|
McAlister posted:
I honestly don't know and have long ago given up trying to puzzle that out. Pondering it even shallowly just drives me into a frothing rage, and that is no good for my internal peace. Part of my healing process has been to just accept that it happened and move forwards from there. I am the happiest I have ever been in my life at present, and I have a sense of peace and security I have always longed for. That is enough for me. (Actually it is heavenly) I just report my experiences as honestly as I can. Edit: Xibanya posted:Though my disorder has not brought me as much suffering or at least inconvenience as yours, I feel encouraged by how you've turned your life around and also found ways to make your weakness into a strength. Thank you for this, its very flattering. I find happiness in the idea that I am who I am. I don't need to be anything else for anyone else. So I'm a Schizophrenic who spends most of her time staring off into space and can't hold a job anymore. Well so what? That is who I really am, and it is my intention to rock that poo poo. I can still contribute meaningfully to society and I am just as valid a person as anyone else. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Mar 30, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
Negative_Kittens posted:First off, I'm really sorry you had to go through so much as a kid, Prester. I pretty much had the opposite experience, growing up in a Wiccan household that went to the Unitarian Universalist church. I had inclusiveness, diversity, all the leftist values extolled as virtues, and I never knew that while I was living in relative harmony that there were kids my age that were still going through this, until I met my friend, let's call him Jay. One of the things I heard over and over again was how ADHD was a fake diagnosis designed to allow parents to use mind control drugs to medicate their kids rather than discipline them. In Fundie land all kids are horrible little monstrous shits that need to be beaten into compliance and ADHD is what every kid will be without enough discipline. ADHD meds are just a lazy way out for the parents so they can throw pills at the problem rather than be the involved parents they should have been. Furthermore, ADHD meds (and really all psychiatric meds) are a tool of Satan to brainwash the masses. A sedative to make you accept Satan's dominion rather than face the harsh truth of evil. One of the reasons it was so hard for me to seek help for my own problems was that I had absorbed the belief early on that mental illness did not exist and meds were a tool of Satan. (I was not diagnosed until I late 2012 and things had fallen so far apart I was homeless.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:
Yes, absolutely. I have mentioned it a couple times in the thread but the Southern Strategy was the GOP coldly exploiting the Inner/Outer Narrative vulnerability in Authoritarians. They had figured out the "One Weird Trick to get people to vote for us (Liberals HATE this)" and ran with it. In the process they created and then incorporated into the very fabric of the parties infrastructure Authoritarians. Now they are very publicly losing control because they do not understand what they were really loving with the entire time. The GOP of twenty years ago for example would have dogwhistled plenty with all the recent anti-gay animus, but it would have been a cynical ploy to get votes. They would have promised plenty to "do something" and then made some token effort that would have been defeated. Now however you have situations like in Indiana where its not a cynical attempt to get votes, its a serious as a heart attack political effort. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjjyuo921RA Now that Indiana has become a proxy battle for the anti-gay movement Mike Pence cannot back down. He almost certainly has rich donors and crazy fundies alike screaming blood red rage behind the scenes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Prester John posted:The GOP of twenty years ago for example would have dogwhistled plenty with all the recent anti-gay animus, but it would have been a cynical ploy to get votes. They would have promised plenty to "do something" and then made some token effort that would have been defeated. Now however you have situations like in Indiana where its not a cynical attempt to get votes, its a serious as a heart attack political effort. Excellent thread. This part about dogwhistling here reminds me of the pro-life movement. It always seemed in the past that people would pay lip-service to being "pro-life," but that very little was actually done to ban abortion. After all, once abortion were banned, you would lose your pro-life voting block! But more recently we've seen more attempts to actually interfere and more attempted outright bans. I wonder if this process of replacement of cynics by actual Authoritarians could be behind this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Prester John posted:Yes, absolutely. I have mentioned it a couple times in the thread but the Southern Strategy was the GOP coldly exploiting the Inner/Outer Narrative vulnerability in Authoritarians. They had figured out the "One Weird Trick to get people to vote for us (Liberals HATE this)" and ran with it. In the process they created and then incorporated into the very fabric of the parties infrastructure Authoritarians. Now they are very publicly losing control because they do not understand what they were really loving with the entire time. I had thought of this as an explanation of what I was seeing in 2008 - they'd courted the racists and the fundies for decades, made the ultimate deal with the devil, and had gerrymandered themselves into a situation where the only people that mattered in their party electoral politics were the ones who reliably voted in primaries, all for putting marks in the W column. It was reminiscent of the "Sorcerer's Apprentice" animation from Fantasia. It was less about psychology or behavior and more about who they'd let into the tent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:Excellent thread. This part about dogwhistling here reminds me of the pro-life movement. It always seemed in the past that people would pay lip-service to being "pro-life," but that very little was actually done to ban abortion. After all, once abortion were banned, you would lose your pro-life voting block! But more recently we've seen more attempts to actually interfere and more attempted outright bans. I wonder if this process of replacement of cynics by actual Authoritarians could be behind this? I would say so, yes. Absolutely. My Mother was heavily involved in local Right to Life in the late 80's through early 90's, and my experiences going to various protests (and being one of those kids holding a "Thank you for not killing me Mommy" sign before I could even read it) left me with the impression that they were very sincere, and very determined to get into the party. In the vein of "Ted Cruz knows exactly what he is doing": This is a Portrait Ted Cruz commissioned to be painted of himself when he was arguing before the Supreme Court (In a case he lost 9-0). Actually, he commissioned FIVE separate portrait artists to paint him that day, and he selected the portrait that shows the other four artists painting him. Note the subtle halo and the upward look towards heaven.  He seems to like that look alot.  And Halos.  He really does like his Halos.  I'm not the only one who is noticing a trend here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zperiSf_QEA Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Prester John posted:This is a Portrait Ted Cruz commissioned to be painted of himself when he was arguing before the Supreme Court (In a case he lost 9-0). Actually, he commissioned FIVE separate portrait artists to paint him that day, and he selected the portrait that shows the other four artists painting him. Note the subtle halo and the upward look towards heaven.  My God, Stephen Colbert was portraying Ted Cruz all along.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
