"I'm not a Democrat or Republican, a liberal or a conservative I think for myself!"

what form of punishment should be doled out to people who spit this line out at parties

an ilx account

You just don't get it, maaaaan.

condemned to decades of ever more reactionary governments that protect the interests of a tiny minority of super-wealthy monsters

i would curse them with endless self-sabotaging bouts of rumination and the inability to control their drive to engage in utterly counterproductive "discourse"

But they a) worked so hard for it, b) won it fair and square, c) didn't do anything illegal, d) if you're so smart then why aren't you rich, etc.

xp

Finally, the one US politics thread to make all others fold in shame!

xp

i know man, it's just the politics of envy

The universe is fundamentally fair and balanced, us puny little things just need to readjust our expectations.

it would be fun to watch them write out several politics' threads longhand with a shitty blue bic pen on a very hard surface.

Wow, I feel so much better now, having typed that. The problem was me all along!

xp

whats the deal with americans thinking all politics is "liberal" or "conservative"

Either you're a neoliberal or a neoliberal, what's so hard to grasp.

my politics aren't left or right, they're UP

neoliberal is just a made-up word, unlike other words that are organically grown

anyway, chatting shit is worthless, get armed and get with it

You are now an honorary American.

I play violin, got it right off the violin tree.

Synthesizers are grown in labs

why is it called bell labs when they don't grow bells

I think for myself!"

is obviously self-congratulatory but is

"I'm not a Democrat or Republican, a liberal or a conservative

Really all that bad? There seems a fair bit of merit on saying something like this when asked?

Really all that bad? There seems a fair bit of merit on saying something like this when asked?

― anvil

you mean aside from the implicit hyper-individualism, the prizing of one's own personal beliefs as the only valid consideration, the pride in defining oneself in purely negative, exclusionary terms?

Not really that so much but the way that answering with a label is more likely to close a conversation down (which may be the intention!). Whenever I answer in this kind of way I realize I am often assumed to think things that I don't

Actually I realize I'm not answering the question exactly right. I'm probably meaning more not in terms of not using a label, rather than actively disavowing one

"independent thinker" is self-labelling, self-labelling that is, uh, in practice fairly close to "sovereign citizen".

People who say this are taking their ignorance and lack of skin in the game, and attempting to put it across as above it all intelligence.

"Independent thinker" is as noxious as "X transcends race" or "X transcends genre."

Is there any good answer to such a question that doesn't involve stating party affiliation, or at the end of the day no there's not really any way around it?

It’s a warning sign you’re going to hear something nutty. Often followed up with: “You see, I’m a student of history and history shows us that...”

Is there any good answer to such a question that doesn't involve stating party affiliation, or at the end of the day no there's not really any way around it?

― anvil, Sunday, May 17, 2020 1:53 PM bookmarkflaglink

that's the thing, usually it's not an answer to a question, it's usually just blurted out before a monologue.

Well I think anything that is blurted out is probably best left on the shelf!

the problem is that the dumbest and smartest people are the likeliest to eschew these categories but there are a lot more of the former than the latter

People over here might say, "I'm a Tory" but there's no snappier way to say "I'm a supporter of the Labour Party" than "I'm a supporter of the Labour Party". People don't usually go around identifying themselves that closely with political parties anyway ime.

you mean aside from the implicit hyper-individualism, the prizing of one's own personal beliefs as the only valid consideration, the pride in defining oneself in purely negative, exclusionary terms?

I mean figure conjured in OP is prob some south park worshipping dickhead. but some of this feels uncomfortably close to demanding allegiance to/within some (limited, contingent, constructed etc) prepackaged readily legible modes/ways of being/thinking (or social-identity groups or political movements or whatever). which is pretty exclusionary. (not accusing you personally of this but reacting to wider shit which feels like a closing in of walls which were already way too confining for comfort)

also feels like a lot of different types of shit are getting conflated here itt (incl by me) but idk how to start untangling it

Joe Rogan to thread.

yeah person described in my original post isn't about someone who actually has eclectic political beliefs, but someone who begins every conversation with this argument to moderation as if it makes them a smarter, more discerning human being.

and then within 5 minutes you often find their politics are merely "Devil's Advocacy"

call it the "Well, Actually" party

ime people who announce their thoughtful independence instead of just sharing their thoughts had better be younger than 30, still unsure of their ideas, and trying to put a good front on the incoherence of their politics. the older they are the more this is a strong signal of just wanting to troll the world.

this guy sounds like a real dickbag i think i'll become a sensible liberal technocrat to avoid sounding like him

is this just that game where we're talking about something by pretending to be talking about something else

I don't even own a game

ime people who announce in advance they are sensible liberal technocrats instead of just sharing their ideas are always men.

we had a temp just out of college that we hired to file and do basic data entry. I thought it would be nice to take him to a friday social hour with the rest of the dept. He started asking people if they were Republicans. I was moritified and like "he just got out of college!" We also saw that he was posting lots on his fb that he was balling in his new wall street job. lol.

