|
What happens when they all find out that their god hates them?
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 10:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:18 |
|
|
staticman posted:What happens when they all find out that their god hates them? The elect a new god? Edit: I saw this video and thought of you <3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAbab8aP4_A Aleph Null has issued a correction as of 18:05 on Nov 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:when that one says, “I’ve worked so hard,” what do they mean by that? Qultists 101: In October of 2017, some idiot started posting on the chans calling himself Q. Q is named after a specific security clearance level in the Department of Energy. The clearance level is designed for people that need to know about our nuclear arsenal. Q claimed to have secret insider knowledge of the battle inside the government to purge it of influences by the Deep State(tm). Q insisted that all of Trump's enemies would be arrested, along with the pedos from the Pizzagate conspiracy. Among other things, Q made outlandish claims about specific dates that Hillary would be brought to Gitmo, all of which came to pass with nothing actually happening. Q stated or insisted that the Mueller investigation is actually going after the Deep State Super Pedophiles and Hillary, not Trump. Q also insisted that there were clear and obvious public clues as to what was really going on - breadcrumbs. Back in reality, what he was doing was just fanning the flames of a group that already has malfunctioning coincidence detectors. Over time, Q's way of communicating shifted. It went from spelling out a narrative to speaking in short statements, adding punctuation and odd emphasis, moving from topic to topic and basically asking readers to make connections and draw lines. It's hypothesized that this shift in communication was the first time (of many) that the person or group behind Q changed. This shift happened at around the same time that the rest of the internet sat up and started openly laughing at the idiocy, which brought more gullible people into the fold. The end result is that "researchers" (like SerialBrain2) in the Qult became the driving force behind the ridiculous claims, not Q himself. Q would post some half-baked nonsense with made up "security" codes and nonsense, and the "researchers" would try and tie together what was said into the greater narrative. Among the tools of researchers was numerology and other desperate pattern seeking. At some point, for some reason, these researchers started being called / calling themselves "bakers," because somehow it's bakers that make the breadcrumbs that Q is dropping? I don't even loving know. tl;dr/conclusion: The people that claim to have put so much work into the Qult are the people that have made the most poo poo up based on all the poo poo Q made up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
Also important to note that a quick and dirty analysis of Q's "codes" found that all of the alphanumeric stuff he was putting in his posts were consistent with randomly mashing the keyboard. He was literally just babbling and keyboard mashing and letting people go ape over finding hidden meaning in it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Also important to note that a quick and dirty analysis of Q's "codes" found that all of the alphanumeric stuff he was putting in his posts were consistent with randomly mashing the keyboard. He was literally just babbling and keyboard mashing and letting people go ape over finding hidden meaning in it. Oh man, I'd forgotten about that. From the middle of the guy's twitter thread, click through for the gallery: https://twitter.com/m8urnett/status/1029136767704694784 Also in that thread is a keyboard heatmap, which makes it super obvious. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
i had never heard about any of this q stuff before it must be exhausting keeping tabs on these ppl
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 01:15
|
|
|
Helianthus Annuus posted:i had never heard about any of this q stuff before It would be, but who calls grandma anymore?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
So Q is basically a homebrew ARG
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 04:48
|
|
|
Sorry I haven't been contributing much -- quoting myself from the other thread, regarding the video of Acosta viciously dismembering the white house intern, a fact which anyone can verify as easily as playing the embedded video in the tweets: https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/...genumber%3D6441 https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/1060374680991883265 This all made me realize that chuds make a point to consume fake news on purpose. They are proud that they consume fake news, because it demonstrates their loyalty even better than consuming real news supporting their team. It turning out fake is the point. They must remain loyal to the most undefeatable abuser they see. Whoever said the whole country is experiencing Stockholm syndrome with how they're reacting today hit it on the nail. Personality psychology of abuse is pretty much the most useful lens through which to view American culture and media right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 07:34
|
|
|
