|
Do you think this is an accurate representation of PJ's posts on the first page? I tried to include as much as possible without including PJ's occasional waffling and her tips on how to deal with authoritarians or provoke them into demonstrating her point. I don't think she was very organized but I think she said enough to extract a definition. An authoritarian is someone with these traits: * They intentionally present an outer narrative to hide their true (inner) narrative. A narrative is an explanation of what your role in life is and what you expect for the future. They: .. - are not emotionally attached to their outer narrative .. - use their outer narrative to avoid ideological attacks .. - try to make the outer narrative acceptable .. - believe their inner narrative gives them standing over onbelievers * Their inner narrative: .. - gives them a special role in a world-spanning conflict (the "grand narrative," describing what will ultimately happen to humanity over time) -- usually as revolutionaries or final defenders of "true X" (where X is something they like: i.e. decency, Christianity) .. - treats opponents as manifestations of a greater evil .. - treats them as heroes .. - is a truth most people won't be able to acknowledge. (i.e. because it's too complex, because it's too offensive) They won't be acknowledged by the people they're saving. (which is why people don't like or respect them now) * The grand narrative has these features: .. - a perfect human being as the proxy for moral right .. - Only their group will defend true X. It will look dismal and others won't follow them, although they're guaranteed to win. .. - They'll be personally rewarded (i.e. by God) for defending true X. (true X is not usually its own reward) * Their groups must: .. - cannibalize to keep doctrinally consistent. They're more concerned with narrative than personality, although they can be concerned with both. .. - make evil abstract enough to treat varied ideological opponents as figures of the same force. (i.e. Muslims are homosexuals are evolutionists are abortion clinics) .. - compromise on outer narrative when the grand narrative is clearly consistent. (if I'm nominally concerned about taxes and you're nominally concerned about guns, we'll still work together if we both think we're the last True Americans around) E: pronoun gender Krotera fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Mar 27, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 06:50 |
|
|
Quick reminder that PJ is female, despite the name. I think you've gotten the gist of it though(?).
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
How would people (mostly you, Prester John, it's your theory) feel about renaming Authoritarians to True Believers? This is an amazing thread, except for page 6 and some of page 7. Hats off to you, PJ. Write a book. e: Yeah, ignore me, I'm basically dragging up the worst part of this thread. euler fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
euler posted:How would people (mostly you, Prester John, it's your theory) feel about renaming Authoritarians to True Believers? here's how i feel about that Zodium posted:the term has problems and should probably be changed eventually, but since PJ has acknowledged this, and since for the purpose of the thread it's too late, we're going to continue using Authoritarian.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
E: yeah, ignore me too, I don't want to drag the thread down with semantics
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Krotera posted:Do you think this is an accurate representation of PJ's posts on the first page? I tried to include as much as possible without including PJ's occasional waffling and his tips on how to deal with authoritarians or provoke them into demonstrating his point. I don't think he was very organized but I think he said enough to extract a definition. Yes, thank you for this, this is a good summary. I'm sorry its so hard for me to be clear and concise on what I am communicating. I think that is where the breakdown has been, some people are intuiting my method of communicating and its limitations better than others. In that vein let me try and explain something of how my mind works. I think once it is understood how I communicate, it will be easier to see the premise I am trying to communicate. A Schizophrenic mind sees connections. Sometimes these connections are meaningful, often they are not. But that doesn't matter to the Schizophrenic mind, at least not at first. I am also partially dissociated, and need to spend most of my day more or less tuned out to the outside world. Focusing outwards takes great effort, and while I do enjoy it, I tire quickly. I can usually handle no more than about 3 hours out in public (shopping, eating out, that sort of thing) before I am too tired to talk. My face sags, I lose all ability to show emotion, and I am intensely unaware of my surroundings. Its important to understand both of these factors as I explain how I experience myself. When I drift off and let my mind wander I play a sort of free association kind of game. I am thinking not in english, but in patterns, vortexes, geometric shapes. memories, sounds, sensations of sounds, memories of emotions of reactions to vibrations of sounds. I free wheel and freely associate, thinking of nothing, just letting consciousness stream by. On occasion I will suddenly sense a connection between two things I have recently thought of. I find this sensation (Which I call Epiphany to be very pleasurable. When I am experiencing this sensation I just roll with it, and let my mind freely make whatever associations come. As I do so I get the sense that I have made a profound connection, learned something important. My mind races to make similar connections, to argue whether there is a connection between these two things