|
Was the "Final battle in the LoTR" a joke comment, since the final battle was a crazy person destroying themselves and the greatest evil that had consumed them?
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 07:44 |
|
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 13:04 |
|
I'd just like to say that a couple of questions asked here are discussed in Altemeyer's book linked in the OP. It's pretty short, and an easy read, so give it a shot if you've got time. (Briefly, his suggestion for debating authoritarians is "befriend them first," and he has noticed a very strong correlation between authoritarians and people who were raised to be scared of things and avoid new experiences.)
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 13:23 |
|
Yeah I've definitely noticed that everything PJ has described so far seems to revolve around a creamy center of delicious fear. Going by that model, the Narratives seem to exist mostly to provide something that can later be perceived as being under threat. In a more general sense, the whole thing looks like a self-sustaining vicious cycle of fear and comfirmation bias. The phenomenon of group polarization also looks to be a significant piece of the puzzle when trying to understand this sort of dynamics.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 14:30 |
|
This is a good read, thank you for posting it.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 14:38 |
|
This is really interesting to me because previously if asked I would describe myself as authoritarian despite my progressive leanings, in that I believe in a strong state authority and strongly disagree with most proposed stateless solutions, but I also am very anti-status quo so its probably on me to re-evaluate exactly that authoritarianism means to me. I do think it is possible to believe in authority without having faith in it. I have near zero faith in the current authority of government but I do believe in its legitimacy, and in the desire to reform it as rough going as that is. I think the authoritarians described are those who have faith in an authority (whether religious, governmental, etc.) beyond any principle or reason. I've always associated it previously though as a sliding scale of belief in the role of government (versus the alternative side of libertarian thought, though not necessarily the political libertarianism popular today), but honestly I could think of many self-described libertarians that are authoritarians as described here in other ways.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 15:02 |
|
As the previous poster said this could easily be applied to democrats as well. Only a real tru believer would think that a gun free zone sign would stop someone from carrying a weapon for instance.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 15:24 |
|
His Purple Majesty posted:As the previous poster said this could easily be applied to democrats as well. Only a real tru believer would think that a gun free zone sign would stop someone from carrying a weapon for instance. That's not why those signs get put up
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 15:43 |
|
I know it's a bit early, but can someone set up a mirror of PJ's posts so I can link non-SA people?
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 15:47 |
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Some of this stuff is characteristic of non-authoritarians as well. Most people have inner and outer narratives; is it what those narratives are that you think determines whether they're authoritarian? Most politically oriented groups, tend towards extremes over time. Is it because those groups are always authoritarian in nature, because authoritarians enter those groups, or because the most passionate members drive the direction of a group, and passion and extremism are often correlated? Is extremism interchangeable with authoritarianism? I enjoyed the read too but I have to agree- none of it really seems unique at all to authoritarians. Hell, if you look at the climate change thread you'll see most the same things going on and I wouldn't call the threads demeanor authoritarian at all. You have all the narratives going on, at least. quote:Narrative Convergence: When Authoritarians perceive a threat (which is often) their first instinct is to strike at the jugular with overwhelming force. It does not matter how insignificant the threat really is or how wide the gap in power between them and their target is, they want to hit a vital spot with every ounce of force they can muster. The goal is to establish dominance by firstly destroying the threat and any trace of it, and secondly, having witnesses so that other potential threats learn their place. Authoritarians are always look for a big dramatic battle, they are looking for every conflict to go down like the final battle of a Lord of the Rings trilogy. Fierce, fast, big, that is how an Authoritarian wants to fight every battle be it a swordfight or a debate. Hah, there's a lot of this too. Again, this all seem broadly applicable to most groups and hardly limited to the idea of authoritarianism. quote:Authoritarians may be right or left leaning, however, in the US, left leaning Authoritarians (ex Anti-vaxxers, Homeopaths, etc) are essentially powerless, whereas right leaning Authoritarians have a disproportionate amount of influence over the GOP, for reasons I shall try my best to describe in this thread. I honestly have no idea why you would single out these subgroups more than any other in the democratic party. How are homeopaths more authoritarian than the anti-gun subgroup or any other for that matter? This all just seems very hand-wavey, a neat Just-So story. Prester John posted:I have described mostly right wingers because that is what I have direct experience with, but I assume left wing authoritarians are similar. To me the difference between a Left Wing Authoritarian