|
Somebody has to be able to look through the list of Latin and Greek root words and pull something out of their rear end to give this concept a name so people can stop freaking out in the title of the thread or the first post. But then I'm wondering if we should just go for an established term of apocalypticists or whatever. It's less general but it looks like we're talking about them more than others.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:16 |
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:Somebody has to be able to look through the list of Latin and Greek root words and pull something out of their rear end to give this concept a name so people can stop freaking out in the title of the thread or the first post. But then I'm wondering if we should just go for an established term of apocalypticists or whatever. It's less general but it looks like we're talking about them more than others. Eschatological Authoritarians?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
stop arguing terminology it is incredibly dumb and this is a genuinely good thread you're making GBS threads up
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:
quote:One more brief caveat, I want to make it clear that I am not discussing Joe Shmedley white flight suburbanite or your average college Republican. I am discussing Authoritarians, which are a specific subset of the population. (Actual portion of the population is not known, but its probably not even in the double digits range percentage wise.) 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.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 18:14
|
|
edit: The entire second post is actually set up to help explain the definition of her term Authoritarian, you should read it!
|
Then help refine the definition instead of being a useless pedant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
alternatively: go die
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Then help refine the definition instead of being a useless pedant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 18:18
|
|
twodot posted:There is no definition. Prester John has identified an Other and is telling a complex Just So Story, because their Inner Narrative demands that the world be ordered, when in fact individuals possess complex motivations which are hard to measure, and we simply can't begin to make any sense out of it without first making those measurements. interesting, but i believe that you can make sense of it, by taking a car and driving it off the side of a cliff.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
twodot posted:There is no definition. Prester John has identified an Other and is telling a complex Just So Story, because their Inner Narrative demands that the world be ordered, when in fact individuals possess complex motivations which are hard to measure, and we simply can't begin to make any sense out of it without first making those measurements. That is what PJ and others are trying to do: define it. What we are trying to discuss is the mindset that isn't quite psychology that Authoritarians have that isn't quite the classic political definition of authoritarianism. In doing so, we try to explain how the actions taken by these people with this mindset make sense not only in a political sense but in a psychological sense as well, because, lets be real, the political maneuvering of supposedly-diametric groups under the Republican umbrella has been the focus and the forefront of American Politics for the past decade.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
scaterry posted:That is what PJ and others are trying to do: define it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 18:29
|
|
twodot posted:You simply can not "explain how the actions taken by these people with this mindset make sense" without defining who those people are. The concept of trying to define a term is insane. You want to talk about a certain group of people, well great, tell me who they are. If you can't tell me who they are, how can you possibly know you want to talk about them? Shut the gently caress up.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
twodot posted:You simply can not "explain how the actions taken by these people with this mindset make sense" without defining who "these people" are. The concept of trying to define a term is insane. You want to talk about a certain group of people, well great, tell me who they are. If you can't tell me who they are, how can you possibly know you want to talk about them? You could help with that part, or you could continue to be a useless pedant who is mad that a theory is not fully formed instantly like Athena from Zeus's forehead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:You could help with that part, or you could continue to be a useless pedant who is mad that a theory is not fully formed instantly like Athena from Zeus's forehead. You apparently believe help is possible. What test would you use to determine if any individual is an Authoritarian or not?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 18:42
|
|
twodot posted:How would I help? This isn't a scenario where Prester John has offered an overly broad definition which can be narrowed, I'm claiming the word doesn't possess any sort of useful definition whatsoever. When I asked for a quote providing a definition I got "They are small" and "Right wing ones possess disproportionate control over the GOP". Reince Priebus constitutes <10% of the population and possesses disproportionate control over the GOP. Is the entirety of right wing Authoritarians Reince Priebus? Probably not, but why? Is literally every anti-vaxxer an Authoritarian by definition or is it mere coincidence that they apparently overlap? I don't know, and I can't know. Okay, well, I would start with you, and it would involve a bigass cutting laser.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
twodot posted:You simply can not "explain how the actions taken by these people with this mindset make sense" without defining who "these people" are. The concept of trying to define a term is insane. You want to talk about a certain group of people, well great, tell me who they are. If you can't tell me who they are, how can you possibly know you want to talk about them? You are getting at the issue there: What are "These People?" Again: this mindset that "These People" have that causes to act how PJ is postulating is something that isn't defined well enough to put into exact terms. That is what PJ is trying to do. It is confusing to have to refer to Authoritarians in a sense that isn't the classic definition but that is because that is how PJ is referring to that mindset. It is a placeholder term, something that will help this debate as it move forward.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
scaterry posted:You are getting at the issue there: What are "These People?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
twodot posted:How would I help? This isn't a scenario where Prester John has offered an overly broad definition which can be narrowed, I'm claiming the word doesn't possess any sort of useful definition whatsoever. When I asked for a quote providing a definition I got "They are small" and "Right wing ones possess disproportionate control over the GOP". Reince Priebus constitutes <10% of the population and possesses disproportionate control over the GOP. Is the entirety of right wing Authoritarians Reince Priebus? Probably not, but why? Is literally every anti-vaxxer an Authoritarian by definition or is it mere coincidence that they apparently overlap? I don't know, and I can't know. Here is how you can help: Apply the broad definition to a group. How does this definition fit? How doesn't it fit? Why doesn't it fit? What element excludes it from a part of the definition? Can we call it Authoritarian if enough of the pieces fit? If so, Why not? The more we apply a working definition, the more we can refine it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 18:49
|
|
twodot posted:"Authoritarians are the set of people that display the mindset which Prester John is describing" is a workable definition, but if that's the case I want evidence that they possess disproportionate control over the GOP. edit: Also if that's the case Prester John should be clear that they are not decoding Authoritarians, but rather creating a new category. I want a response to the test I proposed.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay, well, I would start with you, and it would involve a bigass cutting laser. Do you actually contribute, or do you just make snarky remarks about others not contributing? PJ picked a term with negative connotations that has both overlap and substantial differences with the Altemeyer theory. It's confusing, and understandable why people object to the term unless you're being deliberately obtuse. It's obviously going to continue happening regardless of how clever you are because new readers will independently have the same problem, so yeah. I mean, I agree it's not a very fun discussion to have, but sometimes defining terms that are meaningful in the real world involves a lot of boring pedantic bullshit, and you should probably get used to it if you think the idea is interesting, because someone's gonna have to have that discussion at some point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
scaterry posted:Here is how you can help:
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 18:56
|
|
twodot posted:How would I help? This isn't a scenario where Prester John has offered an overly broad definition which can be narrowed, I'm claiming the word doesn't possess any sort of useful definition whatsoever. When I asked for a quote providing a definition I got "They are small" and "Right wing ones possess disproportionate control over the GOP". Reince Priebus constitutes <10% of the population and possesses disproportionate control over the GOP. Is the entirety of right wing Authoritarians Reince Priebus? Probably not, but why? Is literally every anti-vaxxer an Authoritarian by definition or is it mere coincidence that they apparently overlap? I don't know, and I can't know. Maybe you should read the thread? Plenty of detail has been provided on who these "Authoritarians" are and how they act, it's pretty obvious that you just don't want to acknowledge that these people that PJ describes exist. You keep pulling out BS arguments like "Well this group shares X aspect of these so-called "Authoritarians", so are they also "Authoritarians"?!?" while ignoring that these other groups don't share all the aspects that define PJ's usage of "Authoritarian".
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Zodium posted:Do you actually contribute, or do you just make snarky remarks about others not contributing? Good thing it was explained in the first post that this was a separate but similar definition and is explicitly capitalizing Authoritarians to help differentiate. There's not a very good word to use here, and Authoritarians is in the title, so we can argue in circles about how there should be a better word that isn't really really similar to another word, we can invent a new word, or we can just move on and trust that people actually read th- lol who am I kidding, it's obvious that twodot and others didn't bother to read anything about the thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Maybe you should read the thread? Plenty of detail has been provided on who these "Authoritarians" are and how they act, it's pretty obvious that you just don't want to acknowledge that these people that PJ describes exist. You keep pulling out BS arguments like "Well this group shares X aspect of these so-called "Authoritarians", so are they also "Authoritarians"?!?" while ignoring that these other groups don't share all the aspects that define PJ's usage of "Authoritarian". quote:Authoritarians may be right or left leaning, however, in the US, left leaning Authoritarians (ex Anti-vaxxers, Homeopaths, etc)
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
oh my god twodot shut the gently caress up you terrible poster
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:00
|
|
Zodium posted:Do you actually contribute, or do you just make snarky remarks about others not contributing? I mean, if I get twodot to go away, that's a pretty good contribution, don't you think? Well, maybe you don't. Maybe you think his/her posts are okay, rather than being actively destructive to the thread. You seem to think that they're all innocent fun and games where you hash out definitions, but really when you read them, you can see that they're all about stopping any discussion from happening beyond arguing about whether something is a term or not like we're back in the hellscape of PHIL 101.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
twodot posted:Do really believe this is productive? If you do, why aren't you doing it? In a show of good faith I will try: Take the Tea Party, self identification of the Tea Party is at 8% last I looked, so we meet the "under 10%" qualifier. Do they possess disproportionate control of the GOP? When the Tea Party Caucus existed, it had 4% of the Senate, and 11% of the House, I would judge this as "not disproportionate" especially given it doesn't even exist anymore, but it's questionable. Can we call them Authoritarians given the definition offered? I would say no. Now tell me, how has this helped? That focusing on the numbers alone instead of the people and circumstances involved doesn't get us much of anywhere. While by number in Congress alone they weren't disproportionate, by what they've done to the public discourse and to the Republican party is disproportionate. twodot posted:Perhaps you should read the thread? I brought up the other group not because they share an aspect, but because Prester John explicitly dubbed them Authoritarians without any explanation: You realize this is on-going, right, and she isn't close to done, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I mean, if I get twodot to go away, that's a pretty good contribution, don't you think? Well, maybe you don't. Maybe you think his/her posts are okay, rather than being actively destructive to the thread. You seem to think that they're all innocent fun and games where you hash out definitions, but really when you read them, you can see that they're all about stopping any discussion from happening beyond arguing about whether something is a term or not like we're back in the hellscape of PHIL 101. I don't know how you measure up as posters in general, but based on this thread, honestly, I would prefer if you both went away. You don't seem to be contributing anything other than unconstructive and very toxic 'clever' one-liners, and twodot seems myopically focused on treating this like a formal theory in the testing stage, as opposed to a hunch in the discovery stage (which the OP specifically clarifies).
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:05
|
|
twodot posted:Perhaps you should read the thread? I brought up the other group not because they share an aspect, but because Prester John explicitly dubbed them Authoritarians without any explanation: If PJ retracts that will you go away and stop making GBS threads up the thread with you aggressive, dismissive posts?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:07
|
|
Zodium posted:I don't know how you measure up as posters in general, but based on this thread, honestly, I would prefer if you both went away. You don't seem to be contributing anything other than unconstructive and very toxic 'clever' one-liners, and twodot seems myopically focused on treating this like a formal theory in the testing stage, as opposed to a hunch in the discovery stage (which the OP specifically clarifies). Personally, just for saying "formal theory in the testing stage", I feel that you should be locked into a room with twodot and the two of you jaw each other to death.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Well this thread was good while it lasted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Personally, just for saying "formal theory in the testing stage", I feel that you should be locked into a room with twodot and the two of you jaw each other to death. That's ... really messed up. What's wrong with you? In any case, Authoritarians has obvious problems as a term, but it's too late to do anything about it for the purpose of this thread, and it doesn't need to be pointed out repeatedly. There, now we can move on with our lives and this good thread, and just tell the next person that instead of telling them to go die.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Anyway, in Idaho: quote:Quoting from the decision it specifically references the “biological reality couples of the same sex do not have children in the same way as couples of opposite sexes,” which justifies states only recognizing the latter’s marriages. The posturing about "Well straight people have babies like this / gay people have babies like this" is so transparent that it can only be understood as an Outer Narrative, and the fact that a nonbinding, legally nonsense resolution like this has so much support indicates how this is primarily a moral, religious, struggle for them, right in line with what Prestor John has been saying all along.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Zodium posted:twodot seems myopically focused on treating this like a formal theory in the testing stage, as opposed to a hunch in the discovery stage (which the OP specifically clarifies).
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Maybe if we all construct an outer narrative of agreement with twodot they will go away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:26
|
|
twodot posted:Here's an example "I have a hunch that Glorbs hate gay marriage because they are self hating gay people" is a fine hunch, maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong, but it seems within the realm of possibility. If someone comes along and asks "Who are Glorbs?" you should be able to give a precise definition regardless of whether you can prove your hunch. "Glorbs are self hating gay people" is probably a bad definition, but it's a coherent one. "Glorbs are a shadow group that controls the GOP" is not a coherent definition. We are just left asking "Well who is the shadow group?" I disagree with that bolded bit, people use plenty of terms for groups of people that are fairly vague and nebulous and it is considered acceptable even if you don't approve of it. Regardless this is not the tread for you to have conniptions over people using imprecise definitions for terms that are, at this point, still very vague. If you can't discuss this nebulous group that PJ is trying to define and explain without being aggressive and dismissive then it's probably better for you to not talk at all until you can get a grip on your attitude.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
twodot posted:Here's an example "I have a hunch that Glorbs hate gay marriage because they are self hating gay people" is a fine hunch, maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong, but it seems within the realm of possibility. If someone comes along and asks "Who are Glorbs?" you should be able to give a precise definition regardless of whether you can prove your hunch. "Glorbs are self hating gay people" is probably a bad definition, but it's a coherent one. "Glorbs are a shadow group that controls the GOP" is not a coherent definition. We are just left asking "Well who is the shadow group?" It's not a shadow group, it's more like a convenient demographic left untapped whose concerns ended up being dominant forces in political discourse due to the ease of communicating one's position, who ended up major parts of the party due to their reliability at the polls. They'd be a shadow group if their existence and effects on the GOP weren't so visible pronounced and if every GOP candidate didn't have to specifically campaign towards them publicly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:I disagree with that bolded bit, people use plenty of terms for groups of people that are fairly vague and nebulous and it is considered acceptable even if you don't approve of it. edit: Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:It's not a shadow group, it's more like a convenient demographic left untapped whose concerns ended up being dominant forces in political discourse due to the ease of communicating one's position, who ended up major parts of the party due to their reliability at the polls. They'd be a shadow group if their existence and effects on the GOP weren't so visible pronounced and if every GOP candidate didn't have to specifically campaign towards them publicly. twodot fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Trying to psychoanalyze people you disagree with politically is retarded.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
twodot posted:For the purpose of my post, "shadow group" and "convenient demographic" are identical. Who is this demographic? Christians for whom society conforming to biblical principles is the foremost political issue. They're generally baby-boomers but people both younger and older do exist. Typically Protestant, generally whites living in the Rust Belt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:16 |
|
|
This was a very interesting read. The discussion of inner and grand narratives reminded me of a BBC article I read about Russian nationalists recently (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30518054), where I was surprised at the really out-there goals that the Russian fighters had in mind (more clearly described in this article: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/us-against-them-russias-frightening-new-cult/517830.html). That last article suggests that the Russian state has concocted a cult ideology, but PJ's description of the psychology of Authoritarians who seem to need this sort of "grand narrative" and construct it themslelves might be a better or complimentary explanation. I wonder who's really behind the steering wheel of Russian nationalism, since you have Putin saying that Crimea was a "holy war" which sounded really odd at the time, but makes much more sense if he's appealing to the grand narrative of Russian nationalists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:45
|
|