|
Personally, I thought it was kinda nice to see people engaging fairly honestly with PJ as she worked out some ideas.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
check out his rap sheet
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
I wish I had time to write out a full effortpost on how much I have enjoyed this thread, and to go back and find my favorite posts and quote them, but I don't, so I will keep this succinct: PJ, thank you for everything you've shared in this thread. It has been absolutely fascinating and illuminating for me. I have had some contact with the Narrative mindset (mostly through the Left Behind books - holy poo poo, I wish I had known all that stuff you posted about Tim LaHaye when I was 17), and your writing really helped me understand and make sense of the whole thing. It's nice to have a name for it.  I would absolutely read anything else that you wrote, but like many others in this thread, I'm rooting for you. Take care of yourself, and thank you again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
PJ's analysis deserves thoughtful and in-depth critiquing because it is both a very novel idea (to me at least) and a very plausible one. Screaming bullshit isn't critiquing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
I came in late, can someone summarize the transition from authoritarian to narrativst, and how the two relate to each other?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:I came in late, can someone summarize the transition from authoritarian to narrativst, and how the two relate to each other? Authoritarian has political connotations that, while sometimes present, can cloud the issue regarding the people being discussed here. For instance, referring to a paranoid cluster authoritarian as such may be true, it also isn't true in the more mainstream usage of the term. Narrativist replaced authoritarian since it does not contain pre-existing (negative) connotations, and fit better with PJ's underlying theory of Inner and Outer Narratives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Narrativist also fits the mindset better, because while the term authoritarian can connote a social pattern, it doesn't connote cultism or the stories they tell themselves to justify it at all well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
I don't have a really tight grasp on authoritarianism. Is narrativism an alternative framework without the political baggage? Is it a subset? A superset? Something else entirely?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Alternative framework that was inspired by the original framework.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:I don't have a really tight grasp on authoritarianism. Is narrativism an alternative framework without the political baggage? Is it a subset? A superset? Something else entirely? Let me try. Authoritarianism is a sociopolitical culture where the commands of power are authoritative, depending on how strict. Questioning or defying authority is discouraged or even taboo. Leaving the in-group is discouraged or taboo. It happens in cults, relationships, schools, workplaces, political systems. Its not a left or right thing, its a "I'm Right, you're wrong (and you better get right or become the Other)" thing. Narrativism comes from the human ability to form connections between events and things. Everyone(?) forms narratives, but for regular people, they are mostly innocuous. "I'm pretty, I'm smart, I'm buff." Those are simple narratives we tell ourselves. "I'm going to go to university and get a good job that I will love and pay off all my student debts and live the good life" is a more complex narrative that's common. This is the "Inner Narrative" of the thread. Now, in mentally ill folk (like me), this simple system can go out of control. Especially when you add narcissism, paranoia or psychosis to the mix. For most people, the rejection letter from Southern U means you lost the lottery where ten applicants were competing for every one spot. For the Narcissist who isn't self aware, its some one else's fault. Someone must always be at fault. For the depressive, its because you weren't good enough, smart enough. I'm sure many of you are familiar with the narrative of self worthlessness. The psychotics is where narratives really get out there. "I didn't get in because the lizard people have taken control of higher education." Delusional people are always most sure of their rightness. For a person looking for stability, looking for the answers, a person like that can seem pretty magnetic when all you know is the chaos that is modern life. Most normal folk can set aside failed Narratives, but us crazy folk tend to double down when confronted with Other information. The cultural system constructed by the Narrativists is what this thread calls the "Outer Narrative." It's not just what in-group members say to each other, its also how they act toward others and act to keep the Narrative structure of their culture "right". The Outer Narrative of a cult is the combined religious and social practices of the cult. For a group of fascist or communist thugs, the Outer Narrative is the combined political ideology and culture of action. For a right wing Narravitist, its all their talking points and associations that they drag out. Narrativism and Authoritarianism go hand in hand because Authoritarianism is the choice arrangement if the Narrativists in power want to maintain strict control over their followers. Its easier to prime your followers to say, "Nuh uh! You're a lying so and so" when confronted with conflicting information than to allow a liberal attitude toward free speech and exchange of ideas which may result in questioning the many dissonant Narratives. That might result in a reduction in power for the guy(s) at the top. Cults are authoritarian because its the easiest way for the Cult leader to remain in