The people on top of course know this and plan and manufacture these incidents the right way for the masses who have cult-like tendencies and who want to demonstrate their loyalty, and the cycle continues. This one was apparently prepared for and thus staged: https://twitter.com/leahmcelrath/st...genumber%3D6442
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 07:39
|
|
|
There's also the whole ingroup / enemy aspect of this and the classification of Acosta as an enemy. And the enemy has been known to use this same hated tool (sex assault charges) against chuds, allegations which must have been unfounded, because it is more loyal to say that they must have been unfounded. Therefore the injustice of this situation (seeing the video and seeing that the incident did not occur) is not merely lost on them, it is accepted as an irony and a justice because of accepting the prior, that he used this weapon of unfounded charges in the past on the chuds and the chuds are now using it on him. Their team got a win, gently caress the others. The truth isn't even a casualty of this logic, it's not even on the table. The only way to deal with a chud is to win, by any definition. Winning with fake news or a weaponized story that is not even real just proves that you pulled all the weight (not the meritless story) through sheer force of loyalty and deserve all the credit for the victory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 08:40
|
|
|
It's also like chuds are treating each event that transpires as though they are playing some video game that they're not really invested in, the plot of which they think is stupid, and they just want to select the right decisions to get to the end of the game faster. Often they employ a strategy guide (media talking points) to make their selection. We're all NPCs in their game and that's why they call us as such. The natural empathy people have sometimes for others, even outsiders, cannot break their delusion. Luckily we are slowly learning how to deny them empathy too enough to beat their stupid game and erase all their loot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 09:01
|
|
|
I just want to make sure that this particular thing is highlighted. The video posted by the Press Secretary of the United States of loving America appears to be the same one doctored by Infowars. Here's a breakdown of the edit: https://twitter.com/aymanndotcom/status/1060424768653062149 In a normal world, the entire American press, including Fox News, would unite and call out the bullshit and Sarah Huckabee Sanders would never work anywhere in public again. But this is hellworld, so she will be rewarded for this lie, and the lie will be truth to Trump's fanclub. We are in deep, deep poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 09:32
|
|
|
McGlockenshire posted:
I've been having a serious struggle for several months now with whether or not I should make an honest post about where I see things headed right now. You'll notice how the doctored video has already practically disappeared out of the discussion and now it's all about how protesting at Tucker Carlson's house is making threats to children. Edit: I fear that our Cooperator dominated media and academic spheres* are simply not prepared to resist our culture's descent into Narrativism. Watching the #resistance crew try and make national protests happen over the firing of a white supremacist is just...... such a fundamental misread of how to fight Narrativism that I don't even know where to begin. This is just not the loving place to draw the line in the sand if you want to get people to stand up and meaningfully clog the gears of the machine. What they will get is z combination of the most devoted #resisters +those few who understand why it's tactically worth drawing the line in the sand here; but they won't get enough regular people and all they are going to do is waste their momentum and be dashed against the rocks- accomplishing nothing. *To say nothing of the massive white professional class that owns most of everything not otherwise in the hands of the mega-rich Prester Jane has issued a correction as of 21:47 on Nov 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
Dumb Lowtax posted:This all made me realize that chuds make a point to consume fake news on purpose. They are proud that they consume fake news, because it demonstrates their loyalty even better than consuming real news supporting their team. No loving poo poo. Everything they do in life is to "trigger the libs" including watching fake news and being proud of it. How are people just now still figuring this poo poo out for the first time?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
So I came off my internet hiatus today and spent the day catching up on the news. I have decided that I need at least another week solid break from the internet, the pace at which normalization is occurring in our country is extremely distressing to me. It's like watching a huge portion of the entire nation come down with Stockholm syndrome at the same time. The only thing I can relate it to is its a large-scale version of watching an abuser breakdown the will/confuse the grip on reality of a bunch of people who are forced to engage with the abuser in their daily lives. I've seen similar happen in cults, I've also seen similar happen at places I worked at during the Great Recession. (When you were lucky to have even the shittiest of jobs- people would go to great lengths to demonstrate just how far they could be abused without protest if it meant keeping their jobs.) Living through this all again is.........a disquieting sensation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 21:53
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:No loving poo poo. zizek voice: they know very well what they are doing, but they are still nonetheless doing it
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:I've been having a serious struggle for several months now with whether or not I should make an honest post about where I see things headed right now. quote:Watching the #resistance crew try and make national protests happen over the firing of a white supremacist is just...... such a fundamental misread of how to fight Narrativism that I don't even know where to begin. The fact that this is how you're framing the underlying cause of the protests demonstrates how utterly failed the messaging about the protests is. I keep seeing people make this same mistake and it stings. The protest isn't about Sessions, it's about his replacement getting control of the Mueller investigation after being so blatant in the media about wanting to end it. The outrage is because people think that a) Mueller's going to find actionable criminal acts committed by Trump and that b) those acts will be actionable in Congress. The first is not a safe conclusion for us to make, and the second is demonstrably false because the elected Republicans in congress will never cross their base and they will find any and every excuse that they possibly can to avoid doing so. "It's not obstruction of justice, it's fighting back." The protests will amount to nothing except for making the people that will attend them feel better about things for a little while. I think that might be worth it if everyone understands that the executive branch does not give a poo poo about people that oppose their decisions, and the protest is just for themselves. I don't expect most people think that way though. I want to go there and yell along with the rest of them, but I have issues with crowds of people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
McGlockenshire posted:It might be worth diving into trends that will come and go, but given how quickly things are moving I think that guessing about concrete future events would be futile and a waste of time and effort. It's less of a projection of trends.......more of a concession that we may well be on the bridge of the Kobayashi Maru and the only thing we may still have control over now is deciding how to lose. quote:The fact that this is how you're framing the underlying cause of the protests demonstrates how utterly failed the messaging about the protests is. I keep seeing people make this same mistake and it stings. The protest isn't about Sessions, it's about his replacement getting control of the Mueller investigation after being so blatant in the media about wanting to end it. Let me clarify that I fully understand what these protests are about, my criticism however is rooted in the fact that it's simply too complicated of a message for the American people to absorb; and in the public mind you're just not going to win the fight in explaining that these protests are about the replacement getting control over the investigation and not about sessions the white supremacist. There's really only so far you can get a huge crowd of people to go in understanding a uniting narrative- and this is obviously a reach too far. Mind you it's not a reach too far for political junkies and/or people who are closely connected to political junkies for one reason or another- but for the common person this is just way outside of the realm of something that could be a massively uniting narrative. And that's before you even get into the other parts of your post which raised some extremely valid points about assuming that mother is going to turn up something that would provoke the Republican party to take action. It is unlikely that even the literal piss tape with accomplish that task at this point- conservatives are simply too disconnected from reality at this point for any form of evidence to make a difference to a significant number of them. At this point it's more like a cult honestly in that a good piece of evidence exposed to a few 100,000 cultists just might shake one or two loose of the cult- but for the majority it will have no appreciable impact. In my view that is the point of dissociation from reality where Trump's base is honestly at right now. Prester Jane has issued a correction as of 22:28 on Nov 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/StephenA...agenumber%3D112The opening paragraph to a 10th grade edgelord's history report in the year 2118 posted:"In the latter days of the American Republic it had become virtually impossible for an elected official or member of the media to speak the plain truth. Although there was transition was slow and spanned many decades, eventually the American public turned towards comedians to hear the truth spoken plainly and publicly. This turned out to be a fatal cultural flaw, as comedians are as a group heavily self-selecting for individuals who want to please the greatest number of people possible. Comedians as a group simply are not the kind of individuals who are predisposed to using their platform to stand up and give a fire-breathing speech meant to rouse the public ire against their oppressors. Thus during this momentous period the average American turned to the class of people they had come to respect as truth-tellers- and they were told to remain calm and to confront the rising tide of fascism with conversation."
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
So, I finally caught up. A few observations and takeaways: - Psychology of mind and consciousness is extremely difficult terrain. My brother has a PhD in it and has spent years trying to come up with explanations for what, precisely, triggering, beginning and adaptive states of very basic feelings really are. Anyway, an unlikely ally here for you could be linguistics. Spoken language, when broken down to the smallest unit, consists of phonemes. They have no meaning as such but form building blocks for lexical items and lexemes, then for sentences, and so on. In my own amateur writing, I use two words, one for the basest form of logic - the smallest Lego brick - that underpins all further thought (a 'logeme') and one for blurry, inconsistent and half-baked stories ('storoids'). For instance, dreams generally consist of storoids with little rhyme or reason. - Left-of-center types don't really understand (proto)fascists because they think that eventually, many fascists can be brought round by reasonable arguments. This is absolutely false. Reading stories of deradicalisation among former jihadis or neo-nazis, the turning point was always an emotion, like realizing this black man here is also just a human being who wants his kids to do well in life. But, because of the cult-like nature of Narrativism, this sort of direct glimpse into the other is heavily discouraged and must be wallpapered over with the most extreme and fear-inducing rhetoric (on the inside) wearing a bullshit mask (for the outside). - I put a free book online last year on how I think society should change for the better, and it includes an analysis where I think we may overlap. I've also credited you with some elements I used to describe what I call Reactionaries (one of the three politically dominant ideologies). I also attempt to explain the role of conservatives as a sluiceway between Liberalism and Reactionary thought, and how social democrats do the same between Liberalism and Progress. If you're interested, I can translate some passages for you if you care (my native language is Dutch but I am also a translator). The book isn't some kooky cobweb of reheated progressive stuff and self-congratulatory rhetoric, I spent 1.5 years writing and researching it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
call center manager posted:Anyway, an unlikely ally here for you could be linguistics. Have you read George Lakoff's Women, Fire and Dangerous Things? I really found prototypes to be a more realistic perspective on how we really think about stuff than universal platonic Forms. As an example, if we imagine two people who hear "Union Members are protesting outside" it matters a lot if people immediately imagine the cashier at the grocery store and teachers vs a wannabe mobster dockworker the size of a refrigerator.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
Only tangentially familiar with Lakoff. By prototypes do you mean things like, if I say "tree", most people in the West will picture a loafy tree with green leaves, an upright brown bark and the leaves and branche configuration to look a bit like a globe? If that's the one - yeah, but that, I would say, is a 'cultureme', a very small part of internalized cultural expectations. Interestingly, though, research into people on the autism spectrum and people with a psychotic personality structure seem to suggest that these 'prototypes' to them are often absolutes, while they should by definition be blurry and vague enough to adapt to different real-life examples of trees. Like, you grow up thinking swans are white, and then you see a black swan. Neurotypical persons will at least consider that not all swans are white, while people with psychotic personality structures are more likely to say that it's not a swan, or that it was painted black, or that it's still white. I think that also relates to something PJ said a few years ago, where people with psychotic tendencies tend to differentiate between 'a thing' and 'a Thing', with the latter being an absolute mental concept, even if they can't explain it. Since I'm not a psychologist, I'm not aware of any correlations between psychosis and tendencies towards authoritarianism, though. I would wager the thirst for conspiracy theories in reactionairies may attract people with psychotic tendencies at a bigger rate than it attracts neurotypical people. But - that's just a hunch. I should discuss this with my brother, who also did some RWA research in his earlier days as an academic. And, to be sure, linguistics is a field as divided as any.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
John Oliver, despite being a first-grade leftist, recently did a video on the right's dehumanization of migrants. I thought this might show a sign that the Left overall is beginning to see the sheer danger and risk of Narrativism as a whole, at least the part that watches comedians for guidance? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygVX1z6tDGI (bite me, I have a lot of free time.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 08:51
|
|
|
I wouldn't turn to comedians for political analysis per se, but an advantage they sometimes have over pundits is their perspective. Comedy often comes from looking at things a different way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 15:44
|
|
|
So who else is selling all their belongings and moving to Canada?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
Can somebody give me an operational definition of "Narrativism" and an example of distinctively non-Narrativism behaviour for contrast?Dr. Arbitrary posted:Have you read George Lakoff's Women, Fire and Dangerous Things? Here thread, have a pdf of the whole book.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Can somebody give me an operational definition of "Narrativism" and an example of distinctively non-Narrativism behaviour for contrast? I need to re-read this to figure out what sections are most useful vs. the ones that go on forever on what the word "this" means. Case Study 1 is very good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Can somebody give me an operational definition of "Narrativism" and an example of distinctively non-Narrativism behaviour for contrast? I'll try for the latter.
