Observation; Good vs Evil (left vs right)

[edy420]

I heard these statements recently,
“There used to be pro-life Democrats” “if you know two or three of a persons beliefs you most likely know their opinions on abortion, assisted suicide and death penalty”

There’s a stigma if your left wing but have a few right wing values and vice versa. If your on either side, you most likely recruit centralist to closer align with your beliefs. Or if your central then your shunned from both sides.

This binary alignment of group identity is just starting to take effect in my country, or at least I’m starting to notice it. If your left wing, then other left wings are good and right wing are evil. Essentially this is a war of Good vs Evil where both sides see themselves as good, and they demonise the other.

Why have we become so streamlined in this binary fashion? Is it because of social media helps us attach ourselves to an establish group identity?

Is this not essentially two religions that co-exist?

Thoughts?

[PaulN]

Definitely social media, which comprise echo chambers where the poorly informed can hear only things that support their prejudices and ignorance. The Net has gone rotten terribly fast.

[bangstrom]

The binary alignment has been strong for nearly as long as I can recall ever since the early 1950’s and it waxes hot and cold but I have never seen it as strong as it is at present. I have little doubt it is strongly media influenced but it predates social media. I remember the heated battles in early fifties during the so called “McCarthy” era in the USA between the anti-communists who saw communists everywhere they looked and wanted them driven from their jobs and homes and country and the moderates who thought the McCarthyites had gone too far and were a threat to democracy.

I see the battles as between the liberal left-wing and the conservative right-wing with the right-wing being the more authoritarian and paranoid of the two but both sides can be quite paranoid towards each other. Social media have their echo chambers with dozens of different micro points of view but I am surprised at how even the echo chambers maintain the same old tribal liberal and conservative divide. I would expect more diversity.

[Brent696]

I have noticed, psychologically speaking, a drive within all men (and women) to be "right", thus advancing to themselves a sense of "goodness". The depth of this can be seen in Jihad-ism, or even the guy who goes postal and kills his work associates claiming something like "Joe deserved it for stealing my peanut butter and jelly sandwich from the break room".

We all want to be good, but we know within our hearts we are not. So to attain this goodness we begin distorting "values", a religious man claims his goodness by stating "I believe", while an liberal abortion supporter claims to be supporting women's health, all the time each is weighing, contrasting, their own position against that of another.

This "weighing", "comparing", "competing", is what in ancient times was understood as Envy, envy is more than simply desiring what another possesses, it is the whole concept, context, of determining one's "worth" by the act of comparison.

In an orchestra, it is necessary for only one instrument to sound a note, and then all the other members tune to that one instrument, in this harmony is attained. As a human being, one among many, what might be that one note that binds us all together, would it not be LIFE, and next to that respect for the life of another. And beyond that perhaps FREEDOM, as I desire a certain amount of freedom should I not respect that of others, one might even see a shadow of this in the constitution. But it should also be rationally understood my desire for freedom does not negate the expectation of life of another. (although this could be extended to the debate on abortion I am actually just speaking on an interpersonal level)

This is all stated to apply to those who would follow, normal citizens trying to live their lives and vote as best they see fit, and having opinions that might sway from the left to the right. We all practice a well rehearsed game of self deception, surrendering the search for TRUTH for the advancement of our own sense of value. Thus we are "shallow" and self centered.

But as for the politicians, I would say 80% at least desire only POWER, they prey upon those who would vote enforcing their self deceptions as they appeal towards their supposed sense of self rightness. They could care less about being Good even as they speak their lies, it is all a game, they are more evil than those who are simply self deceived,

"Good" people are those who seek truth, not a buffer to elevate themselves, this brings harmony, and IGNORANCE about this path brings discord. As a man must know himself in order to act appropriately, so the people of the nation must understand themselves to vote appropriately and to contain those who by a desire for power are drawn to covet positions in the government.

We might say a selfish people end up supporting a selfish government, in contrast those who are less self centered sit down and work together for the good of all.

The internet, selfies, media, advertisers, Hollywood, there are many pressures that support such a selfish lifestyle.
Just a few thoughts,

[edy420]

We all want to be good, but we know within our hearts we are not. So to attain this goodness we begin distorting "values", a religious man claims his goodness by stating "I believe", while an liberal abortion supporter claims to be supporting women's health, all the time each is weighing, contrasting, their own position against that of another.

