Gen Z males and females are drifting far apart in political ideology

[chuft]

[LazyPooky]

This graph doesn't make sense. Where does it come from? From what I learned was that liberal is not the opposite of conservative. It's the opposite of communist. And the opposite of conservative is progressive. All political parties can be divided into a liberal-communist axis and a progressive-conservative axis. The graph is like comparing your left arm to your right leg.

Also, liberalism and conservatism are not an ideology. It is a movement and a disposition, respectively. An ideology belongs to a movement and is based on one or more ways of thinking (disposition).

[chuft]

It came from Financial Times. The article is behind a paywall but here is an archive link

https://archive.ph/PSONZ

Liberal and conservative are definitely used to mean opposites on the political spectrum here (and in the UK), i.e. ideologies. There are of course sub-types within the general groups.

For example the Republican Party is divided between traditional conservatives like Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, Chris Christie, and Mitch McConnell, and the new populists such as Donald Trump, Mike Johnson and Ron DeSantis. Most conservatives are friendly to rich people and business as opposed to poorer individuals or government, but they will use government to restrict liberties, as DeSantis has done repeatedly in Florida.

They often split on priorities - a lot of wealthy educated conservatives are primarily interested in cutting taxes for themselves and ensuring a business-friendly legal environment that favors the rich, while poorer and less educated conservatives are highly religious and want to use government to impose their views on the public (e.g. the recent change in abortion laws). These types, often due to espousing racist or misogynist views, are often frustrated by censorship on social media and claim to want free speech, but at the same time, are the ones trying to remove books from school libraries and restrict school curricula because of their sexual or LGBTQ+ content etc. So they aren't really for free speech except for their own views. Many of them are hostile to democracy and sympathetic to strongmen like Vladimir Putin.


Liberals in general believe government should play an important role in society rather than just corporations and rich individuals. An example where they feel government action is important is climate change. The Democratic Party is divided between traditional liberals like Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, and Gavin Newsom, and progressives like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar.

Traditional liberals tend to be business friendly but also interested in protecting individuals against exploitation by businesses, as well as advocating free speech and raising taxes on the rich. Most Democratic office holders are traditional liberals. Progressives are not well represented in government and tend to be younger people, who are often frustrated that their views are not acted upon by liberal administrations. They are the ones pushing racial, LGBTQ+, and feminist issues as well as wealth redistribution. Progressives, like extreme right conservatives, don't value free speech and think views they find offensive should be censored. They are the driving force behind "cancel culture." Their presence on social media makes them appear much more numerous than they actually are.


In terms of individuals rather than parties, Americans tend to fall into seven categories according to a large 2018 study.


Progressive Activists (8 percent of the population) are deeply concerned with issues concerning equity, fairness, and America's direction today. They tend to be more secular, cosmopolitan, and highly engaged with social media.

Traditional Liberals (11 percent of the population) tend to be cautious, rational, and idealistic. They value tolerance and compromise. They place great faith in institutions.

Passive Liberals (15 percent of the population) tend to feel isolated from their communities. They are insecure in their beliefs and try to avoid political conversations. They have a fatalistic view of politics and feel that the circumstances of their lives are beyond their control.

The Politically Disengaged (26 percent of the population) are untrusting, suspicious about external threats, conspiratorially minded, and pessimistic about progress. They tend to be patriotic yet detached from politics.

Moderates (15 percent of the population) are engaged in their communities, well informed, and civic-minded. Their faith is often an important part of their lives. They shy away from extremism of any sort.

Traditional Conservatives (19 percent of the population) tend to be religious, patriotic, and highly moralistic. They believe deeply in personal responsibility and self-reliance.

Devoted Conservatives (6 percent of the population) are deeply engaged with politics and hold strident, uncompromising views. They feel that America is embattled, and they perceive themselves as the last defenders of traditional values that are under threat.


https://hiddentribes.us/


I think Europe is much different, much more liberal, I've often heard it said that an American liberal would be considered center-right wing in Europe, and a European liberal would be considered a Communist here (basically there is no such thing here). I think you have a LOT more progressives than the US. Progressives here as the study showed are relatively rare, but have had an outsized influence on corporations and academia, which has prompted a conservative backlash - the "culture wars."