Thanks, I'll start reading tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
This is good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
call center manager posted:I'll try for the latter. Sounds like "how to know you're not a fascist" 101.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:So who else is selling all their belongings and moving to Canada?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Can somebody give me an operational definition of "Narrativism" and an example of distinctively non-Narrativism behaviour for contrast? Individually, a narrativist is someone whose worldview follows a specific structure: It revolves around a source of universal binary morality that people must change to live according to the rules of if the perfect world is to be realized. It doesn't have to be a god, just something that has existed and will exist as long as humans do that a philosophical framework can point to as the source of its universal validity. The narrativist believes themselves to be part of a privileged elect that understands the correct framework of good and evil and is on the side of good. This elect targets real people that it sees as representatives of the enemy, who they believe to be conscious or duped followers of evil. Fighting the enemy is the single calling of the narrativist, and the means can go from the farcical to pointless nastiness to physical violence. The narrativist believes the actions of the enemy to be what prevents the world from working according to their morality, and defeating the enemy for good to be the only thing that they have to do to bring the world on track. If the narrative is something the outside world wouldn't exactly accept or they need to be discreet in front of the enemy or whatever, they project a watered down version of their narrative to the public, that they have no emotional attachment to and can change according to the situation or as someone attempts to argue against it. In contrast, the in-group narrative is something that is locked in nature and if the outside world presents something that contradicts it that can't be simply ignored, tensions rise and purges follow soon, and after the purges everyone within the group is required to conform to a more distilled and unified form of the inner narrative, obviously making it less acceptable to outsiders. The structure of the narrative is more important to the narrativist than its content: e.g. a narrativist that leaves or is cast out of a Christian narrativist group would feel more at home joining a secular narrativist group than a regular church. Political narrativists, when something causes them to lose hope in their group, can effortlessly jump onto what is considered the opposite side of a spectrum: in terms of the political compass, you pretty much have pathways from corner to corner: libertarian-fascist, communist-fascist... Their views were never based on grounded personal principles, but strict adherence to a source of truth, which can only be changed wholesale. Alliances between narrativist groups are pretty flexible too when there's a general feeling that the enemy is too powerful for them to beat alone, similarity in structure allows them to align their public narratives without compromising on their inner narratives. "Globalists" is a good example of an amalgamate enemy that a lot of groups can unite under the banner of fighting: they can be simultaneously identified as a secret cabal seeking to rule the world for their own ends, agents of satan, jews, financiers and megacorporations, and communists, depending on who is looking. A non-narrativist devoutly religious person might ground their understanding of their god's will to real people: if a rule in the book produces perceptibly bad results, it must be their interpretation that is wrong rather than the people who argue for alternatives who are wrong and the "bad results" merely being swift and just divine punishment for straying or not fighting immoral people hard enough. They might not consider themselves to be someone with a duty to lead the chosen people to a new, better world at all, someone who considers loyalty to their group to be synonymous to loyalty to their god. Or they might not see the solution to the injustices in the world in fighting an enemy that is distinct from the good guys, but instead considering the world in more nuanced ways where people can be both essentially good and inexcusably flawed. They choose their denomination based on how close the denomination is to their own theological understanding, rather than choosing their theology based on which denomination seems like the most authoritative source of truth. A non-narrativist political activist doesn't see society as a place that was corrupted or whose corruption is preserved by by their political opponents and fixed simply by defeating them in political battle and then removing all interference against things working as intended. They choose their alliances based on advancing their principles rather than on hurting their enemies. They probably don't view the world through a moralist lens where people's actions have to be policed because bad things in the world are caused by bad attitudes and lifestyles. They might consider themselves not to be experts on how to make things work out for all society, but instead people who enable all those who know how to make things work out for some portion or society to apply their knowledge in reality. And they won't consider the continued existence and ill will of political rivals/enemies to be sufficient proof for them to have been at fault for policy failures through sabotage or the like, nor will they consider mounting resistance to their policies as a sign that they have to double down on them to counter the mounting corrupting influence of their enemies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 11:10
|
|
|
That's a great answer. To piggyback on it with a shorter one, here's my guess: The most un-narrativist human behavior is empiricism (use of the scientific method). Any time you're trusting the available evidence of your senses even against your own beliefs about reality, you're definitely not buying into a cult-like narrative. I believe that is the best answer to your question because I believe its opposite form: The most Narrativist behavior is fascism. Fascism, the opposite of communism, says a lot of specific things about society (placing value on the privileged few versus on the suffering masses) but let's ignore all that for a moment and take it as a philosophical statement: Every fascist idea boils down to "might makes right" -- and that right there is a pretty cult-like rejection of scientific reality. Both fascists and Narrativists will ignore the information provided by their eyes and their ears if it helps them be more loyal to the narrative and to stay on the right side of the scariest most powerful members of the in-group (real or imagined). I believe Narrativists' apparent fear of the outgroup must only be considered in the context of an even greater fear of the consequences of going astray from the ingroup. A racist isn't truly afraid of the blacks based on any reasonable information, what they truly fear is how they'll be treated by the whites. A religious person doesn't sit all day trembling in fear of satan, they sit all day thinking of their fear of God. Narrativists give in to whatever delusions protect them from the abuse they imagine their in-group can unleash; in accepting these delusions they deny themselves information about the world, about any immutable reality they might share with others. They still see reality and in some sense they still believe it, but it's not important to them; they have committed to a lifelong plan of acting contrary to it to pacify their abusive culture, so they functionally are not living in reality. Anyone behaving like a Narrativist is unable look at themselves and decide what they value (themselves to be happy, others to be happy, an end to suffering, systems to work well, etc.) and pursue those things from first principles; they are unable to disregard all prior assumptions to follow any sort of reasonable policy about collecting new information. They are too beaten down by Stockholm syndrome to pursue those things and process information normally. Those wants are replaced by a singular want, for their culture to win, for their leaders to win, even at their own expense. The result is a war on life and information itself -- a war on everyone but their abusive role models. Happy Thread has issued a correction as of 02:39 on Nov 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 01:33
|
|
|
Dumb Lowtax posted:Anyone behaving like a Narrativist is unable look at themselves and decide what they value (themselves to be happy, others to be happy, an end to suffering, systems to work well, etc.) and pursue those things from first principles; they are unable to disregard all prior assumptions to follow any sort of reasonable policy about collecting new information. They are too beaten down by Stockholm syndrome to pursue those things and process information normally. Those wants are replaced by a singular want, for their culture to win, for their leaders to win, even at their own expense. The result is a war on life and information itself -- a war on everyone but their abusive role models. Yes, that's why I included "metacognition" in the list of non-Narrativist traits. As PJ herself also indicated, Narrativists tend to abhor self-reflection and introspection. This loops back into Eco's recognition that ur-fascists see nuance as weak/dissenting and therefore a specific trait of the enemy group. I also think, as with many mental illnesses, we should recognise we're talking about a spectrum. Mary who cleans her house every day doesn't necessarily have OCD and Jim who spends a long time in the bathroom every morning isn't necessarily a narcissist. It's the co-occurrence of many traits and the way in which they affect these people's well-being that elevates them to a pathological state. That's why it's also kind of hard to pinpoint what a "non-Narrativist" essentially is. Like, how do you define a "non-OCD"-person, really? IIRC, as an addendum, Altemeyer and co did try to look for parallels to RWA, but found very scant evidence for something like LWA - left-wingers tend to be a very diverse lot, hard to corral into correlating features on the Big Five test. The closest analogy I can think of would be 'brocialists' or T/SWERFS, but they really are a small minority inside a minority. PJ - would you mind if I shared my views with the thread as to why things like LWA or Narrativist progressives are so rare? I don't want to hijack your thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 01:53
|
|
|
Altemeyer coined RWA to distinguish it from the fanaticism observed among the cults of personality that developed around leaders like Stalin and Mao, which presumably had been well-studied by that point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 01:57
|
|
|
Also if you just want a concise operational definition of Narrativism, maybe it's "cult-like behavior found outside of cults"
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
  COPS ARE KLANhttps://twitter.com/AshAgony/status/1061360625509638145
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
Dumb Lowtax posted:Also if you just want a concise operational definition of Narrativism, maybe it's "cult-like behavior found outside of cults" Corrupt hidden religion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:18 |
|
|
call center manager posted:
Please, by all means. I have very much been enjoying your recent contributions to the thread. I would also very much enjoy if you translated some of those sections of your book and posted them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 03:02
|
|