This "weighing", "comparing", "competing", is what in ancient times was understood as Envy, envy is more than simply desiring what another possesses, it is the whole concept, context, of determining one's "worth" by the act of comparison.

I'm not so sure envy is the right word. Is there any other tools we can use to make what we think is the right choice?

Perhaps you can elaborate on why you think we are envious when comparing what's right. "I believe", and admittedly I was envious of men with faith before I converted... I'm still envious of men who glow with the aura of Christ. But how is it envious to find faith and want that for others? Or how is it envious for an abortion supporter to want woman to have a choice?

This is all stated to apply to those who would follow, normal citizens trying to live their lives and vote as best they see fit, and having opinions that might sway from the left to the right. We all practice a well rehearsed game of self deception, surrendering the search for TRUTH for the advancement of our own sense of value. Thus we are "shallow" and self centered.

I don't vote. Last election I did an online survey to see which politician best represents my values. I scored highest with Winston Peter's, 57%. This meant I should vote for him because we mostly agreed on what the people need as well as immigration. But, by voting for him I was condemning myself as a criminal with regards to cannabis and discipline for children. If i scored 80% with anyone, then i would vote for them, but 57% is not worth voting someone who i disagree with 43%.

Perhaps this is why people are forced to lean more left or more right, because the politics will not represent those of us in the middle.(at least here in NZ) I have to adjust my perspective further right, in order to make a vote. I don't think I'd be shallow or self centered by voting however.

Although I do see your point, by voting I am asking that everyone abide by laws that I support. But isn't that just a part of the political nature? Calling it selfish is an interesting perspective, but it does make sense.. it would be easier to agree if I did vote.

We might say a selfish people end up supporting a selfish government, in contrast those who are less self centered sit down and work together for the good of all.

Essentially this is what I want as a voter. But as an individual I don't have all the tools to investigate all the outcomes when tweaking each and every law. This is why it's important to have politicians who dedicate their lives to knowing the best outcomes. The only problem is corruption. If your right and 80% of politicians are just in it for themselves, then doesn't this defeat the purpose of having politicians at all? When one party says the best outcome for everyone is "x" and the opposition says the best outcome is "y", then this highlights the fact that one of them has no idea.. perhaps they don't dedicate their lives to knowing the best outcome, especially when x and y are exact opposite.

I used to like the idea of voting for individual laws, policies and regulations etc, but it would be too time consuming for the individual public. It would be hit and miss. But then, the way democracy works now, it still seems to be hit and miss. Especially when the contrast of ideology is virtually opposite of each other. You would think that political parties could find out what's best, and agree unanimously. Then the people would agree and vote for the parties based on their minor differences.

For example, all parties agree that murder should be illegal (I think). Parties would differ on how harsh to punish criminals and we could vote based on those minor differences. But most other topics are seemingly opposite. Why?

As voters we are influenced heavily by social media and television etc, I agree. But to such an extent, seems like brain washing.

[Serpent]

I heard these statements recently,
There’s a stigma if your left wing but have a few right wing values and vice versa.

Of what does this 'stigma' consist? How does it manifest?
What are right-wing beliefs and what are left-wing beliefs?
Is there a list you have to sign up for before they let you join a party?

Obviously, if you're running for office under the auspices - with the support, endorsements, funding, advertising, venues and support of that party - you have to adhere to that party's platform. Presumably you were on board with their issues and policies before you declared as a candidate for that party.

As a voter, you can choose up any sides any way you like.

If your on either side, you most likely recruit centralist to closer align with your beliefs. Or if your central then your shunned from both sides.

I don't understand this.

Essentially this is a war of Good vs Evil where both sides see themselves as good, and they demonise the other.

There may be a lot of overheated rhetoric, especially regarding the most contentious issues, but it's not yet a "war" in any sense. Though there is a certain amount of evil afoot - sorry, I cannot bring myself to see locking children in cages as anything else. War may happen - just not yet.
What it is is that the important issues of the day are urgent, or perceived as urgent. They require action - in some cases, dramatic action.
Where there are only two parties, they differ widely in the identification of the most urgent issues and the best way to proceed.

Why have we become so streamlined in this binary fashion?

In the US - Because the core policies of the right are so extreme and destructive that no centrist can in good conscience go along with them. While the Democratic party has moved steadily rightward since FDR, the Republican party has had at least two purges of its moderate membership in that time.
But loyal party members don't switch, they just fade away, or vote for a candidate they see as less extreme
- Because there is so much insecurity, anxiety and flat-out fear that people are looking for "strong" leaders. Outward confidence, simple slogans, tough talk are seen as strength and determination, even if they're groundless.

