Our current Political Continuum And YES it is a Continuum
Interesting piece by the well respected Pew Organization. Gives us all something to consider when we are quick to draw a line down the middle and divide with labels of choice.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 … ypology-2/
Take the quiz. Where did you land?
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/qu … -typology/Once was a classic liberal meaning freedom and human rights. Today, it is as opposite to this, I could imagined.
The world is more divided and in conflicts than I ever experienced in this lifetime and probably for most others. A divide and conquer by centralized monopoly, that require slaves for centuries
Yes, more labels then ever are force upon us to live in some kind of Matrix system online.
Yet, from the greatest tragedy in our lifetimes always comes a silver lining. The Aquarius age of mass changes where the greedy, and God like Governments, Finally they get exposed by telling what they are really doing to us for every step of the way. They actually think the masses are that stupid. For now, they are right.I came in at "ambivalent right" - fiscally conservative, socially moderate.
I can respect/relate to that position.
I think group labels are like that double-edged sword everyone is always talking about. They are a boon to communications because they briefly and instantly transmit an intended description. And they should always be expected because folks prefer to hang around with folks `like them'. Which naturally leads to categorizations and generalities. That isn't intended as criticism.
However, because they are almost always too-broad generalizations, they are almost always wrong or misleading.
Consider this; compare the descriptions of Ambivalent Right and Classical Liberal. They seem very close to each other. Now imagine the probable miscommunication if one term were substituted for the other—in the context of a conversation.
I would say that the majority of listeners would form a mental preconception of Left vs. Right, Democrat vs. Republican. So right from the start clarification is needed, the label has failed. Do you think I would be wrong?
To state the obvious, I use labels and categorizations a lot. I think I can say I use them in an equally broad and general context. :-)
GAI think that labels are useful only in that they generally represent a set of shared views. I also thought that the Pew research draws attention to the fact that the country can't be so easily divided into hard left and hard right. There is a whole lot in between that needs to be recognized. Maybe if we had that recognition more of us could come together and find that common ground in compromise. I dare to say that most of us are already there though because we fall in the middle either slightly left or right leaning.
As a "Democratic Mainstay" I may become a little incensed if you assume I hold progressive ideals .
But haven't we already made efforts to separate ourselves out along our chosen parties continuum? Some saying they are "Bernie Democrats". While some may say they are "Cheney Republicans" just a signal where they are within their given party.I wasn't really picking at the Pew stuff, or your comment. It was the Ambilivant Right label that sparked the thought about labels. Years ago I resigned to accept the Classical Liberal label because it seemed a fair fit. And now I am an Ambivilant Right?
Also, even though it took a while for me to acclimate to having "liberal" as part of any description of me, I did. But I certainly can't agree with "ambivalent" in any context other than its commonly understood meaning as a description of me. I'm going to call them up.
I know it is intended as a sub-category, but why was that Pew's word choice? And look at their choice for the other end of the spectrum—Committed Conservative. Why "committed" and not Fervent. Fervent certainly seems more suitable for a scale that includes ambivalent as a measure. Word choices are also part of a message.
Anyway, the thrust of your response was the same as my original point.
GAAmbivalent seems almost a perfect word to associate with you GA.
'Mixed feelings and contradictory ideas' comes as close to describing your political position as any could, that defines ambivalent as much as anything.
You certainly aren't a committed Conservative or a lunatic Liberal, you are a mix of ideas... you have on many occasions described yourself as a "fence sitter" what is more ambivalent than that?Yeah, the "ambivalent" part was a poor choice. There is little "ambivalent" about my positions (for the most part - I do waffle on some of them) and I think a much better term could have been chosen.
At the same time, if the discussion is about whether I fit Democrat or Republican perhaps it isn't such a bad choice. I don't like either one very much.
I think I can guess the majority of the answers you picked, but, did you skip any questions because the answer choices didn't fit?
GA
Thanks Faye
This has been insightful for a few of us.I came across this study in early Nov peaking my curiosity. I have an interest in both sociology and politics. Also, in how studies are created involving public participation. One thing I like is Pew gives their methodology to peek at. It actually shows the questions used for the study.
