Printable View
Just getting curious here- Social last types, what are your political or social justice opinions, and how involved are you in politics, if at all?
Are you completely apolitical and disinterested, or are you more involved than the stereotypes would have us believe?
I used to be very political when I was younger, but then somewhere down the line, I became very apolitical. If I had to say what broke the camel's back for me it was the 2000 election.
The whole controversy with the electronic machines and it coming down to a recount and a supreme court decision left a bad taste in my mouth. Then the 2004 election between two skull and bones members (Bush and Kerry) was kind of the nail in the coffin for me.
Since then, I've viewed political elections as mere sideshows that will make little difference in how countries and the world is run. The debaucle of the 2016 election was a good example of how much of a sideshow elections really are in the end.
People complain about Trump all the time, but in the end of the day he is just a symptom of a corrupt political system, not the cause. Replacing him with someone else in a future election is not going to solve the core problems of society, it will only result in changes to minor issues.
Lobbying has pervaded and corrupted politics to the point where corporations and wealthy individuals with their deep pockets will have more say in politics and government than the public will ever have.
Once in a while I might read something or respond to something, but I've other things I'd rather be reading about, talking about, or doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by JC1
While "Progressive" is the closest label (that I know of) that might describe my stances, I don't actually DO anything, belong to any Progressive groups, keep up on what's going on, etc. I'm 45yo and the 2016 election was the only time I got involved enough to go vote and maybe talk about Bernie Sanders a few times. On facebook I share/like some memes, and sometimes I share/like more than I wish I had, lol. Sometimes I share some just to piss off my libertarian e837 SLE older brother. :lol:
My husband keeps up on what's going on (though not obsessively), and he'll make comments about 'recent events' and may eventually tell me a summary of what he's referring to. And I used to watch some of those satire shows that would touch on politics.
My recent argument in another thread was political in topic, but 75% of the time I ignore the political topics on this forum. The only reason I went on that thread in the first place was because it was in 'socionics general' and was titled to be about Delta/Beta. (It did, however, help me figure out my stance on affirmative action policies. I'm now no longer ambivalent about them, but am glad they were implemented 50 years ago.) And I suppose this thread.
When it comes to social issues, I've got a few pet peeves. Primarily about separation of Church and State, "a vote for x is a vote for y" bullshit, getting money out of politics, and things related to disabilities, social security, and medical. Oh, and what got me into politics in 2016 was my anger about how my 21yo daughter works a full time job at minimum wage, but still requires a co-signer to get one of the cheapest 1 bedroom apartments in town. I didn't have a problem getting cheapass apartments when I was her age, the price disparity has gotten out of proportion! That and the church/state thing are my biggest peeves.
That about covers it.
My brother (SX/SP) pretty much ignores world news and anything that goes beyond his closest interactions, the only activism he'd ever join would be abolishing schools because they prevent him from finding comfort at home + playing with his 2-3 friends, and very intense sessions of gaming. It ties into him being a sensing type a lot. His enneatype is 8 :yup:
Nope, not interested in politics. Don't vote. Don't watch the news. It's just not important to me.
Why is the separation of Church and State a problem? I'm not from the U.S. but I've heard they are still pretty religious out there. Wouldn't that be the progressive move, according to your "progressive" politics to have them separated?Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
I've seen his name popping up on YT recommendations a lot, as well as his face in the thumbnail but seriously, people, WHO THE FUCK IS JORDAN PETERSON????!! And why is everyone talking about him, paying him all that undue attention. Seriously, I think I had once clicked on a video with him but I was like eeww, what a skeezy, slimy guy, ewww, why is he always in a shirt looking like this burnt out alcoholic pretending to be professional... urghhh. Is he going to be the next president? I bet that's how Trump became the president, everybody hated him but they kept watching, and he gave a reason for people to point fingers on anything other than themselves and I guess they elected him to keep on having the pretext to deflect and gossip. Now this is what I hate about the socials, they always justify how bad bad can be so that it to flip over to be good. So bad that it's good = ironic camp. They get off on watching shit, then tweeting about.Quote:
Originally Posted by eko
That's true. I've already had my share on Personality Cafe. Now I'm getting up to date about this whole new PC-ness through Jon Haidt - interestingly, he also got pissed off by it. This is one of the bane of typology forums: a lot of millenials, a lot of misdirected or directionless, uneducated, immature people feeling like all of a sudden they need a personality. They need a face out there. And they almost always, inexorably, go for something special, outstanding and they just can't be, for the love of God, can't be real on these sites. About life, about misery, about being the underdog, the usual daily stuff.Quote:
Another reason I don't like the feminist movement is because it scares men to approach women, and nowadays it's like people can't even make a joke or approach a woman without getting the misogynist stamp- it's ridiculous. Young men are already intimidated enough by women without this.