and a Right Wing Authoritarian would be where they feel they are in the Grand Narrative. Left wing Authoritarians believe they are at the "Dawn of a New Age" (or beginning) portion of the Grand Narrative, which means thy must tear down everything old to make way for the new. Right Wing Authoritarians believe they are living at "The End of Days" (or end) portion of the Grand Narrative, and feel that everything old must be preserved against the new. Except, you know for all the exceptions to these rules you laid out. Reagan was huge on the "Dawn of a new age thing", did you forget about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_in_America or all of his other stuff? And there's plenty of lefties on the whole end of days thing, as I already mentioned this is very common on the environmental wing. quote:I imagine in a vacuum each group functions similarly, just in the US Left Wing Authoritarians have no [power, because the Democrats are not stupid enough to court them. And this I think is a major difference between the two parties right now. The GOP has created a group of Authoritarians (although not deliberately, they were just going for easy votes) over the past five decades with poo poo like the Southern Strategy and incorporating fundie social values into the GOP platform. The Democrats after the sixties severed all ties with their brief flirtation with Left Wing Authoritarians types. (The Weather Underground, various Anarchist groups spring to mind) So there just is no equivalent in the Democratic party for a Ted Cruz coming out against gay marriage in his Presidential Candidacy announcement today. The only thing I can think of that would be equivalent is if Elizabeth Warren came out and said "You know what, Vaccine's are causing autism" which just is not going to happen. There's plenty of authoritarianism, you just aren't looking for it or have labeled it as something else so your own grand narrative stays whole. Juvenalian.Satyr posted:This is really interesting to me because previously if asked I would describe myself as authoritarian despite my progressive leanings, in that I believe in a strong state authority and strongly disagree with most proposed stateless solutions, but I also am very anti-status quo so its probably on me to re-evaluate exactly that authoritarianism means to me. What's weird is the OP called the anarchists authoritarians, though. e: Ron Paul Atreides posted:That's not why those signs get put up Regardless, the "anti-gun" wing is certainly authoritarian in nature using the OP's guidelines. tsa fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Mar 24, 2015 |
# ? Mar 24, 2015 16:03 |
|
tsa posted:What's weird is the OP called the anarchists authoritarians, though. That's not weird; "authoritarian" describes a personality or mindset, not a political philosophy.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 16:05 |
|
Sharkie posted:That's not weird; "authoritarian" describes a personality or mindset, not a political philosophy. So they became anarchists because of how authoritarian they are? What a silly idea, have you met anarchists? If they are the authoritarians in the left I'm not sure what parts of the left would be non-authoritarian.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 16:14 |
|
american libertarianism and anarchism includes a lot of people who would be perfectly fine with authoritarian government if it enforced the things they want (whether that be dark-enlightenment neo-feudalism or biblical law or what) but who adopt libertarian or anarchic rhetoric because they have come to see it as an effective, more socially-acceptable way to pursue their goals. possibly this is different in europe where left-libertarianism and anarcho-communism have more substantive traditions than they do here, but you can definitely find plenty of people espousing libertarianism or anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-capitalism who would also establish a theocratic cult state or something if they could. even among the leftist anarchists you have to admit the similarities between "When The Revolution Comes!" and "When The Rapture Comes!" PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Mar 24, 2015 |
# ? Mar 24, 2015 16:39 |
|
tsa posted:I enjoyed the read too but I have to agree- none of it really seems unique at all to authoritarians. Hell, if you look at the climate change thread you'll see most the same things going on and I wouldn't call the threads demeanor authoritarian at all. You have all the narratives going on, at least. you keep talking about climate change and the climate change thread, what exactly are you referring to here e: ditto for 'anti-gun' Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Mar 24, 2015 |
# ? Mar 24, 2015 16:42 |
|
tsa posted:I enjoyed the read too but I have to agree- none of it really seems unique at all to authoritarians. Hell, if you look at the climate change thread you'll see most the same things going on and I wouldn't call the threads demeanor authoritarian at all. You have all the narratives going on, at least. And according to my textbooks and Wikipedia, authoritarianism is the base concept from which flows totalitarianism, autocracy, etc. so, yes it is a political philosophy. E:i get that this thread is supposed to be about the mindset, but even Prester is comparing/displaying how this works in the political realm so i don't see the harm in linking them together. E2: someone mentioned the fear aspect and even progressive use such tactics when attacking conservatives/their policies/their narratives site fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Mar 24, 2015 |
# ? Mar 24, 2015 18:55 |
|
