My last post got me thinking about the liberal vs. conservative slant of different jobs. Here are two sources of data. Consider some jobs that lean conservative: soldier, police, doctor, religious worker, insurance broker
There is a legal principle called Ejusdem Generis (sp?) which means that things which would be found in the same list are naturally considered to be in the same list. However, the "etc." indicates that the listing I gave was not exhaustive.
<chuckle> I didn't vote for Stein based on her social justice views, I voted for Stein because Gary Johnson came across as an utter imbecile about US relations beyond its borders, and Trump and Clinton came across as self-aggrandizing narcissists with sociopathic tendencies. Of the two, I consider Trump to be less dangerous to the nation because the bureaucracy can rule preserving. Clinton knows too much about how to manipulate the bureaucracy. That left Stein whose comprehension of medical science and awareness of the world beyond our borders made her the only functional candidate remaining - if still not desirable.
I suspect Lenin believed in and truly wanted a "communist revolution" but one cannot generate the "Marxist" revolt from a feudal economy. I see the October Revolution as resulting in a Russian Chauvinism more akin to the nationalist tendencies that rose out of the Napoleonic Era. Moscow has always been an Asian nation caught between the advances of the Chinese and Holy Roman empires. It has never seemed to manage to assimilate influences simultaneously, forcing it to run a little behind both as it alternated back and forth until the Post Modern Era, and maybe still.
Populism itself is always 'opportunist' since it is a grass roots insurgency that cannot be effected without resources being grabbed by those organizing its response.
The problem with and within the Neo-Nazi orientation that I find amusing are: 1) It is based on the Social Darwinism of the middle to late 1800's which promoted the existence of modern 'racism'. (I always find it amusing when a person who rejects evolutionary science embraces Social Darwinism.) 2) The rise of identitarian politics has always been from the Left. The KKK rose as the militant arm of the DNC in much the same relationship as Sinn Féin and the IRA. This doesn't surprise me given how the roots of the Democratic Party were fertilized in Tammany Hall. After the DNC found it could achieve more votes by embracing the several minorities it had been suppressing with "White Pride" it began promoting "Black Pride", "Gay Pride", "Latino Pride", etc. The so-called Neo-Nazis belong in the same ranks as Antifa, as both (like the rest of the Left) are enemies of Lockean based Liberalism as enshrined in the US Constitution.
1. Well, you succeeded in surprising me by supporting Stein, in light of your position on the sjw left.
2. The Soviet regime was internationalist in its first years. The turn came in 1924 with "socialism in one country." (But, arguably, the Rapallo Treaty in 1922 already augured a nationalist course.)
3. Far-right populism has always been opportunist, never hesitating to demagogically borrow slogans from the left. That Trump's themes are rightist is proven, it seems to me, by the fact that they have inspired the neo-Nazis and grown their ranks.
I have yet to see any communist government anywhere on the planet. Every communist regime to go in place has been tribal in orientation. Even the USSR was merely a Russian nationalists regime using communism as a state religion while building an empire of buffer states centered on Moscow. China was never so much communists as they were nationalists reinventing the wheel. And I really don't consider Trump to be that far to the right. He is a moderate who will do whatever it takes to get what he wants personally.
As to Trump representing some kind of cultural reference, I don't see it. There isn't a single group outside of the Nouveau Riche with whom he could be identified. He is crass, gaudy, inelegant, self-aggrandizing, and tactless. The one thing he has been elected to represent is the the level of 'fed-up'-edness held by those whom the Left has castigated, berated, and persecuted for the last five decades. Those tired of being assaulted for things they have never done and the insecurity issues of the feminist elite would rather elect Trump than anyone who panders to the Left.
And in case your wondering, I voted for Stein - because she was the only candidate with a brain left after the primaries.
I'd say Trump is an extremely toughminded rightist. The extremely toughminded don't think much in terms of principles. But you do agree, don't you, that Trump represents the farmer pole?
I have never considered Trump to be a conservative. He is an opportunist who will do whatever works at the moment. He has little to no allegiance to Lockean values.
So, our conservative president (and the movement supporting him) deals in facts?
But perhaps there's some merit to your suggestion. When conservatives want to mislead people, they invent their facts; whereas liberals ignore or overrule the facts.
[Added.]Actually, influence by facts over feelings or values is orthogonal to left and right, corresponding instead to the toughminded versus tenderminded dimension, which in the U.S. right now is highly correlated. There are tenderminded conservatives who care more about feelings. Leo Tolstoy comes to mind; he thought the good society was one actuated by kindness. No one has called him a liberal or leftist. In a broader historical perspective, there are also toughminded leftists, called Bolsheviks.
Conservatives tend to deal with facts. Liberals tend to deal with feelings. Liberals will be found in fields that don't bother to rely on facts: art, literature, journalism, drama, etc. Conservatives will be people who rely on facts and factual performance: baseball player, accountant, etc.
I would say things have changed. Liberals work actively to prohibit any conservative rhetoric from being given a platform. Why do you think they are so rude and punishing to anyone that disagrees with them. Looking at these comments, how can you doubt that a liberal would do what they could to further another liberal over a conservative in any way they could?
NO. Professors can not be very Conservative. They have done studies in the most expensive, and well as moderate colleges. There is literally ZERO registered Republicans in most all of them in every department. Even in Catholic colleges, you do not find any conservatives among the tenured professors. There are however, independents in some of the Engineering and Sciences departments. Intellectual Diversity is very definitely gone from institutions of higher learning.
That's not what I think the study was indicating but rather that conservatives are motivated more by fear and more alert to threats in their environment. That doesn't mean the study was saying they're wimps, which you seem to be thinking.
There is a legal principle called Ejusdem Generis (sp?) which means that things which would be found in the same list are naturally considered to be in the same list. However, the "etc." indicates that the listing I gave was not exhaustive.
So there are no conservative engineers or scientists?
Trump is MY PRESIDENT!!!
My response to this was marked as SPAM by someone or something that is apparently incapable of identifying what is and is not SPAM.
<chuckle> I didn't vote for Stein based on her social justice views, I voted for Stein because Gary Johnson came across as an utter imbecile about US relations beyond its borders, and Trump and Clinton came across as self-aggrandizing narcissists with sociopathic tendencies. Of the two, I consider Trump to be less dangerous to the nation because the bureaucracy can rule preserving. Clinton knows too much about how to manipulate the bureaucracy. That left Stein whose comprehension of medical science and awareness of the world beyond our borders made her the only functional candidate remaining - if still not desirable.
I suspect Lenin believed in and truly wanted a "communist revolution" but one cannot generate the "Marxist" revolt from a feudal economy. I see the October Revolution as resulting in a Russian Chauvinism more akin to the nationalist tendencies that rose out of the Napoleonic Era. Moscow has always been an Asian nation caught between the advances of the Chinese and Holy Roman empires. It has never seemed to manage to assimilate influences simultaneously, forcing it to run a little behind both as it alternated back and forth until the Post Modern Era, and maybe still.
Populism itself is always 'opportunist' since it is a grass roots insurgency that cannot be effected without resources being grabbed by those organizing its response.
The problem with and within the Neo-Nazi orientation that I find amusing are: 1) It is based on the Social Darwinism of the middle to late 1800's which promoted the existence of modern 'racism'. (I always find it amusing when a person who rejects evolutionary science embraces Social Darwinism.) 2) The rise of identitarian politics has always been from the Left. The KKK rose as the militant arm of the DNC in much the same relationship as Sinn Féin and the IRA. This doesn't surprise me given how the roots of the Democratic Party were fertilized in Tammany Hall. After the DNC found it could achieve more votes by embracing the several minorities it had been suppressing with "White Pride" it began promoting "Black Pride", "Gay Pride", "Latino Pride", etc. The so-called Neo-Nazis belong in the same ranks as Antifa, as both (like the rest of the Left) are enemies of Lockean based Liberalism as enshrined in the US Constitution.
1. Well, you succeeded in surprising me by supporting Stein, in light of your position on the sjw left.
2. The Soviet regime was internationalist in its first years. The turn came in 1924 with "socialism in one country." (But, arguably, the Rapallo Treaty in 1922 already augured a nationalist course.)
3. Far-right populism has always been opportunist, never hesitating to demagogically borrow slogans from the left. That Trump's themes are rightist is proven, it seems to me, by the fact that they have inspired the neo-Nazis and grown their ranks.
I have yet to see any communist government anywhere on the planet. Every communist regime to go in place has been tribal in orientation. Even the USSR was merely a Russian nationalists regime using communism as a state religion while building an empire of buffer states centered on Moscow. China was never so much communists as they were nationalists reinventing the wheel. And I really don't consider Trump to be that far to the right. He is a moderate who will do whatever it takes to get what he wants personally.
As to Trump representing some kind of cultural reference, I don't see it. There isn't a single group outside of the Nouveau Riche with whom he could be identified. He is crass, gaudy, inelegant, self-aggrandizing, and tactless. The one thing he has been elected to represent is the the level of 'fed-up'-edness held by those whom the Left has castigated, berated, and persecuted for the last five decades. Those tired of being assaulted for things they have never done and the insecurity issues of the feminist elite would rather elect Trump than anyone who panders to the Left.
And in case your wondering, I voted for Stein - because she was the only candidate with a brain left after the primaries.
It's also clear that Kim isn't a "real" commie.
I'd say Trump is an extremely toughminded rightist. The extremely toughminded don't think much in terms of principles. But you do agree, don't you, that Trump represents the farmer pole?
I have never considered Trump to be a conservative. He is an opportunist who will do whatever works at the moment. He has little to no allegiance to Lockean values.
So, our conservative president (and the movement supporting him) deals in facts?
But perhaps there's some merit to your suggestion. When conservatives want to mislead people, they invent their facts; whereas liberals ignore or overrule the facts.
[Added.]Actually, influence by facts over feelings or values is orthogonal to left and right, corresponding instead to the toughminded versus tenderminded dimension, which in the U.S. right now is highly correlated. There are tenderminded conservatives who care more about feelings. Leo Tolstoy comes to mind; he thought the good society was one actuated by kindness. No one has called him a liberal or leftist. In a broader historical perspective, there are also toughminded leftists, called Bolsheviks.
Conservatives tend to deal with facts. Liberals tend to deal with feelings. Liberals will be found in fields that don't bother to rely on facts: art, literature, journalism, drama, etc. Conservatives will be people who rely on facts and factual performance: baseball player, accountant, etc.
I would say things have changed. Liberals work actively to prohibit any conservative rhetoric from being given a platform. Why do you think they are so rude and punishing to anyone that disagrees with them. Looking at these comments, how can you doubt that a liberal would do what they could to further another liberal over a conservative in any way they could?
NO. Professors can not be very Conservative. They have done studies in the most expensive, and well as moderate colleges. There is literally ZERO registered Republicans in most all of them in every department. Even in Catholic colleges, you do not find any conservatives among the tenured professors. There are however, independents in some of the Engineering and Sciences departments. Intellectual Diversity is very definitely gone from institutions of higher learning.
You don't believe in right or wrong do you?
That's not what I think the study was indicating but rather that conservatives are motivated more by fear and more alert to threats in their environment. That doesn't mean the study was saying they're wimps, which you seem to be thinking.
Engineers tend to be more politically conservative than scientists...