USPOL THUNDERDOME: "Democrats Bad" Containment Zone

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL THUNDERDOME: "Democrats Bad" Containment Zone

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

twodot posted:

1) No one of any consequence thinks, thought, or has said the attack on Planned Parenthood was a false flag.

Depending on how strictly you define false flag, Ted Cruz said the attacker was a transgendered leftist.

Implying that the left is perpetrating attacks that they blame on conservatives is at least dogwhistling a false flag.

Like yeah he's not openly saying "Planned Parenthood/Democrats/Obama/whoever did it to themselves to gain sympathy for their babykilling agenda", but he knows what he's doing.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Aug 10, 2018

# ? Aug 10, 2018 00:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 13:16

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

VitalSigns posted:

ughhhhh can we not do this, I realize this is Thunderdome, but do we really have to have a "well why aren't you published PJ" argument a millionth time

Its more that, if you want to be convincing of other people, demanding they learn your personal vocabulary to understand what you're trying to say rarely works. Especially when there are books and websites and wikipedia discussing these phenomenons that everyone else will be using as their shared basis of understanding.

This fundamental disconnect of language blurs meaning and makes it very challenging to determine if a prediction based on newly coined words is insightful or banal. Or if in retrospect if that prediction was accurate and precise or inaccurate and vague.

I still think PJ should keep posting, regardless of anything I say. It isn't like the level of discourse here demands anything higher than :justpost:

. But if the goal is to convince....

# ? Aug 10, 2018 01:14

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

Trabisnikof posted:

Its more that, if you want to be convincing of other people, demanding they learn your personal vocabulary to understand what you're trying to say rarely works. Especially when there are books and websites and wikipedia discussing these phenomenons that everyone else will be using as their shared basis of understanding.

This fundamental disconnect of language blurs meaning and makes it very challenging to determine if a prediction based on newly coined words is insightful or banal. Or if in retrospect if that prediction was accurate and precise or inaccurate and vague.

I still think PJ should keep posting, regardless of anything I say. It isn't like the level of discourse here demands anything higher than . But if the goal is to convince....

I would point out that my quoted post didn't even get us any of my jargon, as it was written before most of my jargon had been coined. This whole derail has never been related to anything I've actually posted in this thread- it's been a sidebar discussion to distract from engaging with the actual content of my ideas.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 01:38

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Prester Jane posted:

I would point out that my quoted post didn't even get us any of my jargon, as it was written before most of my jargon had been coined. This whole derail has never been related to anything I've actually posted in this thread- it's been a sidebar discussion to distract from engaging with the actual content of my ideas.

You called me disingenuous because when you said "crazies" I thought you meant "a person whose opinions could ever possibly matter for any purpose", but it was actually based on your jargon, and designed such that nothing of consequence happening would still count:

Prester Jane posted:

What a disingenuous argument. I was specifically projecting the reactions of extremists(Narrativists), not mainstream reporters.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 01:48

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

twodot posted:

You called me disingenuous because when you said "crazies" because I thought you meant "a person whose opinions could ever possibly matter for any purpose", but it was actually based on your jargon, and designed such that nothing of consequence happening would still count:

....... my original post that started this entire exchange contained no references to my jargon. One of my much later replies contain a single reference. This is getting unbelievably tedious.

FWIW the term "Narrativist" hadn't even been coined at the time I wrote the original post three and a half years ago. I mentioned the term Narrativist as a clarification because within the context of the original conversation I was discussing what we were all calling "authoritarians" at the time.

Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Aug 10, 2018

# ? Aug 10, 2018 01:52

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Prester Jane posted:

....... my original post that started this entire exchange contained no references to my jargon. One of my much later replies contain a single reference. This is getting unbelievably tedious.

FWIW the term "Narrativist" and even been coined at the time I wrote the original post three and a half years ago. I mentioned the term narrative is to a clarification because within the context of the original conversation I was discussing what we were all calling "authoritarians" at the time.

Uh, yeah, creating a system of jargon that anyone else should ever care about is pretty loving tedious. Especially tedious when you end up discussing the history of your jargon system to explain what you're trying to say.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 01:56

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfelqZpapZA

Look I get it. I am lesser than you and need to be reminded of that at every opportunity. It's very important that everyone else know that I am a lesser than and to be ignored. I am not to be engaged with, I am to be reminded of why I am lesser as many times as it takes. You've made your stance perfectly clear in this conversation.

Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Aug 10, 2018

# ? Aug 10, 2018 02:00

MSDOS KAPITAL: Jun 25, 2018

twodot posted:

This is really not our problem. Ramanujan figured it out though.

Jesus Christ dude trying loving completely off.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 03:29

MSDOS KAPITAL: Jun 25, 2018

I mean if you're drawing the line at "has to be like Ramanujan" before it's acceptable for a person to post original ideas in the Debate & Discussion forum of Something Awful, then you've clearly logicked yourself out of posting here since you definitely don't meet the bar. So, stop posting, twodot, is what I'm getting at.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 03:31

capitalcomma: Sep 9, 2001; A grim bloody fable, with an unhappy bloody end.

PJ: "I correctly predicted the rise of the alt-right."
TD: "harumph your posts use non-academic jargon. And I doubt you're even credentialed!"
PJ: "I correctly predicted the rise of the alt-right. See? Look."
TD: "I'm not obliged to engage with the content of your posts until you learn the approved lingo."

capitalcomma fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Aug 10, 2018

# ? Aug 10, 2018 03:36

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

I mean if you're drawing the line at "has to be like Ramanujan" before it's acceptable for a person to post original ideas in the Debate & Discussion forum of Something Awful, then you've clearly logicked yourself out of posting here since you definitely don't meet the bar. So, stop posting, twodot, is what I'm getting at.

I'm not the one making posts that claim I need my made up words because all of existing psychology isn't sufficient for my new theories:

Prester Jane posted:

Also my terms often have much more sophisticated and interconnected definitions than what presently exists in the psychological literature. That's why I've created and use my own terms.

If you're discarding existing literature as not sufficiently sophisticated for your needs, then yeah, "has to be like Ramanujan" is on the table.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 03:38

MSDOS KAPITAL: Jun 25, 2018

I don't know, twodot, that looks like a post to me. Do you need me to invent some new terms so you'll understand what "stop posting" means?

# ? Aug 10, 2018 03:45

Magres: Jul 14, 2011

People make up terms all the time when they're thinking about something no one else has established lingo for.

My proudest word invention is the term "gamble farts." It's when you've been sick and had diarrhea but are feeling better, except suddenly you have to fart and you're PRETTY sure it's just a fart. Do you sprint for the bathroom just in case it IS diarrhea, or do you gamble on it being a fart?

# ? Aug 10, 2018 03:52

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

How do you know there isn't an established term for that, are you published in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene?

# ? Aug 10, 2018 04:09

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

On the one hand, a fundamental requirement of mutual comprehension is that people agree on basically the same meaning for a given word.

on the other hand, this is an internet forums for idiots, who gives enough of a crap to have a page-long slapfight about PJ's psychiatric credentials

# ? Aug 10, 2018 04:41

Rakanakle: Mar 17, 2009

I feel like I'm privy to some secret language when I read PJ's posts. It's very intimate.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 04:55

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

Ironically, seems that one of the reasons few people, PJ among them, predicted the rise of the alt-right is that specifically because political language lacked the ideas and the scope to understand what was going on on the internet and among the massive swathes of alienated young people with no prospects. I still think a lot of it is because almost the entire scope of economic inequality had been banished from liberal and 'progressive' platforms, leaving a mostly of mostly bourgie white people making it very clear that if you're not a photogenic minority willing to toe the line or an already comfortable person looking for a way to look good, the 'left' as it existed had absolutely nothing to offer you. Liberals have spent the last couple decades ceding huge swathes of ideological ground to the right, and wondering why they keep losing elections.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 05:57

Mia Wasikowska: Oct 7, 2006

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB-wmOYelnM

# ? Aug 10, 2018 06:30

MSDOS KAPITAL: Jun 25, 2018

Rakanakle posted:

I feel like I'm privy to some secret language when I read PJ's posts. It's very intimate.

She does a pretty good job of explaining what her terms actually mean. Reading twodot you'd think she just penciled in random gibberish and expected everyone to know what it meant, but that's never been the case as far as I know :shrug:

# ? Aug 10, 2018 06:38

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

I think a lot of it comes down to that liberals really don't like being told that they've spent their entire period of political awareness accomplishing nothing and they've been taught wrong, on purpose, as a joke.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 06:50

MSDOS KAPITAL: Jun 25, 2018

Yeah but if your reaction to that is "I'd prefer to continue being wrong" then :psyboom:

I can't relate.

