|
The Kingfish posted:Abolitionist is a technical term referring to people who wanted slavery abolished immediately at the federal level. James McPherson is not the sole authority on Antebellum America. Or hell, let's use that definition: what time period are you specifically saying are "Early" abolitionists?
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 12:35 |
|
|
The history of psychiatry is rooted in society's impetus to control others, and was created in a time when cruelty as a part of that control was seen as necessary and acceptable. The only reason cruelty (which all far-right adherents believe in) is not classified as a mental illness in itself is because of this white male legacy of power and control. It's possible to hold conservative views and not be mentally ill, but it's not possible to believe that migrants crossing the desert should be denied water and not be mentally ill.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:James McPherson is not the sole authority on the Antebellum America. He is the recognized authority so if you are using non-standard nomenclature then you'll forgive me for being confused.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Abolitionist is a technical term referring to people who wanted slavery abolished immediately at the federal level. Not really my fight, but those statements are not in any way exclusive. Somebody seeking federal abolition of slavery could also work towards abolition at a state level at the same time. Indeed, that's how most political projects work - in stages. You can campaign for national legalisation of marijuana while having also worked to legalise it within your own state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Jeza posted:Not really my fight, but those statements are not in any way exclusive. Somebody seeking federal abolition of slavery could also work towards abolition at a state level at the same time. Indeed, that's how most political projects work - in stages. You can campaign for national legalisation of marijuana while having also worked to legalise it within your own state. The people who are typically called "The Abolitionists" existed after the Northern states already abolished slavery. e: its a widely recognized historical term of art. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
There are plenty of examples of extreme US politics that were community driven, that were "normal" for particular groups/subcultures, yet were extreme enough to lead to violence by or against. If you look at something like the KKK, it seems really strange to view that as the expression of the "mental illness" of a mass of individuals rather than an authentic cultural movement. At the other pole, it's just bizarre to look at something like anti-Vietnam protesting or abolitionism or black nationalism as an expression of the biology of individuals rather than a social reaction to circumstances. Also, while we're getting there, I don't think we've yet diagnosed morality or social consciousness as mental diseases. Periodiko fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:The people who are typically called "The Abolitionists" existed after the Northern states already abolished slavery. Under that definition, then yeah, had the South not been massive babies and Lincoln's policy of containment had endured, the Abolitionists would have probably been ostracized as cranks while slavery was gradually* abolished throughout the country. It would also be legislatively a worse off country due to the lack of the 13th-15th Amendments. *As in, without a Civil War.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Under that definition, then yeah, had the South not been massive babies and Lincoln's policy of containment had endured, the Abolitionists would have probably been ostracized as cranks while slavery was gradually* abolished throughout the country. So just to be clear, are you saying that the abolitionists were mentally ill or not? I'm confused about what you are arguing. FWIW there would probably have been succession in any case. The slave system needed expansion to survive and the South wouldn't have allowed itself to be choked out like that- they would have sent filibusters to Cuba and eventually down through South America.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Jeza posted:America is really confused about the simple definitions of socialism and liberalism, just forget about it. Yes but I want to know what it is that he thinks he's saying with that gibberish. At any rate OP it seems really weird that you'd open a thread that's nothing but "Are people who have beliefs I'm clueless about all crazy???" The answer is no and as Mao said "no investigation? then shut the gently caress up until you've done some, moron"
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:So just to be clear, are you saying that the abolitionists were mentally ill or not? I'm confused about what you are arguing. I'm saying A. You're using a definition of "abolitionist" that most people probably wouldn't use (academics are not "most people"). B. The actual policy of radicals is not why people are declaring them mentally ill, but their tactics (I'm bolding this because it's important). C. Under that definition, and understanding B, there are most certainly abolitionists who would qualify as mentally ill (John Brown being probably the clearest example). quote:FWIW there would probably have been succession in any case. The slave system needed expansion to survive and the South wouldn't have allowed itself to be choked out like that- they would have sent filibusters to Cuba and eventually down through South America. There are certainly outcomes that would have abolished slavery and had been immensely beneficial to slaveholders. As one example: - Slavery is declared illegal - Slaves are seized from slaveholders under eminent domain - Slaveholders are paid "fair market value" for said slaves - Slaveholders repeat the post-Reconstruction America but without the pesky 14th et all Amendments. This is getting really tangential to the primary point though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Treating political dissent as mental illness has a long and distinguished history.woke wedding drone posted:The history of psychiatry is rooted in society's impetus to control others, and was created in a time when cruelty as a part of that control was seen as necessary and acceptable. The only reason cruelty (which all far-right adherents believe in) is not classified as a mental illness in itself is because of this white male legacy of power and control. Is being a jerk mental illness? Should the Nuremberg trials really have been therapy sessions?