Who's more authoritarian, liberals, or conservatives?

Putin

I am.

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: Right now I would say liberals, but conservatives are still pretty authoritarian.

@anarchist100

I am curious as to why you think Liberals are more authoritarians than Conservatives? In my view, it has always been the Conservatives being more authoritarian. Conservative, by its meaning alone, means to stand with traditions and are not as adaptable to change than Liberals.

jack

anarchist100 said:

Who's more authoritarian, liberals, or conservatives?

Hello a:

It's not about politics..  It's about your ability to control the public..  The left wing communist government of the former Soviet Union held an authoritarian grip upon society, as does the authoritarian right wing fascist governments of Hungry and Poland. 

Lemme answer the question you didn't ask..  Here, in the US, there's MAGA authoritarian wanna be dictator Donald Trump, and everybody else. Turns out, even Republicans like democracy.

excon

Bogan

Traditionally, liberal people advocated for free speech and they were considered to be the forces of reason against conservative oppression.     Voltaire once remarked how he was drawn to liberals because liberals were on the whole, intelligent, witty, and people not bound by moral absolutes.      But today, the reverse is true.     It is all about power politics.   When the Left was in the minority in the western world, it was the primary advocate for free speech, the foundation stone of democracy.    They were the ones who spoke against the Right wing Establishment who used political censorship to suppress their Leftist political  opponents and remain in power forever.   But today, it is the Left who is the Establishment, and unsurprisingly, they have morphed to become the very same power mad officials who they once fought against when they were young.  Today, it is the Left which have become the new moral puritans, wagging their fingers at everybody else, shouting down opposing opinions, and demanding that everybody conform to their new morality.  

Today it is the Left which is the primary threat to democracy, and it is the Left which wants to suppress free speech.  This suppression of free speech is now reaching insane levels.   In Canada,"offending" minority groups can earn you are prison sentence for life.   In Scotland, "racism" is illegal even within ones own home.   Children in Scotland are even being encouraged to report to authorities any racist language used by their parents.    This is pure Soviet Union stuff.     The fact that the Left are now the new oppressors has even been recognised by intelligent Leftists themselves, which is why so many former Leftists are enow jumping ship to the Right.     The Right has become the new punk.   It is ironic that the Left has made the Right into fashionable revolutionaries.      

Factfinder

Argument Topic: According to ChatGPT

Who's more authoritarian, liberals, or conservatives?

ChatGPT

The degree of authoritarianism isn't inherently tied to a particular political ideology like liberalism or conservatism. Authoritarianism can manifest in various political contexts, regardless of left or right leanings. It depends on how individuals within those ideologies interpret and enact their beliefs.

In some contexts, authoritarian tendencies might be associated with conservative ideologies, emphasizing strong government control over social and moral issues. In others, it might be associated with liberal ideologies, where there's a focus on controlling economic and environmental policies.

Ultimately, the level of authoritarianism within any group depends on factors like the specific beliefs of its members, the political climate, and the institutional structures in place. It's not accurate to broadly assign it to one side or the other without considering these complexities.

jack

Factfinder said:

The degree of authoritarianism isn't inherently tied to a particular political ideology like liberalism or conservatism.

Hello F:

Uhhhh, what I said..

excon

MichaelElpers

@Delilah6120

Tradition or Progressivism in itself has nothing to do with authoritariamism. 
Authoritarianism is enforcing obedience to authority especially to the government at expense of personal freedom.

So when it comes to politics who typically wants larger government involvement? Who wants to federalize issues ans increase size of government.

In speech...the left.
Economy... the left
Gun Control...the left
Healthcare...the left

Really one of the only areas conservatives have negated choice is Abortion.  And on that end, for now it was turned from a federal to a state issue.

Bogan

@Factfinder

To bad you are so intellectually challenged that you have to have a machine to do your thinking for you.

Factfinder

Bogan said:

@Factfinder

To bad you are so intellectually challenged that you have to have a machine to do your thinking for you.

Hilarious, coming from a guy so intellectually challenged he doesn't know what thinking is so he endlessly seeks propagandized u tube videos for opinions.

