Does Buddhism Require You To Be a Liberal?

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 9642
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Does Buddhism Require You To Be a Liberal?

Post by Queequeg » Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:48 pm

ford_truckin wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:37 pm
Best not to express your views too openly if you happen to be a conservative. A pro-life, pro traditional marriage stance will get you banned fast even though you can find support for these viewpoints in Buddhist texts.
Stop exaggerating. No one has ever been banned for expressing pro-life or pro traditional marriage views. They get banned for posting slurs and other offensive remarks.

Talk about snowflakes.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

tkp67
Posts: 1143
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: Does Buddhism Require You To Be a Liberal?

Post by tkp67 » Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:04 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:16 pm
tkp67 wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:08 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 2:04 pm
The following sentiment has been voiced a couple times or more in this thread - that Democrats and Republicans are basically the same... There's a deep criticism of the overall system that can be directed at both parties, and to an extent they engage in similar distasteful behaviors... but if you really think there is nothing different about Republicans and Democrats other than window dressing, I have to wonder what details you are paying attention to and more critically, what details are you completely ignoring?
I think there is an important aspect of human nature at play here that exists outside political definitions. Simply stated individual intent and desire drive outcome greater than any descriptive label, political leaning or any other variable. In my perspective that is the important take away.

Not that democrat, republican or the other parties that simply do not get discussed are meaningless.

Rather intent and desire are the real impetus behind outcome.

Be it education, science, religion, philosophy, politics, government, law and even Buddhism. Regardless of how definitive, regardless of the words used, none of these are more potent and trump the capacity of our desires and intent. These things corrupt or benefit humanity according to desire and intent (reflective of conditions and capacities)of the humanity that perceives them.

I think this is why some traditions might put a premium on the importance of being mindful of dharma practice in every moment because anything else is reinforcing moments disconnected from dharma.

All of that said, it will be difficult to confront reality if it is obfuscated. Some with self serving agendas in politics use this very polarization to this end.

What is happening in the government that isn't on the news? Is it serving the country or private interests?
Yeah, that's all well and good.

And then we have to get together to pay teachers, cops and firemen, build and maintain schools, pave and maintain roads, and further - build out social and economic support for members of the society. The lines drawn on these and a host of other issues are real, have real impact on quality of life and outcomes for people in the short and long term. There are real differences on these various policies between the parties. In the end, this is about structuring the material and social world.

Corruption is yet another issue.

The point is, we can stand on some box and look at the world with some soft-focus idealism, but that's kind of useless when things just need to get done.
Stating one's mind without vitriol for another is not soft focused idealism it is simply not engaging emotion in political dialog. For example a person can state a position, challenge a mindset or position and petition an action without stereotyping or personal attacks. Obama carried himself in this manner. Trump does not. I don't allow the zeitgeist of the times to influence my behavior.

It also comes into play in all arenas of professional life. A number of my clients are lawyers. Emotional compartmentalization is paramount when dealing with law and with the courts. This is what makes it a mockery in politics and reinforcement unreasonable.

Some people hold higher standards and some are held to higher standards. Obama was exemplary of this.

User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 10672
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Does Buddhism Require You To Be a Liberal?

Post by Johnny Dangerous » Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:08 pm

ford_truckin wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:37 pm
Blackthorne wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:52 am
From the reading I've done and the few practicing Buddhists I know, I would gather that Buddhism leans to the right socially/politically, but online I see a lot 'hate' toward conservative points of view.

Does Buddhism require you to be a liberal?

Thanks
According to Dharmawheel, yes. Best not to express your views too openly if you happen to be a conservative. A pro-life, pro traditional marriage stance will get you banned fast even though you can find support for these viewpoints in Buddhist texts. Western Buddhism is very different from traditional Buddhism.
Actually, what gets you banned is certain ways of behaving, not certain views. It's not our fault that a portion (though by no means all) of the more vocal right wing users can't abide by the ToS.

