Job Truniht posted:

Authoritarians view the rest of society as being amoral, and that the only way society can survive is to regress back to more traditional, socially conservative views. Authoritarians, fascism, and utopians go hand in hand in that sense, because their reactionary views tend to hinge on a fantasy of a society that never existed. You can use this to come up with a set of rules or circumstances on how they view just about anything: race, the police, homosexuality, and politics.

TEAYCHES posted:

IMO this is more psychology than politics.

tsa posted:

I enjoyed the read too but I have to agree- none of it really seems unique at all to authoritarians. Hell, if you look at the climate change thread you'll see most the same things going on and I wouldn't call the threads demeanor authoritarian at all. You have all the narratives going on, at least.


Hah, there's a lot of this too. Again, this all seem broadly applicable to most groups and hardly limited to the idea of authoritarianism.


I honestly have no idea why you would single out these subgroups more than any other in the democratic party. How are homeopaths more authoritarian than the anti-gun subgroup or any other for that matter? This all just seems very hand-wavey, a neat Just-So story.


Except, you know for all the exceptions to these rules you laid out. Reagan was huge on the "Dawn of a new age thing", did you forget about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_in_America or all of his other stuff? And there's plenty of lefties on the whole end of days thing, as I already mentioned this is very common on the environmental wing.


There's plenty of authoritarianism, you just aren't looking for it or have labeled it as something else so your own grand narrative stays whole.


What's weird is the OP called the anarchists authoritarians, though.

e:


Regardless, the "anti-gun" wing is certainly authoritarian in nature using the OP's guidelines.

Job Truniht posted:

Would you care to back this claim up? The only historical precedence for this were Stalinist regimes.

A correct political sliding scale would be something like this: From right wing to left wing, there's a shift from an authoritarian, monarchist, and autocratic perspective to a decentralized, anarcho-syndicalist, communist perspective; which is what the end game of communism was to begin with. People's political views towards authoritarianism are derived entirely on how they perceive social order and the necessity of hierarchy in a society. This is why right wingers almost instantaneously side with cops any debate about police violence, or the military in matters of questionable foreign policy.

Woolie Wool posted:

Totalitarianism is not a distinct form of politics compared to authoritarianism; I am not even certain if it really has a meaning besides an authoritarian regime opposed by the Western liberal consensus as opposed to one that is tolerated. At best it is a rhetorical style and political strategy designed to establish and/or maintain a repressive regime in a country with an educated mass society, by recruiting the masses into the dominant ideology and involving them in their own repression. King Louis XIV did not care very much what you thought of him as long as you remembered your place and didn't cause trouble. Fascism makes recruiting ordinary citizens as fascists or fellow travelers a critical priority.

TEAYCHES posted:

It shouldn't be too hard for goons to understand the motivation of a troll. Of course they get off on anyone being shocked and horrified at it.

McAlister posted:

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.

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.

Prester John posted:

I think the best current possible test of my ideas is to see if the various predictions I am making from them pan out. For example I have predicted that Gay Marriage would cause a serious freakout in the Religious Right, and that the raw emotions of this freakout would transition into various other Authoritarian groups. As a result of this we should expect to see various Authoritarian groups taking on religious overtones in their speech as well as generally agreeing with the Religious Authoritarians that 'The Big One" is upon us.

Prester John posted:

Really? I've predicted a meltdown/epic temper tantrum, not the actual End of Days.

Prester John posted:

I would say what makes my model interesting is having accurately predicted the tone and often even specific rhetoric that has emerged. I also called the emerging Fundie Freakout right before it happened, when I made my initial estimates the general consensus was "I'm sure they can see the writing on the wall and will just roll over. I made those projections before the current spate o Religious Freedom bills as well. I have further projected that the freakout from the Religious Right will spread to other Authoritarian groups, and that these Authoritarian groups are quite likely to unite under Ted Cruz and make him a plausibly viable contender for the GOP Primary.

I also projected that just in general the rhetoric around the 2016 elections will be super-charged with a never before seen level of hatred. Like, truly next level. Like we will miss the good ole days of 2012 when the tea Party was so downright sociable by the time its all said and done. They are going to drop their masks and let it really fly this time.

Xibanya posted:

PJ do you plan to explore more on how non-Authoritarians interact with Authoritarians? I'm particularly curious about your thoughts on the 2012 elections - I get the impression that Romney had poor intel the entire time due to being surrounded by people who did not believe that they were providing him with bad intel (rather than simpering yes-men afraid to give him bad news as some Serious People have postulated.)