site posted:Are we talking about authoritarian as being distinct from totalitarianism for the purposes of this thread? Socialism and communism are totalitarian in nature, but for completely different ideological (and ostensibly more altruistic) reasons. But reading through PS' posts, much could apply just the same to that extreme as well. Would you care to back this claim up? The only historical precedence for this were Stalinist regimes. A correct political sliding scale would be something like this: From right wing to left wing, there's a shift from an authoritarian, monarchist, and autocratic perspective to a decentralized, anarcho-syndicalist, communist perspective; which is what the end game of communism was to begin with. People's political views towards authoritarianism are derived entirely on how they perceive social order and the necessity of hierarchy in a society. This is why right wingers almost instantaneously side with cops any debate about police violence, or the military in matters of questionable foreign policy.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 21:36 |
|
tsa posted:I enjoyed the read too but I have to agree- none of it really seems unique at all to authoritarians. Hell, if you look at the climate change thread you'll see most the same things going on and I wouldn't call the threads demeanor authoritarian at all. You have all the narratives going on, at least. The sign of a type of psychology isn't that it exhibits any of its characteristic traits, but number of them simultaneously, interacting in a certain way. Various individual characteristics may not be exclusive to the mindset; the configuration is.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 21:44 |
|
Krotera posted:Would Scientology be a good example? PJ's thoughts ring pretty true to my experiences. I think Scientology is a good example of what I am talking about here and I would agree most cults operate like this. In Scientology's case the real Grand Narrative is not revealed until much later in the process than normal, but the existence of the Grand Narrative is held out as a carrot to entice members to keep spending money so that they can get that special snowflake feeling of "knowing the truth". Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Mar 24, 2015 |
# ? Mar 24, 2015 21:48 |
|
Job Truniht posted:Would you care to back this claim up? The only historical precedence for this were Stalinist regimes. No because I'm not about to poo poo up Prester's thread arguing about your commie grand narrative like you want to. It's irrelevant. Dig up that Marx thread to go play in. Sorry I brought up the c word PJ. site fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Mar 24, 2015 |
# ? Mar 24, 2015 21:51 |
|
Shbobdb posted:Was the "Final battle in the LoTR" a joke comment, since the final battle was a crazy person destroying themselves and the greatest evil that had consumed them? I was thinking more along the "Battle of Five Armies" thing. Or the "Battle at then Black Gate". i guess was technically wrong though.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 22:10 |
|
site posted:Yeah, I'll freely cop to being a socialist totalitarian because at the end of the line everyone is a totalitarian/authoritarian of some sort if they're into politics. All of these narratives apply to every one of us. I don't quite agree with your overall thrust tsa, because I think I am describing a specific cluster of behaviors rather than a single defining behavior. However, please keep posting. You are giving me new angles to consider this all from. Also, thanks to everyone's responses so far. Edit: tsa Here are some examples of actual material from the curriculum system the cult I was raised in used. Firstly, this is an actual promotional video. This is what they think will convince people to put their children into one of their schools. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBUw4iWepk0 Here are some examples of my actual workbooks from the cult school. I think these demonstrate the overall thrust of the program as well as the "Church-Birch Nexus", or the intersection between Authoritarians, Wealthy Conspiracy minded Conservatives, and Christian Fundamentalists. I think there is clearly a big difference between this and advocating that vaccines should be mandatory. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Mar 24, 2015 |
# ? Mar 24, 2015 22:16 |
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:you keep talking about climate change and the climate change thread, what exactly are you referring to here Seconding this. What are you talking about? It's difficult to understand with the examples you're referring to. SMILLENNIALSMILLEN fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Mar 24, 2015 |
# ? Mar 24, 2015 22:24 |
|
You quoted me but addressed tsa so I'm not sure who you're talking to, but thanks for putting those up
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 22:33 |
|
site posted:No because I'm not about to poo poo up Prester's thread arguing about your commie grand narrative like you want to. It's irrelevant. Dig up that Marx thread to go play in. Don't be intellectually lazy. You're the one who brought up that authoritarianism isn't unique to the right, and you're going to get called out for it. To say authoritarianism isn't exclusively a reactionary ideology or to say ideology doesn't play a role in being authoritarian is empirically incorrect.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 22:34 |
|
site posted:You quoted me but addressed tsa so I'm not sure who you're talking to, but thanks for putting those up oops, just pretend that oversight did not happen :iamafag:
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 22:38 |
|
Job Truniht posted:Don't be intellectually lazy. You're the one who brought up that authoritarianism isn't unique to the right, and you're going to get called out for it. To say authoritarianism isn't exclusively a reactionary ideology or to say ideology doesn't play a role in being authoritarian is empirically incorrect. Care to name any socialist/communist governments that didn't become extremely authoritarian?
