|
Captain Monkey posted:He specifically outlined in his first post that he's using Authoritarian to define a single specific type of behavior, and went on to explain what said behavior pattern is. He also said it was relatively rare, and that most people don't actually fit into it. People are having a really hard time with this concept. Yes, count me among those who are having a really hard time with this concept. I get that "Authoritarian" here refers not to a specific political worldview but rather a psychology. I'm just confused about the boundaries of this psychology, and I hope that Prester John and others can field some additional questions about it. Please forgive the rapid fire questioning below, I just really want to understand where we draw the line. Is Authoritarian thinking vs other types of thinking merely the difference between moral absolutists and moral relativists? Is Glenn Greenwald an Authoritarian? What about MLK in the year leading up to his death? Is Noam Chomsky an Authoritarian"because he believes in a grand moral narrative about essential characteristics of truth and justice? Is a person who resists authority based on a feeling that he/she is ethically obligated to do so an Authoritarian? What if that person refrains from sharing his/her whole worldview in favor of an Outer Narrative? What are some examples of "extremists" who are not "Authoritarian"? Prester John posted:Authoritarians live in a constant state of anxiety/fear, and because they have never developed sophisticated thinking... Well, this seems to rule out many who are characterized as far-left. Chomsky, Chris Hedges, Cornel West, Kshama Sawant, and Glenn Greenwald all exhibit sophisticated thinking, whatever else you might say about them. They also seem to operate on motivations other than just fear. (In the interest of full disclosure, I am on the far-left and I am biased in favor of these individuals).
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:The thread is about defining the term that she invented of capital-A Authoritarian. The lines are not drawn yet, and the discussion is literally happening around your confusion. She pointed out, explicitly, that due to her neurological condition, she has a penchant for capitalizing words to increase their supposed importance in order to help define things that she or we as a group do not yet have a term for. This isn't a textbook where you just read the information, nod, and move on, it's a discussion about a specific type of person, and where those lines are. Yes..? Did I say otherwise? I realize this is an ongoing discussion and I tossed out those questions as prompts for her (or others) to reflect some more about where those lines are.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
I have read the thread. In reading it there seems to be differing opinions on what belongs in Prester John's category, "Authoritarian" (still being formulated). Some people are hung up on how there can be a left-libertarian Authoritarian. You and others rightly point out that there is an equivocation happening there. "Authoritarian" in this context refers to a kind of psychology, not any one political ideology. I'm curious about what "fits" in the psychological category and what doesn't. When you say that's what this thread is about, YES, that's why I'm posing specific questions in this thread for consideration about those boundaries. I'm not sure why we are having a misunderstanding about this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
scaterry posted:Here is how you can help: Thank you for this. I think doing this would be a good idea. I'm interested in exploring how the definition fits certain fringe groups on the American left (I myself am on the left). The thread has mentioned SLA, maybe some anarchists, and certain apocalyptic environmental groups as fitting the definition, and that seems reasonable. What about the politics of Chomsky and like minded people? Let's consider this: Tiered narratives? Yes. Grand narrative = an essentialist perspective about truth and justice and the anarchist/progressive role in realizing those ideals. There also seems to be a difference in the outer and inner narrative concerning whether the damage done by capitalism and authority can be truly reversed, and the odds that the human species will survive the next couple of generations. Grand narrative includes something apocalyptic? Yes, Chomsky is still worried about the possibility of nuclear winter, but more than that he is convinced that climate change poses an existential threat to the species' survival. (Just fyi, I'm inclined to agree) Convergence of narratives through political expedience? Fuzzy on this, but I'd say yes. Out of the political mainstream? Yes. Radicalization of members after they switch groups? Yes but interestingly, this process seems to be inverted on the left, for reasons already mentioned in the thread. The far left is institutionally weak. Chris Hedges, for example, became more radical after he was pushed out of the NY Times for being TOO radical. Leftists get kicked out of "mainstream" institutions and become more radical afterwards (while the institution becomes more moderate). This phenomenon is also explored in Glenn Greenwald's book No Place to Hide, where he and Laura Poitras received resistance from The Guardian and The Washington Post that precipitated their eventual break with these institutions. Motivated chiefly by fear? Usually not. Laura Poitras is, but I'd say Chomsky, Hedges, Cornel West, and Glenn Greenwald aren't. Deficient in complex thinking? Not at all. So what does everyone think? Should the definition apply to this segment of the left?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Prester John posted:There are a few others I would like to add to the list but I am finding it hard to explain them just yet, but I think this might help narrow things down a bit. Tell me what you guys think. I think it's great. Thanks for suggesting such an interesting framework with which to consider fringe political groups.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Yes, but it usually takes a vanguard to bring the mainstream to that point. Someone has to stand up first. No, she's right. People in North Korea shouldn't rise up unless they have their whole family's permission. After all, if the family doesn't volunteer to suffer the potential risks, then the rebel is an rear end in a top hat for putting them in harm's way without their consent.  But to be serious, McAlister, that really is victim blaming. A solitary rebel doesn't force a regime to punish his/her non-rebellious family members. That's the regime being an rear end in a top hat, not the rebel. "--But what if the rebel KNOWS the regime will do this?" --Then the regime is so horrible that everyone has a moral imperative to resist, irrespective of their level of mainstream support.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:The problem is that people aren't individual, discrete units, we are bound by our relationships. You might want to strike out against a vile regime, even risk your life. But your parents, siblings, children, friends, co-workers . . . at that point it becomes understandably muddled. Furthermore, even if you are super brave, the people around you might not be so your bravery is rewarded with censure from those closest to you. That tends to bring people back to the Mean. They will still bitch about the situation but they won't actually do anything because society has hamstrung them. It is a very effective (and very widespread) form of social control. I agree with all of this. But it is still important that people resist collective punishment, because acquiescence to such systems of control allows them to continue to be so effective as you describe.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Sure, but it takes a selfless, moral person Fixed that for you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
McAlister posted:You are also wanting to discuss what should be while I am discussing what is without stating "shoulds". Oh, so you're making descriptive claims not evaluative claims. Well in that case-- McAlister posted:But that doesn't mean they aren't also horrible people. They can be both at the same time. Moral wrong != Utilitarian wrong. And being a hero in that way doesn't mean you aren't a narcissist rear end in a top hat. McAlister posted:You are an rear end in a top hat if the manner in which you resist knowingly risks other people who have not consented to the risk and who are not themselves seeking to harm you. --ehh, sounds pretty evaluative to me. The thing is, you're unwittingly detailing a critique of all resistance. Anytime a person/group/movement resists, it's knowingly risking those who decided not to join the resistance. What's more, the people resisting aren't the perpetrators of violence by collective punishment, THE STATE IS. A rebel isn't some self-serving narcissist who kills his/her family for some kind of glory. A rebel is equally a victim as his/her family because it is the state that perpetrates violence against all of them. By your logic, individual slaves who revolted in the American colonies, whose names history often does not remember, were self-serving assholes and narcissists. Yes, they had every reason to suspect that slave masters would use collective punishment and indeed that did occur. That makes the slave master the rear end in a top hat, not the rebellious slave. McAlister posted:
This is insane. No, it's not the same mindset or the same people. Timothy McVeigh killing innocent people and calling that "collateral damage" in the advancement of his political goals is not comparable to a person resisting North Korea (your example) or resisting a slave master (my example). There is a difference between killing innocents to make a point, and standing up to a regime that you know will institute collective punishment. And just to be clear, I realize your point is about the people having a similar psychology/personality/mindset. I'm arguing that that's crazy, these mindsets are not comparable.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Chomsky discusses some interesting inner vs outer narrative stuff concerning US support for Israel. Starts at 31:44. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbxp8ViBTu8&feature=youtu.be&t=31m44s
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Great thread and thanks for posting; I'm glad I finally sat down and read it all. I agree with this, and I'll add another thing. PJ, you have been great about providing quotes, video, news citations in this thread, and as far as the book goes I would recommend being even more meticulous in documenting examples of every single element of your theory. Not that you wouldn't already be doing this, but I agree that the theory is going to have to clear a high bar of support given that your credentials will be questioned (fairly or unfairly).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
http://www.hngn.com/articles/103690/20150624/texas-pastor-will-set-himself-fire-protest-over-gay-marriage.htm
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
I'm surprised this thread hasn't seen more activity in the past few months. One could argue that PJs predictions are still coming true. You've got Kim Davis, Kevin Swanson, and Pastor Rick Scarborough escalating the tantrums over gay marriage, for instance. Meanwhile the front runner for the GOP presidential nomination grows ever more popular by making Inner Narrative fascism explicit. Then you've got an establishment press baffled at Trump's success because 'you're just not supposed to say the things he's saying.' Way to go, PJ! Personally, I find your framework for understanding authoritarian/narrativist thought to be highly useful for making sense of American politics.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Mans posted:you knowwho else made simplistic drawings that may or may not be a possible view into his personal feelings? I don't know. Rorschach?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Well in keeping with PJ's analysis, Trump, low on "supply," thinly veils a call to assassinate HRC. Prester Jane, you magnificant oracle, you've done it again.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
In Catholic elementary school I was taught that the fig free represented Judaism: A "tree" that may once have borne fruit but is past its time, and now that it's barren needs to die. (I no longer practice btw)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Mewnie posted:So now that Ryan's baby was smothered in the crib, what are the odds he's on the outside of the upcoming compaction?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Orange Sunshine posted:The Soviet Union, Communist China, the Khmer Rouge, the Weather Underground. I think PJ means current day examples, even modern China is hardly "the left." I have some examples to give you PJ, but I hope you will continue not to fall into the false equivalency trap. There are fringe narrativists on the left, but the left has far too little political power to be a threat, and mostly still tends to live in the world of verifiable facts anyway. So let's not hold left and right narratives side by side as if we're equally justified in worrying about both. You mention TYT as a possible example, and though you can find a couple narrativists there, like Jimmy Dore and maybe Steve Oh, I think there are better examples. It would be hard to consider Cenk, Anna, or Ben to be narrativists by the standards laid out in this thread. I think the Hypatia controversy counts as left narrativism at work. Also the anti-vaccination left, who see themselves as warriors in a fight against a global medical conspiracy. In addition there is the case of a university canceling yoga due to cultural appropriation. In this last case the yoga instructor was told she couldn't even rebrand it as mindful stretching because "cultural genocide."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
It's true that Peterson has a knack for converting left narrativists to right narrativists. Another pernicious thing about him is his ability to instill strong narrativism in people who didn't previously seem to have much of it in the first place. One could boil down much of what Peterson says to "here's why you SHOULD be a narrativist." His gib seems to be that life is an existential catastrophe that one heroically imbues with meaning by following the archetypal Hero's Journey -- making yourself the persecuted yet triumphant hero of your own life narrative. His evidence for this claim is the prevalence in literature of the monomyth, the example of Jesus and Christianity's impact on the west, and bunk evo psych about "dominance hierarchies." Anecdotally, I have a few acquaintances who started out apathetic about politics but after exposure to Jordan Peterson, have now become Alt-right narrativists. And when I talk to centrists about this phenomenon, I notice some of them tend to defend Peterson and point out that he has criticized the alt-right. Not everyone is seeing the connection here.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2018 05:23
|
|