Also there are plenty of fairly "liberal" traditional Buddhists. I hang out around Tibetans pretty regularly, they have some views that might be considered 'conservative' (euthanasia and abortion come to mind), but to a one they all seem to dislike Donald Trump and hold a number of views that I'm sure would qualify them as "libtards" in someone's eyes. So yeah, neither your political views nor mine have ownership over "traditional" Buddhism. As I mentioned, plenty of Asian "cultural conservatives" would not pass the insane test of what it takes to be conservative in Trumperica anyway.
"...if you think about how many hours, months and years of your life you've spent looking at things, being fascinated by things that have now passed away, then how wonderful to spend even five minutes looking into the nature of your own mind."

-James Low

Norwegian
Posts: 1622
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: Does Buddhism Require You To Be a Liberal?

Post by Norwegian » Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:20 pm

Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:08 pm
ford_truckin wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:37 pm
Blackthorne wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:52 am
From the reading I've done and the few practicing Buddhists I know, I would gather that Buddhism leans to the right socially/politically, but online I see a lot 'hate' toward conservative points of view.

Does Buddhism require you to be a liberal?

Thanks
According to Dharmawheel, yes. Best not to express your views too openly if you happen to be a conservative. A pro-life, pro traditional marriage stance will get you banned fast even though you can find support for these viewpoints in Buddhist texts. Western Buddhism is very different from traditional Buddhism.
Actually, what gets you banned is certain ways of behaving, not certain views. It's not our fault that a portion (though by no means all) of the more vocal right wing users can't abide by the ToS.

Also there are plenty of fairly "liberal" traditional Buddhists. I hang out with Tibetans pretty regularly, they have some views that might be considered 'conservative', but to a one they all dislike Donald Trump and hold a number of views that I'm sure would qualify them as "libtards" in someone's eyes. So yeah, neithter your political views nor mine have ownership over "traditional" Buddhism.
The one Buddhist on this planet that is the most well-known, who most certainly is as traditional as one could possibly get, namely His Holiness the Dalai Lama, has said many times, that he prefers socialism, and that he is a Marxist.
"The Guru is the Buddha, the Guru is the Dharma,
The Guru is the Sangha too,
The Guru is Śrī Heruka.
The All-Creating King is the Guru."

-- The Secret Assembly Tantra

User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 3476
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Does Buddhism Require You To Be a Liberal?

Post by PadmaVonSamba » Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:43 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 2:04 pm
The following sentiment has been voiced a couple times or more in this thread - that Democrats and Republicans are basically the same... There's a deep criticism of the overall system that can be directed at both parties, and to an extent they engage in similar distasteful behaviors... but if you really think there is nothing different about Republicans and Democrats other than window dressing, I have to wonder what details you are paying attention to and more critically, what details are you completely ignoring?
That’s a good point.
It’s important to make a distinction between saying
“They are both the same” and
“They are both the same insofar as ...”
Which acknowledges that there are differences.

My thinking is sort of a reflection of something the Buddha taught, something along the idea that if you find someone who is injured, having been shot by an arrow, your first concern is removing the arrow and attending to the wound. You don’t need to ask who shot it, or who made the arrow, or how much does that kind of arrow cost.

Likewise, if I saw someone in a car crash, I wouldn’t first stop to find out which candidate’s bumper sticker was on the car. Buddhists can take addressing social problems to a whole new level focused on the fact that the actions of all beings are motivated by the same wish to be happy.

Some friends of mine once visited the “old city” of Jerusalem, and amid all the fighting going on, there were always people with carts selling sunglasses and Kodak film (it was a long time ago!). Likewise it’s likewise with medics. They are not there to take sides, but carry on activities that are essential to all. Buddhists can exercise what I call “forced neutrality”. By refusing to get sucked into polarities and dualisms, addressing basic truths that apply to everyone. If addressing those basic truths somehow leads one to adopt a particular political view, then so be it. But force politics to have to answer to the truth of humanity, rather than humanity having to answer to politics.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Fo Ming (Buddha Bright) Monk"
People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 4132
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Does Buddhism Require You To Be a Liberal?

Post by Kim O'Hara » Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:52 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:43 pm
...My thinking is sort of a reflection of something the Buddha taught, something along the idea that if you find someone who is injured, having been shot by an arrow, your first concern is removing the arrow and attending to the wound. You don’t need to ask who shot it, or who made the arrow, or how much does that kind of arrow cost.

Likewise, if I saw someone in a car crash, I wouldn’t first stop to find out which candidate’s bumper sticker was on the car. Buddhists can take addressing social problems to a whole new level focused on the fact that the actions of all beings are motivated by the same wish to be happy.

Some friends of mine once visited the “old city” of Jerusalem, and amid all the fighting going on, there were always people with carts selling sunglasses and Kodak film (it was a long time ago!). Likewise it’s likewise with medics. They are not there to take sides, but carry on activities that are essential to all. Buddhists can exercise what I call “forced neutrality”. By refusing to get sucked into polarities and dualisms, addressing basic truths that apply to everyone. If addressing those basic truths somehow leads one to adopt a particular political view, then so be it. But force politics to have to answer to the truth of humanity, rather than humanity having to answer to politics.
.
.
.
Well said.

One way of maintaining enough independence to think and act in such a way is to avoid joining any political party. Support your preferred party or candidate as much as you like, of course, but don't sign up because as soon as you do, you are not allowed to criticise any of their policies in public.

:coffee:
Kim

Sādhaka
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Does Buddhism Require You To Be a Liberal?

Post by Sādhaka » Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:10 am

Norwegian wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:20 pm
The one Buddhist on this planet that is the most well-known, who most certainly is as traditional as one could possibly get, namely His Holiness the Dalai Lama, has said many times, that he prefers socialism, and that he is a Marxist.

And he also said that he had “no worries” about Donald Trump getting in office:

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/23/dalai-l ... ction.html

:shrug:

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 9642
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Does Buddhism Require You To Be a Liberal?

Post by Queequeg » Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:23 am

tkp67 wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:04 pm
Stating one's mind without vitriol for another is not soft focused idealism it is simply not engaging emotion in political dialog.
What are you talking about? You're just espousing vague ideals.

There's a lot of ground between being a caricature of Jesus standing above the fray in equanimity and yelling obscenities about political foes.

And clearly, you have not spent a lot of time in a court room watching judges and lawyers grind out justice.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

Norwegian
Posts: 1622
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: Does Buddhism Require You To Be a Liberal?

Post by Norwegian » Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:26 am

Sādhaka wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:10 am
Norwegian wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:20 pm
The one Buddhist on this planet that is the most well-known, who most certainly is as traditional as one could possibly get, namely His Holiness the Dalai Lama, has said many times, that he prefers socialism, and that he is a Marxist.

And he also said that he had “no worries” about Donald Trump getting in office:

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/23/dalai-l ... ction.html

:shrug:
That was in 2016. Update yourself a bit:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48772175
In a scathing assessment, he said the 45th president's time in office was defined by a "lack of moral principle", a contrast to remarks made in 2016 when he said he had "no worries" about a Trump presidency.
Asked about the US president, whom the Tibetan spiritual leader has previously unflatteringly impersonated, he said: “His emotions [are] also a little bit,” and made a gesture waggling his finger near his temple. “One day he says something, another day he says something. But I think [there is a] lack of moral principle. When he became president, he expressed America first. That is wrong. America, they should take the global responsibility.”
"The Guru is the Buddha, the Guru is the Dharma,
The Guru is the Sangha too,
The Guru is Śrī Heruka.
The All-Creating King is the Guru."

-- The Secret Assembly Tantra

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 9642
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Does Buddhism Require You To Be a Liberal?

Post by Queequeg » Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:31 am

I'll just restate more clearly here in case it was missed -

If you want to see what Nagarjuna recommended as government policy, he put it down in the Ratnavali. Should be required reading for any Mahayanist who wants to be politically active.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
Supramundane
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: Does Buddhism Require You To Be a Liberal?

Post by Supramundane » Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:51 am

Simon E. wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:10 am
In the end Satre,like all philosophers,was a mere cataloguer of samsara. The only distinguishing issue between them is whether their philosophy is simply incompatible with Buddhadharma or VERY incompatible with Buddhadharma..
A cataloguer of samsara, i like that --- sounds like my ex lol. If you take Sartre and Camus, for instance, Sartre comes across as a hard-core academic, a sophist in many ways, who is not seeking the truth but simply to score points and who has very little real knowledge of life.

