Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Right-Wing Mentality on Diplay in Norway

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2011 11:04:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well, there you have it, the fellow who perpetrated the massacre in Norway is a rabid right-winger! Not much of a surprise there! At least it's not much of a surprise if you share my analysis of the right-wing mind-set. Mm-hmm, a critique of the rightist mentality as a dominance-oriented one goes a long way in making the murderous intolerance of someone like Anders Breivik comprehendible. His slaughter of the scions of Norway's social-democratic Labor Party is, arguably, more explainable in terms of underlying rightist psychology than the faux righteous ideology espoused by such types. That is, such behavior is a way of acting out the craving of a dominance-oriented mentality for self-assertion. The sense of powerfulness and dominance gained from going on a violent killing spree, of exercising control over life & death for so many defenseless victims, is certainly something that would appeal to an individual with a dominance-oriented mental makeup. Oh yes, I'm sorry to say, we should all beware of right-wingers, for Mr. Breivik is indeed an indication of what such a psychological orientation is sometimes capable of.

Okay, sure, I'm taunting the rightists here a bit. However, I'm attempting to taunt them to a greater psychological self-awareness. Yes conservatives, if you don't merely retreat like moral cowards into rationalizations, rhetoric, and retorts of a defensive nature, you might genuinely profit in terms of enlightenment from opening your thoughts to my criticisms of your mentality. For I assure you that there's more truth to my analysis of conservative attitudes than you-all would like to admit, and there's certainly a good size kernel of truth to my contention that Mr. Breivik's dominance-oriented rightist bent of mind was in play as he carried out his homicidal fantasy yesterday. Conservatives, I sincerely urge you to not do the chickensh*t thing and write bloodthirsty Breivik off as a mere psychopath whose actions don't reflect on you, for in reflecting on you his actions throw light on your own psyches. Light that can help you find your way to being better people. Therefore please take responsibility for the role of his rightist mentality in yesterday's tragedy, and grow from doing so.

Of course, if one only examines conservative principles & politics on the face-value level of logic they would seem to have little to do with motivating violence. Conservatives, after all, do rather like to couch their psychology in what they think are impeccable rational arguments. Indeed, they pride themselves on being quite the rationalists, as opposed to people such as myself on the left whom they pejoratively portray to be poor reasoners.

But don't be deceived by the pretense, the rationalism of conservatives is more a matter of dogmatic intellectuality in the service of their egos than it is authentic logicality. That is, the egoistic need of conservatives to feel superior motivates them to dogmatically embrace intellectual rationalizations for their attitudes. Nope, it would not do, it would not do at all to express their unkind and uncompassionate thought patterns in crudely honest terms, as this wouldn't allow them to chauvinistically claim the moral high ground on the political field of battle. The dominance-oriented ego & mentality of rightists requires more than mere political dominance, you see; it also lusts for a sense of ethical holier-than-thouness. And so the rightist ego presses the intellect into service to come up with rarefied rhetoric and principled politics to cloak its primitive will-to-dominance in.

Critically strip away all of the unconsciously lying layer of ideology & idealism, and what we find lurking beneath is something quite psychologically rude & rudimentary, i.e. a mental outlook that views the world in terms of primally base binaries such as strength & weakness, being a man and being a p*ssy, being a winner and being a loser, and of course the quintessential brutish binary, dominancy & subordinancy. And to state the obvious, these cavemanly conservative categories of thought are of course all crudely and cruelly biased in favor of valuing self-aggrandizing strength, macho prowess, ruthless success, and ego-bloating dominance.

And, again, these socially, ethically, and spiritually unevolved values reside not merely in the recesses of the rightist unconscious, but subtly work their way into the conscious, intellectual views and politics of those on the starboard side of the ideological divide. How so? Well, take for example the conservative's doctrinaire dedication to championing capitalism. Where does it come from, mentally? Does it really come from a philosophical conviction that a society can't be free without an economic system based on the principles of "free enterprise"?

This is of course the self-flattering spin that conservatives prefer to put on their "free-market" fundamentalism. But what really, sans the prettifying platitudes about freedom, is the sort of pure "free-market" society that they aspire to realize? To be blunt, it would be nothing much more grandiose than a Darwinian state of socioeconomic affairs in which everyone would be licentiously at liberty to selfishly seek his/her own interests and advantage. That is, to seek to become alpha capitalists in the ole societal food chain, attaining social dominance by greedily cultivating economic wealth. The utopian vision of conservative free-marketeers amounts to little more than their social dominance-oriented mentality's wish to be unfettered in its pursuit of power. And of course the conservative's admiration for and choice to side with the rich, with society's uber capitalists, is little more than their social dominance-oriented mentality's crude & amoral preference to identify with the strong.

