I’m going to try to keep this short… I consider myself libertarian; I like states rights and a small government that is out of our lives and billboards. Examples of things I support are: lower taxes and/or a flat tax rate (considered a republican/conservative view) and the legalization of most drugs (more of a liberal view).
In college, I have found myself loudly yelled at and/or name called by both liberals and conservatives (as I have a mixture of both views), and I have found in person intellectual discussion to be similar to the comment section on an online news article.
I tend to try view all points/ideas as having some merit and respect how someone came to said conclusion, so I refuse to ever yell (yelling shows a lack of respect and restraint) at anyone with an opposing view point; I like intellectual discussion.
Why is it that now it seems that many are hypersensitive about their views, and rather than have an intellectual discussion… have an in person flame war? Does this happen at other colleges or even when people are older? Why do many people (both conservative and liberal) refuse to respect others that oppose their own view points? We are in college, the majority of us are not idiots… why do we treat each others opinions as if they are held by unintelligent morons?
I feel the same way; I’m rather conservative but I never find myself disregarding the merit of liberal arguments. I don’t assume that I have some privileged access to “better knowledge” that my left of center friends lack - people live different realities; they have different experiences. It doesn’t mean they are illegitimate just because they diverge or differ from that of your own. Sometimes I think people just really like the sound of their own voice.
Yes, the people in college are usually intelligent but their political views and ideas in other areas may be very unintelligent or irrational. You’re right that people should not just attack each other or yell during a debate about their views, but you’re wrong that all views have some merit. Climate change is a good example where a near consensus of 97% of scientists believe in climate change and there is ample evidence supporting that conclusion. Having the view that climate change isn’t occurring and is not a product of human actions is completely irrational because it goes against all evidence. The reason people believe in these irrational views that are not based in any logic is because it has become their life view over the course of their lifetime and life views, like religion, take an enormous amount of time and persuasion to change. Not all ideas are equal and some do have more merit than their counterparts. These ideas should be freely criticized. That being said, you are absolutely correct about not attacking a person for what they believe, that usually comes about because the person has nothing left to support their argument.
Fiscal conservative here. Take some econ classes; you’ll realize you’re not alone. But, yes, this happens everywhere.
@jimmyboy23 I just finished a really long post on GroupMe about politics, so I don’t have the energy to write too much, but I remember not responding to some type of conservative challenge in the CC2018 thread, so here I go:
Yes. As a Republican, I agree. Most Republicans on the Hill agree. Most Republicans in think tanks agree. Most educated Republicans agree that climate change exists.
To the public, we have to speak in nuance–which is why some people think our stance is disbelief. If you’re having an intelligent discussion, you’ll find very few educated Republicans will argue that climate change doesn’t exist. We’ll argue about the magnitude of the problem, and this isn’t an area where there’s really any consensus, but the main argument I (and most others) make is this: what can we do while maintaining economic growth and stability? You’ll find that a lot of Republicans’ arguments are tied to economic progress. (I don’t really want to get into these arguments; they’re completely different, and the scope here is that these are the types of arguments we have, not the actual arguments; but I think you’d find potential for an intelligent debate in that question–we could discuss moral obligations to the environment, long term consequences, short term economic prosperity, regulation, &c).
Not usually. They just don’t delve into the deeper issues and instead make a nuanced opinion. Something I wrote in my groupme actually fits here, so I’ll copy and paste:
If these aren’t the types of Republicans you’ve come across in an academic setting (jimmyboy), then you might want to find some more; most of us are like this and get shunned away by nuanced argument (if you don’t like this bill, you’re a bigot!–if you don’t accept this statistic, you’re sexist!–there’s always more to it than meets the eye).
Can you give an example scenario? Does this happen in your classes, or somewhere else?
(If you’ve gotten bad reactions from multiple people, you might be coming across as insensitive. You can certainly discuss anything you want, but it’s important to remember that people have strong emotional connections to political issues. Even as an open-minded person, it’s difficult to logically evaluate someone’s arguments if I feel like they’re attacking something I consider fundamental to my life.)
