Left vs Right: hatefulness markets

Homepage Forums Theism Left vs Right: hatefulness markets

This topic contains 3 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  Davis 1 year, 2 months ago.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
  • #29790



    Atm I can only cite my perceptions, and propose what may be other people’s.

    I perceive that there is a conservative vs progressive divide wrt reliance on using hate as a motivator, practically by definition: Traditionalists judge anyone rocking their boat, at least wrt societal matters; Progressives preach tolerance of societal variations of beliefs and behaviors. In extreme cases the (imo) reasonable socio-political stereotypes are Left = Revolution and Evolution (and possible orgies!), Right = Absolute Rules and their Enforcement (e.g. zero tolerance), Tradition, What God Wants, and Good vs Evil narratives. Such stereotypes are, practically by definition, “liberal” vs “conservative” wrt how each side feels that society should be free to behave vs be tamed by authority.

    Conservatives have invoked a lot more name-calling than Liberals: Libtard, bleeding-heart, communist, pinko fag, snowflake; characterisations like cancel culture, and so on. What names and characterisations have liberals invented for conservatives? “Faux News”? I want to add to this list for both sides and present them in the Evidence section.

    The liberal answer to conservative radio, Air America, failed to gain enough foothold in the liberal market. Rachel Maddow is a notable exception, and guess what, she’s gay, which (imo) helped her gain a decently large liberal following. Conservatives still have a lock on “inspirational” or enraging radio talk shows.

    Imo, indeed, most media is liberal-minded, especially the non-profit media. Doesn’t it make sense though? Non-profits and bleeding hearts, again practically by definition care about humanity–shall we say they wear this care on their sleeves?, albeit with a few exceptions. (Btw there is a recent trend for news orgs, both leftish and rightish to become non-profit.) Otoh, profit-seeking media, again practically by definition cater to an audience more concerned with short-term (e.g. quarterly) profit than with liberally-oriented “social justice”, government as a service for the poor and underprivileged, and so on.

    Conservative vs Liberal support and roles in both lower and higher educational institutions, among other issues, probably also deserve some consideration here, but this introductory post is already too large.


    • Note the high percentage of liberal atheists. They even tend to believe more strongly in tolerance of religions, as long as those religions do not preach intolerance. Take for example the Satanic Temple; from wikipedia:

    The organization actively participates in public affairs that have manifested in several public political actions and efforts at lobbying, with a focus on the separation of church and state and using satire against Christian groups that it believes interfere with personal freedom.

    • Please tell me if this is just my perception, or if there is probably good data to back this up: Traditionally successful talk shows that use derision of opponents if not outright demonization, at least on the radio, have overwhelmingly been conservative; Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Bill O’Reilly, Fox News personalities in general. I haven’t even heard of half the left-leaning radio show personalities mentioned in wikipedia’s Progressive talk radio entry.

    Hate and demonization just doesn’t sell as well on the left as it does on the right. And note how Trump got elected.





    Sorry Pope but this is full of a whole lot of generalizations. I think my ultimate, and only necessary criticism is that it is a huge mistake to try and make any conclusions based on “left vs. right” other than voting trends or the particular make-up of a current parliament/chamber. Too many generalizations are made, massive differences between players on “one side” are glossed over and it usually leads to a characterization of people jammed into a false dichotomy. Worse is when people say “the problem with the left” or “that’s why I can take rightists seriously”. It’s a criticism of a group of people that don’t really exist and critiquing an enormous group of people for the behavior of a small subsection. In this case you’re critiquing both sides, which is a bit of a double whammy. I know you seem to interchange left/right with progressive/liberal but I still think that doesn’t avoid the serious problems with dividing everyone into two super arbitrary groups like this.


    Simon Paynton

    I think there are generalities but they play out differently in the context of left and right.  From where I’m standing, it looks like the hard left in American universities (and increasingly, British ones) have abolished free thinking and free speech.  But it looks the same on the religious right, too, for different reasons.  This is really a result of tribal behaviour where people are not allowed to breach the strict cultural code.

    A paper found that political extremism is moderately associated with dark personality traits of narcissism, antisocial behaviour and macchiavellianism (manipulative, misanthropic, cold-hearted, immoral).



    Again Simon…conflating the “hard left” with a minority of university students who are woke activists isn’t particularly helpful. While it is true the blockade of university speakers in a few rather liberal universities and a few university professors (almost only in Literary studies, politics, history etc) have to deal with overly active champions of social-justice can go amock…that is hardly a justifiable criticism of “the left”. You’re talking about a subset of a subset of a subset. I highly doubt that a substantial number of people who vote for parties that tend to the left side of the political spectrum support stopping speakers at a university or who get worked up over “cultural appropriation”. I agree it is disturbing but it is also a problem that is entirely utterly blown out of proportion. And what does any of that tell us about the super different subgroups on the left side of the spectrum? Communists? Liberal humanists? Marxists? woke-activists? Mixed system proponents? social-welfare supporters? LGTB+ centred activists? Trans-rights crusaders? Single issue voters? Progressive socially yet conservative economically? And yes you can easily be more than one. The same thing could be said of “the right”. It makes just a little more sense to think in terms of this dichotomy in the United States because you have the Reds and Blues (Dems and Reps) as the only parties people ever really vote for. But even then Democrats are so diverse, literally, the only thing at all they truly have in common is the party they vote for during elections. But again, I think it is as useful as say, dividing the whole world into those who eat meat and those who don’t and start making political/social/ethical generalizations about all of them. What value do you really get from that?

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  Davis.
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.