|
I would call militant SJWs more ideologically fascist than Authoritarian in the sense that PJ is using it. I have to say, this thread is a really fun read. I'm a cognitive psychologist, and while my research background isn't really in this area, nothing in her theories is contrary to psychological findings. As someone who has grown up in a liberal paradise, isolated from fundie madness, this insight from someone who has experienced it first-hand is really valuable. Thanks, Prester John!
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:29 |
|
|
So can economic liberals can be considered authoritarian or not?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted: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. people looking for left wing authoritarians should read this post. They do exist, but they are beyond fringe elements, unlike the tea party which now dominates the Republicans primaries
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:people looking for left wing authoritarians should read this post. They do exist, but they are beyond fringe elements, unlike the tea party which now dominates the Republicans primaries What's your definition of left-wing? Hillary Clinton is going to dominate the D primary, and, well...
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
America is a center-right culture. We don't even have socialists. Anyone with an authoritarian personality type won't find any left ideas to attach to. Authoritarians here go toward the structures that meet their needs, and we don't have any Stalinists or Zapatistas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:What's your definition of left-wing? Hillary Clinton is going to dominate the D primary, and, well... This is pretty dumb
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
I think my problem is that I fundamentally disagree with how y'all are defining authoritarian, so I may have to bow out here. Very interesting thread though. Definitely gonna keep following it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Is this a young authoritarian MRA? http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollyw...ve-Away-America quote:I hope character assassinating gamers without regard for collateral damage over the last 2 months was worth it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
site posted:I think my problem is that I fundamentally disagree with how y'all are defining authoritarian, so I may have to bow out here. Isn't the point of the thread disputing a particular definition of the word? Sorry, I hope you haven't felt like people are harassing you or anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Is this a young authoritarian MRA? One post isn't really enough to tell, but to me it certainly seems similar to what I was trying to describe with "I AM A GOD WARRIOR" lady. An Outer Narrative that become a liability (rather than a carefully constructed shield) and the Inner Narrative emerged as a result, putting himself at the center of a dramatic moral battle and wishing to see his opponents hurt as much as possible for a slight against his "identity", etc. "It is only by force of will and self-determination that I don’t let those people immure me in self-doubt and regret." <----- This rejection of introspection is really the telling bit to me, as is the apparent anger that he was even put in a situation where he felt the need for introspection.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Krotera posted:Isn't the point of the thread disputing a particular definition of the word? Sorry, I hope you haven't felt like people are harassing you or anything. E: to Jack Gladney: thanks for the book suggestion, looks interesting. site fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Stroop There It Is posted:I would call militant SJWs more ideologically fascist than Authoritarian in the sense that PJ is using it. Oh dear, if you think "SJWs" have anything to do with fascism you must be terribly unqualified and cause great harm to the people you work with on a professional basis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
It's worth noting that Altemeyer's theory of right-wing authoritarianism has not gained any widespread acceptance in academic psychology, or anywhere outside of the American and Canadian left (to my knowledge). I haven't read the book since 2010, but I remember being fairly unimpressed with the methodology. He played it really fast and loose with the evidence from those catastrophe games he runs, and he didn't really seem to reflect, either in his books or the papers I read then, on the fact that his larger theory A) doesn't propose a mechanism or B) make strong testable predictions. I think he occasionally alludes to it, but it doesn't seem to stop him from making the grand claims, so yeah. Maybe the body of published research on RWA generally is better, but it doesn't seem like it from a quick glance at Scholar or WOS. He's emeritus, so he can write whatever he wants and if it makes sense to you, great, obviously, but I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the theory's scientific merits just because He's A Scientist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Oh dear, if you think "SJWs" have anything to do with fascism you must be terribly unqualified and cause great harm to the people you work with on a professional basis. 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.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