or not, a theory is formed to explain the connection, and many interpretations are formed. I find this whole process to be thrilling and very fun. Once I have what I feel is a functioning theory, I construct a Mental Metaphor that contains all the ideas I have just had encoded into it. This Mental Metaphor will be a symbolic representation of my ideas written in an internal language of symbolism that I use. This language is heavily self referenced and often represented by very abstract ideas, nonetheless, it exists primarily as a way for me to recreate any particular thought line I had concerning the idea the Mental Metaphor is meant to represent at a later date. With a properly constructed Mental Metaphor, I can store many inter-related but not yet hashed out ideas into an elaborate symbol so that I can come back and consider later. Then at a later date I can remember the Mental Metaphor, and recall all the ideas that lead me to create it for further consideration and refinement. The Mental Metaphor then gets modified to reflect any new understandings or internal arguments that have been had, and gets deposited back in my memory again. I have many such mental metaphors, all written in a completely self referenced language that makes no attempt to communicate with anyone but myself. I find this to be an activity that I spend most of my day in, in one form or another. It is extremely fulfilling to me. I usually sit zoned out watching kpop girl bands (helps relieve my Gender Dysphoria, and not hard on the eyes either) and just let my mind drift. Sometimes I am working with one of my Mental Metaphor's, sometimes I am building a new one, sometimes I am just coasting in free association in a kind of drifting listen mode. When I feel a Mental Metaphor has neared a state of completion, I begin to test it. For this task I have an extensive library of internal self metaphors, folksy sayings, observations, and Pattern Tools (geometric representations of well known and internally accepted orders of operation for internal behaviour). I apply these Pattern Tools to my Mental Metaphor in a testing phase to see if there is any validity to the associations that were used to create the Mental Metaphor. This process is also really fun, I sort of mentally smash my ideas into the ground with as much vigor as I can. I try many ways to argue against my ideas and use many different styles of logic to attack the ideas the Mental Metaphor is meant to represent. I would say that out of Twenty such Mental Metaphor's, Seventeen or so are smashed at this stage. At some point a critical flaw is either discovered, or a simpler explanation, or the association checks out but turns out to have no important meanings. If so, the Mental Metaphor is modified to reflect the discovered flaw. The modification used to represent the flaw is itself stored as a Mental Metaphor so it can be used as a check for previously discovered flaws in new Mental Metaphor's. Once this process is complete the three remaining Mental Metaphor's are accepted as "probably true, but still require testing" and added to my internal language database. They become mental constructs meant to represet complex concepts so that I can observe various concepts and communicate with myself more rapidly. By pondering one of these Metaphors and then pondering another I can also compare and contrast and study why I constructed a particular Mental Metaphor one way over another, and are there any connections between these two Mental Metaphor's? So when I wrote my original post on March 1st that so accurately predicted the Fundie reaction to Gay Marriage, I was basing that understanding on my analysis that I can constructed with all my "Authoritarian Related" Mental Metaphor's. When the idea of explaining how I did that came up, I realized I needed a way to communicate these ideas in an English format. So I am translating metaphorical thought concepts based on self referenced ideas into English, which is not an easy task. I have to find ways to teach you all basic concepts that underlie the far more elaborate interactions between the sophisticated geometries and memories that are my Mental Metaphor's associated with Authoritarians. (How could you understand my description of the Cliven Bundy incident as a "Rapid Narrative Convergence Event" if you did not already understand what Narrative Convergence, and the Grand, Inner, and Outer Narrative's were?) So I try to find Metaphors to describe my ideas that I think can be communicated. For instance, the above example of my internal ideas interacting with each other above, explaining that process is "Tugging on a few strands" of the "Gordian Knot" that "Schizophrenia twists things into". You see? That is my Communication Metaphor for the idea of needing to teach parts of my internal language before I can communicate my ideas. So the next step in communicating these Mental Metaphor's is to call the metaphor up in my mind and then cross reference it with an extensive library of separate Mental Metaphor's meant to enable Communication to the outside. These Mental Metaphor are meant to represent past successes in communicating Concepts and reflect a working internal model of the majority of how Outside Minds have interlocution. A new metaphor is created, this one a Communication Metaphor meant to convey in simplest terms the rough outline of the idea the Mental Metaphor is meant to communicate. A good Communication Metaphor should appeal widely and be simple enough to be immediately grasped but with enough complexity that clarifying details can be added. The Communication Metaphor is constructed in such a way to communicate a little story while clarifying details are added as necessary. Let me give a good example of how this process works. I can walk you through this step by step. Please consider my description of Compaction Cycle