If you were a liberal in 2015 and you didn't come out of 2016 with a drastically different view of the world and how it works then you're just an incredibly stupid person.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 07:02

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

Yeah but if your reaction to that is "I'd prefer to continue being wrong" then I can't relate.

If you were a liberal in 2015 and you didn't come out of 2016 with a drastically different view of the world and how it works then you're just an incredibly stupid person.

Back in the early 2015 when I started work on what later became the Narrativist Framework there were quite a few liberals who disagreed with my ideas. Not simply dismissed me out of hand mind you- but took the time to really understand my arguments and argue against them on their own terms. Those arguments comprise the bulk of my thread and lasted literally years in some cases. In all honesty it really helped me improve and refine my ideas.

I didn't win every one of those debates by any means, I think the general agreement is that I won the debates that were about behavior but mostly lost the ones that were specifically about politics.

Pretty much all the people who I had those debates with though have gone through a transformation since 2016. And anymore it seems the only real objection to my work is the fact that it's being discussed at all.

Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Aug 10, 2018

# ? Aug 10, 2018 07:54

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

I think the issue is that the whole liberal worldview had been carefully designed as something to make well-off, comfortable white people feel like they're being the hero and the inevitable victor. Basically the 'end of history' narrative, with variants for particular demographics of well-off comfortable white people. Rainbow capitalism to make your consumerism and/or stock portfolio feel cool and righteous, 'disruption' and 'entrepeneurship' to assure you that we can innovate out of everything from climate change to poverty without actually having to spend tax dollars on it, progressive outrage politics as the liberal counterpart to the War on Christmas bringing a steady stream of validating victories and/or galvanising defeats against the weakest and most pointless possible targets, 'demographics as destiny' to assure them that there will be an ever-increasing stream of photogenic minorities swearing allegiance to liberals who make the right noises from now until death.

It's a worldview that's probably far more demonstrably damaging to people's ability to function in society than interactive VR porn.

Ghost Leviathan fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Aug 10, 2018

# ? Aug 10, 2018 08:05

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

She does a pretty good job of explaining what her terms actually mean. Reading twodot you'd think she just penciled in random gibberish and expected everyone to know what it meant, but that's never been the case as far as I know

No, no, no, no. My complaint about Prester Jane's projections are that they are penciled in random gibberish. Arguing "there is a more than zero chance <anything>" is an accurate projection is plainly nonsense. My complaint about Prester Jane's jargon is that she's claiming to having done an extensive survey on "psychological literature" and produced new and more sophisticated jargon with no training whatsoever:

Prester Jane posted:

Also my terms often have much more sophisticated and interconnected definitions than what presently exists in the psychological literature. That's why I've created and use my own terms.

Like championing "gamble fart" as a term is a totally fine endeavor, the problem exists when you say "I invented the term 'gamble fart' and also I've read the medical literature, and 'gamble fart' is much more sophisticated and interconnected term than what presently exists in the medical literature".

twodot fucked around with this message at 09:16 on Aug 10, 2018

# ? Aug 10, 2018 09:12

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

If you don't want to learn a bunch of idiosyncratic vocabulary to understand someone's posts that's perfectly reasonable especially if you think they're worthless anyway, sounds like the perfect use case for the ignore button rather than slapfightimg about it for pages every time they post

# ? Aug 10, 2018 09:18

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

I have some major problems with PJ's reasoning, but at least she's not been wrong about literally everything which makes her better than every single smoothbrain liberal.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 09:19

MSDOS KAPITAL: Jun 25, 2018

None of what you're describing gets in the way of understanding her ideas, which is the only thing you should give a poo poo about. Maybe you think her rationale for doing so is flawed or too charitable - get over it.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 09:20

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

None of what you're describing gets in the way of understanding her ideas, which is the only thing you should give a poo poo about. Maybe you think her rationale for doing so is flawed or too charitable - get over it.

Prester Jane's ideas seem to mostly boil down to "it was unjust I got probated on the Internet forums SomethingAwful", which I most assuredly don't give a poo poo about.
edit:
You know what, let's over explain. I didn't prompt this:

Prester Jane posted:

So I went through my probate history and found this awesome post that I was probated for. I've reconstructed it so that it can be appreciated just how loving useless Centrists like Owl Fancier/Cythereal are and how they will never ever ever ever ever ever ever learn from their mistakes or admit they were wrong- they will simply find new excuses to lash out at the person telling them uncomfortable facts.
[�]
I literally told these morons over 3 years ago exactly what would happen, and they did nothing but poo poo on me. Now that time has fully vindicated me they have conveniently forgotten all this (memoryholed more like since I got probed for even mentioning it) and carry on with making GBS threads on me whenever they get the chance.

Prester Jane posted:

Like 85% of my probe history can be summed up as "Told the centrists in the Trump thread the truth and boy howdy they got upset".

Prester Jane posted:

And yet my system works. Can we discuss how my projections in the quoted post (that I was probated for) quite accurately reflects events that are presently unfolding? Or is reminding everyone that I'm poor and disabled your preferred path for shutting down conversation at this time?

twodot fucked around with this message at 09:36 on Aug 10, 2018

# ? Aug 10, 2018 09:29

Goa Tse-tung: Feb 11, 2008; ;3; Yams Fan

twodot posted:

Prester Jane's ideas seem to mostly boil down to "it was unjust I got probated on the Internet forums SomethingAwful", which I most assuredly don't give a poo poo about.
edit:
You know what, let's over explain. I didn't prompt this:

and that prompted an attack on PJ, because your centrist friends were exposed as frauds

# ? Aug 10, 2018 11:52

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

Yo twodot- I'm just going to quote one of the definitions for one of my terms. This is one of the simplest and most commonly referenced concepts in my work.

quote:

Compaction Cycle: The compaction cycle is a major factor in how Narrativist groups function and is my term for an unrecognized (but very important) constant low level cycling of individual Narrativists through a variety of different Narrativist groups. The compaction cycle is of primary importance because it describes the trend towards radicalization in Narrativist groups, and even provides something of a barometer than can be used to approximate the general pace of and anticipate when a Narrativist group is about to radicalize. That is to say, when you see a compaction Cycle play out you know the group is about to radicalize further. The more frequently that compaction cycles are occurring, the more rapidly a given Narrativist group is radicalizing. This cycle is also important because it is a major factor in how Narrativist groups build common ground with each other when they are looking for allies. (It also plays a large role in the cross pollination of various strings of Narrativist thought.) To explain this facet of Narrativist behavior I will call forth the metaphor of a snowball. Specifically, a snowball made of that wet slush poo poo that is right on the border between being frozen and being a puddle.

If you have never gotten a chance to play with such a snowball then let me elaborate. By snowball standards they are heavy, awkward projectiles that travel slowly and are easily dodged. Even when you do hit something with such a snowball, the effect is minimal, usually a wet *punt* sound. This snowball then is a metaphor for the average Narrativist group when it is not under pressure. Unwieldy, awkward, not terribly effective, but can still get the job done. Put a Narrativist group under the pressure of "Narrative Dysphoria" (Defined in detail elsewhere) though, and things change.

Let us return to our wet snowball. If you take it in both hands and compact it, you will squeeze out a surprising amount of water. You will then be left with an ice ball. Although much smaller and having less total mass, an ice ball is a nasty projectile. Fast, accurate, hard to see coming, and can leave a hell of a bruise. To take this example a bit further, if you drop your new ice all in a pile of snow and scoop it all up, you will now have slush ball with an ice ball core. A better projectile than you started with, but not as good as the ice ball by itself was. However, if you compact this new ball down, you will squeeze out the water, and be left with an even larger total amount of ice in a solid ball at the core. Now you are creating a dangerous weapon indeed. And you can keep adding on layers of ice so long as you have a supply of snow, eventually getting a baseball sized projectile of solid ice that can really gently caress something up. Even though you lose much mass every time you compact the ball down, as long as you have a snowbank handy to keep dipping your ice ball in, you can keep adding more total ice.

Now back to Narrativist groups. An average Narrativist group when not experiencing narrative dysphoria is like our slush ball. A mixture of hard and soft members, since when forming Narrativist groups are like an annoying new Multi-Level Marketing scam. "We welcome everyone and anybody can be a success if you just adhere to our Narrative!" They will accept anyone willing to pay lip service to the groups ideals and show up to meetings. When not under pressure or threatened, Narrativist groups are much more relaxed and make a conscious effort to be welcoming to outsiders (some of whom are then selectively groomed for admittance into the ever-present-in-Narrativist-organizations "inner circle").