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm saying I'm willing to concede that John Brown could easily be mistaken for a madman. But I'm not so sure that abolitionists in general would be considered insane because of their actions. I wouldn't call the Jayhawkers insane for instance. The slavers wouldn't accept that deal because the truly big money by that time was coming from breeding and selling slaves. Also the federal government didn't have nearly enough money to pay market price for the South's slaves. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I'm willing to concede that John Brown could easily be mistaken for a madman. But I'm not so sure that abolitionists in general would be considered insane because of their actions. I wouldn't call the Jayhawkers insane for instance. It depends exactly what you think they did, but forming militias and getting into a shooting war with your fellow countryman is not exactly the height of rationality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Why not? I think that it was the height of moral rationality. E: if I am fundamentally opposed to the expansion of slavery, and opposition to slavery is a rational view to hold, then how is it irrational to make manifest my opposition by grabbing a rifle and immigrating to Kansas territory? The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
I guess it depends on what you count as "extreme". I mean where are all of the absolutely insane left wingers? The right had a guy strip tease on stage at the libertarian presidential convention. Where is his leftist counterpart. Where is the leftist Alex Jones? Or even Rush Limbaugh. I don't there is a comprehensive study I can refer to, but on the basis of the evidence immediately available to me, I would say that pathologically paranoid people are more likely to be conservative. And while cognitive biases apply to everyone, I believe that the more biases exhibited in one's daily thinking and the less one tests their beliefs against evidence and fact, the more likely that person is to be conservative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:I guess it depends on what you count as "extreme". I mean where are all of the absolutely insane left wingers? The right had a guy strip tease on stage at the libertarian presidential convention. Where is his leftist counterpart. Venezuela, for one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Your politics are largely determined by your geographical, socioeconomic, and ethnic backgrounds. It's tempting to think that right-wingers must be crazy, but is the whole of Texas crazy? Is it something in the water? Or are people just influenced by their culture? Extremist politics is more a meme than a symptom. It's spread by culture. People can believe any crazy thing if it's in their culture - doesn't mean they have a mental illness. Lots of perfectly sane North Koreans worship a fat sociopath as a living god.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
The definition many of you are proposing for "not a mental illness" is "too many people have it"Atrocious Joe posted:Is being a jerk mental illness? Should the Nuremberg trials really have been therapy sessions? The appropriate therapy was applied.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
It is an appropriate definition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Why not? I think that it was the height of moral rationality. Most people would (back then, maybe even today) disagree that opposition to slavery at any cost is rational.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Probably. I think extremes of anything are bad. Except for extreme speed. Sonic the Hedgehog taught me that there's no such thing as going "too fast".
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Hi Jenner! Nice to see you in D&D. I don't have a lot of time for an effort post, but I wanted to introduce you (all) to the work of the cultural cognition project: http://www.culturalcognition.net/ quote:The Cultural Cognition Project is a group of scholars interested in studying how cultural values shape public risk perceptions and related policy beliefs. Cultural cognition refers to the tendency of individuals to conform their beliefs about disputed matters of fact (e.g., whether global warming is a serious threat; whether the death penalty deters murder; whether gun control makes society more safe or less) to values that define their cultural identities.Project members are using the methods of various disciplines -- including social psychology, anthropology, communications, and political science -- to chart the impact of this phenomenon and to identify the mechanisms through which it operates. The Project also has an explicit normative objective: to identify processes of democratic decisionmaking by which society can resolve culturally grounded differences in belief in a manner that is both congenial to persons of diverse cultural outlooks and consistent with sound public policymaking. I don't work with this group, nor do I study this part of psychology, but I think this is interesting and the methods are very solid and informing what I'm doing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Venezuela, for one. How does rent-seeking require or indicate mental illness? I don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Is America in 2016 the only true sane center that you can't be left or right of without being mentally ill or is it a sliding thing? Where whatever country and whatever local condition you are in you need to agree with it by a large margin or be a deviant? There is nothing wrong with left or right leaning political affiliation. The problem is EXTREME left or right wing political affiliation. And I know the definition of extreme can be extremely subjective. But for the purposes of this thread I am defining extremism as: People who's political beliefs (and their