I get what your saying, and I mostly agree with it, but personally I really really don't think it would be reasonable at all to be against homosexuality if it were a choice. In fact, when I switched sides on the issue (to the reasonable side) I still thought it was a choice. But it's a choice that someone should be free to make because it doesn't affect me in any way.
Why does GAF lean so much to the left in politics?
- Thread starter Schattenjäger
- Start date
- Status
I get what your saying, and I mostly agree with it, but personally I really really don't think it would be reasonable at all to be against homosexuality if it were a choice. In fact, when I switched sides on the issue (to the reasonable side) I still thought it was a choice. But it's a choice that someone should be free to make because it doesn't affect me in any way.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
A lot of people have come out with accusations of the 'hive mind' and its anti-conservative bias. But...
... how many people who think that draw a distinction between what current GOP conservatism means, and what it used to mean? Distinction between social and economic conservatism?
What mostly seems to not go over well on GAF is anything that directly goes against human rights and movements for equality. The joke here is that there are some people who call themselves conservatives but think the modern religion-powered right is crazy, and are dead set against most of socially directed moral panic the GOP is promoting.
So. When people say "GAF is a liberal hivemind that tolerates no conservatism" just what conservatism are they talking about? Because just as what 'liberal' is in America can be misleading, it's just as misleading to speak of conservatism as a monoblock for all the GOP is doing its best to paint anyone who doesn't tow the party line as a traitor and no true conservative.
In my mind, issues of human rights are neither liberal or conservative. They're pretty objective and can be reasoned through without politics. Discrimination and oppression are pretty easy to suss out. Things like 'gay rights' have become targeted as 'liberal extremism' but it's just about equality. I don't see it as liberal, just rational, pragmatic.
elysianalartist
Neo Member
As a self proclaimed Independent, it is much easier to be a liberal than a conservative. The liberal talking points sound great! You feel good believing them! Talk about having the best bumper sticker catchphrases! Compare those to a conservative bumper sticker.......yeah those aren't quite as catchy are they.
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, but the genetic basis of homosexuality had little to do with its declassification as a psychiatric disorder. After all, most psychiatric disorders have some genetic basis.
What is it, then?
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
People who have managed to avoid getting banned on NeoGAF probably possess some kind of intellect, decency and empathy. These traits are also common in people who are "liberal" in the American sense of the word.
Conciliator
Banned
Yeah, the evolution of gay rights is almost entirely a cultural shift. Very few people in the western world 100 years ago would have supported the rights of gay people to get married, or even just to be openly gay, but does that mean almost everyone in the world was a bigoted asshole? What about all the American heroes that owned slaves? Etc. etc...point being, the way morality and history and culture tie together is complicated, and there is by no means a universal morality that's defined all of civilization, unless you are willing to dismiss most entire civilizations throughout history as bigoted/immoral. The best thing we can do is just be open to big ideas different from ours and be aware that we may not have it all figured out quite yet.
May be an idea worth considering.
Amory
Member
I think we get it.
SteveWinwood
Member
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Conciliator
Banned
Well, yeah, actually we should in terms of whether to consider adopting their moral ideals, in most cases. But that does that mean that every person is those countless civilizations failed to behave/think morally in the same sense that we're succeeding right now? I think we are not as independent of our cultural surroundings in that regard as we would like to think.
EDIT: To sum: Moral relativism; agree or disagree as you see fit.
Amory
Member
Oh! Ok now I definitely get it.
I definitely am. Ours, too.
Internet forums, unless explicitly carved out for Republicans, tend to lean left. I think it's a byproduct of the younger people that tend to frequent forums and also the effect of globalism. Conservatism is hard to apply on a global scale, since the hands-off approach it trumpets is seen as uncompassionate.
Plenty of Republican leaders are highly educated, though. If you have money and want to protect your stakes, it's hard to shake the appeal of Conservatism.
Plenty of Republican leaders are highly educated, though. If you have money and want to protect your stakes, it's hard to shake the appeal of Conservatism.
Karsticles
Member
I've never understood the logic behind this sentiment. If the history of life, especially human, shows anything, it's that reality has a fascist bias.
Bigotry is a significant plank of modern conservatism.
More on-point given that the modern Republican party is largely anti-science and the internet exists in part due to "big government" it's only fitting that forums based on computer technology would lean liberal.
I'm not against any Religion, but Christian Conservatism has really polluted the party.
For example, I consider my self to be conservative, I don't think the government should be able to interfere much with anyone's personal life, and that goes for who can get married to who, or who can have an abortion when.
Now, I respect those views because everyone has a right to their own opinion... but its really corrupted the party in a pretty depressing way. The anti-science hate, the intolerance to other religions...
Here is a good article on the issue:
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/gop-insider-how-religion-destroyed-my-party?page=0,0
I think its gotten a lot worse than people ever expected, and I think the Republican party will either crumble and rise out of the ashes as its great previous self... or a third party will come around, hopefully more true to conservative ideal.
For example, I consider my self to be conservative, I don't think the government should be able to interfere much with anyone's personal life, and that goes for who can get married to who, or who can have an abortion when.
Now, I respect those views because everyone has a right to their own opinion... but its really corrupted the party in a pretty depressing way. The anti-science hate, the intolerance to other religions...
Here is a good article on the issue:
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/gop-insider-how-religion-destroyed-my-party?page=0,0
I think its gotten a lot worse than people ever expected, and I think the Republican party will either crumble and rise out of the ashes as its great previous self... or a third party will come around, hopefully more true to conservative ideal.
The liberal talking points also don't make you feel like an idiot for saying them.
I can't imagine saying stuff like, "If the free market doesn't think you deserve healthcare, then you don't get healthcare!" or "The rich create jobs," or "If we raise taxes 4%, the job creators will lose all incentive to work," without my brain exploding.
JJDinomite
Banned
Let's just say that liberals are generally handsome, intellectual giants who score boatloads of fine women with the wink of an eye, which I/NeoGAF consists of.
Upvotes to the left.
Upvotes to the left.
Necromanti
Member
I've never understood why some more right-leaning members (in this thread) have felt that they cannot voice their opinions without getting banned. I have seen respectful members be able to voice fair-reasoned and empirically-backed opinions, regardless of their beliefs.
The only time people get banned is if they say something intentionally offensive (or "politically incorrect", as some members would put it) or make poorly argued claims with the intent to rile people up (i.e. trolling). Perhaps there is some cultural miscommunication as to what is considered offensive or derogatory.
I don't (or more realistically, try not to) judge people by their creed, beliefs, or ideologies, but rather, how they reached their conclusions. There is more than one logical conclusion to most (social/economical/etc.) problems, so it is a useful learning experience to hear other points of view.
Anyway, my experiences from having lived in the Middle East and traveled the world, interacting with people from all walks of life from all over the world, has made me into a more "left-leaning" individual.
The only time people get banned is if they say something intentionally offensive (or "politically incorrect", as some members would put it) or make poorly argued claims with the intent to rile people up (i.e. trolling). Perhaps there is some cultural miscommunication as to what is considered offensive or derogatory.
I don't (or more realistically, try not to) judge people by their creed, beliefs, or ideologies, but rather, how they reached their conclusions. There is more than one logical conclusion to most (social/economical/etc.) problems, so it is a useful learning experience to hear other points of view.
Anyway, my experiences from having lived in the Middle East and traveled the world, interacting with people from all walks of life from all over the world, has made me into a more "left-leaning" individual.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
I've never felt bad about stating my opinion. I do feel that I'm on a shorter leash though.
Necromanti
Member
To be fair, that's probably true. I guess it's also easy for people to get heated on the internet when arguing about certain topics. Everyone just needs to learn to take a deep breath, be a bit more patient, and try to be more respectful. But that may just be me pushing my cultural beliefs on to other people...
Devolution
Member
The ones who are afraid of a ban are probably social conservatives with some bigoted opinions. Financially, people might find your views kind of repugnant but I don't really see them being at all ban worthy. Where some get in trouble is the fact that they link something like the Heritage Foundation as their source.
NEOPARADIGM
Banned
I find myself much further left than GAF, so, I don't really understand "them" to lean "so much to the left," personally.
Because GAF realizes that the societal benefit is important enough to provide at least some limits on the ability of the wealthy to become wealthier.
Because GAF realizes that a social issue shouldn't be a social issue unless it actually affects other people, and that if the proposed solution to a problem creates more harm than the harm caused by the problem, the solution is invalid.
Because GAF realizes that a social issue shouldn't be a social issue unless it actually affects other people, and that if the proposed solution to a problem creates more harm than the harm caused by the problem, the solution is invalid.
The_Hitcher89
Member
Because left is right
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
If I can argue with Kad5 for several hundred posts about whether we need any kind of government at all then I'm pretty sure that fiscal and governmental conservatives don't have too much to fear in conversation.
Well said
A group of people with different views on politics, economics and social stuff.
GAF (the TOS of the forum) is pro equality and against discrimination, but that's it. Everything else is up to members, and we have lots of them, and everyone has hers/his own view on the world.
NullPointer
Member
And that's why it doesn't matter to me whether its based upon genetics or not. Fact is as long as its consensual and doesn't harm others I don't see the problem. Of course some social conservatives would claim there is harm, whether its harm to the best upbringing of a child or somehow to marriage itself, but those are perspectives I just can't take seriously.
This too.
I gotta admit, I was loving those conversations, but then I always get a kick out of poking at basic principles and assumptions. One of the best feelings ever is to find that something you've subconsciously held dear for years is incorrect. There's a rush as old illusions fade away to make way for new insights. Its one of the reasons I'm glad GAF isn't a hive mind, because even though people always say you can't change people's minds on a forum, I've learned a hell of a lot here.
Like holy shit, those little paper cups for ketchup can fan out. Mind blown.
Relativist here. And I like how we get to play out some of those choices in entertainment like the Walking Dead and other end of the world/post apocalyptic scenarios. Its that tension that comes from trying to hold on to some universal basis in morality when the world is having none of that shit.
Believing that a government-run universal healthcare system works isn't a leftist bias; it's common-sense based on observation. This one is particularly easy since we have the examples of well over a dozen countries to choose from.
Believing that trickle-down economics doesn't work isn't a leftist bias; it's common sense based on historical precedent.
Believing that higher tax rates on the wealthiest Americans and an increase in the capital gains tax won't prevent job creation, or discourage entrepreneurship and investment isn't a leftist bias; it's common sense, also based on historical precedent.
Believing that tax cuts don't lead to higher government revenue isn't a leftist bias; it's common sense based on empirical data.
Believing that a "flat tax" or "fair tax" is just a tax cut for the wealthy and a tax hike for the middle class isn't a leftist bias; it's common sense based on mathematics.
Believing that everyone should have access to medical care and said care shouldn't be financially onerous to the individual isn't a leftist bias; it's simple human decency.
Believing that not everyone who is struggling financially is a lazy moocher isn't a leftist bias; it's basic logic.
Believing that market failures can and do exist isn't a leftist bias; it's common sense based on observable examples.
Believing that if we can afford 40% of the world's military spending, we can afford medical care for all of our citizens isn't a leftist bias; it's having priorities that aren't completely insane.
I could keep going, but you get the idea. The reality is that the Republican platform has shifted so far away from basic logic that rational people will appear "leftist" by comparison.
Believing that trickle-down economics doesn't work isn't a leftist bias; it's common sense based on historical precedent.
Believing that higher tax rates on the wealthiest Americans and an increase in the capital gains tax won't prevent job creation, or discourage entrepreneurship and investment isn't a leftist bias; it's common sense, also based on historical precedent.
