Are extreme right/left political leanings a sign of/form of mental illness?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Are extreme right/left political leanings a sign of/form of mental illness?

The Kingfish: Oct 21, 2015

Zachack posted:

I consider the line to be when the views change from something you're for into something that you think will be a panacea. Do people describe you as "that guy who's really into workplace democracy. Like, really into it."? If yes, consider therapy.

Are you that guy who is really into abolition? Like really into it? If yes, consider therapy.

# ¿ Oct 3, 2016 13:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 03:52

The Kingfish: Oct 21, 2015

computer parts posted:

Abolition gradually became a mainstream position though (at least in the North).

Even then, there were certain proponents that were still far outside of the norm of the time (the "40 acres and a mule" people). That's why Reconstruction failed, because most people in the North didn't agree with it after a time.

What's your point? Abolitionism was a radical ideology and didn't became a mainstream position until after the war started.

# ¿ Oct 3, 2016 14:26

The Kingfish: Oct 21, 2015

computer parts posted:

Two things:

1. Abolition as a nationwide agenda was a radical ideology. Abolition as a states' rights measure was common for the majority of the population in 1860.

2. Even during/after the war, any followup to abolition was still considered extremely radical. The common view at the time was "black people shouldn't be literal property, but helping them to regain economic power? ehhhhh". Even Lincoln agreed with that view.

It's really only due to his assassination that we had the political strength to pass the 14th & 15th Amendments.

So you are saying that the early abolitionists were mentally ill?

# ¿ Oct 3, 2016 16:57

The Kingfish: Oct 21, 2015

computer parts posted:

Early abolitionists worked within the system and got slavery banned in their respective states.

Abolitionist is a technical term referring to people who wanted slavery abolished immediately at the federal level.

# ¿ Oct 3, 2016 17:02

The Kingfish: Oct 21, 2015

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: Oct 21, 2015

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

The Kingfish: Oct 21, 2015

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.

It would also be legislatively a worse off country due to the lack of the 13th-15th Amendments.

*As in, without a Civil War.

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

The Kingfish: Oct 21, 2015

computer parts posted:

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).

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.

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: Oct 21, 2015

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

The Kingfish: Oct 21, 2015

It is an appropriate definition.

# ¿ Oct 3, 2016 21:10

The Kingfish: Oct 21, 2015

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

The Kingfish: Oct 21, 2015

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 03:52

The Kingfish: Oct 21, 2015

Atrocious Joe posted:

Abolitionists rallied against Southern Slave Power, which their opponents said was a conspiracy. Up until about the Civil Rights era statements like this from Kingfisher would still probably be regarded as conspiracy theory to many historians:

It does seem like some abolitionists assumed there was a conspiracy killing Northern senators, so they did seem to go into crazy stuff sometimes.

I'm not a historian tho

Conspiracy theories likely pop up around groups with fringe ideologies because they mistrust established sources of information and the sources of information that they do trust have less access to vetting resources. Among other reasons of course.

I really object to the idea that belief in conspiracy theories is irrational or is necessarily a good indicator that someone has a mental illness.

# ¿ Oct 5, 2016 01:16

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Are extreme right/left political leanings a sign of/form of mental illness?