control. Right-wing Narrativists are authoritarian because its the easiest way to believe, "Obama is a weak liberal who doesn't do anything and is a puppet of ISIS/Lizardmen/Jews (sorry, alt-right insists we be alt-PC, so International Finance)/New Black Panther Party/Communists" and "Obama is the greatest tyrant ever who is one step away from controlling everything, already he's controlling the moderate Republicans." If you want people to blindly go against their interests, there's nothing better than Authoritarian Narritivism. They are two different social forces come together in a horrifyingly powerful way. Based on reading this thread, "Liberal" political Narrativism that allows dissent and free thought leads to compaction cycles where the most hardcore narrativists attempt to force out dissenters and Otherize them (we saw this attempted on the left, while its ongoing on the right). Successful Otherization of dissenters assures the powerful that their control is secure, but in a democracy it removes that party from the center of national discussion and compacts support around the base, which is a way to vote your party out of power. I hope that made some kind of sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
This seems appropriate here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...VK5u-JNKuGQJWGw
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Pity Party Animal posted:If you want people to blindly go against their interests, there's nothing better than Authoritarian Narritivism. They are two different social forces come together in a horrifyingly powerful way. Based on reading this thread, "Liberal" political Narrativism that allows dissent and free thought leads to compaction cycles where the most hardcore narrativists attempt to force out dissenters and Otherize them (we saw this attempted on the left, while its ongoing on the right). Successful Otherization of dissenters assures the powerful that their control is secure, but in a democracy it removes that party from the center of national discussion and compacts support around the base, which is a way to vote your party out of power. Also just to make something clear, while the jargon used in this thread is unique, the more general theme that the jargon discusses is not. The progressive radicalization of dissent-free echo chambers has been observed throughout history (especially in religious movements), but it's especially noticeable and even amplified on the internet. I've been dealing with internet community culture for a couple decades now, and it can happen anywhere that authoritarianism happens. As mentioned, the only effective solution is embracing dissent and disagreement, and that's something that can be very hard. McGlockenshire fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Nov 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
I think I just realized something terrible. Prester's last outlook on the subject was that there would be an outbreak of high-compaction violence following the election that would last for the next 3 or so months, resulting in 500 to 1000 deaths from Narrativist Terrorism. The only analogue we have to what these would look like is the Wildlife Refuge Occupation in Malheur, Oregon. The recent non-indictment of the head militia aside, this was only effectively prevented from becoming a bloodbath because the FBI acted extremely competently in reaction to it. (If a little slowly.) Given the behaviour of the FBI admin in the recent weeks, it seems pro-Trump behaviour has worked its way into the FBI apparatus. By how much, we don't know, but enough to make the head of the FBI act really strangely in public and enough to justify rumours of some internal disputes. While it would be unlikely to assume that there are very many narrativists in high command -- even in Comey's case, which could be linked more towards establishment idiocy -- what does this mean for law enforcement's eventual response towards what we can only charitably call compaction events?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
How much violence was there after Obama's re-election? Just that old nazi going after a holocaust museum, right? Most of these people are old, poor, and in poor health.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 22:54
|
|
Morroque posted:I think I just realized something terrible. IIRC the 500-1k deaths was a worst case scenario, like if someone bombs a federal building. I expect that the most likely scenario will be a post election spate of violence targeted at minorities, maybe a large scale shooting or three like the Orlando Nightclub shooting. I doubt sympathies for right wing views will cause the FBI to handle things badly, if anything it will mean that they will use kid gloves when dealing with these people which is probably for the best.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:How much violence was there after Obama's re-election? Just that old nazi going after a holocaust museum, right? Most of these people are old, poor, and in poor health. Most of them aren't poor, they're middle class/upper middle class. It's why they can afford their gun/ammo hoards they'll never use.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:ever since Brexit the poltiical left has just barely been able to conceal its blistering contempt for democracy
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
My prediction is that Sikhs will be disproportionately targeted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Wolfsbane posted:Why is everyone engaging the obviously crazy guy? Yes, why engage the "crazy" guy with cogent arguments when we can treat as insightful a pop-psych model presented by a schizophrenic that presents the GOP as a phantom echo of her abusers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 00:24
|
|
Periodiko posted:Yes, why engage the "crazy" guy with cogent arguments when we can treat as insightful a pop-psych model presented by a schizophrenic that presents the GOP as a phantom echo of her abusers. They never expressed an argument, let alone a cogent argument. They were asked what their arguments were and disappeared from the thread instead of actually making an argument. If you have an actual argument against the ideas expressed in this thread feel free to post it, but don't expect good humor from everyone when you come in spitting insults.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:They never expressed an argument, let alone a cogent argument. They were asked what their arguments were and disappeared from the thread instead of actually making an argument. Huh? His arguments were pretty straightforward: that the concept of political authoritarianism is a really tenuous concept, even for the fast-and-loose realm of political psychology and in his opinion "has no explanatory value". That the concept itself, and the history of distinguishing "authoritarian" and "free" political cultures and personalities has a long, dubious history of politicization in contexts like the Cold War. That the changes in the Republican party aren't signs of some transient mass mental illness which has overtaken vast swathes of people, but that are the product of decades of savvy political engineering, ground-up political activism, and rational politicos harnessing that and collaborating - democratic politics. That the use of mental illness as a stigma to delegitimize enemies without having to understand them has a really ugly history, including events (as he cites) as recent as the hackjob congressional report on Snowden. That the "analysis" at the heart of this thread was like one of those libertarian politics tests: a prism to let you see what you want to see, a tool that reaffirms an ideology rather than something that produces understanding. The very first reply to that post was "So you see absolutely nothing strange or wrong with the nomination of Donald and nothing radically different about this election than past elections?" You'd need to be illiterate to go from his central argument, that discussing a political movement in the context of mental illness has a ton of poo poo wrong with it to "Trump's candidacy is perfectly normal." None of the other replies seemed to have bothered to read what he wrote either, it was just immediate wagon circling and replies that betrayed no understanding what his objections even were. Someone replied to his argument about using pathologization by calling him "obviously crazy", and I don't think they even understood what he wrote well enough to get the irony. Of course he left. Periodiko fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 04:51
|
|
Periodiko posted:Huh? His arguments were pretty straightforward: that the concept of political authoritarianism is a really tenuous concept, even for the fast-and-loose realm of political psychology and in his opinion "has no explanatory value". That the concept itself, and the history of distinguishing "authoritarian" and "free" political cultures and personalities has a long, dubious history of politicization in contexts like the Cold War. That the changes in the Republican party aren't signs of some transient mass mental illness which has overtaken vast swathes of people, but that are the product of decades of savvy political engineering, ground-up political activism, and rational politicos harnessing that and collaborating - democratic politics. That the use of mental illness as a stigma to delegitimize enemies without having to understand them has a really ugly history, including events (as he cites) as recent as the hackjob congressional report on Snowden. That the "analysis" at the heart of this thread was like one of those libertarian politics tests: a prism to let you see what you want to see, a tool that reaffirms an ideology rather than something that produces understanding. Well, if nothing else your post has made it clear that you never read PJ's theories, hence why none of your arguments address them directly. Feel free to continue arguing against that vague straw man you've built though.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:My prediction is that Sikhs will be disproportionately targeted. Poor Sikhs. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:My prediction is that Sikhs will be disproportionately targeted. This makes me sad. They're cool as hell as far as religions go because they have a mission to feed hungry people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Well, if nothing else your post has made it clear that you never read PJ's theories, hence why none of your arguments address them directly. Feel free to continue arguing against that vague straw man you've built though. It's psychoanalytical gobbledegook that leans on absurd levels of unfalsifiable concepts and jargon that views the right wing through the lens of personality disorder. This stuff rarely actually touches down with reality. quote:First off, the PP video "leaks" are pretty clearly the brainchild of the GOP establishment. These videos have been designed with the best knowledge the GOP has managed to piece together about how to manipulate Narrativists. I believe the goal here is to sieze back control of the Narrative and regain some power by creating a situation in which the party base must come to the GOP establishment for support. (Note, I am not saying that these efforts have ben successful, rather I am taking my best guess at the intended outcome.) To bring the GOP back together into something of a whole the GOP establishment is trying to give everyone an enemy to focus on, something to rally the troops against. quote:I fully expect that the government will shutdown over PP, and I expect their to be a massive staunch refusal to raise the debt ceiling without defunding PP. This is a fight to the death for Narratvists now, they will not accept any prisoners. Even if PP were to survive and the government shutdown is avoided then the Narrativists will almost certainly start conducting violent actions against PP and/or its property. They cannot abide the presence of such evil in their midst and they will feel to dos o invites God's wrath on them and their families. This is the battle line now. There is no going back, this genie will never go back in the bottle. In the minds of Narrativists something must die, (Either PP, the Economy, or the Narrativists themselves) no exceptions. I have read this thread over the year, I even posted in it a few times. PJ's theories were always (when I read them, at the beginning) about cultish culturally separated evangelicals, and predicting a right wing meltdown over religious lines. That explicitly is not what has happened. Trump's weird rise has been strikingly secular, and tied to white nationalist concepts of identity, culture, and country, not religious apocalypticism. I haven't read the latest stuff, but it seems to have pivoted to armchair psychoanalysis of Trump and vague Adorno-derived statements about "authoritarian" people. And I think in that context, his criticisms were very much accurate, and his failure to specifically rebut PJ's elaborate, scattered (literally), and in some cases kind of disproven thesis is sort of beside the point. Like, read some of this old stuff. It reads exactly like any other elaborate online conspiracy just directed at a different target. "I figured out what's really happening by watching TV and reading between the lines". It's Freep through a looking glass, that's tolerated because it reaffirms people's political ideologies. quote:That setup was almost perfect, and I really do suspect that Megyn Kelly only got the okay to ask that question because Fox News knew that Trump would curbstomp her on that one. Sending Megyn Kelly to trip Donald Trump up on his misogyny is akin to trying to jam a woodchipper with a bag of kittens. It just makes a horrifying mess. Donald seemed quite prepared for that one and with how ready his "Rosie O'donnell" quip was I would not be surprised if he had been informed ahead of time of the exact wording of that question. Basically Trump turned what appeared to be a lethal question into a home run. Not only that, but in doing so he put the most strongly pro-woman Fox News personality in the crosshairs of a Compaction Cycle. Late last night Donald Trump launched a Twitter offensive against Megyn Kelly (As well as Frank Luntz) and seems to have won.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
I think it's pretty telling that we're seeing all these critics the moment PJ has bowed out. They keep claiming have read or followed the thread and maybe they have but certainly not on anything more than a surface level given the nature of their arguments. The major trend in their critique is building this strawman about the thread having pathologised the entire right. Anyone who has been reading the read this long knows that PJ has been describing very small groups who have taken a disproportionate amount of power and influence when the GOP started building their really lovely big tent by adopting language etc that brought them in and riled them up. To be fair to the folks dropping by there's certainly been posters trying to do the thing they're claiming is the core of the thread, but again, had they read the thread would have noticed the pattern of that getting addressed by PJ and others repeatedly. Plus critiques and views with substance are very welcome and encouraged by both the OP and most of the posters involved, with the very explicit knowledge that these are discussions of ideas very much in the rough and PJ very much acknowledged her lack of formal education within this sphere as well as her limits in general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Hello thread I decided to pop into the thread for election day and say hi and chit-chat for the day. I'm still working on a final post, but I do have to admit that I've been taking my sweet time on it. So just for the day I'll be here posting while we watch the election go down. Anyways, I wanted to address this post.Periodiko posted:It's psychoanalytical gobbledegook that leans on absurd levels of unfalsifiable concepts and jargon that views the right wing through the lens of personality disorder. This stuff rarely actually touches down with reality. In regards to the third section you quoted, (the bit about Megan Kelly in the first Fox primary debate) I was actually called out for that analysis by numerous posters in this thread and shortly thereafter conceded that the entire analysis was my mental illness getting the better of me. Now to address your overall comments in a more general fashion, I would like to disagree that my work dehumanizes or otherizes the people I have been discussing. In point of fact there are testimonials from several posters in this thread claiming that this thread had actually helped humanize people in their lives that fit my narrativist framework. It has been my goal to present this as a pattern of behavior that is not tied to any particular group or demographic, but is by happenstance most manifest in the right wing at present. (I have gone to some length to describe and explore the history of this pattern emerging in the propaganda used by the GOP and posited that some form of the present situation was more or less inevitable as a result of using this particular format of propaganda) I have also not presented this as a mental illness, but rather a pattern of behavior that can self replicate and is largely the result of an impaired ability to judge the probable accuracy of information. Breaking out of this pattern is possible through the development of self awareness, something that is not at all true of actual mental illness which can only be managed by self awareness. I would like to