I used that analogy for the purpose of establishing that it is not always the case that both sides of an argument have merit or logical reasoning behind them. We agree there. Most arguments are not as clear cut as this one especially when it comes to human problems rather than natural problems (like our social and economic policies). This is where you were getting with the responses to climate change.
Also, to say that Republican politicians by large believe in climate change and support policies to at least recognize it as a problem is false (although I will admit that most of them do it for reelection just as I believe the Indiana governor is doing,; the end result is still the same though). Rick Scott, the Republican governor of Florida, came under scrutiny a while back because some employee just mentioned that climate change might exist and got fired because of this. He has taken a staunch anti-climate change stance that could be catastrophic to the state of Florida. Then there are Republicans on The Hill that also deny climate change by just outright refusing to believe any science done on the subject. I’ll reference Jon Stewart for this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPgZfhnCAdI
I disagree that it is not the life view that makes people cling to their irrational beliefs. It’s similar to Christianity where you can supply a person with many contradictions written in the bible or many beliefs that are inconsistent with our modern sense of morality and they will still cling to the belief because it is very difficult to admit you were wrong for most of your life. You’ve become to invested in an argument to change your stance.
The difference between The Daily Show and Fox News is that Jon Stewart believes himself to be a comedian first and Fox News believes themselves to be an actual reputable news source. Here’s a video on him talking about his view of his own show and Fox News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM1YaAwOPuQ
The thing about nuancing is that sometimes the issue is very simple like Gay marriage. The side that is for gay marriage says the relationship is the same and that the ability to give legal benefits equally to people of all peaceful lifestyles is a social responsibility of the government (equal treatment). The side that is against this says that it will pervert a tradition we got from a holy book that may or may not be complete fiction (but within all good reason is).
By the way, I don’t get why you think the conservatives I discuss this stuff with aren’t intelligent and making cases for their claims whether it be legally, constitutionally, economically or theologically. I just usually find that conservative arguments are almost always weaker when compared with liberal alternatives.
@halcyonheather
I think religion and politics are the two things where you can talk to someone calmly and just make a logical argument for your claim and they will come back with yelling and personal attacks and it’s for the exact reason you gave. They feel as if someone is not attacking their political views or religious views. They feel as if their way of life or world view is being challenged which is much much more unsettling.
I don’t agree with putting people in a position where you expect them to admit that they were “wrong” all their life about their religious convictions. It seems almost sadistic and overly antagonistic.
This is true for everyone, though. As a non-Christian, it’s not like I’d run to church and rejoice if someone convinced me that Christianity is true. My worldview would be radically altered, and my intellectual open-mindedness wouldn’t save me from the emotional effects of that.
Yes “putting” people who do not want to be in that position in that position would be wrong. Instructing a person about why you do not have religious convictions and illustrating the inconsistencies in the Bible (To the point where it would be ludicrous to believe in it) and having it in the context of an open discussion is completely different. It is very similar to religious conversion except in reverse. This isn’t “sadistic and overly antagonistic” even the first one is only “antagonistic” not sadistic. The thing is, like I said in earlier posts, people do not relinquish world views unwillingly. They will hold on to these views wholeheartedly in the face of all evidence. The ones who do admit they were wrong do so willingly and feel enlightened and liberated by their release of faith. It’s not painful in any sense of the word which is what sadistic would imply.
The most antagonistic people I have ever met in real life or seen on T.V. with regard to religion and lack of faith have to be Eric Hovind and Bill Maher. Even as antagonistic as these two can be at times, they never do anything sadistic while trying to convince people of their ideologies.
“It’s very similar to religious conversion except in reverse” doesn’t make any sense. Major religious traditions convert people because of the theological framework of that respective tradition that emphasizes expanding the community and “saving” people - no such equivalent exists in atheism. I don’t gain anything from convincing a Muslim to abandon their faith in Islam.
