How to Defeat the Opposite Ideology

[fallable]

My answer, end the Kabuki theatre charade and you might come to the conclusion that it is already the case. People are wired differently so you have to give a range of options to placate people with different experiences and perspectives. You won't be able to sell all people with the same message.

But as Noam Chomsky says, narrow the spectrum of acceptable debate but allow for vigorous debate within that spectrum. It doesn't matter if the people swing from one side of that narrow band to the other, or stay in the middle, those who have effectively limited the debate to that narrow band control the entirety of that range of possibilities, and thus can live with pretty much any outcome therein.

At the end of the day, whether it's repubs or dems in power, the currency gets debased, the big institutions write there own ticket, the wars go on, the borders and immigration go unchecked, the surveillance apparatus grows, the education system declines, our rights and liberties are reigned in, globalism ensues etc. etc.

Trump laid out a platform that looked to shift policy on some of these issues outside the established range of debate offered by all other candidates, and even though much of the policy he offered up was in line with the range of debate that took place in this country a few decades ago, look at the absolute sh!tstorm that ensued from both repubs and dems, the media, big business, foreign leaders etc. It earned Trump the dubious honor of simultaneously being a Russian stooge and literally Hitler.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Humbling oneself to empirical understanding is the way left, at least from the right-center at which the Western political community is stuck (the way left of left-center is trickier and proposed in the second paragraph). Sticking one's head in the ground and believing what you want to believe rather than what is evident or logical (see: drug testing welfare recipients, climate change, supply side economics for examples) is the way right. This rightward position naturally has to do with some, most often misplaced, sense of power preservation, whether from an economic, ethnic, national, racial, or sexual standpoint, as is evident in aggressive positions on globalism, wealth distribution, and social empowerment. However, it's expressed perversely in rightist thought due to an aversion to even pragmatic self interest, which is why you see so many poor persons voting against their own interests, convincing themselves that plutocrats and the ultra-rich are somehow working in their favor.

I don't think that total victory in terms of ideology is possible, but the biggest obstacle to a lot of rational policy changes is racial resentment. A lot of poor whites vote against their *economic* self-interest but not necessarily their overall self-interest. If you're economically at the bottom, you can still socially be above the bottom, and that's an understandable and human goal (though not one I think policy should help anyone achieve). I don't think that many these people really have any illusions about the situation. They know that their resentment is just being used to get votes for politicians who primarily care about tax cuts for millionaires and deregulation, but what's the alternative? Nothing that they'd be open to. I think that's why we see so many people who claim to hate the GOP and politicians in general but invariably vote for them and promote ridiculous ideas about left-wing identity politics ("cultural Marxist" plots and other silliness).

So I think the real solution has to be to, as much as possible, erase racial resentment. Two strands of the left miss the boat on this--the one that completely de-emphasizes the issue and "SJWs," whose approach and methods exacerbate the problem. It's long been a dream of the left to get economic class solidarity to replace other attachments (one reason that "cultural Marxism" is such an idiotic idea is that Marxism specifically carries the belief that cultural interests are secondary to economic interests), but that's never worked for long and on a large scale that I know of. What has worked is nationalism. So I think the left should embrace English as an official language and really push the melting pot (as opposed to the salad bowl) ideal. Cultural appropriation should be encouraged rather than attacked. Put up statues of American heroes. Celebrate the nation more. Highlight the contrast with the dipshit, America-hating Confederate assholes. As much as possible, promote the true fact that when our working class is strong and our children are well-fed, well-treated and well-educated, our country is strong.

 

[fallable]

You don't have to "defeat" conservatism. Over time, all conservative ideals of the day are replaced. Conservatism is mostly a triggered response to change and progress, a fear of something new. We've seen it through history.

Except in America our forefathers founded a nation with many ideals we want to conserve.

Many believe that the right to freedom of expression will never become anachronistic.

Many people believe the right to self defense should always be permitted.

Many people believe that with regard to a private residence, the owner is like the king of his castle.

Many people believe that the government should never be able to violate a citizens person or property without probable cause.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

These are things we wish to conserve. Along with the history, culture, heritage, tradition, values, sacrifices, understanding etc. that underpins them.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

At the end of the day, whether it's repubs or dems in power, the currency gets debased, the big institutions write there own ticket, the wars go on, the borders and immigration go unchecked, the surveillance apparatus grows, the education system declines, our rights and liberties are reigned in, globalism ensues etc. etc.

The real issue is that we believe there's a fundamental difference between the republicans and the democrats despite the fact that they govern almost exactly the same.

 

[RockstarChris]

most liberals only are liberal because it is the tribal tattoo of the 2000's. Eventually it wont be "cool" to be liberal anymore. Already showing with Generation Z

 

[Undying Poster]

usually civilly though sometimes with deeply offensive hotdog gifs. @HomerThompson

 

[Undying Poster]

Concentration camps for conservatives. You can't really defeat ideology, no matter how stupid. The best way to "defeat" it is to brutally suppress it.

 

[zebby23]

most liberals only are liberal because it is the tribal tattoo of the 2000's. Eventually it wont be "cool" to be liberal anymore. Already showing with Generation Z

You would like to believe this wouldn't you?

 

[zebby23]

Concentration camps for conservatives. You can't really defeat ideology, no matter how stupid. The best way to "defeat" it is to brutally suppress it.

Would you let them watch Fox News?

