[ If you want to skip my explanation, you can start with paragraph #5.]
It’s a new year, and the last one had several outbreak of complaints here, some fair, some contrived, and some obnoxious, about Ethics Alarms being an “echo chamber” that either had insufficient diversity of opinion, discouraged diversity of opinion, inevitably favored one political/partisan end of the political spectrum over the other, or artificially tilted its analysis and reader reactions to my personal biases.
The analysis here should be consistent, and I expect readers to blow a whistle when it is not or seems that way. I also furiously reject the concept of ethical relativity, or that “you have your truth and I have mine.” A society needs to settle on its values and objectives, and those decisions need to be based on linear constants, or the result is chaos. It is also important, however, that those values and objectives be subject to constant analysis and reexamination. We learn by experience and debate: that’s the nature of ethics, as opposed to morality. It is also why diversity of viewpoint is valuable on an ethics blog. Different perspectives are invaluable in helping us cut through the underbrush of bias, conventional wisdom and lazy assumptions that impede our ability to distinguish right from wrong.
But there are structural flies in this buttermilk, the prime among them being human nature. People tend to want to see, hear, read and believe things that they find comforting and confirm their world views; being open minded is uncomfortable, even painful. Sometimes, it can be dangerous, or at least scary. One reason I spend the time I do on Ethics Alarms is that it forces me to read and consider opinions and examine topics that I normally would not.
The goal here has always been to promote a colloquy of thoughtful and articulate readers to focus on ethics and sharpen our habits of analysis while avoiding the jargon, excessively abstract navel-gazing and mind-numbing theoretical intellectualizing that has killed ethics as a topic the general public has any interest in or sufficient competence in applying. Whatever the reasons for it, the perceived trend, at least in the comments, for opinions to run in the same general direction (when there are valid and legitimate positions that point elsewhere) is “concerning” (as Prof Turley would say.)
This is all prelude to asking readers to place themselves on the ideological/political beliefs spectrum/world view spectrum. Before WordPress went to a hopelessly complicated system, I would have used a poll for this purpose, but none of the Ethics Alarms polls attracted more than a couple hundred participants out of the thousands that visit the blog every day. Now I’m going to give you a range of choices to answer the question, and I’ll be very grateful to those who take the time to answer it.
You can…
- Just describe where you see yourself fitting.
- Use a ten point scale with #1 being knee-jerk extreme Left on all matters and #10 being the opposite.
- Take this online survey, which is dated but appears to be pretty good based on my own experience.
- Or this one, which is also pretty good, by the Pew people.
- Or you can try this one.
I’d like to hear from more of you than just the regular commentariat, so for this purpose only, I will accept submissions labeled “anonymous” or the equivalent. I will also relent and accept submission from readers who have been banned from commenting, as long as they stick to the topic.
None of the online tests are perfect, and many of the questions or propositions are too general (or specific. But I’ve taken all of them more than once, and have been surprised to find that they were remarkably consistent in their findings, and, at least in my case, perceptive. For example, here is where the Political Spectrum Quiz places me:
That’s not only where I think I am, it’s where I think I should be, as opposed to where the same survey places the average participant, which is where the green pointer resides:
I eagerly await your assistance.
Ethics Alarms 
You are a centrist social moderate.
Right: 0.79, Libertarian: 0.41
I tend to think of myself as a moderate.
I think that is mainly owing to my background in philosophy and law. I think I am pretty good at considering all sides of an issue, even if I disagree with it.
But, if you consider the sides with which I disagree, I would probably be right of center.
As far as authoritarian versus libertarian, I may be difficult to classify. I start from the presumption of the free individual, and acknowledge that legal restrictions are necessary, even if they are a necessary evil. This lends itself to some compartmentalized thinking because we have a federalist system. For example, it really annoyed me that the Supreme Court essentially legalized same sex marriage, while I had no problem that the people of the State of Minnesota had already legalized it. Even if I concede that it was a good thing for the Supreme Court to legalize same sex marriage, I think it was an abuse of its power.
That is just one example. The ACA could be another. Even the federal interstate system provides a question that Eisenhower struggled with. Nonetheless, I think it is a great highway system, even if it was unconstitutional.
At the same time, I consider myself a bit of a skeptic; again this is likely the result of my legal and philosophical education. I am pretty comfortable not knowing things. I am also pretty comfortable knowing that what I believe “A” is based upon propositions X, Y, and Z and that, if those one or more of those propositions is wrong, then I should believe “B.” For example, I believe abortion is wrong because I believe the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. While much of that is a matter of definition, if it were demonstrated that a fetus is not a human being until X point in time, then I would be fine with saying that abortion prior to X is okay. At this point, there are several values for X in this example (conception, implantation, viability, fetal heartbeat, birth, etc.). To me, conception is the most persuasive X in those examples. So, even though I start from the presumption of the free individual, that presumption is rebuttable. So, I do not know where that would put me on the spectrum.