I thought social 6s, more precisely the 6+2 "Republicans" are the moralists, aren't they? There aren't much social last women out there, as much as I've reckoned. 5s may think they are.Quote:
Edit: btw, alot of social last women are feminists too. maybe not active but I've seen 6s 'expose' guys who came on to them in a "wrong" way. Because 6s are moralistic and they need supporters (people agreeing with their opinions) to have their security, and being anti-feminist is fairly unaccepted though it's becoming more accepted now
Anyways, knowing that this whole "protective vindictiveness" has already been criticized in 2016 as psychologically incorrect (by Haidt), I'll be turning more active politically..., well, just a bit, to broadcast the message on these typology forums that banning people for flirting with women is just not awesome. If they do it against being declined, then I agree, but done once, tentatively is not an offense. Of course, for the socials, it to be an offense is politically motivated. They'd get the smart people's reputation down so that their criticism would not be listened to.
Jordan Peterson is a dude who is viewed as a jackass by the left but he occasionally gives good advice, heh ^_^ .
Peter Josephson is a professor and psychologist who got famous for his stance against the Canadian Bill C-16. What the bill says exactly, I'm not sure. It seems vague to me. Anyway, yeah it does seem to me like Jordan Josephson, like Donald Trumps, knows how to manipulate the media. He knows how to get the spotlight to shine in his direction. He's a psychologist after all, so I guess he knows how to manipulate people. I have a theory that came to me just now. Maybe they say things on purpose that they know people will take out of context or unfairly slam them for. And then they can say, "Look how unfairly I'm being treated. I'm harmless. I'm a victim. Everybody is treating me badly and unfairly." I guess it distracts from the actual horrible, violence-supporting things that they say. Plus it gets them attention. That's what they want. That's what every troll wants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
Peter Josephson?? :DD What was his dissertation about? I'm sure it must've been something about the art or psychology of persuasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
About Bill C-16 you mean? His critique of it was something about freedom of speech and that one shouldn't be forced to use words or names or pronouns or what not. Whether the Bill actually goes against freedom of speech, I don't know for sure. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
I checked it. I think Jordan Peterson does the right thing in this case, in advocating against... well, if not precisely against the Bill C-16, but the more general "vindictive protectiveness" of transgender and non-gender-binary people's entitlement towards criminalizing someone because of misnaming their gender. There's a simple way of slipping out of this conflict: just call people based on their sex. Gender is cultural and you can always say you have perceived the person as physically male, even if they claim to be a transgender "woman." Just say that you though they were transvestites who still identified with being male. I mean what's the offense in insisting on calling someone based on their sex of birth? No plastic surgery is perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
In my opinion, people can identify however they want. But I of course believe in free speech, so I'm not for criminalizing certain speech. Anyway, as a 4 So/Sp, do you have any advice on how to differentiate between the different instinctual stackings of 4, in laymen's terms ('cause I'm stupid)? There is so much different, confusing and contradicting information out there. I'm pretty certain I'm a 4w5, but don't know if I'm So/Sp, Sp/Sx, Sp/So, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
I might be able to help you a bit but I wouldn't want to derail this thread. Back to Jordanson. The problem is, the conservative side isn't really dealing with the biggest issue underneath it all. While people rage about SJWs, "trannies," the new PC-ness, internet authoritarianism, something important gets wiped under the carpet. And it is: money. While we fixate our gaze on the shifts of social culture's horizon, we tend to forget what REAL ACTIVISM was all about: not allowing some too much profit to amass, taxing the rich more, creating socioeconomic equality, as much as possible. Ofc, the this cultural circus is just the manifestation of the money problems, working class low wage, long shifts, etc. I think Jordanson knows this... I didn't listen to all his babbling but extroverts do just that: the more they talk-talk-talk, the more they delay ACTION. Chatting, doing "discourses", "giving commentary on events," "punditism" is how the extroverts contribute to public life. You never see Mr. Jordanson helping out on a construction site, in Chic-fil-a, do you? Neither do you see Mr. Slavoj Slavoj Žižek doing that - all they do is talk and write shittons of books. I've read Žižek and I know that he cheats. These are public figures, as well as pseudo-intellectuals (demagogues). The real intellectuals are the anthropologists who actually descend to the slums (e.g. cross the border with Mexicans) to make their report (but between them too there are some who do it for fame). So taking the right side on this "vindictive protectiveness" debate in his case is just image polishing, changing dots.Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
As stated in Soviet Russia, you don't care about politic, politic care about you.
