People who claim to be on the right would love to censor

Post Reply New Topic

If you do not understand the normality of homosexuality is objectionable, and where the issues lays, perhaps you are not familiar with right wing conservative folks attending church with political and public school policy maker influence, who believe the behavior is part of the devil's spawn of demons.

Yes, that kind of small talk still goes on in local radio broadcasts, in my locality, by both religious and political influential leaders.

It's a tough NUT to break, still, in some red state areas in the U.S.

If you do not live 'there', to move there MIGHT be to understand PRECISELY WHERE THE ISSUE lays, IN CHURCH, MIXED with politics, still, no matter what the constitution says IN TRUE IMPACT in the polls and public schools on CHURCH and STATE separation.

It is still a serious problem in rural red state areas that still comprises close to 50% of the U.S. population.

And I happen to live in the most patriarchal assessed area in the entire U.S., per attempting to be different in any way other than the perceived Patriarchal norm.

I had to develop the physical prowess of a professional athlete to get away with my public antics, as here the alpha male does still rule, the roost, like it or not, it's just a FACT OF LIFE, STILL, in some right wing patriarchal republican only leaning areas of the U.S.

It is about 80 to 90 percent of the electorate where I live per conservative republican influence in politics AND LIFE IN GENERAL, IN ALMOST all ways of it.

But on the other hand, it's pretty cool that it has resulted in my abilities of what a pro-athete can do IN REAL LIFE.

It is not nearly as likely THAT would have happened, if I lived in a so-called effete part of the U.S.

There is always light and dark mixed in almost anything in life.

Discerning that light and dark and taking advantage of it has always been the human challenge and will likely always continue to be so....as long as humans are evolved as they are now.. and that process is a slow one.. classically as such.. as I think 'we' know NOW.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck.
It need not be any more complicated.

Depending on what side of the bed I get out on, I'm a libertarian leaning conservative or a conservative leaning libertarian. I used to claim to be a right wing fanatic just because this forum was infested with liberals of a particularly whiney and easily butthurt variety.
In real life I've had right wing fanatics that I know call me a liberal because compared to them I am a liberal.
Whatever.....

You can tell them whatever you want, but......

I'm aware they exist. It's just mind-boggling to the point I can't accept that they seen their views as serious. It's like speaking to a small child who insists the sky is fuchsia. You pat them on the head say "well that's nice, the big people are talking now" and send them on their way. They don't deserve to be taken seriously, and if they don't like it and throw a tantrum we punish them for the tantrum and move on.



Which ignores the reality of mallards and moscovys.



People who identify as 'civil libertarians' will have views in common regardless of whether they're 'far left' or 'far right' or 'centrist' overall. A right-winger who's strongly in favour of marijuana legalization might be lumped in with 'left-wingers' by more authoritarian right-wingers who oppose marijuana legalization, but left-wingers would be silly to believe what the authoritarians right-wingers are saying and assume that that person is an ally on all issues.

The tribal mentality we all seem to fall into leads to massive over-simplifications and causes everyone to ignore potential allies on issues where there's agreement just because 'oh, they're not my tribe so they're on the wrong side' over-rides approaching things reasonably.

The Victorian society. A LOT of right wing censorship was happening during Victorian time, particulary when it come to children litterature and fairy tales. (Disney only made it worse.)
There is also wanting to censor things in education that go against right wing ideology, even though science show them to be true, like evolution and global warming.

Muscovy ducks are butt ugly.




I'm not into picking fly s**t out of pepper.
If I had to break it down into strictly conservaive or liberal (as I often do) then I would put myself frmly in the conservaive camp. Of the two, my values are predominantly conservative.

I'm an Independent who leans strongly towards Classical Liberalism (not to be confused with today's left). Unless someone knows me well, it's not at all unusual for the left to think I'm way to the right and for the right to think I'm way to the left. I tend to confuse everyone.

The vast majority of times that anyone has tried to censor me for political views was from the left.

I disagree with the right quite often, but those on the right were either ready for debate or just walked away, neither of which is censorship.

I see political correctness as often being a form of censorship and that nearly all comes from the left.

If there is any scientific research on this, then you should be able to provide citations to such research. Do you have any cites?

Do you consider "having a strong opinion" to be censorship?

Sure, there have been attempts to keep schools from teaching evolution. (For what it's worth, the Scopes trial wasn't such a case -- it was about trying to overturn a law about teaching evolution.) But that isn't censorship -- the decision of what subjects should be taught in public schools is a valid concern. I have never, ever heard any rhetoric about banning talk or writing about evolution in any forum, public or otherwise.

As for the Global Warming hysteria, the vast majority of people on both major sides of the issue have no real idea of the science involved. Often, people on both major sides end up using stupid arguments based on their ignorance -- for example, I've been told by people who are scared of Global Warming arguing that a warm spell proves Global Warming and I've been told by people who don't think that the warming is due to man's activities will point to a blizzard as signs that it is bogus.

For what it's worth, if it was up to me evolution would be taught in schools. Also, I'm in favor of Global Warming and look forward to it -- what has been termed, at least recently, as a luke-warmer.

Here you go.

Here is a whole TED TALK on why conservatives, generally speaking, are NOT AS open to new experiences, as liberals.

And nah, it's not a black and white deal.

It's a spectrum of generalities, as is most of everything all around us that humans do observe, and inside too, human being.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

This is NOT new NEWS.

It's brain chemistry in action.

And truly common sense for those who 'see' it.

And that takes advanced cognitive empathy to SEE IT.

I DIDN'T need the research to figure it out.

Direct interaction with around a hundred thousand human beings, in working AND PLAYING, with the public, for decades IS MORE THAN ENOUGH, FOR ME, TO GET it figured out.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Last edited by aghogday on 01 Feb 2015, 11:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That's hardly unbiased research that one can trust and it proves nothing.

Remember that you said "as scientific research shows". When I asked for cites, it was for scientific research.

Understanding human emotions is an art and not a science.

It IS ALWAYS BIASED TO SOME DEGREE AND WILL ALWAYS BE BIASED TO SOME DEGREE.

And that is precisely what psychology is, an art.

It is the best we have.

And IT WORKS ALMOST AS WELL, AS the scientific method, in more fully repeatable and controlled experiments, NEVER THE LESS, IT DOESN'T CURRENTLY get any better than that as far as human emotions, imagination, and creativity goes.

Humans are not a science.

Science is an abstract construct of human beings.

Science is not real.

Science IS AN ABSTRACT CONSTRUCT, AND THAT IS ALL SCIENCE IS.

AUTISM IS THE SAME.

AS AUTISM IS DEFINED BY PSYCHOLOGISTS, AS behavioral deficits.

So in reality Autism does not exist either, outside of DSM5 and other diagnostic criteria textbooks.

There is no empirical evidence to prove it.

IN other words you are on a very slippery slope here.

And not a common sense one, it appears.

So there is NO scientific research as you earlier claimed?

Some people call psychology an art and some folks call it a science.

Technically speaking, according to Government funding resources for STEM education, psychology can be considered a science.

I consider psychology an art, and that is an opinion that others hold too.

But for legal purposes psychology can and IS considered a science in some cases.

IN other words, like I said, there is rarely anything concerning human nature that is black and white systemizing science.

And that's a fact, sort of.

For what it's worth, of people I know on both sides of the main political spectrum and those completely off of the political spectrum, many are very open to new experiences and man are not at all open to new experiences and everything in between.

Some, both left and right, are very single minded and want nothing to distract them from their work. Others, both left and right, are very interested in new experiences.

I don't believe that you can generalize without reliable data.