|
PJ, what's the best way to debate with authoritarians? As you said, logic doesn't seem to get through to them. I've asked fundamentalists before to point to actual reasons why God is against homosexuality, because if there are no reasons then either God is increasing suffering for no reason or the fundamentalists are wrong. They simply ignore me. I'm hopeful there is a way to debate them. I don't think they're hopeless, because even if some people tend to authoritarianism, people have certainly become more flexible and willing to hear alternate view points in the last century.
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 05:14 |
|
|
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
|
|