|
Would you agree that everyone has an Inner and Outer Narrative?
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
That does make me wonder what the true inner narrative of the anti-environmentalists who do stupid petty crap like coal rolling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Feelings of inadequacy over having a tiny penis
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Also self-centered contrarianism. Really the whole "rolling coal" thing is plain old narcissism and resentment of being asked to give a poo poo about others. No gosh-durn pointy-headed LIBRULS gonna tell me what to with mah truck! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
It shouldn't be too hard for goons to understand the motivation of a troll. Of course they get off on anyone being shocked and horrified at it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:It shouldn't be too hard for goons to understand the motivation of a troll. Of course they get off on anyone being shocked and horrified at it. Was about to say they're just dumber for actually paying to troll, but I guess goons do that all the time unbanning and rebuying plat/avs and stuff lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:That does make me wonder what the true inner narrative of the anti-environmentalists who do stupid petty crap like coal rolling. It's literally the image of their own faces frozen into a moronic leer, forever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:Would you agree that everyone has an Inner and Outer Narrative? A person could honestly hold the views they profess to though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:Would you agree that everyone has an Inner and Outer Narrative? Everyone? No, there are plenty of people who really do believe what they profess, hell, there are plenty of people who will not shut up about their beliefs. There are other people I have known who simply do not operate or think in a way that would allow the sort of Inner Narrative I am describing. That said, sure, there are plenty of people who do have an Inner Narrative for one reason or another, but that alone would not be enough to make them Authoritarians. To me people are very complicated creatures and different people are indeed processing reality and thinking in really different ways from each other. There is nothing wrong with this and I think it is a really charming aspect of humanity. Edit: I have the first 4 posts of this thread now converted over to my blog, which you can check out here. Thank you all for your interest in this topic and the desire to spread my ideas around, you all know how to flatter a girl. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:Would you agree that everyone has an Inner and Outer Narrative? Maybe, but not everyone has a SHARED inner or outer narrative that is the basis for group identity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Prester John posted:This rear end in a top hat is a judge. A loving judge is openly opining on the steps of a State Capital that he might have to die soon because Gay Marriage. (Bonus hilarious speaking in tongues/crazypants rebuking of "unclean spirits" audible in the background) As a resident of San Antonio, I just want to state for the record that as far as I know most people laughed out loud or aggressively didn't give a poo poo when this stooge showed up, and I have no clue who the gently caress even attended that speech except for Hagee's cult and the special breed of retard that aggregates in the interstitial rural-but-not shitholes like La Vernia. Please don't nuke Texas, I promise this bullshit and our politics in general are extremely not representative of the majority of the (central) state population. Salacious Spy fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
You mentioned Cliven Bundy. I am still interested in that. I is appalling to me that he is still alive, let alone a free man, despite point guns at the police, and two of his goons gunning down police in cold blood. Meanwhile, someone else who evaded taxes is strangled to death by the NYPD, and other acts of police brutality are routinely committed against black people. The government has no reservations about violently putting down a protest like Ferguson but they are afraid of Cliven Bundy. The government has tanks and helicopters. They should have killed him if he resisted like they killed unarmed black people with their hands up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:You mentioned Cliven Bundy. I am still interested in that. I is appalling to me that he is still alive, let alone a free man, despite point guns at the police, and two of his goons gunning down police in cold blood. Meanwhile, someone else who evaded taxes is strangled to death by the NYPD, and other acts of police brutality are routinely committed against black people. The government has no reservations about violently putting down a protest like Ferguson but they are afraid of Cliven Bundy. The government has tanks and helicopters. They should have killed him if he resisted like they killed unarmed black people with their hands up. The answer to human rights violations is not more of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:You mentioned Cliven Bundy. I am still interested in that. I is appalling to me that he is still alive, let alone a free man, despite point guns at the police, and two of his goons gunning down police in cold blood. Meanwhile, someone else who evaded taxes is strangled to death by the NYPD, and other acts of police brutality are routinely committed against black people. The government has no reservations about violently putting down a protest like Ferguson but they are afraid of Cliven Bundy. The government has tanks and helicopters. They should have killed him if he resisted like they killed unarmed black people with their hands up. Considering the vastly different contexts and areas these events happened in I'd say this is apples to oranges.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