I've met quite a few of these guys (and one woman) and they were all American. Don't get me wrong, we have our own equally smug twats, probably more in fact, but they don't tend to present themselves this particular way. Think it is probably related to the US news media style which affects this bullshit too.

People who say this are taking their ignorance and lack of skin in the game, and attempting to put it across as above it all intelligence.

Thanks for saving me the trouble of having to post this

It’s a warning sign you’re going to hear something nutty. Often followed up with: “You see, I’m a student of history and history shows us that...”

― Boring, Maryland

"...history is just one damn thing after another."

aren’t these people always conservatives tho

It depends on whether you count libertarian nonsense as invariably conservative.

it is, and they are

The opposite of this - being susceptible to “identity fusion”, seems like a worse trait to me. We can only take our best stab at divining truth and fairness, and it’s probably preferable For individuals to do some of the legwork to just going with what looks like consensus. The way reality is twisting up into a hall of mirrors makes it that much more important. Evaluating something with impartiality doesn’t mean the following actions will be neutral either.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/identity-fusion-trump-allegiance/598699/

Thinking independently is an excellent habit and rather difficult to pursue in practice, as independent thinking of any sort requires greater energy than simply adopting and parroting talking points prepared for public consumption. I have nothing but admiration for those who begin with a principled examination of the facts, a far-ranging survey of the arguments on all sides, and a critical eye for shoddy arguments. This isn't guaranteed to deliver any kind of original conclusions, or even correct ones, but it does require commitment to doing one's best at a high cost in time and resources.

That isn't what is drawing fire here. It is the soi disant preemptive claim to this kind of integrity and thoughtfulness that is so seldom borne out by the subsequent opinions expressed, that it is generally a mark of its absence, not its presence.

the last person i overheard using this line went on to praise michael savage as another example of a brave independent thinker who "tells it like it is."

It means Conservative, ironically

Adorable

It's the card-carrying that bothers me more, of those who claim to be carrying a card that says what they are.

Yes, but the US is weird, you have that registered Democrat/Republican thing.

The person I know who is like this has issues she feels passionately about that span the political spectrum: anti-abortion, pro-science, pro-environment, anti-global intervention (but also pro-military), pro-capitalism, anti-corruption, anti-tax ("if our taxes weren't being used to line fat cats' pockets, then why do we have potholes?"), anti-racism, pro-gun, pro-UBI. She was partially raised by a Libertarian, but was registered Democrat until it became obvious that Hillary was going to be the nominee in 2016. She then switched her registration to Independent weeks ahead of the Maryland primary, knowingly disenfranchising herself. She also holds a grudge against Sanders now and believes him to be corrupt, since he didn't put up enough of a fight about Hillary for her tastes. Voted Johnson instead. Terrified of covid and thinks reopening is a bad idea, but believes that keeping the Tesla factory closed is fascist.

sounds like she should be less passionate

It's the "I think for myself" bit that is impossible to read as anything other than smug, self-congratulatory preening. The first half I don't have a problem with.

The "I think for myself" is the clue that the word "sheeple" is lurking somewhere in the background.

Yes, there's a big difference between someone saying "I don't know what side I'm on" vs "I'm privy to secret knowledge that puts me outside the bounds of a narrow political system."

The first half I don't have a problem with.

Neither do I, I'm not a Democrat or Republican, a liberal or a conservative either.

if you can follow up this statement by explaining the entirely novel political philosophy you've thought up yourself without any reliance on earlier ideas, then it's fair enough.

you must love joe rogan

xp

if online political quizzes made by americans have taught me anything it’s that every person or political position can be placed somewhere on a spectrum between ”very liberal” and “very conservative”

I'm not a Democrat
I'm not a Republican
I am something you can never understand

I would
vote for
you

the absolute worst amateur online political philosophers are the ones who explain to you this amazing thing they've read about called "The Horseshoe Theory"

The person I know who is like this has issues she feels passionately about that span the political spectrum: anti-abortion, pro-science, pro-environment, anti-global intervention (but also pro-military), pro-capitalism, anti-corruption, anti-tax ("if our taxes weren't being used to line fat cats' pockets, then why do we have potholes?"), anti-racism, pro-gun, pro-UBI.

So yeah, this is an extremely uncharacteristic example of the form, it is usually somebody whose views are extremely conventional but who really wants to convince you that in their case those views were arrived at by austere moral computation uncontaminated with any preconceptions or biases, unlike the identical views when held by "partisans"

the left and right both shout at me on twitter when I rhapodise about the status quo

xp uncharacteristic? i've met hundreds of people who think like that

lots of "no no people aren't like this they are actually like THIS don't you see" itt

if online political quizzes made by americans have taught me anything it’s that every person or political position can be placed somewhere on a spectrum between ”very liberal” and “very conservative”

― no (Left), Monday, May 18, 2020 12:13 PM (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I know you've got a shtick going but the most obnoxious "share your results" thing on most of these quizzes is, to the point where a zillion dumb memes have been made about it, a quadrant graph and not one with two poles!

my politics isn’t based on politics unlike you plebs

quadrant thing is also bs

When we have already decided what said people are going to say, its no wonder they never disappoint us!

People never disappoint you?

I never see the original political compass quiz anymore that the libertarians used to show that actually everyone in both parties should join them

it was replaced by the one that shows that actually everyone is a social democrat

I'm not a Democrat
I'm not a Republican
I am something you can never understand

― DJP, Monday, May 18, 2020 1:14 PM bookmarkflaglink

I would
vote for
you

― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, May 18, 2020 1:15 PM bookmarkflaglink

lols

ime these ppl tend to be white conservative (or “libertarian”) males, pretty much any age between 20 and 60, salivating for an opening to “trigger” a lib.

my preferred response is to say “Bernie was my compromise candidate and I really like guns” and just stare at them until they change the subject

(nb this interaction is all in my head bc I honestly can’t remember the last time I had an actual conversation irl with anyone besides my girlfriend)

another good one: “I’m socially liberal but fiscally conservative.”

Collect them all!

I'm socially fiscal but liberally conservative.

The socially liberal fiscally conservative people are the opposite quadrant IMO - those are the libertarians, the type in the OP are socially conservative or moderate and fiscally liberal.

people who say “I’m fiscally conservative but socially liberal” are ime centrists who have issues identifying with either party even though they basically always vote the same way. It’s a performance.

Lots of people are deeply uncomfortable with the idea that their tacit support of an unfair system makes them personally culpable, so they invent non-existent political identities to avoid feeling guilty about that while still benefiting from it.

I think that's a stretch. "lots of people" pay almost no attention to politics at all

Btw i know there are people who legitimately take things issue by issue and have a weird amalgamation of beliefs across the political spectrum.

But the people who make any variation of the statement in my OP usually tend to be sealions or political cosplayers

Or Libertarians that won't identity with the label cos it has "lib" in it

I think a lot of people are libertarian-curious but again, don't want to be associated with any particular party or movement because it seems gauche to them

because it seems gauche to them

A+

the "don't pay any attention to politics" faction is always going to be the largest single group

people who use some of the above and esp. "I’m socially liberal but fiscally conservative" usually seem to not be aware of too much going on but want to cover themselves while not discussing anything.

the "don't pay any attention to politics" faction is always going to be the largest single group

― Wuhan!! Got You All in Check (Camaraderie at Arms Length)

so ok, what's the overlap between these circles:

people who don't pay attention to politics
people who are so taken care of by the status quo political discourse that they have no need to concern themselves with it
people who are so excluded by the status quo political discourse that they have no viable opportunity to involve themselves in it

i self-identify, rightly or wrongly, as the third

firat two have some overlap, third one is a separate thing, however I would suggest that being engaged with political discourse by no means needs to take place within the status quo / mainstream media setting, actually most real discourse takes place outside it.

I would suggest there’s a difference between people who don’t follow “politics” vs people who just don’t follow the news (irrespective of any distrust of media)

guh I need to eat something. Nevermind, Carey on

carry

i self-identify, rightly or wrongly, as the third

self-identification is a matter best left to each self, but my outsider perception is that you find effective ways to involve yourself in the discourse on ilx and I appreciate those efforts.

actually most real discourse takes place outside it.

― Wuhan!! Got You All in Check

yeah but i'm not a true scotsman so i'm not qualified for real discourse

sarcasm aside, i find engaging in any sort of political discourse in a kind, respectful, and healthy manner to be really fucking difficult, particularly since much of the discourse i am exposed to seems to my inexpert opinion to have unhealthy and self-defeating tendencies.

it's all a meta-conversation with me, actually talking about the issues isn't even an option for me at this point, it's just figuring out how to get back to the fucking table. that's diplomacy, it's like playing fucking Risk, every game of Risk I was ever involved in ended in a physical altercation.