|
So as I'm sure some of you are aware Scotland recently had a vote on breaking away and becoming independent. Results aside the level of political engagement was something I've never seen before in this country and likely never will again. The turnout was just under 85% compared to 50% in the most recent Scottish Parliament elections. I live in Glasgow and the whole city spent the week in the lead-up deep in some sort of referendum fever. Everywhere you looked were the stalls of campaigners. People would come up to you in the streets and ask you how you were going to vote and try to change it if they could. Every pub and workplace was awash with discussion, Facebook was virtually unusable for any non political purpose. Through it all I saw a lot of people who firmly and passionately believed that they were right...and I was jealous. Ultimately I voted for independence but it was by the narrowest margin in my head, I wasn't as heartbroken as many were by the result. But the result if anything has galvanized the pro independence side and people are getting involved in politics now more than ever, the result be damned, these people still passionately believe in their cause. But seeing that just makes me wonder more and more. How do these people hold such strong opinions on issues? My stance on almost every major issue is "it's complicated and I don't know". Be it politics, economics, ethics, it's all so complex. And it's not from lack of interest. When something like this comes along I read up on it, but that just seems to make the matter even more complicated and hard to hold a view on. Combine that with the fact that almost every piece of information on a controversial subject is framed with bias to one side or the other and I just wind up more undecided than when I started whenever I try to read into things. So, you guys seem as good as any to ask. How and why do you hold strong opinions on subjects? Or are you happy sitting on the fence?
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:36 |
|
|
Life experience, disposition towards resolving injustice, selectivity of information sources, immodesty, irregular hormonal chemistry
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
how old are you?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Practical-Primer-Realistic/dp/0679721134/ Get this book. Its basically a textbook that shows you how to hate America and then gives you step-by-step instructions for destroying it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Throwdini posted:http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Practical-Primer-Realistic/dp/0679721134/ The instructions part, sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
You start by holding weak opinions which are confirmed by your natural disposition. You then construct a narrative in your mind to explain your weak opinions and justify your correct views. This amplifies your belief in your opinions, to the point where contrary evidence reinforces the original opinion. Eventually, you end with a few hyper-strong opinions on select issues and no opinion on others. Or, you have very strongly held, while also very weak, opinions on all issues and are prone to changing your opinion towards new data when new data cannot be incorporated into your comprehensive worldview. Simple enough answer?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
It kind of depends on the issue. For something like "greatly increase taxes on the rich", for example, the issue actually is really simple and there's a clear right and wrong answer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
I believe in Socialism and hence anything that moves society towards that goal is something I feel passionate about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Generally in my mind, political opinions are the of a combination of my values and my perception of the world/how I think the world works. So the end result is that I end up with strong opinions on a lot of issues because those opinions are directly connected to my values and things I "know" to be true. If I'm supporting a political cause or issue it's because my values and "knowledge" lead me to the opinion that this cause or issue will make the world or country or state or whatever actually better off (fiscal stimulus, for example) or that the cause is quite simply moral correct (gay marriage support or civil rights, for instance). Holding that opinion, I thus think that people in opposition are either making us worse off or basically immoral. That doesn't mean that I hate those people, of course, it just means I think what they're doing is very wrong. If people believe that "Scottish" is a distinct nation/people from "British" and/or they believe that the Parliament in London doesn't and won't reflect their values and preferences, and they "know" that an independent Scottish nation is feasible, then it's not surprising to me that those things would combine into a strong political preference for an independent Scotland. On the flip side, if they strongly value British patriotism/their connection to Britain and/or "know" that an independent Scotland would be a disaster economically, then strong feelings about voting "No" make a great deal of sense. Personally, not being Scottish I had only a weak opinion, since the referendum didn't really closely touch on strongly held values of mine. I strongly believe in the right of a people to determine their own destiny (and hence like that the referendum was held) but my belief that different nations with major differences should have separate states was somewhat tempered by my "knowledge" that Scotland and England have mostly gotten along for centuries. This was also tempered by my uncertainty in the issue, having never been to Scotland/Britain. The end result was for me a weak "Yes" preference (though of course I couldn't vote). Note: "know"/"knowledge" are in scare-quotes because some fraction of the things that I "know" I'm only mostly or somewhat sure about, and some fraction (hopefully a small fraction) of the things I "know" are wrong. However I'm already using "belief" to refer to values, so can't use it to refer to facts. Jackson Taus fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Sep 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