Kinsky posted:Considering the vastly different contexts and areas these events happened in I'd say this is apples to oranges. Or you know, racism. The wealthy white cowboy tax evader is a rugged individualist while the black guy selling loose cigarette tax evader is nobody.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:The answer to human rights violations is not more of them. We could at least enforce the law equitably. White criminals are treated with kid gloves while black criminals are brutalized. Cliven Bundy has not faced any repercussions for what he did and gets hailed as a hero on fox news while time after time unarmed black victims are demonized by the same people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:Or you know, racism. Mandy Thompson posted:We could at least enforce the law equitably. White criminals are treated with kid gloves while black criminals are brutalized. Cliven Bundy has not faced any repercussions for what he did and gets hailed as a hero on fox news while time after time unarmed black victims are demonized by the same people. Do you really think it would have turned out the same if Bundy had pulled that poo poo in an urban area without an armed militia? Or if Garner had been a crazy rancher in Assfuck, Nevada who spent twenty years fighting with the government about having to pay to let his livestock graze on state-owned land and had a crowd of crazies with guns to back him up? I mean there's not a lot of room to dispute the statistics about arrests and prison population etc. but in this case you're making really generalized assertions based on two very disparate (and disproportionately promoted) cases. The only reason Bundy got support from on high was because he was a politically convenient example of the Republican rhetoric of the time (at least until he started spouting unapologetically racist nonsense on record), which is likely related to the insanity being discussed in this thread. Salacious Spy fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Helms Deep sort of fits what with the last stand of the brave fair-haired Rohirrim against hordes of vaguely Asiatic Uruk-hai but Tolkien does not fit reactionary narratives as well as the oceans of dogshit high fantasy authors who imitate him. I was gonna say to PJ that I totally got what he was saying but I also think that a more straightforward interpretation of what he said was also true. But I'm really gonna disagree with you. I love Tolkien, I was raised with Tolkien -- but LoTR is pretty loving far right wing. He's very much at home with UKIP and Britain First. It's just very polite and English. Two gentlemen enjoying tea and scones talking about how beautiful the countryside is and taking it all in. And then, over a port and a nice cigar, talking about how crushed Paki skulls are what make the grass so green. Very genteel. American imitators are, well, more American. So it will be two hillbillies talking about how the got, then ground up all those skulls to make the grass green.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
Something makes me wonder about the theoretical nature of the inner narrative. I can see the point in how a grand narrative or an outer narrative might be shared amongst a given authoritarian group, but, at least from my understanding of things so far, an inner narrative must be an intensely personal thing. Just how much is the inner narrative shared? Is it a thing which circumstances force people to collectively realize independently of each other, or is a truth about oneself that authoritarianism just aligns with out of convenience?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
Is authoritarian even an analytically useful label? A truly hegemonic system can be coercive and hostile to freedom and human potential, but it will never be called "authoritarian" because it's normalized and There Is No Alternative. Is it really more than a label to reduce all ideologies other than liberalism into one unified Other?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
Morroque posted:Something makes me wonder about the theoretical nature of the inner narrative. I can see the point in how a grand narrative or an outer narrative might be shared amongst a given authoritarian group, but, at least from my understanding of things so far, an inner narrative must be an intensely personal thing. Just how much is the inner narrative shared? Is it a thing which circumstances force people to collectively realize independently of each other, or is a truth about oneself that authoritarianism just aligns with out of convenience? My encounters with this sort of thing have taught me that the inner narratives being referred to are often taken, both piecemeal and whole cloth, from the other narratives. This means a person thinks of themselves as "just like" the various characters or major classes of actors in their larger narratives. Any given individual, of course, will find resonance within more than one narrative figure (or 'hero' if you like), and cobbles together strategically useful self-assertions and self-images from a variety of areas. Next time you go by a truck stop, check out their books: all that talk about becoming a "Warrior of Faith" ain't just for show. (Or rather, is for a different 'show' than we think of.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