I always thought the term was synonymous with dumbass?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
site posted:I always thought the term was synonymous with dumbass? Can we not ruin this thread with a discussion of the term SJW, depending on you you talk to it is a way for privileged people to minimize minority voices or synonymous with moralistic idiots. Can we just skip the part where we argue about this term and keep on with the thread at hand? And can we also not use the term because, as OFS pointed out, any meaning it may have once held is now essentially void.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
quote:It's worth noting that Altemeyer's theory of right-wing authoritarianism has not gained any widespread acceptance in academic psychology, or anywhere outside of the American and Canadian left (to my knowledge). I haven't read the book since 2010, but I remember being fairly unimpressed with the methodology. He played it really fast and loose with the evidence from those catastrophe games he runs, and he didn't really seem to reflect, either in his books or the papers I read then, on the fact that his larger theory A) doesn't propose a mechanism or B) make strong testable predictions. Isn't his mechanism some kind of personality theory? Like, he's saying that some people have related clusters of dispositions and reactions that are common enough to be put onto a continuum? There are recent Pop-sci books by Joshua Green and Jonathan Haidt that say similar things about how personality works without speculating why or how people end up with those traits in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:Can we not ruin this thread with a discussion of the term SJW, depending on you you talk to it is a way for privileged people to minimize minority voices or synonymous with moralistic idiots. Can we just skip the part where we argue about this term and keep on with the thread at hand? And can we also not use the term because, as OFS pointed out, any meaning it may have once held is now essentially void.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Just get the SJW to Skeleton Firefox addon and you're set.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Oh dear, if you think "SJWs" have anything to do with fascism you must be terribly unqualified and cause great harm to the people you work with on a professional basis. That said, I can understand where the reaction to the term comes from, as it is essentially meaningless now and has been used plenty to deride people who actually fight for social justice. So I'll drop it. Oh, and I am not a clinical psychologist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Isn't his mechanism some kind of personality theory? Like, he's saying that some people have related clusters of dispositions and reactions that are common enough to be put onto a continuum? There are recent Pop-sci books by Joshua Green and Jonathan Haidt that say similar things about how personality works without speculating why or how people end up with those traits in the first place. I don't remember. It was a selfish post; I think I'm just getting tired of seeing Altemeyer's book getting trotted out with an uncritical "Made by Science(tm)" disclaimer. His scale is obviously measuring something, but his narrative seemed pretty weak to me by 2010 standards when I read the book.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Rapid Narrative Convergence Event: This is a complicated concept, so please bear with me here. Rapid Narrative Convergence Events (Hereafter abbreviated R.N.C.E.) are so named because they occur very quickly first off. Secondly, these are essentially one-off self contained events that occur within the context of a larger Narrative Convergence, but are themselves too short lived to be a trend in and of themselves. They are a symptom of differing groups of Authoritarians being under long term stress, a sort of relief valve for pent up rage and fear. These are dramatic events in which several different groups of Authoritarians temporarily suspend their own Inner Narratives in exchange for a new (and very short lived) Outer Narrative. These happen only in the presence of a mutually perceived threat to the tribe and last only so long as the threat lasts. As soon as the threat ends, so does the R.N.C.E. (As a result, as soon as the threat ends, Inner Narrative's suddenly reassert themselves, and the once united Authoritarian groups fracture quickly as they squabble over power.) This is my explanation of what occurred at the Bundy Ranch, and to a certain extent, what caused the 2013 shutdown. There are several factors that must be in place for an R.N.C.E. to occur. These are
A Rapid Narrative Convergence Event typically plays out thusly:
Alright, with all that said, let me relate this all to the Cliven Bundy affair, step by step. 1.) There has been an ongoing Narrative Convergence in this country for decades, but that especially kicked in to high gear after Obama's election. Of Particular note here is Alex Jones, who was once a mortal enemy to Neo-Cons but now as a result of the Convergence gives Michael loving Savage 45 minute long televised blowjobs. 2.) 2012 was a massive defeat for Authoritarians. First off, they hated Romney. the entire 2012 Primaries was a desperate search by the Authoritarian wing of the party to find anyone *ANYONE* but Romney. They did not like having to support him as their Champion, and only did so with the promise that he would win. When he lost, they were beyond loving pissed. 3.) Onto this scene emerged Cliven Bundy, and he was almost too perfect. An old style Patriarch who had been farming his land forever and struggling mightily against the encroachment of the Federal Government. To Authoritarians Cliven Bundy was an instant symbol of an innocent time lost, a man unable to understand the changing world around him about to be over run by a cruel and sadistic government. An echo of a better time choosing to die on his feet rahter than live on his knees. (Needless to say, it was very easy for Authoritarians to project themselves in to Bundy's situation.) 4.) This is where the "Narrative Convergence" comes in. The Cliven Bundy story was broken originally by Alex Jones, who speaks to one group of Authoritarians (notably, the militia movement). From there Drudge picked up the story and it went viral in Tea Party circles (Another group of Authoritarians, notably the religious flavor.) Shortly thereafter Hannity picked it up, and Hannity speaks to a moderately less extreme group of Authoritarians. (Hannity's entire career is based around being a less talented Authoritarian version of O'Reilly.) This is a really crucial point in forming the feedback cycle that everything hereafter derives from. Authoritarians who are nominally in opposition to each other all agreed on a universal narrative. 5.) People start demanding action be taken to defend this noble Patriarch and his family. "ACTION NOW" becomes the battle cry. In particular Authoritarian Militia groups, long itching for an excuse, start to show up to defend the Bundy Ranch. Emotion swells and soon there is a public display that resembles a full blown psychotic break from reality. 6.) As support rolls in (both in material, financial, and people) the militias organize loosely under the direction of Cliven Bundy with organization support from the Oathkeepers. They draw a clear line in the sand and aim guns at the federal agents. The militias behave as if this is the dawn of a new civil war. They become openly fatalistic and begin jovially talking about "None of us is going to make it out of here alive". They discuss putting the women on the front lines so that the "Whole world will see" them getting brutally shot down by the feds. 7.) There is never a clear plan or idea for winning, because most do not expect to win a tactical victory. They are there to die fighting in the New American Civil War. Eventually, claiming to have been instructed directly by the voice of God that morning, Cliven Bundy leads the charge (on a tractor I believe) that results in the Feds backing down. There was no plan for the Feds actually surrendering. 8.) Within days the Inner Narratives assert themselves and there are several armed standoff's in the camp that very loving nearly result in free fire zones. It becomes suddenly clear that the militia's now own an easily defendable and impossible to supply hunk of useless desert in the middle of summer. Morale plummets, all but the diehards leave. And now, some videos to illuminate what I am talking about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYsK3DnW4Ug https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uEXkmMealE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A5QtrfnnWI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HtDNPIIOsM Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Schizophrenics on treatments are good posters
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Was (the reaction surrounding), say, the Benghazi incident an example of a RNCE?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Zodium posted:Was (the reaction surrounding), say, the Benghazi incident an example of a RNCE? I wouldn't quite say so, that was just Fox being Fox, more or less. There was never a chance with anything Benghazi related for a big fight. I think the key point of an RNCE is there must be a hill to die upon, so to speak. The 2013 shutdown was though I would argue. (And in fact, the defeat suffered there probably fed greatly into the Bundy Ranch RNCE) You had the recent defeat of the 2012 elections, the terror of creating a whole new Government social program (Obamacare) that it was agreed would never be undone once it had taken root, the various factions of the Tea Party "Listening to their constituents" demanding the fight until they forced the hand of GOP leadership into the fight, no clear plan to win once they got into the fight, and now massive infighting crippling everything in the House. (Although this did not emerge until after the midterms, but there was still a threat of being primaried up till that point. But now with their position secured and with no immediate threat the various Authoritarain factions of the House can't agree on the color of poo poo suddenly.) Edit: Also during the shutdown there was a period where control of the House had moved away from Boehner and into Ted Cruz's hands. Even though this was never formalized in any sense, it was evident that Ted Cruz was calling the shots early in the fight to make sure that it turned into a gigantic battle that lasted. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:Schizophrenics on treatments are good posters  ' I bet if Kyoon ever got treatment we'd see something similar to this. Come back Kyoon (with meds)! So how did you learn to write so well Prestor? You haven't had much formal training from what I can tell from your background story but you analyze and explain like a trained professional. It's great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Slaan posted:
Thank you, that is extremely flattering. (Actually, thanks to all the compliments in this thread, it really means a ton.) I've been writing ever since i was 8 or so when I started my first "novel" (Which was little more than a Narnia fan-fic.) When I was around 10 or so I read Tom Sawyer and my parents were thrilled with that, and since old books were above suspicion in their view, they bought me a massive collection of Mark Twain material, which I read voraciously. I became enchanted with the idea of a wandering person who honestly reported his experiences like Mark Twain did in A Private History of a Campaign that Failed and Life on the Mississippi. I always admired his brutal honesty and started writing diaries and the like while young and experimenting with social commentary pieces when I was in High School. Ever since then I'm always writing in my head and constantly experimenting with ways of expressing complex ideas. I think Mark Twain also gets credit for helping me pull out of the cult mindset. If my Fundie parents only knew what they were giving me when on my 11th Birthday they got me a Twain collection that included many of his private letters and a complete edition of The Mysterious Stranger, The War Prayer, and To the Person sitting in Darkness. Prior to that my political reading had all been Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson, and I was beyond blown away by the ideas in those pieces and started to question things as a result.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Great thread PJ. If you're still in San Antonio, send me a PM and I'll buy you dinner sometime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
For real, you're a tremendously canny political mind. I've learned a tremendous amount of stuff in an incredibly small amount of time, and it's about something we should all be wary of - essentially loving sleeper Nazis. I mean, when I consider the breadth of experience I've had observing the American far-right, all of this fits right in. You've got great insight and have made wonderful sense of your life experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Prester John posted: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. The idea that the federal government walking away from a confrontation with that swine might have been an act of "never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake" at least takes some of the sting out, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:The idea that the federal government walking away from a confrontation with that swine might have been an act of "never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake" at least takes some of the sting out, I guess. If I had to guess I would imagine e the FBI is collecting a fat pile of data on everyone who was physically present and everyone who contributed to that. The best way to fight an Authoritarian is to never give the Authoritarian the battle they want. Pick a few up here and there over the years nice and quiet while they are out grocery shopping. Connect the dots between groups, figure out the funding mechanisms, figure out who has a stash of child porn on their computer, etc etc. Basically just drag it out nice and quiet, meanwhile there are assholes still sweltering out in that desert and they are draining very limited funds from various militias. Also, whatever agent came up with the idea of leaking an impending drone strike to the Oathkeepers pulled off a  Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Prester John posted: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. Welcome. Glad you like it. I don't like putting words into other people's mouthes but I was fairly certain of them so I went with it. There is something else tickling in my subconscious about your mention of a loving abusive parent being a good predictor of this. My parents weren't cultists, but my childhood was a kind of hosed up on the scale that yours was I think - just different details. But displays love and fondness were not part of it - well except in public because we must keep up appearances - so I'm trying to model the differences between loving- abusive and resentful - abusive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
So what IS going to happen in the 2016 primaries, when there's an inevitable battle between the Tea Party GOP candidate vs. the establishment GOP candidate (Jeb Bush). Normally I'd bet that the establishment candidate will get forced through again despite what the base wants, but PJ's said we're building to something especially crazy after the SC gay marriage decision. Can anyone guess what that would look like?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