Prester John posted:

FWIW the derail has helped me in a number of ways. I had suspected of course that my framework had a broad potential application, but I wanted to limit my descriptions and proofs to right wing Authoritarians groups because those were the ones I knew. I am not an expert or really particularly knowledgeable about any leftist group, nor am I a historian (which is why I've avoided making any even though I easily could have), and I wanted to restrict my discussion to what I knew best. I felt that if my framework held up as explaining itself as a natural series of logical events as a result of a certain worldview (right wing Authoritarians in this case) then its broader applications would become evident to people with actual educations. As it seems my framework does provide explanation for behaviours observed in non right wing groups, then tentatively it provides a small bit of confirmation of my framework's potential validity. Furthermore, being able to observe my concepts used and discussed by other people provides immense aid in designing better explanations for when I write the book (which I will probably start on either later today or tomorrow).

So thank you again thread, this means so much to me.

Prester John posted:

Their salvation is their white "natural" DNA, whose principles if everyone just adhered to would bring about harmony.

Prester John posted:

Oh there are tons of "Indigo Children" who have incarnated into this lifetime to be "Light Warriors" and blah blah blah Grand Narrative. Its just that they are a freaky sideshow under the very most accepting of circumstances, and social poison to be associated with in nearly any context. Whereas the right takes its fundies and gives them a microphone and a captive audience.

Prester John posted:

As of this video I am officially labeling Ted Cruz the Joseph McCarthy of our time. I also want to say that if his rhetoric continues to escalate like this then poo poo could go from funny to tragedy real loving quick. rear end in a top hat is really playing with some serious fire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmoGgziNTS0

One thing I will note, having been dragged along to tons of speeches like this when I was a kid. (Mind you, this is strictly an anecdote.) There were a lot more young people in the audience back then, not just kids, but people under the age of 35. The audience shots make it clear this is one aging group.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEWfvK0Oxe0

the jizz taxi posted:

Fantasising about the end times or having an "apocalyptic" mindset does not an Authoritarian make, I'd say. I've been fascinated by potential end-of-the-world scenarios my entire life, but I don't come from an especially Authoritarian background. Hell, I'd say that almost every civilization in existence always seemed to have thought they were on the brink of annihilation. Optimism towards the future is relatively new as a concept in human history, starting with Enlightenment, which was the province of just a minority of learned men.

V. Illych L. posted:

it counteracts this by relying on economic growth to help drive investment etc. - if one runs a stagnant capitalist economy through redistribution, one removes the ability for capitalists to, well, capitalise on stuff

Wales Grey posted:

The beliefs of the Duggars, as repugnant and heretical as the specifics and implications of their beliefs may be, do not challenge or repudiate mainstream Christian theology at a casual glance.

Fried Chicken posted:

Specifically, the quiverfulls want to have a ton of kids raised in an extremely strict fundamentalist lifestyle so that in a few generations they can reclaim the country/world by having enough to win elections and can then legislate gods law on earth.

See also the Joshua Movement or Benedict Option. Also, read up on inner and outer doctrines to really understand things.

Cactus posted:

Now that is some crazytalk.

Cowoncrack, can you please describe a time when you felt your faith most challenged, what challenged it and how did you respond?

Thanks.

quote:

There were no answers for me anywhere in that life or that worldview. I've chosen to turn to faith as an adult and become a Baptist. God is now the fountain from which I can drink forever and always be satisfied. I now believe that I am 'cured' of these labels

Literally The Worst posted:

Exorcise the demons, beg forgiveness for your sins

Literally The Worst posted:

The more he posts in various places the last time he has to inflict himself on the world at large

Shbobdb posted:

It's hard, you know? Sometimes I try to use my experience in academia to "force a higher dialogue" and by that, I mean "threadshit". But I just can't compete with professional threadshitters.

I thought SA was a gentle forum where amateur threadshitters could work at perfecting their art. But people like CoC just ruin it for everybody by being professionally crazy.

SedanChair posted:

Whoever diagnosed you as having depression with psychotic features is either a broken clock that's right twice a day, or a working clock that's right whenever you look at it.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

As long as he's just doing himself he's not trying to do anyone else, right?

Political Whores posted:

CoC, if you are on track to be a leader in your church then I expect horrendous sex abuse in your community to come to light 1-2 months from now.

Game_Whino posted: