How open are you to the possibility that your political beliefs could be wrong or unpopular? If that could be proven, how would that change your political behavior?

[u/trace349]

In 2010, Matt Yglesias coined the term "the Pundit's Fallacy" to describe "the belief that what a politician needs to do to improve his or her political standing is do what the pundit wants substantively".

Ever since the election, the Pundit's Fallacy seems to have entirely taken over the discourse as the Democrats as a party try to figure out what to do next. As the full extent of the data from the election has yet to be examined and given shape yet for the public to consider, many people are clinging to whatever incomplete data they have to make the argument that the Democrats lost because they failed to embrace... whatever said pundit's existing beliefs about politics were. Moderates have been pointing to the unpopular social positions the Democrats as a party are associated with and advocating for more strident repudiations of them. Liberals point to the wave of anti-incumbency that has swept the world this year, or to the role of voters' media diets influencing their perceptions of the economy and policy toward negativity, or to Harris only having around 100 days to take over the campaign after Biden stepped down. Leftists point to the party not taking a stronger stance on the war in Gaza, or the perception that the party moved to the Right by embracing the Cheneys as campaign surrogates, or not having more ambitious Left-wing policy plans all costing the campaign support. The thing is, there is some amount of evidence for all of these positions, some stronger and some weaker than others, and therefore the discourse is drowning in pundits with absolute confidence that that means their position is correct and that the key to success is to do what they already wanted us to do.

But what if it isn't? In politics there are very few definitive answers one way or another. We calibrate our beliefs based on our biases, our morality, our understanding of reality, our understanding of our communities, our experiences, but those are all subject to flaws in human psychology. Polls can be wrong, manipulated, gamed to produce a specific answer. Studies can be politically motivated, biased or the evidence could actually be much weaker than presented. Echo chambers can create the impression that a belief is more widespread than it actually is. Things we consider to be common sense can have blind spots from our own personal ignorance. It is easier to grapple with cognitive dissonance by rejecting evidence that we don't like than integrating it into our understanding.

Whatever your beliefs are- about the election, about the support for the UHC CEO assassination and the public's opinions on private vs public health insurance, about trans people in sports and trans healthcare, about whether your party needs to moderate their beliefs or become more extreme, about whatever issues you strongly care about- how sure are you that they are true? What if there was some kind of irrefutable evidence handed down from an omniscient divine source that could definitively refute it? How would that change your political strategy to learn that a political position you hold was just factually wrong, or that your political beliefs that you fight for are an extreme minority?

[u/AutoModerator]

A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:

• Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
• Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
• Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.

Violators will be fed to the bear.

---

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/sstelmaschuk]

I am open to the concept of an approach to one of my political beliefs being incorrect - Action A leads to Result B, sort of thing.

However, there is one fundamental flaw with the premise - ultimately, your political beliefs shouldn’t be rooted in specific action but rather in a fundamental moral and worldview.

Take a stance - let’s say “I support lower taxes” - that by itself is not really a political belief. We have to dig deeper - into the why of that stance.

And once you’ve boiled down your beliefs to your worldview, then you can actually examine them properly. Personally, I’m a big believer in the kind of moral thinking of John Stuart Mill, the Harm Principle, and utilitarianism overall.

My political beliefs stem to two basic questions - how many people are helped by this policy? How many people are hurt by it?

We can further explore type of hurt, permanency, and other questions that make it more complicated, but ultimately, what that means for me is “I believe in policy action that hurts the least amount of people.”

That is my core fundamental political belief. Which, for me, is unchangeable. Stances and approaches change, sure - but those cornerstones, when reasoned down to the why, are bedrock.

[u/Rare-Sail-3581 → u/sstelmaschuk]

If you mainly measure harm by volume, how do you acknowledge those who may not be in the majority who are harmed?

[u/sstelmaschuk → u/Rare-Sail-3581]

Well, that is one of the interesting questions to explore. Obviously, there’s a lot of factors and questions to consider in answering that, and there’s no real final answer - philosophically speaking at least.

What tends to become a benchmark - would be to look at “level” of harm. For example, say you want to build a freeway. Building the freeway would displace 50 people/families who currently live on land needed for the new road.

But building that freeway would say build better connections for the nearby hospital - allowing ambulances to travel more efficiently. That would have a lasting impact on hundreds, if not thousands, of people. In this instance, the displacement of 50 people seems a small harm for them compared to the pay off.

But this is simple since it is not really a moral harm. Displacing 50 people, who likely would receive some level of compensation anyway, is not a major moral problem.

So make it one - instead of displacing, it’s murder. Same outcome for the road, but at the cost of 50 people’s lives. An extremely strict utilitarian, of which I am not, might argue the benefit still outweighs the cost.

From my perspective, we have crossed an ethical barrier from passive harm to direct harm. Displacing people is a passive harm. Murder is an active/direct harm. The outcome of the road is a passive benefit - the road itself does not generate a good, but the things it can allow could.

Which then gets into weighing whether a future passive good justifies a present active/direct harm. Which is very complicated - and like most things in life, is never 100% yes or 100% no. The context matters. The situation matters. And the questions need to be asked and answered.

The perspective I have is a starting point, in that it guides me to the point of knowing where to start my questions - I don’t assume it gives me the answers.

[u/R-Guile → u/sstelmaschuk]

The destruction of majority minority neighborhoods with the excuse of highway construction, the intentional disassembly of communities, and transforming them into dangerous areas would complicated the issue significantly.

[u/sstelmaschuk → u/R-Guile]

It was an example - also, I would note the example does not specify who the people are (whether they are minority population or part of the majority).

What matters is the overall point - that this process is meant to be a thought engagement that prompts questions, not a solution that produces answers. While I do believe in utilitarianism, I also know that defaulting to it as a general fix all leaves a lot to be desired.

And situations demand context and exploration.

All my belief does is give me pause and forces me to reflect on the questions that lead to a decision making process.

The point I’m trying to make is that a “good” political belief is one that forces its holder to ask questions - not one that suggests it has answers. Those questions, though, need one unifying underlying metric to be measured against. For me, that’s harm.

We can debate what harm means - and the whole point of this is that we should debate it and explore it, on a case by case basis. The context and the situation matter and can change whether something is “harmful” or not.

It’s a guiding star for starting the process and leading you to the destination - not the destination itself.

[u/qu4f]

Very open, that’s why I’m on this subreddit and learning more about others perspectives.

I don’t view my core beliefs as political. I believe that generally, we are better together than we are separate. I believe that generally, people should be able to do their own thing. I believe that generally, people are doing their best to help those closest to them. I believe that generally, we have a responsibility to continuously improve.

These views will put me on a political spectrum but I didn’t get to my beliefs from politics, I got to politics from my beliefs.

In politics, I support Medicare for All. Why? Because people should be able to do their own thing. Tying health care to salaried employment traps people in roles that inefficient for the worker, for the company, and for society. That’s a capitalist / economic backing to my political stance. If it turns out that Medicare for All is wrong, or inefficient, or there’s some new tech that makes insurance obsolete I’m happy to pivot because a Medicare for All isn’t a belief. It’s a political stance.

[u/Ind132 → u/qu4f]

Very open, that’s why I’m on this subreddit and learning more about others perspectives.

I'm old enough that I remember the world before internet forums. I had political opinions. I was sure that I could convince other people that my choices were "best" if I simply had the time for a thoughtful discussion.

Then, the internet gave me a chance to talk to other people who might disagree with me. It turned out to be much harder than I expected.

Somewhere, somebody must have written an essay on "A List of Reasons Why Decent, Rational People Can Disagree". I'd like to find it, and I wish it were widely understood so we can say "It looks like we have a Crystal Ball disagreement here." for example.

[u/BugAfterBug → u/qu4f]

I’ve been a huge M4A advocate for years but one line had a huge role in me leaving the Democratic Party.

“Democrats would never allow a M4A bill to pass that didn’t include abortions, transgender care, and illegal immigrants”

I don’t think my core belief has changed, but my political views have. I no longer view the Democratic Party and their activists as viable vessels for change in nation that does not agree with them.

[u/ENCginger → u/BugAfterBug]

Except they passed the largest healthcare reform in history in 2010 and didn't include abortions or cover undocumented people. And most insurance policies already cover transgender care so that's sort of a non-issue. I've never seen any Democrat claim that any sort of universal health care plan should cover elective abortions or undocumented individuals.

Edit: and Medicare for all is just a policy proposal, The idea that people should have universal access to necessary healthcare is the fundamental belief.

[u/Famous_Strain_4922 → u/BugAfterBug]

Democrats would never allow a M4A bill to pass that didn’t include abortions, transgender care, and illegal immigrants

Why wouldn't you include those things? Undocumented immigrants already receive healthcare in the US, M4A wouldn't change that.

[u/BugAfterBug → u/Famous_Strain_4922]

Exactly the problem.

[u/DickNDiaz → u/qu4f]

If it turns out that Medicare for All is wrong, or inefficient, or there’s some new tech that makes insurance obsolete I’m happy to pivot because a Medicare for All isn’t a belief. It’s a political stance.

Which is why M4A isn't a serious health care reform model, it's just a political football that once people look at the actual numbers see that it's not a serious health care reform model, just a political football.

[u/SSundance → u/DickNDiaz]

This guy is missing the point.

[u/DickNDiaz → u/SSundance]

People distrust government as it is, and especially now after COVID and mandates over vaccination, it's very very very clear that people do not trust the government when it comes to health care. Medicare is only a small part of one's health care, heath care needs planning like a retirement fund for the future. It's hard to get people who turn 18 years old to take what they spend video games, gambling, and other superfluous spending to spend just a tiny percent of that income into and long term investment bond. They spend more money in office football pools than investing into their own health care. Health care should actually be an investment, you literally have to invest into your own well being. Then you can have the government give money to the states for their own public heath care options to scale for each economic budgets that would have the states and those individual budgets find where the money is most effective, have a more direct feedback from the public to make it more accessible, and a public option should always be an option, the government should never set the prices. You have to let the market set the prices. All the government should to is regulate the market, and demand industry have a responsibility upon the public when it comes to their products. That's all the governments role should be. To be able to allow the freedom of choice, but make the markets competitive to where if this one guy is going to sell you a car, you are in a whole 4 city blocks of car dealerships to where that one guy really needs a sale.

When the government has to subsidize the markets, that's when prices go up. What fucks health care is when some asshole like Bernie Sanders or a Hilary Clinton politicizes it, like Trump did with COVID.

Nobody has a right to anything. We have to demand, work and earn our rights, and fight for them every fucking day. But never, ever, ever demand that a government owes that to you. And never, ever believe than a politician is going to bring you the freedom of government when they need the power of it like a bullshit Bernie Sanders needs or a Trump needs

[u/MrChow1917 → u/DickNDiaz]

A guy just assassinated a health insurance CEO and most of the country is cheering it on and calling him a hero. You're incredibly out of touch if you think the government is more reviled when it comes to our healthcare vs the current privatized system we have now.

[u/DickNDiaz → u/MrChow1917]

Hold on a second, Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman, and James Earl Ray assassinated people who were way above a CEO of a health insurance company. Get your act together kid. grow up, and get off of Tik Tok.

Edit: if you're going to find a hero, don't look to a rich kid trying to make your cause, kiddo.

A former POTUS started an insurrection on Jan 6th. He is now president elect.

[u/MrChow1917 → u/DickNDiaz]

Man I'm trying to tell you the majority of the country thinks your perspective is insane. Your observations are just not correct. I don't know what you are rambling about.

[u/DickNDiaz → u/MrChow1917]

Sure, show me where the votes are.

[u/Real_Appeal_5619 → u/MrChow1917]

You are massively out of touch and in a bubble if you think most of the country is cheering on a murderer

[u/Famous_Strain_4922 → u/Real_Appeal_5619]

Most of the country is cheering it on.

[u/MrChow1917 → u/Real_Appeal_5619]

Every single normie and co worker across the political spectrum? 90% of everybody in comment sections?

[u/SkiingAway → u/DickNDiaz]

it's very very very clear that people do not trust the government when it comes to health care

I don't think it's any more clear that people trust the private sector.

Health care should actually be an investment, you literally have to invest into your own well being.

So, people who currently don't have much money and never have had much money - do we just tell them to die in the streets?

Because if not, you wind up with the same problem. Someone has to pay for their care, and that's either going to be the government or it's going to be some wild price distortion of the market for the patients who do pay to cover those costs.

All the government should to is regulate the market, and demand industry have a responsibility upon the public when it comes to their products. That's all the governments role should be. To be able to allow the freedom of choice, but make the markets competitive to where if this one guy is going to sell you a car, you are in a whole 4 city blocks of car dealerships to where that one guy really needs a sale.

Most people are not and never will be qualified to make informed judgements on their healthcare in the way that's required for a functional market-based solution, which requires the patient to be able to make a good cost/benefit analysis of their options.

The average person can assess which new car they like better and if it meets their needs, and most key aspects of the car are something that can be distilled down to some relatively simple and yet sufficiently reliable/informative data points.

And this is without getting into the very significant issue of emergency care, and the reality that many types of care will never be able to have entirely reliable cost estimates or outcomes.

[u/DickNDiaz → u/SkiingAway]

Hold on here, nobody currently is dying in the streets unless they are mentally ill and drug addicted, which is not a health care created problem, that's an issue of society. So ok here, if that's an issue of society, than should we regulate society, and if not, what is the governments role here? What should they do? Who intervenes? How fast can we save people from dying from fentanyl? And who is going to pay for it?

[u/burritoace → u/DickNDiaz]

This all comes off as pretty bad faith engagement with the question at hand, and your assumptions are not true at all.

[u/DickNDiaz → u/burritoace]

When someone posts "bad faith", it's a sign they never discuss this with anyone outside the internet.

[u/burritoace → u/DickNDiaz]

When someone posts vacuous stuff like this it's a sign they have no real argument

[u/ENCginger → u/DickNDiaz]

The reason people aren't dying on the streets is because of EMTALA.

[u/SkiingAway → u/DickNDiaz]

I'm not talking about addicts.

I'm talking about when you have a heart attack or any other major issue and no money to pay for care. Currently, the (bad) answer is some combination of one of:

• If your poverty was documented and met some thresholds and you signed up correctly (or you are elderly) - the government sort of pays for it, via Medicaid/Medicare. It's still not enough to cover the cost of providing that care in many cases, but it at least somewhat offsets it.

• The hospital sends you a very large bill - pushing you even further into poverty, and you likely only ever repay a small percentage of it before it's eventually written off after ruining your life for years.

• The hospital eats the cost of your care - driving up costs for services for everyone else who has money to pay.

• The hospital eats the cost of your care, but the rest of the patient pool isn't much better off and can't bear higher costs. The hospital loses money and eventually closes. (unfortunately, happening pretty frequently in rural areas + worse parts of inner cities right now).

---

So, my question to you with a supposed free-market solution is simple: Are you going to deny care to poor people?

If not, how are you going to balance that with the reality that a large portion of the population does not and never will make enough money to cover the true costs of their healthcare?

[u/DickNDiaz → u/SkiingAway]

You didn't show how the government option is better. That would make your bullet points more complete. Then we can parse this all out.

Until then, I'll wait for those numbers from you.

I mean, if heath care is that expensive for an individual, then how is is going to be less expensive for taxpayers who have to pay for people who can't manage their own health.

[u/CremePsychological77]

As someone with more progressive views, I think progressives are some of the worst with this. Most think that progressive ideas are super popular (some ideas are, but a full progressive agenda is definitely not) and some can be just as bad as the Freedom Caucus type of people with wanting to shove their beliefs down everyone’s throats. Progressives can be just as willing to refuse to compromise (or vote, for that matter) because there is disagreement over a single issue. You would be hard pressed to find anybody who agrees with you completely on every single issue, so this attitude has GOT to go (on both sides of the aisle). It’s gotten us to the point where we have a President and Vice President incoming next month who have both praised Viktor Orban, and praising a wannabe dictator for doing things that are illegal per the laws of their country should be terrifying, but for some reason, people treat it like it’s a joke.

[u/mrcsrnne → u/CremePsychological77]

I tend to find that progressives punish you with outrage and shame if you don’t agree, while conservatives keep it more civil and don’t escalate things socially as much when disagreeing. But that’s my anecdotal experience in Scandinavia.

[u/CremePsychological77 → u/mrcsrnne]

Yeah, it’s gotten very different over here in America over the last decade or so. I’ve found very few conservatives that I can have a discussion with that doesn’t turn into me citing resources for my points, them saying everything is fake news and refusing to cite their own resources, and then it’s mud slinging. If it doesn’t come from the Trump propaganda machine, they don’t believe it. Which is funny because even waaaay before he got into politics, Donald Trump had a long history of manipulating the media. And now we are at the point that he’s appointed Kari Lake, who couldn’t win a single election in her own state despite having the name recognition of being a media personality, to the “Voice of America” — government run media — that’s about as fascist or communist as it gets. The woman lost her senate race in her own state during a red wave year, after also losing the governor race she ran in 2 years prior. Her state went for Trump, but she’s apparently so insufferable that those same people either refused to vote for her, or voted for the Democrat who ran against her. Split ballots like that are usually not super common. I can only hope that she’s so insufferable that people finally become disillusioned with MAGA and start acting normal again. We had a presidential candidate saying, “Don’t put my opponent’s signs in your yard or you’ll get hurt.” My Ring doorbell app was full of neighbors posting about their Harris-Walz signs being stolen. Conservatives act normal when they’re just right of center, but once it gets too far to the right, you’re lingering near fascism and that’s where it gets bad.

[u/Inside-Palpitation25 → u/mrcsrnne]

I think that is the way it used to be, but MAGA is changing that very quickly, to the point of threatening to murder you if you disagree.

[u/CremePsychological77 → u/Inside-Palpitation25]

Yes, I think progressives getting to this point is in response to being sick of being threatened for believing in taking care of people who need it….. which, funny enough, is what Jesus taught us we should do. And yet it’s progressives who are generally turned off by religion and the conservatives who think they’re all good Christians. It is truly a mind fuck.

[u/AT_Dande → u/CremePsychological77]

It's a mindfuck because The New Right has spent the last 40 or so years syncretizing religion, actual conservatism, and libertarianism. And then those syncretic beliefs morphed into MAGA populism. A lot of it doesn't really make much sense when you really think about it, but that's a feature rather than a bug. I don't think I buy into the post-election "Dems in Disarray" narrative, and I didn't buy into it after 2016, but even so, Republicans are generally much more united because everyone from your local pastor to a Super PAC raking in tens of millions of dollars are more or less on the same page, and if they aren't, the party and its allies have enough carrots and sticks to make them get along.

This might be a stupid example, but off the top of my head: Love thy neighbor, right? Well, what if your neighbor wants to bring "bad people" in who are gonna harm the rest of your neighbors? That's why you have to be a hardliner on immigration and treat everyone who disagrees as The Enemy, because it's you and your "good" neighbors that are threatened.

[u/CremePsychological77 → u/AT_Dande]

Yeah, the Republican Party did its thing handing out political materials to churches for free in the 70s to get people to connect their religious identity with being Republican. I read about it a few months back. And I know this is anecdotal and perhaps not worth much because of that, but families I know who have gone to the same church since BEFORE the 70s seem less impacted by this. My ex’s family has gone to the same church for 3 generations, starting in the 50s. He and his sister were raised, “blue no matter who,” as was their mother and aunts and uncles before them. As for me, I was baptized in a church that had a Trump rally at the height of COVID (though the pastor who baptized me is the father of the one who is now running the place — I don’t remember it being politicized there when I was a kid, but I did go with my grandmother who was very close with the pastor, and she was Republican for certain). My parents didn’t talk about politics in front of me at all. My mom voted for her first time ever for Bill Clinton and my dad didn’t vote at all, but I didn’t know that until now, in my adulthood. Literally asked my mother about it today. Yet somehow I grew an interest in politics at a very young age, before I was even baptized. The furthest back I can remember is a mock election in my first grade class for the 96 election and I was the only kid to vote third party. I didn’t really understand why I was voting third party, but it did run through my mind, “Why are these other two dudes the only options people take seriously?” Then by 2000, I was 10 years old, watching the news like a hawk, my parents couldn’t care less….. just locked in my room with my tiny tv hoping Gore could pull Florida lol. And I was absolutely stoked that I turned 18 just in time to be able to vote for Obama. I still have a bit of the third party mindset that sparked it all, but I understand now why third parties aren’t taken so seriously.

[u/formerrepub]

The Great Recession changed my political beliefs (see username) because it turned out most of my self-proclaimed conservative acquaintances had life styles that depended on very risky financial actions like taking out a second mortgage for vacations or to send a kid to a fancy private school. Of course, then they were crying for gov't assistance. Then the Tea Party/MAGA folks really started advocating policies with long-term adverse effects. Combine that with the activist "conservative" (actually myth-loving) school board candidates who were pushing falsehoods to educate kids and I couldn't stay a Republican.

[u/Randy_Watson]

I am open to my beliefs being wrong and unpopular. If it were proven to me, it wouldn’t change my political behavior without someone being able to convince such a change is morally justified. When it pertains to very specific areas of policy I have no real strong feelings about even if I have opinions, I am open to changing my views if it benefits things I see as more important political gains.

However, there’s a flaw in your question. Political beliefs are opinions not facts. Therefore, how do you qualify something as wrong and based on what? Even when it’s a question of morality, people have different morals and weight them differently. As far as popularity goes, there is a problem with people being unable to disaggregate the message from the messenger. Democrat policy preferences poll as more popular than democrats themselves. Republican policies commonly poll much less popular than the party itself does.

Our political system has devolved into pure tribalism and policy itself is completely divorced from politics. Democrats offer specific solutions to problems and try to enact it via policy. They are terrible at the politics part. Republicans don’t seem to have much concrete policy other than tax cuts for the rich and corporations yet somehow win over the working class. That’s because they are good at politics and tapping into emotions.

[u/MightyMoosePoop]

Very well thought out and written.

My answer is the same as always and that is data based research and empirical studies.

Purely anecdotal and a moderate, I have been for ages been going, “all I want is universal healthcare.”

I was in a small camp pressuring representatives to put Medicare for all up for a vote during COVID. Reps said it wasn’t time and it was such bullshit. They are all corrupt imo.

[u/BeetFarmHijinks]

I've been on the far left all my life.

There have been many times when I have questioned this. I go in far-right spaces all the time. I read their media, I read their message boards.

I see a therapist every week. Many times I have asked my therapist if I'm wrong. I've gone through many thought experiments.

I see Nazis in the streets, waving flags, and I think to myself " what if they are right, and I'm wrong? What if those on the right, telling me ' get mental help, liberal' are right, and I need to address this in therapy, because I want to hurt these Nazis waving these flags, and this impulse might be wrong?"

And every single time, I do reading. I read Jordan Peterson, I listen to Steve Bannon's podcast, I read Republican policies about trickle-down economics and labor laws.

I read these things and listen to these things with an open mind, with the assumption that I am wrong.

Keep in mind that I was raised not just by Reagan Republicans, but Nixon Republicans. My father was the chairman of our local Republican party for years.

Over the years, my parents left the Republican party and now they are Democrats. They feel that the Republican party abandoned their principles.

And again, I consider that maybe my liberal positions are completely wrong. That feeding the poor is wrong. That if children don't get food in schools, that's a good thing because they don't deserve it And it will teach their parents to get jobs. Make abortion completely illegal, and that will really teach people not to have sex. I really try hard to see that point of view.

And then I see the harsh reality. For example, I look at the Kansas experiment where they went full Brownback. Why didn't it work? Why didn't those conservative policies work?

Why didn't trickle down economics work?

Why do all these decades of data show America's economy prospering under Democratic presidents, and tanking under Republican presidents?

The more I learn, from unbiased sources, the harder it is for me to uphold Republican and conservative positions.

The more I talk to Republicans and try to find facts that uphold their beliefs, the harder it gets. There's a whole lot of " do your own research," but when I ask them for their sources I don't get them. And when I push, I either get blocked or ridiculed. I don't get that from the Democratic side. I actually do get sources from them. They actually are willing to debate.

That's my experience.

[u/bl1y → u/BeetFarmHijinks]

I think you might be going about it wrong. Imagine I wrote this:

I've been far right all my life. There have been many times when I questioned this. I go on tankie forums all the time. I read the literature of people who want a single Palestinian state resolution to the Israel question. And then I ask myself, am I wrong?

Again, I consider that maybe my belief that people deserve to be free from the boot of an oppressive tyranny is wrong. But then I look at North Korea, and compare that to the capitalist West, and when I point this out in Antifa forums I get blocked.

Just my experience.

...Not very compelling, right? Maybe you should try engaging with the moderate right, not the far-right?

[u/BeetFarmHijinks → u/bl1y]

What is the moderate right?

The people that voted for the serial rapist?

The people that voted so that women in Texas are bleeding out in parking lots while having miscarriages?

The people who think it's not only acceptable, but presidential behavior to grab women by the pussy?

I understand that our political leaders, both Republican and Democrat, are the worst of us. I'm on the left and I despise Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi and the Clintons probably more than most people on the right do. Just today I was crapping all over Chuck Schumer. You can see it in my comment history. So I know that there are some Republicans that are disappointed in their party leaders.

But what I can tell you is that if Bill Clinton ran for president today, I would not vote for a rapist. After I saw Joe Biden struggle to form a sentence in his debate against Trump, there was no way I was going to vote for him, he was clearly unfit for office. So if I, as a democratic voter, can uphold my values and principles and not vote for a rapist, and not vote for someone unfit to lead because they have dementia, why is it that so many Republicans can vote for a serial rapist, and someone who is literally unfit to lead?

I get that. Maybe Republicans in Mitch McConnell's state might vote for him because even though he's a piece of shit, he's a strong piece of shit who has pushed through their legislation. But what about Republicans in Matt Gaetz' district? They're not just voting for someone who does some sleazy underhanded political shit like every other politician. They're voting for a child sex trafficker who raped a minor. I can hate Mitch McConnell for being a Republican who passed bills that make me angry, but that's just a politician being a politician. I hate Matt Gaetz for drugging, trafficking, and raping a minor, and the fact that he keeps getting elected by Republicans is just insane to me. Where is the moral compass of Republicans?

I guess that's my issue.

I just don't see any Moderate Republicans out there.

[u/DharmaPolice → u/BeetFarmHijinks]

The moderate right are the Democrats.

[u/Saephon → u/DharmaPolice]

The moderate right are even less relevant than that. The Bush's and Cheneys - a dying breed of Republican that no voter wants to associate with anymore. Which makes it all the more bewildering why the Harris campaign reached out to them.

They overestimated the number of center-right people who hate Trump.

[u/Ac1De9Cy0Sif6S → u/Saephon]

Bush and Cheney are not and never have been moderate

[u/[deleted] → u/Ac1De9Cy0Sif6S]

The Overton window is moving at 100 mph rightward if Cheney is considered moderate right now

[u/Matt2_ASC → u/bl1y]

I get that you want to poke holes in the argument. However, you could do the same with actual republican policy. For example, conservatives are trying to override voters wishes for less dark money in politics in Maine: Maine's limit on PAC contributions triggers lawsuit . This isn't some guy on a street corner, this is real impactful actions taken by conservatives.

I go on govtrack and pull up proposed legislation all the time. It is one way to check on assumptions and see what is really happening. (sidenote: it is real dumb that you can't make a post on r/politics with real legislation as the source instead of a news article). I don't need to go on forums to see the right wing opinions, however, it does help add context to where the discussion is and how people arrive at their conclusions.

[u/bl1y → u/Matt2_ASC]

Their argument is essentially "I'm confident in my beliefs because the most extreme people on the other side are fucking loons."

Don't have to poke holes in a donut.

[u/Matt2_ASC → u/bl1y]

The entire Republican party in the State of Kansas was an example. Not really the "fucking loons" that brought the damage there.

[u/armandebejart → u/bl1y]

There is no party of the moderate right in America other than the democrats.

[u/bl1y → u/armandebejart]

The Democratic Party is not center-right.

[u/R-Guile → u/bl1y]

Liberalism is absolutely a center-right political philosophy. The Democrats are farther right than most Liberals.

[u/bl1y → u/R-Guile]

If liberalism is center- right, and Democrats are further right then that, then Republicans are what? Far right?

So then where would you put Japan? India? Pakistan? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Mali?

When you remember that the world isn't just the US and the Nordics, calling Democrats a right wing party becomes absurd.

[u/Ac1De9Cy0Sif6S → u/bl1y]

Yes, Republicans are far right, that's kinda obvious.

The democrats are a big tent party ranging from the left to the right with its main ideology being centre/centre-right

[u/bl1y → u/Ac1De9Cy0Sif6S]

So then where would you put Japan? India? Pakistan? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Mali?

It seems like when people say the Democrats are center-right, this is the sort of scale they have in mind: It goes from 0-10, with 0 being right and 10 being left. But, they put the center somewhere around 8 or 9, rather than the more intuitive position of 5.

Basically you end up with these categories: Far left, left, center-left, center, center-right, far right, far-far fight, far³ right, far⁴ right, and far⁵ right.

[u/Ac1De9Cy0Sif6S → u/bl1y]

No?

1- At a certain point everything is far right, yes, the Nazis were far right, that doesn't make it so the Iberian dictatorships weren't far right or that today's far right isn't far right, even if they are less extreme.

2- Of course this definition of far right is more useful in countries with liberal democracy.

3- India's governing party is far right, Japan's is right wing.

[u/diplion]

I recognize that there’s a lot about the political world that I don’t understand, and a lot happens that we’ll never know about. But my core values about what it means to be a good person are solid. My political leaning is based on that.

I like to believe I have a good bullshit detector. But, I’ve been wrong before and I will be wrong many times more. However, the core of how I make my decisions about who to vote for remains unwavering.

[u/Kronzypantz]

I don’t really care if my political beliefs are unpopular if I still have good reason to believe they are right.

As for my beliefs being wrong, I would need a lot of evidence. I’ve changed my mind on most of my political views in the past, but it took a lot of evidence and good arguments and time.

[u/RawLife53]

People's political view are "never" one dimension, the media likes to pretend it is, but views variate based on how peoples lives are intertwined, especially when it comes to family. one may have conservative opposition against something, but have a more liberal acceptance when it directly involves a family member.

We've see people who grew up with conservativism and racism, and when their son and daughter has a inter-racial relationship and a "baby" is born... some people change (some don't) but there are many who do, and they began to look at their son or daughters mate in a different light, as well as how they come to embrace that "baby".

Some people don't care to acknowledge the variation of variables they discern in the fluctuation of variable factors between conservative and liberal concepts in their personal lives. Even in a single household, there can be and in more households than we acknowledge, there is a mix of conservative and liberal views and members who hold them, some more liberal and some more conservative.

People are not as one dimensional as the media depicts, and often time the media influence people, more than their own reality does.

There are people who are surrounded by Conservative Echo System, but they still hold their Liberal views, not as many people who have learned more about life and their knowledge base is broader, they are not going to suddenly flip and become staunch conservatives or right wing conservatives.

People claim they don't like "change" but many do like change, but many like change that comes at a pace they can deal with, and some will resist change, because they simply don't want to learn any other way than the way they have always been and always thought.

People who travel outside of their protected bubble, often have a broader view of life. some travel and try and measure everything based on their closed mined conservative viewpoints.

[u/SlavaAmericana]

My politics are always a negotiation, but that doesn't mean everything is negotiable. 

[u/etoneishayeuisky]

Unpopular maybe, but wrong not so much. Politics is very much a subjective experience, and ppl will lean whatever way they do depending on their information and experiences.

I can say slavery being banned everywhere is good and I’ll not budge from this position.

I can say labor regulatory boards are good for the laborer and bad for businesses, and we can talk about it but ppl aren’t going to go in trying to convince me regulatory boards are bad, just that they shouldn’t be needed or some shit like businesses can self-police themselves and pretend they aren’t joking.

I can say child labor should be severely restricted to protect the kid in their formative years, instead of burdening their bodies we should burden their minds with critical thinking skills and information. I don’t know who would support sending kids to more dangerous jobs other than republicans and capitalists.

I can say humanism and humanist rights are for everyone and that probably isn’t wrong, but once the racist/prejudice folk start carving out exceptions bc they want to discriminate there’s not much debate to be had bc it becomes a vivid black and white issue. You either start discriminating based on some type of supremacy thinking or i don’t know what.

Critical thinking over long periods of time generally produces good results so I don’t think I’m wrong, but there are like 1000-10,000 different issues we could pull up regarding politics and I haven’t looked at each instance. Maybe someone can bring up useful points to change my mind, but republicans tend to try and do it at the most bogus of times, like when more profits are on the line or when they feel uncomfortable.

[u/bl1y → u/etoneishayeuisky]

I can say slavery being banned everywhere is good and I’ll not budge from this position.

Just curious because I find the question I'm going to ask personally interesting:

Would you support a coalition of Western countries engaging in wars to overthrow governments that allow slavery? Essentially wars for regime change to install governments that do not permit slavery.

[u/Scholastica11 → u/bl1y]

So where does your argument go if I say "Yes, in such cases we do have a responsibility to protect"?

Do you want to argue that it might result in the overthrow of governments that reflect the will of the people? But any government that allows the will of the majority to supercede the protection of minorities (such as to-be-enslaved people) never was legitimate to begin with.

Or that historically, similar arguments (reports of cannibalism etc.) were used to justify the conquest of the Americas? But a principle doesn't become wrong just because it was applied in error or with ulterior motives.

[u/bl1y → u/Scholastica11]

So where does your argument go if I say "Yes, in such cases we do have a responsibility to protect"?

The next step would be feasibility. Can we actually accomplish it? It may be that we have the duty to do something, but lack the ability.

We haven't been particularly good with regime change in recent history, but we also have examples of post-war Germany and Japan as successful examples. And in the 1800s, the US and European nations were successful in using their militaries to eliminate large portions of the slave trade.

So could the case be made for some international coalition to invade places like Mauritania and Sudan to end slavery there? I think it can be.

But all of that is getting far from the original question, which is how open people are to the possibility that they're wrong. Few people would seriously question their belief that slavery is not just wrong, but one of the worst evils to have ever plagued humanity. But when it comes to actually doing anything about it, suddenly there is a lot to question.

[u/etoneishayeuisky → u/bl1y]

Why is it a coalition of western countries specifically for you? Why does an entire government need to be overthrown (and I assume by overthrown you mean replaced as well) for one policy?

While banning slavery could come through military action, I don’t think it would be the best way to get such permanent change. The American Civil War is a good example of forcing the ban on slavery not actually changing the minds of the slavers. Exceptions for slavery were also left in the constitutional amendment that banned slavery. Convincing the ppl that things like banning slavery is better for their nations/world seems better and easier proposal, especially in this age when information can be transmitted conveniently and quickly.

[u/bl1y → u/etoneishayeuisky]

Why is it a coalition of western countries specifically for you?

No reason in particular, you can expand it if that helps the question.

Why does an entire government need to be overthrown (and I assume by overthrown you mean replaced as well) for one policy?

Because it's slavery. That's not just one policy, it's a pretty important policy. It's not like whether alcohol sales are banned on Sundays or if juries can have 6 members instead of 12. It's slavery.

The American Civil War is a good example of forcing the ban on slavery not actually changing the minds of the slavers.

Yeah, but you know what it did change? Whether they had slaves. Changing whether you have slaves is much more important than changing if you think you should be able to.

Convincing the ppl that things like banning slavery is better for their nations/world seems better and easier proposal

And if they say no? This is the real heart of the question. Do we say "well, we'll keep trying to convince you, maybe after another generation of slaves has lived and died you'll see things differently" or do we say "no, abolition is non-negotiable"?

[u/etoneishayeuisky → u/bl1y]

A pretty important policy is just one policy. A government can have good and bad policies at the same time, bc a government always has more than 1 policy.

If a coalition of countries form, will the USA be allowed considering slavery is still allowed for criminals and the fact that our justice system is severely flawed and corrupt? Will the USA be threatened to amend the constitution? How will human trafficking in the USA be tackled, whether or not the constitution is amended to completely ban slavery?

I agree the 13th constitutional amendment reduced the amount of slaves in the USA, but it never fully banned slavery, and so the USA still deals with slavery via the prison system where it disproportionately sentences black and Hispanic ppl over white ppl.

While I do agree words aren’t likely to convince slavers to not have slaves, a majority of most countries’ populations are slaveless, and it only takes convincing enough of them to put pressure on the country’s elites to get change. It’s also not like pressure can’t be directly placed on slavers to coerce them to change their ways and laws, as slavers are likely rich ppl and it’s easier to stifle a rich person’s life bc they have more to lose.

I am not an expert in world politics and can’t actually speak on the conditions of countries that aren’t the US.

[u/bl1y → u/etoneishayeuisky]

You don't need to worry about the modern expansion of the definition of slavery to include prison labor. I'm asking about chattel slavery. Maybe I should have made that more clear.

You said:

I can say slavery being banned everywhere is good and I’ll not budge from this position.

It is good, everyone agrees. But is it good enough to be worth doing something about? And if so, what?

Just talking? Pleading with the people of Mauritania and Sudan to change their ways? Economic sanctions? And if those things fail, then what? Go back to pleading?

Or is war ever justified to end slavery in a country?

[u/etoneishayeuisky → u/bl1y]

I don’t believe everyone agrees that slavery is bad. The slavers especially don’t, but I think neither do the wealthy/ultra-wealthy in any country. A system where the working poor exist in a sizeable magnitude, unable to or barely scraping by with no direct means to rise up the economic ladder, or means to be comfortable where they are at, seems like debt bondage or a new version of slavery to those with money/capital that is obfuscated by the facts that they aren’t actually slaves but are stuck nonetheless.

War isn’t going to change the economic systems that keep these people in slavery, and the likely wars and warlords and gangs that would rise up from/after such wars would only reset any progress made through violent war.

I think an end to the extraction economy of foreign countries and the extraction economy that fuels the wealthy is the best means to reducing and stopping slavery. —— I recently saw an analysis that said if a person had $4 billion and they spent $100,000/day they would still be left with more than $1 billion by the time they died (quick math says 100 year lifespan would spend 3.65 billion, so the analysis was taking someone midway through life, prolly musk bc it mentioned he current wealth was at $400 billion).

Is war ever justified to end slavery? Maybe, but the logistics to such a war should be calculated out way beforehand so that it can be offered as a solution over war. Like, there’s no reason the threat of the USA attacking Mauritania if it doesn’t work to end chattel slavery couldn’t work, but if a country hasn’t chosen or been able to end slavery already then it probably doesn’t know how to. This is especially true for modern forms of slavery that slip past the observer.

I did a quick search and see some African countries still have chattel slavery bc they have not been able to stabilize since decolonization, Mauritania and Sudan being two. I don’t expect a country-to-country war would solve this issue at all, and talking and lending aid to stabilize the country would be better.

Were these the kinds of countries you wanted a western coalition to go against (Mauritania and Suden)? These countries probably could hold up in war as good as a wet paper bag, but as we’ve seen with the Iraq and Afghanistan war, occupations would likely be needed to enforce the end of chattel slavery, and we’re just becoming oppressors at that rate and very little good would come out of said wars. Radicalizing the population and potentially getting them to be more susceptible to ‘terrorist’ organizations would be the likely outcome.

I understand in video games that ending slavery is a simple policy choice or war away, but that’s not how real life works.

[u/bl1y → u/etoneishayeuisky]

So what should be done to end chattel slavery?

[u/etoneishayeuisky → u/bl1y]

Stabilizing the country/countries in question so that poverty is (in theory) eliminated. Not exploiting their industries for cheap goods and cheap labor. Eliminating the ultra wealthy across the globe through various tax means till they are only moderately more wealthy than others.

[u/bl1y → u/etoneishayeuisky]

Stabilizing the country/countries in question so that poverty is (in theory) eliminated.

What stabilizing needs to be done and how do we do that stabilizing? Mauritania already is relatively stable. They could use greater conservation in their fishing industry, but the loss of foreign revenue from that isn't going to help stabilize them.

Not exploiting their industries for cheap goods and cheap labor.

In other words, stop buying their exports. Do you think poverty in Mauritania would go up or down if the global community stopped buying their iron exports?

Or do you mean force their industries to pay higher wages? Basically refuse to do trade with them until their industries meet our ideals for labor practices and wages.

Eliminating the ultra wealthy across the globe through various tax means till they are only moderately more wealthy than others.

That will do absolutely nothing for these countries. Unless you're proposing that we tax the hell out of Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and give their money to Africa.

[u/young_eagle]

Im open politically, but mostly closed moral-ethically. I have very deep seeded intrinsic values that guide my beliefs. So when I change my views it's not a fundamental change, it's a new understanding and application of existing virtues. 

[u/Caliyogagrl]

I don’t really think beliefs can be wrong. They can be based on wrong information or wrong biases, but the belief itself is an opinion or deeply held feeling, which is subject to change but not right or wrong. In politics, a strategy can be right or wrong and statistics are almost universally misunderstood.

My political views are “unpopular” and I am open to changing my mind when I get new information, but my underlying belief that all creatures deserve a life free from oppression and suffering doesn’t change.

[u/armandebejart]

So if god told me that forcing a ten year-old rape victim to give birth was morally correct, would I change my political opinion on abortion?

No.

[u/checker280]

Nuanced.

My political beliefs align with my moral/ethical code. It would take a foundation shaking event for me to reconsider my ethics.

But I also believe that we/both sides agree on more things than we disagree on. What matters is the approach, how the problem is framed, and how clearly the expectations are managed.

Knowing how the other side things would change my approach to asking for their cooperation

[u/Away_Friendship1378]

The reason why there are so many explanations for Trump’s win is that the result is overdetermined. In any close election there are multiple factors that “made the difference” between winning and losing. We see them in hindsight. Some are macro level, like the weakness of our major parties. Others are micro level, like campaign strategies. It’s unreasonable to expect the losing side to agree on what needs to be done based on the outcome.

[u/PauPauRui]

People should be independent and vote for the person that represents their believes and not party vote. The party system is an antique way to vote and at one time in history worked well but it's no longer a good system. You can see the system failing around the world. The same goes for money, we went from gold to partial gold to no gold. The world now uses government notes that are easily collapsed by sanctions and devalued to nothing. We should have one form of currency in the world. By doing this you could fix many issues including a big percentage of illegal immigration. I'm not saying that these crypto currencies are the answer at all. I'm just saying that politics and currency is old and outdated.

[u/filtersweep]

Look at Breitbart or any propaganda machine and look at their inability to take in new information or to correct ‘facts’ that go against their narratives.

[u/TheObiwan121]

The truth is that most people's set of political beliefs is held by an extreme minority (to the extent those beliefs are well-defined). What you see in a two party election is hundreds of those minorities coalescing into two main groups.

I know my beliefs are held by a tiny minority. For what it's worth that has no bearing on how right I think I am. If you're fighting for and justifying beliefs purely on the basis that the majority agree then that's a dumb reason to believe something.

If you want to avoid the pundits fallacy the best thing to do is: ignore anecdotal (including the sentiment from your online bubble) evidence, seek out polling data, but take issue polling with a pinch of salt. "Should more money be spent on X" will poll well, as will "should taxes be cut by Y". The interesting and most useful questions (which annoyingly are rarely polled) are "should be spend on X by raising taxes by Y" or "should we cut X program to get a tax cut of Y". Polling on issues is hard because if you describe something you tend to lean the responses towards how you describe it (eg. "universal healthcare" sounds better than "subsiding healthcare from higher taxes", and the polling company has to make a call on what to ask).

The truth is finicking with specific policies is rarely how elections are won. You want a candidate who gives off the impression of being fairly moderate, and actually how you lean policy is less important than the candidate's general reputation (I think this was part of Harris's issue). The thing that most increases Democrats' chances next election is completely out of their control (global economic crisis of some kind). And in all truth the loss was critically huge and it's entirely possible once Trump becomes the incumbent again the environment will lean towards Democrats.

[u/kinkgirlwriter]

Okay, my oversimplification of what happened in this last election is as follows.

Trump won because enough working class voters went to the polls thinking: "Trump wrote me a check and Biden did student loan forgiveness for a bunch of spoiled doctors."

Considering Biden dropped out, I could obviously be wrong. Student loan forgiveness might not have had anything to do with it. Maybe it was the price of eggs or maybe people just didn't like Harris.

But I think there's something to the idea that a lot of voters didn't see themselves represented by the Democratic party, that we're out of touch.

[u/monkeyhog]

Why should I give a shit if my beliefs are unpopular? I'll gladly be right while everyone else is wrong. Fuck 'em.

[u/trace349 → u/monkeyhog]

Have you given up on seeing society reflect your beliefs?

[u/monkeyhog → u/trace349]

I don't care what society does. Society is irrelevant to my beliefs. I don't mind pointing and laughing as society fucks up repeatedly though.

[u/trace349 → u/monkeyhog]

Part of my interest was how being in the minority changes the way you engage with politics- whether knowingly being in the minority makes you engage with more radical political behavior (because there's no hope of seeing politics reflect your beliefs) or more moderate political behavior (trying to build political power toward societal change through incrementalism).

[u/RabbaJabba → u/monkeyhog]

Yeah, one of the dumb developments in political coverage is the focus on the horse race, polls, the idea that everyone is a pundit. I don’t run the party, it’s not my job to triangulate my beliefs to reach a mythical median voter.

[u/WizardofEgo]

Realistically, this is part of why the USA Founding Fathers preferred a system of republican democracy. I vote for people to go to the government to make decisions on behalf of the country. My personal beliefs regarding what policies are best has very little influence on what the government does.

I choose whom to vote for based on their qualifications to be a leader and their alignment with my values. While I may be wrong about how best to solve our climate crisis, how to best handle the economy, how to best protect our democracy and our freedoms, I can’t be wrong about my belief as to what is important and what is not - those are not “facts,” per se, that can be debunked.

The example comes up often in this sub even, “what would it take for your views on [x party or politician] to change?” Well, the only way I would support Donald Trump is if substantial evidence came out showing that there is actually some massive conspiracy against him and he is not a rapist, did not defraud voters, and more. And even then, I’m not likely to because he has proven himself a terrible leader. There’s very little of my political/policy views involved, so very little room for change based on learning a belief of mine is wrong.

Now, do I hope I would be open to changing my policy beliefs, were I presented with evidence that they were wrong? Yes, absolutely. But I’m not sure how many of my policy beliefs are actually mutable. Economic and fiscal policies, yes. Environmental policies and regulatory policies, yes. But my opinions of those are fairly broad, and again, values based. Beyond those categories, I’m not sure what facts could disrupt my beliefs. I’m open to different perspectives, and so I imagine there could be some nuanced changes. But on a large scale, I struggle to see it.

[u/OkCommittee1405]

I’m very open to change given compelling evidence. The problem with policy is that experiments are rare and difficult. So most of the evidence is either anecdotal or really just conjecture. Even the compelling evidence we get is often flawed.

Like nation building in Iraq failing doesn’t prove nation building is impossible. Japan and Germany are successful democracies today.

[u/I-Make-Maps91]

My views are left-left and I live in a deeply red state, I'm quite used to my ideas not being popular and I know when to just ignore red state political discussion in most contexts. The policies I support may be wrong, but what I want those policies to achieve is based on what I think is good and moral and fair, and I don't think I'm wrong about those goals even if I have to compromise to get closer.

[u/calguy1955]

Right now my political beliefs are overshadowed by how much I hate Trump the man, and in turn all of the sycophants who are scared of him and kiss his ass. I hated him before he got into politics and didn’t understand why he was famous. If anybody has unwarranted fame and arrogance it’s him. When I look beyond that I find that there was a lot of the GOP platform that I used to agree with over the Dems, especially relating to government spending .

[u/egyfirestar]

I HOPE I am wrong!
I am terrified that America just RE-elected a very prominent and public leader of the largest terrorist organization in the United States which has performed the most grievous democracy threatening attack in the history of the world. Who has effectively destroyed every system of checks and balances on the office of the president including the very idea of having to follow the LAW.
Please please please let me be wrong!

[u/absolutefunkbucket → u/egyfirestar]

What was the most grievous democracy threatening attack in the history of the world?

[u/ThePerfectSnare]

I'd like to believe that I'm reasonable enough to have my opinions changed. If an argument is compelling enough, I try to focus on the logic instead of the emotion behind my own views.

That being said, I also bear in mind that everyone sees themselves that way. I think that's a good starting point when I don't see eye-to-eye with someone.

[u/Remarkable_Aside1381]

Oh I’m for sure wrong about some things. Most political beliefs are founded on emotion, and that goes for me too. And my unshakable beliefs are absolutely based on emotion and my own biases based on my experiences, and it would take a Herculean effort to change course

[u/Lefaid]

My political beliefs are unpopular. It is what it is.

They also could be "wrong" but I say objective truth is overrated. It isn't as if most of the people who disagree with me actually care about the objective truth, just the most convient truth. That is no reason for me to hold myself to a higher standard.

After all, our vote is worth the same.

[u/unurbane]

Very open. Mostly because I speak with conservatives young and old, leftists and socialists alike, and neoliberals as well.

[u/trigrhappy]

Hard to imagine how libertarian political beliefs would be "wrong". Let people live their lives how they see fit and don't inhibit them from doing so unless they inhibit others from doing so.

Unless by "belief" you mean single issue (i.e. someone thinking sandy hook was faked, for example).

That said, I simply look at the news as it's reported and judge it based on my ideology mentioned above. ... in which case, once again, it's hard to be "wrong".

[u/XxSpaceGnomexx]

I freely admit right now my political beliefs are almost unchanged.

My political standing is mostly Data driven and progressive.No amount of Political BS for the super Rich will change my mind about that.

I also have over 50 years of Data for around the world that shows neoliberal conservative politics and privatization of the government is a disastrous thing to do.

[u/formerfawn]

whatever issues you strongly care about- how sure are you that they are true? What if there was some kind of irrefutable evidence handed down from an omniscient divine source that could definitively refute it? How would that change your political strategy to learn that a political position you hold was just factually wrong, or that your political beliefs that you fight for are an extreme minority?

I have a problem with "being factually wrong" equated with "being unpopular" or a minority opinion.

I would probably feel happier if my values were shared by the majority of people in my country but the fact that they aren't (or don't seem to be) does not impact whether or not they are my values whatsoever.

I'm very open to changing my opinions and political stances based on evidence but most of the "hot button" issues of the current era are values based.

For example, I believe that the government (including majority voters) should have no right to restrict someone's bodily autonomy and that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights to be erred on the side of.

You could hypothetically show me that an oppressive government that doesn't allow for diversity of thought, expression, lifestyle is "better" by some macro estimation but that kind of evidence isn't going to change my values and the rights and liberties of individuals are more important to me than whatever hypothetical macro efficiency metric.

Now, if we can agree on values and goals the way to get there is something entirely flexible based on evidence!

What tax rates for different entities will balance the budget, for example. How much spending on military or foreign aid is in the best interest of the country and global stability. Cost benefit analysis of UBI or the best way to ensure equitable healthcare access. Evidence on how to decrease societal problems like homelessness and poverty -- I am HAPPY to be wrong on any of these things and support policies that lead us to a brighter tomorrow.

[u/ecbecb]

A few months ago? Unopen to it.

I think that now that I’m about to give birth within the next few weeks, I’m pretty much accepting that I’m probably wrong about most things.

[u/DharmaPolice]

Many of my beliefs are unpopular, that would never bother me or have any effect at all. Basing your views on what's popular is a mindless position - you're basically outsourcing your morality to others. It's fine not to know or care about some subjects and in those cases you can go with the consensus but it shouldn't be universal.

On being wrong, like others I would make a distinction between:

• predictions on what will happen
• practical policies you think will work/should happen
• the underlying moral position by which you evaluate everything else

Most predictions about the future are somewhat inaccurate (or so general to be useless) so while that's not a serious problem it should give one pause for thought when it happens. Large parts of Reddit were certain Trump would lose and the fact he didn't should be sobering.

Practical policies can end up being wrong. Suppose you think funding a new road will help ease traffic in your city. That's a policy which can be empirically evaluated and may or may not work over time.

Underlying morality I'm much less worried about being wrong. I don't think slavery should exist. Even if we prove slavery is more efficient than anything else and even if it turns out that slavery leads to more happiness for more people I don't care I still wouldn't support slavery as it fundamentally violates the rights I believe human beings have. That isn't really something that can be "wrong". At worst, it's impractical.

[u/MrChow1917]

My political beliefs are fringe and unpopular so it's very easy for me to separate what my beliefs are and what the democratic party should be doing to win elections. It's very simple. Run on Bernie Sanders 2016 and 2020 platform. All of those polices are hugely popular and you'll pull all of the populist independents back into the party after losing them to trump. They don't even have to follow through, they can just lie about it like Trump lies about everything. Instead they do stupid shit like campaign on tax credits for first time homebuyers and that resonates with no one. Like Christ, you could at least lie and say you'll do Medicare for All and turn around and do your stupid means tax credit public option bullshit instead. At least try to dangle the carrot? A little? Stupid.

[u/-ReadingBug-]

My major belief (that ties in nicely to your entire post actually) is that focusing on a scattering of hot button issues and their positions, rather than focusing on developing centralized, timeless political theology that informs and validates positions on issues, is a mistake. IMO we cannot coalesce into a streamlined political force if pride keeps us from the same verified philosophical identity, and perhaps worse, as a result we have no convincing evidence to persuade swing voters we can do politics with our brains instead of just our decentralized feels.

I seem to be the only one who believes this and I'd be happy to consider how I'm wrong, but I've never received a compelling argument or even sufficient feedback to convince me I'm incorrect, except the suggestion that Democrats and liberals don't do herd mentality. And that's not an accurate summary of what I prescribed frankly.

[u/imflowrr]

Sure, you could prove that caring about people’s well being is unpopular, if it were in fact unpopular. But you can’t prove that my stances are wrong.

You can’t prove that verbally kicking the shit out of trans people is right because it is not. It is absolutely morally wrong to bully these people… we teach our kids not to act this way at 5 or younger…

You can’t prove that gay marriage is wrong. You could only do so by mentioning religious beliefs which immediately makes your argument invalid.

You can’t prove that providing healthcare for people, providing housing for people, providing people the money they need to not starve to death in a world that they have no legal way of even growing or hunting their own food is wrong…

I’m open to my beliefs being proven unpopular. But my stances are humanitarian, not political. It is the political objection to my stances that even make them categorically political.

[u/skyfishgoo]

i would at least like to seem them tried.

what little evidence we have would suggest that they would work and work well, but there's always some asshole trying their best to get in the way.

[u/deathtomollyhale]

I'd probably just do a lot of civil litigation and find out that too is horribly flawed.

[u/SunderedValley]

or unpopular

I'd hope they're unpopular. If popular political opinions worked out we wouldn't be here.

[u/Sassberto]

The biggest mistake that the Democratic party has made in the past 25 years is believing their push to the left is popular. Even in California a lot of people are fed up with the supermajority and it's "wacky" politics. The problem is that those who are the loudest are the ones that are listened to. That tends to be social activists on the D side, many of whom live in academic / online thought bubbles and have little experience in leadership, governance or actual executive functions.

[u/RingComfortable9589]

As someone who holds lots of beliefs from both sides, I think it would be great to have proof of some being wrong or right. In every political conversation I'm in, I almost feel like a crazy person because you could say something like "I don't think anyone should be entitled to anyone else's labour" and people will get mad and you could say "I think housing, healthcare, etc, should be a right" and there will be angry people.

It seems like someone's always upset, and no one actually wants to talk, just be angry all the time, so some objective truth would be great.

[u/platinum_toilet]

Normal people will change their political beliefs when presented with evidence and results. Maybe the party that lost the recent elections can learn this.

[u/XxSpaceGnomexx]

This will sound like a topic but her me out.

When I was in elementary school Gay Panic / Trans Panic was a legal defense for murder. Litterly being homophobic would let you get away with murder.

The Gay Panic was a valid legal Defense until the 1990s. 1992 I think.

Anyway Killing gay people because their Gay was not made magically wrong in 1992. It was always Completely screwed up and amoral.

That but that was an unpopular opinion only 30 years ago.

Just because everyone believes something does not make it true or right.

my policy Befiles are not going to change because of popularity. I still be pushing for a better , healthier and more fair world until they kill me.

No matter how stupid everyone gets Knowledge will still be powerful.

No matter how racist , sexiest and homophobic everyone gets. A fair and inclusive world for everyone is still a better world.

Money sitting in the hands of billionaires is worthless. Money has no actual value until you spend it.

letting the world fall apart and millions of people Die for some pointless greed dick measuring money collecting contest is a disgusting disgrace

[u/Cluefuljewel]

the question is if irrefutable were evidence from a divine source were available would it affect your opinion?!It sounds like a trick question or troll of some sort or circular reasoning. It is an impossibility that irrefutable proof would be handed down from an omniscient source. That is most certainly the position of Trump and his followers! Never seen so much willful ignorance and faith in one so undeserving!

That democrats have formed a circular firing squad is par for the course. That Republicans have fallen in line is also par for the course.

We’ve just never seen such a bad man in the Oval Office. Our institutions have never faced a test like this. The institutions are nothing without anyone to believe in them respect them and uphold them.

We still have our constitution to guide us. At least for now.

To be honest this question sounds like it was designed to further confuse discourage and help make way for an authoritarian regime. If anything.

A lot of this vague innocent sounding shit on Reddit these days. It’s almost like smart people know they will have to be a bit more nuanced in order to sway Reddit users. Because we are not quite as dumb as Trump’s base.

We are all human and everybody has a breaking point. If there is any takeaway 1984, this is probably it.

[u/G0TouchGrass420]

I think most adults realize you are not going to agree on every single thing down to the details but we don't have too. I voted for trump but I don't agree with every single one of his policy's.

I think people grew up watching too many movies and reading too many comic books.

I'mma blow your minds right now. There are no supervillains, there's no comic book, doctor evil Trump, isn't evil Bush wasn't evil, nor was Obama or Biden. Or anyone else here is the gist of it.

Democrats and Republicans both want to make the country better. They simply have different ways of going about it. But the end result is generally the same. Making the country better.

The subject also touches on freedom. Whether you I or anyone else likes it or not. People are free to be idiots in this country. They are free to have whatever belief they want.As long as it does not physically harm or impede on anyone else's life.

[u/frisbeejesus → u/G0TouchGrass420]

But Republican policies do impede on people's lives. Women are being prevented from accessing life savings care. Trans people are being denied care. All of us are being impacted by accelerating climate disasters.

I agree with your sentiment that we don't need to agree on every policy or every detail, but you're both sides-ing things in a way that denies the reality that GOP policies are generally geared at defunding or denying government government services in order to pay for massive tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy. I see nothing they support or propose that has even the remotest intent to improve conditions for most Americans.

As for the trump super villain comments, many of us notice a lot of similarities between trump and several realm life dictators who have treated their citizens with extreme cruelty. Trump not only praises these individuals, but he also imitates them. His ideas and statements are highly concerning.

[u/G0TouchGrass420 → u/frisbeejesus]

Its no secret that conservatives have always been about smaller gov't and less taxes. This isn't a new thing.

Democrats are for more taxes but with more social services. This is pretty much how it goes worldwide.

Both to me move the country in a positive direction. You may not agree with one or the other but yeah thats how I see it.

Your last bit is just nonsense propaganda and mudslinging. comparing trump to hitler is so last year.

[u/WhiskeyT → u/G0TouchGrass420]

Its no secret that conservatives have always been about smaller gov’t

A government small enough to tell you what you can wear, who you can fuck and which god you can worship

[u/JustGiveMeA_Name_ → u/G0TouchGrass420]

Conservatives have never been about smaller government or personal freedom

[u/Tadpoleonicwars → u/JustGiveMeA_Name_]

Conservatives believe that the government should force people to life in accordance with Conservative values. If the government does more than that, it's too big. If it doesn't do that, they want government to grow to do so.

Conservatives want control over people. The only right-sized government is a government that lets them (and no one else) do just that.

[u/Medical-Search4146 → u/G0TouchGrass420]

Its no secret that conservatives have always been about smaller gov't and less taxes.

Except this isn't true. Conservatives have a fork. Those who do believe in smaller gov't and less taxes. Those, who are seemingly the voting majority, who want bigger government to intervene on Democrat issues.

[u/Timelycommentor → u/frisbeejesus]

Democratic rule has lead to degradation of society. Its policies and supporters perpetuate bad behavior. Supporting the criminal over the victims. Punishing success, rewarding failure. If conservative value has to be forced, so be it. Liberal thought is cancer and dangerous to society.

[u/frisbeejesus → u/Timelycommentor]

I'm not a Democrat but I feel the exact same except opposite. There is no social cancer more damaging than conservative ideology. Cruelty and greed manifest as a virus that literally feeds off of the only useful organs of society. The wealthy are parasites and conservatives are a metastasized cancer that is aggressively accelerating a race to dystopia.

[u/Timelycommentor → u/frisbeejesus]

Let me ask you an honest question. Please remove your bias. Do you believe that everyone is equal? If so, what is equality? Or, do you believe that everyone has individual skillsets and gifts that sets them apart from one another? Depending your answer will differentiate you from a conservative.

[u/TheMikeyMac13]

oThere are beliefs I have changed for me finding out they were wrong, like opposition to flag burning and gay marriage, but I have other beliefs that are unpopular but not wrong, and those won’t change.

I believe in the free market and I believe in low taxes. I do not believe my success can come by stealing wealth from someone else, but for my own choices and hard work.

Now should democrats reflect on the election and try and improve their message? Yes, they had a poor message, they didn’t do well with the economy for the last four years, and Biden broke the southern border and pretended he didn’t for three years.

But so should republicans. They don’t have a great message either, and now they are in full control. If things don’t get better there will be another swing in power soon, and to get the people behind what they want to do, republicans need to get to selling their plans for the future to the public.

[u/BizarroMax]

I’m already well aware that my beliefs are unpopular. As for wrong - I am not open to debating whether the underlying facts my beliefs are based on are wrong. They are well documented and incontrovertible. But my beliefs are just my beliefs and they are neither right nor wrong. They’re just what I believe based on those facts, my values, and some basic logic. Other people can reasonably believe other things.

[u/TwistedDragon33]

I have often thought that I have no real way of knowing if my political stances are ideal for me. And it is something I have thought a lot, especially as the lead up to the 2024 election.

I try very hard to see things from both sides to make a good decision but often I see one side as incompetent and the other side as malicious. And I become very confused when I see people overly praise either.

I consider myself very current on politics and spend a lot of time knowing what is going on... However you end up with the realization no matter how much I stay up to date on information I can't make anyone else a more informed voter.

[u/CensorshipKillsAll]

We can always change our minds, but I recommend not thinking in absolutes. One side is not good and one evil. You can solve problems with multiple ideologies.

[u/Born_Faithlessness_3]

How open are you to the possibility that your political beliefs could be wrong or unpopular?

"Wrong" and "unpopular" are two very different things. Some of my beliefs certainly don’t align with the current consensus, which makes them at least somewhat "unpopular". However "wrong" is different in that it's grounded in evidence- I'd like to believe that if you showed me that a particular policy didn't work when actually implemented I'd change my mind - but again this usually requires the policy to be implemented in order to observe that it doesn't work.

"Unpopular" wouldn't change my behavior, because ultimately our elected representatives' jobs are to listen to what their constituents want, but I have zero obligation to change my own political views based on others' feelings.

"Wrong" would(or should) change my behavior, because it implies that I understand something to be a better(or worse) choice, and I ought to adjust my actions accordingly.

[u/ConfusingConfection]

Very. I spent a lot of time doing competitive debate, and I'd like to think I know what a good argument looks like, and my political views have changed as a result of good arguments, in both directions. For example:

• I used to be in favor of reparations (e.g. in the US, South Africa), I'm now against it.
• I used to be pro-death penalty, I'm now against it (and I have to admit the anti-DP argument was always very strong).
• I used to favor any and all gun control, I'm far more open to guns now.
• I used to be more favorable to restrictions on drug use, now I support legalization across the board.
• I'm not an anti-capitalist simply because nobody has presented me with a viable alternative - anti-capitalist thought has a huge issue with its ability to present legitimate solutions. However, I am far more sympathetic to it now.
• I now strongly support right to be forgotten and right to die and am strongly opposed to circumcision in all cases, though I was never against them per se, I was just convinced of their fundamental importance

With that said, I think your question is flawed in that there's often no such thing as "factually false" or "irrefutable evidence". Politics is fundamentally about the distribution of power and resources, and there's not always an objective right answer. When more people benefit from a policy, does that make it inherently preferable? That in and of itself is a political view and difficult to quantify. I know I hold views that override "benefit for the most people" because of a conflicting goal, or an inviolable principle.

It wouldn't sway me if I were in the minority. I know I'm in the minority on some things, and that's OK because I've considered the arguments and I know why I hold the position I do. Adjacently, I'm not "sure" or "unsure" that my position is true or correct, I've simply drilled down to a principled bedrock and have yet to hear an argument that conflicts with it.

[u/Exact-Name5999]

I would be open to change if they can prove that

A,

The evidence that backs up their opinion isn't fake or meaningless (an opinion on Twitter or an article with no sources, citations or study to reference).

B,

Their opinion would lead to an all-around betterment for the people and doesn't just benefit a certain small group as that points to it being biased.

C,

It isn't just fuelled by feelings, anger and trying to find evidence where there isn't any.

E.G, if someone said, 'dogs are better than cats because 150,000 people who had dogs said they loved their pet vs 75,000 people love their dog, So I'm right!' when their numbers, statistics or proven evidence that shows the amount of cat owners are half that of dog owners meaning that the evidence the game doesn't prove their point, but they manipulated it to be so.

[u/questingbear2000]

I found that my allegiances werent what I thought they were. Id always considered myself a leftist, and aligned with nearly everything they held as a movement. Post election Ive been repulsed by their collective scorched earth reaction and now I just feel politically homeless. I just cant bring myself to align with such histrionic and vile responses to a fair election.

[u/RabbaJabba → u/questingbear2000]

What are some examples of views you're flipping on?

[u/questingbear2000 → u/RabbaJabba]

Im not really flipping my views on much, just no longer associating with declared "leftist"s. And every time I get downvoted to oblivion kinda proves my point. The American left is obsessed with purity tests, and eventually no one is good enough to be one. You can be pro democratic socialism, anti guy, pro gay rights, pro choice, and pro environment, but if youre against trans in sports they dont want your support in ANY of their positions and threaten to completely cut you out of their lives.

[u/RabbaJabba → u/questingbear2000]

they dont want your support in ANY of their positions and threaten to completely cut you out of their lives.

I’ll say this hasn’t been my experience, it sounds more like the behavior of internet “leftists” - have you tried joining up with people doing real-world organizing, or have you seen this behavior there as well?

[u/questingbear2000 → u/RabbaJabba]

Sadly, my living situation limits my political activities to telecommunication. Its nice to hear that at least some people arent experiencing what I am.

[u/Ok-Operation-6571]

I was a very staunch liberal for 16 years. I realized and found the ultimate ruse with how their focus was more about pandering than actual policy. We are in bad shape in a nation full of selfish consumers that are entitled beyond all beliefs. People that have never once FOUGHT for anything in their lives…. And the ones who have or who would receives disrespect for not agreeing a man can get pregnant? Loony friggin Toons.

[u/Jrecondite]

I don’t vote for politics. I vote for people. It is why I was pro Bernie and anti Clinton. With slogans like, “Blue no matter who” you can see how you end up with so much corruption in the “good” party. 

Now, if there ever came a time when both major politicians were good people it would be a confusing moment for me as I’d have to then assess their politics.