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 22:39 |
|
No sorry guys, this only works one way. You can't shoehorn Democratic narratives into the paranoid style. You can't even apply it to liberalism, because at its core liberalism (in both the original and corrupted sense) is about enlightenment values, about critical thinking and evidence. Authoritarianism has no relevance to it. Do not confuse repeated citing of evidence with the litanies of the paranoid style. You could apply it to Stalinism but the very idea that Stalinism has anything to do with liberalism is completely a fabrication of the authoritarian right, and should be responded to with a loud, healthy fart. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Mar 24, 2015 |
# ? Mar 24, 2015 22:40 |
|
Series DD Funding posted:Care to name any socialist/communist governments that didn't become extremely authoritarian? Care to name ones that weren't Stalinist or weren't under the influence of the USSR? Is anyone else going to try at this or are we beyond this "truth is in the middle" and "merit for the moderates" bullshit?
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 22:42 |
|
Prester John posted:Edit: tsa Here are some examples of actual material from the curriculum system the cult I was raised in used. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3659026 As a warning, after reading though that thread you may come out feeling very depressed, very angry, or both. Like seriously, ACE is so loving bad that if I was given the choice of raising a child/being raised as a child in an ACE curriculum or in a minority Christian community in Iraq, I'd probably choose Iraq, even with all the anti-Christian discrimination, car bombs, and threats of ISIL beheadings I'd face. ACE is that loving bad. One incidental question: Prester John, what pronoun would you like me and the rest of the thread to refer to you as? I don't want to be an rear end and accidentally call you something you don't want to be called. fade5 fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Mar 24, 2015 |
# ? Mar 24, 2015 22:51 |
|
Series DD Funding posted:Care to name any socialist/communist governments that didn't become extremely authoritarian? Job Truniht posted:Care to name ones that weren't Stalinist or weren't under the influence of the USSR? Is anyone else going to try at this or are we beyond this "truth is in the middle" and "merit for the moderates" bullshit? Kerala. Now can we please nip this in the bud? As for the topic at hand, the theory advanced by Prester John seems consistent enough, though that doesn't mean that it's true. I'd be wary of generalizing too much beyond US religious rightwing authoritarians without some further supporting arguments to extend its applicability, especially if it is mainly based on personal experience.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 22:55 |
|
I am putting these videos up as evidence of the developing panic about Further, this poo poo is kind of scary, as this is a bunch of Inner Narratives starting to leak out and that is a sign of when Authoritarians are not planning AT ALL for the future anymore. Being honest in public isn't a concern when what the non-believers no longer matters (because they will all soon be dead anyways). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkppobulT_U This rear end in a top hat is a judge. A loving judge is openly opining on the steps of a State Capital that he might have to die soon because Gay Marriage. (Bonus hilarious speaking in tongues/crazypants rebuking of "unclean spirits" audible in the background) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q-7t26fdfU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhS-YQzcy5I If you only watch one of these videos, watch this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6txm8QTtc Calling it now, by August we will have a "Fundie Freakout" Megathread. Hopefully this all stays at the level of "hilarious idiocy" and does not go beyond that, fade5 posted:
I prefer the feminine, but I am only very recently out and its not a huge deal to me, honestly. My user name is suggestive of being masculine anyways and its not a huge personal concern of mine if someone uses the "wrong" pronouns. Thank you for asking though, and thanks for suggesting the A.C.E thread to people. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Mar 25, 2015 |
# ? Mar 24, 2015 22:58 |
|
I forgot to address your last sentence pj: I mean that in politics, your goal is to impose your viewpoint onto the rest of society, for good or ill, and to control them through whatever mechanisms are available to you to maintain that control. Those pages you provided are ludicrous, I agree, but the method is no different than what other schools use. They differ in content and perhaps "severity", but if progressive could push their message that hard in textbooks I've no doubt they would. I just used vaccines because that was the example you used previously. E: guess i need to thank you for putting up this thread. So... Thank you site fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Mar 24, 2015 |
# ? Mar 24, 2015 23:04 |
|
Prester John posted:
I think a cool example of that was Netanyahu having a meltdown on tv, crying, "The Arabs are voting! The Arabs are voting!" during this past Israeli election when he thought he was going to lose. site posted:I forgot to address your last sentence pj: I mean that in politics, your goal is to impose your viewpoint onto the rest of society, for good or ill, and to control them through whatever mechanisms are available to you to maintain that control. Wow that is so not that reason for politics. SMILLENNIALSMILLEN fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Mar 24, 2015 |