I use one hand, having my pinky curled under the bottom as a sort of rest, ring and middle wrap around it to press it against the ball of my thumb and hold it steady. Index stuuprts it by laying across the back diagonally, thumb I use to hold against the side or front. Its a bit awkward, but you get used to it and it frees up the other hand for holding a whiskey sour.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:It kind of depends on the issue. For something like "greatly increase taxes on the rich", for example, the issue actually is really simple and there's a clear right and wrong answer. You think there's a simple answer to a complex issue. Let me ask you this: How?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Ignorance mostly. Strong political opinions are not a sign of intellectual or critical thought. It generally requires that the opposite train of thought be abandoned completely. Identity politics is a good example of this. If your thoughts about every subject go "as a leftist/rightest I..........." chances are you've actually thought very little about anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Ignorance mostly. This is also a political identity. It's called liberalism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
For me, my strongly held opinions come from the pain I have experienced and my desire to not see that pain inflicted on others. Pain, misery, and depression sucks. And in my experience no matter how hard you try/push yourself there are certain thresholds of external circumstances that no amount of willpower and ingenuity can overcome. So for example I might not hold a strong opinion on the best way to resolve the water shortages in California, I hold immoveable views on things like food stamps and medical/mental health care for the poor. Although I am generally mild mannered and given to long periods of consideration on matters before voicing an opinion, there are topics where I will absolutely spit fire. Those topics happen to be anything to do with poverty and our cultures treatment of those held back by structural issues in society. So my strong opuinions come from a mixture of life experiences and a great deal of time spent self reflecting on those experiences.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Don't hold strong political opinions like some student (lol). Instead, have the courage and intellectual rigor to accept the status quo. When you internalize the idea that everything is already hopeless/ideal, all those Utopian moral obligations evaporate, and you can focus instead on what's really important: further enriching your betters.Coohoolin posted:This is also a political identity. It's called liberalism. No you see the ruling order is ideologically neutral. Regurgitating its values and histories and justifications is all responsible and pragmatic and grown-up and poo poo. It's only the deviations that are ideological in any way. Liberalism: My anti-politics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Pope Fabulous XXIV posted:Don't hold strong political opinions like some student (lol). Instead, have the courage and intellectual rigor to accept the status quo. When you internalize the idea that everything is already hopeless/ideal, all those Utopian moral obligations evaporate, and you can focus instead on what's really important: further enriching your betters. I think you're conflating "extreme" political opinions with "strong" ones. It's possible to have a "strong"/confident belief in liberalism/centrism or a "weak" belief in an "extreme" ideology. Edit: Confession time: I don't actually have strong political opinions myself, but sometimes I post as though I do out of annoyance with other confident-sounding people. Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Sep 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Before everybody starts mashing strawmen against each other, I'd like to say that there's a healthy middle ground between subscribing all the way to a radical ideology, and supporting no meaningful political change. I'm some stripe or another of leftist, and I would like to see substantive change that helps the poor, afflicted by international strife and other various afflicted groups, but I don't think this obligates me to agree with all stances generally considered to belong to 'the left' as some abstract group.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