McAlister posted: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. I would argue that sometimes Inner Narratives are modified to deal with internalized beliefs, especially with members of an Authoritarian group that are of "lesser" value. The Inner Narrative fundamentalist women are taught is toxic and hostile to them, and there are two main ways I see to deal with it that preserve the Narrative: 1) Believe it wholeheartedly. This causes self-loathing and pain, but is somewhat counterbalanced by social acceptance. Women who admit guilt for their sins (pre-marital sex, abortion, getting raped, etc.) can often be admitted back into the fold without disturbing the group because they've "paid" for the crime of going against it. The deceptive Outer Narrative, in this case, is stuff about "gender differences" and "a woman's place". The Inner Narrative says "women are worthless". By analogy, this is the Calvinist who is utterly terrified that they might not be one of the Elect. 2) Modify it, so that your Inner Narrative places you as inherently good. This is the case with many of the women in "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion". These women are aware, however, that their Inner Narrative is in conflict with the Outer Narrative, and that they'd have to be ostracized to preserve the group if anyone found out. The advantage is that you're allowed to do anything without guilt. The Inner Narrative here says "Women are worthless, except me". This is a Calvinist who is absolutely sure they are one of the Elect and can thus do what they want, because no matter what they're going to Heaven. EDIT: Calvinist ideology is a pretty good analogy for a lot of authoritarian thought, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:So what IS going to happen in the 2016 primaries, when there's an inevitable battle between the Tea Party GOP candidate vs. the establishment GOP candidate (Jeb Bush). This already happened with McCain and Romney. McCain got booed at one of his own rallies for saying that Obama is a good-hearted man promising to do what he believes is best for America, and that the election was about whose plan for America was actually better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
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. There's a chance that whenever you see any petty symbolic action that seems like it will be completely meaningless compared to the amount of effort it requires, you're seeing someone vulnerable acting from a place of insecurity, fear, and hurt. They're acting wildly any bearing their teeth in a ritualistic show of power to prove that they still have power over something. They have been told the Just World Fallacy - that those who are Good will be justly rewarded for their effort with a place of authority/power in the beneficently-ordered system - and believe it. They have done everything a good Christian or American should do, and worked hard, and they still have not seen their reward. The ways to react to this are: 1. realize you've been fooled your entire life and that the system you bought into is incorrect 2. your lack of power is because you've been on the unjust side this entire time 3. you've been on the right side and are doing good, but the reward meant for the just has been intercepted by a shadowy usurping force. This only could happen because your side was not just or vigilant enough and one should double down on efforts, weed out the weak or corrupt parts and try again in whatever way you can. 1 is not only emotionally difficult, because it really makes you feel like an idiot and you have to be mature enough to handle that, but you're going against a sunk cost of everything you've put experience into and you may have to start anew. 2 is less difficult, because you can find likewise organizations or modes of action that aren't too far from your comfort zone/area of expertise, but still is emotionally difficult. 3 is easiest on the emotions because it reinforces that you are the good guy and your reward of social power is close at hand- you just have to keep on doing the things you're most comfortable with. Because the thing you oppose is a satanic force that cannot ever be seen, the acts of opposition are abstract and symbolic. And because you are currently powerless, all you can do are petty acts against targets that're weak, defenseless, divided and they feel they won't feel any consequences in attacking. The whole point of the action is to get a reaction that fits their narrative. If they're able to get the reaction they want out of their target, then that proves to them that although they're powerless in the big picture, at least they have the power to control another human being's emotions in this small situation. In my experience, i've found the best way to react to actions like this is to show a complete lack of effect or a completely inconsistent reaction. That'll eat away at them and reinforce their self-doubt and the fears of their impotency. If you're in repeated contact with them and they're not potentially dangerous, then later you can talk it out after warming up to them (after all, if they are doing it out of vulnerability and and aren't the ~1% that are sociopathic, then they would probably welcome it and might congratulate themselves for branching out), or you can just avoid them if you don't want to bother - they'll probably leave you alone because an unreceptive audience isn't worth the effort. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:So what IS going to happen in the 2016 primaries, when there's an inevitable battle between the Tea Party GOP candidate vs. the establishment GOP candidate (Jeb Bush). I've been pondering that a great deal myself. Honestly I think it depends on Ted Cruz, as odd as that sounds. When I look at Cruz though and his actions he does seem to have zeroed in precisely on Authoritarians of the kind I am familiar with and is appealing directly to them. While other candidates are Authoritarians, they are at least trying to appeal to what they think of as the broader GOP base. Cruz though....I don't think he is an Authoritarian as much as he is a Goddamn sociopath with a Messiah Complex that has figured out exactly how to manipulate Authoritarians. (Warning, Schizophrenic trying to predict the future follows) My overall expectation is that the SC Gay Marriage decision will whip the Fundies into a frothing loving rage, and I do expect that rage to transition over first into the broader Authoritarian movement of the GOP Primary Voters (Tea Party, basically), and from there into the GOP leadership. Assuming that does indeed occur it would in and of itself cause an explosion of irrational behavior and maybe even another RNCE (or two). Certainly Inner Narrative's are starting to be broadcast more openly among the religious right than I can really recall seeing the past, but that does not yet mean too much. (Although the sudden raft of "religious freedom bills" masking bigotry seems to parallel my expectations, but that might just be regular old cynical politics, time will tell.) I would hazard a guess that there will be Narrative Convergence around various "End of Days" themes. I could see "This is America's last chance to get an election right before God destroys us" coming from the fundies turning into a general "This is America's last election if the GOP does not win" becoming a big point of agreement. I would also expect to see constant attempts to find every possible hill to die on, (proto RNCE's, but most will simply not catch on widely enough) basically people trying to martyr themselves in creative ways. If there is indeed a rash of rage, and *IF* indeed Cruz is some sort of Sociopath that has glommed on to how to play Authoritarians towards his own goals, then he might just be able to latch on to that rage and become its Champion. In that situation, Cruz may actually win the Nomination, or at least go from joke candidate to serious contender with one good debate performance. I have been thinking a great deal about Cruz, and at the risk of really going out on a few limbs here, he does seem to be playing it perfectly for now. I also study strategy games as a hobby and love to study different styles of play in different games. Cruz seems to me like a talented positional Chess player. He makes excellent moves without a clear plan until an opportunity arises, then he lunges at it. If there is no good oppurtunity, he just positions more peices in places they will most certainly be useful and waits. He does seem to be playing his peices perfectly at the moment to boost his Authoritarian cred with his Presidential announcement. His announcement at Liberty is perfect because its obvious flaws (the students were forced to be there) does not register as a concern for Authoritarians, and even if it did, a single five second clip of applause would be enough to convince an Authoritarian that every kid wanted to be there. However, to non-authoritarians the move seems kind of petty and dickish, and people are giggling about it. And that might well be his goal. When I was a shithead Conspiracy Theorist my CT friends would occasionally ask my opinion on this or that emerging person in the movement, and I would go and research the person for them. I used to have an oft used quip of "Well I don;t know if I accept their claims yet, but all the right people are laughing at them". What I meant was, the ridicule directed at Conspiracy Theorists would legitimize them in my eyes. Cruz being laughed at right now, to the mind of an Authoritarian, seems petty and childlike. It also indicates fear and makes them invest themselves emotionally in Ted Cruz. by being the first out the gate he has guaranteed both plenty of ridicule of the variety that will legitimize him in an Authoritarian's eyes, and plenty of time for Authoritarians to invest themselves emotionally in him before another candidate comes along to sweep them up. Cruz does have a major flaw in the general though, he is a positional chess player, and the modern Democratic party has started to learn to play Go. Go style thinking beats Chess style thinking, in my observation. Cruz would get ultra slaughtered in the General. If you are interested in the idea of Chess thinking versus Go thinking in terms of conflict, I recommend this awesome documentary about that very subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMNaULHLH9c Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:Schizophrenics on treatments are good posters As someone with many schizophrenic men in my family (things are falling into place now aren't they), people with just the right balance of thought patterns that at an extreme become schizophrenia tend to be wonderfully insightful and creative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:29 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:As someone with many schizophrenic men in my family (things are falling into place now aren't they), people with just the right balance of thought patterns that at an extreme become schizophrenia tend to be wonderfully insightful and creative. An enhanced skill at pattern matching mixed with creativity and a strong imagination are wonderful things, especially when they're regulated into a normally functioning brain due to medication. This thread is proof of that for sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 02:24
|
|