from earlier. Prester John posted:This applies very directly to Freeprepublic.com's trend towards radicalization and explains the real social function of the occasional purges serve. Note the slushball metaphor, told as a step by step story. The slushball is a Communication Metaphor for the Mental Metaphor that represents the idea that I later named Compaction cycle. Luckily in this example, the Mental Metaphor that is written in my internal language is similar enough to physical reality that it can be described enough to communicate a sense of what I am getting at here. The Mental Metaphor of Compaction Cycle: "A series of large tinted glass bowls, each wide and holding about three gallons of liquid. Each bowl has a signifying color to designate its representation of a Authoritarian Group Cluster. The colors represent different groups, and some bowls have multiple colors (or patterns) to signify to intermixing and style of intermixing of certain Authoritarian Group Clusters. (Each bowl is hovering in midair and are not affected by gravity in this Metaphor) The bowls are connected through the bottom by a series of small plastic straws that slowly cycle the water between them. Of note is that these straws all pass through a cold zone that chills the water in them before emerging in the bottoms of other bowls. Each bowl contains an IceBerg floating majestically in it. In some bowls the Iceberg is huge, in others small, and in most fairly intermediate in shape. Some Icebergs have mini blizzards occurring in them, that cycle the snow and water up and down, but without moving between the bowls. Over time, water evaporates and leaves, but the Iceberg grows faster than that. The Iceberg keeps growing because the water cycling slowly through the bottom of the bowls through the straws keeps getting colder and making the icebergs grow." Note that in this Mental Metaphor, not every rule of reality has to be directly applied, which is reflected. Let me explain what this Mental Metaphor is meant to communicate. Each bowl of water represents an Authoritarian group cluster, and the water represents people associated with the group, and the iceberg represents hardliners. The weather patterns in some bowls indicate that there is a cycle of creating hardliners that occurs completely self contained within just that cluster. (Ie a Fundamentalist Christian moving from church to church gradually joining more and more extreme ones). the water cycling the straws at the bottom of the bowls represents that constant low level cycling caused by internal group conflicts. Communicated here is the idea that one groups dispelled softliner, when joining another group, often lurks at the bottom contributing little for a long time before becoming a hardliner. (That particular bit of detail was lost in the translation to the slushball Metaphor) The chilling process of traveling through the straw is meant to represent the sense of isolation that eventually drives an Authoritarian to seek another group that conforms to the Grand Narrative to meet his psychological needs.and also leads to the iceberg gradually growing from below,where most of the growth is occurring anyways.( Another facet of this Mental Metaphor is the idea that the In group cycles are more dramatic and more visible but less overall in importance to the intergroup cycle, this detail was also lost to the slushball Communication Metaphor, but that was deemed acceptable). So in explaining what I named the Compaction Cycle I had to create a Communication Metaphor to explain the Mental Metaphor associated with all my thoughts on the Compaction cycle. this is a time consuming process, but in this case the Slushball Metaphor emerged and it seems to have been one of the more effective thus far. I thank everyone for their feedback so far, it helps tremendously. I am sorry that my method of communication can be so scattered at times, but my Internal Models of Standard Frame Outside Minds are not quite as functional as I would like. By seeing my own ideas reflected back and discussed, and either understood or misunderstood, it aids me in creating further Communication Metaphors to explain my ideas. So whether or not you agree with me or whether or not you understand my concepts, as long as you are arguing in good faith, it greatly aids me in what I am trying to do here. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Mar 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
It's interesting how you describe your symptoms of schizophrenia, PJ. I'm not schizophrenic, but I do have ADHD, and I've had no trouble following your logical leaps and connections and metaphors. This may be in large part because I organize my thoughts similarly, and make similar connections. I use big-W Words as shorthand, and construct metaphors and systems in my mind. However - in what I assume is a difference in how ADHD expresses itself compared ot Schizophrenia- where you use personally-significant abstract symbols, I think almost entirely in words and arguments and rhetoric, and specifically in English. I don't really "hear" words, more of a subconscious speed-reading. (Also, I don't disassociate, I have above-average social stamina, and I don't get quite the sort of pleasure you do from the experience. I also don't really "spend time" doing it - it just sort of happens automatically if nothing else has my attention.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Having looked up lowercase-a authoritarianism, I guess my fixation on it also was wrong in the first place. Even though I figured out from the OP your capital-A Authoritarian is a work-in-progress label, I was still wondering how you came to that term at all in the first place. But I was running on the assumption that lowercase-a authoritarians are totalitarians. It looks like it's much more subtle than that. So I was wondering if you are going less for authoritarians in terms of "authority figure of power" and more for "authority figure in field of expertise." That is, these are people that believe they have the truest knowledge of some subject. Whatever that subject is, they think it's more important than anything else in the world. So they don't necessarily want to even be in a person in control themselves. If that's the case, I guess they're even scarier; a particularly cynical politician can co-opt them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
For gently caress's sake, it's only a word. Call these people Hoobajoobs for all I care.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:Having looked up lowercase-a authoritarianism, I guess my fixation on it also was wrong in the first place. Even though I figured out from the OP your capital-A Authoritarian is a work-in-progress label, I was still wondering how you came to that term at all in the first place. But I was running on the assumption that lowercase-a authoritarians are totalitarians. It looks like it's much more subtle than that. So I was wondering if you are going less for authoritarians in terms of "authority figure of power" and more for "authority figure in field of expertise." That is, these are people that believe they have the truest knowledge of some subject. Whatever that subject is, they think it's more important than anything else in the world. So they don't necessarily want to even be in a person in control themselves. If that's the case, I guess they're even scarier; a particularly cynical politician can co-opt them. Authoritarians in the sense that there is an ultimate authority from which all other authority derives and personal authority ( or power, wealth, et)c is only gained by aligning with that higher authority. Another way of stating it. "The Ultimate Authority is the Narrative." They behave according to the Narrative they are embracing, and they behave outwardly according to the Outer Narrative, and Inwardly (or behind closed doors) according to the Inner Narrative. They profess one belief outwardly, but have another (similar but much more extreme) belief inwardly. These beliefs together form the Narrative, and the Narrative is the true god of the Authoritarian.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
This is fascinating PJ, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
One thing I realized while driving home is PJ's theory about Authoritarians somewhat resembles Japan's social structure. One of my old instructor's favorite phrases to describe the difference between the American and Japanese social environment is "vertical society". In the US, we're all (supposedly) equal before the law, and nobody outranks anyone else, and we'd use the same language to speak to President Obama as we would to any other person. In Japan, everyone understands where they stand among their friends and coworkers, as in Jeff is better than Joe because he's been at the Company longer, and Joe is better than Kevin because he's older. This is even enforced down to the linguistic level, as you'd use different language to talk to someone who outranks you vs someone you outrank, and more importantly you'd use very different language to speak to your in-group than you would an out-group. I wonder if this influences the abundance or power of Authoritarians in Japan, or any other (small a) authoritarian culture vs our more anarchic culture. EDIT: Now with paragraphs!
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Zodium posted:
Hmmm, let me explain it like this. Imagine a group of the "cool kids" are hanging around outside after school. They are loosely affiliated with each other, not really friends, but they have respect for each other. Let us say they all enjoy bullying a particular student. If the student walks by them while they are hanging out, one of them might go "gently caress that guy" and a few others chime in with a chorus of "Yeah, gently caress that guy" and then they go at attack the victim. In this example the attack itself is the RNCE. The RNCE can only occur if the victim happens by, so the RNCP can only occur if there *IS* a hill to die on. There are many issues right now where they would go pull a Cliven Bundy if they could, but they do not see a clear opportunity. When the Authoritarians see a way to gently caress up the machine, they will launch themselves into it s gears like their lives depended on it. Because they think it does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Prester John posted:The Mental Metaphor of Compaction Cycle: "A series of large tinted glass bowls, each wide and holding about three galls of liquid. Each bowl has a signifying color do designate its representation of a Authoritarian Group Cluster. The colors represent different groups, and some bowls have multiple colors (or patterns) to signify to intermixing and style of intermixing of certain Authoritarian Group Clusters. (Each bowl is hovering in midair and are not affected by gravity in this Metaphor) The bowls are connected through the bottom by a series of small plastic straws that slowly cycle the water between them. Of note is that these straws all pass through a cold zone that chills the water in them before emerging in the bottoms of other bowls. Each bowl contains an IceBerg floating majestically in it. In some bowls the Iceberg is huge, in others small, and in most fairly intermediate in shape. Some Icebergs have mini blizzards occurring in them, that cycle the snow and water up and down, but without moving between the bowls. Over time, water evaporates and leaves, but the Iceberg grows faster than that. The Iceberg keeps growing because the water cycling slowly through the bottom of the bowls through the straws keeps getting colder and making the icebergs grow." Imagine four fundies on the edge of a cliff...