But perhaps it's exactly something as strong as demonization that is needed sometimes to attract attention on an issue. Of course, it's not all up to extroverts. They are being lifted up by the masses. There's a complicity that is taking place, between these more exhibitionistic social types and the more servant, self-deprecating social types. The latter need these "visionary leaders" to use them as pretext/green light for collective projects and to delegate responsibility on when the project doesn't work out because of internal corruption.Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
I have a passing interest in politics, basically just enough to see through the bullshit for what it is. Politicians are delusional and power hungry individuals that try to convince you that their lies are the best ones. I probably have a more extreme opinion on criminal justice than the most seeing how I want to bring back beheading and hanging for some crimes (terrorism to name one). I'm more uninterested in social justice I think it's just a bunch of whiny people in a he said she said situation most of the time. What does bother me is when people in place of authority misuse that authority in some way that I consider rude or violating, this can cause me to act in some unforseen way as a counterpart, evening the scales once again.
I WANT separation of Church and State, and get annoyed when people want to push their own religion onto others, particularly through political means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
hi AnnQuote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
Hi Maritsa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beautiful sky
(I'm not really back. I had just checked in to see if there were any private messages and/or notifications to catch up on. I hope all is well for ya'll.)
I just can't get myself into politics no matter how many times I have tried.
Well, dunno about so last. I have a sense of social justice however I think politics won't help you. It is basically professionally parasitical life wannabe important lifestyle that lives in its own ecosystem and sometimes crosses boundaries with others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
pet peeve = upsetting personal issue with sthingQuote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
I thought you meant you take issue with the separation of the two. Anyways, reading the rest made me think why on earth was America labeled a "1st world country?" Over here we also had a rise in the flat rental prices, something about people not trusting the banks with their money, they'd rather convert it into mortgage. Not sure what "co-signers" are, though.
Problem with Church is, humans procreate, reproduce way faster than our ability to spread, knowledge, culture, enlightenment, civility. There are and perhaps always will, more than enough uneducated masses willing to buy in whatever post-truth cult of the time. And Typology is not an exception. Most people here are the consumers of this cyberpunk religion. Because the thing with religion is... that it's always been the dominant paradigm of a certain place and a time. Religion has never been called as such, people were practicing it without being aware of other, possibly wider paradigms. And all religions are inherently typologies, indexing the exterior phenomena according to their political agenda. And all their followers are only the exploiters of the taxonomies (role players), the labels of their religion (masquerade), each twisting their chosen one (e.g. "EII") to mask their own hypocrisy. Each culture, system of significations is a religion.
Lately, I've found two Sx women on youtube, one is an infamous ex-actress, the other a former typology enthusiast. Both have children as has the first Sx/Sp woman I met IRL. If you associate w/ the label "progressive," then why do you have children?
The Enneagram is a pretty hard-to-decipher beast because there are so many different opinions wrt. what the types mean, but I'm mostly sure that I'm SP/SX, given the opinions that seem credible. I have zero motivation to sublimate myself into a greater cause; to engage in any kind of activism; or to follow the humdrum business of shifting rivalries and alliances. None. Zero.
Even highschool politics was a challenge: I assumed people only conformed publicly, because they felt intimidated or intellectually unprepared to challenge "common wisdom;" I didn't realize that people would willingly change their deepest feelings to feel validated. It never even occurred to me that social pecking orders existed until I learned about the Enneagram -- social hierarchies might be more of a Conservative thing than an SO thing, though, so idk.
That said, I do care about people getting screwed by the system. I like learning about the machinery of how society works. I'm interested in what other people are feeling, and many of these people naturally value SO.
Whether or not this is intended as a joke, it makes a spectacularly good point. SP/SX or SX/SP types ought to care about politics because it has the potential to radically transform their world -- they can't ignore it anymore than they can ignore diabetes. Power is just another resource after all, and politics is the art of how power can be provisioned systematically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy
more like unable to ignore it anymore than we can ignore hunger...Quote:
Originally Posted by xerxe
so you're the miraculous subtype of So blind spot (given the opinion of others): the one that... doesn't have any blind spot overfocus... yea, I guess diabetes is a possibility more distant than hunger.Quote:
I have zero motivation to sublimate myself into a greater cause; to engage in any kind of activism; or to follow the humdrum business of shifting rivalries and alliances. None. Zero.
What is blind spot overfocus and what does hunger have to do with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
https://www.personalitycafe.com/enneagram-personality-theory-forum/1255538-blind-spot-over-focus-thoughts-experiences.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by xerxe
hunger's just a metaphor to how urgent one feels the need to care for their blind spot
I see. I don't know how "official" this theory is, but it seems like there are a number of ways to experience "hunger" other than the three points I listed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
Possibly. But an So blind person may as well be hungry for the inability to hold down a job. And that's more immediate than a distant possibility of diabetes.Quote:
Originally Posted by xerxe
Hey, you can completely screw yourself over and still worry about diabetes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
You're missing the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by xerxe
OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
A co-signer is someone who has sufficient income/resources to qualify to pay for not only their own place, but also the new place to be rented. This means that if the primary renter doesn't have enough income to make the rent, then the owner can go after the co-signer to pay it. An example, my daughter doesn't make enough money to qualify for the cheapest rental here, even though she works full time at minimum wage. So my husband has had to co-sign her rental agreement; which means that if my daughter can't make the payments, or damages the property, the owner can force my husband to cover the costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
1) Pregnancy can happen whether you want it to or not.Quote:
If you associate w/ the label "progressive," then why do you have children?