 

[Undying Poster]

Would you let them watch Fox News?

Would you pour gasoline onto a fire you're trying to put out?

 

[CauseImbetta]

what place does love or compassion have in the scientific method?

Game theory. Part of evolution to maintain the species. Nothing more.

 

[CauseImbetta]

I know the point you were trying to make but based on what I have heard, in Europe the situation has changed regarding the Muslims and the successive generations of children. They're not becoming liberal because they live in their own little ghettos which function as an echo chamber for their islamic ideology, and sometimes even makes them more radical because they suffer the brunt of the anti-muslim sentiment and unlike their parents, they have the audacity to think that because they're born there and grew up there, they dont deserve the insults. So they turn to their islamic faith. For example the paris attacks were staged by 2 generation(born there while parents came from the middle east) arabs from Belgium I believe.

Agreed. So integrate them and teach them evolution in schools (science). They can become science teachers one day. They can become what ever they want.

 

[Vagitarian]

Agreed. So integrate them and teach them evolution in schools (science). They can become science teachers one day. They can become what ever they want.

That's not really enough. You have to make them want to be secular. The best you could hope for in any near future is accepting a declawed neutered form of spiritual Islam, where secular rule of law is dominant and any methods of religious expression deemed barbaric is frowned upon. Much like Christianity in western Europe.

Then you go from there. Include them into the bigger picture of being your countrymen, subtly convert them from their culture to yours. America tends to do a great job of that.

 

[CauseImbetta]

That's not really enough. You have to make them want to be secular. The best you could hope for in any near future is accepting a declawed neutered form of spiritual Islam, where secular rule of law is dominant and any methods of religious expression deemed barbaric is frowned upon. Much like Christianity in western Europe.

Then you go from there. Include them into the bigger picture of being your countrymen, subtly convert them from their culture to yours. America tends to do a great job of that.

Secularism is a western concept. Was never eastern. Religion panders to the primitive part of the human brain. Muslims revere the Qur'an as the word of God. The Bible has been debunked by great and brave western minds, thus secularism took root. Muslims have yet to come to terms with that for their own book. It's a harder nut to crack with their claims of un-altered divinity. Critical thinking since the 1300's is not Islam's Forte. Once the golden age of Islam expired (Al-Haitham figured out optics 900 years before Newton) they couldn't recover. It's a mixture of religion and right vs left wing ideology. Always was and always will be so in every nation.

 

[Vagitarian]

Secularism is a western concept. Was never eastern. Religion panders to the primitive part of the human brain. Muslims revere the Qur'an as the word of God. The Bible has been debunked by great and brave western minds, thus secularism took root. Muslims have yet to come to terms with that for their own book. It's a harder nut to crack with their claims of un-altered divinity. Critical thinking since the 1300's is not Islam's Forte. Once the golden age of Islam expired (Al-Haitham figured out optics 900 years before Newton) they couldn't recover. It's a mixture of religion and right vs left wing ideology. Always was and always will be so in every nation.

The Sikh Empire was secular, despite the name, no official religion and the basis of their country was their common homeland. The Mongols had absolute religious freedom. Anyone could worship as they pleased, essentially a secular state. Don't come at me with this everyone is primitive except for Western Europeans.

And second quit trying to paint Muslims all the same way. Christians used to see the bible as the teachings of god, and now they know better. There was a time when Muslims had secular presidents and rulers, and so that time will hopefully come again.

 

[Andy Capp]

I agree, I did a quick edit before you posted this.

What you left in is still just as silly.

 

[Metusalemi]

Conservatives need liberals and liberals need conservatives.

 

[CauseImbetta]

The Sikh Empire was secular, despite the name, no official religion and the basis of their country was their common homeland. The Mongols had absolute religious freedom. Anyone could worship as they pleased, essentially a secular state. Don't come at me with this everyone is primitive except for Western Europeans.

And second quit trying to paint Muslims all the same way. Christians used to see the bible as the teachings of god, and now they know better. There was a time when Muslims had secular presidents and rulers, and so that time will hopefully come again.

Sikhs and mongols were an ethnicity, not a religion. Empires absorbed another religions for cohesion. Islam doesn't, it's the opposite. Islam is Multi ethnic but all must be part of the Muslim faith. Research the history of secularism son.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Conservatives need liberals and liberals need conservatives.

I strongly agree with this.

 

[Vagitarian]

Sikhs and mongols were an ethnicity, not a religion. Empires absorbed another religions for cohesion. Islam doesn't, it's the opposite. Islam is Multi ethnic but all must be part of the Muslim faith. Research the history of secularism son.

Sikhs are not an ethnic group, anybody can be sikh. The mongols themselves had their shamanist beliefs but they never defended its superiority. They allowed everyone to practice their religion. Is religious tolerance with the superiority of the state over religion not one of the biggest hallmarks of secularism? Or is it because they didn't call it that you refuse to acknowledge it.

Islam doesnt allow for other religions? The Ottoman Empire was undoubtedly muslim and yet, they allowed religious communities to live. In fact they were more religiously tolerant in their time than the christians of their time.
Lebanon is 60% Muslim 40% Christian, what's going on there? You said everybody must be Muslim and yet a bunch of muslim countries allow non-muslim groups to live there and some even allow religious tolerance.

Truly humorous for you to tell me to research anything when you seem to not know anything you're talking about.