emphasize again that this behavior pattern is not unique to the right wing, but has taken ahold of the propaganda centers of the right wing in the US as a result of right wing politicians utilizing the particular propaganda format described in this thread. (Outer Narrative/Inner Narrative, e.g. dogwhistles) This could have just as easily happened in some form on the left, but did not because left wing politicians did not utilize this propaganda format and thusly spread this behavior pattern among their support base. Other posters far more knowledgeable than I have commented on left wing equivalents that exist or have existed in other countries. Edit: One final clarification. I have gone to lengths to emphasize that the group of people I have been discussing are always going to be much smaller than they appear because they make a disproportionate amount of noise. Even within the present situation I would argue that most of the GOP are not the sort of people I am describing, however the rabid Trump supporters showing up to the rallies are. So I disagree that I have been pathologizing the entire right wing, I have done my best to focus the discussion on specific actors, specific actions in history, and the specific groups that tended to fit the pattern described. What we are seeing at present is a the massive amount of noise generated by the temporary political alignment of the groups this thread has discussed (eg Ayn Rand adherents, fundamentalist christians, hardcore racists, conspiracy theorists, white supremcists, etc) behind a candidate who has a personality disorder that makes him perfectly suited to appealing to the delusional reality these groups desperately wish to live in. If these groups were more numerous we might be facing some serious problems in our society, but in reality these groups are much smaller in number than they perceive themselves to be and they are about to find that out the hard way. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:It's psychoanalytical gobbledegook that leans on absurd levels of unfalsifiable concepts and jargon that views the right wing through the lens of personality disorder. This stuff rarely actually touches down with reality. Yes, there is an unspoken assumption posters have had going into this thread along the lines of "the american right is in a bad place currently, and it's been getting worse". If you disagree with that premise, then yes, everything else here will sound like hot air. You're right that PJ's ideas are hard to falsify, but I that's largely because they're a sociological model, not basic principles. The canned statistics phrase is "all models are false, some are useful". The model becomes 'falsifiable' as soon as it stops being helpful for understanding the group of people it sets out to. Personally I've found concepts like the grand narrative, compaction cycles, and logical bypasses to be useful ways to describe certain ways people some people think and act. I find that a lot of arguments across the aisle are bogged down with people assuming the other side has gone through the same thought process as them. For me having at least a guess at the other side's thought process makes it easier to actually converse about an issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:They never expressed an argument, let alone a cogent argument. They were asked what their arguments were and disappeared from the thread instead of actually making an argument. I "disappeared" for a weekend (this is allowed) and my argument is that this is all just idle bullshit. You're looking for some kind of syllogism, a synthesis of two accepted premises that produce a conclusion contrary to some stated thesis but its precisely my point that no such thing could emerge from a basically moronic Just-So story that takes place entirely within a mass psychological landscape. Early in the thread a more formalized version of this notion was posted by twodot or someone else and it was just dismissed without anything like what you imagine an acceptable argument to be here. It's certainly funny that you all drank the same particular kool-aid with regards to these sorts of meaningless political labels but once the jig was up I think the proper course would have been to just stop. Here instead we have soldiered on in what I note is one of the longest non-megathreads on the forum and certainly the most celebrated by people who are quite ironically under they impression that they are "learning something" here. If you want the "counter argument" to "all right-wing voters are deranged and here's precisely how this derangement functions" then just simply peruse the whole body and history of thought that interprets politics as having something to do with the state of the real world, and proceeds along the lines of investigating ideology as an emergent set of doctrines rooted in historic conditions and their attendant social orders. Warning: this is actually hard. But even the easy, armchair version of this kind of project can be done more tastefully and without such obvious self-regard. Here a recent-ish example (be advised that Graeber is an anarchist and therefore an authoritarian). I don't particularly agree with his conclusions but notice how even for someone that disagrees there's at least one identifiable thing to which one could actually object and use as a point of discussion. The bar for theory among anarchists is pretty goddamn low and even this thread manages to stumble over it. One what basis would a disagreement over what "counts" as narrativist even proceed? How would you try to arbitrate some dispute along these lines? It's almost entirely up to your own political intuitions. The notion that you're uncovering something insightful by testing these intuitions against that of your friends is pretty obviously imperiled by the fact that none of your really disagree about anything to begin with! There are perfectly obvious ways of understanding right-wing political ideology, particularly in America and extra-particularly with regards to Trump and our recent history, that don't assume any kind of mass psychosis and certainly don't have need to formalize this kind of insanely overwrought version of a very old argument that was much more eloquent and insightful when it simply went: "people who disagree with me are crazy." spotlessd fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:
The entire premise of your argument is that this thread is being applied to every right wing voter. It has been explained repeatedly and in detail by myself and others that this is simply not the case. You do not appear to be arguing in good faith when you attack the same strawman over and over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:The entire premise of your argument is that this thread is being applied to every right wing voter. It has been explained repeatedly and in detail by myself and others that this is simply not the case. You do not appear to be arguing in good faith when you attack the same strawman over and over. Does anyone believe this? Certainly the scope of the thread is not as narrow as you appear to think. I think it says a lot that this framework which is nominally advanced as a way of understanding the Phelps family seems to slide so easily into an investigation of Brexit voters or Stalin or American presidential politics. Why do you suppose that's the case?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:Does anyone believe this? Certainly the scope of the thread is not as narrow as you appear to think. I think it says a lot that this framework which is nominally advanced as a way of understanding the Phelps family seems to slide so easily into an investigation of Brexit voters or Stalin or American presidential politics. Why do you suppose that's the case? So, you're claiming that the explicitly given explanation is actually a cover for an implicit, grander... narrative? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:Does anyone believe this? Certainly the scope of the thread is not as narrow as you appear to think. I think it says a lot that this framework which is nominally advanced as a way of understanding the Phelps family seems to slide so easily into an investigation of Brexit voters or Stalin or American presidential politics. Why do you suppose that's the case? Because a thread about fringe politics spanning nearly two years of discussion has quite naturally involved a fair number of topics. Brexit and Stalin have only been discussed by posters more knowledgeable than I about those subjects, and the discussions were relevant because (explaining this again) the behavior being discussed is not unique to the right wing in the US. As far as America Presidential politics go the cult I was raised in used a school curriculum designed specifically to brainwash children into becoming hardcore right wing political activists, and this curriculum system has enjoyed extensive protection from the highest levels of the GOP. As a result discussion of US election politics has been incredibly relevant to this thread and it seems odd that you would hold its inclusion up as an example of how this thread strays off topic. Your com plaint here seems to be that several topics have been discussed during the course of this thread, and that this somehow proves that the narrativist framework is something that can be applied to justify ones pre-existing biases against political opponents. I do not find your arguments to be compelling. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Because a thread about fringe politics spanning nearly two years of discussion has quite naturally involved a fair number of topics. Brexit and Stalin have only been discussed by posters more knowledgeable than I about those subjects, and the discussions were relevant because (explaining this again) the behavior being discussed is not unique to the right wing in the US. As far as America Presidential politics go the cult I was raised in used a school curriculum designed specifically to brainwash children into becoming hardcore right wing political activists, and this curriculum system has enjoyed extensive protection from the highest levels of the GOP. As a result discussion of US election politics has been incredibly relevant to this thread and it seems odd that you would hold its inclusion up as an example of how this thread strays off topic. You yourself have directly participated in these silly little excursions! I arrived at this point by literally--literally--just hopping to random pages in this thread to see where the discussion has turned. Don't pawn this off on your weird parade of clueless sycophants. Around page 40 you proudly declare "FOX News has become a narrativist organization!" This is hardly "fringe" politics. You're not talking about InfoWars or Vaccers, here. This is a major propaganda arm of a major American political party and movement. You assured me that I was attacking an imaginary strawman here, that actually you've only very narrowly defined a very specific pathology that would be inappropriate to project onto anything as vast as "every right wing voter". And yet not only does your "narrativist" label appear to paint a much larger portrait of the political world--as evidenced, again, by just about any page on this thread--but you aren't the least bit concerned that there doesn't appear to be anything that doesn't fit into this picture, except of course positions broadly held by the people who post here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:I "disappeared" for a weekend (this is allowed) and my argument is that this is all just idle bullshit. You're looking for some kind of syllogism, a synthesis of two accepted premises that produce a conclusion contrary to some stated thesis but its precisely my point that no such thing could emerge from a basically moronic Just-So story that takes place entirely within a mass psychological landscape. Early in the thread a more formalized version of this notion was posted by twodot or someone else and it was just dismissed without anything like what you imagine an acceptable argument to be here. It's certainly funny that you all drank the same particular kool-aid with regards to these sorts of meaningless political labels but once the jig was up I think the proper course would have been to just stop. Here instead we have soldiered on in what I note is one of the longest non-megathreads on the forum and certainly the most celebrated by people who are quite ironically under they impression that they are "learning something" here. Is thread about all right-wing voters? Does it contain a theory that explains why people become republicans? Or is it about a much more specific group of people who currently vote for republicans?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:I "disappeared" for a weekend (this is allowed) and my argument is that this is all just idle bullshit. You're looking for some kind of syllogism, a synthesis of two accepted premises that produce a conclusion contrary to some stated thesis but its precisely my point that no such thing could emerge from a basically moronic Just-So story that takes place entirely within a mass psychological landscape. Early in the thread a more formalized version of this notion was posted by twodot or someone else and it was just dismissed without anything like what you imagine an acceptable argument to be here. It's certainly funny that you all drank the same particular kool-aid with regards to these sorts of meaningless political labels but once the jig was up I think the proper course would have been to just stop. Here instead we have soldiered on in what I note is one of the longest non-megathreads on the forum and certainly the most celebrated by people who are quite ironically under they impression that they are "learning something" here. This thread is specifically about the Alt-Right and extremist groups of the right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:You yourself have directly participated in these silly little excursions! I arrived at this point by literally--literally--just hopping to random pages in this thread to see where the discussion has turned. Don't pawn this off on your weird parade of clueless sycophants. Around page 40 you proudly declare "FOX News has become a narrativist organization!" This is hardly "fringe" politics. You're not talking about InfoWars or Vaccers, here. This is a major propaganda arm of a major American political party and movement. You assured me that I was attacking an imaginary strawman here, that actually you've only very narrowly defined a very specific pathology that would be inappropriate to project onto anything as vast as "every right wing voter". And yet not only does your "narrativist" label appear to paint a much larger portrait of the political world--as evidenced, again, by just about any page on this thread--but you aren't the least bit concerned that there doesn't appear to be anything that doesn't fit into this picture, except of course positions broadly held by the people who post here. The framework is a tool that can be used to examine why some people hold their views and how they process the information they're exposed to. Even if, and this is a rather large if I'm granting you, it were to be over-applied, it doesn't make the framework itself incorrect, any more than the misapplication of any theoretical framework invalidates that framework. You need to attack the framework itself, not complain about how it is applied, if you want to discredit it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:I arrived at this point by literally--literally--just hopping to random pages in this thread to see where the discussion has turned. Maybe you should spend some time actually reading the thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The framework is a tool that can be used to examine why some people hold their views and how they process the information they're exposed to. How does it succeed at doing this? How do you judge the conclusions produced by following this dumb little not-even-a-formula that determines who practices "rational" politics and who is an "extremist"? You're telling me you've managed to deduce some insight about the political world by working backwards from ideology to personal psychology but all the information organized under this framework comes from you! The whole existence of this internal psychological landscape begins and ends with your own presumptions about the many ways in which "irrational" people are connected by some cognitive deficiency to their politics, rather than just, you know, being political. Other than the obvious point--that this kind of Moral Politics-inspired reduction eliminates any need to engage with various disruptive political forces that intrude upon sensible "moderate" views--what does this actually reveal about anything? How is it capable of telling you anything about anyone other than yourself? I don't see the "subject" anywhere in these long, introspective stories about personal trauma and brushes with The Authoritarian. It's just a lot of people talking about themselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
Generally a theory can be tested by its ability to predict behaviour, the one espoused in this thread does seem to have some predictive utility. That you find it aesthetically displeasing is rather secondary. I mean as far as criticising it goes I'm not sure "it is reliant upon observation and it is philosophically impossible to observe anything but yourself so it's wrong" is the strongest mode of attack. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Nov 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 01:26
|
|