Political stereotypes 8 replies

Please wait...

evildude

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

25th August 2003

0 Uploads

4,300 Posts

0 Threads

#1 8 years ago

Political stereotypes are everywhere in this day and age. Most of the stereotypes are reinforced but such “great” thinkers as Glenn Beck or Michael moore. Some of the stereotypes put out in the mass media, if it be that all right wingers are crazy Christian war lovers or be it that liberals want to throw money at poor people to make the poverty problem go away. All have some forum of truth to them, that truth may be twisted and repacked as something completely different depending on the view point the man or women giving the stereotype wants to give out. To me it seems that more and more people are relaying on this forum of political stereotype, now wide spread in the U.S media(luck for me I am in Canada where such stereotypes have not completely taken a hold of the media) For me, this is getting very annoying when trying to have real debates on present day issues. When it comes to healthcare reform I am called a socialist or a liberal just for thinking that healthcare is a good idea. I personally see myself as right wing in my political thought but that does not mean I come with all the stereotyped right wing thoughts. I believe in the free market system but I believe in healthcare for all. I believe that war can be a solution to many problems but I also believe that gun control is a good idea. I am also an Atheist and I know what people are going to say, A right winger who does not believe in the wonderful Christian God? I know I am crazy like that but it is just the way I am.

So where does this leave me? Am I a right wing socialist? Of course not such a thing does not and can not exist in this political world we all live in. So does that mean that I am in the middle? That I am the o so rare free thinker? Who does not support a party based on a set of guideline beliefs that I must agree to before calling myself a support of said party? If so then I am guilty as charged. To be frank it is near impossible to meet the stereotypes presented to us for each political idea. Enless you have no freedom of thought yourself, it is hard to agree with this “list” that each party in America stands for, because reality sometimes comes in and changes this ideal idea to a more realistic non-stereotype idea. When this happens the other side screams out at the top of their lungs that the party is going against it’s own belief system, which may or may not be true, but in politics it seems you can never win, people will always call you out on everything.




Schofield VIP Member

om :A

319,554 XP

24th October 2007

1 Uploads

30,539 Posts

0 Threads

#2 8 years ago

Political sterotypes piss me off. The one that pisses me off the most is the view on health care. Oh no communism! Its working for several countries so far, why not at least try it? I understand the American ideology of working for yourself and only yourself. But lets face it, that doesn't work for many people, who do try. All of it is annoying.




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,261 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#3 8 years ago
evildude;5315017Political stereotypes are everywhere in this day and age. Most of the stereotypes are reinforced but such “great” thinkers as Glenn Beck or Michael moore. Some of the stereotypes put out in the mass media, if it be that all right wingers are crazy Christian war lovers or be it that liberals want to throw money at poor people to make the poverty problem go away. All have some forum of truth to them, that truth may be twisted and repacked as something completely different depending on the view point the man or women giving the stereotype wants to give out.

Stereotypes are only good for a few things: Humour and in situations where you need to simplify things (though you risk to oversimply things and sound like an ill informed person).

To me it seems that more and more people are relaying on this forum of political stereotype, now wide spread in the U.S media(luck for me I am in Canada where such stereotypes have not completely taken a hold of the media) For me, this is getting very annoying when trying to have real debates on present day issues. When it comes to healthcare reform I am called a socialist or a liberal just for thinking that healthcare is a good idea.

*insert the "lol, silly americans and their definition of liberals, liberals are anti-regulation which generally means pro-business" line here* ;)

Being said to belong to a certain politcal orientation is kinda rude. Asking what you identify yourself as, may be respectful but some may intend it as an insult.. ( "Are you a commie/socialist/social-democrat/liberal/conservative/theist/populist/capitalist/... sir?").

I personally see myself as right wing in my political thought but that does not mean I come with all the stereotyped right wing thoughts.

Most people can't easily be put in one box. Even with the 12 or so politcal parties we have here you are bound not to agree with every point in a specifics party program.

I believe in the free market system but I believe in healthcare for all.

Those two don't exclude eachother. Unless you believe in a completely or as good as completely unregulated free market.A laizzes fair system. Few people are that much at the free market (capitlaistic) end of the scale, and few are at the "let everything be owned or regulated by the goverment" scale at the far other end. Obviously people will disagree about how much regulation is reasonable and who should make up this board of regulators and rules. The ultimate intend is mostly the same: a fair system were people can live their lifes as they see fit, have fun, make money and all that but without this opressing/restricting other people (too much). Some people will believe in self regulation, others may prefer a private but independant regulator and yet others may lean towards a state appointed regulator to minimize the risk of secret/dirty interests/corruption of private corporations.

