[alpineidyll3]

Conservative perspectives often involve some sort of built-in need to proselytize, because they view life as a triumph of ego over intrinsic human weakness. There's an idea that all people need to hear the message of personal responsibility.

Sadly data is weaker than any bias of perspectives, and people find it impossible to think causally without some larger brittle philosophical framework.

[dang]

Please don't take HN threads further in generic ideological directions. It leads to generic ideological flamewar, which is tedious and which we don't want here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[toomuchtodo]

Most unfortunately you can change the minds of some, but others you have to wait for them to die. Progress occurs one funeral at a time.

[allovernow]

>Conservative perspectives often involve some sort of built-in need to proselytize, because they view life as a triumph of ego over intrinsic human weakness. There's an idea that all people need to hear the message of personal responsibility.

If we're reducing political parties to extreme stereotypes, then perhaps the pressure of the distant right is an appropriate counter to the pressure from the distant left which encourages hedonism and infantilism well into adulthood, shuffling responsibility onto the magical collective to solve problems.

And in this way society isn't totally lost, on average, if it exists somewhere in the middle.

[alpineidyll3]

I do not find liberal philosophy more accurate. On almost every issue one can make reasonable evidentiary arguments for either perspective. The problem is people can't even make policy decisions on the basis of controlled statistics and the experimental method (when that's possible).

I just think that conservative thinking lends itself to an evangelical mindset, while liberals tend to view their philosophy as inevitable. Often they are content to wait for people to evolve to their level. Hillary's inaction in the previous campaign is a perfect example of that mindset.