Sadism doesn’t just imply pain - it also implies humiliation. Bill Maher’s film “Religulous” is literally just Bill Maher mocking various religious traditions. He’s not trying to liberate them intellectually, he just wants to poke fun at Mormons.
People can believe in a religion without taking the Bible as complete and total truth. It’s a collection of parables. Illustrating inconsistencies does nothing for someone who believes they’re meant to instruct by example. Then you’re just being a jerk.
Yes - @bodangles brings up a really important point; very few Christians believe in the notion of an inerrant Bible (with the exception of fundamentalists) - many Christians who happen to be Theologians or scholars of Religious Studies recognize that the Bible is an anthology of documents which were composed by separate authors in separate time periods (and is in no way a single narrative) and that in spite of discrepancies, one can still appreciate particular messages regarding ethics and morality.
I tend to be liberal, but I don’t completely disregard conservative points of view.
People tend to get sensitive/emotional because politics (and religion) and their effects can be sensitive and emotionally provoking - they affect people’s real lives, and sometimes people get angry about that. For example, I have no personal feelings about a flat tax rate either way, but flat tax rates have the potential to be regressive - 15% of your income has a much bigger impact on your quality of life if you make $20,000 than if you make $200,000. For people who come from struggling families, they might get angry when discussing this because they’re faced with the real possibility of struggling even more than they already do to survive. Or for example, LGBT people might get upset when others detachedly discuss whether or not they should have the right to marry.
Some people don’t have the luxury of having emotionally detached, philosophical discussions about politics - the policies being debated affect their real, personal lives, and emotions can run high when that happens.
And of course it happens everywhere and among adults as well. Many state legislatures have heated discussions about pieces of legislation; town hall meetings can devolve into shouting matches; newspapers often have public interest stories of adults getting into altercations over things.
@halcyonheather - Yeah, I can recognize that for people who think religion is fueling violence, homophobia, sexism, etc then it is fair argument to try to de-convert - however, jimmyboy was speaking specifically about being confronted about why he wasn’t a part of a certain religious tradition and then trying to invalidate that person’s religious convictions. Sort of like:
“Why aren’t you Christian?”
“Because Christianity is clearly a sham. The Bible is so inconsistent. Why do the Synoptics say that Jesus was baptized and the Gospel of John doesn’t?” etc.
You can pick and choose certain ethics and morals from a holy text and follow just those points and that is perfectly fine. At that point, though, you are not following the actual religion. I certainly have a lot of my morals and ethics that overlap with the Bible. One can definitely appreciate these messages, but it is wrong to say the bible is “a collection of parables”. Most of the book is a historical text that is certainly meant to be taken literally. Also, to say that many Christians believe in a flawed Bible is similar to the earlier discussion of Republicans with climate change. It’s simply not true. If you talk to any preacher or minister and people of any congregation, they will almost certainly all tell you that the bible is the word of God and is perfect because God is perfect. This is the exact notion we would get from reading the bible. Theologians and religious scholars are probably very different and would say that it is flawed.
@bodangles
Like I said previously, you are only a jerk if this is outside of the context of an open discussion on beliefs or you are attacking the person instead of criticizing the religion.
@preamble1776
About the analogy to conversion, I was saying the “process” was similar in terms of providing someone an argument and persuading them to another world view. Instead of from atheism to Christianity it is Christianity to Atheism. To also say there is no reason to convince people to convert from Christianity to Atheism is also false.
edit: I’m sorry I don’t see what’s incendiary about saying, “I don’t believe in a certain religion because the holy text of said religion has many inconsistencies and within all good reason is most likely a fantastic tale but reveals nothing about the natural world.” This is what I was talking about when I referenced an open discussion. I would never qualify by saying “Your holy book and religion are without fault, I just chose atheism for no reason whatsoever”.
I think your discussion of “religulous” may tie back to the original post. I have never seen the film, but my opinion is that he might have been criticizing the religion. There’s a difference if he was criticizing the religion and this caused them to be humiliated which he usually does on his show. If he was just humiliating the people directly then I’m wrong and that goes too far.