Do you enjoy critical research ?

by Introvert 2 30 Replies latest social entertainment

Introvert 2

Question, are you open to and enjoy doing critical research ?
As a trades person with little education other than being a high school vocational graduate in machine shop tech. 1980 and now a small business owner I find proper research to be essential. Love to read and dig deep on any processes and or piece of machinery that can be useful to our endeavours. This and my manifold car motorcycle mountain bike projects and hobbies. Safe to say I'm hands on and have a thirst for knowledge.
This very thirst for knowledge is how I became entangled with the Jehovahs Witnesses for close to ten years in my late thirties. And to be honest the few times in my life that I decided to forgo proper due diligence were the times I got taken in. I think this has to do with my trusting and somewhat gullible nature if I'm not attentive, so in my case research is imperative. A fool and his money soon part ways.
Having being criticised often during my younger years for being quiet and more conservative than most probably contributed to the feelings of low self esteem I often felt then, so the few times I went with the crowd in the spirit of efficiency and wanting to fit in were my undoing in certain situations.
Having read most material on Jehovahs Witnesses I can now see how I was manipulated and taken in. I find this applies to politics as well.
I'd like to know the real reason people get so bent out of shape over here on this site for simply mentioning sources that can be counter to the majorities opinion and get labelled Left or Right ?
After all this use of "Left" or "Right" seems to be a stopper and is used very much in the same way as the WT uses 'The World' or 'Those in Good Standing' etc. Black and white thinking common to cults.
Enjoy !
Introvert 2

Here's a good link from Time, fascinating for my blue collar brain : https://time.com/5673239/left-right-politics-origins/
Simon

I'd read about the French parliament left / right origin before - it is a terrible way to think about todays politics because it makes people think certain things are on competing sides or that the spectrum goes in a way that it doesn't.
A more useful model is from state control to libertarian as that groups the high-control ideologies all together as they work and act in the same way - fascism, islam, communism are really all the same, not "left" and "right". It's high control vs freedom. People equate "conservatism" with being "right" but it's not, it's just further away from the high control / big government (often viewed as "left").
OneGenTwoGroups

"A more useful model is from state control to libertarian as that groups the high-control ideologies all together as they work and act in the same way - fascism, islam, communism are really all the same, not "left" and "right". It's high control vs freedom. People equate "conservatism" with being "right" but it's not, it's just further away from the high control / big government (often viewed as "left")."
Conservatives always wish to control your social life, at the highest level, by law. Whom can you marry? Poor Ben Shapiro, still boycotts inter-religious marriages. You know, "the cool kids philosopher". It wasn't conservatives that wished for people the freedom to intermarry, whether that be race, religion, or sex. Conservatives have their divinely revealed morals and pass laws so that everyone else must live by their ideology.
Can you open a casino in Texas? Sorry, conservatives still have that outlawed.
Can you buy beer on Sundays before noon in Texas? Sorry, conservatives still have that outlawed.
Can you buy nails along with wood on Sundays in Texas? Conservatives finally let us do that in the 80s.
Is a trillion dollar per year military big government to a conservative? Nope. Is single payer healthcare big government? Absofreekinglutely. If you wish to kill people, we'll open up our wallets (socialized military expenses yum yum), if you wish to save lives, take a hike, you're on your own buddy.
The reality is for American government, we have the Ds and Rs. And historically both parties suck. The rich buy off politicians in both parties. eg Henry Cuellar. It's like Yankee fans and Dodger fans in a brawl, and the Yankees are owned by the same dude as the Dodgers. The owner sit's back, enjoys watching the fight, but mostly loves how the money keeps rolling in.
Even though Dave Rubin might be dumber than dirt, his "talking about ideas" mantra I really like. Putting the "high control" or "libertarian" label on a group doesn't seem to help either. It's the ideas and values that the group/party promotes that should be discussed.
In the neck of the woods that I live in, being an atheist is not something you would want to advertise, so I don't have the bumper sticker. Atheist means something evil to most of the people around me. I'm evil. I'm other. Labels suck.
MeanMrMustard