Camus on the other hand is a joy to read; you feel he is speaking about something vital and real and relevant. as you say, he would be closer to Buddhadharma. Sartre championing Stalinism during the Stalinist purges was frankly quite repugnant.

The philosopher who espouses a system that is closest to Buddhism is perhaps Epictetus, a Stoic.

But as for naming a politician who is closest to Buddhism... i think we would all be hard pressed.
which is why the twain should never meet.

User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 10672
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Does Buddhism Require You To Be a Liberal?

Post by Johnny Dangerous » Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:10 am

An interesting aside, Camus was partially responsible for me becoming interested in Buddhadharma. He really got the first two noble truths, just became confused after that point. I remember reading The Plague, having my mind blown, and then having this feeling that something was missing. A bit later I read A Buddhist Bible by Dwight Goddard (this was the early 90's and at the time, not so many resources), specifically the Setting In Motion the Wheel of Dharma sutta...it answered by misgivings with Camus and existentialism perfectly. The Myth of Sisyphus is about a positive as existentialism can get, and at the time (17 years old or so) I felt that actually his take was just an incomplete beginning of the Buddihst teachings I was reading.

I have not read him since being an adult, so no idea if I'd still feel the same way, but I recall his writings very positively, and if any Existentialist could a workable spin on futility, it was him.
"...if you think about how many hours, months and years of your life you've spent looking at things, being fascinated by things that have now passed away, then how wonderful to spend even five minutes looking into the nature of your own mind."

-James Low

Blackthorne
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:55 pm

Re: Does Buddhism Require You To Be a Liberal?

Post by Blackthorne » Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:54 am

Queequeg wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:18 pm
Blackthorne wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:13 pm
Thank you for applying the dharma to the question instead of assuming I'm stirring the pot or seeking confirmation bias.
Nobody seeks confirmation bias. It just happens. That's part of why its a problem. You should thank people when its pointed out.
Your welcome.

User avatar
Supramundane
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: Does Buddhism Require You To Be a Liberal?

Post by Supramundane » Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:58 am

Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:10 am
An interesting aside, Camus was partially responsible for me becoming interested in Buddhadharma. He really got the first two noble truths, just became confused after that point. I remember reading The Plague, having my mind blown, and then having this feeling that something was missing. A bit later I read A Buddhist Bible by Dwight Goddard (this was the early 90's and at the time, not so many resources), specifically the Setting In Motion the Wheel of Dharma sutta...it answered by misgivings with Camus and existentialism perfectly. The Myth of Sisyphus is about a positive as existentialism can get, and at the time (17 years old or so) I felt that actually his take was just an incomplete beginning of the Buddihst teachings I was reading.

I have not read him since being an adult, so no idea if I'd still feel the same way, but I recall his writings very positively, and if any Existentialist could a workable spin on futility, it was him.
i read him when i was 17 too. many of us had a Camus 'phase' i guess hahah.
he had a famous argument with Sartre that is online. you can judge for yourself who won.

Camus was a cool guy, a sort of James Dean of philosophers. he loved life and playing soccer on the beach most of all.
Sartre lacked the human side. He seemed more of a stuffed shirt.

i think if you read Camus now, you would still find his words relevant. He speaks not only of the human condition but also of personal responsibility. Too often nowadays, people seem to blame the government for everything or seem to feel that nothing is under their control.

Actually, Camus and our friend, Sid, both remind us that we are still masters of our fate, we are still are captains of our souls...
SM

Blackthorne
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:55 pm

Re: Does Buddhism Require You To Be a Liberal?

Post by Blackthorne » Fri Jan 17, 2020 4:15 am

ford_truckin wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:37 pm
Blackthorne wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:52 am
From the reading I've done and the few practicing Buddhists I know, I would gather that Buddhism leans to the right socially/politically, but online I see a lot 'hate' toward conservative points of view.

Does Buddhism require you to be a liberal?

Thanks
According to Dharmawheel, yes. Best not to express your views too openly if you happen to be a conservative. A pro-life, pro traditional marriage stance will get you banned fast even though you can find support for these viewpoints in Buddhist texts. Western Buddhism is very different from traditional Buddhism.
Yeah, I feel pounced on for simply asking the question. The few Buddhist I know (Vietnamese Pure Land) are "rabid righty" to quote the Queequeg (I believe it was that poster).

