|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Christians for whom society conforming to biblical principles is the foremost political issue. They're generally baby-boomers but people both younger and older do exist. Typically Protestant, generally whites living in the Rust Belt. To add to this, this group isn't the only Authoritarian group that exists, but it is the most pronounced and visible one in America today. Their influence is such that Obama's tepid and actionless approval of gay marriage is a radical departure from every prior president and met a firestorm of controversy. Other groups are hard to even identify due to their irrelevancy. Hardline Christian Authoritarians have an alarming grip on the nation.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:To add to this, this group isn't the only Authoritarian group that exists, but it is the most pronounced and visible one in America today. Their influence is such that Obama's tepid and actionless approval of gay marriage is a radical departure from every prior president and met a firestorm of controversy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
We need more PJ posts. I'm still interested in knowing more about Narrative Convergence and RNCEs. It's interesting that not all Republican-related events, like Benghazi, are within the scope. You said that the cardinal trait of an RNCE was that there has to be a metaphorical hill to die on, but how do Authoritarians groups determine that this event has a hill, but this other one doesn't?norton I posted:Trying to psychoanalyze people you disagree with politically is retarded. I choose to think that the posters who are contributing replies about how PJ's ideas seem to map on to this specific group and that specific group, rather than describing a general behavioral pattern, are just being meta.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
norton I posted:Trying to psychoanalyze people you disagree with politically is retarded. Yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
twodot posted:Wait, I was happy until this post. How do you know "Christians for whom society conforming to biblical principles is the foremost political issue" are Authoritarians if it isn't by definition? Because these Christians are people I've been watching for a long time. I've been watching Conservapedia for two years now. I've seen the behavior patterns they exhibit, and the Authoritarian framework PJ described does a lot to explain their behavior. The outer narrative that evolution is actually unscientific, the inner narrative of biblical literalism, and the Brave Christians vs. Satan's Minions grand narrative. It makes a lot of sense in this circumstance, and I'm interested in the theory's development, refinement, and application to other groups. It's hard to apply outside of these Biblical conservatives because other Authoritarian groups simply aren't as self-published and visible. We don't have an Objectivpedia or a Free Marxist or whatever to find and observe other Authoritarian strains so easily.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Because these Christians are people I've been watching for a long time. I've been watching Conservapedia for two years now. I've seen the behavior patterns they exhibit, and the Authoritarian framework PJ described does a lot to explain their behavior. The outer narrative that evolution is actually unscientific, the inner narrative of biblical literalism, and the Brave Christians vs. Satan's Minions grand narrative. It makes a lot of sense in this circumstance, and I'm interested in the theory's development, refinement, and application to other groups. It's hard to apply outside of these Biblical conservatives because other Authoritarian groups simply aren't as self-published and visible. We don't have an Objectivpedia or a Free Marxist or whatever to find and observe other Authoritarian strains so easily. Yeah, and I'd add that, in the US at least, these people are certainly doing to most to make other people's lives miserable and inflict real harm, whether it's lgbt discrimination or abortion rights restriction. Just look at the legislation being passed at the state level to shut down abortion clinics under the guise of health concerns, or the laws requiring women and girls to visit "counseling centers" that are thinly veiled anti-choice operations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Because these Christians are people I've been watching for a long time. I've been watching Conservapedia for two years now. I've seen the behavior patterns they exhibit, and the Authoritarian framework PJ described does a lot to explain their behavior. The outer narrative that evolution is actually unscientific, the inner narrative of biblical literalism, and the Brave Christians vs. Satan's Minions grand narrative. It makes a lot of sense in this circumstance, and I'm interested in the theory's development, refinement, and application to other groups. It's hard to apply outside of these Biblical conservatives because other Authoritarian groups simply aren't as self-published and visible. We don't have an Objectivpedia or a Free Marxist or whatever to find and observe other Authoritarian strains so easily. I would look to mises.org for your Objectivpedia equivalent. Except those guys are often hardcore enough to eschew the Outer Narrative entirely and just say "Yeah, my free market philosophy clearly implies that child slavery is okay. So it is. What of it?" How do those fit into the Authoritarian definition?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Yes. Well, only because psychoanalysis is a pretty retarded discipline. I think trying to figure out what makes them tick on a grand scale is worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
norton I posted:Trying to psychoanalyze people you disagree with politically is retarded. Willie Tomg posted:Yes. This is a situation where the OP was full-on one of the people being discussed, so it's not just a psychoanalysis of "those people", but of herself and a comparison to the situations that were forced on her by the cult she grew up in. Having also grown up in a similar but much less severe situation, I find her depictions disturbingly accurate. Thanks for registering your worthless uninformed opinions, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Hmm, considering the reaction to the term "Authoritarian" I will try to get together a more precise term of exactly whom I am talking about here. In the interest of ending the pedantic quibbling would another term be more acceptable? I am open to any other suggestions. I simply used Authoritarian because it roughly fit my internal model and seemed to jive with Altameyer's work. I do personally take some pleasure in seeing that there are people who have a hard time wrapping their heads around exactly who it is that I am attempting to describe, as it indicates to me that they have never really had to encounter what I call Authoritarians in real life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Prester John posted:Hmm, considering the reaction to the term "Authoritarian" I will try to get together a more precise term of exactly whom I am talking about here. In the interest of ending the pedantic quibbling would another term be more acceptable? I am open to any other suggestions. I simply used Authoritarian because it roughly fit my internal model and seemed to jive with Altameyer's work. Perhaps Zealot would work better? We're going for someone so utterly consumed by their Narratives that it colors everything they see and do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Prester John posted:Hmm, considering the reaction to the term "Authoritarian" I will try to get together a more precise term of exactly whom I am talking about here. In the interest of ending the pedantic quibbling would another term be more acceptable? I am open to any other suggestions. I simply used Authoritarian because it roughly fit my internal model and seemed to jive with Altameyer's work. Don't bother trying to find a different term. The problem with fratboy, anti-SJW crypto-republicans is that they will always fundamentally reject the idea that there are critiques which apply to right-wing movements that just do not apply to movements having equality, fairness and tolerance as their aims.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
a slime posted:Does this mean that the radical right's current flavor would never survive becoming mainstream? What happens as they continue to grow in power and influence? I understand that isn't the point---I was raised in a very similar environment to you (all the way down to the schooling, born in Garland TX heyooo), and I understand exactly what you mean when you say their battle is not meant to be won. But they do seem to be gaining in number year over year. What happens when they win? It is my perspective that owing to the Compaction cycle, the absolute number of Authoritarians is increasing, but the total number of people willing to associate with them (and the GOP by extension) is on the decline. As for happens when they win? Well I don;t think they will, simply because the culture wars are shifting against them (which is a major factor in what is driving Narrative Convergence). But presupposing they did win (Lets say total takeover of the House, Senate, Supreme Court, Presidency, and State Governors) they would quickly move to implement their agenda so long as there was a perceived enemy to unite against. AS soon as the threat of that enemy is gone (or at least the perception of the threat) Inner Narratives would assert themselves, alliances would fracture, and infighting would grind everything to a halt. See for example the current Congress. During the last Congress they were remarkably united and sent worthless bill after worthless bill as fast as they could. (They were first united by the threat of Obamacare, then by the threat of being primaried from the right as a result of the fallout from the failed 2013 shutdown) In the midterms they achieved a remarkable victory, they "won" objectively and in their own minds. And as soon as the new Congress is sworn in, BAM! Inner Narratives reassert themselves and they can't agree on jack poo poo because everyone is too busy squabbling. In short "Authoritarians never fight to win, they fight to have a big fight. If they win it is by accident. Authoritarians have no idea how to use a victory." Alternatively, if Authoritarians seize control with a visible enemy to unite against that is not quickly defeated, whelp. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
meristem posted:This thread is cool. It reminds me of Jost's "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition", that meta-study from back in 2003 that correlated conservatism to high death anxiety and intolerance of ambiguity and need for closure. So, I'm curious: Prester John, have you read that study, and if so, what do you think about it? I have not read this study, but I would like to. Does anyone have a link?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Prester John posted:I have not read this study, but I would like to. Does anyone have a link? http://contracabal.com/PDF/Jost-1.pdf
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