All such groups when under pressure (particularly Narrative dysphoria) however, start to drive softer members out. Stress rises, tempers flare. Rhetoric becomes harsher, group identity becomes more important, aggressive members start to scrutinize for any perceived flaw in the tribe. Eventually someone (or a group of someones) finds themselves on the wrong side of an internal dispute. It could be that they are genuinely at fault, it could not be, doesn't really matter. In the end they were guilty of the sin of not spotting the group think searching for a scapegoat fast enough and as a result they became the scapegoat and are summarily driven out.

This idea can be seen to play out over time on the (in)famous conservative political discussion forum "FreeRepublic.com", hereafter referred to simply as "Freep". This discussion forum is notorious for the compaction cycles that play out like clockwork every Presidential election cycle. Once the website owner (a gentlemen by the name of Jim Robinson) publicly announces his preferred option for the nomination for Republican candidate for POTUS this is treated as an official announcement of support. From that point forwards the owner of Freep simply bans any member who speaks up in support of of another candidate or criticizes the candidate he has selected. The remaining users on Freep have observably become noticeably and steadily more radicalized over time as a result- and the standards of the community have gradually eroded over time to the point where open racism has gone from being verboten to being essentially the socially acceptable default stance.

Returning once again to our earlier metaphor- with the "softer" members (or water in our slushball) compacted out, the remaining members are more radical overall. While the overall mass, or number of members has decreased, the remaining members are the ones who have proven themselves to be the most competent at falling in line and will prove less likely to disagree with the group think in the future. They have become like the Ice Ball.

Next the Narrativist group will enter a growth phase, and seek to add new "softer" members (or more snow/slush) who will be welcomed in while a semi-secret inner circle not so publicly makes all the real decisions. This addition of new members will continue until the Narrativist group comes under pressure or is subjected to narrative dysphoria, at which point a new compaction cycle will form and another member (or potentially small group of members) will be made into scapegoats for the group's failures and cast out. (In the metaphor of our slushball, this is another round of compacting the water out of our slushball once again and winding up with an even larger core ball of ice.) The remaining members will become more extreme/radicalized, and will then seek to add new members to the group once again.

The metaphor does not end here though, because we need to consider what happens to those outcast members. Most of the time (85% or so if I had to guess) they will go on to join another group. Since they are Authoritarians they will join another group that also follows the Grand Narrative. (While I would like to mention that this is how you get 9-11 truthers that become UFO nuts that become Objectivist "Captains of Industry" and then wind up being 9-11 truthers again over the course of a long enough period of time, I want to stay mostly with the Freep example.) The Freep members that join some other online Conservative community will be quite a bit more shy about rocking the boat. They will be more sensitive and more alert for changes in their new home-tribes groupthink. They will find themselves drawn to the new groups hardliners and will become more hardline themselves. Often, abused becomes abuser, and when this Narrativist group finds itself under pressure, (particularly narrative dysphoria) the formerly outcast member will be among the most vicious attackers of whoever winds up as the new groups scapegoat.

The overall trend here is that Narrativist groups swap members more often than many realize, and one groups rejected softie becomes the next groups hardliner. Just like our slush ball, the weak are driven out and the ice remains, then more members are added and the cycle repeats until eventually everyone is either a hardliner or has stopped associating with Narrativist groups altogether. I feel this is a good explanation for what we observe in the modern GOP. In raw numbers GOP voters/supporters are in serious decline, but the remaining members are rapidly becoming radicalized. Because of the Authoritarian takeover of the GOP over the past 40 years the less hardcore Republicans are being pressed out of group after group until they either become hardliners themselves or find no home in the GOP.

Think of the Grand Narrative as a sort of basic format that the Inner narrative will take, a set of hooks that you could hang any Inner Narrative on. So the more compaction cycles a Narrativist experiences, the more developed their Inner narrative becomes, which inevitably leads to the Inner narrative conforming more and more with the basic structure of the Grand narrative. As the conceptual confines of the Grand Narrative are embraced as a consequence of Inner narrative evolution, the Narrativist is compelled to more extreme forms of anti-social behavior, until at the highest levels the Narrativist feels morally justified in committing acts of violence. Think of it as a hypothetical scale from 1-10, with 1 being the lowest level of compaction and 10 being the point at which there is a strong compulsion to engage in acts of violence. (This scale is meant as a conceptual rough approximation to illustrate this concept.) As a Narrativist experiences more compaction cycles, the compaction level of their Inner narrative rises in response. Put a Narrativist through enough compaction cycles and the resulting Inner narrative evolution eventually they will experience a strong compulsion to commit acts of violence.

I must specify here that just because a Narrativist reaches a 10 on my hypothetical scale it does not mean they will become violent; rather, it means that they feel morally justified and obligated to commit acts of violence. Whether they engage in those acts depends mostly on two factions: 1.) how much social stability is there in the community in which the Narrativist resides, and 2.) how much encouragement the Narrativist is receiving from communicating with other Narrativists who are at a similar level of compaction.

With that out of the way I have a question for you twodot: What is the existing term in the psychological literature for compaction cycles that I am refusing to use? If you are unable/refuse to answer this question then it's a concession that there are no equivalent terms in the existing literature.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 14:20

Calibanibal: Aug 25, 2015

watching, horrified, as twodot and PJ rip into eachother mercillessly. blood everywhere. the thunderdome... i cant look away. this is madness

# ? Aug 10, 2018 14:59

Calibanibal: Aug 25, 2015

somebody stop it

# ? Aug 10, 2018 14:59

Nothus: Feb 22, 2001; Buglord

Two shitposters enter one shitposter leaves, thunderdome!

# ? Aug 10, 2018 15:14

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

Nothus posted:

Two shitposters enter one shitposter leaves, thunderdome!

My money's on the schizophrenic. I hear she's crazy.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 15:14

Guy Goodbody: Aug 31, 2016; by Nyc_Tattoo

but seriously, Democrats suck so loving bad

# ? Aug 10, 2018 15:27

Matt Zerella: Oct 7, 2002; Norris'es are back baby. It's good again. Awoouu (fox Howl)

Guy Goodbody posted:

but seriously, Democrats suck so loving bad

I really hope Kaniela Ing wins tomorrow.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 15:30

HootTheOwl: May 13, 2012; Hootin and shootin

Prester Jane posted:

Yo twodot- I'm just going to quote one of the definitions for one of my terms. This is one of the simplest and most commonly referenced concepts in my work.

With that out of the way I have a question for you twodot: What is the existing term in the psychological literature for compaction cycles that I am refusing to use? If you are unable/refuse to answer this question then it's a concession that there are no equivalent terms in the existing literature.

Am I taking the metaphor too literally when I assume that this would mean every compaction cycle would shrink the group and there would be a direct inverse correlation between size and how radical they are? And isn't this covered under "extremeness aversion?"

# ? Aug 10, 2018 15:36

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

HootTheOwl posted:

Am I taking the metaphor too literally when I assume that this would mean every compaction cycle would shrink the group and there would be a direct inverse correlation between size and how radical they are? And isn't this covered under "extremeness aversion?"

Each compaction cycle does shrink the group and very often the trend is towards a smaller group- however the group can replace those numbers (by recruiting more Narrativists)and often makes it a priority to do so. As far as they're being "an inverse correlation between size and how radical they are" you are thinking of this from the wrong angle. What determines radicalization is the overall number of compaction cycles a given group has been through. So while certainly a group that started off large and has compacted without replacing numbers will be likely to be highly radicalized- it is possible for a group to radicalize without losing significant numbers or even while potentially gaining numbers.

Imagine instead of a single Narrativist group it's actually a complex interacting ecosystem of a wide variety of Narrativist groups. What actually causes radicalization is the psychological stress of going through a compaction cycle- both sides that go through a compaction cycle come out more radicalized on the other end. A person who has been compacted out of one Narrativist group will almost certainly go on to join another Narrativist group. If you have a large number of somewhat aligned Narrativist groups all undergoing compaction cycles then the entire cluster of them will be radicalizing- without losing significant total numbers of Narrativists.

Look at the alt-right to see this in action. Individual out right groups are constantly compacting members out for insufficient purity- and yet those members who get forced out of one group often turn around and join another group the very same day. And we can see the net effect of so many compaction Cycles playing out across the right. They are visibly radicalizing and trying to psych themselves up to violence. If they weren't such a bunch of manchild lard asses we would be in a lot of trouble right now.

Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Aug 10, 2018

# ? Aug 10, 2018 15:50

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

Quoting post someone contributed to my thread that explains all this from their own direct experiences:

Sphairon posted:

I'd like to present my ideological history as a case study for Jane's theory and then also speculate a bit on possible psychological motives for this behavior.

The basic stats: white male, 27, rural middle class background. From about 16 to 25, I drifted through various fringe movements with a strong authoritarian bent; the progression was something like fundamentalist Christianity into Ron Paul conservatism (that's how I got my red text) into MRA/anti-feminism into Dark Enlightenment reactionary nonsense. It should be noted that I'm European, so at least the first two stops on my journey are somewhat counterintuitive, but not if you consider that I essentially spent all my free time on the internet. Authoritarian cross-pollination is just the easiest thing when you're extremely online.

On the surface, these movements are sometimes diametrically opposed to each other, but that's just the surface. The Grand Narrative is always very similar. Strong friend/enemy distinction, rigid set of beliefs rooted in deductive reasoning rather than empirical evidence, mandatory sense of victimhood for the believer that can be used as an excuse for why everything else isn't working like it should (e.g. I don't have a girlfriend, I'm so lonely, but I know that's the work of feminism destroying civilization, so at least it all makes some sense now).

The way I would cycle through these groups is that I would kick off a sort of individual Compaction Cycle. I joined these ideology-based forums and online communities and spent all day circlejerking in them, but at some point I'd inadvertently cross group consensus and refuse to budge. Then I'd have a meltdown and leave in a huff only to find a new group that was more welcoming to whatever had caused me to leave. Like when libertarians were insufficiently concerned about the plight of men (because back then they were trying to finetune the Outer Narrative to be more appealing to women and minorities), I'd just throw in the towel and start aggressively posting on MRA forums.

By the time I'd cycled my way to the Dark Enlightenment, I had become adept enough at anticipating group consensus that I definitely became part of the "ice ball" core. I was always posting with a watchful eye on the group's Inner Narrative and threw my weight behind the winning faction whenever a Compaction Cycle was initiated. I also lost any sense of intellectual autonomy. In previous iterations, I'd try to square narrative ideology with what I personally believed to be true, but now I was just soaking up the most outlandish Mencius Moldbug screeds and reproducing them as my own beliefs.

But while I had become a more "successful" member than ever before, I also felt increasingly dissatisfied with the whole dynamic of it. I was suppressing myself all the time to fit in, but it felt like this was the bare minimum required to be allowed to stay. Whatever I had been chasing with my involvement in these groups seemed as far out of reach as ever. I became depressed.

So how did that cycle end for me? It ties in with the psychological motive speculation I alluded to above. First of all, I moved away from my parents. Now I'd always found my parents to be a little difficult, but couldn't articulate exactly why until I'd read Adult Children of Emotionally Immature Parents by Lindsay Gibson. In a nutshell, my parents have trouble tolerating and expressing emotions, their erratic behavior left me feeling unloved and helpless and despite being well-off by any objective measure, they are often unhappy and blame nebulous forces for their perceived hardship. The sense of stability and belonging that authoritarian movements offer, even if it was suffocating at times, satisfied a psychological need of mine that had gone unmet for many years. It took me a while to unscrew myself and get rid of the craving that had glued me to authoritarianism for so many years, but at some point I had gathered enough self-love and confidence to get rid of the crutch.

It also required a moral inventory that, while painful at first, hopefully will have been the catalyst for turning me into a somewhat decent person. I had to admit to myself that my immediate sympathy for MRA/MGTOW thinking really did stem from genuine misogyny and my immediate sympathy for reactionary politics really did originate partly from ingrained racism. I had to deal with the fact that I was a wound collector and my dysfunctional way of dealing with personal issues was turning me into a huge bigot. This kind of introspection was the result of years of negotiating with my problems and you won't be able to spontaneously induce it in people. But to truly get rid of the authoritarian itch, the underlying issues need to be dealt with somehow or people will merely adjust their Outer Narrative to placate society while still seething on the inside.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 16:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 13:16

Dirk Pitt: Sep 14, 2007; haha yes, this feels good; Toilet Rascal

I went to the doctor yesterday here in Stockholm and paid $20 for a visitation and three lab tests. Thank you Democrats for loving up your chance to actually do something back in 2008.

# ? Aug 10, 2018 16:11

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL THUNDERDOME: "Democrats Bad" Containment Zone

«‹›217 »