CircleBoy posted:Ultimately I voted for independence but it was by the narrowest margin in my head, I wasn't as heartbroken as many were by the result. But the result if anything has galvanized the pro independence side and people are getting involved in politics now more than ever, the result be damned, these people still passionately believe in their cause. You also have to look at your own ethical and moral beliefs. For instance I feel that the complete legal equality of sexes, races, religions and sexual identities is a very valuable and important thing, and would be worth doing even if (somehow) there was demonstration of economic harms that come from it (there is not, to my knowledge, any such, but I mean as a hypothetical.) I honestly find your perspective baffling. What do you mean by gaining new information makes you more undecided due to the complexity of the matter? Do you expect to be able to magic out some optimal third-way solution for contentious and complex matters? At a certain point it is OK to make a decision, to choose a side; it doesn't mean you have to be an rear end in a top hat or go bludgeon the skulls of the other fellows.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:You think there's a simple answer to a complex issue. Let me ask you this: How? To be clearer, the answer to "exactly how should we tax the wealthy" isn't as straight-forward. But "should wealth be heavily reallocated from the wealthy through government policy" does have an obvious answer. I don't think it's necessary for the public to have an answer to the first question in order to have an opinion on the second. It's sort of like not expecting people who believe carbon emissions should be reduced to have the scientific and engineering expertise to know the most effective means of doing so. edit: I would argue that it also stands to reason that the wealthy are always to blame for a system in which they greatly benefit. It isn't necessary to understand the exact mechanisms through which they accrue wealth in order to assign this blame, though it's obviously useful once you sit down at the drawing board and try to figure out how to change things. This is because there are only two possibilities: 1. A small percent of people own a vastly disproportionate amount of wealth due to their own intentional unethical actions. (this is the "obviously it's their fault" option) 2. A small percent of people own a vastly disproportionate amount of wealth because our economic system will inevitably result in this being the case, even if they didn't necessarily act unethically or engineer this to be the case. Even in the second situation, anyone with great wealth bears the most responsibility for either attempting to correct the situation or relinquishing their own wealth. To use an analogy, consider a situation where 10 people, most of whom are living in poverty, draw lottery tickets with a 1/10 chance of winning millions of dollars. Even though they personally weren't responsible for this lottery, they would still obviously have a moral obligation to distribute their wealth among the other people. This is why it isn't really possible to be an ethical billionaire. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Sep 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Aside from everything else mentioned, some people just naturally have strong opinions on all kinds of stuff. Whether their strong opinions are justified is another thing, but people with well-reasoned opinions only holding them weakly due to a lack of confidence is not exactly good either. In the specific case of the Scottish Independence Referendum, I can understand why you might not have a strong opinion on it. The referendum wasn't just about a single policy issue, it was about several, and how much confidence you had in independence actually resulting in meaningful change. Even if you strongly believed in the justness of one of the proposed views of what an independent Scotland could be, if you believed remaining part of the Uk would be about as (un)likely to create a similar sort of society then there really wouldn't be much reason to get all excited. Nessus posted:You also have to look at your own ethical and moral beliefs. For instance I feel that the complete legal equality of sexes, races, religions and sexual identities is a very valuable and important thing, and would be worth doing even if (somehow) there was demonstration of economic harms that come from it (there is not, to my knowledge, any such, but I mean as a hypothetical.) I do agree though that this is not a reason to oppose social equality. It's not exactly fair to to condemn one half of the population to a few specific jobs for lower pay, just to reduce some other metric, especially one that is a far more strongly affected by other poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Gut feeling or cold calculation. It`s really that simple.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Strong political opinions are not a sign of intellectual or critical thought. Regarde Aduck posted:You are a traitor. I'm not calling for you to be shot but you are a traitor. So is most of the left in regard to Scottish independence. Wanting the UK to be broken up for vague reasons of spiting the tories or the laughable promise that it will inspire greater social fairness in England, is complete and utter nonsense. What we'll have is too weaker countries, one leftist, one rightest. Both economically troubled and weak in the face of a rising China and Russia. Scotland will be subsumed within the EU and either lose its identity (but for some weird reason it won't bother them this time) or worse, the EU will end up under the thumb of Russia. England will either face the same fate or worse, split from the EU and be isolated. The future looks loving great my leftist comrade. Hmmm...