Conversely, the negative view that conservatives take of the poor boils down to their contempt for the weak, for those who appear to be lacking in qualities that conduce to dominance. The contempt of conservatives for those whom they consider to be the weak links of society, i.e. welfare recipients, the homeless, minorities, criminals & convicts, etc. is often explicit and unmistakable. There's little doubt whatsoever that many conservatives look down on society's underclass from the chauvinistic perspective of people who unconsciously fancy themselves alpha males & females.

But of course conservatives don't just let their pride in being alpha males-females shamelessly hang out. Rather, on the conscious level conservatives sanctimoniously ethicize their chauvinistic perspective. This does two things, it legitimizes it, and it makes conservatives feel entitled to a sense of moral superiority. The dominance-oriented mentality after all fancies superiority in every department of life, including the ethical. So, the above mentioned binaries are translated. Strong & weak are translated into good & bad. Winners & losers are translated into people who have character and a work ethic, and those who don't. And dominancy & subordinancy are translated into worthiness and unworthiness.

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
7/23/2011 11:05:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conclusion

This recasting of the conservative's brutish binaries in ethical concepts of course facilitates his/her ability to glibly dismiss compassion for capitalist society's authentic victims, and to take righteous-sounding stances against regulating the ability of the rich to victimize the poor, and against a social safety net for the needy. Moreover, the conservative's colonization of the moral sphere of life is obviously also another way of asserting dominance. Whether it's on issues such as abortion rights or gay rights, the conservative can make use of his morality as a bully pulpit to impose his cultural agenda and dominance. He/she can get all morally jingoistic in waging a "culture war", an anti-progressive jihad to establish the social supremacy of society's conservative alpha dogs over its various underdogs, i.e. women who will be deprived of the right to have an abortion, homosexuals, non-Christian minorities, etc.

Conservative morality then, vis-à-vis issues of public policy, is really just priggish power games. Moving on, the pro-military stance and hawkishness of conservatives so obviously comes from a troglodytic esteem for society's alpha males in uniform, for the national tribe's warriors, that I needn't paint the picture of how the dominance-oriented mentality ties in here. And the same goes for the dominance-oriented conservative's preference for using force in the form of law enforcement to deal with sociological ills by dominating society's underclass. I could go on, but I think that I've made enough of a case, and certainly the dominance-oriented mentality behind the politics and philosophy of the conservative camp really is, often enough, quite self-evident. And, alas, it's not hyperbole to say that it was quite tragically apparent yesterday in the way it drove the actions of one Mr. Anders Breivik. So yes, conservatives, I can and do lay his crimes at the psychological-ideological doorstep of your movement, and I'll close here by once again urging you to take responsibility.
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2011 11:18:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/23/2011 11:04:42 PM, charleslb wrote:
Well, there you have it, the fellow who perpetrated the massacre in Norway is a rabid right-winger! Not much of a surprise there!
Gee, someone randomly kills left-wingers in a left-wing country and you find the fact that they are right-wing worthy of comment. I suppose we should also marvel if someone kills right-wingers in a right-wing country and they turn out to be leftist.

Politics is violence.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2011 11:33:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The right-winger who bombed Norway had a dominance-oriented mindset.
Therefore, all right-wingers have a dominance-oriented mindset.

I do believe that you have commited the inductive fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Until you address this, your entire post is rather worthless, as it hinges on your poorly drawn conclusion.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2011 11:34:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/23/2011 11:04:42 PM, charleslb wrote:
Well, there you have it, the fellow who perpetrated the massacre in Norway is a rabid right-winger! Not much of a surprise there! At least it's not much of a surprise if you share my analysis of the right-wing mind-set. Mm-hmm, a critique of the rightist mentality as a dominance-oriented one goes a long way in making the murderous intolerance of someone like Anders Breivik comprehendible. His slaughter of the scions of Norway's social-democratic Labor Party is, arguably, more explainable in terms of underlying rightist psychology than the faux righteous ideology espoused by such types. That is, such behavior is a way of acting out the craving of a dominance-oriented mentality for self-assertion. The sense of powerfulness and dominance gained from going on a violent killing spree, of exercising control over life & death for so many defenseless victims, is certainly something that would appeal to an individual with a dominance-oriented mental makeup. Oh yes, I'm sorry to say, we should all beware of right-wingers, for Mr. Breivik is indeed an indication of what such a psychological orientation is sometimes capable of.

Okay, sure, I'm taunting the rightists here a bit. However, I'm attempting to taunt them to a greater psychological self-awareness. Yes conservatives, if you don't merely retreat like moral cowards into rationalizations, rhetoric, and retorts of a defensive nature, you might genuinely profit in terms of enlightenment from opening your thoughts to my criticisms of your mentality. For I assure you that there's more truth to my analysis of conservative attitudes than you-all would like to admit, and there's certainly a good size kernel of truth to my contention that Mr. Breivik's dominance-oriented rightist bent of mind was in play as he carried out his homicidal fantasy yesterday. Conservatives, I sincerely urge you to not do the chickensh*t thing and write bloodthirsty Breivik off as a mere psychopath whose actions don't reflect on you, for in reflecting on you his actions throw light on your own psyches. Light that can help you find your way to being better people. Therefore please take responsibility for the role of his rightist mentality in yesterday's tragedy, and grow from doing so.

Of course, if one only examines conservative principles & politics on the face-value level of logic they would seem to have little to do with motivating violence. Conservatives, after all, do rather like to couch their psychology in what they think are impeccable rational arguments. Indeed, they pride themselves on being quite the rationalists, as opposed to people such as myself on the left whom they pejoratively portray to be poor reasoners.

But don't be deceived by the pretense, the rationalism of conservatives is more a matter of dogmatic intellectuality in the service of their egos than it is authentic logicality. That is, the egoistic need of conservatives to feel superior motivates them to dogmatically embrace intellectual rationalizations for their attitudes. Nope, it would not do, it would not do at all to express their unkind and uncompassionate thought patterns in crudely honest terms, as this wouldn't allow them to chauvinistically claim the moral high ground on the political field of battle. The dominance-oriented ego & mentality of rightists requires more than mere political dominance, you see; it also lusts for a sense of ethical holier-than-thouness. And so the rightist ego presses the intellect into service to come up with rarefied rhetoric and principled politics to cloak its primitive will-to-dominance in.

Critically strip away all of the unconsciously lying layer of ideology & idealism, and what we find lurking beneath is something quite psychologically rude & rudimentary, i.e. a mental outlook that views the world in terms of primally base binaries such as strength & weakness, being a man and being a p*ssy, being a winner and being a loser, and of course the quintessential brutish binary, dominancy & subordinancy. And to state the obvious, these cavemanly conservative categories of thought are of course all crudely and cruelly biased in favor of valuing self-aggrandizing strength, macho prowess, ruthless success, and ego-bloating dominance.

And, again, these socially, ethically, and spiritually unevolved values reside not merely in the recesses of the rightist unconscious, but subtly work their way into the conscious, intellectual views and politics of those on the starboard side of the ideological divide. How so? Well, take for example the conservative's doctrinaire dedication to championing capitalism. Where does it come from, mentally? Does it really come from a philosophical conviction that a society can't be free without an economic system based on the principles of "free enterprise"?

This is of course the self-flattering spin that conservatives prefer to put on their "free-market" fundamentalism. But what really, sans the prettifying platitudes about freedom, is the sort of pure "free-market" society that they aspire to realize? To be blunt, it would be nothing much more grandiose than a Darwinian state of socioeconomic affairs in which everyone would be licentiously at liberty to selfishly seek his/her own interests and advantage. That is, to seek to become alpha capitalists in the ole societal food chain, attaining social dominance by greedily cultivating economic wealth. The utopian vision of conservative free-marketeers amounts to little more than their social dominance-oriented mentality's wish to be unfettered in its pursuit of power. And of course the conservative's admiration for and choice to side with the rich, with society's uber capitalists, is little more than their social dominance-oriented mentality's crude & amoral preference to identify with the strong.

Conversely, the negative view that conservatives take of the poor boils down to their contempt for the weak, for those who appear to be lacking in qualities that conduce to dominance. The contempt of conservatives for those whom they consider to be the weak links of society, i.e. welfare recipients, the homeless, minorities, criminals & convicts, etc. is often explicit and unmistakable. There's little doubt whatsoever that many conservatives look down on society's underclass from the chauvinistic perspective of people who unconsciously fancy themselves alpha males & females.

But of course conservatives don't just let their pride in being alpha males-females shamelessly hang out. Rather, on the conscious level conservatives sanctimoniously ethicize their chauvinistic perspective. This does two things, it legitimizes it, and it makes conservatives feel entitled to a sense of moral superiority. The dominance-oriented mentality after all fancies superiority in every department of life, including the ethical. So, the above mentioned binaries are translated. Strong & weak are translated into good & bad. Winners & losers are translated into people who have character and a work ethic, and those who don't. And dominancy & subordinancy are translated into worthiness and unworthiness.

The conclusion is located directly below

If this were early 20th century, liberals would be the ones domestically bombing europe.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2011 11:38:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Left-Wing Terrorist Groups:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

But go ahead charleslb. Keep cherry picking a selective few right-wing members, and then generalize about how that makes right-wingers all evil people.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2011 11:40:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/23/2011 11:38:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Left-Wing Terrorist Groups:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

But go ahead charleslb. Keep cherry picking a selective few right-wing members, and then generalize about how that makes right-wingers all evil people.

Oh, don't forget the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2011 11:41:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/23/2011 11:40:41 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/23/2011 11:38:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Left-Wing Terrorist Groups:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

But go ahead charleslb. Keep cherry picking a selective few right-wing members, and then generalize about how that makes right-wingers all evil people.

Oh, don't forget the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front!

I personally count PETA.
JohnJohnSHTOOKAH
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 1:44:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/23/2011 11:41:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/23/2011 11:40:41 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/23/2011 11:38:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Left-Wing Terrorist Groups:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

But go ahead charleslb. Keep cherry picking a selective few right-wing members, and then generalize about how that makes right-wingers all evil people.

Oh, don't forget the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front!

I personally count PETA.

You think PETA is a left wing TERRORIST group....?
Ska > Whatever your favorite genre of music is
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 1:53:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 1:44:13 AM, JohnJohnSHTOOKAH wrote:
At 7/23/2011 11:41:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/23/2011 11:40:41 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/23/2011 11:38:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Left-Wing Terrorist Groups:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

But go ahead charleslb. Keep cherry picking a selective few right-wing members, and then generalize about how that makes right-wingers all evil people.

Oh, don't forget the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front!

I personally count PETA.

You think PETA is a left wing TERRORIST group....?

Most of their leaders were founders of others domestic terrorist groups. They currently act as the sole media representative of ALF. The head of PETA knew ahead of time that there would be several bombs lit off by ALF, and in response was the fedex recipient of their footage and messages.

PETA's said in conferences and in print that arson, property destruction, and theft are acceptable when fighting for animal justice.

PETA members (ex. Maria Blanton and co-founder Alex Pachecho) have been implicated in planning burglaries of college research facilities. By "implicated" I mean the police searched her place and found plans that included, in print, who was involved.

Mulitple ALF members arrested have their legal fees paid by PETA.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 1:46:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/23/2011 11:33:01 PM, mongeese wrote:
The right-winger who bombed Norway had a dominance-oriented mindset.
Therefore, all right-wingers have a dominance-oriented mindset.

I do believe that you have commited the inductive fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Until you address this, your entire post is rather worthless, as it hinges on your poorly drawn conclusion.

I never said that we can, or that I do in fact infer a social dominance-oriented mentality solely from the actions of a single individual such as Anders Breivik. Rather, I merely observe that a social dominance-oriented ultraconservative mentality like his can conduce to such bloody behavior. I also observe how it can perhaps be the source of the right's views and policies on a number of issues. You're the one trying to frame my observation about Breivik as a formal logical inference that fails. This allows you to facilely dismiss it and to flee from its possible implications for your own worldview. Oh well, you're still young, perhaps your political and intellectual journey will eventually bring you to a more objective place of dealing more forthrightly with the psychological meaning of your rightist opinions.
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
7/24/2011 1:55:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/23/2011 11:34:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
If this were early 20th century, liberals would be the ones domestically bombing europe.

Largely in self-defense. Recall that the capitalist & political establishment that ruled Europe and America were employing violence and heavy-handed tactics against the left. This would continue well into the 20th century, with the Federal government in the U.S. waging a covert war against the left, aka operation COINTELPRO. The violence of leftists must therefore always be morally evaluated within the context of the hostility and violence of the government and the ruling class that it represents.
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 2:00:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 1:55:00 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/23/2011 11:34:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
If this were early 20th century, liberals would be the ones domestically bombing europe.

Largely in self-defense. Recall that the capitalist & political establishment that ruled Europe and America were employing violence and heavy-handed tactics against the left.
Recall that all governments all the time employ violence and heavy handed tactics against anyone who disobeys its rules. The bombing in Norway may not have been SMART self-defense but there is no question that it was done in self-defense.

The violence of leftists must therefore always be morally evaluated within the context of the hostility and violence of the government and the ruling class that it represents.
But never the violence of anyone else, of course! :)
(Note that "liberals" at the turn of the century were not "leftists". They were pseudolibertarian).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 3:33:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 1:46:57 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/23/2011 11:33:01 PM, mongeese wrote:
The right-winger who bombed Norway had a dominance-oriented mindset.
Therefore, all right-wingers have a dominance-oriented mindset.

I do believe that you have commited the inductive fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Until you address this, your entire post is rather worthless, as it hinges on your poorly drawn conclusion.

I never said that we can, or that I do in fact infer a social dominance-oriented mentality solely from the actions of a single individual such as Anders Breivik. Rather, I merely observe that a social dominance-oriented ultraconservative mentality like his can conduce to such bloody behavior.

And yet there's no good evidence that extreme rightists are any more dangerous than extreme leftists. In any group, you're going to have terrorists, but a terrorist has a mindset rather different from ordinary people of any ideology.

I also observe how it can perhaps be the source of the right's views and policies on a number of issues. You're the one trying to frame my observation about Breivik as a formal logical inference that fails. This allows you to facilely dismiss it and to flee from its possible implications for your own worldview.

What implications could it possibly have? There's a terrorist out there that supposedly shares my mindset. There's a terrorist out there that supposedly shares your mindset, too. There are lots of terrorists with lots of mindsets. Should we rethink a mindset every time a terrorist turns out to have it?

Oh well, you're still young, perhaps your political and intellectual journey will eventually bring you to a more objective place of dealing more forthrightly with the psychological meaning of your rightist opinions.

I don't believe that government should be able to tell people how they can and cannot go about their business, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.
That is my rightist opinion.
What's the psychological meaning?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 3:47:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 1:55:00 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/23/2011 11:34:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
If this were early 20th century, liberals would be the ones domestically bombing europe.

Largely in self-defense. Recall that the capitalist & political establishment that ruled Europe and America were employing violence and heavy-handed tactics against the left. This would continue well into the 20th century, with the Federal government in the U.S. waging a covert war against the left, aka operation COINTELPRO. The violence of leftists must therefore always be morally evaluated within the context of the hostility and violence of the government and the ruling class that it represents.

Uh...Baader Meinhoff came out of post WW2 student protests, not any sort of reaction to government violence.

Japanese Red Army was a student group trying to speed up communism.

Red Brigade wanted their country out of NATO.

SLA was started by someone who was in jail for prostitution and robbery, not activism.

FARC sure as heck doesn't get a "pass" for starting a narcoterrorist reign

It's not like this is restricted to the left or the right. If you go back 100 more years, Anarchist terrorists were all the rage.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 4:04:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 3:47:52 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/24/2011 1:55:00 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/23/2011 11:34:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
If this were early 20th century, liberals would be the ones domestically bombing europe.

Largely in self-defense. Recall that the capitalist & political establishment that ruled Europe and America were employing violence and heavy-handed tactics against the left. This would continue well into the 20th century, with the Federal government in the U.S. waging a covert war against the left, aka operation COINTELPRO. The violence of leftists must therefore always be morally evaluated within the context of the hostility and violence of the government and the ruling class that it represents.

Uh...Baader Meinhoff came out of post WW2 student protests, not any sort of reaction to government violence.

Japanese Red Army was a student group trying to speed up communism.

Red Brigade wanted their country out of NATO.

SLA was started by someone who was in jail for prostitution and robbery, not activism.

FARC sure as heck doesn't get a "pass" for starting a narcoterrorist reign

It's not like this is restricted to the left or the right. If you go back 100 more years, Anarchist terrorists were all the rage.

The difference, of course, is that the anti-ruling class aggression and "terrorism" of the leftist groups you mention above, and of other leftists who've employed lethal force in ways that aren't any better, morally speaking, than mere murder, is that the violent nature of these groups and movements etiologically traces back to historical and political and cultural factors that have twisted the humanely progressive ideals and psyches of some on the left into cruelly regressive aberrations.

Conservative violence, on the other hand, stems directly from the authentic and fundamental underlying psychological orientation of so-called conservatives. That is, the violence in the history of the right isn't an adscititious aberration like that of the left, rather it's profoundly symptomatic of the intrinsic rightist mind-set. And therefore most certainly does stand in, and can be cited in moral condemnation of that mind-set.
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
7/24/2011 4:06:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Of course my analysis of the rightist mind-set also helps explain the current debt ceiling crisis. That is, the social dominance-oriented, alpha male-female mentality is very much at play in the hard heads of Congressional conservatives, who are so deeply psychologically-ideologically engaged in identifying with and defending the interests of our society's alpha businessmen and pillaging corporate conquistadors against those who wish to tax them that they feel okay about risking catastrophic economic consequences for the public.

The dominance-oriented psychology of right-wingers also explains their bigotedly balky reaction to the end of "Don't ask, don't tell", and to the gay community in New York gaining marriage equality. Such advances go to make the religious right feel like a bit of public policy ground has been lost to their progressive enemies in the "culture war". That is, they feel their dominance weakening, and it makes them feel insecure and afraid. Their fear, and their alpha male-female desire to reassert their sociopolitical and cultural dominance, will of course lead to a backlash against homosexuals and their quest for equal treatment in our society.

Yep, for conservatives it all comes down to their SDO, social dominance orientation. All of their political and social positions emanate from a dark and primeval unconscious mental place of craving to assert social dominance. Never be fooled by all of their high-flown talk of principles and values and freedom and family. It's all just ideological window dressing for a worldview that belongs back in the age of Fred Flintstone. Indeed, conservative opinions are fossil artifacts from a Paleolithically backward part of our brains, and shouldn't be accorded much legitimacy or respect. Sometimes conservative opinions and the individuals who hold them can even be downright lethally primitive, as Anders Breivik has of course just amply reminded us. His rightist id ran amok on the Norwegian island of Utoeya, and we should all realize that this is the same id that lurks in the ideology of all rightists.
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.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 4:21:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 4:04:56 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/24/2011 3:47:52 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/24/2011 1:55:00 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/23/2011 11:34:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
If this were early 20th century, liberals would be the ones domestically bombing europe.

Largely in self-defense. Recall that the capitalist & political establishment that ruled Europe and America were employing violence and heavy-handed tactics against the left. This would continue well into the 20th century, with the Federal government in the U.S. waging a covert war against the left, aka operation COINTELPRO. The violence of leftists must therefore always be morally evaluated within the context of the hostility and violence of the government and the ruling class that it represents.

Uh...Baader Meinhoff came out of post WW2 student protests, not any sort of reaction to government violence.

Japanese Red Army was a student group trying to speed up communism.

Red Brigade wanted their country out of NATO.

SLA was started by someone who was in jail for prostitution and robbery, not activism.

FARC sure as heck doesn't get a "pass" for starting a narcoterrorist reign

It's not like this is restricted to the left or the right. If you go back 100 more years, Anarchist terrorists were all the rage.

The difference, of course, is that the anti-ruling class aggression and "terrorism" of the leftist groups you mention above, and of other leftists who've employed lethal force in ways that aren't any better, morally speaking, than mere murder, is that the violent nature of these groups and movements etiologically traces back to historical and political and cultural factors that have twisted the humanely progressive ideals and psyches of some on the left into cruelly regressive aberrations.
Conservative violence, on the other hand, stems directly from the authentic and fundamental underlying psychological orientation of so-called conservatives. That is, the violence in the history of the right isn't an adscititious aberration like that of the left, rather it's profoundly symptomatic of the intrinsic rightist mind-set. And therefore most certainly does stand in, and can be cited in moral condemnation of that mind-set.

I take it you haven't studied any of the groups I just mentioned.

Most of these groups started with a students reading the Communist Manifesto. It wasn't that they were taking notes from Stalin or Mao.

Would you mind listing a conservative terrorist organization that has existed for decades with an express campaign against the American government?

If you count Neo-nazis, your claims about "twisted etiology" being specific to the left go out the window. I'm talking about tea party values being the basis for the bombing.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 6:39:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 4:04:56 PM, charleslb wrote:
The difference, of course, is that the anti-ruling class aggression and "terrorism" of the leftist groups you mention above, and of other leftists who've employed lethal force in ways that aren't any better, morally speaking, than mere murder, is that the violent nature of these groups and movements etiologically traces back to historical and political and cultural factors that have twisted the humanely progressive ideals and psyches of some on the left into cruelly regressive aberrations.

Conservative violence, on the other hand, stems directly from the authentic and fundamental underlying psychological orientation of so-called conservatives. That is, the violence in the history of the right isn't an adscititious aberration like that of the left, rather it's profoundly symptomatic of the intrinsic rightist mind-set. And therefore most certainly does stand in, and can be cited in moral condemnation of that mind-set.

So leftist terrorism is merely a result socio-poli-cultual issues that in no way represents true liberalism, while rightist terrorism is a clear insight into the mindset of true conservatism? This is perhaps the most blatant double standard ever posted in the history of DDO. Honestly, you're just establishing an interpretation that makes liberalism perfect and conservatism pure evil when there's no reason at all for such a differentiation. Why can't conservative terrorism be explained by the same factors that liberal terrorism hides behind? Because it doesn't fit your anti-right agenda?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 6:44:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 4:21:42 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/24/2011 4:04:56 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/24/2011 3:47:52 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/24/2011 1:55:00 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/23/2011 11:34:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
If this were early 20th century, liberals would be the ones domestically bombing europe.

Largely in self-defense. Recall that the capitalist & political establishment that ruled Europe and America were employing violence and heavy-handed tactics against the left. This would continue well into the 20th century, with the Federal government in the U.S. waging a covert war against the left, aka operation COINTELPRO. The violence of leftists must therefore always be morally evaluated within the context of the hostility and violence of the government and the ruling class that it represents.

Uh...Baader Meinhoff came out of post WW2 student protests, not any sort of reaction to government violence.

Japanese Red Army was a student group trying to speed up communism.

Red Brigade wanted their country out of NATO.

SLA was started by someone who was in jail for prostitution and robbery, not activism.

FARC sure as heck doesn't get a "pass" for starting a narcoterrorist reign

It's not like this is restricted to the left or the right. If you go back 100 more years, Anarchist terrorists were all the rage.

The difference, of course, is that the anti-ruling class aggression and "terrorism" of the leftist groups you mention above, and of other leftists who've employed lethal force in ways that aren't any better, morally speaking, than mere murder, is that the violent nature of these groups and movements etiologically traces back to historical and political and cultural factors that have twisted the humanely progressive ideals and psyches of some on the left into cruelly regressive aberrations.
Conservative violence, on the other hand, stems directly from the authentic and fundamental underlying psychological orientation of so-called conservatives. That is, the violence in the history of the right isn't an adscititious aberration like that of the left, rather it's profoundly symptomatic of the intrinsic rightist mind-set. And therefore most certainly does stand in, and can be cited in moral condemnation of that mind-set.

I take it you haven't studied any of the groups I just mentioned.

Most of these groups started with a students reading the Communist Manifesto. It wasn't that they were taking notes from Stalin or Mao.

Would you mind listing a conservative terrorist organization that has existed for decades with an express campaign against the American government?

If you count Neo-nazis, your claims about "twisted etiology" being specific to the left go out the window. I'm talking about tea party values being the basis for the bombing.

Fortunately most conservative militias and whatnot in this country are ineffectual, impotent organizations of weekend warriors. Are you saying that your main grounds for evaluating the left to be more dangerous and murderous than the right is that leftist revolutionaries and "guerrillas" have been more effective and gutsy when it comes to taking direct action against governments than their counterparts on the right? Yeah, way to just facilely sidestep all of the cruelty and killing perpetrated by anti-communists and right-wingers over the last century or so.

I suggest that you read this, http://www.pottersville.info...
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.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 7:01:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 6:44:19 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/24/2011 4:21:42 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/24/2011 4:04:56 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/24/2011 3:47:52 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/24/2011 1:55:00 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/23/2011 11:34:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
If this were early 20th century, liberals would be the ones domestically bombing europe.

Largely in self-defense. Recall that the capitalist & political establishment that ruled Europe and America were employing violence and heavy-handed tactics against the left. This would continue well into the 20th century, with the Federal government in the U.S. waging a covert war against the left, aka operation COINTELPRO. The violence of leftists must therefore always be morally evaluated within the context of the hostility and violence of the government and the ruling class that it represents.

Uh...Baader Meinhoff came out of post WW2 student protests, not any sort of reaction to government violence.

Japanese Red Army was a student group trying to speed up communism.

Red Brigade wanted their country out of NATO.

SLA was started by someone who was in jail for prostitution and robbery, not activism.

FARC sure as heck doesn't get a "pass" for starting a narcoterrorist reign

It's not like this is restricted to the left or the right. If you go back 100 more years, Anarchist terrorists were all the rage.

The difference, of course, is that the anti-ruling class aggression and "terrorism" of the leftist groups you mention above, and of other leftists who've employed lethal force in ways that aren't any better, morally speaking, than mere murder, is that the violent nature of these groups and movements etiologically traces back to historical and political and cultural factors that have twisted the humanely progressive ideals and psyches of some on the left into cruelly regressive aberrations.
Conservative violence, on the other hand, stems directly from the authentic and fundamental underlying psychological orientation of so-called conservatives. That is, the violence in the history of the right isn't an adscititious aberration like that of the left, rather it's profoundly symptomatic of the intrinsic rightist mind-set. And therefore most certainly does stand in, and can be cited in moral condemnation of that mind-set.

I take it you haven't studied any of the groups I just mentioned.

Most of these groups started with a students reading the Communist Manifesto. It wasn't that they were taking notes from Stalin or Mao.

Would you mind listing a conservative terrorist organization that has existed for decades with an express campaign against the American government?

If you count Neo-nazis, your claims about "twisted etiology" being specific to the left go out the window. I'm talking about tea party values being the basis for the bombing.

Fortunately most conservative militias and whatnot in this country are ineffectual, impotent organizations of weekend warriors. Are you saying that your main grounds for evaluating the left to be more dangerous and murderous than the right is that leftist revolutionaries and "guerrillas" have been more effective and gutsy when it comes to taking direct action against governments than their counterparts on the right? Yeah, way to just facilely sidestep all of the cruelty and killing perpetrated by anti-communists and right-wingers over the last century or so.

I suggest that you read this, http://www.pottersville.info...

Who said "more dangerous?" I'm a Democrat who thinks you're talking out of your @ss, not an apologetic for Hitler.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 7:25:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 6:44:19 PM, charleslb wrote:
I suggest that you read this, http://www.pottersville.info...

I started reading that, then started thinking that it may have been the terrible influence that led you to such fluff. Then I realized it was you and it became clear. And I stopped reading.
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.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 4:47:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 7:25:19 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 7/24/2011 6:44:19 PM, charleslb wrote:
I suggest that you read this, http://www.pottersville.info...

I started reading that, then started thinking that it may have been the terrible influence that led you to such fluff. Then I realized it was you and it became clear. And I stopped reading.

You seem to be a little more hostile, and less intellectually disciplined than your twin.
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
7/25/2011 5:01:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 4:47:10 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/24/2011 7:25:19 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 7/24/2011 6:44:19 PM, charleslb wrote:
I suggest that you read this, http://www.pottersville.info...

I started reading that, then started thinking that it may have been the terrible influence that led you to such fluff. Then I realized it was you and it became clear. And I stopped reading.

You seem to be a little more hostile, and less intellectually disciplined than your twin.

When you first started posting, I would respond and you'd just ignore me. Repeatedly. So I gave up on talking sense into you and decided this was more fun. Though could you at some point describe how your ideal society would function, ideally with minimal fluff?
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.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 9:02:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 5:01:57 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 7/25/2011 4:47:10 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/24/2011 7:25:19 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 7/24/2011 6:44:19 PM, charleslb wrote:
I suggest that you read this, http://www.pottersville.info...

I started reading that, then started thinking that it may have been the terrible influence that led you to such fluff. Then I realized it was you and it became clear. And I stopped reading.

You seem to be a little more hostile, and less intellectually disciplined than your twin.

When you first started posting, I would respond and you'd just ignore me. Repeatedly. So I gave up on talking sense into you and decided this was more fun. Though could you at some point describe how your ideal society would function, ideally with minimal fluff?

There's a bit of what you're asking for in this, http://www.pottersville.info...
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
7/26/2011 2:47:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 11:43:36 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Seriously, why does anyone even address this freak anymore? Just to read his mile long posts is enough of a waste of time.

Well, I've always said that it's better to be a freak than the sort of person who unkindly calls others "freak", and other similarly harshly disdainful epithets.
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
7/26/2011 2:52:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Hmm, seems that Glenn Beck identifies with Anders Breivik, at least enough to try to downplay the villainy of his actions by villainizing his victims as the left's equivalent of Hitler Youth! Oh Glenn, by lamely trying to play the apologist for the ideologically-driven crimes of Mr. Breivik you've merely linked your own mentality and that of the conservatives whom you represent to his. That is, you've merely provided inadvertent confirmation of my little layman's psychoanalysis of conservative thinking here. Thanks Mr. Beck. As Michele Bachmann would say, "You be da man" Glenn!
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.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2011 3:00:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 2:00:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/24/2011 1:55:00 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/23/2011 11:34:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
If this were early 20th century, liberals would be the ones domestically bombing europe.

Largely in self-defense. Recall that the capitalist & political establishment that ruled Europe and America were employing violence and heavy-handed tactics against the left.
Recall that all governments all the time employ violence and heavy handed tactics against anyone who disobeys its rules. The bombing in Norway may not have been SMART self-defense but there is no question that it was done in self-defense.

I question that it was done in self defense. It seemed more retalitory than self defense. Kind of like if someone beats you, if you shoot them while they are beating you, that is self defense. If you find them several weeks later and shoot them, that is not.

But even then, I fail to see how the killing of those children was "self defense" or the people that died in the bombing had aggressed against him, giving him the right to such action.

But then, much of the same can be said of the "revolutionaries" of the 19th and 20th centuries.


The violence of leftists must therefore always be morally evaluated within the context of the hostility and violence of the government and the ruling class that it represents.
But never the violence of anyone else, of course! :)
(Note that "liberals" at the turn of the century were not "leftists". They were pseudolibertarian).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2011 2:27:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 2:00:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
... The bombing in Norway may not have been SMART self-defense but there is no question that it was done in self-defense...

That you would defend, in such explicit terms, the murderous mayhem wreaked by your fellow rightist, Anders Breivik, of course goes to show that you and other supposedly civilized & harmless right-wingers do in fact identify to a serious extent with his mentality, and gives validating support to my choice to critique conservative thinking using Mr. Breivik as a psychologically emblematic case in point. Thanks Rag!
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.