Conservatives often try to portray all Democrats/liberals as progressives to label them all as extreme/radical. Liberals and communists are (wrongly) often lumped together by conservative political propaganda here. In reality there are virtually no American communists at all, and haven't been since the 1930's. Democratic administrations tend to be so business-friendly that people from the "politically disengaged" tribe tend to label both parties as more or less the same.


My impression is right wing/conservative ideology has been growing quickly in Europe over the last 30 years, in response to perceived problems from immigration/migration into Europe. I read this comment on another forum (from a European) and found it illuminating.

I read the following with interest 'What I find funny is they are all up in arms about the faintest possibility of a Russian invasion, which, personally, I think the odds of happening are between slim and none, and slim left town, but they are mute on the migrant invasion that, for them, will alter life in Europe far more negatively than anything the Russians are doing.'

If this is an assessment of opinion in Europe it is completely the wrong way round (with the possible exception of Poland) European society is highly vocal and animated about migration The Ukraine war by contrast is a sideshow and nowhere near the top of social discourse or the political agenda.

[boredjedi]

There's only one solution. Activate the cogitators!!!

[chuft]

Look at these lovable characters.






Some see 40K as a right wing setting but to me it's more of a humorous dystopian mishmash criticizing fascism, communism, and religion all at once. The very title "Lord Commissar" gives it away, as Commissars were a Communist invention as part of the revolution against the aristocracy ("Lords"). The idea of a "Lord Commissar" is obviously a nonsensical contradiction. And the Inquisition actually has real chaos demons to justify its existence.

[boredjedi]

All vying for power and dominance over everyone else.

[Fairy-Possum]

This is wild. As a non-american, I've always believed that America is ridiculously over political (it might just be me though, since I'm between passive liberal and politically disengaged) and the ones with the loudest voices seem to be the least tolerant of the opposite side.

I may be missing something, or I may just be stupid, but why do people have to hurt each other over politics? Why is it so much to ask for at least some tolerance. (That is, unless the politics are actively harming others)

Besides, the beauty of humanity is all the differences between people. We can learn so much from each other, appreciate each other's differences, yet people would rather only be around similar people, which can easily turn into ignorance, intolerance and outright hate.

I understand people don't like change (I was the same once), but humans are instinctually curious creatures and we should embrace curiousity.

It's how we discover the things that make us happy, nothing comes from staying stagnant.

P.s this wasn't structured, so sorry if it's a bit messy :-)

[chuft]

You ask a rather broad question, and the answer is both lengthy and complex. The long and the short of it is, it has always been this way. If you study history you see this again and again. The exact form it takes is always different, and it will vary by time and place, but there has never been a land of peace and love in human history, at least for very long. America had a civil war, don't forget, so if you think it's bad now, it was worse in the 19th century. The US was relatively stable in the 20th century while Europe and Asia were wracked by terrible wars and atrocities, although even in the US there were bitter divisions over the Vietnam War in the 1960's, protests against racial segregation, race riots, burning cars, looted buildings.

There are cycles in human beliefs and behavior and America sadly has been heading in a bad direction (cultural tribalism) for a long time, and it has been exacerbated greatly by the Internet. It is becoming politically unstable as it did in 1860. This happens to countries. I can't think of any nation in world history that was able to resist such cycles of instability and division. It's not a question of if a country is going to tear itself apart, it's when.

I could talk about the details of why it is happening this time, but they don't really matter. It happens everywhere sooner or later, in recurring cycles, it's just the way it is. There are tides in history and the US's tide is flowing out. No one can predict the future but I think it is clear US power and stability peaked some time ago and it will never reach those heights again. I think we are headed to a more multipolar world without a superpower on top of the heap. America is destined to diminish, as the Soviet Union, the British Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Arab Caliphates, the Byzatine Empire, the Roman Empire, the Greek Successor States, Pharaonic Egypt, and the Hittites did in their turns, along with countless other smaller powers.


That said, what is going on this time:

It has long been an assumption of American civilization that free speech will always defeat untruth, that the solution to falsehoods is more speech, that the more speech you have, the more inevitable it is that everyone will recognize and agree on the truth. When Internet technology became available to the masses, this assumption was proven to be unfounded. The Internet facilitates disinformation, lies, and propaganda, and truth does in fact not win out. The results have been predictably catastrophic. A lot of people are very angry about things which in fact never happened or are not even true. Huge masses of people are feeling and acting based on incorrect claims. History shows that when people are badly misinformed, they tend to make very bad mistakes.

An obvious example is Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which Putin thought would be over in a couple of days. He was badly misinformed and made a bad decision based on that mistaken impression, and two years later Russia is still bogged down in a brutal war and is suffering from international sanctions, and has lost hundreds of thousands of young men and the best of their military equipment. This kind of mistake - Hitler made the same one invading the Soviet Union, he was badly misinformed about their strength - is common in totalitarian countries because people tend to tell the leader what he wants to hear, rather than the truth, because they are afraid of him.

Free countries have historically suffered much less from this problem. But now it is becoming common in democracies for ordinary people to be extremely deluded because of what they see on the Internet. Due to cultural/political tribalism and Internet technology, they interact primarily with others of their "tribe" - many of whom are anonymous or even foreign agents trying to stir up trouble and who can participate from far away - and hear falsehoods and reinforcement of ever more extreme versions of their beliefs, and distortions of what the other tribes believe and are doing.

These "echo chambers" tend to result in greater and greater rifts between the "tribes." In the end, the people of the other tribe are seen as loathsome, everything they value is wrong, and everything your tribe values is correct. What used to be opinions subject to change, become entrenched beliefs, part of one's identity, leading to self righteousness and what is known as "identity politics" - political beliefs become so central to your identity that you cannot conceive of compromising on them. Compromise on beliefs central to one's identity is seen as a form of self-betrayal - compromising on your sense of self and who and what you are.

The essence of functional politics is negotiation and compromise. When compromise itself becomes unthinkable because it would violate your sense of self, politics cease to function and a country becomes politically unstable. Violence becomes inevitable.

[possessor]

I have no right to comment on this.

[Fairy-Possum]

Meh, who's gonna stop you lol

[Fairy-Possum]

Yeah, the question was pretty vague lol

I was never taught history at school (I dunno why), but just through reading books and stuff, I did realise that it was a cycle that's unbreakable. I see that in my own countries history. As soon as the white folk touched land, fighting and hate broke out between the indigenous peoples and white folk. Same with the intense competition and fighting during the gold rushes, same with WWI and WWII, and so one and so forth.

As for "free" speech, a rule I live by is "Never distort fact to fit your beliefs or agenda". I say this because most time, the truth is twisted to satisfy oneself and others similar (this goes back into the echo chamber idea). Just look at flat eathers. They are so easily disproven, time and time again, and yet, they still refuse to believe, because, well, who likes being wrong! (Seriously, **** those guys)

To be honest, I look at all this through a evolutionary lens, it's not always accurate, but it's in a way I understand.

What I mean by that, is by looking at our closest relatives, living (other great apes) and extinct (other members in the homo genus).

We were very similar to our extinct relatives, physically and socially. So much so, we interbred and frequently mingled. But even since the very beginning, homo sapiens were fighting. We raced towards perfection, we were the first to innovate and the fastest to evolve, leaving our relatives in the dust. Of course, the exact cause of death for them is hotly debated, but no doubt we were involved, somehow.