Same with anthropogenic global warming. I don’t think the case has been made. And, even if it is demonstrably true that people are a significant cause of global warming, the policy question a completely separate issue. Global warming is not a license for authoritarianism.
-Jut
You are a centrist social moderate.
Right: 0.53, Libertarian: 0.1
Thinking about the quiz questions was informative for me to realize that, as the years pass, I’ve changed on some issues. I’m probably less along the “authoritarian” axis now as a middle-aged man than as a young one. (Which seems unexpected).
Right libertarian, pretty close to the center of the lower right box. Pew quiz pegs as “ambivalent right.”
And if there are few progressives remaining among the commentariat, one presumes it’s because the articulate ones are tired of not having their views reinforced, and the inarticulate ones are hounded off (or banninated) pretty quickly.
I think it also doesn’t help the progressives that the few remaining here fairly often slip into rudeness or insulting/deliberately stirring up trouble, which could be for those very reasons.
Political Spectrum Quiz Survey SAYS! I am “right moderate social libertarian.
Right: 4.17, Libertarian: 1.86”
Okay, I’ll play, although I strongly dislike the tendency to pigeon-hole people as being this or that. I have been pigeon-holed, among other things, as: a Trump supporter; a Biden supporter; an ultra-conservative; a dumbass woketard (on this site); and a liberal. The fact is that my attitude and opinions can swing quite a ways from one side of these artificial political spectra to the other.
It depends on the issue. For example, am I a left-winger, given that I oppose capital punishment and support a limited right to abortion, or am I a right-winger, given that I strongly support the police and law enforcement?
For what it’s worth, the Political Spectrum Quiz pegs me as a center right moderate and a social libertarian.
Right moderate social libertarian.
Right: 4.24, Libertarian: 1.22
I really liked how the quiz allows you to rate an importance scale to some questions. I’m probably more libertarian in actuality, for example, I believe the gay marriage controversy would be better solved by not recognizing marriage at all federally.
“You are a left social moderate.
Left: 3.64, Authoritarian: 0.35”
Sounds about right (pun intended)!
Right: 6.5, Libertarian: 3.1
Political Spectrum Quiz says I qualify for drone surveillance whenever I travel to Washington, D.C.
That gave me a great laugh!!
The first one has me as a center-right moderate social libertarian. (Right 1.38, libertarian 1.05.) The second one called me Ambivalent Right. The third put me as slightly libertarian and slightly to the left, which was a bit surprising because I don’t consider myself leftist at all and my leftist friends definitely wouldn’t. By Canadian standards, I’m certainly to the right, although perhaps not by American standards. I consider myself fiscally conservative and libertarian-leaning on social issues.
Supposedly:
You are a right social moderate.
Right: 3.81, Libertarian: 0.27
It has me a little more of a social libertarian than I think I am. I don’t believe abortion should be totally banned, but I think it should normally be limited to rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother, and anyone under 18 should have to get parental consent, to avoid facilitating irresponsible behavior by those least able to handle the potential consequences, which the rest of us then end up paying for.
I also believe rights are rights, and the government should not be in the business of trying to see what clever tricks it can pull to limit them or limit for certain people. I believe that the system we’ve set up is clearly delineated as to how our government works and what is required to change it, and no one should try to find a shortcut around that.
I believe that the left is playing a dangerous game by trying to push absolute majority as the end-all be-all of government, and that represents a betrayal of what the Founding Fathers set up this system to be. I also believe it is a betrayal to even talk about a blatant power grab like packing the Supreme Court with 4 additional judges specifically so you can lord your power over everyone else.
I believe that you have to respond to problems with the force you have, and sometimes problems don’t wait for authorization, recruitment, and training.
Eh, I’ve pretty much made it clear what else I believe, and anyone who doesn’t know by now is either new or hasn’t been paying attention.
Holy Cow! I’m right of you, Steve! Interesting.
According to the first poll, I am “a right social moderate. Right: 4.48, Libertarian: 0.64”
This is about where I would have predicted on the left-right scale, but a bit less Libertarian than I would have thought; I attribute the difference to the inherent ambiguity in some of the statements.
In the Pew poll, I am typed as a “Faith and Flag Conservative,” which is a label I would not deny.
Faith and Flag conservative sounds about right here too. Wanna drop by Ernie’s for some barbeque and a beer? I’ll pick you up in the pickup truck. (eyeroll)
You are a centrist moderate social authoritarian.
Right: 0.26, Authoritarian: 1.63
Almost in the very middle with a tiny bit up the center.
I like to think I’m objective and in the middle.
Guess I’m close.
First poll – center right. For some reason they also think I’m a social moderate.
First one seemed right on (confirmation bias): You are a centrist moderate social libertarian.
Left: 0.5, Libertarian: 1.36
Second one also seemed close: ambivalent conservative. Combining the 2, I arrive at my self assessment: radical moderate!
I LOVE Pew’s “ambivilent conservative” category.
Odd how it’s 12% of the population, and yet most of the commenters fall under that category. 😂. Congrats Jack, you’ve collected the political misfits. 😁
I’m glad he did! now i don’t feel so alone!!
Btw, jack… i have not had time to comment but i could not disagree more on your take on “don’t look up!” while you had some good observations… that film has opened up MORE discussion all sides that i have NOT seen in decades!!
I think him poking fun at everyone from press, politiicans, pop stars, big biz, big tech, etc. and the general population that NO ONE can think they can’t find themselves in there!!
it’s like a big mirror… and I think the fact so many are dialoging who do NOT agree politically is a good thing!! that’s what art CAN do.
I just wish i had time to break down my experience of it. I’m on my 3rd viewing and have picked up so much.
Anyway, anything that gets us talking without hurling insults is good and that so many on the far left HATED it.. is great! hahah.
You did bring up some interesting observations, and I still think it was pretty brilliant. I will try to finish my post and put it there!
The far left person i Know that posted bout it on Facebook got over 500 comments!! Many from Dems who were offended LOL.
For me it’s showing me who is able to be honest about their biases… even if they are left or right. at least that’s what is showing up in the conversation. 🙂
comment eaten again WHAAAAAAA!
Not eaten…preserved. It’s up!
You are a centrist social libertarian.
Right: 0.71, Libertarian: 4.93
forgot to comment on the score, this seems just about right
I used to be pretty much in the center of that left/libertarian quadrant. I’ve slid a little towards the center on both axes of late, but still clearly left of center and even more clearly libertarian. The former, in particular, does make me feel like an outsider here when, as often happens, the topic slides away from ethics per se and into politics. I tend to roll my eyes and mutter to myself rather than comment when someone launches into the “Democrats are trying to destroy America” cant.
They aren’t?
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
Yeeeeees???
On the Pew political typology, I get Committed Conservative, which I think is about right.
I didn’t really understand this whole game. I’m a political moderate, but more importantly, I don’t really discuss “opinions” with friends and relatives any more. I’m much more concerned about information silos. Different purveyors of news don’t even present the same topics. In the old days of news, the operative rule was “if it bleeds it leads” – meaning both literally that violence is news, but more generally that bad news is news and good news isn’t. Now “news,” good or bad, is whatever confirms the selected audience’s narrative. The rest is discarded. This has been confirmed by both ratings and clicks. That’s really unfortunate, and it’s led to my observation that some of the most politically engaged people I know are actually not very well informed at all. I try to fill in gaps wherever I can, and sometimes I have to dodge brickbats as a result, even before I’ve stated what I personally think of the matter.
Think of it as “news as comfort food” (not an original observation on my part). I assume that you do not want to contribute to this tendency. And thus my comment.
Jack, please look at the post yesterday about “Don’t Look Up.” It’s pretty clever and could result in a very good conversation. Now find the very long comment from one of your ultra-regulars who has a constant platform here and who you have feted with the extra opportunity for guest posts. Notice how it veers way off topic into a long list of socio-political resentments stated in a boringly predictable ideological way, all of which have been endlessly litigated previously. You have a whole set of “rules” about commenting, so why is this comment here? Why isn’t it condensed? Why doesn’t it merit a tongue-lashing from you about staying on topic or the nature of the argumentation?
Could it be because you’ve gathered an audience that you think will agree with it? Bluntly, do you simply want to be the reverse of MSNBC? If so, then just say so. If not, then please work harder to apply your “rules” and principles across the board. In general, a lighter touch from your obvious dropping of certain comments you don’t initially agree with may be necessary at first to get this ship righted. But you can do it. It’s worth the effort.
PS All of the specialized vendors in my wonderful neighborhood of lawn, tree, and landscaping services say that their work has been affected by climate change over the last few years. It doesn’t mean that I think that my recycling of plastic bottles has any effect compared to China’s poisoning of the earth’s atmosphere, or that I think that anyone in Hollywood has the solution. But what they see is what they see. Making fun of the problem won’t accomplish anything. Thanks for listening.
I can answer all of these queries, but first, one for you: You’ve commented under your real name before, so why not with this post? It’s OK with me, but I just find it odd.
1. “Now “news,” good or bad, is whatever confirms the selected audience’s narrative.” That is correct, except when the goal is to actively mislead and manipulate readers. That happens a lot too.
2. Why would I have to consider the post about “Don’t Look Up”? I wrote it. It accurately reflects my criticism of the film.
3. I don’t get the scare quotes around “rules.” They are rules, but as I state clearly in the Comment policies, approved and veteran commenters get considerable leeway in enforcement. This is a reward for adding content and perspective, and the commenter I think you are referring to qualifies. I do not condense comments that are approved nor edit them for content. I tried that at the very beginning, and it proved impossible.
4. Every reader has a “constant platform” here.
5. A “guest post” an entry in a Friday open forum that would otherwise be a Comment of the Day on a post with a topic. As with Cs OTD, I choose them according to perceived relevance and quality. This because relatively few readers read the Open Forum entries, which is a pity.
6. “Could it be because you’ve gathered an audience that you think will agree with it?” Nope. I frequently disagree with both COTD and guest posts.
7. MSNBC poses as a news organization. Ethics Alarms is nothing of the kind. Unlike MSNBC (or the rest), the posts here are never written with any thought about whether readers will agree or not, accept that I have an obligation to make coherent observations and valid analysis. I see the “follow” list: every time I pointed out the unfairness of the coverage of President Trump, EA lost support. Every time I flagged on of Trump’s unethical statements, EA also lost support. Every time I have taken an ethical stand on one of the mega-ethics issues of the day—against drug legalization (there go the libertarians!) against abortion on demand (bye-bye feminists!), in favor of capital punishment, in support of same-sex marriage, and so on, somebody who can’t handle views they don’t agree with and can’t muster the guts and arguments to frame a rebuttal quits. Their loss.
8. But what they see is what they see is what people are telling them to see. The farmers in the Dust Bowl would have seen climate change if they had been exposed to the one-sided propaganda your vendors have. As I’m sure you know, no trend over a few years has any global significance at all.
9. So where did you place yourself on the spectrum?
I didn’t use my name because it’s too sensitive and you encouraged unnamed submissions. Most of your questions and remarks are “de minimis” as you lawyers say, but the keys are #4 and #8.
1 – Yes, that sometimes happens.
2 – All I was doing was starting a topic by saying “now with regard to this.” You read way more into that sentence than was there.
3. Scare-quotes around “rules” because IMO there are too many of them, giving you too many tools to lean toward censorship.
*** 4. Oh come on, Jack! When I say “constant platform” I don’t mean that it’s available, I mean that somebody who obviously has time on his hands constantly uses it to drive things in a particular direction, including off-topic. This is a phenomenon on blogs that you need to be aware of and manage if you’re concerned about an echo chamber. This same commenter, in addition to being obsessive and repetitive, in this very thread refers disparagingly to “anyone new here” as if this is a club. Well, is it a club, or an open forum on the World Wide Web?
5. Fine, guest posts and comments of the day overlap, seems to be your particular thing.
6. I’ve noticed over time that a lot of what you consider disagreement is really around the edges. Take a chance and let more core issues come out.
7. Conceded: Many people on one side of the current divide do “unfollow” on too small a provocation. But I’m not sure why you talk only about un-followers. Don’t you get new followers too, and for the same reasons?
*** 8. That is really unfair to the people I’m talking about. They are simply reporting what they see. Climate change is the accepted term – it doesn’t mean they’re lobbying for fossil fuels to be ended in 10 years. None of these people come from anything like “woke” backgrounds. At the risk of being overly explicit, they are all from either many-multi-generational traditional white, arguably even Southern white backgrounds, or are Latinos who I happen to know well enough to say that they’re culturally conservative. I doubt that any of them have even been to college. They all work hard and they ALL tell me that their work has changed because of the changing (pick your term) weather/climate/conditions. They are absolutely not “seeing what people are telling them to see.”
9. Asked and answered at the beginning of my original comment.
Re #8… I don’t see how you can state that what they are reporting as “climate change” would even occur to them as worth mentioning without constant public discussion of it as such. And what I said stands, for them and anyone else: a few years is meaningless. And any climate expert who is honest would tell them so.
I’m quite sure you’re misinterpreting my reference to “what they see.” They don’t go around saying, “Gee, it’s been kinda warm this year.” They’re talking about changes in schedules, patterns, lifelong truisms about what vegetation lives and dies, and so on. And they’re not passing around petitions to support Greta Thunberg. I can take their input and still know enough about the advantages of fundamentally capitalist systems to realize that what we may not be able to accomplish in 10 years (under the potentially disastrous demands of woke Green New Dealers) could be achieved for the lasting benefit of the planet in 30 years. You had an item about “Catastrophism” as one of the flaws of extreme ideology, and I agree with that. But none of this changes the fact that expert observers with no vested interest in ideology or even particularly strong engagement in politics otherwise are reporting some key facts on the ground (literally), and it would be typical of a news and discussion outlet like this to bury it as unacceptable dissent unless you get a broader range of comments and commenters who will stick around. Privately I’ve raised the issue with you of how hard or impossible it is to be the liberal on “The Five” or the conservative on “The View,” and I thought that’s what you wanted to avoid in your newfound concern over the echo chamber. I’ll be interested to see.