Social media certainly adds to the problem.

Is this not essentially two religions that co-exist?

No. The policies are more concerned with money - how to collect, spend and regulate it - than with faith.

[edy420]

If your on either side, you most likely recruit centralist to closer align with your beliefs. Or if your central then your shunned from both sides.

I don't understand this

The topic of abortion for example. someone who is sitting on the fence will be influenced by those who are passionately for or against abortion. If they choose pro-choice, they may be exiled from a passionate group of friends who are pro-life or vice versa.

Or the Trump contraversy. Trump supporters can not walk through certain states or cities wearing a MAGA hat, without being threatened verbally or physically.

Its safer to either agree with people who are passionate about politics, or keep your political beleifs hidden in a closet.

No. The policies are more concerned with money - how to collect, spend and regulate it - than with faith.

The policies yes. But the voters themselves beleive that they are right to priorotise their values above the values of all others... Religion in a nut shell.

Both sides claim that everyone else needs to do things the way they want them to, as per the nature of politics. Politics puts forth, the most agreed apon set of values as voted by the general public. Even nuetrality becomes a relgion when you start encouraging others be nuetral. Politics however is forcing your beleifs onto others, is it not?

[Serpent]

If your on either side, you most likely recruit centralist to closer align with your beliefs. Or if your central then your shunned from both sides.

I don't understand this

The topic of abortion for example. someone who is sitting on the fence will be influenced by those who are passionately for or against abortion.

Why? If they don't care, what will those other people say to make them care? How do they get "recruited"?

If they choose pro-choice, they may be exiled from a passionate group of friends who are pro-life or vice versa.

I doubt anyone will go from sitting on the fence to loudly advocating, so their friends might not even notice that they're leaning one way or another. This isn't a standard topic of conversation at every dinner table and lumber yard.

Or the Trump contraversy. Trump supporters can not walk through certain states or cities wearing a MAGA hat, without being threatened verbally or physically.

That's quite a different matter. Very different. Trump is such a huge blight on the American (and world) landscape, I can't imagine being unaffected by his actions.

Its safer to either agree with people who are passionate about politics, or keep your political beleifs hidden in a closet.

Well, sure. Has this not always been the case in politics, economics, race, sex, religion and hockey?

The policies yes. But the voters themselves beleive that they are right to priorotise their values above the values of all others... Religion in a nut shell.

I'm not a big fan of characterizing every subject on which people have strong views as "religion". It trivializes both religion and the labour movement.

Politics however is forcing your beleifs onto others, is it not?

Not if the election is fair and the constitution protects minority rights.
Unless you're on a deserted island, you don't expect to get your own way about everything all the time. Living in society means putting up with other people who don't agree with you, and sometimes being overruled.

[edy420]

Not if the election is fair and the constitution protects minority rights.
Unless you're on a deserted island, you don't expect to get your own way about everything all the time. Living in society means putting up with other people who don't agree with you, and sometimes being overruled.

So, sacrificing your belief, for the faith in another system? Ok.

[Serpent]

So, sacrificing your belief, for the faith in another system? Ok.

Nobody's taken away your belief. Obviously.
Nobody's forced, or even asked you to give up your belief.
Nobody's forced you to keep your beliefs secret. Obviously.
If people find your beliefs unacceptable, stop associating with those people, or they'll stop associating with you. You and they are free to select your friends. In order to have any beliefs, one must give up universal approval - which you never had anyway.

Nobody's making you take on, or profess, or approve the faith of any other system.
Nobody's forcing you to terminate a pregnancy.

The only thing - the ONLY thing - you lose is the right to force your beliefs on other people.

[edy420]

No. When a woman believes that a fetus is just a mass of biological cells she should have the right to terminate. But when the law dictates that her belief is illegal, she is forced to act, based on the belief of others.

When a hunter believes they have the right to hunt any time of the year, but the law says otherwise, again the same is true.

I think it silly that we must stop at a stop sign when turning left because I only have to look one way.

I could come up with a million examples of how we as individuals must sacrifice our belief, for faith in the greater good.

Democracy and religion are more similar than dissimilar. It's a greater good, that has more power when more people beleive in it. It governs the way we live, gives us a code of conduct of which we have faith. Followers enforce it more so than disobey.

The only difference is the lack of a deity. But the "greater good" is worshipped to the extent that followers sacrifice their lives for it (soldier). People trust in it, if not whole heartedly then at least enough to obey. The "greater good" is an established authority that ensues judgement, even on those who are not followers(just like religion ie hell for non-beleivers).

Nobody's taken away your belief. Obviously.
Nobody's forced, or even asked you to give up your belief.

I beleive cannabis is a gift from God, and that it's a crime to lock up users. According to NZ .aw, I must sacrifice this belief, or else be imprisoned.

Nobody's forced you to keep your beliefs secret. Obviously.

Agreed. But if I act on my belief, then I need to keep it secret. My employer would probably fire me if I told him I gave my wife a coat hanger abortion and I'm an avid cannabis user. (PS not true)

If people find your beliefs unacceptable, stop associating with those people, or they'll stop associating with you. You and they are free to select your friends. In order to have any beliefs, one must give up universal approval - which you never had anyway.

Lol this reminds me of a discussion with a methanphetamine abuser. He said he'd been awake 9 days in a row and that he was at a party where everyone smoked it. He believes it should be legal.. are you implying that he should stick to his group of friends and ignore the legality of the drug? He found a group of friends, so he should just ignore the law?

Nobody's making you take on, or profess, or approve the faith of any other system

What if I eleive in socialism, and disagree with a democracy that is susceptible to corruption? My elders tried to create their own currency. They were forced to take on, profess and approve the faith of the government system.

Nobody's forcing you to terminate a pregnancy

Depends on the legality. Some woman are forced to have the child. One party wants to allow it upto birth, the opposition want to make it illegal altogether. You can't have it both ways, in countries where it's illegal, woman are denied appropriate medical assistance.

The only thing - the ONLY thing - you lose is the right to force your beliefs on other people

This contradicts the way the law operates, entirely. The law is, forcing the beleif of the general public, onto each and every individual.

Stating that politics is a religion, is not a point I'm interested in defending. I just think it's interesting, how similar it is, and I struggle to understand it as not being a religion. Apart from the lack of a deity, I don't see any interesting points that refute this, with a high amount of substance.

What I'm mostly interested in, is how people can become so supportive of two opposing belief systems that are set up by the democratic model. You would think that the top two parties would be more similar, rather than drastically opposing.

[Serpent]

Belief and action are two different things.

The law is, forcing the beleif of the general public, onto each and every individual.

Yes. But you as an individual can't. And another individual can't force you to act according to his private belief.
You do not have to sacrifice your belief in order to live in a society: what you have to sacrifice is some of your freedom of action, so that other people also sacrifice some of their freedom of action. That's the whole point of a society. You're not required to like it or to stop thinking it's all wrong.

You're not allowed to do certain things.
But you can go right on believing you should be allowed to do them.

You have to earn the right to do certain other things.
But you can go right on believing you should have those rights automatically.

Some things you might want to do come with conditions.
But you can go right on believing they should be unconditional.

Not all laws, bylaws, restrictions and regulations meet with your approval.
You are free to disapprove of them.
Believe what you believe, regardless of whether you are legally allowed to act upon that belief.
If you disagree with a law enough to vote against it, the law may be changed.
If you disagree with the law enough to break it and suffer the consequences, the law may be tested and the law may be changed.

Your beliefs are free. Your actions have a price.

[edy420]

Serpent, that all applies to religion.

Take my perspective on abortion. I can reason, and come to the conclusion that termination pre third trimester is ok. This is my beleif. However, if I act on it, I will be judged.

I sacrifice my own beleif, for the greater good of Christianity. Your statement did not highlight any differences. It highlights the similarities.

Your beliefs are free. Your actions have a price

In religion, the price is hell. In politics, it's a cell.

[Serpent]

Serpent, that all applies to religion.

No it doesn't. Religious bodies want to regulate your thoughts and feelings, as well as your actions.
Anyway, so what if religion has something in common with politics?

Take my perspective on abortion. I can reason, and come to the conclusion that termination pre third trimester is ok. This is my beleif. However, if I act on it,

How will you act on it? It's what you actually do that is is legal or illegal. The law doesn't care what you think and believe.

I will be judged.

Of course you will! We're all being judged, every minute that another human being is aware of us. Just as we are constantly judging every other person of whom we are aware.
That's part of being free to believe whatever it is you believe.

I sacrifice my own beleif, for the greater good of Christianity.

That's your choice.

[Your beliefs are free. Your actions have a price]
In religion, the price is hell. In politics, it's a cell.

I'd call that a difference. Another difference is that in religion, the wrong belief is also punishable, because gods see right into your soul and have the right to condemn you for whatever they find there of which they don't approve. Secular courts can only condemn you for what they can prove you did wrong. That, too, is a significant difference.
But if you want to conflate the criminal code with canon, government with church, you're welcome to believe that.
It so happens that I don't share that belief and nobody can force me to.

[-1-]

I will be judged.

Of course you will! We're all being judged, every minute that another human being is aware of us. Just as we are constantly judging every other person of whom we are aware.

There is a higher judge than your compatriot. It is a less forgiving, more cruel, and absolutely formidable judge: it is yourself, your conscience if you like. You can't escape the scrutiny of that judge, and when he metes a sentence out on you, you will suffer all its brothh.

[Serpent]

...This binary alignment of group identity is just starting to take effect in my country, or at least I’m starting to notice it. If your left wing, then other left wings are good and right wing are evil. Essentially this is a war of Good vs Evil where both sides see themselves as good, and they demonise the other.

That's largely down to extreme right-wing politicians in the US.
Listen to the rhetoric. What, precisely is being said in terms of good and evil?
It's not a both-sides, balanced situation - though MSM still try it present every issue that way, giving equal air time to reasoned legal argument and biased bilge, as if they were equally valid.

What's happened to the Republican party in the last 40 years is that it's been taken over by big money and the arms trade, which coalition has a certain narrow agenda. They've systematically pushed out any moderate, thoughtful and non-conformist party members, while at the same time enlisting the very conservative factions (commercial interest groups, muscular religion, isolationists, Libertarians, xenophobes, misogynists, homophobes and racists) to their side, and then fixing elections in every possible way at the state level and spreading vile propaganda via a large and heavily financed toxic communications network.
The Democrats are disparate and poorly organized by comparison: they still have members ranging from mid-left to mid-right.
Look at the field of would-be presidential candidates of each party.
Listen to the rhetoric - who is making what accusation against whom; who is calling whom what names?
The language and fact-content are not the same on both sides.

Why have we become so streamlined in this binary fashion?

Because it works! It's worked for every demagogue in the history of the world.
Because it's worked so splendidly in America, the right-wing factions of all the other countries are picking up the strategy, tactics, methodology and rhetoric.

Is it because of social media helps us attach ourselves to an establish group identity?

That group identity is being foisted on simple people by those same factions. They prey on your fears, anxieties, dissatisfactions, frustrations - and on your basest instincts. They campaign on some issue that they know is important to you, make a big show of supporting whatever you want done. But they don't actually deliver on the positives: don't bring the good-paying jobs or security or prosperity. They fob you off with the negatives: persecuting those groups that have been identified (mostly by them) as your enemies. Beating up on gays or immigrants or uppity women appeases some of your bitterness and keeps from from demanding all the other stuff they promised.
They do this every time.

Is this not essentially two religions that co-exist?

What two religions? The far right doesn't give a flying fig about your spiritual beliefs; they're using your emotions as a means to stop you thinking.

Without some reasoned, nuanced and intelligent discussion, there can be no compromises, no solutions. As long as the far right communicates exclusively in slogans and pejoratives, there can be no discussion.
And that''s just how they want it.

[charon]

I don't do beliefs, opinions and ideas, they're a waste of time. You can't run society on ideas, ideas are nothing. People need food, clothes, work, housing, so supply it. That's not an idea, that's a necessity.

Those who waste time arguing over ideas aren't concerned with others. They might look as though they are, but they're not. When other peoples' houses are on fire they argue about ideas. When their own house goes up, suddenly they want action.

I loathe them!

[Serpent]

I don't do beliefs, opinions and ideas, they're a waste of time. You can't run society on ideas, ideas are nothing. People need food, clothes, work, housing, so supply it. That's not an idea, that's a necessity.

So, how do you figure on supplying those necessities to billions of people?

[charon]

I don't do beliefs, opinions and ideas, they're a waste of time. You can't run society on ideas, ideas are nothing. People need food, clothes, work, housing, so supply it. That's not an idea, that's a necessity.

So, how do you figure on supplying those necessities to billions of people?