After learning the category the quiz placed me in I went to its page providing much more information than the quiz shared. I decided it does pretty much describe me on many points. By the way I have taken the quiz three times now with a fair amount of time between them with the same result.
I also read about the Republican/Democratic coalition pages, which I found interesting. Then I looked at the Report Materials topic How the political typology groups compare. That gave some interesting insight. Finally, curiosity peaked on some of the categories from that and then skimmed their pages offering compare/contrast of my category.
Overall I liked it gaining insight into the varied positions of the political/social spectrum. Pew has been doing it for years. I am sure some campaign staff give it some attention. I dun'no . . .I came out "Progessive Left".
I did not have the impression that i answered any question to justify this result. But my impression may be biased, because i am European and our political compass is possibly much further left than an American´s position typically is.
Just guessing..
I was rated as a committed conservative.
Those who know me, know that's true.
I also admit to it.Outsider Left
… along with 10% of the public
Thought I might be a complete outsider anarchist, no one above or below me.
I get along 10% political views from the left. Not enough to label me, for they don't stick.Same as Castlepaloma, I scored 'Outsider Left too'; but then I'm not American, and I am a Socialist, so what would you expect.
Since I don't take sides you are safe enough from me. Socialism is better than Globalist, maybe that is what you were searching for.
I sense most people will change their mind when WEF with all their billionaires, thrillionaires and world leaders attempt to exclusively own all Governments and own us.
Their promises is we will be happy.
Rrrriighttt!As a Socialist I am a Globalist, and as we have democratically elected Governments in each of the four nations of the UK (Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland), and democratically elected Local Governments, it’s them that represent the ‘will’ of the people, and the billionaires has nothing to do with the running of the country.
As regards British politics, about a third of the population have ‘left’ leanings, to varying degrees (about 25% solidly left, Socialists); about the third of the population have ‘right’ leanings, to varying degrees (about 25% solidly right, Capitalists); and the rest of the population are more central (Liberals). Generally speaking it’s the more moderate (generally middle class) voters in the middle who determine whether a Conservative or Socialist Government gains powers during a General Election.
It's interesting the different way of thinking between Europeans and Americans. I think I've told you I have a friend who lives in Wales. His viewpoints are very similar to yours. We argue all the time about the medical systems of our countries, the laws.
One of the big arguments is that he believes you have free speech in the UK and I couldn't disagree more. In your country, you can be fined or put in jail for making a tasteless joke. It's like that in other European countries as well. I think that is insane. At this point in time, in the United States, we still have freedom of speech.Yeah, I too strongly believe we have free speech in the UK e.g. I’ve never had any problems in expressing my feelings, as necessary, and keep within the law.
And yes, under UK law if you make comments that is harmful to vulnerable members of society e.g. the elderly, infirmed, LGBT, minority groups etc., or your comments incite others to do harm to vulnerable people, then yes it is a criminal offence which can lead to prosecution and even a jail sentence.
And I defend that law, because it gives protection to the vulnerable. The European attitude is that with ‘freedom’ comes ‘responsibility’.
Nevertheless, you can get your views across (free speech) without harming or inciting other to harm vulnerable groups in society e.g. it’s in the way you word things – diplomacy."comments that is harmful to vulnerable members of society e.g. the elderly, infirmed, LGBT, minority groups etc.",
You're kidding...right?
Thousands of people are arrested in the UK for everything from bad jokes to making fun of things.
A man teaches his pug to do the Nazi salute...and he's put in Jail?
A person is put in jail because they posted rap lyrics from a popular song on her Instagram page.
A Christian posted passages from the Bible that people found offensive...and HE was arrested.
Nine people a day are being arrested in the UK for offensive online comments.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/poli … -b8nkpgp2d
Sorry, facts are facts, NO you don't have free speech in the UK.
You need to get in touch with the reality that what you have in the UK is government censorship of speech.
The guy teaching his pug to do the Nazi salute probably represents how speech in handled in the UK.
I like the United States where the government is not permitted to determine what is and is not acceptable speech.In London England in the 70s had this place called speaker corner. Such a wide range of diverse people.