A more useful model is from state control to libertarian as that groups the high-control ideologies all together as they work and act in the same way - fascism, islam, communism are really all the same, not "left" and "right". It's high control vs freedom. People equate "conservatism" with being "right" but it's not, it's just further away from the high control / big government (often viewed as "left").
Agree. Exactly. I’ve been confused for a while on this. We have a one dimensional left/right spectrum. There’s probably a good argument in there that trying to boil it down to one dimension is, in itself, inappropriate. But if we are to use a spectrum like this, it should work like a spectrum. I don’t understand how the far left is socialist, and as you move to the right, supposedly going away from socialism, you arrive on the far right to .... socialism again (national socialist). It’s like being a nationalist is enough to transport socialism to the other side. Makes no sense.
But to be honest, it does makes sense in the context of political parties like the Democrats attempting to make a historically horrible ideology “stick” to the more freedom loving side of the spectrum. (It’s politically convenient to label someone a Nazi)
When I was growing up, the left/right divide was defined in terms of *general* philosophical beliefs. The “left” was in favor more government control, and the “right” was for less. That’s in general. You couldn’t be sure what any one politician thought on a topic individually. But you had a general idea of how someone thought.
“Right” is generally more individualist, freedom oriented, and a traditional view of rights. “Left” is more collectivist, less individual freedom, and focuses on entitlements instead of rights.
In this way, Nazis are left (socialist, collectivist).
MeanMrMustard

Conservatives always wish to control your social life, at the highest level, by law. Whom can you marry? Poor Ben Shapiro, still boycotts inter-religious marriages. You know, "the cool kids philosopher". It wasn't conservatives that wished for people the freedom to intermarry, whether that be race, religion, or sex. Conservatives have their divinely revealed morals and pass laws so that everyone else must live by their ideology.
I don’t think this is exactly accurate. Ben Shapiro may boycott a gay wedding, but he is definitely NOT attempting to stop the wedding by law. Being a Jew, he doesn’t agree with gay marriage, but he will sit down with a gay atheist like Dave Rubin (and even have dinner with Dave and his husband). The telltale attribute of the “right” is not disagreement with something like homosexuality - after all, you probably disagree with his lifestyle. The difference is keeping the government out of attempting to force conformity.
That being said. Marriage licenses were first created to put a barrier on interracial marriage. That is a “lefty” sort of thing to do. I do agree we have some highly religious people wanting to enforce social norms through law. This is an incredible mistake, because giving the government this power can have some serious blowback when the shoe is on the other foot. (The other party is in power).
The problem here is the government shouldn’t be involved with marriage AT ALL. It was an overreach to begin with.
Can you open a casino in Texas? Sorry, conservatives still have that outlawed. Can you buy beer on Sundays before noon in Texas? Sorry, conservatives still have that outlawed. Can you buy nails along with wood on Sundays in Texas? Conservatives finally let us do that in the 80s.
Yep. I agree here. In my mind “conservative” doesn’t mean “freedom loving” per-se. That is a spectrum too. You got some conservatives that think, in order to conserve the current order or what came before, it is appropriate to use the force of law to force people to do (or not do) things. These are “left” tendencies. It is, in my opinion, dangerous.
The reality is for American government, we have the Ds and Rs. And historically both parties suck. The rich buy off politicians in both parties.
I think one of the reasons why politics is so contentious these days is because there too much at stake. There’s too much power concentrated. The government is too big. Scale it back so that a political victory on either side won’t mean so much, and I think a lot of tension surrounding politics would ease.
Diogenesister

Ben Shapiro is no more philosopher than I am.
His absurd mental block when it comes to religion is beyond the pale ( quite literally lol)
He eats with Dave Rubin and husband because he'll put it down to "business" which is sickening in my view. I highly doubt if it was anyone else he'd be so accommodating.
Marriage licences where first created to prevent inter racial marriage? Surely not...we have marriage licences in Europe. I'm more inclined to believe they were to prevent religious mixed marriage but I'll look into it as I've no idea really.
Edit: marriage licences were first created so that the usual period of notice ( banns) could be waivered
MeanMrMustard

Ben Shapiro is no more philosopher than I am.
His absurd mental block when it comes to religion is beyond the pale ( quite literally lol)
That may be true. But he has it right when it comes to gay marriage, in my opinion. Regardless of his personal and religious views, he doesn’t want to foist them on everyone else through law.
MeanMrMustard

Edit: marriage licences were first created so that the usual period of notice ( banns) could be waivered
Yeah, “created” is not the best verb here. “Weaponized” is probably better. They have been around for a while. But it is clear, at least in the US, they were used as a means to prevent interracial marriages. And then gay marriage. IMO we just kicked the can down the road on this. Polygamous marriage will be next. Polygamy, in my opinion, is just fine. Three or more adults entering into a consensual contract should be just fine.
OneGenTwoGroups

Ben Shapiro has stated he will not attend a Jew / Non-Jew wedding. The same way a JW won't go to a JW/non-JW wedding. This type of value system is what I'm trying to get away from, religious bigotry. Shapiro is an idiot.
If you're an exJW that likes Ben Shapiro, you're a cult hopper, plain and simple.

Do you enjoy critical research ?

Share this