In the area of political thought, do you believe that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

[OlderAndWiser]

James Carville-D and Mary Matalin-R, husband and wife

Washington, D. C. is the nation's capital; that is a fact. Facts remain constant and can be objectively verified.

Donald Trump is an idiot; that is an opinion. Nancy Pelosi is an idiot; that is also an opinion. Whether you believe either of them is an idiot, and ordinary person, a genius, a clown who occasionally gets things right, or some other conclusion. . . that is based on your political bias and you predisposition to believe certain things because of your political orientation.

Most of our political beliefs are based on opinions, not facts.

My opinions are premised about some fundamental beliefs I have about the function of government. I want it to intrude in our lives as little as possible, to guarantee our freedoms, and I don't want it to take the place of parents in providing all of our needs; I believe taking care of ourselves is an individual responsibility. I also have an inherent distrust for big government. That leads me to being a conservative/libertarian. But I can't prove that my fundamental assumptions are "correct."

If you want government to provide a safety net and to provide as much as possible for each citizen, then you are willing to sacrifice some individual freedoms and you don't mind intrusions into your personal life. You also trust the government to do its job without corruption or bias. That leads you to be a liberal. And you can't prove that your fundamental assumptions are "correct," either.

I don't think you're stupid. I just think you placed more value on having a safety net and you are more trusting of the government. For two years, I dated a girl who was (and still is) very liberal and I NEVER thought she was stupid for holding her political beliefs.

How do YOU feel about people who disagree with your political beliefs? How respectful are you of people who dsagree with you?

I understand the difference between facts and opinions. Facts are indisputable but reasonable people can disagree on matters of opinion.

If I was wrong, I would change what I think, and then I would be right. . . so I must always be right.

Politics is ALL about opinions. People who disagree with me are not stupid; they simply disagree.

Something else that I'll explain in a comment.

[Agape93]

Nope, we just don't agree. Now if they are objectively incorrect, that's another story. Like how you and I have different politics, but your points are very valid. But on the other hand, when northwestrider keeps claiming things that never happened, then he is just straight up wrong.

[lovelyhoneybones]

No and I’m tired of this mindset. Just because someone doesn’t agree with with the general idea of what is “correct” doesn’t mean they are wrong nor should it make them a target.

[nightdrot]

Well, I have to thread the needle a bit. I work in politics and have very definite views, but those views are rooted in the facts and my understanding of how those facts bear on policy.

If by "wrong" the question is asking if I think an individual has made a correct assessment of the facts and their effects and reached an erroneous conclusion, they yes, that individual is wrong. That is the basis of political - serious political - disputes.

Two people look at the evidence and the data and reach opposing conclusions on the significance of that data. This, by the way, does NOT negate philosophy, which properly understood is the schematic analysis of how we analyze data. prioritize that data and draw conclusions.

Does that mean that I think the other person is immoral - to take it to that level? Even that depends. If someone analyzes the rate of inflation and concludes that monetary policy needs to be loosened while I think it must be tightened, I have concluded that the other person is mistaken. If, on the other hand, someone agrees with National Socialism and believes that Jews are sub-humans, that is immoral.

The example that the author cited in the question - "Donald Trump/Nancy Pelosi is an idiot" - is not really relevant. That is not really politics, but rather an individual's assessment of the politician's character. Likely rooted in their pre-existing political views, to be sure, but it is not politics strictly speaking.

To be sure, particularly in the age of social media and the like, the conflation of politics with personal preferences is apt to be more rooted in emotion than data. However, a character assessment based in part on politics is NOT the same thing as politics and that conflation has been what has made American politics so acidic at the moment.

The bottom line, though, if I disagree with someone on a political question, there is no doubt that I have - if I have not allowed emotion to cloud my judgment - looked at how the other person has assessed the facts and the data and concluded that they are wrong. I. e., that they have drawn the wrong conclusions from the facts - and only time will tell, and likely not conclusively, who had the correct assessment of the data on their side.

The question then, is problematic. Is EVERYONE who disagrees with me wrong? Only time will tell, but in the short term, if I have done my homework, the answer is yes. I have looked at the same body of facts as the other person and drawn an opposite conclusion. I have therefore concluded that their analysis of the data is somehow in error.

It may be that they missed something. It may be that they have not prioritized the significance of the data properly. Then also, it may be about more than the data. Aristotle said that the FIRST questions of politics are, "How ought we to live? What kind of a people do we wish to be?"

Those questions do not lend themselves to purely analytical criteria. Americans typically conclude that freedom is the highest virtue. The Nazis concluded that the dominance of the super-race was the most important value. Suffice to say, at an irreducible level, those are questions where a relativist approach to politics will not conduce to a better world. In short one person is right, the other wrong.

[Lliam]

There are such things as opinions ("I like puppies") and there are such things as objective facts. Facts can be tricky, though. Just because we have objective facts doesn't mean that we have all of them or that our conclusions, based on what we know so far, are unquestionable. For example, the nature of science is to question everything. No theory or conclusion is sacrosanct. That's why it continues to evolve.

By the same logic, it is so absurd to accuse people who question of being "conspiracy theorists". If a narrative is 100% factual, then questioning should be welcomed and false or dead end attacks should be easily proven so by the facts without need for name calling, censorship, or threats.

I welcome different opinions from bright, informed people. I listen to them and can often learn things that I wasn't aware of. I try not to make assumptions.

But, the fact is, many people have beliefs that are based on things like ideology, political partisanship or consensus. I said "beliefs" not "opinions". Those people don't think things through. They don't independently search for information with open minds and employ logic and reason. They can't recognize bias or bullshit but, rather, uncritically believe what people they trust tell them. In other words, they are gullible. They are rubes. Therefore, when discussing certain issues with them, it usually becomes readily apparent that they have nothing of value to say. Discussions become pointless arguments.

I know people who are very bright and highly educated who are completely brainwashed. Yes, brainwashing is a thing. It's the job of mainstream media as well as politicians and national security agencies. Brainwashing techniques are used every day by entities who have the motivation and resources. Look at everything from TV commercials to reasons for going to war. It's always about money and/or control.

People who consume msm to stay informed are like people who consume food laced with mercury in order to stay healthy.

I research and analyze information, and use my reasoning ability to determine what is credible. I develop informed opinions that can be revised or changed as new information becomes available to me. Again, I said "opinions", not "beliefs". Beliefs are acts of faith. They get internalized emotionally. Having them challenged by facts causes cognitive dissonance.

I don't think that anyone who disagrees with me is stupid or even necessarily wrong. But there are times when it's obvious that people are badly uninformed.

Smart people agree with Einstein: 'The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.' Uninformed people, on the other hand, have unshakable beliefs.

[MCheetah]

No, of course not. People merely have different ideas of how to live their life. And the US used to excel at this, given it has FIFTY states in it! You could be as far-left as California or as far-right as Montana, and we'd still used to be able to get along. But not anymore, though...

Although I don't think you realize just how much you can twist facts and opinions to fit a narrative. You can even use data and numbers to distort the truth or lie. Which is why the US is so divided right now. Lemme play Devil's Advocate.

Devil's Advocate: "Washington, D. C. is the nation's capital" is NOT a fact. It isn't the nation of France's capital. And it isn't the United States' capital in the year 1708. Of course, I wouldn't have to mention those caveats to prove you "wrong."

Devil's Advocate: "Donald Trump is an idiot." But an idiot is unable to be competent. They are incompetent at intelligence and life. Donald Trump is extremely successful, wealthy, and became United States president with no political experience. Therefore, he cannot possibly be an idiot.

Do you see it, now? We have entire careers based on lying and bending the truth. Not just the lawyers, either. But American mainstream media "journalists" and "fact checkers" now, too.

When it comes to politics, I've seen some otherwise very educated and knowledgeable people, medical doctors, PhD holders, celebrity astronomers like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, make some very boneheaded hot takes. And while it is of MY opinion that most human beings lack an adequate, livable amount of intelligence to begin with, I also think politics has this special ability to make most people much dumber. I don't think I'm immune to it either (I'm just so smart, even my dumbest level of intelligence is higher than 95% of the population; that sounds pretty arrogant, but I stick by this belief as likely-factual). In other words, I can remain level-headed about politics and not let emotions take over MOST of the time. But still... We're living in Clown World right now.

The world sucks as bad as it does but people in power have taught a civilization how to fight every little opinion and political perspective out there, despite the world being relatively large enough for us to all get what we want. We SHOULD be able to co-exist no matter how far left, far right, apathetic, or nihilistic one is on politics. But when evil powerful people want to own and control everything, co-existence no longer becomes an option. Thus, less and less people will be taught and brainwashed that we cannot "agree to disagree." And more and more political radicals, extremists, and loyal Useful Idiots on the left or right (but let's be honest, most are probably on the far left) will emerge.

[CrazyGirl2]

What do you mean Facts are constant? Washington DC is the nations capital NOW, the first capitol of the United States, was New York City and George Washington gave his inaugural speech on the balcony of the old New Your City Hall. So whereas it may be a FACT today that Washington DC is the capitol, Facts change, they do not remain constant, it USED to be a fact that Barack Obama was president of the United States, but that is no longer a fact… If facts remained constant, then Obama would still be president… hell, Washington would still be president! It USED to be a fact that the US had 48 states, NOW it’s a FACT that the US has 50 states. Facts, like science, change when new evidence as new evidence appears! As for whether I believe someone who disagrees with me politically is wrong… obviously on some things NO. They just have a differing opinion, but on other things, where objective truth is involved, then YES! If I believe that a free trade agreement will damage the US economy, because I’ve read what major economists believe, and THEY conclude that it will severely damage our economy, and someone on the opposite side believes it won’t, then either I don’t fully believe what I do, OR the other person is just WRONG! Something’s in politics are not merely matters of opinion, some things are either right or wrong!

[Shizunk]

The sad part about politics is that we are forced to have opinions on giant complex things we have no business understanding. When we can each make our own choices and those are not be in direct conflict, there is no need for such disagreement. It is only when we try to implement the same idea across an entire nation as a one-size-fits-all solution, then we need to argue to death which exact size we should pick. It will never actually fit all of us, almost by definition.
I recognize this and therefore I do not resent people for being wrong about things even experts have no chance of understanding and for being unable to reconcile conflicting interests where someone will always inevitable be disadvantaged by the decision. There is no solution to politics, as long as politics are relevant in our life.
That is one of many reasons why I am a libertarian. I believe that when we don't have to apply the same solution for everyone and use the iron fist of the government to enforce it, it would be immoral to impose a democratic decree on every individual. For example I can buy blue sandals and you can buy red riding boots and there is no conflict in our choices. As soon as a communist says only brown leather shoes will be available for all of us, we have a problem. The only question in politics should be, what are the things we absolutely 100% can't leave to individual choice. I believe there are none, some other people would like to impose their views on others much more often. Typically they think it's dangerous to not impose them. In this, I do believe I am right and most people are tragically wrong. But in most pragmatic everyday political questions, I recognize there simply are no good answers. Some people are still utterly insane and a danger to society, but there is no one who will be completely right, because that is basically impossible in a democratic system. So ultimately, I am very calm in the face of madness of crowds.

[crg253]

I think the broken 2 party system supported with lots of money to where the bloods and the crips, dems and repubs "contributions" choose or are bought by the 2% that can afford to buy $2000 a plate campaign fundraising meet and greets to meet whoever will keep "we the people" the other 98% media distracts so real changes and problems aren't swept under/passed onto our children and their children's children like they have been since I've been on this deteriorating blue and green marble but have been bought regardless of which spokesperson is elected by the electorial votes that also don't represent the majority and bought who knows when since voting is important when obviously that's a lie when what the votes say the electorial vote go against and oh well 98% us old, disconnected, can't remember the last time they really worked or worried about things the majority or the people that have lost their pride to be American when at 1 time put there life on the line and were not willing to with their words but actually did and died on foreign soil for 10+ years and for what? A country and government that is scared of its own citizens and needs to spy and gather information on cause obviously they know any thing alive when it gets really real fights or flights! And or has the highest imprisoned out of any country! The land of the free where NOTHING at all is free! Where a unlimited plan isn't unlimited and where we give blank checks to companies that kill and hope they don't do it again when the punishment was more of a reward compared to the amount of money/wealth it generated. if i orgasmed every time i punched people in the face i bet i would've been boxing! lol... Anyways yea so long explanation not a novel and i apologize for this much so I'm just gonna "box" now. lol

[globetrotter22]

I expect much younger people to vote on feelings but at some point people need to grow the f*ck up and look at reality. I do expect a level of self control and maturity once people hit age 30 and definitely after age 50.

But when Trump got elected I was horrified to see the old saying “age is just a number” being spot on. I’ve had long term friends and family who were lifelong Democrats and acted like the Adolf Hitler was elected in 2016 despite a presidential policy that had America in the best shape domestically and internationally in decades. Our economy was excellent up until the pandemic. Peace treaties were being signed in the Middle East. A very dangerous situation in North Korea was diffused. We were finally standing up to China.

And yet and yet…. yet people had this deranged fixation on Trumps personality. Not to say he helped himself because he sure as hell didn’t. But this was the first time in my lifetime where i saw people discriminating over VOTERS. Even in 2004 when bush was re-elected i never saw the left go as insane as they did in 2016. Things were much more serious back then too with the Iraq war.

[exitseven]

I used to respect people that had opposing views. I felt that I had more in common with these people than I had differences. Now opposing views are really different. There is not as much common ground anymore. The other piece if this is that nobody talks about the American experience and how we have been shaped over the last 250 years. Americans have an expectation of certain freedoms. Many people have a big problem with the government having access to all their financial transactions. They will push back if forced into taking a vaccine they may think is not completely safe. They do not want to see their way of life fundamentally changed into some socialist dystopia. There is a great deal of polarization and the press does their best to exacerbate the situation. I guess I try to respect other views but as soon as liberals cannot come up with a valid argument to bolster their position they just resort to cheap insults. I have been called a racist and a Nazi. A year ago woman saw the Trump sticker on my truck and followed me into the town dump and called our sitting President a Nazi and called me an ignorant redneck. I wish I could say she was driving a Prius but she was driving an Escalade.

[tartaarsaus]

Define wrong. From my own context, they are wrong because it does not align with the logical steps that make sense to me I make to come to a different conclusion. However, I can obviously assume that since people live in different contexts, have a different social environment, different political influences, different life in general, the considerations given a factual reality are going to be different.


In that sense, no, people are not necessarily wrong for believing something else since the considerations they may make are entirely logical within their own social context if based on facts.


Naturally, lots of people do perceive their opinions to be fact, which inherently complicates it. For example, quite a few academic papers by top economists have shown the optimal marginal income tax rate is likely to be around 80%, while lots of people argue that would destroy the economy. Clearly, we can argue all day about ethical concerns of taxing so high, but the idea that it would destroy the economy is factually incorrect.

[dragoblack]

My opinions are basted on evidence and actions politicians take. A politician will say what you want to hear, or say things in a way to manipulate you to liking their ideals, but their actions speak their truths & real intentions. That's why i thought trump was an idiot in terms of knowing how to do his position, but he is corrupt and silver spooned, which is why he put buisness partners in political seats, and made allies with people on the senate to cover his own ass when he fucked up and to cover up his dirty dealings. Our government got so thrown out of wack because of his and his partners actions that all of the work done since the 90s to help clean up the planet, with regulations that were in place to prevent pollution being amended and voided. Our education system is still garbage with nothing done for the teachers who still pay out of pocket for their class with no tax write off, we almost got into a world war because trump was running his mouth then lied pretending it didn't happen, the wolves that were endangered and just stabilized their population had their protectionremoved by one of trumps buisness partners, because he wanted to hunt wolves & hibernating animals... the list goes on and on. Point is i don't have shouting matches over opinions, but over actions and evidence of corruption, manipulation, and destruction

[Anonymous]

I think its made up of different interpretations of data whether the data is flawed or not. I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the data. In fact, that was how we were able to determine that we don't live in a universe where the Earth is at the center and any deviation from that idea was considered heresy back then.

Politics is basically "we seem to have a problem. Does the problem actually exist or is it just a rumor?

If it is real and we have proof, how should we go about solving it?

Is it an economic issue or is it a cultural issue?

Should we let the state stay out of it or should it intervene?

If the latter how can we do it without violating the documents we promised our citizens we would abide by?"

There's probably more to it than that but that is sort of the process. There are many ways these questions can be abused but thats what the documents are supposed to do, it implies that accountability will be held if it is violated.

[Jaximus-Lion]

I never put effort in politics, because no matter what i say or do will effect politics, i don't vote and so does 11% of the swedish population. The rest which is 89%, they vote and they still get fucked 🤷‍♂️. I don't have any fact to follow that but it's just my opinion. If anyone else thinks am wrong, i just say (fine). I did read about politics here in Sweden and i still don't know shit 🤣🤣🤣 so i keep my vote for something else, like should i buy a new pc game or should i save the money for later.

[t-8900]

I've become so sick and tired of people whole after I've let say their piece they stop. me before giving me a chance to say what it is and why. So I'm just done with political... Like all of it. If people want to fight and kill themselves over these idiots in power then have at it so the people who realize there's more to life than that garbage can get in with forming a better society after the rest of you are done killing yourselves over it. Honestly the amount of time and energy people put into defending selfish a holes in DC who don't even know their name is beyond pathetic.

[jshm2]

Politics is mostly about middle ground and compromise. You deal with me, I'll deal with you and we'll work around the rest.

The problem is that George Bush Jnr screwed up global politics with his pigheaded meanderings after 9/11. Since then, no one has been able to deal with a rational or competent America. Mainly as there has not been one.

[OlderAndWiser]

So. . . In the area of political thought, do you believe that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

[BrosephBrostar]

I got into this argument with someone who, funny enough, simply refused to understand for some reason what I was trying to say a while ago, but long story short, I believe that very few people are truly stupid and can't comprehend something, but in 99% of cases there's some emotional reason why they believe what it is they believe, which in the end comes down to a matter of opinion.

The dirty little secret of humanity is that we're driven by our emotions and our rationality comes second. Once you understand that, most human behavior makes sense.

[BCA6010]

I don't expect anyone who hasn't had an identical set of life experiences to fully agree with me, and I have more respect for someone I don't agree with who is sincere in their values than someone who claims a certain set of beliefs, but doesn't live up to them while expecting everyone else to.

[bonster1984]

If I agreed with you then we’d both be wrong (that’s my favorite saying lol)


But facts are facts, so if I am wrong about a political topic, I don’t mind someone correcting me and explaining the topic at hand as long as they do it respectfully and not telling and putting their hands in my face, by doing that you aren’t helping make your point.


The new thing my family does when we talk about politics together is we only talk about the issues and we don’t use any politicians names or political parties unless absolutely necessary.

[purplepoppy]

Yes I do. It seems the biggest factor in deciding which party to follow is simply to copy your friends and neighbours. Once you've nailed your colours to the mast everything your party supports is right and everything the opposition does is wrong. Is the world square or pyramid? It's down to politics not those stupid global scientists.
And that's what makes you all dumb as fuck, there's no compromise, no respect, no shared values just a tribal need to take a dump on each other.

[Anonymous]

No. Because I believe both parties are WRONG in their own ways. I just happen to agree more (60/40) with one then the other. And the points I agree with I'm more passionate about.
Most Americans don't have a clue how it all works (and that's really not their fault it would be like a second job to try to keep up) and no politician is going to explain it to them. The dumber your followers are the more easily led they are.
In such a climate you get a**holes like OReilly, Carlson, Maddow, Olbermann, etc. Who think they can consolidate it down to a few talking points.
Your avg. Citizen gobbles it up and now they're like a child walking around with a dangerous toy. They start fights with people over something they think that they understand. Because at the end of the day it isn't about what's right anymore. It's about being right.

[Mossberg500]

Are we considered political if we don't buy into the false two-party dichotomy, Elephants and Donkeys (Lemmings?) We are National Revolutionaries.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/jJbWL8zIc4rG/

[OlderAndWiser]

The question is "do you believe that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?"

[Mossberg500]

@OlderAndWiser Read/Listen, and you will have your answer.

People without a natural identity will find an artificial one. Instead of identifying with a natural classification such as family, community, nation, or race, one will identify with a corporate brand, a materialistic political viewpoint, or a commercialized facet of culture. This very dangerous progression has these artificial identities provide the most assured way to strip the nation of liberty. Tyranny seeks to extend from the body, to the mind, and ultimately the spirit. To destroy the nature of man governed by the family, community, and nation, and give it to the boss, the politician, and the celebrity.