If all opinions are just "confirmation bias" I guess "I'm rubber you're glue..." applies here.

But I'm still learning and admit first impressions can be wrong but then again maybe I'm "conformation bias" for ford trucker.

:rolleye:

User avatar
PeterC
Posts: 1566
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Does Buddhism Require You To Be a Liberal?

Post by PeterC » Fri Jan 17, 2020 5:21 am

ford_truckin wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:37 pm
Blackthorne wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:52 am
From the reading I've done and the few practicing Buddhists I know, I would gather that Buddhism leans to the right socially/politically, but online I see a lot 'hate' toward conservative points of view.

Does Buddhism require you to be a liberal?

Thanks
According to Dharmawheel, yes. Best not to express your views too openly if you happen to be a conservative. A pro-life, pro traditional marriage stance will get you banned fast even though you can find support for these viewpoints in Buddhist texts. Western Buddhism is very different from traditional Buddhism.
This deserves a short digression.

It is often asserted that "pro-life" and "pro-traditional marriage" positions, held out of personal moral or religious conviction, are maligned and suppressed in certain fora, and this suppression is a form of censorship and therefore bad. This completely misrepresents both the underlying positions, and the extent to which this is 'censorship'.

When people describe themselves as "pro traditional marriage" they are not defending any rights they have: they are attempting to deny rights to others. Two women getting married does not devalue the marriage of a man and a woman living next door. However the position is framed, it is an attempt by one group to assert superiority over another, not an attempt to prevent a loss or defend a right they have. It is completely correct that any rational person should attack this position - it's not something where one can reasonably claim 'deeply held personal beliefs' as an excuse.

There is at least some logic to be debated around pro-life positions. If you believe that an embryo is a life, then terminating a pregnancy is murder. Of course from that kernel of a reasonable argument they usually extrapolate to completely unreasonable public policy demands, and the premise that an embryo is a life is itself highly debatable.

The idea of "conservative" viewpoints being oppressed, particularly in the US, is frankly laughable. While those viewpoints are held by a minority of the citizenry, they are massively over-represented in politics, religion, media, etc., and their proponents hold disproportionate political power.

That said, banning people for expressing these viewpoints is silly in that it allows these absurd claims that they are oppressed. If you bring an opinion into a public discussion, you should be prepared to have it challenged and discussed, and should have no expectation of deference to your opinion, because that's not how human society has ever worked. Banning people expressing these ideas eliminates a perfectly good opportunity to show them to be wrong.

And since you mention textual support - describing supposed text-based "traditional" Buddhism as "conservative" is very misleading, because it draws analogies between modern "conservatism" and an inferred canon of morality a few thousand years ago. "Traditional Buddhism" in the context of social or political issues is a bit of an enigma, because to make sense of that idea, you would need to separate it from the traditional values of the societies that it existed in a few thousand years ago. You cannot just point to Indian social mores circa 500 BCE and say, that's Traditional Buddhism - otherwise we'd be owning slaves and living in castes. (Though perhaps there's a deeper point here about *modern* so-called conservatism.)

Even if we abandoned that approach and looked just at texts, we're on thin ground. You won't find, for instance, a lot of injunctions for or against abortion in canonical texts. References to marriage being between one man and one woman are also hard to find. You'll find plenty of examples of marriages between one man and many wives, in which the wives are clearly subordinate to the man - which is, I guess, a very traditional model of marriage, but not one that modern "conservatives" advocate openly. Also while there are various references to sexual misconduct in paracanonical literature, show me the references that say that, for instance, lesbianism is not ok.

It also feels like these discussions are not always in good faith, on either side. People looks in texts for justifications of their positions that they can take out of context. The broader principles of Buddhist morality as applied to interpersonal relations are, however, very clear, and it is extremely difficult to square "conservative" social policy agendas with them.

User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 10672
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Does Buddhism Require You To Be a Liberal?

Post by Johnny Dangerous » Fri Jan 17, 2020 6:00 am

Blackthorne wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 4:15 am


Yeah, I feel pounced on for simply asking the question. The few Buddhist I know (Vietnamese Pure Land) are "rabid righty" to quote the Queequeg (I believe it was that poster).
You didn't just ask a question though, you seemed to ask a rhetorical question in order to confirm what you clearly already believed. If you want a different reaction trying being more forthcoming about your opinion and not playing the victim when you get a honest answer. Asking questions when you clearly don't actually want anything but a particular answer is bound to get an unpleasant reaction from people.
If all opinions are just "confirmation bias" I guess "I'm rubber you're glue..." applies here.

But I'm still learning and admit first impressions can be wrong but then again maybe I'm "conformation bias" for ford trucker.

:rolleye:
No one said all opinions are confirmation bias. I mentioned before, in my time moderating here I've had right wing users physically threaten me and call me ll kids of anames, and had to moderate a ton of posts from right wing users full of much worse "hate" than what you're seeing here. I don't think that kind of behavior defines everyone here who leans conservative by any means. Under circumstances like that though, complaints about the supposed oppression of right wing views here are a little amusing.

Long story short, you're more than welcome to be a conservative here, and plenty of users here are. Some people get their hackles up because they've been moderated for how they post as much as what they post, assume we are acting on our biases, but in reality much of the time it is simply because they refuse to follow the rules of the site.
"...if you think about how many hours, months and years of your life you've spent looking at things, being fascinated by things that have now passed away, then how wonderful to spend even five minutes looking into the nature of your own mind."

-James Low

User avatar
Dan74
Former staff member
Posts: 2778
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:59 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Does Buddhism Require You To Be a Liberal?

Post by Dan74 » Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:38 am

I guess over the years I've become pretty conservative on some social issues. But US Conservatives is something else entirely. For me, classical conservative vs progressive is simply that - emphasis on preserving what is traditional, established vs emphasis on changing, reforming and throwing away. Any thinking person needs to look at matters on a case-by-case basis, but there is still bound to be an a priori bias towards conserving or changing.

As for the Forum, I think it is unrealistic to think that the mod team would look objectively at member's behaviour, putting aside their political views. So statements that call people fascists and Nazis are much less likely to get anyone in trouble than using a typical right-wing slur, for example. I haven't really followed political debates here closely enough and suspect that the mod team does try hard to be fair, but it's just a fact of life that we are much more tolerant of 'our sons of bitches'. At DW-T it was true of the previous team and it is true of the current one.

At one stage there was a rule that a mod does not involve him or herself in moderating a thread they are a participant of. I think it's a good rule.

User avatar
Dan74
Former staff member
Posts: 2778
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:59 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Does Buddhism Require You To Be a Liberal?

Post by Dan74 » Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:01 am

I should've mentioned the other relevant axis - emphasis on the individual (conservative) vs emphasis on the society (progressive). I think both of these have much recommend themselves. Especially if one is prepared to examine one's core principles.

tkp67
Posts: 1143
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: Does Buddhism Require You To Be a Liberal?

Post by tkp67 » Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:31 am

Queequeg wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:23 am
tkp67 wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:04 pm
Stating one's mind without vitriol for another is not soft focused idealism it is simply not engaging emotion in political dialog
What are you talking about? You're just espousing vague ideals.

There's a lot of ground between being a caricature of Jesus standing above the fray in equanimity and yelling obscenities about political foes.

And clearly, you have not spent a lot of time in a court room watching judges and lawyers grind out justice.
I think it is clear I am talking about right speech and the rationale that it is ok to compromise for the sake of internet traffic. No where did I put ownership on moderation or specific members. I simply am stating that people are able to communicate as robustly without engaging emotion negatively. I also made it a point that as individuals we can make attempts to quell such interactions from building momentum. I also made a point to provide reasoning as far as dharma practitioners.

I have enough experience topically that I can unpack my commentary juxtapose real life observation of cause and effect. I can unpack any of this. I don't understand resistance to a suggestion people do not conform to the same banality expressed by the potus. A behavior that seems universally unacceptable here.

Vilifying is not a necessary component of candid communication and think it could be easily reasoned as having no benefit whatsoever.

None of this is a critique it is my perspective so I will be glad to discuss my perspective in civil terms and for reasonable outcome. If it feels differently I would be grateful to understand why.

Locked

Return to “Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests