Do you think your political opponents are evil, stupid or irrational?

[noname223]

I think this is kind of an interesting question. How much do we judge the people who don't share our own political views. I try not to become too much of a political team player. Though especially on economics I have become one. I think this stems from the fact that I am extremely anxious about welfare. One could say I am too much affected on that topic to make a rational judgment.

It is really a difficult question. When I was younger I was a conservative. In economics and in questions of the society. Now I am on the left in both of these topics. I think the fact that I was on the (center) right helps me to understand the other side. I believed in most of these things when I was younger. I don't think I was more irrational when I was younger. I just had another political view. I think life experiences often shape our view on politics. My family is quite I conservative. The newspaper my parents read was populist-right. (yellow press)

I am not 100% sure where I position myself on the political landscape. Sometimes centre left, sometimes far-left, but also sometimes arguments of the right can convince me. I think my extreme fear of poverty, discrimination against mentally ill I experienced and bad influence of religion/conservative education pushed me to the left. Most of my friends are quite left. Way more than me.

I think the leftwing politicans are good at promising more equality ect. But they do way too often neoliberal politics. There are enough examples of that. But also rightwingers promise a lot and don't deliever. Sometimes I have the feeling the right-wingers are a little bit better strategically. With less moral concerns to hold on power. I think about Mitch McCornell and the line-up of conservative judges. At least in my country I have the following sentiment. The right-wingers are better at selling politics and on implemting policies. I think this stems from the fact that they have a lot of experienced politicians with much experience how to govern. Though the other side of that it they are more often corrupt and have hidden ties with big companies.

I don't really think my political opponents are stupid. Though sometimes I think some voters are too obsessed by the culture war. I would try not to get too obsessed by that and concentrate instead which policies could have positive inflence monetarily. Maybe I find it a little bit irrational to be obsessed by Dr. Seuss or woke companies. Many people waste too much energy on the culture war in my opinion. It is not worth the time.

What is your opinion on it? Probably noone will respond. :(

 

[wait.what]

At one point, I would have characterized most of my political opponents as essentially respectable but misguided. Then it became painfully obvious that most of them were evil, stupid, and irrational. After that, it became painfully obvious that most of my political allies are also evil, stupid and irrational.

If you don't believe me, spend 12 seconds reading any Twitter thread about U.S. politics. Don't read any longer than that, unless you're looking for some way to overcome your SI so you can exit this wretched plane of existence.

 

[whatevs]

What is 'evil'? Mostly this seems to refer to 'sadistic'. No, my political enemies aren't more sadistic than those that align with me.

Are they more 'stupid'? Yes, since they showcase stupor, not really because they are intellectually inferior, they just want to believe in the System and that conspiracy theories can never be substantiated by real events.

Are they 'irrational'? No, following the herd and aligning yourself with the money-makers and culture-shakers is a rational decision, at least on a short term time span in this case, in which the pied-pipers are leading the populace directly to a cliff.

I definitely think you are completely blind to the importance of the culture war. Ideas, values and feelings make up society, not economics.

 

[Pluto]

By its nature, politics attracts 'evil' people interested only in domination, stupid people who are easily persuaded to oppose their own interests, and irrational discourse intended to distract emotionally-charged punters from uniting in favour of genuine solutions.

 

[Sibyl Vane]

My answer will vary depending on who we are talking about. I can spot two main groups:

We have those people who are just too busy working all day, dealing with their own issues, and worrying if they will have enough money at the end of the month for rent and food to pay attention to the political news. They are (usually) the ones who end up being brainwashed and manipulated by ill-intended people and politicians who take advantage of their vulnerability, promising to give them a better life and financial aid. And as a result of their lack of information, they fail to notice that they are being fed with nothing more than empty promises and pretty words with no real applicability except the possibility of worsening their already bad situation.

The second group consists of those who know exactly what's going on and willingly choose to close their eyes to reality. They are constantly bending the truth to fit their political narratives, trying to change or destroy history to make you believe that what happened in the past never did, and always finding ways to defend the indefensible, supporting the atrocities and criminal acts committed by their preferred government due to (in some cases) being beneficiated by it. They are usually the ones responsible for promoting deviating tactics and spreading lies to solidify the manipulation of the group in the first example.

 

[callme]

In short, I believe the stronger populism becomes a tendency in politics, the more anybody's political opponents will be seen as such. And good-intention politicians will be ignored.

My answer will vary depending on who we are talking about. I can spot two main groups:

We have those people who are just too busy working all day, dealing with their own issues, and worrying if they will have enough money at the end of the month for rent and food to pay attention to the political news. They are (usually) the ones who end up being brainwashed and manipulated by ill-intended people and politicians who take advantage of their vulnerability, promising to give them a better life and financial aid. And as a result of their lack of information, they fail to notice that they are being fed with nothing more than empty promises and pretty words with no real applicability except the possibility of worsening their already bad situation.

The second group consists of those who know exactly what's going on and willingly choose to close their eyes to reality. They are constantly bending the truth to fit their political narratives, trying to change or destroy history to make you believe that what happened in the past never did, and always finding ways to defend the indefensible, supporting the atrocities and criminal acts committed by their preferred government due to (in some cases) being beneficiated by it. They are usually the ones responsible for promoting deviating tactics and spreading lies to solidify the manipulation of the group in the first example.

Why did all the normal, common sense people become one of the two you described so well? I myself have been both in desperation with the present day.. What happened to I pay me tithes to the king and serfs to the church, I only wanna roast beef and serve ale, for Peter's sake? Just some good common sense without all the fringe on every side.

I feel George Orwell is the only one worth listening to nowadays.

 

[Chinaski]

I feel George Orwell is the only one worth listening to nowadays.

Which Orwell? The "socialism is good and necessary" Orwell who wrote The Road To Wigan Pier and Down And Out ln Paris And London? Or the "socialism is evil and dystopian" Orwell who wrote Animal Farm and 1984? Maybe it's the anti-fascist Orwell who wrote 'Homage To Catalonia', but then again it could equally be the Orwell who secretly kept dossiers on all the comrades he stood with and filed them with the British Secret Service.

 

[callme]

Which Orwell? The "socialism is good and necessary" Orwell who wrote The Road To Wigan Pier and Down And Out ln Paris And London? Or the "socialism is evil and dystopian" Orwell who wrote Animal Farm and 1984? Maybe it's the anti-fascist Orwell who wrote 'Homage To Catalonia', but then again it could equally be the Orwell who secretly kept dossiers on all the comrades he stood with and filed them with the British Secret Service.

Well I understand he's far from ideal, but it's impossible for almost anybody to be consistently moral throughout their life. Maybe Diogenes, because he chose to live in poverty in an already primitive era, or buddhist monks since they live in retreats specifically by their faith.

I lean most towards him in Homage to Catalonia for his desensitizing towards political thought of any kind and showing the dangers of idealism, especially for the poorest, lowest educated people. He became disengaged with british communists only after the Ribbentrop Molotov Pact and I prsesume that's when he started to throw dirt at them, in secret.

In any case, he is one of the better socialists to me. I can't see today's super-progressive american or populist and fiscally deficient european left driving the narrative in a positive direction. Starmer can be an exception if he takes UK Labour back to center for once though. Scholz screwed up on negotiating russian gas and now Europe is a hostage.

 

[Chinaski]

Starmer is a Conservative, he is offering little change from what already exists and it's inaccurate to present him as anything vaguely left, like all those who attempt to present as pitching to the "centre ground" he has spent two years attacking the left whilst appeasing the powerful. There is zero material difference between a Labour Party led by Keir Starmer and a Labour Party led by a bona fide MI5 agent.

Orwell is not a socialist, he's accepted as the perfect socialist only by those who are ultimately anti-socialist, for those on the left he's rightly acknowledged as a scab and an establishment stooge. A man who grasses on his comrades is, by definition, not a socialist.

"Populism" is a funny one in its modern use, l suspect our interpretation of the word is perhaps a bit different but it's peculiar how the word itself has become synonymous with a political evil, for me much of the condemnation of populism itself was popularised by the politically powerful who felt their grip on power under threat, and a commentariat who felt themselves to be losing relevance. It's a contemptuous term, one which suggests that political figures who reach out directly to their intended audience without seeking media approval for their messaging are essentially rousing a mob. It speaks more of the crumbling of the dominant neoliberal technocrats, the pinstriped West Wing box sets, the politics as armchair theatre, having a big strop because the public were no longer falling in line. The reality is most of their populist evils of the right were propelled and therefore legitimised by these same people on account of being box office (Trump, Johnson, Le Pen etc), and those boogeymen of the left (Corbyn, Sanders, Melenchon) certainly did not emerge in a vacuum.

Anyway this is moot, the Grown Ups Are Now Back ln Charge, what could possibly go wrong.

 

[Nolan96]

On average, I think leftists are more intelligent while conservatives are better people.

Intelligent conservatives are considered extra dangerous in the eyes of the woke establishment, and therefore are the demographic which is most brutally mistreated by them.

Leftists are also generally very cut-throat and get a thrill out of silencing and dehumanizing others, whereas conservatives are likely to be meek, cowardly, and apologetic. Both are negative qualities, but I prefer the conservatives.

Or the "socialism is evil and dystopian" Orwell who wrote Animal Farm and 1984?

Of course Chinaski has a frothing hatred for 1984 and thinks that surely any right-minded person would see through this warning against brutal left-totalitarianism.

 

[Chinaski]

Of course Chinaski has a frothing hatred for 1984 and thinks that surely any right-minded person would see through this warning against brutal left-totalitarianism.

Lmao where the fuck did l express this?

Leftists are also generally very cut-throat and get a thrill out of silencing and dehumanizing others, whereas conservatives are likely to be meek, cowardly, and apologetic.

What are you basing this on? You have repeatedly made racist, misogynistic and transphobic posts across multiple threads and then sulk in a manipulative fashion whenever you receive any pushback on this, it's understandable that some people will find such output revolting and may wish to exercise their Right To Free Speech to say so. The way you consistently present this as a baying mob of frothing leftists getting a cheap thrill from bullying you, a meek and timid uwu conservative, is sly and phoney as hell.

 

[Nolan96]

The farther away from "muh cooming mate, muh tribe", the more rational it appears; but there's no real foundation, imo.

This is a good point. Our culture views anything that works against our inner nature as intrinsically more likely to be rational and good, which creates an environment where lots of wildly dysfunctional things seem impressive pretty much just because it takes more mental acrobatics to see them as positive.

This ties into what I said above about how leftists are more intelligent and conservatives are better people. Ideally of course, I'd want a society that values things like the family unit and the well-being of the tribe, but in an intelligent and sophisticated way.

 

[l0stc4use]

Any politician who tries to take away basic human rights is inherently evil. I don't think they're stupid, I believe they know what they're doing. Example: turning over Roe vs Wade. Also, Democrats are just less evil versions of Republicans. I am very far left

 

[Chinaski]

This ties into what I said above about how leftists are more intelligent and conservatives are better people.

Again, seriously, what are you basing this on?

 

[Nolan96]

Again, seriously, what are you basing this on?

Observation of culture and institutional power dynamics as well as personal experience, all of which are far inferior truth-attaining methods when compared to Chinaskian pure reason, and therefore objectively wrong.

 

[Chinaski]

Observation of culture and institutional power dynamics as well as personal experience, all of which are far inferior truth-attaining methods when compared to Chinaskian pure reason, and therefore objectively wrong.

No actually l think it's pretty honest of you to admit that folk on the left are smarter but you just happen to like the company of the very right-wing people you agree with more, l just wondered if it was based on anything other than online interaction is all.

 

[JealousOfTheElderly]

I think they are all power hungry individuals who use suffering to control us plebs.
Want an eye opening blog about what's going on? Read Thuletide's blog on WordPress. He has a telegram channel too.

 

[sserafim]

I don't have any political opponents

 

[yellowjester]

A mixture of all 3. Fascists are evil, conservatives are stupid, and neoliberals are irrational (and a bit evil too).

 

[Chinaski]

Starmer is a Conservative, he is offering little change from what already exists and it's inaccurate to present him as anything vaguely left, like all those who attempt to present as pitching to the "centre ground" he has spent two years attacking the left whilst appeasing the powerful. There is zero material difference between a Labour Party led by Keir Starmer and a Labour Party led by a bona fide MI5 agent.

Orwell is not a socialist, he's accepted as the perfect socialist only by those who are ultimately anti-socialist, for those on the left he's rightly acknowledged as a scab and an establishment stooge. A man who grasses on his comrades is, by definition, not a socialist.

"Populism" is a funny one in its modern use, l suspect our interpretation of the word is perhaps a bit different but it's peculiar how the word itself has become synonymous with a political evil, for me much of the condemnation of populism itself was popularised by the politically powerful who felt their grip on power under threat, and a commentariat who felt themselves to be losing relevance. It's a contemptuous term, one which suggests that political figures who reach out directly to their intended audience without seeking media approval for their messaging are essentially rousing a mob. It speaks more of the crumbling of the dominant neoliberal technocrats, the pinstriped West Wing box sets, the politics as armchair theatre, having a big strop because the public were no longer falling in line. The reality is most of their populist evils of the right were propelled and therefore legitimised by these same people on account of being box office (Trump, Johnson, Le Pen etc), and those boogeymen of the left (Corbyn, Sanders, Melenchon) certainly did not emerge in a vacuum.

Anyway this is moot, the Grown Ups Are Now Back ln Charge, what could possibly go wrong.

Bumping this because I'm very correct here and you are all about to witness it, also check out my soundcloud

 

[Edpal247]

stupid