subsequent defense of those beliefs) are propped up by conspiracy theories and paranoia. This is probably an incredibly lovely definition that can be critiqued and picked apart but I honestly think a political belief does not become a problem (even if I really disagree with it) until the person is spouting paranoid accusations and believing conspiracy theories. Mercury_Storm posted:In some cases yeah, but it has to be handled very, very carefully or you end up reinforcing their beliefs like you stated. Here's a book that details the process and lists a lot of pitfalls that can make things worse: Thank you for this. The Kingfish posted:Are you that guy who is really into abolition? Like really into it? If yes, consider therapy. I agree that, at the time, abolition was an extreme left position. However, AFAIK, it was not supported by conspiracy theories and paranoia. (I might be wrong?) HorseLord posted:This is incoherent. How can you be a "far left radical" believer of the milquetoast center right ideology, liberalism? It makes no sense and makes me think you don't know what words mean - liberalism and socialism are opposed. If Liberalism and socialism are opposed then why is almost every liberal politician called a socialist by the Right? It is definitely true that I don't understand how this poo poo works. I am a liberal because I am pro-choice, pro-union, pro-taxes (especially on the rich), etc. I consider myself a socialist because apparently being pro-medicare/social security/welfare/food stamps/housing assistance/etc makes you a socialist. (Bring on class warfare!) I don't understand it either but  woke wedding drone posted:The history of psychiatry is rooted in society's impetus to control others, and was created in a time when cruelty as a part of that control was seen as necessary and acceptable. The only reason cruelty (which all far-right adherents believe in) is not classified as a mental illness in itself is because of this white male legacy of power and control. Cruelty is just inherent in human nature and sometimes decent society just does not have the manpower/resources to stop it. Letting it happen (especially because you are powerless to stop it) does not make you cruel, WANTING it to happen, helping it along, and arguing that it SHOULD happen because Reasons makes you cruel. But I wouldn't go so far as to say cruelty is a mental illness. A cruel person is definitely a loving rear end in a top hat, but they might not be mentally ill. Periodiko posted:There are plenty of examples of extreme US politics that were community driven, that were "normal" for particular groups/subcultures, yet were extreme enough to lead to violence by or against. If you look at something like the KKK, it seems really strange to view that as the expression of the "mental illness" of a mass of individuals rather than an authentic cultural movement. At the other pole, it's just bizarre to look at something like anti-Vietnam protesting or abolitionism or black nationalism as an expression of the biology of individuals rather than a social reaction to circumstances. I agree, there have been times when America (often as a reaction to fear) has been swept up and embraced extremist philosophy. McCarthyism, for instance. We are not immune to the allure of extremism. There were quite a few very paranoid beliefs behind the reins of the KKK and Black Nationalism. I'm biased so I believe the Black Nationalists paranoia was largely proved legitimate while the KKK's paranoia was racist and stupid. As far as anti-Vietnam protestors or abolitionists, I don't know much about what spurred those movements beyond the basics. - Anti-Vietnam people believed the war was too expensive financially and in the price of lives. They felt that killing a bunch of people (our own people and their people) in a conflict we weren't winning and possibly couldn't ever win was stupid. - Abolitionists believed slavery was wrong (for many reasons) and that slaves should be free. Neither of these basic beliefs seem to be conspiracy theories or paranoia, I'd have to look deeper. And I don't think we should consider morality and social consciousness a mental illness. But we should probably consider people who are moralistic and/or socially conscious who believe in conspiracy theories and are paranoid mentally ill. WrenP-Complete posted:Hi Jenner! Nice to see you in D&D. THIS LOOKS BIASED.  (This is a joke.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:How does rent-seeking require or indicate mental illness? I don't get it. You asked where the paranoid extreme leftists were. There they are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
There are plenty of conspiracy theories in what you might call the American, "left." I worked in fast food for a couple years and some of the people I met there believed all sorts of absolute craziness. There are people who believe that the government is planning a fema camp style genocide of African Americans for example. I can't speak to how widespread these types of views are of course but they do exist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Jenner posted:If Liberalism and socialism are opposed then why is almost every liberal politician called a socialist by the Right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
I support some groups the media keep calling the "Far Right." I have a deep attachment to authoritarian idealism and a desire to be swept up in some sort of movement that gives my life purpose. People I know say I'm extreme in some of my political views. I don't have any conspiracy theories, though. I'm skeptical/paranoid about everything so US media or RT or whatever else, they all have their own agendas. I also detest Donald Trump because there is absolutely nothing charismatic or inspiring about the man. He is a disgrace to the anti-establishment movement spreading over the world. As for cultural/class factors, I'm "white" from Detroit which is a big ol' melting pot. I'm poor as poo poo 'cuz I live on Social Security. I only went to high school. I guess lady is right. I could be crazy, I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Jenner posted:How did you know this vague relative I mentioned but did not define was my racist uncle?!! Are you stalking me? Oh noooooo. By and large, people believe what they believe for emotional reasons. They have a conclusion in search of evidence, and the narrative affirms some kind of emotional need they have in some way. It's often very hard for people who are semi-ruled or try to be ruled by logic to understand or identify with that mindset. Sergg fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Oct 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
Also, regarding the Civil War, you guys have no idea just how polarized the entire nation was around the issue. It's not as though a bunch of northern abolitionists hesitantly got involved in a fight. Nearly every state that stayed in the Union had already banned slavery and would happily truck slaves up through the Underground Railroad as a big "gently caress YOU" to the Southerners. It wasn't necessarily because they loved black people, but because they hated the institution of slavery and saw it as a threat to their way of life. The South was engaged in a collective delusion. 1/3 of Southern households owned slaves according to the 1860 census, and many non-slave owners were employed in training, catching, guarding, servicing, breeding, and other slavery-related activities. In that case you've basically got an entire generation of people who'd grown up pushing slaves around, giving orders to people who couldn't fight back, and the brutality, aggressiveness, and false sense of social empowerment that this system engenders gave them the idea that they could gently caress up the North with one hand tied behind their back. Also they hosed their slaves all the time. The Northerners weren't blind to this petty, aggressive attitude and these gross violations of basic human decency occurring at a massive scale. Because of this institution, the South had always had a very disproportionate sway over the American government as well, and the Northerners didn't want to be ruled by a small band of slave-loving bullies. The slavers had shown they would do everything in their power to spread slavery anywhere they could.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
I'd agree that mental cases are overrepresented in the extreme political spectrum, but would not support the claim that every extremist is a clinical nutcase. In my experience people with a "dissociation from society" naturally feel attracted to ideologies that claim there's something wrong with society. As the saying goes "Everybody wants to change the world, but nobody wants to change himself". A nutcase would definitely prefer to see society at fault for his own problems rather than conceding that he's the problem. This explains bitter Socialists who feel entitled to more than what "the capitalist system" grants them or rabid Xenophobes who blame foreigners for their own failings. But there's a lot of space between being a liberal and a butthurt Socialist or a conservative and a KKK member. Treating people with a different opinion as pathological nutcases is btw a very stalinistic attitude. Perhaps the psychiatrist has some issues himself. Einbauschrank fucked around with this message at 09:31 on Oct 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
Einbauschrank posted:I'd agree that mental cases are overrepresented in the extreme political spectrum, but would not support the claim that every extremist is a clinical nutcase. Like I said, to treat any inclination of left or right belief as a sign of mental illness would be completely unacceptable. Even far right and far left adherents can usually be tolerated. It's when they go off the deep end and start believing all kinds of craziness that they need intervention and help. I can tolerate supply side economists and pro-austerity types. I will disagree vehemently and point out how their beliefs and philosophies are completely up their own rear end and an affront to economics but these people are not crazy. They're just conservatives. Hell I can even listen to Randian Objectivists talk in circles for awhile before I have to walk away and weep inconsolably at the existence of such idiocy. But when someone is screaming that Obama is a secret socialist Kenya-born Muslim I get genuinely worried about them. I had a friend who was a 9/11 Truther, he just could not accept that anyone could have pulled off the attacks without inside help. He went on and on about all the "facts" and I was really worried about him. I encouraged him to get therapy and he severed from me. I hope he's doing okay now. NikkolasKing posted:I support some groups the media keep calling the "Far Right." I have a deep attachment to authoritarian idealism and a desire to be swept up in some sort of movement that gives my life purpose. People I know say I'm extreme in some of my political views. Sup fellow poverty-stricken and disabled Goon. This isn't E/N but, while you have a right to have your beliefs and are definitely entitled to them, you might want to  especially since you admitted to having some paranoia. (At least you're even self-aware enough to be conscious of it, many people aren't.) Even if we disregard your Far Right beliefs your poverty and living in Detroitness (lovely living conditions) have a huge link to mental illness so you might want to do a bit of self-care just to be on the safe side.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
People who believe that Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim are not mentally ill. Being misled by obvious lies is basically never a sign of mental illness, though it is a sign of intellectual laziness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
Jenner posted:Sup fellow poverty-stricken and disabled Goon. This isn't E/N but, while you have a right to have your beliefs and are definitely entitled to them, you might want to Well I live in Texas now so surely I'm cured! Well, insofar as it is "self-care" my girlfriend is the only authority I really follow, whatever my politics. Don't want to be indelicate but she has the pants in the relationship. I was once advised, when I kept searching through both politics and religion for a "meaning" to my life, that I should just fall in love. And after I did, it has worked wonders for me, I think. My paranoia is mostly related to abandonment and rejection. My authoritarian streak is due to a sort of envy for people who have absolute faith in God or their ideals whatever because that's just not possible for me. I doubt everything. Except my girlfriend who gives me peace of mind and since we've been together ten years, I see little reason to worry that's gonna be going any time soon. If you don't mind me asking, what is your disability? I'm legally blind from a tumor when I was 4. I have one semi-functional eye. I've often wondered how this maybe worsened any paranoid tendencies I have. NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Oct 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
