Historic instruction aside, mainstream opinion within a given society at a given time is sometimes the context that someone chooses to discuss.
Yes, I recall this. Still not sure how it justifies the use of the term "far left" in this context. Left, absolutely. But if you choose to discuss only the mainstream you've chosen to exclude the far extremes.
And this is why I push back on this language. If a bunch of middle aged suburbanites are "far left" then the likes of Joe Biden and thr Democratic Party are "socialists." Donald Trump at CPAC this weekend :
Democrats are ruthless, but they are united. They don't have these Romney types. They don't have them. It must be wonderful to live like that, but they have bad policy and they have policy that's going to destroy our country. Like socialists and communists movements throughout history, today's leftists do not believe in freedom, they do not believe in fairness, and they do not believe in democracy. They believe in Marxist morality. Anything is justified as long as it hurts their political opponents and advances the radical agenda of their party. It's a radical agenda like nobody has seen before. Before our very eyes, the radical left Democrats are turning the law itself into a weapon for partisan persecution. …
Language is important. If we let people redefine us this way, we lose.
Still not sure how it justifies the use of the term "far left" in this context.
Me, either. I’m not sure I’d even go as far as “guess it’s accurate in its limited scope.” Your context epiphany just got me whistling, is all. A couple of bars of “Joe Hill.”
Me, either. I’m not sure I’d even go as far as “guess it’s accurate in its limited scope.” Your context epiphany just got me whistling, is all. A couple of bars of “Joe Hill.”
it wasn't an epiphany. It's not like it hasn't been obvious before. But now it was made explicit. As admission that if made at the start would have ended the discussion.
it wasn't an epiphany. It's not like it hasn't been obvious before. But now it was made explicit. As admission that if made at the start would have ended the discussion.
"Ended the discussion"? On MOL? Are you new around here?
Historic instruction aside, mainstream opinion within a given society at a given time is sometimes the context that someone chooses to discuss.
Yes, I recall this. Still not sure how it justifies the use of the term "far left" in this context. Left, absolutely. But if you choose to discuss only the mainstream you've chosen to exclude the far extremes.
I didn't exclude. I've acknowledged far extremes multiple times, I just think they're better considered fringe, or radical, or far far. My reasoning is that if you consider a <1% group (like communists + anarchists + socialists) to be the far left, then that means just plain left is going to be a crowded category and thus the whole categorization is going to be less informative.
Democrats are ruthless, but they are united. They don't have these Romney types. They don't have them. It must be wonderful to live like that, but they have bad policy and they have policy that's going to destroy our country. Like socialists and communists movements throughout history, today's leftists do not believe in freedom, they do not believe in fairness, and they do not believe in democracy. They believe in Marxist morality. Anything is justified as long as it hurts their political opponents and advances the radical agenda of their party. It's a radical agenda like nobody has seen before. Before our very eyes, the radical left Democrats are turning the law itself into a weapon for partisan persecution. …
Trump's statements are textbook "Projection".
I actually haven't read a psych textbook. I was not being literal.
I didn't exclude. I've acknowledged far extremes multiple times, I just think they're better considered fringe, or radical, or far far. My reasoning is that if you consider a <1% group (like communists + anarchists + socialists) to be the far left, then that means just plain left is going to be a crowded category and thus the whole categorization is going to be less informative.
it's not informative to use terms that aren't accurate. Calling people here "far left" would be like calling a bunch of average height people "really, really tall (if you leave out people over 6 ft tall).
Why not jusr use the term from the first freaking study you quoted from Pew -- "solid liberal." It's accurate and not ignorant.
I didn't exclude. I've acknowledged far extremes multiple times, I just think they're better considered fringe, or radical, or far far. My reasoning is that if you consider a <1% group (like communists + anarchists + socialists) to be the far left, then that means just plain left is going to be a crowded category and thus the whole categorization is going to be less informative.
Isn't that what many on this thread are arguing though, that those on the left are overwhelming just plain left and that, especially in comparison to peer nations, it's a crowded category without much ideological diversity and that trying to parse out "far left" and other sub-categories is thus not especially informative?
I think a counterargument would be that there is, in fact, substantial ideological differences within the Democratic party. Probably that argument would be more successful if it focused on specific issues and spelled out what those differences are, though. Differences in emphasis and tactics on issues I think are readily observable, but its not necessarily a straightforward argument that there's actually substantive ideological differences -- eg not all Democrats are on board on what to do about the filibuster (a tactics question), but I don't know that there's much disagreement on voting rights being important.
It's debatable whether there's not much ideological diversity within the just plain left group. The vast majority (90-ish%) of progressives (which I think can be considered roughly equivalent to "just plain left" for purposes of this discussion) support M4A and an assault weapons ban, but progressive support is much lower (~50%) for decriminalizing illegal border crossings, UBI, and reparations. I don't think any issue on page 13 here would poll <80% on MOL. So while the MOL demographic may well be in the just plain left group, IMO it's in the furthest-left area of that group.
It's debatable whether there's not much ideological diversity within the just plain left group. The vast majority (90-ish%) of progressives (which I think can be considered roughly equivalent to "just plain left" for purposes of this discussion) support M4A and an assault weapons ban, but progressive support is much lower (~50%) for decriminalizing illegal border crossings, UBI, and reparations. I don't think any issue on page 13 here would poll <80% on MOL. So while the MOL demographic may well be in the just plain left group, IMO it's in the furthest-left area of that group.
Every issue on that list, save the last 3, are mainstream liberal positions, not "far left" by any stretch.
I am quite sure that decriminalizing border crossings, reparations, and UBI would poll at less than 80%, or at least engender hearty discussion.
The assault weapons ban get 57% support, so I'm not sure that's the best example. M4A, I think is a better one here. On the one hand, I'd agree with you that the overall support for it on MOL appears quite a bit higher than the 41% it got on the survey (wildly unscientifically of course). On the other hand, I think your choice to use terms like "far left" does open you up to the kinds of pushback you've been receiving pointing out that something like M4A is a pretty mainstream position within the context of liberal democracies. While it may be a minority opinion within US politics, the "far" connotes that it is somehow extreme. I suspect if you'd just stuck to the same language Pew used the conversations would have gone differently. Unless, of course, you are in fact trying to argue that you think something like M4A is an extreme position, and that countries with policies similar to this are in fact themselves extreme.
(aside - I'm not actually sure where the median MOL commenter would fall between the "medicare for all" and "medicare for all who want it" positions).
The assault weapons ban get 57% support, so I'm not sure that's the best example. M4A, I think is a better one here. On the one hand, I'd agree with you that the overall support for it on MOL appears quite a bit higher than the 41% it got on the survey (wildly unscientifically of course). On the other hand, I think your choice to use terms like "far left" does open you up to the kinds of pushback you've been receiving pointing out that something like M4A is a pretty mainstream position within the context of liberal democracies. While it may be a minority opinion within US politics, the "far" connotes that it is somehow extreme. I suspect if you'd just stuck to the same language Pew used the conversations would have gone differently. Unless, of course, you are in fact trying to argue that you think something like M4A is an extreme position, and that countries with policies similar to this are in fact themselves extreme.
(aside - I'm not actually sure where the median MOL commenter would fall between the "medicare for all" and "medicare for all who want it" positions).
The 57% support is all voters -- further down they drill down issue-by-issue. Progressive support for assault weapons ban is 87% as per page 22.
I support M4A with a private option, I do not believe it is an extreme position.
It's debatable whether there's not much ideological diversity within the just plain left group. The vast majority (90-ish%) of progressives (which I think can be considered roughly equivalent to "just plain left" for purposes of this discussion) support M4A and an assault weapons ban, but progressive support is much lower (~50%) for decriminalizing illegal border crossings, UBI, and reparations. I don't think any issue on page 13 here would poll <80% on MOL. So while the MOL demographic may well be in the just plain left group, IMO it's in the furthest-left area of that group.
I know what "UBI" and "reparations" refer to, but what does "decriminalizing illegal border crossings" mean, in the context of the actual law that exists now? I know it's a poll question, but I have no idea what it is that's being asked about.
It's debatable whether there's not much ideological diversity within the just plain left group. The vast majority (90-ish%) of progressives (which I think can be considered roughly equivalent to "just plain left" for purposes of this discussion) support M4A and an assault weapons ban, but progressive support is much lower (~50%) for decriminalizing illegal border crossings, UBI, and reparations. I don't think any issue on page 13 here would poll <80% on MOL. So while the MOL demographic may well be in the just plain left group, IMO it's in the furthest-left area of that group.
I know what "UBI" and "reparations" refer to, but what does "decriminalizing illegal border crossings" mean, in the context of the actual law that exists now? I know it's a poll question, but I have no idea what it is that's being asked about.
I believe it means the border would still be patrolled and migrants would still be stopped and sent back but if you make it in you're safe because there would be no more ICE raids.
I know what "UBI" and "reparations" refer to, but what does "decriminalizing illegal border crossings" mean, in the context of the actual law that exists now? I know it's a poll question, but I have no idea what it is that's being asked about.
I believe it means the border would still be patrolled and migrants would still be stopped and sent back but if you make it in you're safe because there would be no more ICE raids.
Not sure that's right though.
One option is that nobody knows what it means in real life, but it's a right-wing talking point that the poll is asking about.
It's a real thing...would be pretty weird if an established and respected polling organization decided to ask about a meaningless "right-wing talking point" just for the hell of it.
It's a real thing...would be pretty weird if an established and respected polling organization decided to ask about a meaningless "right-wing talking point" just for the hell of it.
I don't think that has anything to do with ICE raids, or even about apprehending people though -- rather seems to be about reverting to the previous legal status where unauthorized border crossing is a civil rather than criminal offense.
I don't think that has anything to do with ICE raids, or even about apprehending people though -- rather seems to be about reverting to the previous legal status where unauthorized border crossing is a civil rather than criminal offense.
So the respondents to the poll had opinions about whether violating border crossing restrictions should be met with civil vs. criminal penalties? They couldn't have been thinking of anything else, right?
I have never understood how crossing the border illegally could be dealt with as a crime. The accused would have the right to the presumption of innocence, the right to counsel and the right to a jury trial before he/she could be deported.
I have never understood how crossing the border illegally could be dealt with as a crime. The accused would have the right to the presumption of innocence, the right to counsel and the right to a jury trial before he/she could be deported.
Am I missing something?
It's a misdemeanor anyway, so the easier and quicker resolution is just sending someone back if they don't have a case for asylum.
So the respondents to the poll had opinions about whether violating border crossing restrictions should be met with civil vs. criminal penalties? They couldn't have been thinking of anything else, right?
I sometimes listen to the 538 podcast, and they usually have a segment they call "good or bad use of polling" where they'll take an example of a poll or polling question and discuss. For this question, I'd be in the "bad use of polling" camp for the reason you lay out here -- it's hard to say, given this question, exactly what respondents meant by their answer, and so hard to say what it actually tells us.
I have never understood how crossing the border illegally could be dealt with as a crime. The accused would have the right to the presumption of innocence, the right to counsel and the right to a jury trial before he/she could be deported.
Am I missing something?
Well trumpenstein said they were rapists and murderers crossing the border without visas. So that’s that. these conservative folks see all people of color as criminal in some way or another….especially if they’re wading across the rio grande
Yes, I recall this. Still not sure how it justifies the use of the term "far left" in this context. Left, absolutely. But if you choose to discuss only the mainstream you've chosen to exclude the far extremes.