Ted Cruz loves to have pictures of himself losing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
PJ, have you found the Socratic method to be a useful tool for exposing Inner Narrative and deprogramming Authoritarians? If not, is there any method in particular that you've found reliable for those purposes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It isn't though, it is just an utter rejection with engagement but that isn't truly pathological. An utter rejection of engagement is refusing to talk at all. That is different than being a pathological liar. And there are ample examples on both sides of the political spectrum of utter rejection of the mainstream where groups break off physically and form hippy communes, religious communities, whatever. There slogan is generally some variant of "in this world but not of it". The behavior we are discussing - and that pj is suggesting can be linked to a specific form of child abuse - is people who seek actively to engage with the world in a highly dishonest fashion. We'd all much prefer that they disengaged but they won't. Ardennes posted:say there is just an "authoritarian" personality type that exists in all cultures, That's what we are doing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
McAlister posted:The behavior we are discussing - and that pj is suggesting can be linked to a specific form of child abuse - is people who seek actively to engage with the world in a highly dishonest fashion. We'd all much prefer that they disengaged but they won't. Tentative statement. What this would require is not only a model to define who an authoritarian is, but also to use it in a study where we measure rates of child abuse in those of that range, which would correlate data back into proving a model to define who an authoritarian is. On its own, it's tautological. While I'm not denying that child abuse is a factor within it, (even on a cultural level,) I am finding it difficult to say it is "linked" in a direct and causative way. An aspect of? Certainly. A big cultural motivator? Most definitely. But, it would be difficult to prove it stems directly from specific forms of child abuse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Morroque posted:Tentative statement. What this would require is not only a model to define who an authoritarian is, but also to use it in a study where we measure rates of child abuse in those of that range, which would correlate data back into proving a model to define who an authoritarian is. On its own, it's tautological. Has anyone claimed that "linked" implies "in a direct and causative way" besides you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
Morroque posted:Words Goofus builds strawmen arguments then attacks them while declaring points of speculation unknowable and the discussion pointless. Gallant listens to what people are actually saying and posts links to existing research that would provide relevant information to the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
they're Authoritarian in the sense that they position themselves (mentally) as the ultimate authority in their lives - by being the great <x> hope, wherein <x> is straight, white, pious, economic, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:McAllister, could you tell us more about your childhood? I remember about half a year ago in the Libertarian megathread you mentioned that your dad refused to pay for your university education because of his belief that women should not be educated, and that educating girls was an "inefficiency" forced onto the market by the government, and that you were able to go by using a bank account he had under your name. Yep. I did. Only fair seeing as my birth was a condition of a promotion ( our execs are all stable, family, men ) so he got his seat on the gravy train thanks to me. he had to violate his promise to mom that they would delay childbirth till she made partner to do it. But just as that bank account was legally mine since it was in my name so to was my conception legal as rape technically couldn't happen between spouses then. Also no- fault divorce wasn't a thing yet so mom couldn't legally end the marriage on the grounds of reproductive coercion ( she could sue for divorce on the grounds of infertility, just not unwanted fertility ). That's the executive summary of it. I was a promotion, V&G were to keep her from taking advantage of no-fault divorce. Whenever she started getting a way out together she would suddenly be pregnant. She knew it wasn't our fault so she didn't take it out on us actively - but it's hard not to resent the stick you are being beaten with and we were tools used to punish/control her first and children second. Mom was also shattered in that house. I watched her be broken down piece by piece as I grew up and it reinforced my need for economic independence. Because such is the fate of parasite dependents in libertopia. Those who earn the money are moral/worthy/good and those without must submit to them. I was in my 20s before I went on my first date. Dad scared me off men throughly. Sure they act nice - but Dad acts nice in public too. The true measure of someone is how they act when they have power over you ... and you can't see that without letting them have power over you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Ted Cruz loves to have pictures of himself losing. But losing heroically, for God. All the benefits of matyrdom, and a great deal more pleasant than being set aflame or fed to lions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 09:13
|
|
|
McAlister posted:An utter rejection of engagement is refusing to talk at all. That is different than being a pathological liar. And there are ample examples on both sides of the political spectrum of utter rejection of the mainstream where groups break off physically and form hippy communes, religious communities, whatever. There slogan is generally some variant of "in this world but not of it". Well is it an utter refusal to talk or simply give any ground? At a certain point as discussed, you could chalk it to forms of borderline personality and signs of sociopathy. Anyway, I do think it is missing a discussion on actually the mentality of marginalized groups, which I believe is different and the behavior that goes on in them which is something a bit different. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