Healthcare can come in many shape or forms. You could object to any kind of healthcare systems including insurances, leave it all up to insurrances without any regulation at all, favour some laws when it comes to insurrances, offer a public alternative and so on. Or a combination of various options. Once again, there are plenty of possibilities and views out there.

I believe that war can be a solution to many problems but I also believe that gun control is a good idea.

I fail to see how those would exclude eachother. Once again, there is are many more options (shades) between pure the two extremes of being a crazy war mongerer or "hippy" (for lack of a better term along the lines of "war mongerer" :p ). How mny people truely oppose every armed conflict? Or any regulation of guns? The question once again is, where do you draw the line of which is reasonable and which is not? How much faith do you have in the individual and the risk of corruption/powerabuse/stupidity/crime?

It would be silly to oppose every war, it would be just as silly to prefer armed conflict over diplomacy. EIther of those would ensure a rapid downfall. Ditto with guns, if you hand out any and all arms to any person, you can bet choas would errupt. Trying to stop (destroy?) weapons altogther is just as hopeless and would also end in choas as some people would still be able to arm themselves, leaving those of good will undefended. Once again.. where do you draw the line?

I am also an Atheist and I know what people are going to say, A right winger who does not believe in the wonderful Christian God? I know I am crazy like that but it is just the way I am.

Theist parties often thend to be conservative and right winged in many aspects, but they can often they also show to fight for social justice and this puts them at the left end of the scale. So to put them at the right end of the scale would be a simplification. One theist party might be a bit more right winged overall then the other and so on.

For example, the Dutch CDA (Christain Democrats) believe more in liberalism then the Dutch CU (Christian Union). The CDA is pro business and a bit less conservative (they oppose abortion but don't wish to undo the current laws on it...). Where as the CU would like to see abortion banned again (=conservative) but also likes to improve the wellfare system to make it more social. As you can see, it's hard to put these parties in a box and say "oh they are clearly right/left winged". Overall they end up somewhere right of the centre but even that is a simplication of their programs.

So where does this leave me? Am I a right wing socialist? Of course not such a thing does not and can not exist in this political world we all live in. So does that mean that I am in the middle? That I am the o so rare free thinker?

You are an individual, and as an individual you have a unique opinion. ;) By the sound of it you don't lean too far to any end of the politcal scale (right, left, authoriain, liberty). Few people will be at the far end of the grid though. Wether you are near the very centre or somewhere in the middle on any of the axes I cannot say.

Who does not support a party based on a set of guideline beliefs that I must agree to before calling myself a support of said party? If so then I am guilty as charged.

As I said, there are as many opinions in this world as there are people. So you won't find a party to which you agree 100%. You'll have to go with the party you feel you have the most connections with. Which may even mean you have to go with the "least worst" one if you're a but unlucky. And as time goes by both you and politcal parties may change their opinion based on new knowledge/information. Even some of your pirnciples may change a bit over time.

To be frank it is near impossible to meet the stereotypes presented to us for each political idea. Enless you have no freedom of thought yourself, it is hard to agree with this “list” that each party in America stands for, because reality sometimes comes in and changes this ideal idea to a more realistic non-stereotype idea. When this happens the other side screams out at the top of their lungs that the party is going against it’s own belief system, which may or may not be true, but in politics it seems you can never win, people will always call you out on everything.

People change their views, so do parties. Sometimes because they came ton realize other (new) things, and at other times, because they hope it puts them in a better position. Various people are oppertunistic, businessmen, politicians and others. If they sense an oppertunity they may grab it even if it's a bit dishonest.

So sometimes it might be fair to accuse such a power of being oppertunistic. At other times it's just silly. But this too will depend on your own personal views ofcourse.




Red Menace

SCHOFIELD DID 4/30

415,410 XP

10th August 2004

0 Uploads

40,336 Posts

0 Threads

#4 8 years ago
evildude;5315017So where does this leave me? Am I a right wing socialist? Of course not such a thing does not and can not exist in this political world we all live in.

National Socialism.

I'm not saying you're a Nazi but I am saying that ring-wing socialism exists.


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Cooters on fire off the shoulder of General Discussion. I watched spittle-flecked posts glitter in the dark near the Pub. All those moments will



Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#5 8 years ago

This is what tends to happen when you have the following conditions

-A populace that is not too knowledgeable about the political spectrum -A political scene that is polarized into two camps. In the US we see this as "conservative" or "liberal". I'd wager it's the same up in Canada. -Media working along the two factions

And with the healthcare thing, I'm not sure how many times I've had to say this but it is not an exclusively socialist thing. Self-described socialist parties and social democratic parties have often used it as a promise, but other political parties were warm to the idea as well. It's a social program, which is not exclusive to any line of political thought. Italy, for example, has a full-blown single-payer system though much of its modern history has been governed by center-right factions. Same goes with France.

Red Menace;5315975National Socialism.

I'm not saying you're a Nazi but I am saying that ring-wing socialism exists.

Well in its early years the Nazi's in Germany before Hitler came had a flair of socialism, like Otto and Gregor Strasser and Anton Drexler. It was the DAP then, and following Hitler's arrival it became the NSDAP.

I think the issue came though is that the Nazi's were concerned with two things,

-Providing an alternative to laissez-faire capitalism which gained a bad reputation in Weimar Germany among the workers -Attempting to differentiate themselves with other shades of socialists in Germany, like the SPD, USPD, and the KPD

To me the term seemed more of a convenience for the party to use in order to break into the political scene. Hitler had in his speeches attempted to make a difference between their brand of socialism and Marxist socialism. However it's also been seen that Hitler may've not liked using the term personally, but saw it necessary for pragmatic purposes.

The NSDAP had managed to seep away a considerable chunk of working class votes from the previously listed socialist parties, and that was their main objective, to harness working class discontent for their own purposes.

When they finally came into power they focused on a form of corporatism that Italy advanced, but ultimately their foremost concern was national pride over some claim of workers' rights.

It seemed for the most part the Nazi's took what "tenents" of socialism suited their needs, which seemed to be mainly nationalization and the rhetoric (particularly revolutionary fervor) to gain support.

I would say that a figure like Juan Peron and his Justicialists are more closer to what we would attribute to a "right-wing socialism".

I think this leads into our problem again however. This left-wing/right-wing dichotomy arose out of opposing factions in countries, typically a liberal/conservative label or a issue over social and market liberalism, and it becomes complicated when trying to classify Hitler and co. because they take elements from both if we are to take our contemporary defintions; a syncretic fashion.




EO Violation

If you ain't Cav, you ain't...

50 XP

6th October 2007

0 Uploads

2,108 Posts

0 Threads

#6 8 years ago

As though labels matter in practice.

Vote on the issues important to you. Regardless of party. That's the important part.




Red_Fist

GF is my bext friend *hugs GF*

50 XP

28th April 2010

0 Uploads

1,004 Posts

0 Threads

#7 8 years ago

You may philosifyze, ? philosiphise? ,,however it's not stereotypes while talking politics.

These people have power, I say, chop off everyones feet who are 36 years old.

I'd say 100% of people would be against that law.

So if you derive "sides" is because we all know what the other side is up to, purposely, NOT stereotype.

Hence, this as you call stereotyping, is more of a predicted philosophy than regular stereotyping. So when I say all liberals hate God, means thats what "I" think and not of the population as a whole because it's "politics", and is a fun enguaging thing.

I do acknoledge the thread, but things havn't changed for thousands of years, and us idiot humans always think to build a better mouse trap.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#8 8 years ago
Red_Fist;5317958You may philosifyze, ? philosiphise? ,,however it's not stereotypes while talking politics.

It is when people throw around terms like "fascist" or "socialist" blindly with out knowing what they mean.

Hence, this as you call stereotyping, is more of a predicted philosophy than regular stereotyping. So when I say all liberals hate God, means thats what "I" think and not of the population as a whole because it's "politics", and is a fun enguaging thing.

If I'm understanding what you are saying here, it's ok to be ignorant as long as you are having fun?

Good god.

I do acknoledge the thread, but things havn't changed for thousands of years, and us idiot humans always think to build a better mouse trap.

You missed the point of the thread then.




AlDaja

SFC III Troubleshooter.

50 XP

5th September 2006

0 Uploads

11,263 Posts

0 Threads

#9 8 years ago

Red_Fist;5317958You may philosophize; however, it's not stereotypes while talking politics.

These people have power; I say, chop off everyone's feet who are 36 years old.

I'd say 100% of people would be against that law.

So if you derive "sides" is because we all know what the other side is up to, purposely - NOT stereotype.

Hence, this as you call stereotyping, is more of a predicted philosophy than regular stereotyping.

So when I say all liberals hate God, it implies what "I" think and not of the population as a whole, because it's "politics" and it is a fun, engaging thing.

I do acknowledge the thread, but things haven't changed for thousands of years, and us idiot humans always think to build a better mouse trap.

Fixed. I'd make a comment about making an effort to spell a bit better in the Pub, but I suppose you may have been agitated when you were typing. But, as Mr. C. suggested, you may have missed the point of the thread.:cool: