Total Posts:106|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What's the Cause of Conservative Intolerance?

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 4:43:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As bonny ole Bill Shakespeare might say, the fault, dear conservatives, lies not in your too-strenuously professed love of liberty or commitment to common sense, but in your bigoted psychological attitudes if you're predisposed to be intolerant wingnuts. Say what?!

Well, certainly the mind-set of intolerance isn't confined and unique to card-carrying conservatives. People who lack a well-defined and consistent political point of view, who don't staunchly identify with any formal philosophy, can nonetheless be closed-minded in their middle-of-the-roadness. And yes, the self-critical truth be told, even we progressives can occasionally be overweening in our "political correctness". However, the tendency is distinctly more pronounced in those on the right, and so the question puts itself, why?

Now of course at this point a conservative participating in the conversation would vociferously beg to disagree, and to assert that what's perceived to be conservative intolerance is merely stalwartness in one's creedal convictions. This would be plausible if conservatives only exhibited "stalwartness", and didn't also manifest so darn much polemical partisanship, holier-than-thou hostility & hatefulness to their opponents, and telltale forms of chauvinism such as nationalism, racism, sexism, and moralism.

Sorry conservatives, but there's patently a bit more going on than just being passionate proponents of your party's first principles. What's going on under the intellectual cover of your principles & politics is something quite unconsciously mental, shall we say. That is, the deep-level psychodynamics of intolerance are at work, determining the direction of and driving your unyielding & uncompassionate opinionatedness.

No doubt any conservative reading this is still viscerally balking, but I'll push on. What then, specifically, are these conducive-to-intolerance psychodynamics operating behind the scenes of the conscience and consciousness of a typical conservative? In my layman's analysis there are, to paraphrase the jargon of eHarmony, four quite identifiable dimensions of the conservative mentality's incompatibility with other, more progressive viewpoints, with concepts such as social compassion for the poor, equality, feminism, acceptance of homosexuals, antimilitarism, etc.

In order of motivational depth these four dimensions are: social dominance-orientation, tribalism, dogmatism, and rationalism. Social dominance-orientation, which I personally also like to call the alpha male-female mentality, is the coloring of one's perspective on life & the world by certain brutishly basic values that are ever near & dear to the unconscious primitive still hanging out on the down-low in all our minds. You know, those instinctive interests that I'll call the four Ss here, strength, superiority, status, and supremacy – which of course sum up to social dominance. The atavistically quaint knuckle-dragger encoded by evolution into the bowels of our brains highly esteems such dominance-oriented qualities, and interprets just about everything in terms of them.

No, of course conservatives aren't the only ones in whose psyches we find secreted a subhuman homunculus coveting and thinking in crass categories of social power and prestige. However, the dominance-orientation of right-wingers is decidedly more detectable, and does play a much bigger role in forming their ideology. For instance, rightists tend to be pro-capitalist because capitalism is a Darwinian system par excellence, in which individuals are given permission and license to pursue social dominance through the accumulation of economic wealth and clout.

As for the moralism that conservatives sanctimoniously pride themselves on, in actuality it has very little to do with being genuinely ethically-oriented. Rather and quite simply, the amoral values of the conservative's id, as it were, values such as strength & superiority, are superficially ethicized by his superego into smarmy categories such as good & bad. Which, I might point out, goes a long way in explaining why the weak and underdog members of society, such as the poor, are viewed by conservatives as lacking moral fiber. After all, for the dominance-oriented conservative mentality weak & poor = bad! Being judgmental in this fashion of course also has the payoff of allowing one to enjoy a sense of characterological superiority, and to claim moral dominance in one's society.

The conservative's moralism, then, simply panders to his own ego's need to feel better-than-thou, and to exercise a controlling moral authority. I could go on, pointing out how the support-the-troops, pro-military stance of conservatives obviously correlates with their macho admiration for and desire to flex the strength represented by the military and its members. I could also analyze how their staunch law & order approach to society's crime problem boils down to seeing crooks as morally inferior individuals who need to be dominated by law enforcement and the department of corrections. Ultimately, conservatism, lock, stock, and barrel, is not much more than a grandiose ideological façade for the conservative's subliminal social dominance-orientation.

Now then, it's rather obvious, I would think, that being oriented in such a way as to admire and aspire to dominance-superiority would tend to make one superior, authoritarian, intransigent, and intolerant in one's views. In fact, the conservative's social dominance orientation is really the psychologically bottommost bottom line of the hard-liner mind-set of conservatives.

However, there are several other dimensions of rightist intolerance that SDO (social dominance orientation) feeds into. The next most primeval is of course what above I've termed tribalism. Human beings, to state a fact from sociology 101, are social creatures – after all, the dominance that we value most is dominance within a social context and achieved through group involvement, not an anti-social kind of powerfulness. But, disappointingly, our social nature primitively presents as our proclivity to form into cliquish social units, the idea of universal human brotherhood takes a bit more enlightenment. Whether small tribal bands of aboriginal peoples, or our modern national tribes, or the myriad of other groups that people identify with and derive identity from, no one is such an individualist that he doesn't long to be a part of a community of some kind, and no one who throws in with a community doesn't feel deeply invested in it.

But such investedness, unfortunately, can and does have its dark side. It can make us partisan and antagonistic to those whose presence, way of life, and way of thinking contrasts with our own group identity. What's more, it can become interfused with our dominance orientation and make us want to imperiously and intolerantly impose our own group's identity and superiority on others. We see this in the conservative's zeal to fight and win the "culture war", a crusade, on his part, to establish the cultural-moral superiority of his group's ideological identity and actualize his jingoistic sense of having a special, righteous purpose.

Which is all to say that the tribal mind-set isn't terribly interested in being easygoing and liberal. Indeed, to be "liberal", in the literal sense of being willing to grant others the liberty to be different, in the sense of being tolerant, is profoundly psychologically at odds with tribalism. Are conservatives the only ones in our modern society who have their heads in such an illiberal, tribal place, of course not, but they most certainly do tend to have a more intensely and narrowly tribal mental outlook than the average nonconservative boy or girl, and it does tend to make them above-average in their intolerance.

The conclusion is located directly below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 4:44:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conclusion

So, we already see that a conservative really is profoundly disinclined, at a pre-ideological level, to be "liberal" in the progressive meaning of the word. The conservative's seeds of vulgar intolerance, however, obviously do proceed to intellectually bloom into the weed, the poison ivy of ideology. That is, for a conservative ideology is not a mere philosophy of politics and life, rather it's a creedal cognitive construct that rationalizes and articulates his superiority-oriented thinking, and that fleshes out his supercilious sense of entitlement to social dominance. When such a cognitive construct is full-blown, and one's mind is fully entrenched in it, well, voilà, you then have dogmatism, the next to last nefarious nail in the coffin of any modicum of tolerance the conservative might make a pretense of possessing.

Which segues right into the very last, coup de grâce nail, the conservative's vaunted rationalism & realism. For you see, conservatives rather like to fancy their particular dogmatism to be eminently rational, and oh-so down-to-earth in its realism. This of course naturally enough goes with the tough-minded self-image of folks with a pronounced dominance orientation. The rub here for a conservative's remaining drop of tolerance though is that such "tough-mindedness" can easily devolve into rigid-mindedness, and the teeny-tiny drop quickly evaporates!

Like an intellectual arm bar, the conservative's sense of being an impeccably rational realist locks his mind into a convinced belief in the logical legitimacy of his dogmatism, and into his emotional embrace of the philosophical justifications that it supplies for his intolerance. Now all the dimensions of his intolerance merge together and form the menacing matrix of a mentality capable of practicing unkind, unloving, and uncompromising intolerance. The unconscious-conscious circuit of conservative bigotry is now complete, and there's no escaping it unless and until one breaks it outright. Likewise, the spirit of peaceful coexistence, of live and let live, of love thy neighbor even if he doesn't look and think at all like you, can't enter within the conservative's mean-minded psychic circuit while it's in tact.

Alas, at the end of the psychosocially analytical day, conservatism and brotherly tolerance are found to be quite mutually exclusive, to put it mildly. Conservatism is conservatism, and liberality is liberality, and never the twain shall meet. A tolerant Tory, and a compassionately accepting conservative, I'm afraid, are as irresolvably oxymoronic as a nice Nazi. It's only when this is self-honestly realized, and when his mind begins to free itself from its dominance-oriented, tribalistic, dogmatic, and conceitedly rationalistic thought patterns that the soft light of a kinder & gentler humanity begins to at last shine on the hard soul of a conservative.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 4:50:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Being intolerant of intolerance makes you.... *drum roll*.....intolerant.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 5:01:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 4:50:46 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Being intolerant of intolerance makes you.... *drum roll*.....intolerant.

icwutudidthar
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 5:09:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 4:50:46 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Being intolerant of intolerance makes you.... *drum roll*.....intolerant.

Where did I ever say, in a simplemindedly categorical and absolute fashion, that all intolerance is bad? Certainly intolerance of child abuse is a positive form of intolerance. Further, proper forms of intolerance include intolerance of giving blind people misleading directions, intolerance of waiters who spit in their customer's soup, intolerance of politicians who lie, etc. Likewise, intolerance of dogmatism, hate, cruelty, and intolerance itself, are all legitimate forms of intolerance.

Well, I didn't digress in the OP to explore the nature of legitimate vs. illegitimate intolerance, which gave you an easy opening for your little quip, but now that I've cleared up my position on this side question, perhaps you might like to share some thoughts on the actual topic of the post? Drumroll ...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 5:11:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why is belly button fluff blue?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 5:19:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 5:09:58 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/11/2011 4:50:46 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Being intolerant of intolerance makes you.... *drum roll*.....intolerant.

Where did I ever say, in a simplemindedly categorical and absolute fashion, that all intolerance is bad?:

So basically as long as you're the one cherry-picking as to what is (un)cceptable behavior, everything is copacetic? Maybe these conservatives that you deride feel the same way, in which case, what makes you so special?

Secondly, I was only making a philosophical point and a rhetorical argument. Don't take it too seriously.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 5:50:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 5:40:37 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 7/11/2011 5:11:04 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Why is belly button fluff blue?

Mine isn't. Should I be worried?

Yes... you should get medical help.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 6:24:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 5:19:35 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 7/11/2011 5:09:58 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/11/2011 4:50:46 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Being intolerant of intolerance makes you.... *drum roll*.....intolerant.

Where did I ever say, in a simplemindedly categorical and absolute fashion, that all intolerance is bad?:

So basically as long as you're the one cherry-picking as to what is (un)cceptable behavior, everything is copacetic? Maybe these conservatives that you deride feel the same way, in which case, what makes you so special?

Secondly, I was only making a philosophical point and a rhetorical argument. Don't take it too seriously.

So, are you some sort of a moral relativist who thinks that we can't objectively define good intolerance & bad intolerance, or determine a distinction between good and bad attitudes of any kind? Perhaps you are, perhaps you think that the human mind and conscience isn't capable of reliably differentiating right from wrong, ethical goodness from ethical evil, or enlightened intolerance from benighted intolerance? Or perhaps you're even farther gone in your moral relativism than this, perhaps you think that there's no difference to ascertain in the first place? Well, I'm not at all a relativist, and have no difficulty in telling positive from negative forms of intolerance.

So what's the objective moral distinction between bad-conservative and good-progressive intolerance? Conservatives tend to be intolerant of harmless groups and behaviors that not only don't merit an intolerant response, rather they should often elicit a supportive and compassionate response. This makes conservative intolerance undeniably unfair and patently pernicious. Conversely, progressive intolerance tends to be focused toward cruelty and injustice, i.e. toward moral wrongs that should quite obviously (to anyone possessed of average ethical intelligence) be opposed. So yes, rightist intolerance does in fact tend to be of the unjustifiable and unrighteous ilk, and leftist intolerance does tend to be of the condonable and condign variety. Making such a distinction for oneself isn't "cherry-picking", it's using one's conscience and heart in the way that we're all morally duty-bound to.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 6:55:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So, are you some sort of a moral relativist who thinks that we can't objectively define good intolerance & bad intolerance, or determine a distinction between good and bad attitudes of any kind?:

Well, as a society we do do this, but at the end of the day, they're still just opinions. And yes, morals are relative to circumstances.

Well, I'm not at all a relativist, and have no difficulty in telling positive from negative forms of intolerance.:

Then why does your version of morality differ from others?

So what's the objective moral distinction between bad-conservative and good-progressive intolerance? Conservatives tend to be intolerant of harmless groups and behaviors that not only don't merit an intolerant response, rather they should often elicit a supportive and compassionate response. This makes conservative intolerance undeniably unfair and patently pernicious. Conversely, progressive intolerance tends to be focused toward cruelty and injustice, i.e. toward moral wrongs that should quite obviously (to anyone possessed of average ethical intelligence) be opposed. So yes, rightist intolerance does in fact tend to be of the unjustifiable and unrighteous ilk, and leftist intolerance does tend to be of the condonable and condign variety. Making such a distinction for oneself isn't "cherry-picking", it's using one's conscience and heart in the way that we're all morally duty-bound to.:

All heart and no brain nullifies the purpose of having a heart in the first place. And, again, what may be moral to you might be immoral to me, and vice versa. At the end of the day, you're alluding that your way of thinking is correct, and other people are sh*t. You're making an idol of yourself, and where I'm from, that lack of humility is quite..... immoral.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
smc_gamer
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 10:21:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Concerning the "racism" of Conservatives: Liberals are pretty racist as well

In one example, consider the media's treatment of Barack Obama and compare it to the media's treatment of, say, Herman Cain or Clarence Thomas. Both are black, therefore, as liberals say, both have been oppressed by the evil white man for centuries.

However, the treatment of Obama is usually far better than that of Cain and Thomas, for the sole reason that Obama is a black liberal.

The feminist and civil justice movements are not movements to empower blacks and women, just liberal blacks and women.
"If good things lasted forever, would we appreciate how precious they are?"
-Hobbes
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2011 8:21:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
--"As bonny ole Bill Shakespeare might say, the fault, dear conservatives, lies not in your too-strenuously professed love of liberty or commitment to common sense, but in your bigoted psychological attitudes if you're predisposed to be intolerant wingnuts. Say what?!"--

Hypocrite. Any one who believes differently than you is a bigoted wingnut, but you bmc about us being intolerant??
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 12:27:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/12/2011 10:21:37 AM, smc_gamer wrote:
Concerning the "racism" of Conservatives: Liberals are pretty racist as well

Sure, not everyone outside the conservative camp is perfectly enlightened, but the point of my post is that conservatives are especially predisposed, by certain aspects of the very psychology responsible for their conservatism, to be bigoted and intolerant. Mm-hmm, the Everyone-is-guilty-of-it defense doesn't take away at all from my analysis, if you wish to neutralize it you'll have to try again.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 12:29:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 4:50:46 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Being intolerant of intolerance makes you.... *drum roll*.....intolerant.

You sure about that?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 1:11:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 12:29:32 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/11/2011 4:50:46 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Being intolerant of intolerance makes you.... *drum roll*.....intolerant.

You sure about that?

By definition, yes, it does. But if one is truly intolerant of intolerance, their intolerance is justified, perhaps even necessary to some extent, while the other kind of intolerance isn't. Two kinds of intolerance there, and one isn't the bad kind, even though the word has a negative connotation.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 4:44:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 1:11:59 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/13/2011 12:29:32 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/11/2011 4:50:46 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Being intolerant of intolerance makes you.... *drum roll*.....intolerant.

You sure about that?

By definition, yes, it does. But if one is truly intolerant of intolerance, their intolerance is justified, perhaps even necessary to some extent, while the other kind of intolerance isn't. Two kinds of intolerance there, and one isn't the bad kind, even though the word has a negative connotation.

Wow, a self-described "libertarian" who actually agrees with me on at least one side point that I've made in this thread! (Although I'm reasonably sure that we have different ideas about what constitutes justifiable intolerance.)
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 5:12:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
From what I have seen, the most intolerant places in our country are on the college campus. I got an email from a member who had to leave this site and his primary reason was it wasn't permitted on his campus. He's a professor at a liberal university and they prohibit this site as being filled with "hate speech". This is one of your 'it's okay to be intolerant against' items. Now I work for an evil giant corporation, and they're fine with me on this site (although they have no idea the amounts of time I spend here). From my experience the left are filled with a bunch of busy bodies that want to make sure my life conforms with everything that has passed through the Charlesb filter.

It boggles my mind that you cannot see the hypocrisy of what you write. That you are so blind to the freedoms of expression that the left have subtly taken from us in the guise of political correctness, because of course these are standards that are in line with your 'it's okay to be intolerant against' list.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 5:22:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Another bit of thought on conservative vs. progressives.

Howard Zinn used to say that "You can't be neutral on a moving train". Well, of course conservatives aren't at all neutral, they've decisively chosen sides, the side of their own ideological camp and of the capitalist power elite. That is, conservatives would very much like to install their own fellow uncompassionate conservatives, and superrich capitalists, as the engineers and conductors of the sociopolitical train we're all riding.

Progressives, on the other hand, would prefer to make us all, the whole working class citizenry of society, the engineers and conductors on our locomotive journey through life and history. Of course, as things currently stand under our so-called "free-enterprise" system most of us are merely the menial stokers laboriously shoveling fuel into the economy's all-consuming furnace to keep it chugging along. We're the servile stevedores and porters toting all the burdens for our capitalist choo-choo's first-class passengers. And all too many of us these days are the underclass of hobos who are treated like we don't even have a right to be on board. Progressives truly are the folks who would like to humanely reverse this, ASAP.

P.S. As for that sub-set of egoistically individualistic conservatives flatteringly called "libertarians", well, it would seem that there's, drumroll please, actual scientific evidence that jibes with some of my analysis of right-libertarian psychology in this thread. Mm-hmm, it would seem that a team of eminent social scientists (led by psychologist Jonathan Haidt) have done a study of the right-libertarian mentality, and have arrived at findings that suggest that "libertarianism" may very well tie in with an Asperger's-like psychological make-up! I.e., a "hyper-masculine", dogmatically rationalist, and inflexible mentality. (In the interest of intellectual integrity, I should observe that the study concluded that it's a misconception that libertarians are a "sub-set" of conservatives, as I've referred to them above and in other posts. However, this is one conclusion that I beg to disagree with.)

I would have my critics here note that the macho, alpha male mind-set that I assert to be at the core of conservative-libertarian ideology holds together nicely with this study's discovery of "hyper-masculine" psychological traits in libertarians. Also, please note that in this thread I've also focused on the stubborn pseudo-logicality of you blessed lot of libertarians. And then of course the whole gist of the original post is that inflexibility and intolerance are interwoven throughout the fundamental mental disposition of conservatives & libertarians. So, hooray for the Haidt study, it somewhat supports my hate of the rightist mentality.

Oh yeah, incidentally, how many of the "libertarians" here, I wonder, might be among the 50% of their camp who, according to the study, would be willing to have a tail surgically attached to your backsides for money?! Come to think of it, maybe that's the only way that some libertarians could get any tail? Now then, for those of you here who like links to sources, here's one, to the Prospect article, Reasons to Avoid a Libertarian Babysitter, http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 5:53:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 5:22:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
P.S. As for that sub-set of egoistically individualistic conservatives flatteringly called "libertarians", well, it would seem that there's, drumroll please, actual scientific evidence that jibes with some of my analysis of right-libertarian psychology in this thread. Mm-hmm, it would seem that a team of eminent social scientists (led by psychologist Jonathan Haidt) have done a study of the right-libertarian mentality, and have arrived at findings that suggest that "libertarianism" may very well tie in with an Asperger's-like psychological make-up! I.e., a "hyper-masculine", dogmatically rationalist, and inflexible mentality. (In the interest of intellectual integrity, I should observe that the study concluded that it's a misconception that libertarians are a "sub-set" of conservatives, as I've referred to them above and in other posts. However, this is one conclusion that I beg to disagree with.)

Translation: This is a study that concludes everything that I say, and you know its right because its a study, except in the parts that I disagree with, because I am always right!

How do you not see the hypocrisy?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 6:36:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 5:22:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
Another bit of thought on conservative vs. progressives.

Howard Zinn used to say that "You can't be neutral on a moving train".

Voltaire used to say that "a witty saying proves nothing."

Well, of course conservatives aren't at all neutral, they've decisively chosen sides, the side of their own ideological camp and of the capitalist power elite. That is, conservatives would very much like to install their own fellow uncompassionate conservatives, and superrich capitalists, as the engineers and conductors of the sociopolitical train we're all riding.

Install? In capitalism, one does not "install" himself as a leader. He must build up a company from scratch, or display great management ability. While you see a sociopolitical train, I see a sea of many ships and boats, with the freedom to choose whichever one I want to ride.

Progressives, on the other hand, would prefer to make us all, the whole working class citizenry of society, the engineers and conductors on our locomotive journey through life and history.

You mean the liberals who want the central planners in Congress to tell us where we can and cannot set up businesses, what light bulbs we can and cannot use, and many other details of our life? Are we even talking about the same group?

Of course, as things currently stand under our so-called "free-enterprise" system most of us are merely the menial stokers laboriously shoveling fuel into the economy's all-consuming furnace to keep it chugging along.

Is there another way to get the economy running besides work?

We're the servile stevedores and porters toting all the burdens for our capitalist choo-choo's first-class passengers.

They bought the ticket, didn't they? Either that, or they're still currently working it off through their job, be it in athletics, entertainment, management, or whatever.

And all too many of us these days are the underclass of hobos who are treated like we don't even have a right to be on board.

Who owns the train, in this metaphor?

Progressives truly are the folks who would like to humanely reverse this, ASAP.

Hah, no. Need I again remind you that big business gave more money to Obama than McCain? Progressive regulation actively helps the businesses large enough to lobby Congress to pass laws in its favor.

P.S. As for that sub-set of egoistically individualistic conservatives flatteringly called "libertarians", well, it would seem that there's, drumroll please, actual scientific evidence that jibes with some of my analysis of right-libertarian psychology in this thread. Mm-hmm, it would seem that a team of eminent social scientists (led by psychologist Jonathan Haidt) have done a study of the right-libertarian mentality, and have arrived at findings that suggest that "libertarianism" may very well tie in with an Asperger's-like psychological make-up! I.e., a "hyper-masculine", dogmatically rationalist, and inflexible mentality.

The study concluded that libertarians were more likely to betray certain morals, but there is definitely not a single mentality that can define all libertarians. Outside of government issues, I am practically a conservative, making me one among many exceptions to such a mentality.

(In the interest of intellectual integrity, I should observe that the study concluded that it's a misconception that libertarians are a "sub-set" of conservatives, as I've referred to them above and in other posts. However, this is one conclusion that I beg to disagree with.)

You're going to accept the study's conclusions that you like as fact, yet dismiss the conclusion that you disagree with for no apparent reason other than the fact that you disagree with it? Sounds like cherry-picking to me.

I would have my critics here note that the macho, alpha male mind-set that I assert to be at the core of conservative-libertarian ideology holds together nicely with this study's discovery of "hyper-masculine" psychological traits in libertarians.

The phrase "hyper-masculine" never appears in the study, so what are you playing at?

; Also, please note that in this thread I've also focused on the stubborn pseudo-logicality of you blessed lot of libertarians. And then of course the whole gist of the original post is that inflexibility and intolerance are interwoven throughout the fundamental mental disposition of conservatives & libertarians. So, hooray for the Haidt study, it somewhat supports my hate of the rightist mentality.

Congrats, we can now label your posts as hate speech. If liberal trends are consistent, your posts will be condemned by your own ideology. Of course, that's a rather large "if."

Oh yeah, incidentally, how many of the "libertarians" here, I wonder, might be among the 50% of their camp who, according to the study, would be willing to have a tail surgically attached to your backsides for money?!

Why would anyone pay anyone to have a tail surgically attached? And no, I wouldn't.

Come to think of it, maybe that's the only way that some libertarians could get any tail?

Did you cite that fact just to make that lame insult pun?

Now then, for those of you here who like links to sources, here's one, to the Prospect article, Reasons to Avoid a Libertarian Babysitter, http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk...

If you're interested, I could apply the study to myself using Appendixes B and C as an example of a libertarian mindset.

Your entire attempt to attack the psychology of many people behind particular political ideologies is actually one giant case of the genetic fallacy and argumentum ad hominem combined.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 8:41:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Intolerance" is different from "in disagreement." Leftists are intolerant, conservatives disagree. Conservatives are usually not allowed to speak on liberal campuses, and if allowed it's okay to shout them down or attack them. Conservative are rarely allowed on the faculties of liberal-dominated schools. There are many instances of Leftist thugs physically attacking Tea Party demonstrators, none of Tea Partiers beating up anyone. Conservative authors are generally shunned by the liberal media and their books ignored. Libertarian John Stossel wrote a book that disagreed with conservatives on some issues and liberals on others -- mostly the standard libertarian positions. Conservative talk shows had him on to discuss his book; not a single Leftist would talk to him. "Kill Bush" signs at demonstration were never reported by liberal media whereas the Tea Party rallies were scoured to find something that could be construed as even faintly racist.

Leftists are wildly intolerant.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 8:55:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 8:41:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
"Intolerance" is different from "in disagreement." Leftists are intolerant, conservatives disagree. Conservatives are usually not allowed to speak on liberal campuses, and if allowed it's okay to shout them down or attack them. Conservative are rarely allowed on the faculties of liberal-dominated schools. There are many instances of Leftist thugs physically attacking Tea Party demonstrators, none of Tea Partiers beating up anyone. Conservative authors are generally shunned by the liberal media and their books ignored. Libertarian John Stossel wrote a book that disagreed with conservatives on some issues and liberals on others -- mostly the standard libertarian positions. Conservative talk shows had him on to discuss his book; not a single Leftist would talk to him. "Kill Bush" signs at demonstration were never reported by liberal media whereas the Tea Party rallies were scoured to find something that could be construed as even faintly racist.

Leftists are wildly intolerant.

Opinion: Both the left and the right need to be replaced.

Left replacement - Green Party

Right Replacement - Tea Party
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 10:41:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 8:55:33 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/13/2011 8:41:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
"Intolerance" is different from "in disagreement." Leftists are intolerant, conservatives disagree. Conservatives are usually not allowed to speak on liberal campuses, and if allowed it's okay to shout them down or attack them. Conservative are rarely allowed on the faculties of liberal-dominated schools. There are many instances of Leftist thugs physically attacking Tea Party demonstrators, none of Tea Partiers beating up anyone. Conservative authors are generally shunned by the liberal media and their books ignored. Libertarian John Stossel wrote a book that disagreed with conservatives on some issues and liberals on others -- mostly the standard libertarian positions. Conservative talk shows had him on to discuss his book; not a single Leftist would talk to him. "Kill Bush" signs at demonstration were never reported by liberal media whereas the Tea Party rallies were scoured to find something that could be construed as even faintly racist.

Leftists are wildly intolerant.

Opinion: Both the left and the right need to be replaced.

Left replacement - Green Party

Right Replacement - Tea Party

The Tea Party is essentially what the right/Republican party used to be before they injected religion into everything and decided that it would be cool to show all the other countries how awesome America is by kicking their sorry foreigner asses. (AKA, before it became nearly synonymous with neoconservativism). It would be awesome if the Republicans could go back to the days when Senator Robert Taft was its standard bearer. As for the left, they just have to remember that government can't solve everything and even their government is susceptible to corruption if you give it enough power. Most of their social views are alright as they are, but they can be pretty damn intolerant themselves when it comes to those.

Speaking of intolerance, liberals are so intolerant when you say anything about their social policies and/or/especially Barack Obama. Mostly they just charge you with racism and blame everything in the world on the Bush administration.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 3:17:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
tl;dr, but liberals are racist as well. It's reverse racism though with programs such as affirmative which really doesn't help anybody since naturally as a business owner you would want to hire whoever is the most qualified.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 3:31:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 3:17:04 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
tl;dr, but liberals are racist as well. It's reverse racism though with programs such as affirmative which really doesn't help anybody since naturally as a business owner you would want to hire whoever is the most qualified.

Affirmative action = irony at its best (or worst?)
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 9:08:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 5:22:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
Another bit of thought on conservative vs. progressives.

Howard Zinn used to say that "You can't be neutral on a moving train". Well, of course conservatives aren't at all neutral, they've decisively chosen sides, the side of their own ideological camp and of the capitalist power elite. That is, conservatives would very much like to install their own fellow uncompassionate conservatives, and superrich capitalists, as the engineers and conductors of the sociopolitical train we're all riding.

Progressives, on the other hand, would prefer to make us all, the whole working class citizenry of society, the engineers and conductors on our locomotive journey through life and history. Of course, as things currently stand under our so-called "free-enterprise" system most of us are merely the menial stokers laboriously shoveling fuel into the economy's all-consuming furnace to keep it chugging along. We're the servile stevedores and porters toting all the burdens for our capitalist choo-choo's first-class passengers. And all too many of us these days are the underclass of hobos who are treated like we don't even have a right to be on board. Progressives truly are the folks who would like to humanely reverse this, ASAP.


P.S. As for that sub-set of egoistically individualistic conservatives flatteringly called "libertarians", well, it would seem that there's, drumroll please, actual scientific evidence that jibes with some of my analysis of right-libertarian psychology in this thread. Mm-hmm, it would seem that a team of eminent social scientists (led by psychologist Jonathan Haidt) have done a study of the right-libertarian mentality, and have arrived at findings that suggest that "libertarianism" may very well tie in with an Asperger's-like psychological make-up! I.e., a "hyper-masculine", dogmatically rationalist, and inflexible mentality. (In the interest of intellectual integrity, I should observe that the study concluded that it's a misconception that libertarians are a "sub-set" of conservatives, as I've referred to them above and in other posts. However, this is one conclusion that I beg to disagree with.)


I would have my critics here note that the macho, alpha male mind-set that I assert to be at the core of conservative-libertarian ideology holds together nicely with this study's discovery of "hyper-masculine" psychological traits in libertarians. Also, please note that in this thread I've also focused on the stubborn pseudo-logicality of you blessed lot of libertarians. And then of course the whole gist of the original post is that inflexibility and intolerance are interwoven throughout the fundamental mental disposition of conservatives & libertarians. So, hooray for the Haidt study, it somewhat supports my hate of the rightist mentality.

Oh yeah, incidentally, how many of the "libertarians" here, I wonder, might be among the 50% of their camp who, according to the study, would be willing to have a tail surgically attached to your backsides for money?! Come to think of it, maybe that's the only way that some libertarians could get any tail? Now then, for those of you here who like links to sources, here's one, to the Prospect article, Reasons to Avoid a Libertarian Babysitter, http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk...

Any post that starts with Howard Zinn is immediately nullified and you lose 10 credibility points.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 9:36:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Any post that starts with Howard Zinn is immediately nullified and you lose 10 credibility points.:

It's amazing that his revisionist history is even allowed in to academia... but I guess that's the world that the intelligentsia wants everyone to believe.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 1:47:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/14/2011 9:36:31 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Any post that starts with Howard Zinn is immediately nullified and you lose 10 credibility points.:

It's amazing that his revisionist history is even allowed in to academia... but I guess that's the world that the intelligentsia wants everyone to believe.

Are you kidding me? In many inner cities his Peoples History of the United States is a text book. That book is the only book i ever threw into the fireplace. It is horrific revisionist rubbish, oh and Charles' main source of understanding the US.

I am guessing Charles has never lived in another country.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2011 6:02:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 10:41:42 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/13/2011 8:55:33 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/13/2011 8:41:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
"Intolerance" is different from "in disagreement." Leftists are intolerant, conservatives disagree. Conservatives are usually not allowed to speak on liberal campuses, and if allowed it's okay to shout them down or attack them. Conservative are rarely allowed on the faculties of liberal-dominated schools. There are many instances of Leftist thugs physically attacking Tea Party demonstrators, none of Tea Partiers beating up anyone. Conservative authors are generally shunned by the liberal media and their books ignored. Libertarian John Stossel wrote a book that disagreed with conservatives on some issues and liberals on others -- mostly the standard libertarian positions. Conservative talk shows had him on to discuss his book; not a single Leftist would talk to him. "Kill Bush" signs at demonstration were never reported by liberal media whereas the Tea Party rallies were scoured to find something that could be construed as even faintly racist.

Leftists are wildly intolerant.

Opinion: Both the left and the right need to be replaced.

Left replacement - Green Party

Right Replacement - Tea Party

The Tea Party is essentially what the right/Republican party used to be before they injected religion into everything and decided that it would be cool to show all the other countries how awesome America is by kicking their sorry foreigner asses. (AKA, before it became nearly synonymous with neoconservativism). It would be awesome if the Republicans could go back to the days when Senator Robert Taft was its standard bearer. As for the left, they just have to remember that government can't solve everything and even their government is susceptible to corruption if you give it enough power. Most of their social views are alright as they are, but they can be pretty damn intolerant themselves when it comes to those.

Speaking of intolerance, liberals are so intolerant when you say anything about their social policies and/or/especially Barack Obama. Mostly they just charge you with racism and blame everything in the world on the Bush administration.

Reply: That's why I said that the left needs to be replaced by the green party. The left is supposed to represent liberalism (freedom) and the right is supposed to represent conservatism (order). The duality of these two parties is what is supposed to keep our country in balance. The current left in hardly liberal and the current right is a corrupted conservatism. Time the replace the parties with new fresh versions (green party and tea party).
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."