As for our living relatives, we can see our own social instincts in the great apes, although the slight differences are quite remarkable. Chimpanzees are the closest to use socially. Your response of humans always at war with one another applies to chimps, as well. They are in an ever changing, violent patriarchy, constantly fighting one another, with apes not involved often getting caught in the crossfire. Each clan is different too, some more peaceful, some more aggressive (search up "Bili apes"). Regardless, it's in a chimpanzees (and humans) nature to fight for dominance and the dominance of their clan.

Even then, I see chimpanzee societies as having a much more stable structure. Their patriarchies are an endless cycle of brutality, much like ours, but in the end, they come back together and love and forgive. But for some inexplicable reason, humans just can't do that (despite us being "smarter")(it's probably where I get my, let's be honest, stupid wish of people just loving each other)

It's all so morbid, but a positive thing to think about is situations like these, where people who would have otherwise never known of the others existence can talk about this. Like I said, one of the good things about talking to others is learning new thing. I certainly learnt some new stuff today!





Also, I think I just wanted a reason to flex my animal and evolution knowledge muscles lol





ALSO also, it's weird having Stephanie smilies smile at me whilst I wrote this lol

[chuft]

Well since you are interested in evolution, you may want to look into the origin of the word "meme" and its original meaning. It was coined by an evolutionary biologist. In his view, ideas are similar to genes in that they compete to survive and reproduce, using human brains as their vehicle. These competing ideas are known as memes. It is a much more serious concept than the silly internet jokes that people usually have in mind when they use the term "meme".

The big difference between humans and virtually everything else, including apes, is our brains. They are powerful tools, but they have a vulnerability: the ability to be "infected" by certain types of ideas - memes. These memes have incredibly powerful effects. They can even override the underlying biological instincts to survive and reproduce, and cause the organism to sacrifice itself for the sake of propagating or implementing the meme. People will literally die for abstract ideas, ideological causes, imaginary gods, things that have nothing to do with normal animal survival and reproductive priorities.

Take for example a young religious suicide bomber. His behavior would be inexplicable to any watching animal. He destroys himself, not in a fit of depression, but in a state of zealous excitement, to further the cause of the meme which has infected his brain. He is not trying to get food, or destroy a competitor for physical resources, or defend his family, or attempt to mate. He is destroying himself in the hope of destroying others who do not share his meme - who are uninfected. His behavior does not benefit him in any way, nor any genetic kin of his - it only (possibly) benefits others infected with the same meme as him.

The Internet is exceptionally good at allowing those questing for power - a basic, ape instinct - to infect the brains of millions of other people with memes and make them act against their own self interest, just like the suicide bomber, and to see others uninfected by the meme as their enemies. That is a lot of what is going on right now, across the globe. Propaganda and religion have always been used as tools since the start of civilization for similar purposes, but they pale in comparison to what can be accomplished now via social media.

[possessor]

our brains. They are powerful tools, but they have a vulnerability: the ability to be "infected" by certain types of ideas - memes.

Oh, trust me, unfortunately, not just memes.

[chuft]

I am using term meme in its original meaning, not the "humorous image" meaning.

[possessor]

Ok

[Fairy-Possum]

Meme is definitely a very interesting term, one that can be beneficial or detrimental.

Like the suicide bomber you mentioned. To us, it seems incomprehensible, but to them and similar people, it makes perfect sense.

I see it as rooting from social instincts. We belong to a group/groups that we must protect and preserve. We do anything for the group because we are naturally social. A lot of social animals will sacrifice themselves for their group, but humans take it to the extreme.

Another way I see it is having a fear of being forgotten. As Ernst Hemingway said;

"Every man has two deaths, when he is buried in the ground and the last time someone says his name. In some ways men can be immortal."

Think of those immortal people - Robert J Oppenheimer, Emperor Nero, Christopher Columbus, Leonardo of Vinci and others. You could argue that they created everlasting memes, some worse than others.

People are scared of being forgotten about, so being apart of a meme, or creating one, can make you immortal.



In general, I think memes can be good or bad. They can provide happiness and purpose, or destruction and hate. Either way, the internet has ruined the term and using the term in that context to begin with doesn't make sense to me.