Decoding Trumpism: a cult survivor explains how the GOP became a death cult

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Decoding Trumpism: a cult survivor explains how the GOP became a death cult

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Captain Monkey posted:

There's not a term for this yet, so she's using Authoritarian and trying to define it.

If you're using Authoritarian to describe a concept, then that concept does indeed have a term. Maybe it's a good or bad term, but you are actually using it as a term.

quote:

It's not needlessly provocative and distracting, it was very explicitly and clearly explained in the first post.

Please quote this explicit and clear explanation.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2015 16:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:27

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Captain Monkey posted:

edit: The entire second post is actually set up to help explain the definition of her term Authoritarian, you should read it!

If you're having problems with simple things like defining the terms of a discussion and keeping Authoritarians (as a term within the context of this thread) separate from authoritarians (as the literal word in English) then maybe this just isn't the sort of thread you will enjoy.

If you think this constitutes a definition, you have issues with what words mean.

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.

Things this tells us about Authoritarians: We don't know how many exist, but it's apparently less than 10% based on nothing other than guesswork. They can be left or right wing (read: literally anyone). Right leaning Authoritarians somehow have disproportionate power over the GOP despite the fact we don't know how many exist. Literally nothing else. (edit: Also I guess left wing Authoritarians are exclusively people who make issues out of incorrect science for some reason that is unrelated to political philosophy somehow?)

# ¿ Mar 26, 2015 18:14

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:

Then help refine the definition instead of being a useless pedant.

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.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2015 18:18

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

scaterry posted:

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.

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?

# ¿ Mar 26, 2015 18:29

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

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.

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.

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: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

scaterry posted:

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.

"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.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2015 18:48

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

scaterry posted:

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.

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?

# ¿ Mar 26, 2015 18:56

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

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".

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:

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

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

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).

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?"

# ¿ Mar 26, 2015 19:17

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

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.

I agree that lots of people do it, and possibly that it's generally socially acceptable, but it's a dumb way to post. People do that in conversation, because it's usually weird to sit down and really think through a thought in the middle of a chat, while everyone stares at you, but we can and should do better here. This is a conversation that's been happening for three days, there's no excuse for being nebulous about what is being talked about.
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.

For the purpose of my post, "shadow group" and "convenient demographic" are identical. Who is this demographic?

twodot fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Mar 26, 2015

# ¿ Mar 26, 2015 19:36

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:

To add to this, this group isn't the only Authoritarian group that exists, but it is the most pronounced and visible one in America today. Their influence is such that Obama's tepid and actionless approval of gay marriage is a radical departure from every prior president and met a firestorm of controversy.

Other groups are hard to even identify due to their irrelevancy. Hardline Christian Authoritarians have an alarming grip on the nation.

Wait, I was happy until this post. How do you know "Christians for whom society conforming to biblical principles is the foremost political issue" are Authoritarians if it isn't by definition?

# ¿ Mar 26, 2015 19:54

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Prester John posted:

I believe that many here are asking questions in good faith and are having a hard time identifying what I am talking about likely because they have no relevant real world experiences to relate it too, which is IMO, a good thing. (It does seem that people so far who have similar background or experiences to my own grasp exactly who I am talking about, for example.)

It's super clear what you're talking about. The concept of double think and why people fall into that, and how people experience and resolve cognitive dissonance between public and private beliefs isn't new, though you've done a lot of work to describe a particular form of that. What is not clear is who you're talking about. Orange Fluffy Sheep's example was a particular subset of Christians, you're most recent example was some portion of Congress. Claims like "Authoritarians behave in this way under that circumstance" are perhaps tautological, but still possibly useful in developing strategies when dealing with someone who you think will follow that pattern. Claims like "Congress is behaving this way because they are Authoritarians" or "Authoritarians possess disproportionate control of the GOP" are incredibly suspicious. You haven't done any work to demonstrate that there are any Authoritarians in Congress, just observed that Congress is doing a thing, and backwards justified why an Authoritarian would behave the same way in that circumstance. You've done this several times where you've casually called a group Authoritarian with no reasoning for why that's the case.

twodot fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Mar 26, 2015

# ¿ Mar 26, 2015 21:26

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Sharkie posted:

How else does one explain things like this?

Ted Cruz is doing things that Ted Cruz thinks will get him power/money/status. I don't understand what needs explaining.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2015 23:10

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Sharkie posted:

So what about the part where more "moderate" Republican presidential candidates are unable to come out in favor of it without being jettisoned by their own party, even when their own people are telling them that it's a losing issue? To me, sacrificing a more popular position to appease a minority sounds like disproportionate influence.

What's your evidence that Ted Cruz is an Authoritarian and not just a self interested rear end in a top hat?

# ¿ Mar 26, 2015 23:14

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Prester John posted:

Ted Cruz is appealing specifically to Authoritarians and exclusively the Authoritarians in the party

This is definitely wrong, he's appealing to anyone who is angry about gay people having rights (or at least such people who aren't sophisticated enough to see the primary problem he's creating for actual candidates which I think is approximately all such people).

quote:

Ted Cruz did however trigger an RNCE with the 2013 shutdown though, and he understood Authoritarians well enough that he did it on purpose.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Suppose I agree that RNCE is a real thing, which Ted Cruz did personally trigger on purpose. Why would that be desirable to Authoritarians? (edit: or to Ted Cruz I guess)

Sharkie posted:

The two aren't mutually exclusive, for one, and second, his behavior and rhetoric fit the profile.

His behavior and rhetoric also fit the profile of self interested rear end in a top hat. I think parsimony demands we choose "self interested rear end in a top hat".

Cerebral Bore posted:

Yeah, Ted Cruz doesn't have to be an Authoritarian himself, but he has to act like one or his base would turn on him.

In what sense is this true? Do you think that Ted Cruz needs to trigger RNCEs or his base would turn on him? Also if Authoritarians are his base, then it seems like their influence is not disproportionate.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2015 23:26

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Prester John posted:

It would be desirable to Ted Cruz because he gave the Authoritarians the cathartic release of an RNCE and is remembered as a true fighter willing to stand on principal. It raised his profile among the GOP base but in particular Authoritarians. Authoritarians want a big ole fight and have been extremely frustrated with the lack of big ole fights and Ted Cruz gave them a good one.(the fact that they lost doesn;t matter, as they only lost because of Dolchstoss from Boehner, who isn't a true conservative anyways) Ted Cruz can now run on a platform of "Vote for me and I will give you the chance to hurt those people you hate". I think a random sample of Freep posts from Cruz supporters would bear this out.

Ok, but why can't he do that without triggering what sounds like an extremely unstable event:

quote:

An inherent and understood hierarchy is embraced without ever being formalized. [...] each group jostles for position

?
Intentionally triggering an RNCE when you can just wait a news cycle and publicly fight meaningless fights without rapid changes in hierarchy seems like really bad strategy.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2015 23:40

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

SedanChair posted:

Do you not understand that he is Ted Cruz and literally does not care what happens, as long as he gets to be the one who made it happen?

This is my point. Building elaborate motives for Ted Cruz where he perceived that Authoritarians exist and that he could trigger an RNCE and come out on top is way over complicated.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2015 23:46

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Prester John posted:

Ted Cruz never cared about the outcome of the battle, he was just raising his on visibility/authoritarian Street Cred. He never had a plan to win, that was not what this was about.

I agree that he wasn't trying to win, but why would he think he would be one of the factions that comes out on top. Your explanation of an RNCE explicitly include multiple stages where Street Cred is shuffled apparently at random. If I thought Authoritarians were worth courting, I can think of much less dangerous ways to do it.

quote:

He was hailed as a literal hero by the Authoritarian right for his actions.

Here's the problem again. There is definitely a group of people that hailed him as a hero. How do we know those people are Authoritarians?

Cerebral Bore posted:

I think that Ted Cruz has to act like a reactionary shitlord (which includes grandstanding and whipping his base into a frenzy of hate and fear) or he would immediately be labeled a RINO and a sellout by his supporters and almost certainly lose his seat next time he's up for a primary. This holds whether he is an Authoritarian or a self-interested rear end in a top hat.

Agreed.

quote:

As for your second claim, you're deliberately misunderstanding things here. Ted Cruz and his ilk have a disproportionate influence because they're not willing to compromise and would rather sink the ship instead. This means that the so-called moderates of the GOP have to give them concessions, because they sure as hell are self-interested assholes and want to stay in power at all costs. Throwing assholes like Cruz a bone is the price they have to pay for keeping the GOP together.

Ok, Ted Cruz has disproportionate control of the GOP, that's tenable, but unless we establish Ted Cruz is an Authoritarian this seems to create problems with the "Authoritarians have disproportionate control" thing.

# ¿ Mar 27, 2015 00:01

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

AVeryLargeRadish posted:

All Ted Cruz had to do was perceive that the faction of his base that he is trying to appeal to was spoiling for a fight, any fight at all, and try to push things in that direction and get lucky. Anyone who read the freep thread back then could have told you that the extremest arm of the republican party was spoiling for a fight and that they would not really care all that much if they lost. Seeing that is not some amazing feat, it's pretty drat easy.

Correct, Ted Cruz does not have to perceive that Authoritarians exist and that RNCE is a thing, and that Authoritarians will be motivated by creating an RNCE. There is a much simpler and better explanation for his actions than that. I would wager it appealed to much greater than the <10% of population Authoritarians supposedly are.

# ¿ Mar 27, 2015 00:05

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Cerebral Bore posted:

Not really, since Ted Cruz is in turn controlled by his base. As you agreed to, he has to act the way he does.

This means that if his base is made up of Authoritarians and they in turn send people like Cruz to Congress and people like Cruz drag the moderates towards the positions that they have to champion, the Authoritarians do wield disproportionate power. This actually holds up really well if we accept the premises of PJ:s argument.

To get to here, we need to decide that his base is made up of Authoritarians, when we've explicitly said that Authoritarians are uncommon. This rhetoric is making it really obvious that "Authoritarian" is a stand in for "Republican".

Prester John posted:

I am arguing here that Ted Cruz understands how to manipulate Authoritarians and is relying on them for his own political ambitions. He has never cared what anyone but the Authoritarians thought because he knows how to whip them into a frothing rage that will drag the rest of the GOP along, and the 2013 shutdown is clear evidence of this.

This just doesn't make sense. Why rely <10% of the population? Lots of people like it when their guy makes a big show, it's way more likely that he is targeting a much larger group. (edit: I personally donated to Sanders when he took on a fight everyone knew he couldn't win)

# ¿ Mar 27, 2015 00:22

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Cerebral Bore posted:

Now you're arguing a different point altogether. We were discussing whether the behaviour of Cruz is consistent with PJ:s theory or not. Whether Cruz's base is properly categorized as Authoritarians or not is a different question altogether.

Also everybody here has been saying that Cruz et al have been dragging the more moderate Republicans towards their positions, which is kinda impossible to do if the terms "Authoritarian" and "Republican" are interchangeable. So if you would stop making dumb poo poo up it'd be nice.

I mean is Cruz's behavior consistent with all this? Probably, at least the stuff that hits the media, I would think. I do think that the explanation of RNCE is broken since it apparently involves factions shuffling in power in a way that doesn't actually matter to anything. Do we need Authoritarian theory to explain Cruz's behavior? Definitely not. (edit: Alternatively, if we do need Authoritarian theory to describe Cruz's behavior, they are clearly more common than Prester John is claiming)

Fair point, I guess it's more of a stand in for "Worse Than Average Republican".

twodot fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Mar 27, 2015

# ¿ Mar 27, 2015 00:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:27

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Smudgie Buggler posted:

Yeah it's overwhelmingly really busy poor people that indulge in a time-consuming hobby based around paying money for small pieces of cardboard.

What the gently caress are you on about?

People who play Magic spend all of their time sorting and playing Magic cards and all of their money buying Magic cards. It is a joke.

# ¿ Mar 29, 2015 17:14

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Decoding Trumpism: a cult survivor explains how the GOP became a death cult