ZeusAres42

Liberalism is not leftism, which is often conflated. At the moment, it is the left, especially this new age wokism ideology, that seems to have turned the USA somewhat in part tyrannical. And this is an ideology. We could call this "new age leftism" or "post-modern leftism;" it isn't traditional and/or liberal in shape or form.  At the risk of sounding like some other people here, I will bring up the subject of race as a case in point. According to woke lefties, it's not about race; it isn't about morality; it isn't about truth, it isn't about meritocracy, it isn't about individual character and values; it's all about power, privilege, antirealism, and imposing and forcing their views (which they see as the absolute truth) unto everyone else via means of spreading this virus through every single institution from hier tier academic establishments to elementary schools, from bureaucratic bodies to HR departments, and far out into the much wider society and culture of the USA. James Lindsay (Author of Race Marxism) said it best when he said, "It's never about the issue; it never has been about the issue. It is and has always been about the revolution!"  This is entirely anti-liberal. 

MayCaesar

Authoritarianism is about being willing to force others to do your bidding when they do not want to. It is not about your preference for citizens' participation in the public affairs or your desire to hold on to old traditions and values, but about your willingness to force this preference and desire on those who do not have them. As such, the question does not make a lot of sense to me.

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

What we have now are two political parties determined  to elect the fringe elements of their perspective parties. First came trump then the left rebounds with woke nonsense. I'd say liberalism and conservatism are both being railroaded and yes both ideologies are being misrepresented in the upcoming election. And yes both extremes have exhibited authoritative tendencies to push their agendas. The stuff of  the political nightmares my dad used to talk about around the kitchen table with friends.  

ZeusAres42

@MayCaesar

I think the OP (not active at the moment, by the way) meant who appears to be coming across as more authoritarian in the USA instead of just what political affiliation is authoritarian. 

Bogan

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and sooner or later, those in power will get around to abusing their power.     I do not think that the Left or the Right have a monopoly on morality.    It does not matter if the Church has absolute control, or the Left, or the right.   Sooner or later, whichever side of politics becomes the Establishment,  they will get drunk with power and go corrupt.     If my reading of history has taught me anything, it is the elites at the top will always try to become authoritarian because they really do believe that they are superior people to the plebian deplorables and bogans.     The reason why Nazis and Communist hate each other is because they are competing groups of elitists seeking absolute power for their own elitist group.     Democracy is the only answer to authoritarianism but it can and is being corrupted.     Multiculturalism will result in identity politics and identity politics can be used to destroy the social cohesion of western societies.   It is divide and conquer, and it is supported by the obviously discredited ideal that all races are equal.          What is the most dangerous aspect of authoritarianism today is the collusion of people who would once have been considered of the Right and the Left into a new cabal of authoritarians sharing power between them. 

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: Tradition or Progressivism in itself has nothing to do with authoritariamism.

@MichaelElpers

Forcing obedience. Yes.  Conservatives tend to be resistant to change. They scare more easily than liberals.   Therefore following the rules keeps them comfortable. Following the rules makes them more obedient. 

Read Project 2025.

Bogan

@Factfinder ;   

Did your chatbot think up that reply for you, too?   

RickeyHoltsclaw

Liberals-Progressives-Democrats are authoritarian Marxists. 

MichaelElpers

@Delilah6120

Resistance to change and even following rules has no direct correlation to authoritarianism.

If we are currently a republic and someone wanted to switch to a dictatorship with larger government control, resistance to change would be directly opposing authoritarianism.

Following status quo doesnt equal authoritarianism unless you are alreafy living under authoritarianism.

Actual authoritarianism provides power to the government to limit liberty and freedoms.  What legislation or policies from conservatives argue for imcrease in government or limitations on freedom?  Abortion is a limitation but it was decreased from a federal level to a state issue.

Factfinder

@Bogan

Does it matter? Tell you what, I've used ai about two times on this site, maybe three, but I'll give them up completely if you do the same and stop plagiarizing propogandist sites and videos for opinions. Deal?

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

There is a nuance here. Resistance to a given change does not necessarily constitute authoritarianism - but resistance to change in general does. Imagine a medieval village that has largely remained unchanged for a couple of centuries. Then one young lad says one day, "Guys, I think we have been doing something wrong. We have all been relying on growing our own food - but some of us are better at doing certain things than others. How about we establish a marketplace on which we can exchange labor? Those who are good at chopping wood will be able to focus on it, and those who are better at growing cabbage will be able to focus on it?" The elders hear this idea, frown and say, "Know your place, lad. We have been doing it this way for centuries. If you cannot grow your own crops, then you are weak and do not deserve to survive. Now get back to the yard and start plugging!" This is authoritarianism.