Believing that tax cuts don't lead to higher government revenue isn't a leftist bias; it's common sense based on empirical data.
Believing that a "flat tax" or "fair tax" is just a tax cut for the wealthy and a tax hike for the middle class isn't a leftist bias; it's common sense based on mathematics.
Believing that everyone should have access to medical care and said care shouldn't be financially onerous to the individual isn't a leftist bias; it's simple human decency.
Believing that not everyone who is struggling financially is a lazy moocher isn't a leftist bias; it's basic logic.
Believing that market failures can and do exist isn't a leftist bias; it's common sense based on observable examples.
Believing that if we can afford 40% of the world's military spending, we can afford medical care for all of our citizens isn't a leftist bias; it's having priorities that aren't completely insane.
I could keep going, but you get the idea. The reality is that the Republican platform has shifted so far away from basic logic that rational people will appear "leftist" by comparison.
Ok, let's all go to the cafe with your grandfather.
Quoting just because it did not deserve to be at the bottom of the page. Great post, thanks.
cutmeamango
Banned
I lean far right, but that's because Brazil's political compass is broken.
Or is the most correct?
Or is the most correct?
Why? Constructionists (and more specifically proponents of queer theory) argue that the individual is able to shape his/her own sexuality. If same-sex sexuality was indeed a choice, why would it be reasonable (or "not unreasonable") to be against it?
It's because the internet is an international audience, too.
The two times I have voted, I voted for the center-right National party in New Zealand. But if I choose to become a US citizen, I would never vote for the Republican party because they are not actually fiscal conservatives, and their social policies were crafted by a lunatic fringe of religious zealots.
No, you are incorect, when we believed it was purely by choice it was unreasonable even then to be against their rights.
I have the answer. People with "fixed" opinions that are not up for debate tend to stay in closed communities, where they can circle jerk forever. GAF being a very open and accepting community attracts people who really do want to argue about things and learn new stuff.
In GAF your opinions will be questioned and evidence/source often required. Some people find this to be highly benefitial and some people take it as an attack to their beliefs.
In GAF your opinions will be questioned and evidence/source often required. Some people find this to be highly benefitial and some people take it as an attack to their beliefs.
blame space
Banned
EDIT read this totally wrong. yes it was.
I haven't read every single page, so I can't say with 100% certainty, but there might be some room for improvisation here.
My argument is basically that many rational positions are considered leftist on the American political spectrum, and I've given examples. Many others have commented that the American right-wing has moved so far right that centrist positions are considered left in America, which I guess is just another way to state my argument.
Using this line of thinking, some have argued that GAF isn't liberal at all, but centrist, and that reality doesn't actually have a liberal bias, but that it does have a bias against what passes for conservatism in the United States in 2012.
If you want to make an argument that liberalism > conservatism on biological grounds, you'd probably be the first to do it in this thread.
Left leaning my ass. The only "liberal" values dominant on gaf are gay rights and atheism . And racial tolerance perhaps due to the board's strict racism rules.
As for the rest, gaf is a troglodyte heaven, where Murica is always the hero, Assange is a raping terrorist, Islam is the enemy of civilization, taxes are robbery, unions are a threat to America, fortified concept is public enemy #1, working conditions in third world countries are routinely justified, etc. etc.
As for the rest, gaf is a troglodyte heaven, where Murica is always the hero, Assange is a raping terrorist, Islam is the enemy of civilization, taxes are robbery, unions are a threat to America, fortified concept is public enemy #1, working conditions in third world countries are routinely justified, etc. etc.
Conciliator
Banned
A lot of talk-radio style conservatives are on that political-correctness-will-be-the-downfall-of-Western-Civilization, and consequently believe that they should be able to say whatever they want and other people can't be offended/do anything about it. I think it's easy for that thought process to lead to a person getting banned on internet forums that are not specifically social conservative communities.
- Status