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Ignorance mostly. Or just spewing word salads of a bunch of agreeable yet mutually exclusive things in order to get people to like you makes you a hypocrite/narcissistic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
CircleBoy posted:So as I'm sure some of you are aware Scotland recently had a vote on breaking away and becoming independent. Results aside the level of political engagement was something I've never seen before in this country and likely never will again. The turnout was just under 85% compared to 50% in the most recent Scottish Parliament elections. I live in Glasgow and the whole city spent the week in the lead-up deep in some sort of referendum fever. Everywhere you looked were the stalls of campaigners. People would come up to you in the streets and ask you how you were going to vote and try to change it if they could. Every pub and workplace was awash with discussion, Facebook was virtually unusable for any non political purpose. Through it all I saw a lot of people who firmly and passionately believed that they were right...and I was jealous. IMO it usually has to do with the idea that the other side is going to achieve total victory unless radical action is taken. It has less to do with utopianism or wishing for radical changes to the status quo, but fear of some external actor that's going to destroy the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
CircleBoy posted:How and why do you hold strong opinions on subjects? Or are you happy sitting on the fence? I see some hosed up stuff going on in the world. How can I be neutral on a moving train?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
Strong political opinions usually stem from whichever values you hold in highest regard. There's a lot of people who follow politics like they do sports, and they get bogged down in partisanship. So a lot of people take solace in their political party handing them an opinion on whatever issue, and so their core value is loyalty to whichever party they subscribe to. As a person interested in facts and reality, however, you probably shouldn't do that. Doing some soul searching and figuring out what your core values are will lead you to more strongly-held political opinions. It took me a while, but eventually I settled on my core values being feminism and every person's right to basic human necessities. So I have very very strong opinions when it comes to things like universal healthcare, dismantling male privilege, and dismantling societal gender roles. There's other things that aren't as large a part of my core values, though. I don't care so much about animal rights, for instance, but I will admit that I have ethical issues with certain kinds of animal testing that amount to abuse. I also think we probably should be raising livestock responsibly and not mistreating animals. I'm not sure how I feel about protectionism and tariffs. I don't hold my opinions about those things as strongly, and they shift based on circumstances and new information. It's completely okay to not have strong opinions about everything, but you should try to hold opinions about your core values as strongly as possible. ErIog fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Sep 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
People foolishly believe anything they do will effect the government (no matter who wins) People thing it makes them look intelligent. This is why every moron online suddenly is an expert on politics. Chupe Raho Aurat fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Sep 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
By giving half a poo poo and having morals, understanding that however small my contribution may be it does have an effect and because I am very very angry that people who deserve only the best get poo poo on by those in power in a myriad ways every single day and they don't even care/notice it and when it is drawn to their attention they go 'welp' and soldier on. Of course, some people are moral cowards and take the 'jaded detached failure' as being some sort of fashion statement par excellance, where you can both do absolutely gently caress nothing and still pretend to be smart and/or have the moral high ground from the safety of your comfortable middle-upper class existence because 'lol change is hard/i can't change anything/they're all dumb anyway/the truth is in the middle'. The Scottish independence isn't perhaps as clear-cut as many political issues, but there's plenty of poo poo out there that is obvious as all hell that is wrong with how society is run and you can either have that poo poo poured on to you as you fight against it and maybe it will stop, you can join the fuckers pouring it in mind and maybe, just maybe pour it on others yourself one day or you can go centrist and wallow in it like a loving animal instead of a thinking human being.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
I think it comes down to values op. For example one thing I value is 'the survival of the human race' and therefore I hold strong opinions about those things that conflict with that value and have acted to support that value. This is why for example why I despise nihilists in all their forms and try and remain optimistic even in the face of a rising tide of disorder. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