2) I didn't know I was pregnant until 5 months along, so it was too late to abort.
3) I've only ever had the one child.
4) And finally, the decision to have or not have children is far more complex than one's political associations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
Lemme backtrack. So I don't understand: what was your problem with "co-signing" in 2016? The extra "red tape" work or that the minimum wage wasn't enough for a proper studio flat?Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
May I tease you a bit further? The following is the direct continuation of the first quote:
As an "Sx/Sp" and a "progressive".... how "socially blind" and how progressive is to share more memes than you wished for on social media?Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
I'm only catching up now... so you're an ENFP in the MBTI, that means you're socially blind but you're an extrovert? ENFPs usually don't have Enneagram 6, except 7w6. I guess not having noticed your pregnancy sooner could be put down to inferior Si? How is keeping a child that could have been euthanized even at 5 months old less libertarian than your "libertarian e837 SLE older brother" that you piss off with memes? Yes, it's a complex decision... but is it complex in terms of rationality?Quote:
1) Pregnancy can happen whether you want it to or not.
2) I didn't know I was pregnant until 5 months along, so it was too late to abort.
3) I've only ever had the one child.
4) And finally, the decision to have or not have children is far more complex than one's political associations.
My problem with cosigning is that it means that the cost of rent here is way too high for a full time worker to be able to get even the cheapest and crappiest one bedroom apartment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
But it's not just the monthly cost of the apartment, my daughter could cover that by careful budgeting as I had. The problem is the demands that a renter must have an income that is 3 times the amount of the rent. Which then means that there must be two people working to get a studio or one bedroom apartment, and at least 3 people working full time to get a two bedroom apartment.
This means, in turn, that there are fewer choices and fewer options for workers and families today than there were when I was in my late teens and early 20s.
It influences whether or not a worker can go to school to improve their job prospects, or even to be looking for another job. More specifically for me, it means my daughter will be stuck in her dead-end job with nearly zero chances of upward mobility which could provide greater economic security, and significantly greater changes of even further downward mobility which would give way to even greater economical insecurity.
It also is a major reason why we have more homeless people than ever before. College students and single workers living in their cars.
And I worry about what will happen to my daughter when there's no one who can cosign for her. She'll become homeless as well. So I have to find ways of teaching her how to do that and be safe and well.
(and this doesn't even cover the climate change effects on economic security)
I don't understand this question.Quote:
May I tease you a bit further? The following is the direct continuation of the first quote:
As an "Sx/Sp" and a "progressive".... how "socially blind" and how progressive is to share more memes than you wished for on social media?
There are better ways of spending my time than sitting at a desk on the internet watching cute animal and political videos.
Also, I'm in a perpetual back and forth between Transmitting mode (Sx) (the liking and sharing of posts/memes/etc) vs a more Self-Preserving mode (Sp) (taking care of my nest, and preparing for times of insecurity).
None of this itself has to do with "progressive" label. Only the types of political shares.
Regarding my typing:Quote:
I'm only catching up now... so you're an ENFP in the MBTI, that means you're socially blind but you're an extrovert? ENFPs usually don't have Enneagram 6, except 7w6. I guess not having noticed your pregnancy sooner could be put down to inferior Si? How is keeping a child that could have been euthanized even at 5 months old less libertarian than your "libertarian e837 SLE older brother" that you piss off with memes? Yes, it's a complex decision... but is it complex in terms of rationality?
No, I'm NeFi in Socionics.
Regarding NeFi and e6:
Enneagram 6 is a head fixation type, dealing with the aversive emotion of fear.
So take a socionics NeFi with their ability to look at things from differing even conflicting perspectives...
...add a very high propensity for Neuroticism, and very low propensity for Conscientiousness...
...add a bunch of life and security threatening trauma into their developing years...
...and BOOM! :hyper:
I also have a long (enneagram related) history on this forum of fluctuating between my normal anxious and insecure mode: 6w7 sx/sp (or sp/sx)...to doing things that'll help me feel more secure and less anxious 6w7 sp/sx...which has the side-benefit of bringing up my confidence levels which leads me to go out and explore more ...7w6 sx/sp ... which only lasts a few days (if even that) before I'm back to seeing I had probably made yet another poor decision, imagining all the ways that something can go wrong, and returning to anxious mode.
