|
paragon1 posted:So when they say stuff like this is it because they expect the Gays to come marching to herd all the Christians into death camps, or is it more of a wink wink nudge nudge might be time for a lone wolf to act sort of talk about martyrdom? They don't know what martyrdom means. They think if hey refuse to sell flowers to a gay person and hen have to pay a fine, they were a martyr.
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
PrestorJohn: What specifically do you think will happen over the next two years? And why only two years? A pessimistic part of me thinks we'll be dealing with this for the rest of our lives. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:PrestorJohn: Oh we will, to some degree or other. However, it is my hypothesis that the very worst of it will be over the next two years leading into the 2016 elections. Sort of a high water mark for this sort of open insanity having this level of political power. What happens after that really depends on just how the elections go. (My gut sense though is that whatever dramatic outpouring of bigotry this leads to will cause a nasty backlash in the polls.) As to why I think that I am working on how to explain it all. Hopefully I will get enough written down to run a decent thread on it all. Writing this poo poo is taxing on me though, so please have some patience. Edit: To see broadly what I think will happen check my posts in this thread, I lay it out in the 2nd and 3rd posts. Hopefully when I get a thread up I will have a much more detailed summary of what I expect to happen, and most importantly why I expect things to play out like they will. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Mar 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
okay I watched the video and yeah she was doing the "black men are gonna gently caress your wives and daughters if you let them integrate" bit, but for gays.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Prester John, it's been said before, but you've led a life that affords you some very unusual (to me, at least) perspectives on life and other people. I hope you can find the energy to keep up the effortposting, because it's incredibly fascinating to me. Ideally I would like to see some sociological studies of what you're describing, but that's probably very difficult to address in a sufficiently controlled environment to do science/psychology within. And your experiences seem a lot less academic and a lot more personal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
Prester John, you are a sage. I feel like every bit of what you told is is immensely insightful and informative. Continue to craft each word and post as you see fit because I don't see a problem with any of it*. (*What you're posting, I mean. The contents of it: fundies being unfun, is very depressing. )
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Thank you guys, the feedback is extremely flattering. I'll try to have a big explanation on what the gently caress the Bundy Ranch affair was about up tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Excuse my naive rear end, but is "freep.com" the same "Freep  " that everyone hates on? Because this article is surprisingly reasonable (my adoration for TST aside) Freep?! posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Morter posted:Excuse my naive rear end, but is "freep.com" the same "Freep no
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Morter posted:Excuse my naive rear end, but is "freep.com" the same "Freep Not at all, common mistake though, freep the crazy conservative site is actually freerepublic.com which you can watch and laugh at from afar here. Freep.com is the detroit free press, an actual news site.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Nah that's a bullshit idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Morter posted:Excuse my naive rear end, but is "freep.com" the same "Freep Nahh, that's the Detroit Free Press, which is (as far as I know) a fairly liberal newspaper that just so happens to humourously share a name with the hive of iniquity that is Free Republic. e: f;b multiple times
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Franco Potente posted:Nahh, that's the Detroit Free Press, which is (as far as I know) a fairly liberal newspaper that just so happens to humourously share a name with the hive of iniquity that is Free Republic. It leans left and yes the URL makes me chuckle every time I visit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Ah OK, thanks for the quick correction, folks!  greatn posted:Nah that's a bullshit idea. Mind explaining why?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Speaking of Freep, let me toss this out. This applies very directly to Freep's trend towards radicalization and explains the real social function is occasional purges serve. Compaction Cycle: The Compaction Cycle is a major factor in how Authoritarian groups function and is my term for an unrecognized (but very important) constant low level cycling of individual Authoritarians through a variety of different Authoritarian groups. The Compaction Cycle is primarily important because it describes the trend towards radicalization in Authoritarian groups, and even provides something of a barometer than can be used to measure the likely pace at which a given Authoritarian groups is likely to radicalize. (That is, a way of determining the speed at which a group is radicalizing completely independent of any action they are taking or rhetoric they are using.) This cycle is also important because it is a major factor in how Authoritarian groups build common ground with each other when they are looking for allies. (It also plays a large role in the cross pollination of various strings of Authoritarian thought.) To explain this facet of Authoritarian behavior I will call forth the metaphor of a snowball. Specifically, a snowball made of that wet