Most educational experience I've had in Europe. They could talk about anything like an old best friend for 40 years. Most amazing.
Don't know what happened overall today. Although there is always enlightenment and really fun people, just harder to find.Yep, Speakers Corner, in Hyde Park, London still exists; and is still used.
At Speakers Corner, IN Hyde Park, speakers may talk on any subject, as long as the police consider their speeches lawful.
History of Speakers' Corner - The beginning of free speech
Gallows were installed on this spot from 1196 to 1783; but by tradition, every person condemned to be hung here had a legal right to make a final speech (without restrictions on what they said).
Then in 1866 when the Government tried to supress a protest movement fighting for Liberal Reforms, the protestors marched on Hyde Park, and finding it locked tore up the metal railings to gain access to the Park, which then led to three days of riots. The following year, when the protest group marched on Hyde Park the police and military did not intervene; and in 1872, through the introduction of a serious of Regulations governing the conduct of meetings in the Park, the Government made ‘free speech at Hyde Park’ a legal right.
SPEAKERS' CORNER TODAY: https://youtu.be/_Fm4fBW9qUs
In the UK Hate Speech is just one aspect of the laws that protect vulnerable people from ‘prejudices‘. To quote the Hate speech laws chapter and verse, the UK’s Legislation on ‘Hate Speech’ (which is a criminal offence in the UK) in a nutshell:-
“Hate speech laws in England and Wales are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is forbidden. Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.”
With regards to you list of examples, I can’t comment on all the individual examples you’ve given without the details that goes with them; but I can make comment on two of them, specifically trolling and Nazi.
TROLLING AND CYBERBULLYING
'Trolling' is the anti-social act of causing personal conflict and controversy online. In the UK it led for example people committing suicide (including children) because they were trolled. Therefore Tolling became a criminal office in the UK in 2003, and attracts up to a 2 years prison sentence if found quality in a court of law.
Under British Law, quoting chapter and verse again:-
“Persons engaging in Internet trolling are immediately committing an offence under the Malicious Communications Act.”
The Malicious Communications Act states:
“Any person who sends a letter, electronic communication or article of any description to a person that conveys a message that is indecent or highly offensive, a threat or false information. If the reason for that communication was to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person, then the sender is guilty of an offence.”
NAZI Salute
I can’t comment on your example of a man being put in jail for teaching his pug to the Nazi salute, because I don’t have the details. But being a member of any Nazi organisation in the UK is a criminal offence that attracts a prison sentence, and although the Nazi salute in itself is not a criminal offence, doing a Nazi salute can incite racial hatred (which is a Criminal Offence). Therefore, in the case you refer to it depends on the circumstances, which I don’t have details for.
But a similar case I am aware of is a couple in the UK who named their child after Hitler were sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2018 for being members of a Neo-Nazi organisation.
You may not appreciate or like our laws in the UK on Free Speech, but we do; and I’d much rather have the laws we have than the USA free-for-all philosophy.
Two different cultural values; and we’re both happy with our own culture, which surely is a good.From what I can tell political correctness with far too many laws from a few videos I'm seeing They are not nearly as free and open as it was. There were more personal growth and spiritual, conversation and more vituous podium speakers.
Sounds too much like neverending circle of political nonsense going nowhere, much like online.
I grew up in London Canada of street and building were modeled from London England I tried to start up a speaker corner without success. So at least yours .still existsSorry, you don't have free speech. You have government censored speech. This is a fact. Your government determines what is and is not hate speech. That is too much power. In the situation of the man from Scotland who was arrested because his pug gave a Nazi salute, nobody complained. A sheriff saw it and arrested him. That is called totalitarianism.
“Any person who sends a letter, electronic communication or article of any description to a person that conveys a message that is indecent or highly offensive, a threat or false information. If the reason for that communication was to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person, then the sender is guilty of an offence.”
This is all very subjective and way open to interpretation.
It makes me even more thankful to live in a country where we do have free speech. I'd rather feel I am a citizen in my country and not just a subject.US states are diverse in different laws and ways of living and thinking from state to state. Where Canada is nicer, yet a friendly Dictatorship tuning rapidly into a Communism and police state. I missed my opportunity to move to South America for the sake of my daughter was not ready to move. Now
Caught in the Covid War as a disease criminals yet healthier than most.
After having my US green card refused by GW Bush because I refused Bush a war sculpture. I found myself happier in Canada with less extremes. And of course less extreme money . Nothing against making money, just not at the expense of harming.That’s where we disagree. In my view we do have ‘free speech’ in Britain e.g. I can express myself, and get my viewpoint across, on any subject to any person or organisation without a problem and without breaking the law – I’ve never had any problems or issues with freely expressing myself within the law; so I don’t see that there is an issue with ‘freedom of speech’. It’s not as if we’re in China or Russia where speaking out against the Authorities will get you thrown in jail, or worse.
And I defend the ‘Hate Laws’ we have in Europe because they do protect the vulnerable; and to me (as a European) that is morally right, and important.
In your view the legal jargon in the Malicious Communications Act covering Trolling and Cyberbullying may sound woolly, but it helps to protect vulnerable people, including children from, stress and bullying on line which would otherwise cause some to commit suicide; so the law helps to prevent suicides in children; which in my view makes the law morally right, and important. And the exact interpretation of the law isn’t up to me or the police; it’s up to the courts.
While I’m sure you are happy with the lack of ‘protective’ laws in the USA, an attitude which is very American; then I’m equally happy with the form of free speech we have in Europe. I would be very uncomfortable under the American laws (or lack of them).
It remains your opinion that we don’t have free speech in Europe, and it remains my opinion that we do; it all just highlights our cultural differences.
It’s the same with gun laws in the USA, which as a Britain I find horrifying. While, in the UK it’s an offence to be in position of a knife in public, which attracts a maximum 7 year prison term; to me that is a right and just law, whereas I’m sure you’ll find it horrific. And to kill someone who breaks into your home in the UK is considered murder (potentially a life sentence) e.g. under British law you can only use ‘reasonable force’ to defend yourself, and killing someone is not normally considered reasonable force; whereas in the USA, shooting someone who breaks into your home is perfectly legal; which to me as a Brit is something I find horrific.
These all highlights some of the many cultural differences between Europeans and Americans.
You prefer your culture to mine, and I prefer my culture to yours. I my view my culture is more morally correct and thus the better of the two (which I am sure you will disagree with). The two cultures are certainly different, but who is to judge which culture is better, assuming one is better than the other?
I think, like the gun debates between Brits and Americans on line, this is another one of those circular discussion where the ‘twain shall never meet’ e.g. where we can never see eye to eye.To that I agree. We'll never see free speech the same way.
I can't imagine living in a country where I couldn't own a firearm. In the Ukraine, you can own a semi-automatic rifle with no problems. Handguns are illegal. You can get a conceal carry permit with a good reason. In the Ukraine, it means you need to be in good with the local magistrate.
I am someone who had his life saved from a bad man with a gun by a good man with a gun. So, I am very glad we have our current gun laws. Many bad people with guns in the United States are stopped by good people with guns.
Yeah, I have no problem with a person breaking into your home being shot. I would do the same thing should someone try to break into my house. I know I wouldn't hesitate. If it were up to me, I would require every person over the age of 18 to have firearms training.
Trust me, I don't view your culture more morally correct. I view it as more gullible and naive.
So, yes, I agree with your assessment. I don't see either one of us changing our views.I'm not for guns for public nor military. The main reason US citizens have more guns than people. This is because fear of the Government Tyranny. There is merits by all Governments all the theiving and mass murderous the last 100 years history. Maybe rightfully so, the public can hold off their Governments genocide. Where in Australia public are on their knees with World order by partly funded US military complex.
They even broadcast it is a world order against the public. Mentioned in this clip. https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/tuck … -to-us-allIf you can't tell that the video is all fictitious lies, just more typical 'fake news' by Fox New; and FYI the presenter Tucker Carlson (Fox News) is renowned for promoting conspiracy theories about topics such as immigration, COVID-19 and the 2021 USA Capitol attack.
