|
So can economic liberals can be considered authoritarian or not?
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:33 |
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:I've seen the term SJW applied to a person who thinks that because they have a cat's soul they should be excused from all responsibility and people arguing who actually had Homestuck characters as headmates, and to basic feminist theory. The term is all but meaningless anymore. It has now basically just become "vaguely socially liberal" from everything I seen. Whatever meaning it started is, it really isn't meant when used.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
No Pants posted:Altemeyer (kind of) mentions this in his book. Most people are pretty much ready to become right-wing authoritarians in a serious crisis. I would say look at Russia, if anything the country is in almost continual crisis, lurching one from the other and it has almost certainly made its politics more right-wing and authoritarian leaning. You could say it is has always been there to a degree, but certainly from 1992 to now you can see some real movement of opinion. More acutely though, I think the material causes for it in Russia are more self evident on their face, in the US you have to suss it out a bit but I do think there are still material causes there. How much of the Tea Party are actually wealthy/upper class rather than lower middle class/working people?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
I think personality cults and groups that exist on the relative political margins are actually quite different even if there is an overlap. One distinct difference is the political alliances formed by those groups that exist outside the worship of that leader. Most cults only exist to support their own structure, but usually don't have higher aspirations and that is a pretty key difference. I can see a "inner and outer narrative" being formed by both but for different purposes. That said, I think the psychology of it is actually rather rational in the sense marginalized political groups that their internal narrative simply will not work in public (for now) and they need a more public friendly narrative. However, are they necessarily insane for holding an opinion on the margins? It may be cynical and if intellectually dishonest but not necessarily pathological. One thing is also that an public narrative that crushes all resistance, a society that is effectively completely totalitarian in discourse is probably not such a good thing either even if you believe all marginal political philosophies should be crushed because the answer has been found. I mean if you look at the examples in this thread: all forms of far-leftism/ISIS/Tea Party/Evangelicals/Russian Separatists etc etc, there is the question of what isn't authoritarian and you end up with socially liberal/liberal democratic/economically free market discourse as the "safe" non-authoritarian form of discourse. In a sense, I think there is a profound confirmation bias.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
McAlister posted:This is what the bridge/shield post was about. Everyone tries to put in their best public face. But there is a difference between using it as a bridge and using it as a shield. It isn't though, it is just an utter rejection with engagement but that isn't truly pathological, as there is a rational defense to their action. Their "shield" is about an utter rejection of normative discourse, this is an extreme position but nevertheless in that sense they have no desire for a bridge into discourse most likely because that narrative is so much larger and powerful than they are and they know the stakes of actual engagement may mean total defeat if they lose. The more marginalized they are, the higher their stakes for true engagement. That said though in essence when you start talking about movements/countries/populations as pathological then something has gone wrong in your analysis. If you want to disconnect it from politics completely and say there is just an "authoritarian" personality type that exists in all cultures, that is one thing but once you try to make it a political analysis it makes it more tricky.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:33 |
|
|
McAlister posted:An utter rejection of engagement is refusing to talk at all. That is different than being a pathological liar. And there are ample examples on both sides of the political spectrum of utter rejection of the mainstream where groups break off physically and form hippy communes, religious communities, whatever. There slogan is generally some variant of "in this world but not of it". Well is it an utter refusal to talk or simply give any ground? At a certain point as discussed, you could chalk it to forms of borderline personality and signs of sociopathy. Anyway, I do think it is missing a discussion on actually the mentality of marginalized groups, which I believe is different and the behavior that goes on in them which is something a bit different. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 09:36
|
|