Regarding 5 months before knowing prego:
Not having noticed my pregnancy is simple, but multi-influenced:
a) I have polycystic ovary syndrome aka PCOS. This means that I can go months (my record was 9 months without being pregnant) without having a period..and without having been pregnant. It also means that pregnancy is harder to accomplish because there's too thick of a wall around the uterus (due to lack of monthly shedding), as well as scar tissue, that blocks a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.
b) The time when I was throwing up? My roommate was cooking our food and she kept not cooking things properly. I assumed the throwing up had to do with that. "confirmed" when I took over the cooking for myself again and stopped throwing up.
c) I was on psyche meds that have side effects of weight gain. So even though I was in the best shape of my life, physically active, doing workouts, going to college to get a Recreation/Fitness Degree, etc...I kept gaining weight. I assumed it was the meds until I reached a point where I was panicked that maybe it was a tumor instead. (I wasn't dating or such, so there wasn't any recent sexual activity.)
d) By the time I bought the pregnancy tests, and went to see a Dr to verify, I was already 5 months along.
Regarding the last two Qs:
What does keeping and raising the child I couldn't abort have to do with libertarianism or my brother?
I kept the child because I was responsible for her. I considered seeing if her father wanted her, or his parents, but I didn't think they could do a good job of raising her. And when her special needs would over-power my own, I'd reconsider sending her to them. But ultimately I felt I would be the one best to understand what she was dealing with, and finding ways to help her overcome them. There was also a wanting to stop the cycle of abuse that ran rampant in our family. And the only way I felt I could ensure that was to be the one who raised her instead of them.
Historically, banks won't lend you money to buy a house unless your household income is 2.4X the cost of the house. 3X seems excessive. The landlords are trying to get a richer clientele.Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
Usually, the cost of property and the cost of rent is closely tied to how much money you can make by living in that area. High rents = high incomes. Of course, that is an average. When people are just starting out in their careers, it helps to have parental support.
You can't do much about this, but if property taxes were higher, then property would be worth less and it would cost less to buy property and consequently landlords wouldn't have to charge so much rent to cover their loan costs. They would, however, pass along the property tax increase to their renters.
BUT, with the added revenue from property taxes, the government could lower the income tax, which is a tax on productive labor, and renters with income would come out ahead. Why would you want to tax productive labor? Whatever you tax, you get less of.
Good for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
There's a few things going on from what I can understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
For starters, we're in a college town, so there's high demand for rentals. Also, they charge extra rent for each person that shares the apartment. The understanding has been that if a student is renting an apartment, they must be from out of county, and so it's expected that the parents of the students will pay for some if not all the rent.
Also, due to the high demand, lots with homes are being torn down and multi-level apartment complexes are being built by the same developers who aren't local (probably from California). Even the cheaper apartments have been bought by these people. When I first moved out here (22 or so years ago), only a few apartments had this 3x requirement, and yes, they were in the nicer areas, with nicer apartments. I think the 3x demand started appearing more, in lesser neighborhoods, around the time when these developers were starting to push hard to buy up house lots to convert into apartments.
I feel like there's gotta be at least 1-2 other reasons why this has become such a widespread practice here, though.
That's what I would have thought. Unfortunately my daughter was born to me, I'm on disability, and so my income is below poverty line. I'm not eligible to cosign for her. Richard and I aren't actually married, but he's been kind enough to cosign for her before. Though he refuses to do it if she has a roommate. (understandable, he doesn't want to be held responsible for someone else) So my ability to help her is limited. I keep hinting to her that things might be easier financially if she moved somewhere else. But she wants to be near her friends, and where things are familiar to her. (If I wasn't with Richard, I'd have left this area years ago.)Quote:
Usually, the cost of property and the cost of rent is closely tied to how much money you can make by living in that area. High rents = high incomes. Of course, that is an average. When people are just starting out in their careers, it helps to have parental support.
I'm not into Socionics but have plunged into the description to accommodate your language. IEE is actually ENTP in MBTI. Duckygo didn't give any "NeFi" Socionics profiles, so just went with the next best thing.Quote:
Regarding my typing:
No, I'm NeFi in Socionics.
[Hidden in "spoiler" but elevated by me]In MBTI I'm xNfx. (x means that I'm really close to the border of the two choices and it would switch depending on circumstances, lowercase f means I leaned more F than T, and Capital N means there was no doubt/borderingness)
[...]
So take a socionics NeFi with their ability to look at things from differing even conflicting perspectives...
...add a very high propensity for Neuroticism, and very low propensity for Conscientiousness...
Quote:
Oh, and what got me into politics in 2016 was my anger about how my 21yo daughter works a full time job at minimum wage, but still requires a co-signer to get one of the cheapest 1 bedroom apartments in town. I didn't have a problem getting cheapass apartments when I was her age, the price disparity has gotten out of proportion![emphasis by me]
Unfortunately, you have not answered my question: what is your issue with the practice of co-signing? What it sure looks like you have an issue with, though, is the reinforced accountability (i.e. "co-signing") to pay the price of having spared the life of a 5 month old fetus because of wanting the best for her. Do you not wish to be accountable for your choice for parenthood?Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
Quote:
This means, in turn, that there are fewer choices and fewer options for workers and families today than there were when I was in my late teens and early 20s.
