|
I just finished catching up to this thread. I'm really, REALLY looking forward to your next post detailing the family and such. I'm in Ireland at the moment, and we are having a referendum later this month on Same-sex/equal marriage and its seriously interesting to chart the strategies and mindsets highlighted in this thread on to the people campaigning for a NO vote. The NO vote campaign seems to be primarily to be an outer narrative style / a campaign of disinformation conflating the referendum with all kinds of unrelated topics like adoption and surrogacy. (All of which have already been codified in legislation that was passed earlier in the year in a Child and Family Relationships Bill) They make arguments centered around these topics and when called out on it change tack or ignore it. Here's an example, take note of the dates involved:  January 2015  April 2015 - When the NO campaign posters are released. So the No Campaigner in January admits that surrogacy has nothing to do with the referendum, but then, as it is the convenient narrative, completely backtracks. And its very obvious thinking about it that their inner narrative, or perhaps a bridge narrative between inner and outer narrative is that they want to keep abortion off the table for as long as possible. So they are basically pushing as hard as they can at any kind of social progress in order to achieve their aim. Now, I call it a bridge narrative because they aren't explicitly talking about abortion right now, but it would probably come up again in a few years time if the equal marriage referendum passes this May. I wouldn't be able to say what the inner narrative is, but its probably the usual kind of fundamental christian thing if I was to guess at it. All in all cool thread OP.
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 09:03 |
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Err... capitalism kinda needs economic growth to continue working, and economic growth kinda needs to exploit resources (often non-renewables). The system also consolidates wealth towards an increasingly smaller number of individuals (until they die and it goes to their kids, at least). There are plenty of resources in space, assuming we can get there to exploit them
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
AtomikKrab posted:There are plenty of resources in space, assuming we can get there to exploit them A shame then that we can't and probably never will.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Err... capitalism kinda needs economic growth to continue working, and economic growth kinda needs to exploit resources (often non-renewables). The system also consolidates wealth towards an increasingly smaller number of individuals (until they die and it goes to their kids, at least). Wrap it up capitalailures, it's the heat death of the universe.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
Why does capitalism necessarily have to stop working when it runs out of growth potential? Even in a stagnant economy money still moves and businesses grow feeble and die, leaving room for new businesses to appear in their place. It's certainly worse than a growing economy, but a stagnant economy is worse than a growing economy regardless of the economic model. Or I suppose you could start World War III, blow the world economy up (literally), and start over!  Now that would be an interesting sci-fi novel, trying to sustain capitalism forever by cyclically starting massive wars, destroying much of the world's infrastructure and killing vast numbers of people each time, but of course most of the nonrenewable resources have already been exploited so the cycles get steadily shorter and the growth periods get weaker, so it's ultimately futile. Woolie Wool fucked around with this message at 19:06 on May 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Why does capitalism necessarily have to stop working when it runs out of growth potential? Even in a stagnant economy money still moves and businesses grow feeble and die, leaving room for new businesses to appear in their place. It's certainly worse than a growing economy, but a stagnant economy is worse than a growing economy regardless of the economic model. because capitalism concentrates wealth at the top and tends towards monopolism¨ among other things
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
But as a social democrat I am forced to bring up the fact that social democracy, when people bother to actually maintain it instead of just going "problem solved, no need to keep an eye on capitalism ever again!  ", is designed to counteract the very force you described. How people think you can run something as complex and failure-prone as a national economy without monitoring, planning, and constant correction is beyond me. Capitalism is over 300 years old, but neoliberalism is only around 40 years old, but people seem to think it's the only capitalist system that ever was or ever will be, as if post-World War II Europe never happened.