You have to understand that "'authoritarian idealists" would see you as a burden on society and murder you, right? Whatever your romantic (in the classical sense of romanticism, not in terms of "people you want to gently caress") inclinations might be, they are not your friends!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:You have to understand that "'authoritarian idealists" would see you as a burden on society and murder you, right? Whatever your romantic (in the classical sense of romanticism, not in terms of "people you want to gently caress") inclinations might be, they are not your friends! He literally just started posting in here, wish the kid would lurk more before spouting off poo poo he doesn't understand/will regret admitting later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
I can't agree with the assertion that it's just 'extreme' right/left, conceivably you could have an insane conspiracy centrist. I mean, if you have someone only slightly left of center believing in crystals or whatever, versus this rationalized conservative thinkpiece, does being closer to one extreme necessarily imply the latter has mental illness? Not so. But while it's not a necessary relationship, I don't think it's wrong to say that people who veer outside tend to think unusually, and that's on the one hand to be expected. People are different, your distribution of people on the spectrum is going to be a bell curve, like most anything else. On the other hand, we need to consider what motivates people to believe things, and in particular, what's going to motivate someone to lean left or right. The answer is probably Unconscious response to unusual or disgusting stimulus. Liberals tend to display a more open response, while conservatives tend to display more anxiety. Now that sort of makes sense, if you look at what those words mean. If you're an anxious person, you're going to be averse to changes, any changes, that seem unfamiliar. So, OP, the reason your friend found that his patients held right-wing views, was probably because they all had anxiety or paranoia problems, that naturally fit with a right-wing worldview. That shouldn't be surprising, anxiety and paranoia are generally bad things, but more relevantly, are going to create situations where your patients are more likely to be baker-acted/institutionalized. Someone extremely liberal, probably wouldn't be treated the same way, because they wouldn't been seen as threatening. It'd be naive to assume there's no symmetry here, so I'm sure the counter-part to your patients exist, they're just, like, out there, man. Something I've always wondered though, is whether you could have your cake and eat it too, when it comes to these kind of political discussions. Can you introduce changes to society while simultaneously guaranteeing that such changes won't induce anxiety? So Eg - if we're talking immigration for example, can you settle new (arbitrarily selected) people in the country, while having a structure in place that makes the ethnic/cultural tensions impossible? Because if you can get that, if such a structure existed, politics as we know it would be a 'solved' problem. Here's the optimal policy, QED. Woolie Wool posted:You have to understand that "'authoritarian idealists" would see you as a burden on society and murder you, right? Whatever your romantic (in the classical sense of romanticism, not in terms of "people you want to gently caress") inclinations might be, they are not your friends! rudatron fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Oct 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Depends on the authoritarian. Or, it depends on the ideals. Seriously. I've spent much of my life searching for a political identity. Teenage me was a Marxist-Leninist, I don't think I'd have been killed unless it was from the civil war or starvation or cold or the million other things that went wrong for the Bolsheviks. Honestly, "equal rights" seemed to be something they were good at initially. Or maybe Stalin just makes Lenin look better. That is possible. In any event, I no longer agree with that. Those were my crazy teenage years, ya know. But I'm unaware of what authoritarian regimes believe in purging disabled people. I think that was mostly a Nazi thing and Nazis were uniquely terrible even among authoritarian regimes. Or not. They just believed in this wonderful new thing called eugenics which was all the rage in places like the United States.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Jenner posted:There were quite a few very paranoid beliefs behind the reins of the KKK and Black Nationalism. I'm biased so I believe the Black Nationalists paranoia was largely proved legitimate while the KKK's paranoia was racist and stupid. As far as anti-Vietnam protestors or abolitionists, I don't know much about what spurred those movements beyond the basics. But then you're pared it down to saying "paranoid belief in conspiracy theories" is a sign of mental illness which is an entirely different thing, and also less controversial. Many conspiracy theories don't really fall into a political spectrum, or they try to negate modern political ideology by postulating a mythological understanding of the world. Periodiko fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Oct 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 12:35 |
|
|
Jenner posted:There is nothing wrong with left or right leaning political affiliation. That seems like a very circular definition. It seems like south park's "the truth is always in the middle" but with some added "if you strongly believe things that are delusional you might be crazy" which is just trivially the case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:56
|
|