Definitely the best D&D read in years. Over a period of time where I read all of the Rick Perlstein books on the rise of the conservative movement, the Mark Ames book Going Postal (he wrote some of the articles provided in this thread), and a David Graeber book (anarchist who wrote the article "On Bullshit Jobs"), I felt a sort of understanding of the mindset described herein as Authoritarian. I'm friends and coworkers with a lot of people who fit this label, so the behaviors described in this thread are chillingly accurate. Also, despite some of these individuals having beliefs not based in reality, I find many of them to be actually otherwise good people. Fundamentally, I think what I'm still trying figure out is: do Authoritarians have a legitimate gripe? It's fascinating to see how someone of a certain personality type might be molded to behave in the manner described as Authoritarian, but should we be listening to what they're saying? Maybe they're more easily mentally broken than others; that doesn't mean their grievances are all illegitimate. Their prescriptions may be wrong, but the diagnosis of a problem may be correct. If a doctor told you (correctly) you had cancer, but said rub some dirt on it, you'd still have cancer. Do you undertake to have Socratic discussion to "de-program" each one individually, treating them as something akin to mentally ill? Or do you follow down their rabbit hole and inspect the source of their grievances to treat that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
Slip them some LSD before church in the morning and hope for the best. Eh, really, you can't magically cure someone of a worldview and/or personality style. You can maybe provide a friend with new perspectives and experiences, but you aren't their therapist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
Prester John posted:I'm not the only one who is noticing a trend here. Cruz really knows how to flaunt those thumbs. Hodgepodge posted:Slip them some LSD before church in the morning and hope for the best. This could go a million and one ways, but I like watching chaos unfold so why not. snorch fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Prester John posted:In the vein of "Ted Cruz knows exactly what he is doing":
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:Looks like he's wearing a Klan hood. Well, he is Canadian.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Bob James posted:Well, he is Canadian. KKKanadian? Klanadian? I don't know, it doesn't work as well as "KKKruz"
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Yep. I did. Only fair seeing as my birth was a condition of a promotion ( our execs are all stable, family, men ) so he got his seat on the gravy train thanks to me. he had to violate his promise to mom that they would delay childbirth till she made partner to do it. But just as that bank account was legally mine since it was in my name so to was my conception legal as rape technically couldn't happen between spouses then. Also no- fault divorce wasn't a thing yet so mom couldn't legally end the marriage on the grounds of reproductive coercion ( she could sue for divorce on the grounds of infertility, just not unwanted fertility ). Jesus, who are these execs? Is this some kind of cult? But just to echo what the guys in the libertarian thread said months ago, I'm glad you were able to get out of that situation and put yourself through school and support yourself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
I'd like to start off by thanking you PJ for your insights thus far. They are well written, clearly have had a lot of thought put into them and, at least in my case, thoroughly engrossing. I am currently doing a bit of academic research in the fields of in-group and out-group hate, particularly in the political sphere, and I've noticed some interesting overlap. I will be drawing pretty heavily on the work of Volkan, who goes into great detail about the psychological dynamics of groups and the characterisation of enemies and allies, which I believe applies quite well to your analysis of authoritarian groups. If any of you have Jstor access, the piece can be found here. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3791655?sid=21105840130181&uid=63&uid=2&uid=2460337855&uid=4&uid=83&uid=3738032&uid=2460338175 The first thing that caught my eye is in the analysis of how somebody becomes part of one of these groups. In the paper, Volkan references what he terms 'suitable targets for externalisation', these are markers like ethnicity, race, religion that distinguish members of a group, but upon further thought I feel that this appeal to a grand narrative may also function as a selection into the wider set of authoritarians. A very broad range of authors are used, from Freud to Mack, but summarised the thrust of the argument is that becoming a member of one of these groups is as a result of regulating a sense of self against the realities of the outside world. There are two distinct realities, the one we as humans carry in our heads (perception of self and surroundings), and the actual reality devoid of any subjective filter. A group that a person perceives as being very similar to themselves in a sense balances these two by suggesting that elements of the real world are the same as our own perceptions. What is really interesting about combining this with your analysis on authoritarians however is that they appear stake a set of further claims. The outer and inner narrative is normative, it projects the claim about how the world ought to be based upon the perceptions of its members. Many groups do this. The grand narrative on the other hand is descriptive, it is believed to be a genuine and earnest reflection of the reality of the world. This makes the group appealing because there almost doesn't have to be any regulation of the sense of self, how you and your group perceive the world is the the true reality. Which brings me onto my second point. Members of these Authoritarian groups must, in some sense, believe their enemies are similar to them. By that I mean, rather than appreciate liberals for their talks of equality and egalitarianism, what they instead believe they are seeing is the outer narrative that you have described. There is a almost a belief that nobody could wholeheartedly embrace the principles of the enemy after rational thought, and instead there is some other inner narrative there too. This is usually characterised as jealousy, satanism (your anti Christ theory) or, perhaps most intriguingly, power. I want to bring that last point aside briefly because I think power is interesting. Buried in most any political ideology is a prescriptive ought about how the world should be. That goes for most anyone. But I feel this applies especially to Authoritarians because they want to use the most direct tools of compulsion to enforce their will. What I think Authoritarians fear is that others will use those same means against them. They are genuinely terrified of the homosexual Mafia forcing them to suck dick, or death panels. They fear that any concessions will lead to their complete and utter subjugation. In short, they believe everybody else is also some form of Authoritarian, and yet paradoxically, many of them might want to feel (to the point of outright deluding themselves) like these things are happening to them so that they can feel like persecuted martyrs. It all comes back to validating their worldview. If their belief is that everybody is as Authoritarian as them, then they desire that the world reflect that as validation. I think this ties neatly in with your references to a need to always have a big, dramatic battle. It is this need to be proved correct. That the enemy is who the group believes them to be (not noticing the many parallels between their construction of the enemy and themselves.) Incidentally I think we have seen a bit of this exemplified by some posters in this thread. Another topic I want to discuss relates mainly to the religious (and possibly racist) type of Authoritarians which place significant emphasis on culture in particular. What do I mean by this? Imagine a group as an organism. What constitutes the binding force that holds the group together is shared ideas (in this case the breakdown of IN, ON and GN). The organism must survive, as groups that are not held together by strong ideas collapse. So how does this organism survive when it is subject to constant entropy? (members dying if nothing else). By acquiring new members, and those new members need to come from somewhere. This is why the religious right in particular places such heavy emphasis on decentralised education for their children, parents rights etc. The 'inner narrative' here is about survival of the group and its ideas. At the extreme end this manifests itself as stuff like A.C.E. However this isn't always sufficient, particularly if people are not exposed to the correct reality that lines up with the perceptions of the group. This is why not just gay people, but even straight people who do not act according to strict gender identities ('campiness', 'butch ness' etc) are dangerous. If they are allowed to exist in public without some sort of obvious demarcation that they are lesser (like not being able to marry), then the prospective new member (usually child) might not be attracted to the account of the world that the group offers, as it doesn't match up with their perceived reality. So in many ways the hatred of gay people here is not just an IN presented as an ON ('family values'), but also an ON that represents a deeper IN (survival and propagation of the group.) You might be asking yourself why any of this is relevant. It feeds back into my earlier point about Authoritarian groups thinking everybody else is also Authoritarian. These groups correctly perceive that some groups survive and some do not. They are terrified that any sign that their worldview is not correct, will lead to weakness and eventually their destruction (because the enemy is also Authoritarian and will seize the opportunity). 'If we allow gay people to marry, my child might become corrupted and not carry on the group ideals. The gay marriage movement was created by the enemy explicitly to destroy us.' 'If we allow universal healthcare, the people might become corrupted by a falsehood and not aspire to the ideals of free markets. Universal healthcare was created by the enemy explicitly to destroy us'. That is all I've got time for for now because I've got a plane to catch. If there are any hideous grammar or spelling errors then my only excuse is that I was typing all of this on a phone. Thanks! Keep up the good work!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:I'd like to start off by thanking you PJ for your insights thus far. They are well written, clearly have had a lot of thought put into them and, at least in my case, thoroughly engrossing. This is fantastic, thank you for this. I want to write a huge response to this, please give me a day or two to compose it. In the meantime I will try to answer any questions I have not gotten too yet and would love to answer any other questions. Edit: I think you are bang on in your hypothesis that Authoritarians believe everyone is an Authoritarian. For an example of this, check out a recent Glenn Beck rant about the Indiana law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0kRbdXerHM Fake Edit: It is really starting to concern me that whenever I want to find a piece of Authoritarian media to make a point, I need only check the past few days of RWW. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Apr 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Prester John posted:This is fantastic, thank you for this. I want to write a huge response to this, please give me a day or two to compose it. In the meantime I will try to answer any questions I have not gotten too yet and would love to answer any other questions. Another example I've seen is that racists will often go on about how the other races are explicitly out to get them. Not just in a "crime" sense, but in an existential, "they're coming to punish us for slavery and we have to keep them down or else" sense. I know my Texan aunt is terrified that the Mexicans are coming, for example. And a RaHoWa kind of requires another race against which to holy war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
District Selectman posted:Definitely the best D&D read in years. BUT Psychologically speaking that does not matter. The stress of watching the ignorant sheeple drag you along with them into the abyss is very real. Authoritarians are very scared right now and are being fed a steady diet of the finest rage fuel that humanity has devised in the history of propaganda. Another factor that does not seem to get much recognition is that Boomer Authoritarians grew up under the very real threat of nuclear annihilation. During their formative years, the end really was possibly night. They have lived under the Sword of Damocles for their entire lives with their leaders screaming "The End is Coming!" Well, with Gay Marriage coming soon, the Fundy Leaders are now starting to shout "This is the End!" which psychologically speaking, is going to lead to a ton of irrational behaviour just from the sheer stress. Imagine looking at your Grandchildren and being reminded that they will never grow up because God will destroy the world in hellfire soon. Then imagine that a sliver of hope remains, and that sliver of hope involves attacking Gay People with every fiber of your being. Fundie Authoritarians are being told by the people they have trusted their entire lives that this is it, this is the end. Hug your loved ones and urge the unbelievers to repent now before its too late. I've lived under that stress, its horrific. It consumes you. It sucks the enjoyment out of everything. You cannot even so much as sip a nice cup of coffee without being reminded that soon coffee won't exist, you will be gone, and the entire world will descend into madness. (That is, unless you obey the Inner Narrative and resist resist resist the Anti-Christ).