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Lol at the people seriously engaging OP's theory about how the people he disagrees with are big evil dum dums with messed up brains who like to stomp on puppies
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Steampunk iPhone posted:Lol at the people seriously engaging OP's theory about how the people he disagrees with are big evil dum dums with messed up brains who like to stomp on puppies Did you miss the part where she literally was one?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Did you miss the part where she literally was one? No, sorry; I didn't read all of the 20,000 words op posted because the ones I did read sounded insanely dumb (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Steampunk iPhone posted:No, sorry; I didn't read all of the 20,000 words op posted because the ones I did read sounded insanely dumb "I didn't read the post; let me critique the post." You certainly are useful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
e: wrong thread
woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Mar 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 00:33
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Did you miss the part where she literally was one? Don't engage with boring assholes.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
I'd like to take back what I said earlier. I've taken a more in-depth look at what the OP has to say, and I think there are some valuable insights in there. Take this passage, for example:Prester John posted:I find this to be an activity that I spend most of my day in, in one form or another. It is extremely fulfilling to me. I usually sit zoned out watching kpop girl bands (helps relieve my Gender Dysphoria, and not hard on the eyes either) and just let my mind drift.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:One thing I realized while driving home is PJ's theory about Authoritarians somewhat resembles Japan's social structure. One of my old instructor's favorite phrases to describe the difference between the American and Japanese social environment is "vertical society". In the US, we're all (supposedly) equal before the law, and nobody outranks anyone else, and we'd use the same language to speak to President Obama as we would to any other person. I might need to press you on this a little further. While I would agree Japan is more hierarchical, I'm not seeing how exactly the Japanese Ethic would apply to things such as Outer Narrative, Inner Narrative, and the rest. The inner narrative is a concept of self, not really an entire subset of language. (Unless there is some aspect about Japan's social structure that I'm still lacking...?)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Morroque posted:I might need to press you on this a little further. While I would agree Japan is more hierarchical, I'm not seeing how exactly the Japanese Ethic would apply to things such as Outer Narrative, Inner Narrative, and the rest. The inner narrative is a concept of self, not really an entire subset of language. (Unless there is some aspect about Japan's social structure that I'm still lacking...?) I imagine that the inner narrative has something to do with Japanese racial supremacy, at least when compared to their geographic neighbors. It's probably "remain pure and obey and you'll be OK." In fact there might be some merit in examining Japan as an example of what happens when almost everyone is on the same page. I would venture that many of Japan's Hikkikomori would not had withdrawn if they had been given just a little more wiggle room to deviate from the norm. But these are all half baked phone posted ideas. I might have to come back later with figures and citations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Xibanya posted:I imagine that the inner narrative has something to do with Japanese racial supremacy, at least when compared to their geographic neighbors. It's probably "remain pure and obey and you'll be OK." In fact there might be some merit in examining Japan as an example of what happens when almost everyone is on the same page. I would venture that many of Japan's Hikkikomori would not had withdrawn if they had been given just a little more wiggle room to deviate from the norm. But these are all half baked phone posted ideas. I might have to come back later with figures and citations. Japan's racism isn't exactly hidden.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Japan's racism isn't exactly hidden. Isn't it, though? Contempt for foreigners is often out in the open, but I think the Japanese sense of moral supremacy is masked fairly well. It's not like white supremacism, which attempts to articulate how European peoples are intellectually and/or physically superior to all other races. I don't think the Japanese view themselves as being smarter than the rest of the world, and I think they almost relish their own perceived physical weakness a lot of the time. They don't see (particularly white, English-speaking) foreigners as being any less capable. Undignified egomaniacal cheats incapable of resisting base urges, to be approached with caution and even a little pity, yes. But not really inferior in the racial sense we're most familiar with. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Mar 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Everything the op has posted makes some sense and appears to be mostly internally consistent. Some posters are making GBS threads on it because it appears the op is attacking republicans. It has been stated over and over and over. Yes the idea of authoritarians is apolitical. Yes there are left wing authoritarians. We are talking about right wing authoritarianism because they are the most prominent and in the position to do the most damage. This is because of documented proof that the republicans deliberately courted these people in a cold blooded attempt to create a loyal power base. Nobody is attacking conservatives. Nobody is saying you are an evil authoritarian because you are a republican. It's just that due to a mistake the republicans made decades ago the right wing authoritarians are the only ones we care about. Please stop poo poo posting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:Everything the op has posted makes some sense and appears to be mostly internally consistent. Some posters are making GBS threads on it because it appears the op is attacking republicans. It has been stated over and over and over. Yes the idea of authoritarians is apolitical. Yes there are left wing authoritarians. We are talking about right wing authoritarianism because they are the most prominent and in the position to do the most damage. This is because of documented proof that the republicans deliberately courted these people in a cold blooded attempt to create a loyal power base. Nobody is attacking conservatives. Nobody is saying you are an evil authoritarian because you are a republican. It's just that due to a mistake the republicans made decades ago the right wing authoritarians are the only ones we care about. Please stop poo poo posting. No, some people are freaking out because PJ is describing a different and more unhinged subset of the human race than the word "authoritarian" usually refers to. The taxonomical issue has mostly been dealt with at this point, and anybody still harping on about it can safely be ignored.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
I think we're all beating around the bush here though. Say I come across one of these religious zealot capital-A Authoritarians and I want to take them down a peg. What's some good Inner Narrative dirt I can hurl at them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
The Rokstar posted:I think we're all beating around the bush here though. The inner narratives differ. The real trick is figuring out what the inner narrative, and separating it from the outer narrative that they're espousing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
I think the "befriend them and expose them to new experiences in a safe environment" idea from the small-a authoritarians book probably applies. Attack the narrative, and you're just another scary threat. Show them that those scary threats are neither scary nor a real threat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
What do you guys think of this as an example of the Inner/Outer Narrative dynamic? The "Weapons of Mass Destruction" line used to sell the Iraq War. The W Administration was riddled with either Authoritarian's(Bush), or cynical sociopaths manipulating them. (Eg, Cheney) During the Bush Administration the cynical faction crafted an Outer Narrative of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" as a cynical lie to implement their own hegemonic agenda. This Outer Narrative became adopted by the Authoritarian wing and shouted non-stop from the high hilltops. At the time the Country was still wounded by 9-11 and the momentum of the Authoritarian wing was enough to drag us into the Iraq War. But the Outer Narrative was always a conscious lie to cover a business oriented agenda. In addition, look at how the Iraq War was conducted. There was no plan for what to do after we actually took over the Country. Authoritarians believe that simple destruction of the Other will be enough.Remember "Welcomed as Liberators" and "Democracy will spread through the Middle East" and "Toppling Saddam will bring stability to the region"? These were all conscious lies told by the cynical faction of the W Administration looking to make a buck off war, lets over simplify and call this faction "NeoCons". The NeoCons figured out how to focus group their way into rhetoric that exploited the Inner/Outer Narrative vulnerability of Authoritarians. Authoritarains just wanted a big fight and that was enough, so all the NeoCons needed to concoct was a reason to go to War to sell Authoritarians on the war, they didn't need to explain how the war would actually be won and what would follow. (Remember "Mission Accomplished"?) The NeoCons knew that Weapons of Mass Destruction was a lie, and they knew that lie riled up the part of their base that drags everyone else along. They just didn't know why this "One Weird Trick" worked. You can see it in this Karl Rove quote: Karl Rove to an journalist posted:The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."[ Karl Rove had become arrogant and felt invincible because he had discovered exactly how to exploit vulnerabilities in the Authoritarian Narrative structure. At the time he was right because the decades long investment in learning to exploit this tactic was paying off handsomely in the W Administration. But he did not understand WHY it worked, and he didn't care. It worked and it worked well and that was enough for him. However, George W was not a NeoCon, he ahd become an Authoritarian, a true believer. So W started to run a Compaction Cycle in his Administration and the broader Republican Party. (Example, the firing of all the State Attorney Generals. Remember how oddly blatant that seemed at the time? It was a Compaction Cycle, a group falling on the wrong side of the internal power politics that Authoritarians initiate constantly.) Most probably the cynical NeoCon wing saw no real problem with this, as all the replacements(Being largely from groups that had spent their lives in some variation of the A.C.E. environment) asked fewer questions and were quite happy to follow orders. Now we come to the present situation. Authoritarians are seizing control of then parties Propaganda wing and general infrastructure. In addition, the Koch bros. with their Tea Party have found a way to funnel money to Authoritarians. (The Koch bros are doing this cynically) The Authoritarian wing now has enough control over the reins that they are steering the party into the Authoritarian agenda. And that Agenda is driven by the Grand Narrative. That is why the Fundie's are implementing all these massively unpopular anti-LGBTQ bills. They are not doing this cynically for votes, they are doing this because they are following the Narrative. You can see how the Outer Narrative of "Its about Religious Freedom" is really just a consciously constructed lie to cover up "We Hate Queers". The cynical NeoCon wing has lost control and can't stop the tide anymore, and their desires are being over ridden by the growing Narrative Convergence between the various Authoritarian factions. Look at the knot the GOP is tied up in over Gay Marriage right now. The cynical NeoCon wing of the party knows that the culture war is over and just wants to move on. Hell, the Wall St. types just want to make money and hating Gay people just costs money now so they are fine with Gay Marriage. But the Authoritarian wing has so much clout now that you have to either be against Gay Marriage or find a way to toe the "States Rights" line. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 08:41 on Mar 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
I just thought of an example of an Inner/Outer Narrative that is a cynical exploitation of Authoritarian's versus an Inner/Outer Narrative emerging from within the Authoritarian Grand Narrative. Cynical:
Authoritarian Narrative:
The cynical exploitation of the Inner/Outer Narrative was the driving force for decades in the GOP. But now because of a confluence of W stacking the party with Authoritarians and the Koch Bros. money feeding the grass roots Authoritarians, the Authoritarian Narrative is now steering the GOP. And they are steering hard right. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Mar 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:I think the "befriend them and expose them to new experiences in a safe environment" idea from the small-a authoritarians book probably applies. While I support the basic idea of this, I also wonder if it is somewhat unethical to do so as a matter of principle. For example, I can say with some degree of certainty that I know of one likely authoritarian in my life whom I've known for several years. If she is not an authoritarian herself, she was raised in a highly authoritarian environment -- even went to one of those unaccredited post-secondary "Christian Colleges" that closes itself off to the rest of the world for each semester. I know of her as a very compassionate person, but she is prone to making the occasional homophobic remark amidst other things because of the environment. (There are effects, even in the kindest among them.) Knowing her situation as I do, if she were to wake up tomorrow and, through some divine miracle, not be an authoritarian any longer, the effects would be disastrous. Not only would it likely strain relations on her family and immediate local community, it would also compromise her finances due to her employment currently being within that community as well. Even if she were to actively seek out the change on her own, it won't be without consequence. There are entrenchments involved. Suppose I were to show her new experiences in a safe environment; but what would happen if she took that information back to her home community? It's not simply a Platonic Allegory of the Cave to show those in the shadows the true nature of light in this instance. Because of the social patterns involved, sometimes there are very material concerns involved with being authoritarian. It would be wrong to take that away if it could not be replaced with something of equal value and function.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 08:47
|
|
|
An important part of that befriending thing is that it'll also expose you more to the other side of the argument, which is generally a good thing to do in any case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
Well, I'm pretty sure she would understand the consequences of that as well as you do. From what you've said, she could even have some inclination towards escape from her community or at least exploration beyond it, but might lack a safe outlet for that. Since you have some doubts that she's a true believer, that may reflect her already consciously toeing the line because she knows that it isn't safe to express heterodox views. And, well, my mother was the only of five siblings to leave her family's fundamentalist church in the 60s- a sect so strict that members still are not allowed to own televisions as matter of faith. I'm rather glad she did, but I was not in the equation yet; their faith simply didn't reflect the person she wanted to be and she had to act on that. If your friend were to leave, she would have to build a new life, but I think that's a choice one should be allowed to make from an informed position.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:PJ, how do we apply your ideas to create predictions about how Authoritarians will react? Does your theory have predictive power? I think so, yes. At least, once I have been able to fully articulate my ideas, I think they predict trends fairly well. Let us consider for a moment "Narrative Convergence" and the Inner Narrative of several easily identified Authoritarian group clusters. (Obviously there are exceptions to every group cluster, these are broad trends, not perfect descriptions of every single person involved in such groups.) I feel that once the Inner Narrative's of various groups are understood it becomes very easy to see where common ground will be found between these groups. Through the Compaction Cycle as well as the need for allies, alliances will be forged as Narrative's Converge around the outlines of the Grand Narrative. * Note, not every Authoritarian group worth mentioning is listed here. There are some notable hybrids such as Preppers that do not fit cleanly into these group clusters. Religious Authoritarians Cluster: (Southern Baptists, Independent Baptists, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, Non-Denominational, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc)
Economic Authoritarians Cluster (Libertarians, Objectivists, "End The Fed" types, "gently caress You Got Mine" types, substantial portion of the Tea Party, etc.)
