There is Validity to Conservative Views Being More Dogmatic
There is Validity to Conservative Views Being More Dogmatic
Since no one is responding:
Saw this same article on reddit. r/atheism or something.
And, yeah, this should be obvious. By the definition of "conservative", this is something you'd expect. They are almost invariably Deotenologists (Kant).
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/deontology
Adherents to deotenological ethics are, by definition, dogmatic. Their tenets can also be referred to as dogmas.
To put that research into perspective, they looked at block of silver and determined that the block of silver is silver. This seems tautological but research sometimes confirms what everyone considers common knowledge. Nothing should be taken as a given which is why we have empiricism and epistemology.
^ Hm.. you taught me a new word. Deontology. Thanks. 馃憜
Yeah, I know it seems obvious, but it's worth discussing...
If you think about the general associations we have with "Liberals" vs "Conservatives," (again speaking generally, because of course there are exceptions): Conservatives tend to be associated with religious thinking, especially old time religion, which is by its very nature very dogmatic. And Liberal thinking is closely associated with Hollywood and the entertainment industry, the arts. But think about what that means. The arts and TV/film industry is all about learning new perspectives, understanding and empathizing with other people, cultures, circumstances, etc. It's the very antithesis to dogma and inflexible thinking.
That's not to say that dogma doesn't bleed into Left thinking, because of course it does. But like the article brings up, there is often at least empirical evidence to back it up (climate change I think was the example used). But that's what's great about scientific thinking is that it doesn't say definitively THE static answer. It compiles the best evidence and draws reasonable conclusions while still remaining open to contrary evidence and is perfectly willing to fold in any new evidence that may affect current thinking.
Originally posted by Surtur
It's not complicated. Liberals seek out the new, conservatives seek to preserve the old. It's a balance and neither is superior 馃憜
Are you sure about that?
Just think about survival of the fittest. Evolution. Is the dogmatic, stubborn species going to be able to adapt to changing circumstances and survive as well?
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
You avoided the question: which one would be more adaptable to change?
Depends. If you go with the extremes on either side the answer is neither. Conservatives can adapt and I'd chill with this dogma stuff because just because a side isn't dogmatic about religion doesn't mean they are dogmatic. Again, if we go by the extremes of either, neither can say "i'm better".
And since you're so dogmatically certain that neither is preferable to the other, if you had to pick a side, which side would you... side with?
And now this makes it come off like this thread is a clumsy thinly veiled attempt to bash one side, but I don't do ultimatums as I share views from both sides. I don't know how I'd react unless I was truly put on the spot with a gun to my head or something.
But mostly, if given true choice, I'd float from one side to the other because both have value. So I do hope I'm wrong about your intent with this thread 馃憜
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Are you sure about that?Just think about survival of the fittest. Evolution. Is the dogmatic, stubborn species going to be able to adapt to changing circumstances and survive as well?
No such thing as evolutionism. It's just a garbage religion. Literally zero evidence for that nonsense except for evolution at the micro-level which really isn't evolutiuon as no new information was added.. Not gonna waste my time arguing it with your brainwashed self.
Change simply for the sake of change is retarded. If it ain't broke, why fix it? Conservative views are far superior.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
No such thing as evolutionism. It's just a garbage religion. Literally zero evidence for that nonsense except for evolution at the micro-level which really isn't evolutiuon as no new information was added.. Not gonna waste my time arguing it with your brainwashed self.Change simply for the sake of change is retarded. If it ain't broke, why fix it? Conservative views are far superior.
Case in point.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
^ Hm.. you taught me a new word. Deontology. Thanks. 馃憜Yeah, I know it seems obvious, but it's worth discussing...
If you think about the general associations we have with "Liberals" vs "Conservatives," (again speaking generally, because of course there are exceptions): Conservatives tend to be associated with religious thinking, especially old time religion, which is by its very nature very dogmatic. And Liberal thinking is closely associated with Hollywood and the entertainment industry, the arts. But think about what that means. The arts and TV/film industry is all about learning new perspectives, understanding and empathizing with other people, cultures, circumstances, etc. It's the very antithesis to dogma and inflexible thinking.
That's not to say that dogma doesn't bleed into Left thinking, because of course it does. But like the article brings up, there is often at least empirical evidence to back it up (climate change I think was the example used). But that's what's great about scientific thinking is that it doesn't say definitively THE static answer. It compiles the best evidence and draws reasonable conclusions while still remaining open to contrary evidence and is perfectly willing to fold in any new evidence that may affect current thinking.
New perspectives is not what Hollywood stands for at all. They stand for making money without any risk.
Bruce Lee had to fight tooth and nail for his place in stardom, because Hollywood mogul's thought he had the look, but his movies were not "Bankable".
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
You avoided the question: which one would be more adaptable to change?And since you're so dogmatically certain that neither is preferable to the other, if you had to pick a side, which side would you... side with?
The side that doesn't exploit people.
Take immigration. The narrative is "Let them in or kick them out."
This is a convenient narrative, because it obliterates any nuance and takes the microscope off the process.
Such as: Who is demanding undocumented immigrants?
How are undocumented immigrants treated?
What risks are there for the general population in terms of bringing in outside diseases.
What risks are there of human traffickers exploiting the system to ship sex slaves and children?
At the bare minimum, the pro sanctuary side isn't demanding they get paid the same as anyone else, get to form a union, get gurenteed protections. It simply isn't part of the conversation, because the leaders of the Democratic party are letting these issues slide in favor of attacks on the opposition party.
This kind of thing means the sleazy exploiting of human beings can continue unchecked, as everyone looks in the other direction arguing pointless issues that never act as restraints on power.
Originally posted by cdtm
New perspectives is not what Hollywood stands for at all. They stand for making money without any risk.Bruce Lee had to fight tooth and nail for his place in stardom, because Hollywood mogul's thought he had the look, but his movies were not "Bankable".
You're talking about the financial profit motive of the industry.
I'm talking about the artists and creative people that produce the art.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
You're talking about the financial profit motive of the industry.I'm talking about the artists and creative people that produce the art.
Is it any different in any other industry?
Does not the lowly employee in "conservative corporate America" have big dreams to break molds and chart new frontiers against the entrenched establishment dinosaurs?
But the fact is, an industry is defined by its leadership. If the executives place profit motives above all else to the point of squashing creativity, then you are no longer in a creative industry.
And the trend has been towards less creativity, less risk, more homogenized content. Something that appeals to as wide a range of audiences as possible, using tried and true methods.