This is sort of a weird example Prester John, but I think it represents the ideas you've been talking about on a much smaller and far more impotent scale: the SJW community on Tumblr. People may remember hearing about how Boko Haram carried out mass killings in a town back in January. For a while the massacre became huge news on Tumblr with certain posts gaining hundreds of thousands of likes and reblogs. At the time I noticed a pattern: on Tumblr the issue was framed entirely around criticizing people in the West for not caring enough about the massacre. There was no interest in examining how Boko Haram came to be or how the corruption of the Nigerian government aided Boko Haram in becoming so powerful. Indeed, there was actually a massive amount of misinformation going around, including  graphic images of dead bodies from entirely different countries being falsely associated with the attacks, that only obfuscated the issue further. This deeply angered many actual Nigerians on Tumblr, who were dismayed at how the lived experiences of people in Nigeria were being completely ignored:quote:I have now seen several posts speaking about how the main problem with Boko Haram is that ‘nobody cares when black people die’. I’m not going to bother to speak about how western racial constructs don’t apply in Nigeria as that conversation has been beaten to death, and if you don’t get it by now you are just choosing to be ignorant. Numerous posts about the Baga massacre seem to centre around how #BlackLivesMatter. I appreciate the sentiment, but this conflict, and the apathy we have seen from the Nigerian government to it’s citizens in this crisis, has absolutely nothing to do with race. This is not a #BlackLivesMatter moment, it’s a #GoodluckJonathonWhenWillYouCareAboutYourCountry moment. The Baga massacre (and the many many other attacks and kidnappings) have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the victims were ‘black’. Boko Haram are not perpetrating anti-black violence (it’s probably the only thing they aren’t doing) and when you conflate two unrelated issues like this together, you waste time and distract from the important things. The issue here is not that the world doesn’t care when black people die (which is not an incorrect statement at all), but that the Nigerian government does not care when Nigerians (in this case northern nigerians) die. To date there has been no acknowledgement by Goodluck or attempt to send condolences to the victims (but he did manage to find time from his extremely busy schedule of looting and general stupidity to send France his condolences). After reading this in the OP: quote:Whether it be a Fundamentalist Zealot or an Objectivist shitlord, Authoritarians always have a narrative that determines everything they say, think, or do. Narrative is the true God of the Authoritarian... No matter what is actually happening, they will believe and behave as if the narrative is playing out exactly as they expected it too. Regardless of actual real world circumstances, outcomes, situations, or influences, Authoritarians always prize the narrative above all else. I think I finally understand what was happening here. In SJW communities there are certain groups that have been designated as Victims, no matter how incorrect or irrelevant that label might be in specific contexts. Two of these groups are Muslims and black people. Basically, the idea is that black people and Muslims are always Oppressed, never the opposite. So, when confronted with a case where it's undeniable that the oppressors are black and Muslim, SJWs can't honestly discuss it because it would undermine that narrative. It took a little while for them to reframe the story and center the blame back where they're most comfortable: on the West. Meanwhile Boko Haram's role is downplayed or deflected entirely because their very existence endangers the truth of The Narrative (here's a particularly awful post that illustrates both points perfectly, with criticism). This is just one example. I know most of the people reblogging these posts are teens and young adults who are just casual users, not hardcore cultists or anything like that, but there are definitely devoted SJWs on Tumblr that create their own toxic communities and lead their followers to harass, threaten, and doxx people that don't toe the line. Sometimes its against outsiders (I can think of at least three artists I followed who were driven off by harassment), but it can also be among their own devoted followers as well, just like the purges Prester John was talking about. And on Tumblr it's ridiculously easy to form a new group of your own after you get purged from your old one. tl;dr: Tumblr's a bad site and I don't use it anymore
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 11:27
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Is authoritarian even an analytically useful label? A truly hegemonic system can be coercive and hostile to freedom and human potential, but it will never be called "authoritarian" because it's normalized and There Is No Alternative. Is it really more than a label to reduce all ideologies other than liberalism into one unified Other? Kinda agree here, not sure if authoritarian is the best way to describe this. the more I read the more I think Scientology is an apt example, because what is being described is an ideological cult. A group whose support, policy backing and acceptance relates to how each part functions in the grand narrative that guides their world view, rather than in the actual goals accomplished by those policies and choices of support. The more the Grand narrative clashes with reality, the more irrational and fervent adherents seem to be when they opt to continue believing the former. That this resonates with most as being much more about the Right than left has everything to do with the particulars of what has come to dominate the Republican party; Left wing groups of this nature may exist but do not wield the kind of power that right wing groups have achieved through the tea party movement Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 12:05 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 12:02
|
|
|
According to some recent research on the authoritarian personality type, it's not usually more common in one group or party vs another, but because authoritarians are so vigorous about policing their own group for purity and so suspicious of outsiders, American authoritarians became increasingly attracted to the Republican party starting in the 60s with the Democratic party's decision to make civil rights a big part of their platform. In turn, the Republican party began responding to the desires of these newly vigorous members and began an open feedback loop that continues to this day. Authoritarians have, according to these authors, moved rapidly since the 80s from a variation in personality type to a voting bloc. The idea is that authoritarians are usually irrelevant to national or regional politics because there aren't that many of them and because they usually just believe whatever they were raised to believe, but because most of them are racists they have collected together in the Republican party and now have the power to swing it around and make it responsive to their crazy desires and demands. It's another way of understanding why most poor white people used to be all-in for a comprehensive social safety net while now only Democrats have any support at all for one. It also explains why moderate Republicans can no longer control their own party: http://www.amazon.com/Authoritarianism-Polarization-American-Politics-Hetherington/dp/052171124X/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 12:44
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:This is sort of a weird example Prester John, but I think it represents the ideas you've been talking about on a much smaller and far more impotent scale: the SJW community on Tumblr. Again no, this doesn't work both ways. Those are not authoritarian narratives. Conservatives don't get to play around with these ideas and be like "oh here are some SJWs that are instituting a reign of cult terror on tumblr." These ideas aren't for conservatives to use like their thought was real.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Again no, this doesn't work both ways. Those are not authoritarian narratives. Conservatives don't get to play around with these ideas and be like "oh here are some SJWs that are instituting a reign of cult terror on tumblr." These ideas aren't for conservatives to use like their thought was real. Helping Uganda craft a kill-the-gays bill and then putting forward a California kill-the-gays constitutional amendment is just like when someone in the climate change thread called me stupid for saying snowflakes disprove global warming, or when someone else called me dumb for not vaccinating my kids. So you see, authoritarians are everywhere and the term is meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:tl;dr: Tumblr's a bad site and I don't use it anymore I believe the scientifically accurate term you're looking for here is "idiots". There are a lot more of them than authoritarians.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:This is sort of a weird example Prester John, but I think it represents the ideas you've been talking about on a much smaller and far more impotent scale: the SJW community on Tumblr. You can't just point to a completely unrelated thing the other side is doing and yell, "Look! They do it too!" That's just infantile golden mean poo poo. By the way, here's the thread that your post actually belings in. Why don't you go talk about it there?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
If you are desperate to find a "left-wing" example of authoritarians in the US, Avakian's Revolutionary Communist Party is probably your best option. It operates more like a cult than a political party, with the benevolent Bob Avakian being the supreme leader who will usher in Full Communism. Now, these guys are the fringe of the fringe. Most liberals don't even know about them. A great way to stop an intra-Left dispute is to get everyone to agree how much they hate those RevCom cultists for hijacking protests and actions with their evangelism for Bob. This group has almost no power on outside politics, even in the relatively small sphere of US socialism. I think the main take away from them is that authoritarian groups do exist in the US left, but they have literally no power. Meanwhile, equivalent groups on the right have direct ties to parts of GOP leadership.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:This is sort of a weird example Prester John, but I think it represents the ideas you've been talking about on a much smaller and far more impotent scale: the SJW community on Tumblr. The major difference between those idiots on Tumblr and actual Authoritarians is how all-encompassing their Grand Narrative is. For Tumblr, they merely have an incorrect position that they're varying degrees of passionate about, they don't attribute everything bad in their lives as a consequence of racism. If you asked a Freeper why his pizza was late, he'd find a way to blame Obama. The Tumblr idiots are capable of thinking outside of their professed issues, Authoritarians are not. If you can find someone on the Left with an all-encompassing fixation like that you may have a point, but the Tumblr morons aren't it. Also, thank you Prester John for this thread, and looking at your blog I didn't think anyone hated Ohio as much as I do, but you take it to a whole new level. My hat is off to you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:If you asked a Freeper why his pizza was late, he'd find a way to blame Obama. No he wouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:tl;dr: Tumblr's a bad site and I don't use it anymore I don't think you can look at people repeating bad information -- because they don't know it's bad, they're misinformed, and they want to help or at least recognize the plight of people who need it -- and call that 'authoritarianism on the level of fundamentalist American Christians' instead of 'moderately ignorant'
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:No he wouldn't. Bam quote:To: lowbridge
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Holy poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
I'm glad even Freepers understand exactly how terrible Cici's pizza is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:Would you agree that everyone has an Inner and Outer Narrative? I read this yesterday and had an immediate negative response that surprised me because on its surface this looks like a reasonable thing to say. Then I drifted off to sleep pondering why my gut was saying "no" and my head disagreeing and didn't the very fact that I was doing this constitute an inner and outer narrative? When I woke up this morning I understood the difference between what I was doing and what Prester is talking about. And remember prester's quote up top about how Schizo people use upper case letters because they don't have the right word for something so they take words that are kind of close the give them an uppercase to distinguish between the literal meanings of the word and the concept that the speaker is attempting to articulate. So there is a difference between the actual meaning of those words in which your statement is true and the concept Prester is describing in which your statement is false. In prester's examples the outer narrative is consciously adopted for the purposes of deception, to advance a goal. . There is no cognitive dissonance in what Prester is calling the inner/outer narratives. His Outer Narratives are sets of shameless lies The central piece of his definition isn't that they are public facing, but that the individual has no emotional investment in them. You see this when you consider the difference between people who hear the outer narratives and think they sound reasonable and adopt them honestly rather than as cover for another agenda. An authoritarian libertarian can have an outer narrative that sounds appealing to someone who took econ101. But when the latter is given more information that disproves a tenent they change their minds. They will debate honestly and update their beliefs when presented with compelling evidence. Someone doing what Prester is talking about will not do this because their outer narrative was a bunch of bullshit they consciously cobbled together as cover for their inner narrative. They experience no cognitive dissonance when the two narratives conflict because they never believed in the outer Narrative in the first place. That's just PC bullshit they have to pretend to take seriously so shredding it bothers them not at all. This is totally different than self deception wherein when non-authoritarians buckle to social pressure to believe something they absorb the idea on a deeper level. An example there being internized -ism where someone can't fully resist the idea that their group is inferior but copes with it by using special snowflake arguments - these argument bow to social bigotry in general while seeking an exemption for oneself and a few others. Not "Respect women!" But instead just "Respect me even though I'm a woman because I'm not like those other girls!" A person doing this is doing so to resolve cognitive dissonance between their beliefs and society's beliefs. They are seeking to reconcile differences between the two by adjusting their internal beliefs so that they don't so directly conflict with societies views that the speaker suffers social consequences for them. The entire point of that exercise is to resolve cognitive dissonance while the uppercase Outer Narratives that Prester is talking about don't experience cognitive dissonance in the first place as a conscious intent to deceive is part of his definition. Most people's public face is a bridge. Uppercase authoritarian Outer Narratives are a shield. Their defining characteristic is the the bridge/shield thing, not the private/public thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:You mentioned Cliven Bundy. I am still interested in that. I is appalling to me that he is still alive, let alone a free man, despite point guns at the police, and two of his goons gunning down police in cold blood. Meanwhile, someone else who evaded taxes is strangled to death by the NYPD, and other acts of police brutality are routinely committed against black people. The government has no reservations about violently putting down a protest like Ferguson but they are afraid of Cliven Bundy. The government has tanks and helicopters. They should have killed him if he resisted like they killed unarmed black people with their hands up. I've been working on a big explanation of my view on Cliven Bundy, and I hope to have it up later today. I'm also trying to dig up a bunch of videos of specific things that occurred during the Cliven Bundy affair to demonstrate exactly what I am talking about. If I had to guess though, one of the big reasons for the odd hands off approach has been that there was a real chance of that event triggering widespread civil disorder among Authoritarian's across the country. Those people *OPENLY* talked about putting the women on the front lines so that the world would see them gunned down first. They were not loving around, that was a real attempt to start a real civil war. Honestly I think it was handled pretty well by just refusing to give them their dramatic battle and letting them turn on each other. Edit: ^^^Wow, thbank you McAlsiter! You have just given me a new way to think of this for the next time I try to explain these ideas. Really awesome post. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Morroque posted:Something makes me wonder about the theoretical nature of the inner narrative. I can see the point in how a grand narrative or an outer narrative might be shared amongst a given authoritarian group, but, at least from my understanding of things so far, an inner narrative must be an intensely personal thing. Just how much is the inner narrative shared? Is it a thing which circumstances force people to collectively realize independently of each other, or is a truth about oneself that authoritarianism just aligns with out of convenience? Inner Narrative's are often realized as a sort of personal revelation. The result of what is to an Authoritarian "soul searching". An Authoritarian in psychological pain caused by unmet human emotional needs will latch onto a personal Inner Narrative that brings apparent relief. Ofttimes these are during period of intense struggles in an Authoritarian's life. Consider the "Born Again" process of Evangelicals. They suddenly find all the answers they were seeking, and they are often guided to those answers during prayer surrounded by a group of strangers that are suddenly intensely interested in them as a person. The attention is flattering, and the pain is real, and the acceptance of the Inner Narrative *DOES* bring real relief to an Authoritarian. Authoritarians live in a constant state of anxiety/fear, and because they have never developed sophisticated thinking, they struggle to calm themselves in a complex world. Inner Narratives serve often as a salve. It is easier for an Authoritarian to think of themselves as a character in a story that centers on themselves and their personal choices having an impact in a holy battle. Fundies for example think that Satan and God personally fight over who gets their soul at the end of their lives. God demands obedience, Satan sends people to trick and deceive you into losing your salvation. God will protect you no matter what if you obey. You can feel safe and never fear so long as you know what God's commands are and follow them to the letter. This all ties into another area I'm going to try and explore but I still haven't quite figured out a way to translate into relateable terms yet. But let me describe it this way. There are certain Pillars of belief that an Authoritarian accepts subconsciously, certain base assumptions that exist beneath the level of active awareness and have never been consciously examined by the Authoritarian. There are several of these Pillars, but the most important one I call The Pillar of Perfect Safety, which is the premise that the Authoritarian must never feel at risk or afraid of anything. A great deal of Authoritarian behavior stems from this idea that they must be able to feel perfectly safe at all times, and a key feature of Inner Narrative's is how safe they make the Authoritarian feel, no matter what. As an example of this I offer what is one of the most popular Bible passage among Authoritarians, Psalm 23. (Here presented in the translation most favored by Authoritarains, the KJV.) I think in this passage you can see echoes of the Pillar of Perfect Safety tying in to the Inner Narrative. quote:The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
This is a really good post.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:The major difference between those idiots on Tumblr and actual Authoritarians is how all-encompassing their Grand Narrative is. For Tumblr, they merely have an incorrect position that they're varying degrees of passionate about, they don't attribute everything bad in their lives as a consequence of racism. If you asked a Freeper why his pizza was late, he'd find a way to blame Obama. The Tumblr idiots are capable of thinking outside of their professed issues, Authoritarians are not. Yeah, while Authoritarian characteristics certainly exist across the spectrum (and I personally find most Tumblr SJW's insufferable) I don't think what happens on Tumblr is quite the same, for reasons already discussed. I have considered however that many young Authoritarians have started to turn into MRA's and the like as a result of the diminished power of traditional Authoritarian structures within the Millennial Generation, and though I haven;t followed it closely enough to be sure, I think #Gamergate might be an interesting case study of trends among young Authoritarians. This though is just a thought I've had and I haven;t really run it down enough myself to really conclude one way or the other. After some thought I think I have found a good example of a self styled "Anarchist" Authoritarian in Stefan Molyneux. Let me just put up a couple examples here. This is a video by a critic of Molyneux and his "DEFOO" concept (Depart Family of Origin) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TPwjUmS7Vw And here is the man speaking for himself about why democracy is insane and immoral and will always fail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfAbYlFqut4
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 17:45
|
|