What another ideology typically does.

[tacomancer]

Reading through various posts. I come across a lot of statements that go along the lines of "what a liberal/conservative/libertarian would do is..." than it is follow by some wild and crazy statement that has no basis in what a particular ideology tends to do.

This observation, coupled with the insight that some people lately are coming to realize that the gap between how different ideologies consider things rather large and are not easily bridged makes me wonder if it is a lack of understanding that causes these wild statements moreso than a desire to create a strawman.

What is you view on this?

Now obviously, this does not apply to call cases, but what do you think the cause of the majority of these types of statements are?

Edit:
Here are some typical statements I see.

1. Liberals want the government to create a communist/socialist utopia.

2. Libertarians want to create a society like Somolia.

3. Conservatives have no compassion for the poor.

 

[Gardener]

Reading through various posts. I come across a lot of statements that go along the lines of "what a liberal/conservative/libertarian would do is..." than it is follow by some wild and crazy statement that has no basis in what a particular ideology tends to do.

This observation, coupled with the insight that some people lately are coming to realize that the gap between how different ideologies consider things are not easily bridged makes me wonder if it is a lack of understanding that causes these wild statements moreso than a desire to create a strawman.

What is you view on this?

Now obviously, this does not apply to call cases, but what do you think the cause of the majority of these types of statements are?

I think there is both a grain of truth and wild misunderstanding with most of these statements.

For instance, when people rail against Liberals, what they describe is seldom the stuff of actual liberals, but of fundamentalist leftists, many of whom CALL themselves liberal. The same goes for those who describe conservatism in terms of bible thumping fundies -- again, people who do call themselves conservative.

I think what is more valuable in terms of political labels by way of identification isn't necessarily how those who do not adhere to an ideology describe a different one, but how those who adhere to an ideology point out the various failings among their own. On this particular board, I see plenty of the more intelligent conservatives distancing themselves from the fire-breathing fundies, but I almost never see those on the left hold up the fire breathing lefties feet to the fire. Just as the right has drifted from some of its core values due to the influence of the neocons (who were disaffected liberals in their origins), so, too, has the left drifted from its liberal roots -- in this case due to those reacting against the neocons and so taking up reactionary positions, as well as the undermining of liberalism by the illiberal multiculturalists.

 

[rathi]

The behavior is used by people who are unable to actually have a real debate. It much easier to make up a wild claim, pretend your opponents political group holds such a claim, and then debate against your fantasy rather than actually addressing your opponents points.

 

[Hoplite]

I think there is both a grain of truth and wild misunderstanding with most of these statements.

For instance, when people rail against Liberals, what they describe is seldom the stuff of actual liberals, but of fundamentalist leftists, many of whom CALL themselves liberal. The same goes for those who describe conservatism in terms of bible thumping fundies -- again, people who do call themselves conservative.

I think what is more valuable in terms of political labels by way of identification isn't necessarily how those who do not adhere to an ideology describe a different one, but how those who adhere to an ideology point out the various failings among their own. On this particular board, I see plenty of the more intelligent conservatives distancing themselves from the fire-breathing fundies, but I almost never see those on the left hold up the fire breathing lefties feet to the fire. Just as the right has drifted from some of its core values due to the influence of the neocons (who were disaffected liberals in their origins), so, too, has the left drifted from its liberal roots -- in this case due to those reacting against the neocons and so taking up reactionary positions, as well as the undermining of liberalism by the illiberal multiculturalists.

I have to agree. I think both sides take the extreme views of the other side and superimpose it on their opponents and while it may be partially true, it's not true across the board.

This is labels biting us in the ass because we listen to people on our own side tell us what "liberal" or "conservative" means and we then assign that value to anyone identifying as such and in the process we miss the subtleties of other people's beliefs.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Reading through various posts. I come across a lot of statements that go along the lines of "what a liberal/conservative/libertarian would do is..." than it is follow by some wild and crazy statement that has no basis in what a particular ideology tends to do.

This observation, coupled with the insight that some people lately are coming to realize that the gap between how different ideologies consider things rather large and are not easily bridged makes me wonder if it is a lack of understanding that causes these wild statements moreso than a desire to create a strawman.

What is you view on this?

Now obviously, this does not apply to call cases, but what do you think the cause of the majority of these types of statements are?

Edit:
Here are some typical statements I see.

Lack of understanding, purposeful straw man and ignorant ideologies misrepresenting a belief.