Woolie Wool fucked around with this message at 19:11 on May 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Haven't fully caught up with the thread yet, but I've read the first few pages. Thank you, Prester John, for posting this. It is extremely thought-provoking and a very good read.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:But as a social democrat I am forced to bring up the fact that social democracy, when people bother to actually maintain it instead of just going "problem solved, no need to keep an eye on capitalism ever again! it counteracts this by relying on economic growth to help drive investment etc. - if one runs a stagnant capitalist economy through redistribution, one removes the ability for capitalists to, well, capitalise on stuff
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:it counteracts this by relying on economic growth to help drive investment etc. - if one runs a stagnant capitalist economy through redistribution, one removes the ability for capitalists to, well, capitalise on stuff To piggyback on this: Don't forget capitalism and economic growth rely on innovation to continue as well. Which is something government can't centrally plan. site fucked around with this message at 19:41 on May 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
site posted:To piggyback on this: Don't forget capitalism and economic growth rely on innovation to continue as well. Which is something government can't centrally plan. Does NASA count as centrally planning something? Edit: Nuclear weapons engineering as well, some things need to have a government's worth of resources thrown at it to have something happen.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
I get what you mean, but I would say that coming up with an idea and shoveling money to people to come up with an idea are two different things. Like, the US government didn't create the rocket, von Braun did and the US brought him over through Paperclip. DARPA and NASA do tread a line, though. Stuff like the computer circuitry and the internet did come them, but no way would the US government be releasing the iPod, for instance.
site fucked around with this message at 19:55 on May 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
State-funded and operated science/technology/R&D programs produce more innovation than a million Elon Musks. In fact without the efforts of those terrible innovation-killing bureaucracies (oooooooo!), there never would have been the technological starting point for Elon Musk to do his private sector space research. Also if you redistribute money from the capitalists to the workers, then the workers spend the money on products and the money goes to the capitalists, and then it is heavily taxed and the taxes go back to the working class who spend it again... I think a far more pressing problem, that likely will destroy capitalism as we know it, is that capitalism, even in the most generous Nordic model variety, requires people to work for a living. Automation is going to decouple "work" and "living" for a sufficiently large proportion of the population that capitalism will become unsustainable because that segment of the population will have no useful job skills at all because robots can do anything they can do, only better. FYGM isn't going to work because these dispossessed people have absolutely nothing to lose--if you and your family are going to starve to death anyway, why wouldn't you start a revolution? site posted:I get what you mean, but I would say that coming up with an idea and shoveling money to people to come up with an idea are two different things. Like, the US government didn't create the rocket, von Braun did and the US brought him over through Paperclip. DARPA and NASA do tread a line, though. Stuff like the computer circuitry and the internet did come them, but no way would the US government be releasing the iPod, for instance. Do you remember where von Braun got the capital, the resources, and the manpower to become valuable enough to the United States not to hang in the first place? hint: it was  and the German government.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
site posted:I get what you mean, but I would say that coming up with an idea and shoveling money to people to come up with an idea are two different things. Like, the US government didn't create the rocket, von Braun did and the US brought him over through Paperclip. DARPA and NASA do tread a line, though. Stuff like the computer circuitry and the internet did come them, but no way would the US government be releasing the iPod, for instance. State funded university research does wonders for innovation. Lots of small startups build off of what a grad student was working on, these small startups are bought up by larger companies that have the ability to produce their products on a massive scale, and then a new product line is born. That's not to say that large corporations don't spend tons of money on R&D - they absolutely spend tons of money on R&D, but often their R&D is informed by reading research journals published by state-sponsored universities and/or research funded by state research grants.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
I don't want to derail this thread so I'll say that I understand but obviously I disagree on the theoretical extent of the government's ability to produce every single product available to me today through planning. I would be more than happy to be proven wrong, however.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
The problem with for-profit research is that money really isn't a great motivator when it comes to creative endeavors. Imagine two engineers both tasked with developing a new microwave oven. One working for a private company, the other working for NASA. The engineer working for a private company is probably going to do a great job. Maybe it'll be more efficient, maybe it'll have some sort of network integration so that it can keep track of how much popcorn you have and automatically order more. He's going to get a great bonus. The second engineer has different motivations. This isn't just a microwave that they'll sell in stores, this is going to be used by astronauts in outer space. It matters. If it breaks, astronauts are going to be eating cold food for months. Efficiency isn't a perk, it's a necessity when you're relying on solar power. These are the kinds of problems that keep you up at night, that creep into your head when you're supposed to be relaxing, that won't leave you alone because it's a matter of life and death. In the end, the NASA engineer might not do any better than the other guy. But I think that if there's going to be something revolutionary, it's going to come from the NASA guy.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Then the NASA guy publishes his revolutionary results in Science. Other labs are unable to repeat his findings. There is a minor scandal and people forget about it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Back on topic: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/05/02/403865824/texas-governor-deploys-state-guard-to-stave-off-obama-takeover?sc=twquote:It's true that the paranoid world-view of right-wing militia types has remarkable stamina. But that's not news.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:The problem with for-profit research is that money really isn't a great motivator when it comes to creative endeavors. On the other hand, maybe NASA contracts an engineering firm to design the microwave for them. Now the private engineer is going through the same process your hypothetical NASA engineer is. What you're describing is an issue about design constraints - the average consumer does not need or want a hyper-efficient space worthy microwave, and your hypothetical first engineer would be a fool to try to make them one. Every industry and every product has its own set of constraints, and the better an engineer you are, the better a product you deliver that meets those constraints. The big difference is that if the NASA engineer makes a cool innovation, that innovation is going to be more publicly known, while if the private engineer makes a huge innovation, the company that he or she works for will keep the technique secret for as long as possible in order to make a better product than their competitors.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Wow very good discussion I wish I had the patience to read rather than skim all 23 pages of it. One aspect of authoritarian thought that has come up but I don't think has received sufficient focus in this discussion is the primacy of fear in authoritarian leaning individuals. This isn't simple hyperbole there is a substantial and growing body of scientific research to support this premise. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/biology-ideology-john-hibbing-negativity-bias https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds There is a definite correlation between conservatives (which is authoritarian by nature) and their fear of novelty and change. This correlation is why authoritarianism is an exclusively conservative trait. To stop all the "but Stalin/Castro communism" bullshit one has to understand that conservatism/liberalism are not about systems of government or economics but rather rooted in more fundamental aspects of personality. It comes down to how one processes fear and how much that fear influences ones behavior and ideals. To the conservative mind stability and security rule supreme in their priorities. Because following the rules and keeping with tradition are what have gotten them to where they are and deviation from that can only lead to danger and destruction. Maintenance of the social order is placed above the happiness and even lives of the individual because of the belief that failing to adhere to social convention will lead to some unknown disaster (the unknown part is actually very important in this as fear is largely tied to the unknown, It's why the best horror movies show very little of the big bad lest it lose some of it's mystery and frightfulness through tangibility). Liberals on the other hand are about hope and discovery they value people as individuals rather than simply as a part of the greater community and thus tend towards tolerance and acceptance of the new. It's not that liberals lack fear merely that it's not their primary motivator, the liberal will recognize the danger of a new endeavor and will do their best to find ways to minimize and mitigate the dangers but will take the leap either way. Think of the conservatives arguments against marriage equality, other than their religious objections their arguments tend to sound ridiculous and fanciful to liberals, the reason I believe is that these conservatives aren't really capable of expressing their fears in concrete terms because they aren't afraid of any specific potential outcome from same sex marriages but rather of the nebulous potential unknown risks that lurk in the shadows of their imaginations. I use the terms conservative and authoritarian synonymous because for the most part they are, the only exception would be the leadership cohort which I believe includes a fair number of opportunistic sociopaths willing to capitalize on the easily manipulated nature of the authoritarians mind rather than due to having authoritarians tendencies themselves. I've seen more than a few arguments made (or at least attempted) to disassociate authoritarianism from conservatism and I'd think that's really possible. The thing is that for the most part the definitions of the terms themselves have largely been based on the "external narratives" of individuals and groups looking to promote their own views/beliefs. So the modern right defines conservatism (at least in America) as an adherence to "natural law" (including capitalism and the market economy) and what functions as the "left" has let them mostly get away with it so they can cast themselves as champions of equality and the common "man". I find it more useful and I assert more useful to separate the timeless general tendencies of the two modes of thinking than to get bogged down in the minutia of temporal policy which has shifted in the past and most certainly will again in the future. PJ's concept of authoritarians dovetails nicely into my own ideas regarding the worldview and how it's adherents operate.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
I was reading articles on the Atlantic today and this piece on ISIS and its motivations / appeal hit a lot of the same notes as PJ did in her posts, especially with regard to the ideological purity within ranks and the Compaction Cycle. Obviously they take the idea further by outright executing people who don't fall in line.quote:Denying the holiness of the Koran or the prophecies of Muhammad is straightforward apostasy. But Zarqawi and the state he spawned take the position that many other acts can remove a Muslim from Islam. These include, in certain cases, selling alcohol or drugs, wearing Western clothes or shaving one’s beard, voting in an election—even for a Muslim candidate—and being lax about calling other people apostates. Being a Shiite, as most Iraqi Arabs are, meets the standard as well, because the Islamic State regards Shiism as innovation, and to innovate on the Koran is to deny its initial perfection. (The Islamic State claims that common Shiite practices, such as worship at the graves of imams and public self-flagellation, have no basis in the Koran or in the example of the Prophet.) That means roughly 200 million Shia are marked for death. So too are the heads of state of every Muslim country, who have elevated man-made law above Sharia by running for office or enforcing laws not made by God.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
site posted:I don't want to derail this thread so I'll say that I understand but obviously I disagree on the theoretical extent of the government's ability to produce every single product available to me today through planning. I would be more than happy to be proven wrong, however. You just completely shifted the goalposts from 'governments can't centrally plan innovation' to 'governments don't produce literally 100% of all innovation' after it was demonstrated that governments are ultimately responsible for most innovation (~75% of research funding in the U.S. iirc). The way to centrally plan innovation is to provide funding for primary research that private industry won't touch because it won't provide an immediate profit.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 12:25
|
|
|
Pillar of Perfect Safety!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Define safe Rubio? Safe from what? Minorities? People other than you?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Annointed posted:Define safe Rubio? Safe from what? Minorities? People other than you? I'd prefer complete economic safety, personally. General minimum income, free healthcare, and free college for all. Then I could do what I want without fear of going bankrupt doing it. Safety from sexual or racial harassment would be great, too.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:I'd prefer complete economic safety, personally. General minimum income, free healthcare, and free college for all. Then I could do what I want without fear of going bankrupt doing it. Safety from sexual or racial harassment would be great, too. GET A HAIRCUT HIPPY! You just know they mean Safety for future projected shareholder profits and campaign donations, nothing much else.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
There's a video too, basically China, Iran and Russia are doing stuff so we need a bigger military to scare them I guess. https://marcorubio.com/news/nothing-matters-if-we-arent-safe/
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:I'd prefer complete economic safety, personally. General minimum income, free healthcare, and free college for all. Then I could do what I want without fear of going bankrupt doing it. Safety from sexual or racial harassment would be great, too. Yeah that would be great. Increased minimum income means increase in GDP, free healthcare so no one has to be in crippling debt after a crippling accident/illness and college so we don't get outstripped by other countries that don't screw over the youth for a quick buck. Not having to worry of harassment would be great and would encourage many to follow their dreams without fear. But that would require the understanding that compassion can be profitable for the individual and the country. Something that Rubio would likely believe in when babies sprout wings.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Is it just me or did the Jade Helm 15 thing we saw develop over the last couple weeks seem like a pretty stark example of narrative convergence?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Mukip posted: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. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/11/watching-eclipse ^^this article's a good primer into inscrutable russian nationalism. David Remnick posted:According to ideologues like Prokhanov, the thousand-year shape of Russian history is defined by the rise, fall, and reassertion of empire. “These empires flower and become powerful and then they fall off a precipice and leave behind a black hole,” he said. “And in the black hole statehood disappears. But then the state reëmerges as the result of some sort of mysterious forces.” So far, Prokhanov explained, there have been four great empires. The first, a confederacy of princedoms with its center in Kiev, was invaded by the Tatars, in the thirteenth century. Then came the Moscovy tsardom, which featured the reign of Ivan the Terrible and was transformed into an empire by Peter the Great at the turn of the eighteenth century. Then came the three-hundred-year reign of the Romanovs, who gave way to the Bolsheviks in 1917. Finally, Prokhanov said, Stalin “took Russian statehood out of that black hole, put the state on its feet, built factories, produced scholars, and won the Great Patriotic War against Germany and conquered outer space.” That empire, the Soviet Union, crashed in 1991. Again, there was a ten-year-long black hole. “Yeltsin is the black hole of modern Russian history,” Prokhanov said. Under Putin, Russian statehood reëmerged. In his latest book, which Prokhanov gave me as a gift, he has a set piece addressed to Putin called “The Symphony of the Fifth Empire.” This is a really interesting topic OP.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Putin is basically what would happen if you took the political finesse of an Obama or Clinton combined with the batshit nationalism of Palin or Cruz, then threw in the ability to rig elections and throw opposition leaders in jail. He's their Reagan, except not senile and with way fewer legislative checks on power.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Just read the thread and I really appreciate how you've put everything into words PJ. A lot of how you describe the Authoritarian mindset is quite similar to the cycles of denial that drug addicts and alcoholics deal with during addiction and recovery. In fact, the initial base level process that you describe (not the political repercussions of mass denial of entire communities or the cult-y maintenance of said status quo) can be depoliticized and simplified into denial as a mechanism for dispelling cognitive dissonance. The mechanism, to my understanding, in a nutshell: 1. I refuse to believe that this objectively harmful thing is harmful and/or that others are capable of justly criticizing me attitudes, beliefs, values and actions because doing so would threaten my internal conception of self to such a degree that I would need to restructure my entire world view. 2. In fact the very act of questioning this creates direct negative psychological feedback (often perceived as depression, anxiety or just plain ol' cognitive dissonance). 3. Thus, it is easier and safer to always assume I am correct, special and worthy in my personal character and beliefs than to even begin to reflect upon myself in any way that threatens my internal conception of myself. (oftentimes, engaging in said problem behaviors or with said communities that behave similarly reinforces this view of specialness) 4. Anyone who says otherwise, or calls my reality into question, is the enemy. The enemy is always wrong. 5. Lather, rinse, repeat. This has a snowball effect, making people even more defensive and delusional over time. Applies to everything from addiction to fundamentalism to abusive relationships. Fox Ironic fucked around with this message at 21:21 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Is it just me or did the Jade Helm 15 thing we saw develop over the last couple weeks seem like a pretty stark example of narrative convergence? Yes, I quite agree. I think as we near 2016 there will be more such stark examples, and in particular I expect plenty of insanity to come in the first couple months after the SCOTUS makes SSM legal. Also, sorry I vanished for awhile thread. In the process of writing my next piece my laptop died, and then the program that pays my rent/utilities suddenly ran out of funding I got told "You have 30 days to get on section 8. Good luck." So yeah, that has been fun. Thankfully my case manager is a wonder woman who has managed to bypass all kinds of bureaucratic crap to get me on a program that is like section 8-lite. I sign the paperwork later this week and hopefully will have everything set up so that my rent gets paid at the end of this month. I hope to be able to post in this thread more and I thank you all again for all the positie feedback. It has made such an immense difference to me that I cannot describe it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Prester John posted:Yes, I quite agree. I think as we near 2016 there will be more such stark examples, and in particular I expect plenty of insanity to come in the first couple months after the SCOTUS makes SSM legal. Whew! I was getting worried about you!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
I just wanted to put this out there. I have been closely following the rhetoric that various fundie groups are using, and in particular I have been tracking its progression. Frankly, the hatred and heat of the rhetoric and the pace it has been accelerating at have been a bit surprising to even me, and I think now regrettably, that violence resulting from the SCOTUS decision is a real possibility. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__14Gj5RHGc I loving hate to admit it, but this guy might be right. My thinking basically boils down to this. There are hundreds of thousands of people that have known only the cult like environment of A.C.E./ABEKA/Bob Jones University and the like for their entire lives. These people are often traumatized. Compounding this is the fact that these groups do not believe in modern psychiatry and as a result many people caught in these groups are struggling with undiagnosed mental illness. And now the fundies are going to start screaming that the literal end of the world is at hand. So here is what we are looking at. People with a combination of mental illness and severe childhood abuse are suddenly going to be told by every authority figure they trust that this is it. The big one. the final countdown. Game over man. Rapture any moment now, the Seven Years tribulation has begun! What I am suggesting here is that some of these people are very likely to not remember that they are only supposed to be LARP'ing the end of days for political theater, and will instead start actually living out whatever their personal Inner Narrative about the end of days is. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 03:33 on May 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Who wants to get into the doomsday bunker building buisness with me
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
I think the people who are that far deep into the punch bowl are too big of cowards to do anything but maybe find their own literal or figurative bunker to close themselves off in and try to pray the gay away.
Mercury_Storm fucked around with this message at 12:17 on May 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 11:19
|
|
|
Glad you're back, Prester. I hope your living situation stabilizes soon!Mercury_Storm posted:I think the people who are that far deep into the punch bowl are too big of cowards to do anything but maybe find their own literal or figurative bunker to close themselves off in and try to pray the gay away. I'd like to say I agree with that, but keep in mind that we've seen violence from these quarters before. Anger over abortion being legal resulted in a bunch of abortion clinics being bombed or set fire to, as well as a bombing at the Olympics in '96. Plus there were the standoffs with militia groups in the '90s (and the Oklahoma City Bombing in response to them). e: I forgot about the shooting in Las Vegas last year, when a couple from the Bundy Ranch standoff shot a couple police officers who were eating lunch. Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 13:07 on May 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 12:33
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:e: I forgot about the shooting in Las Vegas last year, when a couple from the Bundy Ranch standoff shot a couple police officers who were eating lunch. The male shooter recorded a video to his wife and it was really chilling just how he so casually saying: quote:I'm really gonna miss you and how much better you make me feel when I'm crabby about the new world order and poo poo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAfn3OlS9yc
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 09:03 |
|
|
In some psychological groups I know of, there has recently been this touting of a new study done that found a .6 positive correlation between geographic areas where the majority of people would score very high on a given right-wing authoritarianism ranking scale, and that area's given prevalence of contagious disease. From what I understand, a 60% correlative factor is so strong that it is nearly unheard of in soft-science studies. However, while I keep hearing about the study and its results, I can't seem to find the actual study itself. (Google Scholar is no help here.) Can anyone here try finding it from JSTOR or a similar university access database? The Academic world these days seems to have clued in to the limitations in Altemeyer's original research, as Prester pointed out pages ago, keying into how authoritarians are very difficult to motivate in the lab. This led to a lot of the old research in the matter getting trashed, but this new link to contagious disease is the first new thing they found since then. Even without the study at hand, I'm beginning to see some unusual fallout from it. Some academic writers seem to be using it to retroactively explain everything about authoritarianism in the language of culturally inherited disease control; but while I see the logic in it, I am not sure I buy it. The rhetoric confers a little too much intelligence onto the subject matter, almost as if saying the old Leviticus Kosher laws innately knew about the modern science of bacteria and germs. But in a comedic turn of things, many of them are using this point to say the only real "cure" for right wing authoritarianism are improvements in general public health. Morroque fucked around with this message at 23:36 on May 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 23:33
|
|