# ? Mar 24, 2015 23:11 |
|
site posted:Are we talking about authoritarian as being distinct from totalitarianism for the purposes of this thread? Socialism and communism are totalitarian in nature, but for completely different ideological (and ostensibly more altruistic) reasons. But reading through PS' posts, much could apply just the same to that extreme as well. Totalitarianism is not a distinct form of politics compared to authoritarianism; I am not even certain if it really has a meaning besides an authoritarian regime opposed by the Western liberal consensus as opposed to one that is tolerated. At best it is a rhetorical style and political strategy designed to establish and/or maintain a repressive regime in a country with an educated mass society, by recruiting the masses into the dominant ideology and involving them in their own repression. King Louis XIV did not care very much what you thought of him as long as you remembered your place and didn't cause trouble. Fascism makes recruiting ordinary citizens as fascists or fellow travelers a critical priority. They do this because it takes far more effort to control an urbanized, literate proletariat who can organize than to control a thinly spread peasantry who cannot read and are bound to their land by subsistence agriculture. Woolie Wool fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Mar 24, 2015 |
# ? Mar 24, 2015 23:16 |
|
Woolie Wool posted:Totalitarianism is not a distinct form of politics compared to authoritarianism; I am not even certain if it really has a meaning besides an authoritarian regime opposed by the Western liberal consensus as opposed to one that is tolerated. At best it is a rhetorical style and political strategy designed to establish and/or maintain a repressive regime in a country with an educated mass society, by recruiting the masses into the dominant ideology and involving them in their own repression. King Louis XIV did not care very much what you thought of him as long as you remembered your place and didn't cause trouble. Fascism makes recruiting ordinary citizens as fascists or fellow travelers a critical priority. Here's a book I've been reading that gets into it, if anyone else has read it and can call bullshit please do so. http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Fasci...totalitarianism
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 23:21 |
|
Shbobdb posted:Was the "Final battle in the LoTR" a joke comment, since the final battle was a crazy person destroying themselves and the greatest evil that had consumed them? Helms Deep sort of fits what with the last stand of the brave fair-haired Rohirrim against hordes of vaguely Asiatic Uruk-hai but Tolkien does not fit reactionary narratives as well as the oceans of dogshit high fantasy authors who imitate him.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 23:27 |
|
Woolie Wool posted:Helms Deep sort of fits what with the last stand of the brave fair-haired Rohirrim against hordes of vaguely Asiatic Uruk-hai but Tolkien does not fit reactionary narratives as well as the oceans of dogshit high fantasy authors who imitate him. Barely characterized dark complected people who are savage and ride elephants.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 23:32 |
|
katlington posted:I think a cool example of that was Netanyahu having a meltdown on tv, crying, "The Arabs are voting! The Arabs are voting!" during this past Israeli election when he thought he was going to lose. I agree. Speaking of netanyahu, I think his recent speech is a good example of a couple of things I am trying to describe here, let me just pick one for the moment though. Recall that National Review (when it was under Bill Buckley's control) was once an arm against the Authoritarian takeover of the GOP. Now however as a result of the "Compaction Cycle" they have become overtly Authoritarian, to the point where they attacked Rand Paul for not clapping enthusiastically enough during Netanyahu's speech. Further, the very act of scrutinizing each other so closely as to attack someone for simply not looking enthusiastic enough during a prolonged standing ovation is quite reminiscent of how North Koreans are scrutinized when they cheer for the Dear Leader. I think this could be interpreted as the Compaction Cycle functioning very actively at even the highest levels of the GOP at this point in time. Certainly at least there was a Narrative Convergence around the idea that Bibi is the "True Leader of the Free world".
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 23:34 |
|
Woolie Wool posted:Helms Deep sort of fits what with the last stand of the brave fair-haired Rohirrim against hordes of vaguely Asiatic Uruk-hai but Tolkien does not fit reactionary narratives as well as the oceans of dogshit high fantasy authors who imitate him. Well if you read his letters, it kind of does. But he was more reactionary against modernism and industrialization than against any particular race or creed. He was basically Ignatius J. Reilly except for Anglo-Saxon culture instead of medieval.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2015 23:35 |
|
AmiYumi posted:I know it's a bit early, but can someone set up a mirror of PJ's posts so I can link non-SA people? I missed this earlier, but I will port them over to my blog later tonight and put the link up here.
|
# ? Mar 25, 2015 00:01 |
|
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 13:04 |
|
AmiYumi posted:I know it's a bit early, but can someone set up a mirror of PJ's posts so I can link non-SA people? I agree. This is a wonderful thread and Prester John but an awesome amount of effort into this for it to be relegated to being a post on an internet forum
|
# ? Mar 25, 2015 00:05 |