You're not going to live forever. If you don't participate, other people will determine whether or not your time here is more or less difficult. People here often talking about the rich fighting to gently caress over everyone and keep their own to themselves. I'll admit that I'm as motivated by self-interest as any wealthy elitist, but belong to a proportionally larger segment of society than they do. The problem in the US is, a lot of people who are in a similar state are as disinterested in policy as you are, which makes class struggle less one-sided than the numbers ought to indicate. Essentially, figure out what pisses you off, what makes you mad, and at least vote against that if you can't be compelled to vote in support of something. Because being completely uninvested is helping anything you might oppose by subtraction. That said, "strong" political positions are ultimately flawed, since you should at least be willing to consider a situation that could cause you to change your beliefs. If you can't think of when you're ever going to be wrong, you're a blowhard with a pet issue, not unlike the pundits that contribute nothing to debate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:That said, "strong" political positions are ultimately flawed, since you should at least be willing to consider a situation that could cause you to change your beliefs. If you can't think of when you're ever going to be wrong, you're a blowhard with a pet issue, not unlike the pundits that contribute nothing to debate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
CircleBoy posted:How do these people hold such strong opinions on issues? You may as well ask why trainspotters have such strong opinions about locomotives.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 11:52
|
|
|
CircleBoy posted:But seeing that just makes me wonder more and more. How do these people hold such strong opinions on issues? My stance on almost every major issue is "it's complicated and I don't know". Be it politics, economics, ethics, it's all so complex. And it's not from lack of interest. When something like this comes along I read up on it, but that just seems to make the matter even more complicated and hard to hold a view on. Combine that with the fact that almost every piece of information on a controversial subject is framed with bias to one side or the other and I just wind up more undecided than when I started whenever I try to read into things. This is a reasonable way to approach complex topics. When you're talking about anything real the specific overwhelms the general and the details really do matter. If more people would check their outrage and appreciate that, D&D and the wider world would be better for it. edit: Often strong opinions are things you don't arrive at rationally (which doesn't make them invalid - they're just not things you reason yourself into). For instance you might have strong opinions on mental health because you've suffered (like Prester John) and that creates passion. Or you might work with a population that gets the short end of the stick for various reasons and want to make things better for them in specific ways. Or you might have internalized a narrative that conveniently places the blame for your perceived problems on some "other" group. Or you might think you sort of ought to have strong opinions on things, so you do. Or your privileged life might be so empty of real concerns that you have to manufacture outrage at some perceived social or economic injustice so you can feel like a warrior while you kill time on the internet waiting for the organic locally-grown groceries that you ordered on Amazon to be delivered. There are lots of ways. Most of the people you meet with strong opinions about non-specific things are going to be arrogant, ignorant (except about Their Side of Their Thing) and insufferable twats, though, so keep that in mind if you're looking to get fired up. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Sep 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
I hold strong opinions and question stuff that doesn't make sense because if people like me didn't exist we'd still be burning witches in the town square. If you want a less provocative answer it's mostly life experience, maturity, reading books, watching the news and having awareness of what the world is like.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Neutral opinions are socially constructed and it's impossible to get away from ideology. Even if you try to position yourself as neutral all you really do is disarm yourself against people who try to push their agenda as neutral or moderate. Hope this helps!
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
It would be pretty hard to have a really strong opinion about Scottish independence, I think. I mean economically it didn't make a lot of sense so if you were worried about the economy that could form the basis of a strong opinion. Similarly if you held the belief that national groups should be sovereign I guess you could get really worked up about it. But in truth it was kind of a political novelty that didn't really mean a whole hell of a lot. If it had been yes, the oligarchs would have figured out how to handle it. My strongest political opinions tend to be about those aspects of US policy that cause suffering, destruction and an endless cycle of self-cannibalism that leads to the suicide of the middle class and the utter suppression of the lower. Before I knew enough, I was American libertarian in my approach but I still had the same concerns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkEJIXvwROs It sounds like you are in multiplicity. For me, I dig into a topic and just read or learn a lot about it from reputable sources to get an accurate image of whatever the topic is and try to form an opinion. Usually if something is fishy it's not that difficult to discern what or why. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpAZMK3Pct0 If you found the first one interesting, this is just the same thing but he goes into it a little more, but this video is also about teaching so he talks about what these stages mean for teachers which is a little off topic but oh well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
I voted for Obama twice because I thought I'd feel better about myself having voting for a winner.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:I voted for Obama twice because I thought I'd feel better about myself having voting for a winner. I'm why we can't have nice things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:36 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I slept through the 2008 election and by 2012 I was so sick of Obama being bad at everything I voted Socialist. Yeah I thought about voting for Stein but decided that as long as my vote isn't counting I might as well back the winning horse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 06:17
|
|