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Prester John posted:This is fantastic, thank you for this. I want to write a huge response to this, please give me a day or two to compose it. In the meantime I will try to answer any questions I have not gotten too yet and would love to answer any other questions. I'm going to be a tiny bit charitable to Beck here. A lot of the things he is saying a great deal of Authoritarian ingroups would then their nose up at. Yes, he makes a ridiculous allegory to death camps, but he does in some sense call for tolerance of gay people. Now the problem is is that it isn't tolerance in the way you and I know it, when he says we need to stop asking stuff of each other and we need to understand each other, the people he is targeting it at will wilfully interpret that as 'yeah gays stop rocking the boat'. Some of the words he said would be no different from that of a liberal preaching that we need to understand each other. I believe the biggest enemy of the Authoritarian is mutual understanding. They need their battle lines and clearly defined enemies and allies to support their worldview. If you can accept somebody else's worldview that isn't the same as your own then you are capable of empathy and valuing somebody who is not like you. This incidentally is why I do not support large scale punitive punishments for shithole racists. In many ways you're just reaffirming their worldview that is defined solely as 'us and them'. A question that I am wrestling with at the moment is, what is the best way to beat a staunch Authoritarian? Is it to become the boogeyman they want you to be and to slap them down with a heavy hand? The argument would be that it is all they understand, will enforced through brutality. And yet it also validates and martyrs them. On the other hand you have the approach defined by the culture wars. You defy their expectations. There is no 'big bad' except in their minds. They aren't very good at winning in this situation, as by definition their more reactionary elements are static, unable to adapt to a quickly shifting landscape. The wins over the years have been very tangible by this approach, but I know some would certainly argue that this approach never actually defeats them. They still exist, trying to claw power whenever they can, opportunities do present themselves as we are now seeing in Indiana. This 'bash the fash' meme that the UKMT likes to bandy about seems relevant here. The argument is that these groups rely on strength and shows of strength, and need to be shown to have a complete lack of it which can only be done in an all out battle. At the moment the rest of society are still unable to shake them off, and that is a kind of power to them. Food for thought.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
I've definitely noticed that if you look the part, a lot of the conservatives I know default to assuming you think the way they do. That brought me to another thought. I did a lot of research on high functioning autism to understand my autistic cousin a bit better, and a common trait among autistic people is having difficulty distinguishing between what they know and what other people know, leading many autistic people to assume that other people know the same things they do (this is also observed in neurotypical toddlers.) I also recently read an article that pointed out that while autism diagnoses are split roughly 50/50 between the sexes, men are diagnosed with Asperger's (or more correctly, high functioning autism) at a rate four times higher than women. The article went on to explain that those women who are diagnosed are often only diagnosed as adults, usually when they hit a wall in their professional career. The article went on to cite some individual examples and some research, and it appears that many women with asperger's are never diagnosed because our society forces women to manifest signs of empathy. So many women with asperger's, especially those who may have above-average intelligence, "learn empathy" by rote - that is to say, they study a person's face for clues to their mental state due to intentionally making it a habit rather than by instinct (to the point that for some, it becomes so rote that an outside observer would not be able to tell they were "weird" in some way.) I also read a separate article that cited a study that showed that in America, the average woman has more empathy than the average man (a difference presumed to be due to cultural rather than biological difference). So that got me to thinking - could it work the other way? If women who are empathy-impaired due to a mental disorder can learn empathy just from social pressure, can men who are neurotypical become empathy-impaired due to social pressure (though of course not in such a severe or permanent way as someone who was actually on the spectrum)? Neuroscientists say that your brain reinforces it's most used connections and devotes less resources to its fewer-used connections, which is why children who experienced anxiety turn into anxious adults. It looks like a lot of these Capital A authoritarians are raised to subscribe to the idea that men must comport themselves within a limited set of permitted thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Do you believe that to some extent all Authoritarians (and not cynics like Cruz) exhibit some sort of mindblindness?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Xibanya posted:I've definitely noticed that if you look the part, a lot of the conservatives I know default to assuming you think the way they do. That brought me to another thought. I did a lot of research on high functioning autism to understand my autistic cousin a bit better, and a common trait among autistic people is having difficulty distinguishing between what they know and what other people know, leading many autistic people to assume that other people know the same things they do (this is also observed in neurotypical toddlers.) I also recently read an article that pointed out that while autism diagnoses are split roughly 50/50 between the sexes, men are diagnosed with Asperger's (or more correctly, high functioning autism) at a rate four times higher than women. The article went on to explain that those women who are diagnosed are often only diagnosed as adults, usually when they hit a wall in their professional career. The article went on to cite some individual examples and some research, and it appears that many women with asperger's are never diagnosed because our society forces women to manifest signs of empathy. So many women with asperger's, especially those who may have above-average intelligence, "learn empathy" by rote - that is to say, they study a person's face for clues to their mental state due to intentionally making it a habit rather than by instinct (to the point that for some, it becomes so rote that an outside observer would not be able to tell they were "weird" in some way.) I also read a separate article that cited a study that showed that in America, the average woman has more empathy than the average man (a difference presumed to be due to cultural rather than biological difference). Some of my earlier research on the topic has yielded an interesting link between being a member of an ingroup and a relationship with male figures of authority. Young boys subconsciously learn a great deal from their fathers, but contrary to what you might think, this is not always in the positive sense. A poster earlier referenced the fact that they had a 'strict dad' but themselves did not grow up to be that way. I would ask that poster, if that person wasn't their father, would it be someone you give any particular respect to? Empathy cannot only be taught it has to be shown. What I suspect is that for many Authoritarians, they have had a conspicuous lack of empathy in their early lives particularly from otherwise respected authority figures, usually male. If you were to get an honest answer from them if you asked 'why do you not practice introspection' and 'why do you not feel empathy for people who are significantly different from yourself', I suspect the answers would be the following: 'my dad/granddad/uncle/whatever never seemed to need it, why would I?' And 'I wasn't shown lots of empathy and I turned out just fine!'. This, if true, would go a long way to explaining the whole 'bootstraps' mentality that is a commonality between right wing authoritarians. Self sufficiency is king. Anybody who isn't self sufficient is clearly 'doing it wrong'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
PJ, a lot the stuff about the "grand fight" concept reminds me strongly of a thread about fascism from last year, where people were talking about how fascism must have an Other to destroy, and cannot live without it, and if a fascist society actually prevailed every time it would destroy itself in power struggles and civil war for lack of an Other to direct its rage against in what looks in retrospect very much like runaway compaction cycles. The Nazi talks about Sieg but cannot actually grok the idea of a world after a permanent Sieg. I described this as "fashoboros"--the snake devours itself. Do you think fascism is just one of many forms of authoritarian belief or is it more unique among them? E: Another parallel is that the history of fascism is rife with establishment conservatives riding the fascist tiger, being outmaneuvered by the fash, and losing control to them. Also, do you believe authoritarian psychology was extremely widespread or even dominant in most civilized societies before the advent of liberalism during the Enlightenment? Most pre-18th century civilizations were extremely hierarchical and unequal. And lastly, that stuff you wrote about growing up under that cult is horrifying.  Were there any children in the cult whose indoctrination did not take, who did not internalize the value system, openly defied the church authority, and lashed out against their parents and/or elders with anger or even violence? If so, what was done with them? Societies under authoritarian rule generate a small minority of people who disbelieve and resist, surely the same would be true for cults like this.
Woolie Wool fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Apr 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
District Selectman posted:Fundamentally, I think what I'm still trying figure out is: do Authoritarians have a legitimate gripe? It's my belief that their grievances are very much real, at least for a subset of the people with Authoritarian leanings. The complication is that they're incapable of explaining, even to themselves, what these grievances actually are. As a result, some sort of Grand Narrative steps in to provide a concrete villain that is responsible for these nebulous insecurities. I have an acquaintance who is a long-time union worker, and he often complains about the increasingly antagonistic position his company is taking towards this union. Recently, he has also been passing on infowars news stories to us. One of the more illuminating conversations we had involved how the recent California port strike was a conspiracy orchestrated by Obama to make Americans more dependent on the government when it comes to acquiring food. Ignoring the 11th-dimensional chess necessary to make this plot coherent, what really struck me was how he didn't seem to even consider the much more straight-forward explanation that the port workers simply had the same sorts of complaints that he experiences in his day-to-day life. I was reminded of this encounter again when I came across this article while looking into Wilhelm Reich: quote:In the US only half of eligible adults register and a little over fifty percent of registered voters actually vote. Reich argues that it’s typical in highly authoritarian “democracies” for the passive, non-voting population to constitute the majority. He also stresses, with examples from Germany, Japan, Italy and other totalitarian states that it’s is precisely this passive, non-voting majority that fascists and ultra-conservatives reach out to. He is very critical of the left for attempting to engage this demographic by addressing their appalling economic conditions – a strategy he insists is doomed to failure. In his view, what the left needs to grasp – and never does – is that owing to the social conditions they grow up in, this politically inactive majority are too caught up in their own internal struggles to think in terms of their economic needs. My acquaintance is a father and grandfather, and he is visibly concerned about the possibility that his middle-class life might be slipping out of reach for his son and grandson. But he can't grapple with this in either sociological or economic terms, so he turns to infowars because they create the narrative of an antagonistic and all-powerful government that nevertheless can and must be defeated through personal struggle. I suppose this is not-so-strangely comforting compared to the alternative of a complex web of intangible economic and political systems that simply expresses a growing indifference towards his family's continued survival. Ultimately, the unifying purpose of the Grand Narrative as described in this thread is to turn the internal struggle of the alienated into a shared struggle in such a way that it is psychologically comforting to the participant. It's therefore a huge mistake to pretend that the internal struggle of the participants is not real, but it is also a mistake to take their explanation of the struggle at face value.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
I've met a few gun nut/"patriot" types who seem to know in their hearts that the system is not merely unjust but actually crushing them personally, but can't bring themselves to question the respect for American cultural and political values and become aware of alternatives, so they retreat into gun-nutism/conspiracy theorism/xenophobia/BARACK HUSSEIN OBUMMER to avoid having a painful reckoning with their own culture. It's rather heartbreaking to watch and there's nothing you can do but nod and avoid confrontation until they stop talking. A fascinating case study in cognitive dissonance is Jack Baruth, an auto journalist (and complete  rear end in a top hat, but that's not really relevant to this but I thought it would be nice to warn you before reading anything he writes) for Automobile magazine, The Truth About Cars, and The Truth About Guns (which I haven't read much of, but I've heard even TFR posters call The Truth About Guns insane) who is conscious that he's fallen from the upper middle class and teetering on the edge of falling even further into the working class through no real fault of his own, but embraces all sorts of repugnant right-wing politics (my favorite is his  futurist story where cars that you drive yourself are illegal and the US military is helping China wipe out the Israelis because of reasons) rather than to face the fact that he's been fooled about the American Dream his whole life. Although he's such a flaming douche that I can't really have much sympathy for him.I do think there's at least hope because the current authoritarian base of the GOP is so histrionic and virulent that savvy politicians could drive wedges between them and the rest of the American public and effectively erase a lot of their political voice. They're much less adroit and cunning than their Nixon/Reagan-era predecessors. Unfortunately I doubt the Democrats have the talent or the balls to disgrace and humiliate the conservative base so thoroughly. Woolie Wool fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Apr 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Can there be some method of distinguishing between sociological authoritarianism and psychological authoritarianism? The lines between sociology and psychology are always a little blurry, but perhaps we could attempt it in seeking the difference between authoritarianism as it applies to us and our current culture, versus the universals of authoritarianism observable in history or other cultures. Let's say that psychological authoritarianism is authoritarianism as it exists on the personal level: the authoritarian personality, likely containing these items which Prester mentioned earlier. Let's then say that sociological authoritarianism is an environment with either produces or reinforces authoritarian qualities: cultural authoritarianism. They are the social methods and institutions which further propagate themselves and their qualities -- like all social structures do -- only with authoritarianism as their defining quality. The ACE homeschooling curriculum and the forces that use it would be one example. If we were to accept these two assumptions, how would the rest of the theory hold up? I posit that someone experiencing psychological authoritarianism would be compelled, by the inner needs authoritarianism poses, to seek out, create, or foster sociological authoritarianism. The Grand Narrative variant of the Christian Rapture, for example, is never listed anywhere within the canonical Bible, but was interpreted out of various scriptural quotes sampled from many books across the biblical anthology. Adam Smith's original symbolism of the invisible hand of the free market has very specific assumptions about it, (only existing in non-monopolistic conditions that sane businesspeople would likely describe as "commodity hell"); but Objectivists and some Libertarians demand the invisible hand always exist, even lacking what Smith originally required of it. If the Grand Narrative did not exist, it would be invented, because it is required to fill that psychological need. The mind craves it, so the mind will find it. Cultural authoritarianism must then be inevitable result of that. Some subcultures are able to reach this point, (like Christian Fundamentalism and Randian Objectivism,) but others do not, like 9/11 Trutherism. I can only assume the reason why is likely to be how well or unwell the authoritarian variant gels with preexisting power structures. Either way, once reached, things such as the compaction cycle and narrative convergence can take place, and we can observe authoritarianism in mod mentality, how it promotes those already with the authoritarian personality, or how it oppresses those without. Would this kind of distinction be of any use?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Everyone has probably read Ur-fascism (constant shifting of rhetorical focus), but if you haven't http://pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
LowellDND posted:Everyone has probably read Ur-fascism (constant shifting of rhetorical focus), but if you haven't It had been awhile since I'd read this, thanks for posting. I admit I reread it afraid that it would precisely coincide with PJ's theories (making PJ's theories unneeded/a retread) but I was happy to see that they did not precisely describe the same thing. Here are some relevant passages for the thread: Umberto Eco posted:Nevertheless, historical priority does not seem to me a sufficient reason to explain why All of that seems a lot like what has been described here. However, they diverge a bit to the point where I would say the fascism Eco describes may describe a potential path for PJ's authoritarians, but does not necessarily encapsulate ALL of PJ's Authoritarians. I'll jump forward a bit (this is just to whet your appetite, I encourage everyone to read the whole thing, especially as it isn't terribly long.) Umberto Eco posted:But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are While the "cult of tradition" describes the evangelical sect to a T (tbh most of the groups we've been discussing here), I feel like trying to shoehorn in ALL the Authoritarians and their narratives into this would take some intellectual dishonesty. Furthermore, this can also describe several groups that are not at all described by PJ's framework. Feel free to disagree. Umberto Eco posted:2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. Both Fascists and Nazis worshiped I don't believe we can neatly put ALL Authoritarians here in Eco's Item 2 (Traditionalism), particularly certain sects of Libertarians who are also PJ's Authoritarians. Once again, I believe some compromises of intellectual honesty would be required to say ALL of them fit here. Umberto Eco posted:3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake. Action being "Cult of Action"! We have a winner. This one matches perfectly. This seems like a rather succinct introduction to PJ's Convergence Events. Umberto Eco posted:4. No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes In the case of Eco's points on criticism and disagreement, once again the fascism he describes somewhat diverges from PJ's Authoritarians. As previously described, PJ's Authoritarians can tolerate criticism due to the outer narrative they use as a shield. Also, as PJ and others described, disagreement, even on things like "is there a God?" (as between acolytes of the Free Market and Evangelicals) is fine as long as the two parties don't get their grand narratives in a kerfuffle. So it does seem that Ur-Fascism and PJ's Authoritarian framework overlap but don't quite describe the same thing. Umberto Eco posted:6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most While this describes the Tea Party movement to a T, I'm not convinced this covers all the lolbertarians. (However the more I go on the more I realize that the Tea Party is hella fascist.) Umberto Eco posted:7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only PJ's Authoritarian framework says something similar on "feeling besieged" regarding the Grand Narrative (The Authoritarian believes that if only _____ were gone, everything would be perfect) but PJ's framework is broader than nationalism. What do you all think of Eco's notion that the best target is "at the same time inside and outside"? Do you think that would be a useful addition to PJ's framework? I'm on the fence as to whether or not it is really relevant. It does remind me of I Can Tolerate Anything Except The Outgroup, a flawed essay that nonetheless has some salient points. (and it's completely goddamn unreadable right now because I guess the guy thought it'd be a cute April Fool's day joke to make his font all mirror reversed or some poo poo.) He does mention Freud's theory of Narcissism of Small Differences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences Wikipedia posted:The narcissism of small differences is "the phenomenon that it is precisely communities with adjoining territories, and related to each other in other ways as well, who are engaged in constant feuds and ridiculing each other" – "such sensitiveness [...] to just these details of differentiation". And we're back to Eco... Umberto Eco posted:8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their Not really a match. But now Ur-Fascism's Ur-Famous: Umberto Eco posted:However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies.  