Paranoid Authoritarians Cluster: (9-11 Truthers, various Conspiracy Theorists, UFO nuts, Militia Movement, Occultists, etc)
Racist Authoritarians Cluster (KKK, Neo-Nazis', Stormfront, substantial portion of the Tea Party, Freep, etc)
Looking at all these Inner Narrative's, and knowing that because of the Compaction cycle as well as the culture wars in general, these groups are all talking to each other in a way they have not really done so before. They are reaching out and finding areas of agreement. Authoritarians are really just different factions of a united group, and they are starting to think of themselves as different tribes united in purpose against a common mortal threat. With that in mind let me summarize where the Narrative Convergence is likely to eventually settle. (This assumes that nothing happens to interrupt the Narrative Convergence. Some sort of interruption in this cycle is possible, although it is difficult to conceive of a plausible scenario where that occurs right now short of something fantastic and random like a meteor impact.) Projected Inner Narrative of all groups:
Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Mar 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
I want to specify here that I am not arguing that we are on the verge of a 2nd civil war, that is silly. I am arguing that the particular group of people I am describing will eventually conclude that we are on the verge of a 2nd civil war. Complicating this matter though is the fact that the many members of the Religious Cluster are starting to scream "Because Gay Marriage: Execute Order 66" and we can see their representatives already started to hurl their bodies into the gears of the machine to jam it up as demonstrated by the sudden influx of "religious freedom" bills. There is a real chance that the emotional outpouring of terror that we are witnessing from the Religious Right will spread to other Authoritarian groups. The emotion and the "Someone is finally standing up and fighting" are more important than the justifications. Each group is capable of adjusting their own Narrative's to justify a general Outer Narrative of "Because **Insert specific group Narrative here**: Execute Order 66." In essence, the GOP stumbled upon a way to manipulate Authoritarians many decades ago, and have now spent half a century stacking kindling on both the Paranoid Style and the smoldering embers of resentment left over from the American Civil War. Of concern also is that it would seem that Ted Cruz has spotted this pile of kindling and is actively shooting firecrackers at it to further his own delusional goals. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Mar 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
An example of Narrative Convergence. Rand Paul is suddenly going full bigot and spouting talking points from the hardcore religious right. In this video he literally declares that we have a "moral crises" and that we need a "new revival movement in this country" with "tents and everything". He also is declaring that Washington isn't really the answer to anything and should not be relied upon, perfectly in line with what one would expect from the Narrative of all these groups converging as a result of the terrified emotional outpouring of religious Authoritrains reacting to Gay Marriage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV_kt9PRNKE In this video note the "Watchmen ion the Wall" talking point on the slide. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1NqGvFZHjw Ted Cruz uses the exact same phrase here "Watchmen on the Wall". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT1umDKWTkE "Watchmen on the Wall" is going to get the attention of any of the groups I am describing because it speaks to their Inner Narrative. It is a term they can all relate too through the way their Inner Narrative teaches them to think of themselves. Whether this talking point has emerged organically or is the result of Heritage Foundation focus group studies does not really matter much, because either way its effect is the same in the minds of its intended audience. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Mar 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Any chance that "watchmen on the wall" phrase in particular is an attempt to get some Game of Thrones crossover fans?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 06:50 |
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Any chance that "watchmen on the wall" phrase in particular is an attempt to get some Game of Thrones crossover fans? quote:I have posted watchmen on your walls, Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the LORD, give yourselves no rest,
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 20:52
|
|