scaterry posted:Here is how you can help: Thank you for this. I think doing this would be a good idea. I'm interested in exploring how the definition fits certain fringe groups on the American left (I myself am on the left). The thread has mentioned SLA, maybe some anarchists, and certain apocalyptic environmental groups as fitting the definition, and that seems reasonable. What about the politics of Chomsky and like minded people? Let's consider this: Tiered narratives? Yes. Grand narrative = an essentialist perspective about truth and justice and the anarchist/progressive role in realizing those ideals. There also seems to be a difference in the outer and inner narrative concerning whether the damage done by capitalism and authority can be truly reversed, and the odds that the human species will survive the next couple of generations. Grand narrative includes something apocalyptic? Yes, Chomsky is still worried about the possibility of nuclear winter, but more than that he is convinced that climate change poses an existential threat to the species' survival. (Just fyi, I'm inclined to agree) Convergence of narratives through political expedience? Fuzzy on this, but I'd say yes. Out of the political mainstream? Yes. Radicalization of members after they switch groups? Yes but interestingly, this process seems to be inverted on the left, for reasons already mentioned in the thread. The far left is institutionally weak. Chris Hedges, for example, became more radical after he was pushed out of the NY Times for being TOO radical. Leftists get kicked out of "mainstream" institutions and become more radical afterwards (while the institution becomes more moderate). This phenomenon is also explored in Glenn Greenwald's book No Place to Hide, where he and Laura Poitras received resistance from The Guardian and The Washington Post that precipitated their eventual break with these institutions. Motivated chiefly by fear? Usually not. Laura Poitras is, but I'd say Chomsky, Hedges, Cornel West, and Glenn Greenwald aren't. Deficient in complex thinking? Not at all. So what does everyone think? Should the definition apply to this segment of the left?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:Deficient in complex thinking? Not at all. No because complex thinking is absolutely a rule-out criteria. If it ain't fuzzy it ain't authoritarian.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Zodium posted:We need more PJ posts. I'm still interested in knowing more about Narrative Convergence and RNCEs. It's interesting that not all Republican-related events, like Benghazi, are within the scope. You said that the cardinal trait of an RNCE was that there has to be a metaphorical hill to die on, but how do Authoritarians groups determine that this event has a hill, but this other one doesn't? The two primary attributes of an RNCE is 1.) Authoritarian groups that are nominally opposed or distrustful of each other agreeing on a plan of action for perceived mutual defense, and 2.) a clear way to have a dramatic showdown over the issue. In the case of Cliven Bundy there was a literal hill to die upon. In the case of the 2013 shutdown the hill was metaphorical, but there was a way to force a dramatic standoff, and they took it. With Gay Marraige Fundies would loving lvoe to have an RNCE over this, but there is no clear cut way to grind the SCOTUS to a halt short of blowing up the building, (and they are not that extreme at the moment) so there can be no RNCE. Big Dramatic standoffs with clearly defined sides and a Good vs Evil Narrative are how Authoritarians want every fight. An RNCE occurs only when there is a way to get their big dramatic fight. Absent that, regular Narrative Convergence continues apace until a "hill to die upon" appears.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Is there a final point to the compaction cycle bit? It sounds like the trend is than an Authoritarian (or [insert new term here]) group becomes both virulent and smaller at the same time, but does that end with a single person just standing on a corner, red-faced and screaming cultish jargon 24/7 after all other potential members of the group have been excluded, or what? Is there an explosion, or does the group just deflate at some point because reasons?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:Thank you for this. I think doing this would be a good idea. I'm interested in exploring how the definition fits certain fringe groups on the American left (I myself am on the left). The thread has mentioned SLA, maybe some anarchists, and certain apocalyptic environmental groups as fitting the definition, and that seems reasonable. Give me a few hours to write up a more nuanced, detailed description of the particulars of who I am describing. As a general note: For the record I am more than happy to discuss (or attempt to) the specific traits of Authoritarians as near as I can identify them, but please leave the sniping and such out. I believe that many here are asking questions in good faith and are having a hard time identifying what I am talking about likely because they have no relevant real world experiences to relate it too, which is IMO, a good thing. (It does seem that people so far who have similar background or experiences to my own grasp exactly who I am talking about, for example.) Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Prester John posted:As a general note: For the record I am more than happy to discuss (or attempt to) the specific traits of Authoritarians as near as I can identify them, but please leave the sniping and such out. I believe that many here are asking questions in good faith and are having a hard time identifying what I am talking about likely because they have no relevant real world experiences to relate it too, which is IMO, a good thing. (It does seem that people so far who have similar background or experiences to my own grasp exactly who I am talking about, for example.) That's very fair, I forget that, growing up in Texas, I am very familiar with the type of people that you're talking about and can easily identify them. I apologize to the people I got annoyed with, but this was very clearly explained to me, and I didn't consider that some people may not have seen this sort of person on an up close and personal level.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Prester John posted:I believe that many here are asking questions in good faith and are having a hard time identifying what I am talking about likely because they have no relevant real world experiences to relate it too, which is IMO, a good thing. (It does seem that people so far who have similar background or experiences to my own grasp exactly who I am talking about, for example.) twodot fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
These are my personal benchmarks for identifying what I label Authoritarians. None of these is individually enough, and a given group/individual does not need to possess every single one of these attributes either. There are plenty of examples of one or more of these attributes applying to a given non-Authoritarian individual or group. That said, an Authoritarian individual/group will possess most if not all of these traits. Binary Thinking.: Everything either is, or isn't. A thing is either good, or a thing is evil. Black or white. Zero or One. Shades of grey do not exist. Differential Cognition: Differential Cognition is the process via which a given thing (Person, object idea) can only be understood in opposition to another thing. The entire world is only understood through the filter of how things are different from one another. In addition, these differences must be understood as making one thing better than another. For a simple example, two different types of chocolate. One Chocolate will be "better" than another for whatever reason in an Authoritarians mind. (The reasons why don't really matter and are subject to personal taste, and on an unimportant topic like "Is Nestle better than Hershey's" open debate is actually fine in an Authoritarian environment. Only topics that relate to the Narrative in some manner have to be identical. You can see this in Freep where despite the remarkable groupthink, because there are no clear signs on high about Cannabis, debate is tolerated.) An Authoritarian only understands the world by how this thing is different from that thing. They cannot perceive similarities to anywhere near the extent that they can perceive dissimilarities. Rather than "Compare and Contrast" Authoritrains can only "Compare BY Contrast". Differences in a thing from another thing must be graspable and understood in order for that thing to exist to an Authoritarian's mind. Furthermore, once these differences are identified, a judgement will be ruled on which is "Better" and which is "worse". Rejection of Introspection: Authoritarians do not possess introspection, do not develop Introspection, and become highly agitated if they are put into a situation where Introspection is called for. Inner Narrative's often serve as a method to deflect any potential painful introspection. If say a Fundamentalist Christian is feeling guilty over wronging someone, they simply confess their sin, in their heads, to God, and then they experience genuine relief from the guilt, and introspection is avoided. Alternatively, the victim of an Authoritarians misdeed could simply be dismissed with a Just World Fallacy. Victory by Destruction of the Enemy: All Authoritarian models for changing society always involve destruction of an identified other and nothing else. "If we just got rid of "X" everything would be fine". When I was a Conspiracy Theorist I believed that simply eliminating the Globalists and getting out of Humanities way would more or else fix everything. When I was a David Icke loving UFO nut merely destroying the Reptilians (and their agents) would have resulted in humanity raising its vibration to a heavenly level that would fix everything. When I was a Fundie I believed that converting all the unbelievers (or destroying them) would fix every problem on Earth. Objectivists believe that getting rid of all regulations would result in the emergence of a new golden age of prosperity for all. For racists crime/social ills would disappear if we just stopped coddling blacks/illegal immigrants (Or killed them all). No thought towards actual policy or the reality of a given situation is ever given. Much like all authoritarian battle plans boil down to "Fight Big Fight Hard" all Authoritarian strategies for fixing societies ills involve "destroy the other". Nothing is planned of beyond that. There is no "Well what do we do when we win?" because that question is pointless. If they win, they have already won, you see? They believe that the simple non-existence of whoever(or whatever) they choose as their enemy would result in a natural order emerging (or reasserting itself) and harmony would ensue. In short the "One weird Trick that will give us everything we want" is always "destroy the enemy". (And the way to destroy the enemy is always"in a big battle") Pillar of Perfect Safety: Already mentioned (and there are other Pillars but I do not yet have words for them) but let me elaborate here. It is not "The Pillar of Safety", it is "The Pillar of Perfect Safety". You must not be merely safe or reasonably safe, you must be made immune from each and every threat possible. No matter how small, no matter how remote, no matter how tiny a threat, if Authoritarians perceive the threat, they will act to destroy it utterly. Consider the freak-out over ISIS and how they are going to come here and kill us now any minute, despite the tiny size of ISIS and the fact that they have no way of coming over here. But Authoritarian's want to treat ISIS as if it were a mortal threat just as deadly as Nazi Germany and they actively scream for us to "glass the Middle East". Safety must be "Perfect" to the Authoritarians perceptions. A Deliberately misleading Outer Narrative: Not merely the existence of a more socially acceptable Outer Narrative, but an Outer Narrative that has been designed to shield the Inner Narrative from exposure and criticism. Outer Narrative's are often designed to woo in new converts by getting them to accept what are regarded as "simpler" forms of what the Inner Narrative actually is. Let me give a personal example here. When i was still posting as Truckin A Man on these forums I had a very popular thread about my experiences truck driving. At the time, I was also a UFO nut who believed in the Reptilians and desired to save us all by exposing them. I decided that this board was super special/important because Enoch told me so, and I went about trying to use my name recognition to convert this board to the existence of the Reptilians. But I recognized simply coming out and saying "4th Dimensional Blood Sucking Reptilian Aliens are the secret masters of the world from their Moon Base" was a bridge too far, you all were not ready for that yet. I had to break it down into baby steps. So I started posting UFO related threads and documentaries. I remember a specific Documentary about UFO's that I didn't particularly like or agree with, but I felt it was "simple" enough that it could "open some minds" here, so I posted that and tried to argue on its behalf. (Got a month's probation for that one, as by that time the mods were getting sick of my poo poo.) Absence of Nuance: Authoritrains do not understand nuance or even the concept of nuance. As a result, they never develop sophisticated thinking. Pillar of Maximum force: Underlying much of Authoritrains solutions to every problem is to hit *thing* with as much force as possible. There is no concept of a proportionate response, just throw everything we have at it right the gently caress now! While nukes are not the solution to every type of problem, nukes *WOULD* solve every problem if used correctly. (For example, if all gay people were rounded up into one location you could nuke that location and fix the gay problem forever.) Authoritrains believe that using anything less than the maximum amount of force you can is a sign of weakness and an invitation to be attacked by your enemies. Belief in innate Superiority This is pretty straightforwards, an Authoritarian group always believes it is somehow innately superior to all (or virtually all) other groups. Examples, White Supremacists, Fundie Christians, Objectivist "Captains of Industry", Scientologists, etc etc. Unchageable God: Whatever the concept of "God" is for an Authoritarian group, God cannot change, you can only change yourself to be more aligned with God. While personal communication with God may or may not be possible, God will never change, God will only change you to be more like him. There are a few others I would like to add to the list but I am finding it hard to explain them just yet, but I think this might help narrow things down a bit. Tell me what you guys think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
twodot posted:"Authoritarians possess disproportionate control of the GOP" are incredibly suspicious. How else does one explain things like this? quote:Making it harder for moderate Republicans to sidestep the gay-marriage debate altogether will be candidates like conservative firebrand Ted Cruz, who has introduced a Constitutional amendment allowing state legislatures to ban same-sex marriage if the Supreme Court rules against the states this spring. Supporting Cruz is another potential Republican presidential candidate, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. "If the Supreme Court were to throw out our law, our constitutional amendment—I hope they wouldn't do that—if they were to do that, I certainly will support Ted Cruz and others that are talking about making ... a constitutional amendment to allow states to continue to define marriage,” Jindal told ABC's "This Week" on January 25. Advocating such a strong position on the campaign trail will rile the grassroots(read, "Authoritarian") base and potentially force more moderate candidates like Bush, Christie and Walker to the right. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:How else does one explain things like this? Lots of people oppose gay marriage???
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:How else does one explain things like this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Lots of people oppose gay marriage??? So what about the part where more "moderate" Republican presidential candidates are unable to come out in favor of it without being jettisoned by their own party, even when their own people are telling them that it's a losing issue? To me, sacrificing a more popular position to appease a minority sounds like disproportionate influence. twodot posted:Ted Cruz is doing things that Ted Cruz thinks will get him power/money/status. I don't understand what needs explaining. Apparently you need the knot that Republicans have been tied into by their "base" re: gay marriage positions explained to you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:So what about the part where more "moderate" Republican presidential candidates are unable to come out in favor of it without being jettisoned by their own party, even when their own people are telling them that it's a losing issue? To me, sacrificing a more popular position to appease a minority sounds like disproportionate influence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
PJ did you ever watch The Power of Nightmares? I feel like your writing could be the backbone of a very entertaining documentary in Adam Curtis' style. He also has interesting things to say about neoconservative attempts to characterize Islamism as an existential threat. Sure, he plays it fast and loose sometimes, but it's okay to play it fast and loose. if we don't make the occasional leap in the reasoning in an effort to understand these weirdos, they are going to kill us.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
twodot posted:What's your evidence that Ted Cruz is an Authoritarian and not just a self interested rear end in a top hat? The two aren't mutually exclusive, for one, and second, his behavior and rhetoric fit the profile. SedanChair posted:Sure, he plays it fast and loose sometimes, but it's okay to play it fast and loose. if we don't make the occasional leap in the reasoning in an effort to understand these weirdos, they are going to kill us. What's interesting to me is that some people are conceiving this as an attempt to explain people "who disagree with you," instead of an attempt to explain "people who view you as subhuman and would exterminate you if they had the chance." Sharkie fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
twodot posted:What's your evidence that Ted Cruz is an Authoritarian and not just a self interested rear end in a top hat? Ted Cruz is appealing specifically to Authoritarians and exclusively the Authoritarians in the party, but I do not personally think he is one. Ted Cruz did however trigger an RNCE with the 2013 shutdown though, and he understood Authoritarians well enough that he did it on purpose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Yeah, Ted Cruz doesn't have to be an Authoritarian himself, but he has to act like one or his base would turn on him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:PJ did you ever watch The Power of Nightmares? I feel like your writing could be the backbone of a very entertaining documentary in Adam Curtis' style. He also has interesting things to say about neoconservative attempts to characterize Islamism as an existential threat. I watched Century of the Self and couldn't take it seriously. He talked about psychoanalysis as if there was any science behind it at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Prester John posted:Ted Cruz is appealing specifically to Authoritarians and exclusively the Authoritarians in the party quote:Ted Cruz did however trigger an RNCE with the 2013 shutdown though, and he understood Authoritarians well enough that he did it on purpose. Sharkie posted:The two aren't mutually exclusive, for one, and second, his behavior and rhetoric fit the profile. Cerebral Bore posted:Yeah, Ted Cruz doesn't have to be an Authoritarian himself, but he has to act like one or his base would turn on him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
I find it really difficult to believe that the post above mine was not written by a squirrel, or perhaps by a baby who has just come into the world but somehow knows how to type.Sharkie posted:What's interesting to me is that some people are conceiving this as an attempt to explain people "who disagree with you," instead of an attempt to explain "people who view you as subhuman and would exterminate you if they had the chance." Yeah I guess a good question for those folks is "how many wars have been started by people reacting to authoritarians, rather than by authoritarians themselves?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
twodot posted:This doesn't make any sense to me. Suppose I agree that RNCE is a real thing, which Ted Cruz did personally trigger on purpose. Why would that be desirable to Authoritarians? (edit: or to Ted Cruz I guess) It would be desirable to Ted Cruz because he gave the Authoritarians the cathartic release of an RNCE and is remembered as a true fighter willing to stand on principal. It raised his profile among the GOP base but in particular Authoritarians. Authoritarians want a big ole fight and have been extremely frustrated with the lack of big ole fights and Ted Cruz gave them a good one.(the fact that they lost doesn;t matter, as they only lost because of Dolchstoss from Boehner, who isn't a true conservative anyways) Ted Cruz can now run on a platform of "Vote for me and I will give you the chance to hurt those people you hate". I think a random sample of Freep posts from Cruz supporters would bear this out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yeah I guess a good question for those folks is "how many wars have been started by people reacting to authoritarians, rather than by authoritarians themselves?" Or even, "started by people attempting to describe those who are trying to oppress them." I guess part of it is a reluctance to consider that certain political / cultural modes are driven more by ugly and atavistic urges than others, along with a helping of the truth is in the middle/both sides are at fault. Plus the luxury that comes from viewing all this as a college debate exercise instead of an attempt to explain why certain people want you to not exist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Prester John posted:It would be desirable to Ted Cruz because he gave the Authoritarians the cathartic release of an RNCE and is remembered as a true fighter willing to stand on principal. It raised his profile among the GOP base but in particular Authoritarians. Authoritarians want a big ole fight and have been extremely frustrated with the lack of big ole fights and Ted Cruz gave them a good one.(the fact that they lost doesn;t matter, as they only lost because of Dolchstoss from Boehner, who isn't a true conservative anyways) Ted Cruz can now run on a platform of "Vote for me and I will give you the chance to hurt those people you hate". I think a random sample of Freep posts from Cruz supporters would bear this out. quote:An inherent and understood hierarchy is embraced without ever being formalized. [...] each group jostles for position Intentionally triggering an RNCE when you can just wait a news cycle and publicly fight meaningless fights without rapid changes in hierarchy seems like really bad strategy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok, but why can't he do that without triggering what sounds like an extremely unstable event: Do you not understand that he is Ted Cruz and literally does not care what happens, as long as he gets to be the one who made it happen?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:Do you not understand that he is Ted Cruz and literally does not care what happens, as long as he gets to be the one who made it happen?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 23:46
|
|