slush poo poo that is right on the border between being frozen and being a puddle. If you have never gotten a chance to play with such a snowball then let me elaborate. By snowball standards they are heavy, awkward projectiles that travel slowly and are easily dodged. Even when you do hit something with such a snowball, the effect is minimal, usually a wet *punt* sound. This snowball then is a metaphor for the average Authoritarian group when it is not under pressure. Unwieldy, awkward, not terribly effective, but can still get the job done. Put an Authoritarian group under pressure though, and things change. Let us return to our wet snowball. If you take it in both hands and compact it, you will squeeze out a surprising amount of water. You will then be left with an ice ball. Although much smaller and having less total mass, an ice ball is a nasty projectile. Fast, accurate, hard to see coming, and can leave a hell of a bruise. To take this example a bit further, if you drop your new ice all in a pile of snow and scoop it all up, you will now have slush ball with an ice ball core. A better projectile than you started with, but not as good as the ice ball by itself was. However, if you compact this new ball down, you will squeeze out the water, and be left with an even larger ice ball. Now you are creating a dangerous weapon indeed. And you can keep adding on layers of ice so long as you have a supply of snow, eventually getting a baseball sized projectile of solid ice that can really gently caress something up. Even though you lose much mass every time you compact the ball down, as long as you have a snowbank handy to keep dipping your ice ball in, you can keep adding more total ice. Now back to Authoritarian groups. An average Authoritarian group is like our slush ball. A mixture of hard and soft members, since when forming Authoritarian groups are like an annoying new guild in WoW. ("LAID BACK FAMILY GUILD THAT RAIDS AND PVP'S RECRUITING ALL LEVELS AND ROLES PST) They will accept anyone willing to pay lip service to the groups ideals. When not under pressure or threatened, Authoritarian groups are much more relaxed. All such groups when under pressure however, start to drive softer members out. Stress rises, tempers flare. Rhetoric becomes harsher, group identity becomes more important, aggressive members start to scrutinize for any perceived flaw in the tribe. Eventually someone (or a group of someones) finds themselves on the wrong side of an internal dispute. It could be there fault, it could not be, doesn't really matter. In the end they were guilty of the sin of not spotting the group think forming fast enough and they are driven out. This can be seen in Freep's purges of all non McCain/Romney supporters once those candidates had locked the nomination in. With the "softer" members (or water in our slushball) compacted out, the remaining members are more radical overall. While the overall mass, or number of members has decreased, the remaining members are the ones who have proven themselves to be the most competent at falling in line and will prove less likely to disagree with the group think in the future. They have become like the Ice Ball. The metaphor does not end here though, because we need to consider what happens to those outcast members. Most of the time (80% or so if I had to guess) they will go on to join another group. Since they are Authoritarians they will join another group that also follows the Grand Narrative. (While I would like to mention that this is how you get 9-11 truthers that become UFO nuts that become Objectivist Shitlords and then wind up being 9-11 truthers again over the course of a long enough period of time, I want to stay mostly with the Freep example.) The Freep members that join some other online Conservative community will be quite a bit more shy about rocking the boat. They will be more sensitive and more alert for changes in the tribes group think. They will find themselves drawn to the new groups hardliners and will become more hardline themselves. Often, Abused becomes abuser, and when the new group finds itself under pressure, the formerly outcast member will be among the most vicious attackers of whoever winds up as the new groups scapegoat. The overall trend here is that Authoritarian groups swap members more often than many realize, and one groups rejected softie becomes the next groups hardliner. Just like our slush ball, the weak are driven out and the ice remains, then more members are added and the cycle repeats until eventually everyone is either a hardliner or has stopped associating with Authoritarian groups altogether. I feel this is a good explanation for what we observe in the modern GOP. In raw numbers GOP voters/supporters are in serious decline, but the remaining members are rapidly becoming radicalized. Becasue of the Authoritarian takeover of the GOP over the past 40 years the less hardcore Republicans are being pressed out of group after group until they either become hardliners themselves or find no home in the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Morter posted:
2. People who are likely to be discriminated against should not have to live in a large enough market to ensure there are enough merchants in order to have a chance of not being discriminated against. 3. It's wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
Morter posted:Mind explaining why? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
For the way you described Authoritarian groups it sounds like a miserable existence. Can't even keep a single friend with a differing opinion before they're cast out and become the same as everyone else. At least the articles concerning the video presented to us in the thread have one upside. The comments are pro gay marriage so it gives me something to smile about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
Prester John posted:They are going to bludgeon this victim unconscious, and on some level they know that. But at first it will all be verbal taunts and pushes. Authoritarians like to try and goad each other into taking the first swing. None of them wants to be the first person to really strike the victim, but they will race to be the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th person to hit the victim. (And from there things will escalate until they are either interrupted or the victim dies.) So bit by bit, they will all dare each other to take things just one bit further, until finally one of them really lunges at the victim, and from there well, we know how the story ends. Prester John, I think all of your analysis here is golden, and has a lot of explanatory power (thank you for putting the effort into it btw), but I just wanted to highlight this because it's dead loving on. I think we all know the "motherfucker" John McCain cartoon, where he repeatedly calls Obama a motherfucker, then walks it back when someone says he fucks his mother, based on the moment he had to deny that Obama was an "arab." Well, that's an example of this in action. More pertinently, you can see it when people trying to be "reasonable" cultural conservatives are quick to rush to the defense of someone refusing gay customers, or that Duck Dynasty person saying all gay people are hell-bound perverts. The people attempting to maintain standing as reasonable are hesitant to throw those punches, but the second someone does, they're right there behind them. You could perhaps tie this back into the tension of maintaining the Outer and Inner narratives: the "reasonable" people are upholding the Outer Narrative (it's about Family, and Protecting the Children), but they're compelled to defend people who let the Inner Narrative (we must destroy the gays to avoid hellfire) slip out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Prester John, I think all of your analysis here is golden, and has a lot of explanatory power (thank you for putting the effort into it btw), but I just wanted to highlight this because it's dead loving on. I think we all know the "motherfucker" John McCain cartoon, where he repeatedly calls Obama a motherfucker, then walks it back when someone says he fucks his mother, based on the moment he had to deny that Obama was an "arab." Well, that's an example of this in action. For a good example of this, go to the libertarian thread and watch jrodfeld unfailingly jump to the defense of white supremacists whenever they say something racist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Prester John, it's been said before, but you've led a life that affords you some very unusual (to me, at least) perspectives on life and other people. I hope you can find the energy to keep up the effortposting, because it's incredibly fascinating to me. Ideally I would like to see some sociological studies of what you're describing, but that's probably very difficult to address in a sufficiently controlled environment to do science/psychology within. And your experiences seem a lot less academic and a lot more personal. http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
Yeah, while it is slightly funny that some conservatives are against the idea of big "NO GAYS ALLOWED" signs when they claim that money isn't as important as ideology, the idea that they should be forced to do this out of shame and this will cause them to change is basically buying into the Ron Paul narrative of "The Civil Rights Act was government overreach, if we'd just allowed businesses to deny service to blacks then people would stop giving money to them and thus free market capitalism would have solved racism forever." It's stupid, it ignores that there's businesses in plenty of places that would have people give them more money because they're sticking it to the gays, does nothing but further harm gays by clearly showing that they are an "other" that can be freely discriminated against (even encouraged to discriminate against), and that's not even touching on the fact that you could conceivably have a situation where a gay couple lives in a town where none of the grocery stores/gas stations will serve gays, and then what are they supposed to do? Prester John posted:This can be seen in Freep's purges of all non McCain/Romney supporters once those candidates had locked the nomination in. This is being seen even now to a degree (though it won't really ramp up until closer to the election) where some Freepers are saying the GOP isn't conservative enough, they're all liberal RINOs who aren't worth voting for and thus they will stay at home on election day/vote third party/write in Sarah Palin or whoever, while the others are saying that even if the GOP isn't true conservatives, that staying home just allows the Dems to win even bigger thus giving a false impression of a larger mandate than they have, and besides even if they're RINOs they still hate most of the same things we hate and that's way better than the Dems who love everything that we hate. Interestingly enough marijuana legalization is another issue that has no clearly defined right answer as determined by JimRob and thus there are debates about it on the site, I'm a bit curious when a decree will be issued as to which side he supports and the opposition zotted. But yes, your posts are really very interesting and I'm glad you're making them!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
Jesus http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/mar/20/idaho-house-wants-judges-who-rule-gay-marriage-imp/ By a vote of 44-25 on Friday the Idaho House approved a resolution calling for the impeachment of any federal judge that rules in favor of same-sex marriage. quote:“I think somehow, someday we’ve gotta take a stand,” GOP Rep. Paul Shepherd told the House. A sixth-term state representative from Riggins who owns a sawmill and log home company, Shepherd was the author and sponsor of the measure. “You can’t say an immoral behavior according to God’s word, what we’ve all been taught since the beginning, is something that’s just, and that’s really kinda what this is all about,” he told the House. “We’d better uphold Christian morals. As an example, how about fornication, adultery and other issues.” There was bipartisan opposition, with 11 Republicans joining all 14 House Democrats in opposing HJM 4. Rep. Ken Andrus, R-Lava Hot Springs, spoke out in favor of the bill. “The thing that bothers me is that a small group of judges are ignoring the will of the people from several states,” Andrus said.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
So as a "non binding memorial" this basically carries as much legal weight as putting your middle finger up at a gay marriage supporter and saying "gently caress you, gay."quote:When Rep. Pete Nielsen, R-Mountain Home, in mid-speech, shouted, “Two people who pro-create!” What the gently caress. All these people can go to hell. Condolences to anyone in Idaho. quote:“We’d better uphold Christian morals. As an example, how about fornication, adultery and other issues.” Yeah like remember when Idaho voted to impeach any federal judge that hosed someone they weren't married to?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Read it years ago, but Altemeyer (if I recall correctly) doesn't focus on the outer/inner narrative like Prester John is. That's the part I'm finding so interesting, because it's the first time I've seen it articulated in this manner. It makes enough sense to me that I would like to see it explored further.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
joat mon posted:1. It's wrong. I agree but homophobes tend to be cowards, forcing them to post a "no gays allowed" sign would probably discourage all but the very most dedicated homophobes. It's still a bad idea overall but it was an ingenious plan to amend the bill because it shouldn't make any difference at all but in reality it makes a big difference to the anti-gay side. Just like how NOM will go through any lengths to hide their donors because they know if they are revealed the money will dry up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I agree but homophobes tend to be cowards, forcing them to post a "no gays allowed" sign would probably discourage all but the very most dedicated homophobes. It's still a bad idea overall but it was an ingenious plan to amend the bill because it shouldn't make any difference at all but in reality it makes a big difference to the anti-gay side. Just like how NOM will go through any lengths to hide their donors because they know if they are revealed the money will dry up. Yeah it was a genius troll. quote:"Any person not wanting to participate in any of the activities set forth in subsection A of this section based on sexual orientation, gender identity or race of either party to the marriage shall post notice of such refusal in a manner clearly visible to the public in all places of business, including websites,” the amendment states.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Jesus So, ideally, these politicians, in response to Christian florists and bakers getting their jobs jeopardized by the roving "gay nazi fascist mafia", want to jeopardize the careers of those who disagree with them. They're using their God-given freedom of religious expression to stifle other people's freedom of expression, just because it counters their own.   
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Culturally eastern religions were viewed differently than western ones (particularly Abrahamic). There was less particular interest on names or a One True Dogma (not to say they didn't still fight over it) There's actually a pretty old Monotheistic trend in China at least: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shangdi
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Morter posted:Ah OK, thanks for the quick correction, folks! The same reason we don't allow signs that say "We don't serve blacks". E:F,B Who What Now fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Mar 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
I'm in favor of them being required to post signs branding them as "We don't serve gays" and then forcing them to serve gays anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I'm in favor of them being required to post signs branding them as "We don't serve gays" and then forcing them to serve gays anyway. Maybe signs that say "we hate gays"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Prester John, it's been said before, but you've led a life that affords you some very unusual (to me, at least) perspectives on life and other people. I hope you can find the energy to keep up the effortposting, because it's incredibly fascinating to me. Ideally I would like to see some sociological studies of what you're describing, but that's probably very difficult to address in a sufficiently controlled environment to do science/psychology within. And your experiences seem a lot less academic and a lot more personal. Holy poo poo its a generalized description of human social group formation with some conservative flavor colored in and normally recognized terms replaced by new scary sounding ones which are repeated (and capitalized) in a creepy propagandistic fashion. It reads like something I'd expect to see in the freep thread talking about the innate moral depravity of homosexuals or the dangers of the Urban Ferals, right down to the dehumanizing Steve Irwin "and now we observe the authoritarian in its natural habitat" tone and staccato of invented capitalized "key terms". Prester John posted:Authoritarians are cowards and act in a mob mentality fashion. Think of a group of bullies surrounding their next victim. They are going to bludgeon this victim unconscious, and on some level they know that. But at first it will all be verbal taunts and pushes. Authoritarians like to try and goad each other into taking the first swing. None of them wants to be the first person to really strike the victim, but they will race to be the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th person to hit the victim. (And from there things will escalate until they are either interrupted or the victim dies.) So bit by bit, they will all dare each other to take things just one bit further, until finally one of them really lunges at the victim, and from there well, we know how the story ends. Prester John posted:This lady is a classic example of an Authoritarian under pressure. Over the course of living with another family (and outside the Authoritarian environment she was adapted too) this lady began to feel immensely insecure. Her Outer Narrative was falling apart as a result of interacting with diverse people she had no experience with. The caricatures she had been taught to believe in and the ways of bringing non-believers into the fold she had been assured would work had failed miserably. Moreso, she began to feel under attack, and her Outer Narrative (her professed beliefs) became a vulnerability instead of a shield. Any Authoritarian put into a situation such as this will eventually resort to the Inner Narrative as a defense mechanism. Granted, this particular example is a good bit more dramatic than what usually happens, however, it is nonetheless an accurate (if somewhat overwrought) representation. I mean seriously? This isn't some sort of insight this is just run of the mill dehumanization of your enemy by explaining how they got their wrong ideas by being morally or mentally defective. It also removes their individual agency and turn them into an otherized stereotype which acts the way it does because that's just what an Authoritarian is. I mean all of this stuff is just... ugly, and its really surprising to see two pages of cheer-leading in a thread with a presumably high percentage of people who've been victim of exactly this sort of ugliness without anyone connecting the dots. Don't get me wrong, there's no moral equivalency here, these people are fuckheads and I' not shedding any tears for them, but they're individual fuckheads with their own complex individual motivations for buying into these stupid fuckhead ideas. We should address them like fuckheads with wrong ideas and not try to turn them into some caricatured other while we silently nod our heads as someone explains their innate inferiority. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Mar 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Holy poo poo its a generalized description of human social group formation with some conservative flavor colored in and normally recognized terms replaced by new scary sounding ones which are repeated (and capitalized) in a creepy propagandistic fashion. It reads like something I'd expect to see in the freep thread talking about the innate moral depravity of homosexuals or the dangers of the Urban Ferals, right down to the dehumanizing Steve Irwin "and now we observe the authoritarian in its natural habitat" tone and staccato of invented capitalized "key terms". Thank you for putting my general unease with the whole concept into words.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Holy poo poo its a generalized description of human social group formation with some conservative flavor colored in and normally recognized terms replaced by new scary sounding ones which are repeated (and capitalized) in a creepy propagandistic fashion. Cool. Got any links to such studies, like I asked for in the post you quoted? I would especially love to know if anyone has looked at the inner/outer narrative that Prester John described. You seem to know an awful lot more about this material than I do, so hopefully you can oblige.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
I know the Right Wing Authoritarians are cowards thing is correct. The higher you score on the RWA scale, the more self reported fear you feel when presented with threatening images. Particularly with social differences (OH NO! AN IMAGE OF AN ARAB GUY!) and disruptions, but RWAs are more afraid of animals and other neutral poo poo than your average person.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
I would agree if Prestor was saying conservatives are like this and conservatives are like that, but that's not what's happening. Prestor is specifically describing the much smaller subset of right-wing authoritarians, who are known for being some of the most intractable shitheads on the planet. These are the people who are the "loud minority" of conservatives who feel the need to throw a tantrum about every little thing or post on freerepublic.com
Mercury_Storm fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Mar 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:I would agree if Prestor was saying conservatives are like this and conservatives are like that, but that's not what's happening. Prestor is specifically describing the much smaller subset of right-wing authoritarians, who are known for being some of the most intractable shitheads on the planet. These are the people who are the "loud minority" of conservatives who feel the need to throw a tantrum about every little thing or post on freerepublic.com It's already a meme here that conservatives are synonymous with authoritarians. Even with libertarians it's "oh they're only libertarian when you ignore them fellating the military".
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's already a meme here that conservatives are synonymous with authoritarians. It goes farther than that, it's become a catchall for "person I don't agree with".
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Jesus Huh? Aside from the obvious lunacy, how does a state House expect to impeach FEDERAL judges? Am I missing something here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 23:49
|
|