I suggest you cross reference the stories from reliable sources; and if you do you will find none of them true.There always two sides to every story..
Not ever seen media so onesided and sponsorship and lobbyist so strong . Something very dangerous about that, like totalitarianism.Yes there is always two sides to every story... that's why in the UK TV News is heavily regulated by the Government to ensure it's News is 'balanced' and 'unbiased' by law. Something you don't see on USA TV, if they had similar Regulations in the USA then FOX News would be prosecuted for all its 'fake news', and have it's licence to broadcast withdrawn.
The point is there is no News in the above video for there to be two sides. For example, the Australian now the most wanted person by the Authorities for sneezing in a lift (spreading covid) is a fabricated story, there is no story to tell, therefore no two sides to the story.
Yep, I know that American attitudes towards guns are totally different, and alien, to me as a Brit. In Britain guns are illegal, the police are unarmed and not even criminals as a rule carry guns in Britain.
So the situation that you describe that you should carry a gun because everyone else carries a gun doesn’t apply in Britain because guns are illegal and hard to come by in Britain. The police in Britain don’t carry guns and neither do the criminals; therefore there is absolutely no need to carry a gun in Britain in self-defence.
In the USA a gang of criminals would I’m sure raid a jewellers shop armed with guns, and woe betide anyone who gets in their way; whereas in Britain the criminals tend to be less ruthless and less dangerous, as this video shows:- https://youtu.be/ySBxMMidbEg
The idea of being unable to defend my family from scum that have no value for other's life or wellbeing I find horrific.
Thankfully I live in a State where I have every right to kill someone invading my household, and I have a Sheriffs Department that encourages its citizens to arm themselves and calls the people who defend themselves and their homes from attackers and invaders, heroes.
What a powerless world you live in, where anyone that chooses can take your possessions or life from you and you can do nothing to stop them.I don't see good reason to own a gun. One is three times greater chance of killing one self than killing someone else. Then greater chance of killing someone you know, than the robber. Best security is a community watch within your area. My community of 20 people have not had one thing stolen ever or nearly for 2 years now. 3 Big dogs and alarming geese got us covered.
The most famous case of this nature in the UK is Tony Martin, a farmer, who 20 years ago killed a burglar with an illegal shotgun; and was originally sentence to life in prison from murder, later changed to manslaughter in Appeal on grounds of ‘diminished responsibility’ and released after serving three years.
Tony Martin - The Murder That Sparked a National Debate: https://youtu.be/dGeHddPQtWM
It’s not that you can’t defend yourself in Britain, it’s that you can only use ‘reasonable force’ to defend yourself, which in an extreme situation if a burglar came at you with a knife, then in a court of law you would have reasonable grounds for defence if you killed the intruder with a knife, especially if the forensic evidence showed that there was a struggle suggesting that your life was in danger!
However, generally speaking, burglars in the UK don’t carry weapons, and if disturbed then they almost invariably rather scarper (run away) to evade identification and later capture than confront the home owner.
So it is a completely different cultural mentality in the UK compared to the USA. And we don’t’ feel powerless, because we live without the fear and dangers of guns.I agree UK and Europe are more civilized about crime and especially guns than the US . My system from my background of security , living in 3 different eco villages and farming is just about flawless. Our electric fencing and community watch is the best for safety and for the farm animals and burglars don't have chance. Now we test it on vaccines police , which I think we are fully equipped for, traps and all .
Until the US Military and police are willing to let go of their offensive weapons. Or the US citizens will hang on to theirs.
It's fight Fire with fire or they US can end up like USSR totally defenseless peopleI agree with you here (except for your bit about the vaccine police).
People can't get jobs without vaccinated around here, how are unvaccinated to survive. They are training troops to go to door to door and chase them into the bush or forest to jab if not comply. They have already been trying it out on some native people.
Force is communism.Castlepaloma, I'd need to see some 'reliable' evidence of your claim that the police in Canada are going door to door and chasing people into the bush or forest if they are not jabbed. Without verifiable evidence the claim isn't convincing.
