressing an opinion. As long as it wasn't a personal attack, I am OK with any opinion you express. If I disagree with your opinion, I will say so. If I think an opinion is ridiculous (as I sometimes do) I will let you know. If I think you have a valid point, I will you know that too.

I often think my opinions are correct, otherwise I wouldn't hold. I am proud of the fact that discussions on this forum have made me change opinion, I am very proud of the arguments I have lost (because very few people ever lose an argument on the internet).'

I encourage discussion, expression of opinions, disagreements, discussion, arguments, agreements... these are part of a intelligent discussion. If you don't think you can have an intelligent discussion with someone, then don't.

The problem is the personal attacks, childish name-calling and demonization that have the goal of preventing discussion of ideas by anyone.

I added a fourth point for your consideration. Too bad you're so vain you thought it only applied to you.

And nobody gets the last word with you, Max. I'll bet you will retort in some wayward fashion as you always do.

I am a liberal rather than a conservative because what consider to be the core of liberalism is more rational to me than conservationism is. I am also a moral relativist, which might make this discussion more difficult.

We should start another thread on this topic. I will tell you... when people start explaining to me what my beliefs are, I tend to lose interest fast (as I am perfectly capable of explaining what my own beliefs are).At that point I will just stop responding.. Conservatives often do this when I try to have this type of discussion with them.

I put a space holder for this discussion (I don't have time right now) https://able2know.org/topic/478177-1

How is ignoring false accusations a rejection of moral superiority?

I do not perceive this harm to Republicans that you are talking about.

You are right on both cases Neptune. Yes, I am vain enough to believe you were directly talking about me (although you were directly responding to my post on a thread that I started). And yes, I am going to retort (as always). Obviously both of us are getting something out of these interactions, or else we wouldn't keep dancing together. Whatever is happening between us is clearly consensual.

I have no problem with you posting here or expressing your opinions whether you are right or wrong. I am going to push back (and I expect you too as well).

There are people here that I choose not to respond to, including one person who keeps taunting me by name. I don't think responding to him is worth my time, so I don't.

You should be grateful that someone as vain as I am thinks you are worth it.

I have it in writing.

I do this. Am I wrong to do so if I am right and everybody else is wrong?

Maybe not automatically wrong, but often boring and monotonous.

I'm glad I could contribute to the thread in a positive, safe manner for you.

What this suggests to me is that you've boiled politics down to a core belief/objective, which you then pursue without regard to the morality of lying, cheating, stealing, etc. to propagate the view against competing views.

The second thing you said about just not listening when conservatives explain your views to you suggests that you don't care how wrong you may be, you don't want to hear about it because all you want to do is continue propagating the ideology that you support and not think critically about it.