[quizotic]

The article argues that conservative views are correlated with fear/concern over physical safety, and that increasing the feeling of physical safety moves conservative views toward more liberal views.

If true, it makes me wonder whether the balance of conservative and liberal populations confers survival value to the whole population. Surely there are times when there is more or less risk to our physical safety. Perhaps the liberals tend to be more blind to it when risk is more probable; and perhaps the conservatives overestimate it when it is less probable. Might we need the presence of both views to keep us safe when we're at risk and to loosen the reins for exploration when we're in less danger?

[tenpies]

Yes, this is a very accepted theory. A country with only Liberals would cease to exist because they would be invaded or be unwilling to enforce any sort of borders or law. Even if no external threats exist, it will eventually succumb to the tyranny of minorities.

A country with only Conservatives would die of stagnation, forever condemned to follow tradition and existing dogma. New ideas would be quickly squelched and the country would succumb to the tyranny of majority.

The interesting thing about the United States is that you get to see almost both ends in different states. In some places, police departments are essentially unwilling to enforce the law lest they be called racist/sexist/ableist/anti-immigrant/anti-Muslim/anti-poor. In other states, an individual can not only openly carry a firearm but also stand their ground. Cross another state border and misgendering someone could constitute a hate crime. Another border over, a KKK or Neo-Nazi rally is not only occurring, but actively allowed under the idea that free speech triumphs over hate speech.

It is a fascinating place and time, and I wish I could be around in 200 years to see how the experiment evolves.

[petemill]

Except that it’s all relative. What you’re describing would merely be a shift, and only on some issues at that. Even within the most progressive / conservative groups, there are divisions. You would never get a place with universal acceptance of every issue. There would certainly still be conservatives and liberals, but at different places in the scale for each issue, compared to somewhere like the USA. See other countries for examples. It’s not so black and white between ‘left’ and ‘right’.

[Fjolsvith]

- actively allowed under the idea that free speech triumphs over hate speech

I thought that as long as it was speech, it was allowed, period. Seem to remember something about a first amendment...

[cannonedhamster]

SCOTUS has routinely smacked down the notion of unlimited free speech without consequence. Hate speech is legal and generally allowed on public property as with any speech. Speech that incites violence against others is not.

So for instance it's legal in the US to say "Group X is subhuman and shouldn't be allowed to marry" but it's not oka to say "We should go murder Group X now.", especially when you have the means and motivation to do it. For instance while it is very common to make threats against the US president regardless of party, it's often seriously reviewed for obvious reasons and is not considered protected speech.

[SomeStupidPoint]

That's the very premise behind democracy:

That different parties have different concerns and foucses, such that the process of mediating between their different plans leaves us better informed and prepared than listening to a single group.

The problem is that over the last 100 years, psychology has been weaponized and deployed at scale against the public, essentially drugging them on fear and anger hormones until they're incapable of rational responses.

The various factions have entered what can only be described as psychological trench warfare -- locked into positions, toxic things sprayed virtually indiscriminately, absolutely no actual progress.

No one is quite sure what to do to fix this.