It influences whether or not a worker can go to school to improve their job prospects, or even to be looking for another job. More specifically for me, it means my daughter will be stuck in her dead-end job with nearly zero chances of upward mobility which could provide greater economic security, and significantly greater changes of even further downward mobility which would give way to even greater economical insecurity.
It also is a major reason why we have more homeless people than ever before. College students and single workers living in their cars. And I worry about what will happen to my daughter when there's no one who can cosign for her. She'll become homeless as well. So I have to find ways of teaching her how to do that and be safe and well. [emphasis by me]
But how would you be the best one to understand, if your economic freedom (that which influences the mortgage prices, influences against the trend of governmental regulation) is more important for you?Quote:
I kept the child because I was responsible for her. [...] But ultimately I felt I would be the one best to understand what she was dealing with, and finding ways to help her overcome them.
Libertarians score higher on Jonathan Haidt's "harm/care scale" and because of less interest in tradition (i.e. are more empathic than rule abiding/enforcing), their "thinking outside the box," or in this case "helping outside the box" is ungrounded in reality. That means a lack of foresight about the extremes of decentralization, the loosening of social fabric owed to individualism, laissez-faire economy (of the 'nuclear family' enterprise).Quote:
Regarding the last two Qs:
What does keeping and raising the child I couldn't abort have to do with libertarianism or my brother?
While political memes, in theory, can be the subject of Sx transmission, alone they are not. With such omission, your understanding of Sx-dom appears to be false.Quote:
Also, I'm in a perpetual back and forth between Transmitting mode (Sx) (the liking and sharing of posts/memes/etc) vs a more Self-Preserving mode (Sp) (taking care of my nest, and preparing for times of insecurity).
I appreciate you taking the time to reply to this, especially the part about your worries for your daughter; but when it comes to the "progressiveness" of your political views, I'm sorry to say but you do not sound convincing.
There seems to be a misunderstanding going on between us. I'm either misunderstanding you, or your misunderstanding me, or both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
I DID answer your question. I may not have given you the answer you wanted, or I may have not been as directed as you wanted, but I did answer your question.
---
The current local economic demands for renters to have income that is 3x the rent, isn't done as an effort to reinforce accountability for having children. That's a silly thing to even suggest.Quote:
What it sure looks like you have an issue with, though, is the reinforced accountability (i.e. "co-signing") to pay the price of having spared the life of a 5 month old fetus because of wanting the best for her. Do you not wish to be accountable for your choice for parenthood?
edited to add: here's a link from a simple search regarding the 3x thing, it includes comments reasons for it, and reasons it's a poor measurement of suitability.
For every reason for it, there are alternative ways to help provide the security that the owner wants...but rental management places won't allow those alternatives. (I've even offered to pay a full year's rent at once, which means they could put it in the bank and make interest income from it for themselves. So 3x isn't just about feeling secure that the rent can be paid.)
https://www.trulia.com/voices/Rental...or_time-425848
---
Here you are either assuming or projecting some kind of values that don't match with anything I've said. Thus reinforcing the feeling that there's a misunderstanding happening within our communication efforts.Quote:
But how would you be the best one to understand, if your economic freedom (that which influences the mortgage prices, influences against the trend of governmental regulation) is more important for you?
---
Ok, so I'm guessing that you're not from the USA, while I am. *(see "edited to add" at end of this section")* And my understanding is that we're using the same terms to refer to different things.Quote:
Libertarians score higher on Jonathan Haidt's "harm/care scale" and because of less interest in tradition (i.e. are more empathic than rule abiding/enforcing), their "thinking outside the box," or in this case "helping outside the box" is ungrounded in reality. That means a lack of foresight about the extremes of decentralization, the loosening of social fabric owed to individualism, laissez-faire economy (of the 'nuclear family' enterprise).
So I'll rephrase what I meant when I say "progressive", to mean "social democratic"...and before you get confused by what I mean by that, I'll add that I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter.
In the USA, Liberals are not the same thing as Libertarians.
Libertarians score very high on the Liberty/Oppression scale, and about average on the Fairness(Proportionality)/Cheating scale.
Liberals score high on the Care/Harm scale; quite sensitive on the Liberty/Oppression scale; and about average on the Fairness(Proportionality)/Cheating scale.
And yes, this makes them somewhat blind to values that the other 1/3+ of the country includes in their decision making: Authority, Loyalty, and Sanctity.
(though many liberals have a variation of those three, as well; For example, I favor Sanctity of, and Loyalty to, the Earth and Sustainable Stewardship of its Resource. I'd rather American Resources be used to benefit ALL Americans on its soils, rather than Proportioning it out to whoever has the most money to buy off our government representatives or Proportioning it out to whoever's best at exploiting workers.)
* edited to add: after reviewing the thread I saw that you had already told me you weren't from the USA. I apologize for not having remembered that bit. If I had remembered I would have realized we were already headed to misunderstandings regarding those political labels, and maybe I could have clarified the above earlier.
---
This is a thread specifically about Social-last and politics. A question was asked:Quote:
While political memes, in theory, can be the subject of Sx transmission, alone they are not. With such omission, your understanding of Sx-dom appears to be false.
I appreciate you taking the time to reply to this, especially the part about your worries for your daughter; but when it comes to the "progressiveness" of your political views, I'm sorry to say but you do not sound convincing.
...and I answered for myself.Quote:
Quote:
Just getting curious here- Social last types, what are your political or social justice opinions, and how involved are you in politics, if at all?
Are you completely apolitical and disinterested, or are you more involved than the stereotypes would have us believe?
You asked me questions, I answered.
I feel no need to convince you of anything.
It takes time to cool down but I'm taking it, alright, more than just dishing it out. I missed the mark big time but the driving force was just. This is not the complete rebuff, I'm lazy to do it. Plus, I'm not even sure it's better to make you aware of your own self, lest you'll co-opt that. But if I really cared to and wanted to, the easiest point to tackle is your not progressive but conservative (Cartesian, "innocent-") use of the mother love rhetoric. Most women do this to win... a lot of things. Oh, and I'm also lazy to read up on Jon Haidt, but even if you got that right (I can doubt that since in line with the competitiveness to ruff my argument, you still fail to provide the source, you know, giving back to the community and all...) you are still missing a point with libertarians and their "care/harm" rhetoric... that which relates to your conservative use of the motherhood rhetoric. So overall, you may claim "social democrat," your actions speak somewhere between conservative and libertarian.Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
So I might put more effort into digging up some cases about mother "love" later (I have them saved somewhere) but since I'm already sure you are not "leaning more towards feeling," as you wrote earlier but you are an ENTP - and I'm also sure the only Enneagram 6 you might have may actually be a 5w6 (like my uncle has it) but your primary motivation is more of an Enneagram 3 - I'm okay with postponing that response indefinitely. You guys shouldn't smarten up too much, there are even greater numbers of "zombies" you'd jump opportunistically to fool/exploit. Plus, I've been through these rounds already: of getting into these long debates of tangents within tangents with an ENTP and no matter what they still wouldn't admit to being immoral/ethically disloyal, they'd relativize my Fi because everything depends on something else, so there's no final agency to blame, right?
Oh, I assumed you were familiar with his work since you yourself were referencing Jon Haidt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
Source book = "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion" by Jonathan Haidt.
I was on the second to last chapter of my second read through of the book at the time that I posted that last response to you. I was actually excited to see that someone else had read his work...but after your response I'm doubting you've actually read his book. Have you gone to his website at least? Here's a helpful quote for ya: (please note that the writer of the quoted article was Jonathan Haidt.)
and for a quick summary, in particular see page 13 for a quick summary of morals differences between conservatives, liberals, and libertarians: https://www.righteousmind.com/wp-con...teous-Mind.pdfQuote:
https://billmoyers.com/content/excer...ighteous-mind/ :
(A note on terminology: In the United States, the word liberal refers to progressive or left- wing politics, and I will use the word in this sense. But in Europe and elsewhere, the word liberal is truer to its original meaning—valuing liberty above all else, including in economic activities. When Europeans use the word liberal, they often mean something more like the American term libertarian, which cannot be placed easily on the left- right spectrum. Readers from outside the United States may want to swap in the words progressive or left- wing whenever I say liberal.)
---
Your mbti typing of me means nothing here. so I'm not going to bother addressing it.Quote:
you are still missing a point with libertarians and their "care/harm" rhetoric... that which relates to your conservative use of the motherhood rhetoric. So overall, you may claim "social democrat," your actions speak somewhere between conservative and libertarian.
So I might put more effort into digging up some cases about mother "love" later (I have them saved somewhere) but since I'm already sure you are not "leaning more towards feeling," as you wrote earlier but you are an ENTP - and I'm also sure the only Enneagram 6 you might have may actually be a 5w6 (like my uncle has it) but your primary motivation is more of an Enneagram 3 - I'm okay with postponing that response indefinitely. You guys shouldn't smarten up too much, there are even greater numbers of "zombies" you'd jump opportunistically to fool/exploit. Plus, I've been through these rounds already: of getting into these long debates of tangents within tangents with an ENTP and no matter what they still wouldn't admit to being immoral/ethically disloyal, they'd relativize my Fi because everything depends on something else, so there's no final agency to blame, right?
Also, your response isn't to me as a person nor anything I've actually written, but are based on your gut assumption of retyping me. Which kind of confirms Haidt when he says that "Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning comes second." Hence, your blatant misunderstandings of what I've actually written. Your intuitions about what I meant by "progressive", "liberal", NeFi, etc. have been proven now to be off, (see the links for the proof) which means that your 'strategic reasoning' is off as well. Perhaps read the Haidt related links, review his materials, review what I've written, and perhaps you'll find the 'error of your ways', ;)
-----
edited to add:
It must be nice to live in a country where the things I'm interested in having in the USA is so taken for granted that it's considered conservative to want them. It must be nice to have single payer medical insurance, a livable minimum wage to basic living costs ratio, sustainable energy rather than fossil fuels, pro-choice, equal rights for lgbtq+, a country attempting to counter climate change, a non-corporate-bought government, religion being kept out of government, humane treatment of immigrants and refugees, and a country that doesn't think the free-market is god-like. It really must be nice to live in that country. But that is NOT the USA yet. And currently, wanting those things is considered soooo far Left that it's anti-american. That to want those things means you hate america. I can only dream of the day when those things are considered so inherent in our system that they're considered conservative values.Quote:
you may claim "social democrat," your actions speak somewhere between conservative and libertarian.
I thought you said you...Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
No , i don't have interest with politics , news , and what's going on here
Although , i know them from twitter
But , i prefer do tie strong bond with my close friends and crush and learn something i've prove to my studies
YES. Absolutely. I have chosen my hill to die on. Have you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkVmDQ1_JDk
I'll leave you in chaos
Which is no longer part of me
For I am the eye of the storm
I am the living center
I am an ancient order
And what is Chaos is secondary to me
Its world of rags
Applies no longer to me
I'm a traditionalist, not some fucking conservative idiot, like Trump, Republicans or the Tories.
:thinking: I should expand on what I consider tradition: principles (universally true) expressed by different peoples from different perspectives. (kinda Ti way of seeing it and not what most ppl expect).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHlKSGTM8hs
:na:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI3cO4Yk7Yg
Btw have you heard of permaculture: https://www.permaculturenews.org/what-is-permaculture/
i've seen it argued before that only so-instinct can really care about politics. i am not sure if i really believe this. politics are a threat to self-preservation, is what i am aware of. the realm of all social things (group dynamics) are dangerous. when acting as a group humans can display some of the worst aspects of their nature, a blind mob that has lost individual sense of anything. it's scary af. one-on-one humans are okay but since all humans are connected in networks to other humans (if not through relations then through beliefs, culture, etc.) there is little safety in numbers (it tends to be the opposite). the social pecking order looks for scapegoats in emotion driven ways, or in strategic ways. it's incredibly instinctual. unfortunately the individual can't ever truly be free from the society, unless it can really find a way to meet all survival needs independently, which most people can't do.
I am only interested in principles, really (i.e., debating a topic that may be related to politics, but not being engaged in what is actually happening with that topic politically). I am almost never in camp A or camp B on a topic, but rather I just make up my own mind on what I think makes the most sense, given what I know and the arguments being put forth. Typically some things I agree with camp A, and some things I agree with camp B.
I hate when people tell me that "I should vote." Why? I don't know enough. Note that I live in Canada, so we are lucky enough to have three full parties with a realistic chance of winning. If I lives in America I may vote, because I would vote liberal; however, I would not consider myself "locked in" to liberal in Canada, and I would consider voting conservative (I agree with some aspects here).
I hate politics because they typically dissolve into "camp A" hating "camp B" and you can't help but notice that the people on both sides are essentially the exact same beyond the fact that, based on whatever life factor lead to it, they just ended up on two different sides of the same issue. It is rather laughable in that sense.That is an So-thing I think: smearing someone for being on the opposite side of the issue as you, while being oblivious to the fact that maybe you really only hate that person because they remind you so much of yourself?
Also, and maybe this is an SO-thing too - how can people know so much about so many topics? I swear, so/sps will talk about anything from sexuality, gender, race, environmentalism, abortion, the economy, the stock market, homelessness, drugs, mental health, etc. etc. with, what they think is a well formulated opinion, but is typically just them saying exactly what someone else said 20 years ago, or exactly what they are "supposed to" say, depending on what political party they affiliate with. Don't get me wrong, I try and be a good person, but if something does not interest me then it does not interest me.
Oh, I also hate office politics. If you have an issue come up and say it to my face, and I will do the same. Everything is so melodramatic, but does it really matter that much that Heather used a red pen to fill out her hours? No, it doesn't. Move on girl. so/sps love to complain about weird shit like that.
In terms of social justice: don't tell people what they can and can't say. If you are "damaged" or "triggered" by someone calling you a mean name, then you gotta grow tf up. Sorry, I think that that is just pathetic. I also think people who purposefully try to hurt people by calling them names are pathetic - it works both ways.
Prooofs:
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...3&d=1603989692
I'm beta quadra ST, so Its not surprising that I'm rather zealous, have us vs them mentality and hold political views which run counter to most everything mainstream.