Sheer common sense and practicality. It has absolutely nothing to do with ideas, beliefs, concepts, or ideologies. You don't feed yourself or your family according to an ideology, you go to the shop like everybody else.

But the whole problem with this world is that it's so chock full of ideologies and concepts, all dividing people and preventing them getting what they need. We could easily feed, clothe and house the world, every single person, but it's governments, religious divisions, nationalism, political policies, terrorism, and all the rest if it, all based on beliefs and concepts, which prevent it.

We give more importance to words (which is all it amounts to) than looking after our fellow human beings. It's a fact.

[Serpent]

... You don't feed yourself or your family according to an ideology, you go to the shop like everybody else.

"Shops" do not exist in an ideological vacuum. They exist in a particular type of social/political organization which has a foundation in some commonly-held ideas regarding property and transactions.

But the whole problem with this world is that it's so chock full of ideologies and concepts, all dividing people and preventing them getting what they need.

The problem with this world is that's it's chock full of people. People have complex brains; such brains generate ideas. They are amply capable of illogical thought, but incapable of no thought.

We could easily feed, clothe and house the world, every single person, but it's governments, religious divisions, nationalism, political policies, terrorism, and all the rest if it, all based on beliefs and concepts, which prevent it.

Sure. All those agencies are supported by large numbers of people, who either share of accept their ideology.

We give more importance to words (which is all it amounts to) than looking after our fellow human beings. It's a fact.

Yes. And it can't be changed without changing the beliefs and ideas that people have regarding their organizations and interactions.

[charon]

I think you're talking for the sake of it. Of course they can change their beliefs but beliefs still divide. Beliefs are irrelevant to organising necessities for people. I don't understand the confusion.

Ideas are fine if we want to write a film or a book, or some other thing, but you don't live your life ideologically; life is real, factual. And those who do live their lives ideologically are causing all the trouble in the world. As well as being half-way to nuts.

I know all the arguments for it - 'My faith gives me guidance', 'My creed gives me purpose', and all the rest of it. Which all implies that without a set of words, or a book, they're completely lost and confused. But they're obviously completely confused with the book anyway, they just think they're not.

I don't know why we can't just be down-to-earth and simple. Get the people sorted out, it's not that difficult. Much easier than going to the moon or something.

Like I said, when you want food you just go to a shop, you don't need an ideology to do it.

[Serpent]

I think you're talking for the sake of it. Of course they can change their beliefs but beliefs still divide. Beliefs are irrelevant to organising necessities for people. I don't understand the confusion.

What confusion? Ideas exist. People have ideas. People act on their ideas. People organize themselves and their activities, their relations and transactions around the ideas they hold.

Ideas are fine if we want to write a film or a book, or some other thing, but you don't live your life ideologically; life is real, factual.

Go convince the youth of Hong Kong that their convictions don't matter.

I know all the arguments for it - 'My faith gives me guidance', 'My creed gives me purpose', and all the rest of it. Which all implies that without a set of words, or a book, they're completely lost and confused. But they're obviously completely confused with the book anyway, they just think they're not.

I didn't say any of that. I said people organize their societies according to a world-view that they hold in common. You can't divide the survival efforts of 7 billion people into individual mindless activity: it is necessary to have a shared concept to work toward.
Robots could do that on sheer logical calculation - and their time will come.
But, right now, all we have is thinking, feeling, social apes who can't get very much done without pooling their ideas.

I don't know why we can't just be down-to-earth and simple.

Because there are too many of us.

Get the people sorted out, it's not that difficult.

At the current population level, it is impossible, except by nations and factions.

Much easier than going to the moon or something.

No. Carrying out a well-defined technological project by cohesive a team of like-minded, like-accomplished professionals is the easiest thing in the world. Organizing disparate, needy, anxious, unstable humans is the hardest thing in the world.

Like I said, when you want food you just go to a shop, you don't need an ideology to do it.

Like i said, in order to have shops, first you must conceive the idea of shops; before which, you have to conceive of an exchange of something for something (barter) and then of exchanging currency for something, which means somebody mush have had the idea of money and ideas about creating and distributing money, and ideas about the value of money vs the value of goods and how you acquire currency to hand over in exchange for the food; i.e. a concept of market economy... That's a lot of ideas behind a modest little shop - and we haven't even touched upon what food is available in the shop, how it got there and how it was produced.
Your loathing of ideas does not render them dispensable.

[charon]

What confusion?

You don't think there's any confusion in the world? Extraordinary. Would we be killing each other if we weren't confused?

Ideas exist. People have ideas. People act on their ideas. People organize themselves and their activities, their relations and transactions around the ideas they hold.

I know. You haven't said anything. In particular, you haven't described the utter chaos this produces. One set of ideas always contradicts another. What do you think all the religious conflicts are about? Or party politics? Or scientific theories? And so on.

Go convince the youth of Hong Kong that their convictions don't matter.

Convictions aren't the same. They don't want to be oppressed by China. That's a totally different thing. Nobody wants to be oppressed and controlled, especially by an ideological regime like the Chinese. It's a Communist country, there's no opposition there.

I said people organize their societies according to a world-view that they hold in common.

And you don't think these societies differ from each other? Or that cultures, habits, traditions, don't divide people? A section of humanity may indeed have a world-view in common (if they do and haven't sub-divided, which is what usually happens) but that world-view is opposed to other world-views.

Because there are too many of us.

We can't be simple because there are too many people? Of course we can, the number of people has nothing to do with it.

Organizing disparate, needy, anxious, unstable humans is the hardest thing in the world.

Why? It's not because they're needy. If you offered them what they needed they'd stop being needy!

Like i said, in order to have shops, first you must conceive the idea of shops

Of course, but the idea of a shop isn't the same as a divisive ideology. In fact, shops are a very good idea. So are washing machines and refrigerators. They are all the result of ideas based on a practical way of improving daily life. But it's not what we're talking about.

In fact, I'm not sure what we are talking about. What are we talking about, Serpent? :-)

[Serpent]

What confusion?

You don't think there's any confusion in the world? Extraordinary. Would we be killing each other if we weren't confused?

I see you've switched rails. OK

[TheVat]

So, Charon, if I'm reading this correctly, you are saying it's not ideas per se, but rather ideologies that are a major source of human woe and misery. But, i gotta ask: isn't the whole range of ideas that are called "liberal democracy," -- religious and sexual freedom, equal rights, justice for all, democratic rule, fair labor practices, tolerance of diversity, social safety nets for the elderly and infirm, etc. -- isn't that, erm, an ideology? Why is it that the nations that are most committed to that ideology are also the nations which, in many many sociological surveys, have the highest rates of happiness and lowest rates of misery? The so-called Nordic Model seems to be especially successful.

[charon]

What confusion?

You don't think there's any confusion in the world? Extraordinary. Would we be killing each other if we weren't confused?

I see you've switched rails. OK

Eh? I said there was confusion in the world. Obviously there's complete confusion! The place is a mess. Anyone can be clear about little things but who is totally clear? No one I know.

[charon]

Vat -

you are saying it's not ideas per se, but rather ideologies that are a major source of human woe and misery

.

Yes, they're one of the chief causes. Others are selfishness and cruelty in various guises. National boundaries have a lot to answer for.

But, I gotta ask: isn't the whole range of ideas that are called "liberal democracy," -- religious and sexual freedom, equal rights, justice for all, democratic rule, fair labor practices, tolerance of diversity, social safety nets for the elderly and infirm, etc. -- isn't that, erm, an ideology?

No, not all of it. People want freedom, rights, justice, freedom from oppression, and so on. That's not an ideology, that's the natural demand of any sane person.

But, if you notice, what is preventing those things? What are those who are fighting for these rights up against? What is standing in their way? Will you answer that?

Why is it that the nations that are most committed to that ideology are also the nations which, in many many sociological surveys, have the highest rates of happiness and lowest rates of misery? The so-called Nordic Model seems to be especially successful.

Because the demand for those freedoms is not an ideology. And, if those societies which most support those freedoms are the happiest, you have your answer :-)

[Serpent]

[I see you've switched rails. ]

Eh? I said there was confusion in the world. Obviously there's complete confusion! The place is a mess. Anyone can be clear about little things but who is totally clear? No one I know.

Only, that wasn't the confusion I was responding to. In fact, that wasn't the subject at all: the subject was ideas being good only for novels and no good in life. Except the good ones. As long as they don't clump together into a coherent ideology... apparently.
I think I made my position as clear as I can.
I never thought I'd ever say this... but....
Read the transcript.

[charon]

Confusion is confusion, it doesn't matter what about.

[Serpent]

Confusion is confusion, it doesn't matter what about.

It matters that this isn't what I have an interest in discussing.