Not the GP, but I feel the same. The reason is that my views haven't really changed, yet somehow my political positioning went from quite liberal to something most people, below a certain age, would consider conservative. I value: free speech, equality of opportunity, antiwar, anti political correctness, anti megacorp, and view the liberty of the individual mattering vastly more than than dictates of authority/hierarchy.
More generally, I think politics has shifted such that left/right is no longer meaningful, as people tend to be much more split on libertarian/authoritarian world views - particularly on the degree to which accredited individuals ought be able to impose their views on society in an effort to 'tweak' people's behaviors. That nuance, more or less, immediately leads to the shifting winds on the issues I mentioned.
All the values you cited are so vague they can encompass almost any position. For example, "antiwar" can mean refusing to bomb other countries to get their resources and it can also mean that if another country threatens to bomb your house you give them whatever resources they want. Free speech can mean free to challenge the government, free to spam or free to brainwash. Liberty of the individual to shoot or liberty of the individual to not be shot?
I suspect that your individual position within each of those axes has drastically changed even though the axis labels have not.
"Left" and "right" remain meaningful. Right means supporting stronger hierarchies and left means supporting weaker hierarchies. They have always meant this since they were originally coined about the french pro/anti monarchist parties. It's "liberal" and "conservative" that have poorly defined meanings. You will not find much right at CCC.
Scientific studies show a real difference in brain structure - the part of the brain that processes fear is bigger in rightists - so it appears to be an intrinsic evolutionary thing and it makes sense it remsins the same thing in each generation.
> Scientific studies show a real difference in brain structure - rightists have enlarged fear centers - so it appears to be an intrinsic evolutionary difference and it makes sense it remains the same across time.
can you point to a few studies on this topic? I am struggling to imagine how one would design a study to measure this
It was a 2011 study that found a 0.28 correlation in amygdalae size vs conservative political identity among a tiny group of college students. A replication attempt dropped that correlation to 0.068 which is basically nothing, and completely failed to replicate at all the other, even weaker, findings of the previous study. And the media called the amygdala the "fear center", which is dumb. It plays a key role in memory - especially long term memory, emotional processing, the understanding of social cues, and more. Removing it would render someone extremely mentally retarded.
---
I'd also add on this issue that considering political issues among college students is itself silly. Our political positions on things is impacted by our life experience, and at the point of college one has very little life experience to formulate views off of. Political identity will often shift radically from age 20 to 40, which against suggests a genetic basis as being farcical - at least beyond the point that your brain structure will typically correlate, to some degree, with the development of skills, identity, etc.
I meant to say that the left/right divide is built in to humans, not that each individual human is predisposed to always be left or always be right.
The rightward shift as people age is pretty easily explained by self-interest. When you start with almost nothing, you want a fair share because that's more than you have now. Once you climb the ladder, you don't want a fair share because that's less than you have now. Once you get above the average, you want to stretch the pyramid taller because that puts you at a higher absolute position, and the higher up you are, the more you want to stretch it. When you're below the middle, you want to shorten the pyramid because that puts you at a higher absolute position (the pyramid extends below the floor).
But that's assuming wealth dynamics continue to work how they did for boomers. IIRC millennials were the first generation to shift leftwards with age, because they mostly didn't get to above-middle positions on the pyramid.
They're not vague in the least, but pointing this out drives anger and cognitive dissonance in people because people want to imagine that they support these values, particularly if they did so when they were younger. For the most unambiguously and plainly obvious - free speech means free speech, not approved speech. You can actually see this cognitive dissonance play out most overtly in Wikipedia's definition of authoritarianism. [1] The meaning of the term has been edited to the point of completely redefining it, relative to its definition of 20 years ago [2], even though the definition of authoritarianism has itself not really changed in that time frame, and the older definition matches the normal definition (and connotation) of it vastly more than the 'modern' version.
The study you mentioned was, even at the time of its publication, quite dubious - finding a negligible correlation (0.23) in amygdalae size in a very non-representative sampling. In a replication attempt that correlation was found to overstate it by more than 3x, finding a correlation of 0.068, which is essentially statistical noise. There's nothing there except clickbait media doing their thing. I'd also add that framing the amygdala as the 'fear center' is itself also quite ridiculous. There also remains the question of identity. I consider myself liberal. I imagine you would object. Who's right? Ah modern 'science', but there I go again challenging that hierarchy.
> You can actually see this cognitive dissonance play out most overtly in Wikipedia's definition of authoritarianism.
I'd say a more overt example is playing out on the national stage, where protests in support of (murdered, raped, and starving) Palestinians in Gaza are crushed, because the alternative is to have the executive branch try to extort a $Billion dollars from the host campus, putting universities in peril, to help buy another gold-plated plane or something.
"Free speech means free speech" is a tautology and does absolutely nothing to counter the idea that it could mean either freedom to oppose the government, freedom to spam, or freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater. In fact it's very conspicuously a purely emotional statement with zero logical content; anyone who uses this response is conspicuously asserting that they don't care about logical argument.
The assertion that Wikipedia has more content than it did in 2004 is also logically void.
The 'freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater' argument against free speech is such a perfect illustration of the issue. That was an argument made by Mr. Eugenics himself, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, in a famous case Schneck vs United States. [1]
In it Charles Schneck was convicted for an absolutely abhorrent crime. He sent out fliers to men drafted for WW1 informing them of a legal defense against the draft - of it constituting involuntary servitude, which was prohibited by the 13th Amendment, and encouraging them to consequently assert their legal rights and work to resist the draft.
For this, he was arrested and put in prison, with the government claiming that his mailed fliers were akin to 'shouting fire in a crowded theater.' This is why free speech means free speech. Limitations are invariably weaponized by authoritarian forces to shoehorn essentially everything into that limitation.
When I say "freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater" I mean "freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater" and not "freedom to hand out fliers informing people that the draft is illegal involuntary servitude".
It doesn't matter what you think such a restriction means. What matters is what politicians would use it for. That's why this is such a beautifully ironic quote, because when I say the right to ban such speech would open the door to abuse, I don't need to draw on hypotheticals.
The quote is literally part of the government's [successful] argument that their right to imprison somebody for shouting fire in a crowded theater naturally grants them the right to imprison somebody for handing out informative fliers that run contrary to warmonger interests.
There's no stronger argument for free speech means free speech than the quote you chose.
So you do believe everyone should have the right to walk into a crowded theater and yell FIRE! and this should be constitutionally protected, because if there's any speech that isn't constitutionally protected, no speech is constitutionally protected?
What about the speech of "I will pay you $50 to stab that guy right now"? Constitutionally protected or do you believe that should be past a limit?
The consequences of an action can be prohibited without touching the action itself. For instance most of every state has laws against signaling a false alarm. It doesn't matter whether you do that by triggering a fire alarm, playing an extremely loud fire alarm type sound, shouting fire, or whatever else - it's all illegal.
Not only does this prevent trampling on speech and minimize abuse, but it's also far more to the point. Because why is shouting fire uniquely awful while shouting penis is just some kids being annoying that should simply be kicked out of a theater? It's not because of the words obviously, but because of the consequence created.
Absolutely, those are great examples of things that are protected by free speech. When the ACLU was at the height of its reputation, and the US at the height of its soft power, we even had things like the ACLU defending the right of a literal nazi group to stage a march. And the various death cults the US has had were also all operating completely legally.
The paradox of tolerance is largely nonsensical, because the key to a free society is free speech but stringent, and blind, enforcement against actions. Somebody can larp out with their swastikas and roman salutes all they want, but the second they lay hands on anybody - they're going to have a few years in a cage to rethink their life decisions. If they repeat this onto a third time, the key gets thrown away.
In general I think that the liberties of the worst of society work in many ways like a canary in the coalmine for the rest of us. As soon as that canary dies it's not long before your government, with its 29% approval rating, is trying to do things like ban the highest polling party in the country under ridiculous mental gymnastics that, in reality, come down to little more than 'we want to stay in power.'
I would also add that, once they do lay their hands on someone (or actively conspire to), I think it's perfectly fine to respond with heftier penalties if the motivation for it is Nazi ideology or other similar stuff. It's not a free speech matter at that point.
Absolutely. The situation where a couple of guys get into a relatively normal fight, and one where a guy seeks somebody out because of any reason are obviously very different - and should be treated differently under the law.
In this regard I also think hate crimes miss the mark, because is something like 'the knockout game' a hate crime? Probably not, but I think it should be treated in a similar fashion because it's essentially the same problem - of some ideology driving somebody to violence, as opposed to a normal personal conflict.
More generally, I think politics has shifted such that left/right is no longer meaningful, as people tend to be much more split on libertarian/authoritarian world views - particularly on the degree to which accredited individuals ought be able to impose their views on society in an effort to 'tweak' people's behaviors. That nuance, more or less, immediately leads to the shifting winds on the issues I mentioned.