To clarify, the authoritarian element here is not the elders disagreeing with the lad's idea, but the reasoning behind it: "You are too young, what do you know? Things are working this way for a reason". The lad's input is deemed irrelevant not because of its merit, but because of the lad "not knowing his place". This "his place" is the essence of authoritarianism.

Bogan

@Factfinder

No.    There is nothing wrong with using links as an evidentiary means of supporting an argument.    My beef is when an opponent uses links AS their argument.   I can not reason with a link or ask it a question, not that dishonest trolls like yourself ever answer questions anyway.    Just supplying links instead of submitting reasoned arguments is not debating at all.       If somebody has a link, then I expect them to read their own link and use it to create their own reasoned argument.   They can even cut and paste the link and claim it is their argument.   But it has to be their argument.     When one opponent of mine on another site supplied a link which was illogical, and I pointed out how stu-pid it was, my opponent simply said 'I didn't agree with that part anyway."   Cop out.   The same opponent even submitted a link which I know he did not even read.    He just saw a sarcastic topic heading while browsing Google and thought it supported his position, when the opposite was true.    So, I do not debate links.

Factfinder

@Bogan

But you're the troll who never produces well thought out opinions. Instead you opt for extreme right wing talking points. You call me dishonest but you can't provide clear evidence of me attempting to deceive you. Indeed when you've argued things I agreed with I let you know. But if I don't agree with everything you say across the board you call me 'ambiguous'; so who is really being a dishonest troll? 

Bogan

@Factfinder

Which is like Al Capone saying to the cops "Yeah I did it copper, but you can't prove it!"    I engaged in a "debate" with you in good faith, where you never submitted a reasoned argument justifying your own position.   All you did was attack my reasoned arguments, usually with sneery one liners, the identifying feature of the ignorant and the intellectually challenged.    You refused to answer pertinent questions, even ones I labelled as crucial questions.   You refused to acknowledge even the simplest and most obvious logical connections, which is just prevaricating.    Finally, you resorted to using a chatbot because your low IQ means that  can not think for yourself.   All of these factors mark you as a troll whom is not on a unbiased search for the truth, or a genuine person who wishes to test their beliefs against an informed opponent, but as a low IQ narcissist more interested in stifling debate to hide a truth he fears to face.   As such, like a lot of people on this particular debating site, you are not worth debating with.          

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

"To clarify, the authoritarian element here is not the elders disagreeing with the lad's idea, but the reasoning behind it: "You are too young, what do you know? Things are working this way for a reason". The lad's input is deemed irrelevant not because of its merit, but because of the lad "not knowing his place"

Right but your example requires that the existing element trying to be conserved is holding authority.
If presently there is anarchy or less authority resistance to change is resistance to authoritarianism.

Take for example free speech.  Those currently trying to conserve the current view of the first amendment are resisting against further authoritarian hate speech or censorship.
If the sole argument is because "thats how its only been" you are commiting an authority fallacy but the result is less governmental authority.

Therefore conservatism or resistance to change only constitutes authoritarianism if the idea being conserved is appealing to holding onto increased authority.

Factfinder

Bogan said:

@Factfinder

Which is like Al Capone saying to the cops "Yeah I did it copper, but you can't prove it!"    I engaged in a "debate" with you in good faith, where you never submitted a reasoned argument justifying your own position.   All you did was attack my reasoned arguments, usually with sneery one liners, the identifying feature of the ignorant and the intellectually challenged.    You refused to answer pertinent questions, even ones I labelled as crucial questions.   You refused to acknowledge even the simplest and most obvious logical connections, which is just prevaricating.    Finally, you resorted to using a chatbot because your low IQ means that  can not think for yourself.   All of these factors mark you as a troll whom is not on a unbiased search for the truth, or a genuine person who wishes to test their beliefs against an informed opponent, but as a low IQ narcissist more interested in stifling debate to hide a truth he fears to face.   As such, like a lot of people on this particular debating site, you are not worth debating with.          

Yet it was you who posted this trolling bit yesterday after weeks of silence because you got butt hurt when I defeated you last...To bad you are so intellectually challenged that you have to have a machine to do your thinking for you. That started this latest exchange. Proving you're the troll while at the same time you now admit you can't prove what you erroneously said about me, nice.

just_sayin

Bogan said:

@Factfinder

Which is like Al Capone saying to the cops "Yeah I did it copper, but you can't prove it!"    I engaged in a "debate" with you in good faith, where you never submitted a reasoned argument justifying your own position.   All you did was attack my reasoned arguments, usually with sneery one liners, the identifying feature of the ignorant and the intellectually challenged.    You refused to answer pertinent questions, even ones I labelled as crucial questions.   You refused to acknowledge even the simplest and most obvious logical connections, which is just prevaricating.    Finally, you resorted to using a chatbot because your low IQ means that  can not think for yourself.   All of these factors mark you as a troll whom is not on a unbiased search for the truth, or a genuine person who wishes to test their beliefs against an informed opponent, but as a low IQ narcissist more interested in stifling debate to hide a truth he fears to face.   As such, like a lot of people on this particular debating site, you are not worth debating with.          

It is getting hard to have a civil discussion with all of the personal attacks.  It appears some prefer sneery one liners than to present an argument.  

Bogie, I appreciate the fact that even when we don't agree, you will make your argument instead of just making it personal.  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Bogan said:

@Factfinder

Which is like Al Capone saying to the cops "Yeah I did it copper, but you can't prove it!"    I engaged in a "debate" with you in good faith, where you never submitted a reasoned argument justifying your own position.   All you did was attack my reasoned arguments, usually with sneery one liners, the identifying feature of the ignorant and the intellectually challenged.    You refused to answer pertinent questions, even ones I labelled as crucial questions.   You refused to acknowledge even the simplest and most obvious logical connections, which is just prevaricating.    Finally, you resorted to using a chatbot because your low IQ means that  can not think for yourself.   All of these factors mark you as a troll whom is not on a unbiased search for the truth, or a genuine person who wishes to test their beliefs against an informed opponent, but as a low IQ narcissist more interested in stifling debate to hide a truth he fears to face.   As such, like a lot of people on this particular debating site, you are not worth debating with.          

It is getting hard to have a civil discussion with all of the personal attacks.  It appears some prefer sneery one liners than to present an argument.  

Bogie, I appreciate the fact that even when we don't agree, you will make your argument instead of just making it personal.  

You know Bogan started this latest exchange with this: 

"To bad you are so intellectually challenged that you have to have a machine to do your thinking for you." 

That he said to me so you're either telling Bogan to stop with personal attacks with others even though he doesn't with you, or that was a poorly concealed attack against me thus adding another nail to the coffin of your faith? Which is it Just_sayin?

ZeusAres42

Bogan said:

@Factfinder

To bad you are so intellectually challenged that you have to have a machine to do your thinking for you.

Too bad for you that I can get the machines to think in a similar way as me. 

From GTP:

"Oh, please, spare me the condescension! It's tragically typical, isn't it? Reducing complex technological discussions to this simplistic, dismissive sneer about intellectual inadequacy. How profoundly misguided! It's not about machines "doing the thinking" for us; it’s about the critical implications of our over-reliance on technology and the laziness in human character it enables and exacerbates." 

Bogan

@just_sayin ;

I am not a Christian, Just-sayin.     I don't turn the other cheek.    If somebody shoots at me, I shoot back.

Factfinder

ZeusAres42 said:

Bogan said:

@Factfinder

To bad you are so intellectually challenged that you have to have a machine to do your thinking for you.

Too bad for you that I can get the machines to think in the same way as me. 

From GTP:

"Oh, please, spare me the condescension! It's tragically typical, isn't it? Reducing complex technological discussions to this simplistic, dismissive sneer about intellectual inadequacy. How profoundly misguided! It's not about machines "doing the thinking" for us; it’s about the critical implications of our over-reliance on technology and the laziness in human character it enables and exacerbates." 

Well I was kind of intoxicated at the time so when I read the thread title I I knew what I wanted to say but not sure exactly how I wanted to say it. So I went to GPT and it was very much in line with my thoughts. So yes laziness does play a part.

Came back with a pretty good response to Bogan's remark too I see. LOL 

Bogan

@ZeusAres42

Is that because your machine and your brain were both poorly programmed?  

Factfinder

Bogan said:

@ZeusAres42

Is that because your machine and your brain were both poorly programmed?  

Still trolling?

ZeusAres42

Bogan said:

@ZeusAres42

Is that because your machine and your brain were both poorly programmed?  

Well, it was built by Aussie Ancestors. IE prisoners of mother England with low IQs.

Bogan

@Factfinder

I prefer to engage in rational debate.    Trolling is your preserve.    Although, that does not make you unique on this debate site.  

Factfinder

Bogan said:

@Factfinder

I prefer to engage in rational debate.    Trolling is your preserve.    Although, that does not make you unique on this debate site.  

When? On other sites but not this one?

Nah, you got that all to yourself as I proved earlier. 

Never claimed to be unique. Just don't blindly accept your extremism as truth or reflective of reality.

ZeusAres42

@Bogan

Since we are talking about race, perhaps if your great-grandfather hadn't been a delinquent with such a low IQ, you could have been one of us Brits, eh?

MayCaesar

MichaelElpers said:

@MayCaesar

"To clarify, the authoritarian element here is not the elders disagreeing with the lad's idea, but the reasoning behind it: "You are too young, what do you know? Things are working this way for a reason". The lad's input is deemed irrelevant not because of its merit, but because of the lad "not knowing his place"

Right but your example requires that the existing element trying to be conserved is holding authority.
If presently there is anarchy or less authority resistance to change is resistance to authoritarianism.

Take for example free speech.  Those currently trying to conserve the current view of the first amendment are resisting against further authoritarian hate speech or censorship.
If the sole argument is because "thats how its only been" you are commiting an authority fallacy but the result is less governmental authority.

Therefore conservatism or resistance to change only constitutes authoritarianism if the idea being conserved is appealing to holding onto increased authority.

Governmental authority is not the only form of authority. There are tyrannical parents, tyrannical elders, tyrannical highway bandits, tyrannical bullies... Reduction of governmental authority may easily coincide with increase of other types of authority - imagine, for instance, abolition of all anti-murder laws and the consequences of thereof.

Your free speech example references clash of two forms of authoritarianism, not resistance to authoritarianism. By resisting infringements on free speech guarantees by appealing to historical precedent, one resists any deviation from that precedent in principle. Opposing dangerous ideas by holding on to other dangerous ideas is... dangerous.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

"Your free speech example references clash of two forms of authoritarianism, not resistance to authoritarianism. By resisting infringements on free speech guarantees by appealing to historical precedent, one resists any deviation from that precedent in principle. "

First I think a conservative can make appeals to free speech without appealing to its historical precedence. I dont think you disagree with that.

On the other point you made I believe there is a distinction between authority fallacy and the idea being authoritarian. Solely arguing for free speech based on appealing to authority/historical precedence and applying no merited argument towards its benefits is an authority fallacy. Agreed its dangerous and .

However i would never say it is authoritarian because the end result is more individual freedom and less authority.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

Of course they can - however, that appeal does not constitute conservatism. A generally conservative person can still make non-conservative arguments.

To your last point, it is reminiscent of the idea that the ends justify the means. I do not think, however, that the ends are all that matters. The liberal ends arrived at via authoritarian means are not going to be sustainable, for their ideological underpinning is authoritarian, and liberty cannot rest on the authoritarian foundation.
In this particular case, if, say, the American conservatives win the ideological battle and secure the free speech on the grounds of historical precedence and authority, then they will have a very strong incentive to use the same reasoning to push through other, authoritarian measures, such as suppressing freedom of religious expression. If "it is our history" is a valid argument for protecting free speech, then it is also a valid argument for protecting religious tyranny.
A better principle is required to distinguish defense of good and bad historical precedences. In the extreme example, one could justify restoration of slavery by appealing to the fact of it being legal at the moment of the foundation of this country. And while in reality this will never comes to pass, there are plenty of voices today wanting to implement things like mandatory Christian education, stripping non-citizens of many rights, mandatory military service... It is not far-fetched to expect many of these things to come to pass if conservatism is taken to be authoritative by the population.

In my view, the goodness of an idea should be judged solely by its intrinsic merit. It cannot be judged based on its historical precedence or popularity. Just like it would not make sense for me to play with toys because I did 20 years ago.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

Conservatism just requires to are trying to conserve an ideal it doesnt require your argument is based solely around holding firm to the established authority .  I am conservative in many aspects but that is not based on some illogical attraction to established precedence.  I am conservative in areas where I believe the current set of ideals provide greater merit.

Also Im not arguing ends justify the means.  Again I agree that an argument based solely on authority and not merit is dangerous and .  Even if they shared my ideal id still call the argument .
However if those means result in less authority than the opposition it cannot be more authoritarian even if its a bad argument.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

I see. It appears that we define conservatism differently. To me, for instance, holding on to the idea that 2+2=4 and refusing to accept the alternative that 2+2=5 is not conservative if it is based on understanding why 2+2=5 is false. My stance has nothing to do with the desire to conserve the claim that 2+2=4 - it is guided by the general principle of using logical reasoning to derive my claims. That it happens to also contribute to conservation of this claim is a byproduct.

Your last point makes sense to me, but I would suggest looking at the bigger picture. The immediate result does not tell the whole story, and there have been countless examples in human history of temporary liberalization grounded in wrong principles, followed by reversal. Russia of the 90-s is a good example: liberalization there was not a consequence of some deep philosophical insight into the values of freedom, but much more driven by desire to imitate the US system, without a good understanding of what really makes that system tick. Richard Feynman called this kind of thinking "cargo cult" where someone tries to imitate someone else's success by looking at superficial aspects of it. "This guy is a billionaire and he wears a suit - therefore, the key to becoming a billionaire is wearing a suit".

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

Ugh. Realized site censored the word DUM.
I think overall we agree but answering which is more authoritarian the conservative ideal to the first amendment or the current progressive stance, the progressive is objectively more authoritarian to me.  This is independent of the merit or stupidity of arguments.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

I would say that we probably disagree more than we agree, but this is the good kind of disagreement, where we understand and respect each other's stances. If you were the president of the US, I would know that the country is in good hands, even if I would disagree with many of the particular policies you would promote and views you would express.

I agree with you that, speaking purely of the stances of the constitutionalists on one hand and the statists on the other, the latter one is more authoritarian. While the constitutionalists, at least, want to keep the status quo established by the Founding Fathers, the statists want to break everything apart and build the Brave New World.

However, I refuse to see these two as the only choices... Humanity can do so much better. My own contribution to humanity is not political, but philosophical: I encourage people to have fun, to do what is authentic to them, to reject social dogmas (whether they come from "liberals" or "conservatives"), to pursue their own happiness and interact with others on mutually beneficial and consensual basis. To me this is the antithesis to authoritarianism of all kinds: being grounded in your own values. Everyone should be a bit of a pirate.
Instead of putting people in categories and telling them what they should do - how about we throw arbitrary categories out and let people figure out what they want to do? I do not mean "want" in the immediate sense ("I want to get drunk and forget about my troubles"), but "want" in terms of the trajectory of their life.

Conservatism is incompatible with that. Conservatism looks at Elon Musk throwing tens of billions of dollars towards building colonies on Mars, and says, "Why are you going to Mars, buddy, when you have not taken care of people here on Earth? Invest that money in your local communities instead! Do your duty!"
"Leftism" is incompatible with that either. "Leftism" looks at Elon Musk's wealth and believes that he does not deserve it, should not have the right to dispose of it however he sees fit.

My anti-authoritarian stance, however, is this: "Good for you, Elon! Building colonies on Mars is so cool!" It would be nice to have more of this, and less of looking for an excuse to put someone down. More expansion, less contraction. More discussions on the cool new stuff humanity can do, and fewer discussions on the medieval brutish stuff humanity can inflict on those deemed "evil".

ZeusAres42

@Factfinder

I was thinking that in terms of this woke stuff, it's interesting to find noteworthy people who all agree with how bad this is. After someone on Discord recently stated things about James Lindsey and other people like him and how they tried to discredit them, I went to find out what these other people's views were, and they are all the same or at least very similar:

• Richard Dawkins
• Steven Pinker
• Steven Fry
• Sam Harris
• Michael Shermer
  
• Bret Weinstein
• Eric Weinstein
• Jordan Person
• John McWhorter
  
• Bari Weiss
• Douglas Murray
  
• James Lindsey
• Peter Boghossian
• Helen Pluckrose
• Ben Shapiro
• Piers Morgan
• Heather Heying
  
• Debra Soh
  
• Jerry Coyne
  

This list is not exhaustive. It contains people of differing political affiliations, some of which have been seen in debates on things they profoundly disagree about. One thing they all agree on, though, is about how volatile this woke ideology is! 

I don't rely on them to make my mind up; I also evaluate content—what they write and the literature they criticise. I found it interesting that all these individuals have the same stance regarding this! And that is every single one of them! 

Factfinder

ZeusAres42 said:

@Factfinder

I was thinking that in terms of this woke stuff, it's interesting to find noteworthy people who all agree with how bad this is. After someone on Discord recently stated things about James Lindsey and other people like him and how they tried to discredit them, I went to find out what these other people's views were, and they are all the same or at least very similar:

• Richard Dawkins
• Steven Pinker
• Steven Fry
• Sam Harris
• Michael Shermer
  
• Bret Weinstein
• Eric Weinstein
• Jordan Person
• John McWhorter
  
• Bari Weiss
• Douglas Murray
  
• James Lindsey
• Peter Boghossian
• Helen Pluckrose
• Ben Shapiro
• Piers Morgan
• Heather Heying
  
• Debra Soh
  
• Jerry Coyne
  

This list is not exhaustive. It contains people of differing political affiliations, some of which have been seen in debates on things they profoundly disagree about. One thing they all agree on, though, is about how volatile this woke ideology is! 

I don't rely on them to make my mind up; I also evaluate content—what they write and the literature they criticise. I found it interesting that all these individuals have the same stance regarding this! And that is every single one of them! 

I think it could be a tribute to the powers of self preservation. People of all affiliations are recognizing the threat to society if wokism is allowed to get a strong enough hold to run it's course completely. We'd no longer be a civilized society. However I do not believe liberals are turning to conservatism in these cases. It's more about taking back control of their party and movements. 

MayCaesar

@ZeusAres42

I would warn you of getting too deep into these woods. Many of these people are focused on these topics specifically and, as a consequence, have created echo-chambers around them. I, for one, cannot listen to James Lindsey, or Jordan Peterson, or Piers Morgan talk about these things for extended periods of time, as they blow everything out of proportion and seem to suggest that "woke-ism" is everywhere and is as big a threat as Nazism was.

Peter Boghossian, or Steven Pinker, or Richard Dawkins are much better to listen to when it comes to this topic, because they are focused on different things (education, science, philosophy...), and "woke-ism" is put by them in a proper framework. When you listen to Peter talk about it, you do not hear "The end is nigh!" - instead, you hear, "Here is what I want to create in this world, and here is why these people make it more difficult to do so".

There is a strong positive feedback loop we all are prone to fall into when listening to someone strongly attached to a particular topic for too long: our perception of reality starts shifting so as to fit their framework. I think that it is best to listen to these people occasionally and then move on, without getting stuck on this topic.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

You make a good point as well. My response focused on the liberal aspect as I'm sure they'd like to steer their party away from wokeism and back to traditional liberal values. And the woke agenda was what I thought @ZeusAres42 centered his post on.

The conservative side are pretty united against the woke movement but have their issues with staunch hard right maga followers who've taken their party to the extreme in other ways. Mainly a cult like belief Trump does no wrong.

Sure both sides could right their ships but the potential progress that could have been made instead will be delayed. 

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

I consider each stance individually, I just understand more often I agree with traditional conservative stances. 
 I wouldnt put myself in specific political categories other than to generically show where I typically would stand. I have more liberaterian stances then most conservatives.

I think Elon is awesome. Seems to someone that truly wants to advance humanity best interests and is succeeding. Go to mars

RickeyHoltsclaw

Liberals-Progressives-Democrats are demonic at their root and evil in reality...they are the authoritarians and the s-c-u-m in any society.

Dreamer

Conservatives considering the threats that anti-vaxxers use a movement that is far right.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/west-virginia-man-sentenced-3-years-prison-threatening-kill-fauci-2022-08-05/