But I don't really think it can apply in any sort of blanket way to PJ's analysis because the Grand Narrative doesn't require this to be true, in part because PJ's Authoritarians are not necessarily "humiliated by the ostentatious wealth" of their enemies (eg, libertarian captains of industry, people who hate the foreign hoards, etc.) This seems basically to be one way to rationalize why, if one's ideology is so dang awesome, it hasn't achieved its overarching goal yet. Another popular way to rationalize that would be the famous "X cannot fail, it can only be failed," and/or variants of the stabbed in the back myth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth) Umberto Eco posted:Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of Once again a possible diversion, in that in PJ's framework, Authoritarians never "lose wars" in the sense of large dramatic confrontations with a lot at stake because they are concerned more with fulfilling the narrative (so having the battle alone counts as a win.) I would say though that a group (like Romney's campaign) that is staffed with a significant number of Authoritarians but is not necessarily itself an Authoritarian group would indeed be destined to lose their wars due to poor decision-making, advice, and/or intel provided by its Authoritarian members. Umberto Eco posted:9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus This is a slam-dunk fit with PJ's Grand Narrative theory. Umberto Eco posted:10. ... Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. ...the Leader, knowing that his This passage, however, I do not think is super applicable to PJ's framework, especially given that the various groups can join in the face of crisis with little issue until the crisis peters out. Also a hierarchical organization does not necessarily seem to be a given in PJ's framwork - in fact, PJ's framework applies quite well to lonely basement-dwellers whose only interaction comes from the internet. Umberto Eco posted:11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero. In every mythology the This is a pretty good match, although I would argue that in place of "death" PJ's framework demands something a little less permanent. All the Authoritarians are falling all over themselves to get involved in a loud dramatic Convergence Event, but I get the impression that their sense of self preservation allows most to rationalize that if they survive they can bring the fight again some other day. Of course the difference may have to do with the fact that Eco is describing Fascism as means of running a state rather than a psychology. Umberto Eco posted:12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist While this is hilarious and I'll probably use it to insult someone soon, I also disagree - I postulate that so many of these Authoritarians are obsessed with the "correct" way to be a man not out of frustration with permanent war and heroism but rather because being raised without being shown empathy by a close male figure makes otherwise neurotypical men empathy-stunted and thus less capable of understanding how their desires can hurt others. This trait self-replicates across generations. (See my above post on empathy.) I think a lot of these men are suffering without knowing why because the range of emotions and thoughts they're allowed to have is so restricted, but I don't think that happens due to the "transfer" Eco describes. Umberto Eco posted:13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism...individuals as individuals have no rights, and the Ehhh, I don't think it applies to PJ's framework, in part because it's hard to define what "rights" mean within Authoritarian groups that aren't actual states/governments. Chalk it up to Eco describing a system of government and PJ describing a psychology, even if this line is interesting: Umberto Eco posted:Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it That sounds pretty familiar. Perhaps one could theorize that if PJ's Authoritarians seized control of the government, they would institute Fascism. But it doesn't really have anything to do with PJ's framework since PJ's framework does not describe types of governments or politicians per se. Umberto Eco posted:14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.... Fascist schoolbooks made use of an Applies to a lot of Evangelicals, but not to lolbertarians. Not a match. Conclusion: PJ is on to something awesome and original here, but it would be useful to examine the past for examples of Eco's Fascist qualities numbers 3, 7, 9, 11. I have a feeling if you look there you'll find lots of PJ Authoritarians. EDIT: added bolding to stuff I thought was particularly relevant to those skimming the page. Tried to abridge the excerpts as much as possible. Sorry for this long-rear end post! I encourage those who disagree with my opinions to post because I would love to understand all of this better. Xibanya fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Apr 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
The cult of action sounds very much like praxeology.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Trying to fit political enemies into ur-fascism is a D&D tradition. Almost any movement is going to hit a few of them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:The cult of action sounds very much like praxeology. Could you clarify? I googled "praxeology" and got "Praxeology is the deductive study of human action based on the notion that humans engage in purposeful behavior, as opposed to reflexive behavior like sneezing and inanimate behavior. According to its theorists, with the action axiom as the starting point, it is possible to draw conclusions about human behavior that are both objective and universal. For example, the notion that humans engage in acts of choice implies that they have preferences, and this must be true for anyone who exhibits intentional behavior" and similar. Did you say that as a criticism of Eco and/or our theories here, or just as an observation or something else? I'm but a humble accounting/IT professional, I'm sorry to say I'm not more familiar with the implications of the term.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 22:06
|
|