File: 1570656290796.jpg (135.44 KB, 820x1200, 41:60, https://36.media.tumblr.co….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Do you frame your political philosophy more in terms of what you support, or what you oppose? How do you think this influences others' perception of your politics, as well as your own? If it's a conscious thing, what's your reasoning behind it? Is your reasoning consistent?
Even when this choice ultimately boils down to two mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive sides of the same coin, I find that framing and connotation still influence the way beliefs are communicated and understood.
For instance, I tend to more frequently describe myself as anti-capitalist than socialist. This is in part because I have more conviction in capitalism being fundamentally flawed and unethical than I do in socialism being the best alternative, and also in part to avoid semantic confusion over what socialism actually means.
I'm also more likely to call myself anti-authoritarian than libertarian, because I believe the status quo in most of the world is authoritarian, and identifying authoritarianism as the problem by positioning oneself as explicitly opposed carries more of a proactive implication that it authoritarianism is a problem that needs to be addressed, compared the relative passivity of framing oneself as libertarian, which could just as well mean more liberty and autonomy is preferred or wanted rather than a necessity. (There is also a semantic problem here, particularly in the US, where the term "libertarian" is associated more with Randian right-libertarianism and the capital-L Libertarian party.)
But, I tend to describe myself as for LGBTQ liberation rather than anti-$(sexuality/identity)phobia. This is because the core of my position is that LGBTQ people have rights and dignity and deserve liberation/empowerment/respect; bigotry and discrimination are bad, but they're bad as a corollary of the previous statement, not the other way around. At first glance, this seems to contradict my anti-authoritarian/libertarian reasoning, but "liberation" carries an explicitly proactive connotation -- and, indeed, if true LGBTQ liberation were achieved, the potential harm done by bigotry would be orders of magnitude less severe.
Note: this thread is intended to be about pro-/anti- framing in particular, the reasoning behind it, and how this influences the way beliefs are communicated and understood, not about value judgments or scrutiny pertaining to specific views themselves, except where directly relevant to the framing.
File: 1570661186180.png (1.25 MB, 1011x1024, 1011:1024, 2149306__safe_artist-colon….png) ImgOps Google
I can't say I really do. For individual political matters I take them strictly on a case-by-case basis and if they cannot stand on their own merits then I'm not interested.
As far as values, I have one. I'm a small r republican. I value the republic above all else, and my beliefs sway between common sense and radicalism depending on what's in vogue (small v, I am not a slave to fashion). I will back off of other movements I value if I feel it threatens the republic.
File: 1570661941654.jpg (111.06 KB, 549x666, 61:74, b31.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>3406>Do you frame your political philosophy more in terms of what you support, or what you oppose?
I guess it depends. In regards to 1A and 2A, I would say that I frame myself as supporting free speech and supporting the right to keep and bear arms. I guess that is because I see these things as intrinsically and fundamentally valuable.
Now, something like the electoral college — I would say that I oppose (eliminating the electoral college and instead having a national popular vote). I don't really support the electoral college — it is rather crufty and not really an ideal — but I think it is better then a simple national popular vote. And in fact, I have a similar sentiment in regards to democracy itself; as the saying goes, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all other forms of government that have ever been tried.
So, I guess another thing that affects my framing is whether something is the status quo or a proposal to change this status quo. I think I am more likely to say that I support or oppose a proposed change than to say that I support or oppose the status quo. For example, if I say that I oppose our current first-past-the-post voting system, it is not clear what I want instead. Whereas if I say that I support using a Condorcet voting system, that is clearer.
File: 1570663823948.png (274.24 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, ddd.png) ImgOps Google
>>3406>you support, or what you oppose?
Support.>How do you think this influences others' perception of your politics, as well as your own?
Makes me seem more positive.>If it's a conscious thing, what's your reasoning behind it?
I don't want to be a bitter person. I think it's pretty easy to fall into that unless you make an effort to frame things well.>Is your reasoning consistent?
I think so, although I'm not sure I fully understand the question.
I just don't really frame it at all, honestly. If I had to, I'd probably go from 'oppose' more than 'support', but I think that's a side effect of living in a mostly free western nation, and so having a lot of stuff to oppose adding
, as opposed to removing.
File: 1570858720312.png (2.56 MB, 1280x1789, 1280:1789, you.png) ImgOps Google
Generally I don't come to townhall because I'm not interested in debating about "x" topics
I'm more interested about that OP pic. >>3406
So the Charitable Squirrel, I would like to know about that Illustration.
If is not a big problem.
Who drew that illustration? Osamu Tezuka?
Those 3 strange characters from what manga are they from?
In what part/page of tumblr did you download that picture?
P.S. Yes, I know.... maybe I'm breaking the rules but I want to know about that illustration.... if my post gets deleted... The Charitable Squirrel find me in /pony/ so you can tell me about that illustration.