I know that (unlike the UK) there is mandatory vaccination for some workers in Canada, but I have no reason to believe that 'vaccine police' exist in Canada.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/ca … -maybe-notDon't want to into it on this post.
Just like mandating vaccines a year ago, most everyone told that won't happen because of human rights and constitutional law. I said Tyranny has no laws. They won't let the cat out of the bag yet of door to door. Yet are bankrupting businesses not comply to their mandates. I saw a native women from NW Canada on video complain how her family was chased into the bush to be jab. Since they took down her visions. Same for an Australian soldier explaining how he was trained to force jab door to door.Castlepaloma; in fact-checking your claim about an “Australian soldier explain how he was trained to force jab door to door”:-
• Victoria police were given ‘extraordinary powers’ over a year ago to enforce covid-19 restrictions, but that does not extend to enforced vaccination.
• Also, the incident you refer to stems from an Instagram posted on a fan page of conservative commentator ‘Candace Owens’ on the 13th July, and a video post of TikTok by user @allblackerrything on the 24th July; and both Reuters and USA Today News debunk the Instagram and video as being fake. Reuters have verified that the video does not show people being chased down and forced to take the jab, as falsely claimed in the video clip; but actually shows the police clashing with protestors in Sydney during an anti-lockdown protest that turned violent.
So your refusal to provide genuine evidence that the police are going door to door in Canada and chasing people into the bush or forest is a strong indication that there is no evidence because the claims are false!I just said Australia troops were being trained. Couldn't connect your link.
There are plenty of outrageous arrested going on at Peoples Homed and taking away even mother's babies. Plenty of opposing for leaders to resigned and death threats.Yes Castlepaloma, you said Australian troops were being trained to do forced vaccination door to door, inferring that it was being done; which is a conspiracy theory that has been debunked.
As regards Australia, the covid vaccine is not mandatory for the whole population, only for specific key jobs where there is direct contact between workers and the public; and there is no intent to force vaccination door to door as you suggest, the Australian law is quite clear:-
“By Christmas Eve, anyone working with the public must be fully vaccinated or face a Aus$5,000 (US$3,700) fine and instant dismissal.”
Where you say “There are plenty of outrageous arrested going on at People’s Homes and taking away even mother's babies.” What has that got to do with covid vaccinations, is this more conspiracy theories that you’ve read?
Related Discussions
- 27
Do left-handers tend to be liberal in politics? (i.e. Are Left-handers, left?) .
by Billie Kelpin 5 years ago
Do left-handers tend to be liberal in politics? (i.e. Are Left-handers, left?) .I'd estimate that 7/8 ths of the left-hander I know are liberal Democrats. Seven of the last 13 left-handed Presidents, starting with FDR were Democrats. (BTW - Considering that only 10-13% of the population is...
- 40
Okay, a sincere inquiry why be a Liberal or Conservative?
by Tim Mitchell 7 months ago
To begin the discussion and keeping it simple a quick peek at Oxford Dictionaries says:Conservative (in a political context) favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.Liberal relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights,...
- 189
Can You Explain the Great American Political Divide?
by Scott Belford 3 years ago
A recent poll caught my attention because of the detail it offered. While it is just a single poll, it does represent what I see in many other polls. What it shows is those on the Right see the world very differently than the rest of America - Why Is That?(Since only a couple demographics...
- 231
The top 5 reasons the political right endangers America.
by wba108@yahoo.com 8 years ago
The top 5 reasons the political right endangers America.
- 53
Is labeling someone a liberal or a conservative a cop out?
by rhamson 14 months ago
The practice of labeling people as aligned with a certain mindset seems to be a popular way of marginalizing the individual and has a tendency to change the gist of the conversation or debate. Is this fair to both parties involved and is it the recipe to end a free expression of ideas without...
- 15
The Two Party System is the Root of Most of America's Problems
by Ralph Schwartz 5 years ago
I've read countless numbers of threads about partisan political talking points over the years. They range from abortion, gun control, immigration, social justice, healthcare, protected classes of people, voting rights, and national defense; just off the top of my head. About half of...