Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Is it Okay to Psychoanalyze the Right-Wing?

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2011 5:55:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Elsewhere, rarruged raises the objection that I argue psychologically rather than logically, as if that's inherently out-of-line. And I know that many here agree, that you think that it's not forensically kosher for me to try to shrink right-leaning ideologies and ideologues. Of course if we're all going to be honest here you have to admit that it's predominantly said right-leaning ideologues whose personal discomfort with my probing analysis of their psyches cause them to cry foul. I, however, would beg to argue that it's perfectly legit to sometimes take a psychologistic approach.

How so? For instance, if we were living in the 1930s and making an intellectual case against Nazism, I don't think that it would be at all improper to look beneath Nazi philosophical ideas and claims about the nature of their ideology and movement. In fact I think that we'd be quite remiss in not doing so.

Yes, for in the case of Nazism it was glaringly obvious that it was not at all what it purported to be. Hitler and his party of course tried to portray their cause to be a populist platform. Nazism was misadvertised and sold to working-class folks as a grassroots pro-workingman's movement. It was sold to veterans as a pro-veterans movement. It was sold to patriotic Germans as a staunchly patriotic movement. In other words, it was sold as a movement that was all about giving the German people a new and better deal, about creating a better world and defending Western civilization from the twin rightist bugbears of Judaism and Communism. But of course the whole world now knows better, now knows that this was all rubbishy window dressing for totalitarianism and hate.

This being the case, it being the case that Nazism was an ideological superstructure built up on and rationalizingly concealing a core of moral and spiritual pathology, of negative and pro-totalitarian attitudes, it therefore wasn't merely permissible, it was downright imperative to critique and dissect and demolish the lofty, philosophical, and pseudoscientific pretensions of Nazism.

Indeed, exposing the real nature of the movement, and of the mentality of its adherents, depriving them of the presentable false face that their movement's mental and moral ugliness masqueraded behind, this was obviously the way to go for anyone trying to argue against Nazism.

To instead treat Nazi ideas as propositions to be tackled and argued against in a strictly logical fashion would have been to play along with the lies of Nazism, and to inadvertently dignify them. No, one doesn't argue against the Nazi view that Jews are inherently evil subhuman creatures as if this is merely a proposition that may or may not be true, and that ought to simply be logically refuted. No, one exposes the crude racist mentality behind the proposition, and one shows that it's not to even be taken seriously on a logical, argumental level.

Well then, this is all quite obvious when it comes to an extreme ideology such as Nazism, but it can and does hold true for less extreme, less overtly ugly ideologies and isms. It's merely my view that conservatism, and right-libertarianism, and all forms of rightism are such an ism. I.e., I don't consider rightist philosophies to simply be what they purport to be, to be nice, logical, and legitimate political points of view who should be taken at face value, and argued against on their own merits and terms. No, less egregiously but still very much like Nazism, conservatism is an ideological superstructure that's grown out of and cloaks a psychological substructure, a certain mind-set, an attitudinal leaning.

And an attitudinal leaning of an unbeautiful, dangerous, and often cruel nature. This is certainly not merely rhetorical, the enormity of the suffering and slaughter inflicted by the right-wing mentality is not to be underestimated. The right-wing mentality of American presidential administrations, operating overseas through their proxies in viciously rightist regimes, has instigated everything from torture, to politically-motivated rape, to murder and that form of mass murder called counterinsurgency, aka civil war.

And then there's the utterly brutal poverty that the right-wing mentality is okay with. Yes, the right-wing mentality is one that's okay with giving society's alpha capitalists a free hand to follow the greed in their hearts, regardless of the pernicious effects this has on the well-being of the poor. It's also a mentality that opposes policies and programs designed to help the less fortunate. It takes the hard and egoistically individualistic attitude that everyone should have to fend for himself, and that those who aren't able to deserve their suffering. Nope, the conservative mentality is not a very lovely or loving one at all.

This reality most certainly makes it entirely appropriate, entirely right & proper to critically analyze the conservative mentality. As with Nazism, it would actually be improper to play along with the lies and the false public and self-image of conservatism by merely arguing against its ideas as if they're logical propositions to be reasoned with on their own merits or lack thereof. No, the biggest and most significant defectiveness of conservatism, as far as warrants to accept its propositions goes, is the fact that the propositions and tenets that make up the conservative worldview are disingenuous, i.e. they're philosophical fictions comprising an ideology that's really a vehicle for a rather primitive mentality.

Yes then, exposing this largely unrecognized truth of conservatism, attacking the humbug and hypocritical ideology of the right on the psychological level, is after all quite called for and quite consistent with the approach of someone interested in getting at the genuine truth, the deep and dark truth of a mentality that's wrongly viewed by most people as a valid political viewpoint.

And by the way, although conservative often complain of the psychologism practiced by those of us on the left, conservatives too practice a bit of psychologism. They psychologize about the lack of mental badness of criminals and people behind bars, rather than acknowledging the depth of the socioeconomic factors producing our modern crime rates. Conservatives psychologize about the attitudes of people on welfare, about their supposed laziness and preference to be "free riders" leeching off the taxpayer. Conservatives psychologize about the supposed "victim mentality" of minorities, rather than acknowledging how racism undermines their ability to succeed in our structurally discriminatory system.

And conservatives of course psychologize about liberals and leftists, about why we criticize capitalism and take the side of its victims against its predatory victors. That is, conservatives psychologistically opine that we suffer from one form of guilt or another. And that we harbor deep-seated resentment and jealousy, that we resent successful people, and wish to vindictively punish them for their prosperity. Etc. Alas, lacking a sufficiently developed sense of social justice, the conservative can only analyze the righteous indignation of the poor and the left as petty disgruntlement.

Interesting though how the psychologizing of conservatives all reflects their own underlying psychology, their mentality that thinks in superiority & dominance-oriented terms of some individuals having more because they're better than others, and consequently either feeling guilty or being resented by their inferiors. Yes, in his self-justifying attempt at psychologizing, the conservative only succeeds in revealing his own mind-set even more! But then his psychologistic efforts aren't in good faith, all he's actually trying to do is defend and absolve and authorize his own beliefs and attitudes.

So, at any rate, conservatives too play the psychologism game, just not too effectively. It's quite legit, and everyone does it!
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
6/27/2011 6:06:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
By the way, rarugged, I'm somewhat interested to see how you'll respond to this post inspired by some of your comments in my thread in the philosophy section on My Differences With Khmer Rouge Libertarians. I do hope that you'll be able to reply a bit more effectively than to just tell me that I don't argue logically, resort to "bullsh*t rhetoric" and don't have a brain to compare to what's typically found in the intellectually mighty melons of people of your point of view. Well, we'll see how you acquit yourself and your ideological camp this time.
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.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2011 6:23:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Personally, I don't really care about the psychoanalysis and character remarks, because they're irrelevant to the arguments. To call your argument a rationalization is not a refutation. To call it a "Marxist" argument is not a refutation. To call out whatever psychological states prompted your argument is not a refutation. In other words, all that business is irrelevant when dealing with the arguments.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2011 8:08:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So we shouldn't dignify and justify conservatives and libertarians with a logical argument, because their ideologies are so manipulative and ignorant. I can roll with that. In fact, where's Ragnar... I want to try this out against him.

Charles, would you (as I do) view conservatism as a cancer that grows in any given nation based on common themes - mainly nationalism, religion, power and authority? I mean it seems to me that conservatism in any given state is the only thing to fear or be feared; conservatives in N Korea are our enemy as are conservatives of Iran, China, etc. Liberals aren't exactly exempt from culpability, however it is clear that conservatives are the heart and soul of conflict, at the far end of the spectrum, while liberals are afloat in an angry sea in the middle and freedom fighters like you and myself are at the other end.
kfc
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2011 8:11:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/27/2011 6:23:36 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Personally, I don't really care about the psychoanalysis and character remarks, because they're irrelevant to the arguments. To call your argument a rationalization is not a refutation. To call it a "Marxist" argument is not a refutation. To call out whatever psychological states prompted your argument is not a refutation. In other words, all that business is irrelevant when dealing with the arguments.

Let me ask you this, would you argue the genetic inferiority of minorities with a Nazi logicaster, or would you simply point out to him that his noxious notions actually come from a place of ignorance and hate? And if someone does deign to engage the arguments of a Nazi, doesn't this dignify arguments that should instead be refuted on the moral and psychological grounds that they're informed only by racial animus and a need to feel superior to someone, and that any such arguments are ipso facto illegitimate?

In my view it would unfortunately dignify a Nazi's point of view to deal with his arguments rather than look at his mentality and where his arguments really emanate from. Yes, sometimes the psychology behind an ideology is highly relevant, because sometimes psychology disguised as rational political discourse is all that's really going on. When this is the case, when people's attitudes rather than their logic is the source of their politics, then it's not merely acceptable but necessary to critically analyze the attitudes in question. As a logician you may not be at all interested in this sort of approach, but if you're also a truth-seeker and the truth about someone's ideology lies in his/her subjective feelings and attitudes, then isn't incumbent to set your logical tendencies aside and play lay psychologist for a moment?

(And I would also reiterate that what I'll call the psycho-critical approach is the appropriate and de rigueur approach to take with rightist ideologies, since they stem from what I've termed elsewhere the Neanderthaloid alpha mentality.)
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
6/27/2011 8:16:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/27/2011 8:08:13 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
So we shouldn't dignify and justify conservatives and libertarians with a logical argument, because their ideologies are so manipulative and ignorant. I can roll with that. In fact, where's Ragnar... I want to try this out against him.

Charles, would you (as I do) view conservatism as a cancer that grows in any given nation based on common themes - mainly nationalism, religion, power and authority? ...

Yes, I certainly and obviously agree that the rightist mentality is highly dangerous and behind much of the cruelty and terror of history; and that nationalism, religious chauvinism, and the will-to-dominance are fundamental features of it.
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.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2011 9:32:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
OK then, Charles, let's ride on these niggaz. Lgot your back. But I have to ask that you bump the ruff rydaz anthem while you post, because it builds communistic camaraderie, which we're gonna need in order to overcome the capitalists. We ruff rydaz Charles don't you ever forget that.
kfc
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2011 9:38:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
My dear... I didn't even post the link to the video for your convenience. Here's the ruff rydaz anthem and "Bring Your Whole Crew." This helps build the mind-set to defeat the capitalists.
kfc
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2011 11:45:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
charles, the problem lies in your generalization. You assue bad will in everybody in a particular group. There were almost definitely some Nazis who honestly believed that their actions were for the good of Germany, although how they justified their additudes towards Jews, I'm not quite sure.

Just as there are some liberals whose primary motivation is government power, there are some conservatives who seek the same thing. However, it isn't right for us to deem a certain group more populated with wrongdoers than another. Both conservatives and liberals have mastered the skill of using rhetoric to make their ideals and plans sound appealing, from "preemptive" war (which Obama doesn't seem to have a problem with, oddly enough) to group bargaining "rights" (although what makes it a right instead of a power, with a much more negative connotation, is unclear).

You seem to love your rhetoric, but if you get too caught up in trying to find the motivation behind a particular argument, which isn't nearly as easy as you probably think it is, you're going to lose sight of the actual logic of the argument. I may be wrong (and please correct me if I am), but I'm going to guess that you almost immediately dismiss any conservative argument as wrong and accept almost all liberal arguments as right with little questioning, which I shouldn't have to tell you is dangerous to how you view the world.

In conclusion, you can't generalize that all or even most people in a particular group are motivated by their own egos or self-interest unless there's really no other explanation, because chances are, many are just as convinced that their viewpoints will help society just as much as you are convinced in the validity of your own.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2011 1:40:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/27/2011 8:11:39 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/27/2011 6:23:36 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Personally, I don't really care about the psychoanalysis and character remarks, because they're irrelevant to the arguments. To call your argument a rationalization is not a refutation. To call it a "Marxist" argument is not a refutation. To call out whatever psychological states prompted your argument is not a refutation. In other words, all that business is irrelevant when dealing with the arguments.

Let me ask you this, would you argue the genetic inferiority of minorities with a Nazi logicaster, or would you simply point out to him that his noxious notions actually come from a place of ignorance and hate?

Sure I would, if he made arguments. If he just said something like "minorities are bad because they're minorities", I would probably respond by pointing out that racism isn't argument, and isn't self-justifying.

And if someone does deign to engage the arguments of a Nazi, doesn't this dignify arguments that should instead be refuted on the moral and psychological grounds that they're informed only by racial animus and a need to feel superior to someone, and that any such arguments are ipso facto illegitimate?

You're presupposing that they should be refuted on such grounds. It might be more emotionally satisfying to call a racist a racist, but it doesn't deal with the arguments. At best, what you suggest is a weak sort of appeal to motive (which is a logical fallacy).

In my view it would unfortunately dignify a Nazi's point of view to deal with his arguments rather than look at his mentality and where his arguments really emanate from.

This is circular reasoning on your part, because you're implicitly presupposing that an argument shouldn't be dignified because the arguer is a Nazi (which is the very proposition we're discussing). Genetic fallacy on your part for calling into consideration the source of an argument to dismiss it, rather than something about the argument in its own right.

Yes, sometimes the psychology behind an ideology is highly relevant, because sometimes psychology disguised as rational political discourse is all that's really going on. When this is the case, when people's attitudes rather than their logic is the source of their politics, then it's not merely acceptable but necessary to critically analyze the attitudes in question.

Sure, you can do psychoanalysis, but you can't just say "this argument is absurd" without being prepared to argue it and explain why it's absurd. If I say that the geocentric theory is ridiculous, I cannot, upon being asked why I think it ridiculous to claim that the Earth is the center of everything, argue that the people who argued that were morons from centuries, probably a millennium or two ago (history isn't my speciality), and hope that the argument is dismissed. I would have to be prepared to explain the science behind the contention that the sun is actually the center of our solar system.

As a logician you may not be at all interested in this sort of approach, but if you're also a truth-seeker and the truth about someone's ideology lies in his/her subjective feelings and attitudes, then isn't incumbent to set your logical tendencies aside and play lay psychologist for a moment?

You're only performing part of the job. Even granting the usefulness of psychoanalysis on a Nazi, we can't simply dismiss the argument on the basis of its conflicting with our current views. It may be a quick process to logically dispel the argument, but it isn't one which we can simply gloss over as a result. Even if we do the logical calculus in our head, it still needs to be done (though we must, I noted, be prepared to explain this calculus to anyone who asks). I'm not saying that we can't psychoanalyze, but I am pointing out that you can't substitute that lay psychology for a refutation of the arguments.

(And I would also reiterate that what I'll call the psycho-critical approach is the appropriate and de rigueur approach to take with rightist ideologies, since they stem from what I've termed elsewhere the Neanderthaloid alpha mentality.)

Though you seem to dislike characterizations of your claims as ad hominems, I think it's the case that reducing libertarian arguments to "neanderthal" and "alpha" mindsets seems to be a circumstantial ad hominem [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. In fact, the characterization of circumstantial ad hominem is as follows:

Wikipedia explains:
Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).

This appears congruent with your treatment of libertarian arguments.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2011 8:07:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I got this for you Charles. I just luuuu when a libertarian bring his whole crew... *hits play on DMX video #2*

At 6/27/2011 11:45:36 PM, mongeese wrote:
charles, the problem lies in your generalization. You assue bad will in everybody in a particular group. There were almost definitely some Nazis who honestly believed that their actions were for the good of Germany, although how they justified their additudes towards Jews, I'm not quite sure.

Telling yourself that your actions are for the good of the country doesn't make you good. Conservatives are bad, and they are bad inherently. This is because the nature of conservatism is that of nationalism. The nature of nationalism is pride, and the nature of pride is superiority. Conservatives uniformly place a sense of superiority of their nation over that of others, and it is precisely this impetus that dooms them all to the depths of immorality.

Just as there are some liberals whose primary motivation is government power, there are some conservatives who seek the same thing. However, it isn't right for us to deem a certain group more populated with wrongdoers than another. Both conservatives and liberals have mastered the skill of using rhetoric to make their ideals and plans sound appealing, from "preemptive" war (which Obama doesn't seem to have a problem with, oddly enough) to group bargaining "rights" (although what makes it a right instead of a power, with a much more negative connotation, is unclear).

Amongst the ranks of liberals one will certainly find bad ones; this will occur in any given group. But the difference between liberals and conservatives is that nationalism is an inherent tenet of conservatism, while it isn't in lberalism. This is highlighted every day that I listen to talk radio; just yesterday, Micheal Savage's sit-in was complaining endlessly about Michelle Obama wrapping herself in an African (I don't recall the exact country) flag in some pictures with the kids there. The Obamas are constantly berated by the right-wingers for representing the world instead of just the U.S., which it is"their job" to be doing (and failing at). They make it out as some conspiracy that the Obamas are out to screw over the U.S., but really it's just the right-wingers exercising nationalistic pride and the liberals choosing not to.

You seem to love your rhetoric, but if you get too caught up in trying to find the motivation behind a particular argument, which isn't nearly as easy as you probably think it is, you're going to lose sight of the actual logic of the argument. I may be wrong (and please correct me if I am), but I'm going to guess that you almost immediately dismiss any conservative argument as wrong and accept almost all liberal arguments as right with little questioning, which I shouldn't have to tell you is dangerous to how you view the world.

Accepting any conservative argument as wrong=true
Accepting any liberal argument as right=false
Liberals can be as bad as conservatives, and just how bad they are is usually a function of how closely they resemble conservatives. Nationalist Democrats, for example.

In conclusion, you can't generalize that all or even most people in a particular group are motivated by their own egos or self-interest unless there's really no other explanation, because chances are, many are just as convinced that their viewpoints will help society just as much as you are convinced in the validity of your own.

Being convinced your viewpoints help society does not bear on your moral state. Saying that Nazis wanted to help the world by burning Jews does not excuse them from culpability. The moral factor here is only pride; the feeling that their race was superior to the Jews. Burning Jews is not immoral (let's imagine a Jew was running at me with a knife and my only weapon of defense was a can of gas and a match); feeling that you are superior to Jews is absolutely immoral and the effects of this are, predictably, abuse of Jews.

But they don't hear Charles though
But they don't hear Charles though
But they don't hear Charles though
But they don't hear Charles though
kfc
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2011 8:24:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/28/2011 8:07:21 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
I got this for you Charles. I just luuuu when a libertarian bring his whole crew... *hits play on DMX video #2*

At 6/27/2011 11:45:36 PM, mongeese wrote:
charles, the problem lies in your generalization. You assue bad will in everybody in a particular group. There were almost definitely some Nazis who honestly believed that their actions were for the good of Germany, although how they justified their additudes towards Jews, I'm not quite sure.

Telling yourself that your actions are for the good of the country doesn't make you good. Conservatives are bad, and they are bad inherently.

What did I just say about generalizing?

This is because the nature of conservatism is that of nationalism. The nature of nationalism is pride, and the nature of pride is superiority. Conservatives uniformly place a sense of superiority of their nation over that of others, and it is precisely this impetus that dooms them all to the depths of immorality.

I recall that the Republicans were chanting "USA" when they nominated John McCain, but is that any better than the Democrats all shouting "Obama"? Don't try to tell me that American liberals don't currently think that America is the best country there is. Besides, what you could see as pride and superiority, others could see as just loyalty to one's fellow citizens.

Just as there are some liberals whose primary motivation is government power, there are some conservatives who seek the same thing. However, it isn't right for us to deem a certain group more populated with wrongdoers than another. Both conservatives and liberals have mastered the skill of using rhetoric to make their ideals and plans sound appealing, from "preemptive" war (which Obama doesn't seem to have a problem with, oddly enough) to group bargaining "rights" (although what makes it a right instead of a power, with a much more negative connotation, is unclear).

Amongst the ranks of liberals one will certainly find bad ones; this will occur in any given group. But the difference between liberals and conservatives is that nationalism is an inherent tenet of conservatism, while it isn't in lberalism. This is highlighted every day that I listen to talk radio; just yesterday, Micheal Savage's sit-in was complaining endlessly about Michelle Obama wrapping herself in an African (I don't recall the exact country) flag in some pictures with the kids there. The Obamas are constantly berated by the right-wingers for representing the world instead of just the U.S., which it is"their job" to be doing (and failing at).

Well, yeah. Obama isn't the president of the world, he's the president of America. As president, he's expected to present the American viewpoint.

They make it out as some conspiracy that the Obamas are out to screw over the U.S., but really it's just the right-wingers exercising nationalistic pride and the liberals choosing not to.

So now Obama is "the liberals"? I don't really see how pride is necessary to realize that the president of the country should try to actually represent that country.

Now, how would you justify the love of power over people's economic decisions by just about all liberals?

You seem to love your rhetoric, but if you get too caught up in trying to find the motivation behind a particular argument, which isn't nearly as easy as you probably think it is, you're going to lose sight of the actual logic of the argument. I may be wrong (and please correct me if I am), but I'm going to guess that you almost immediately dismiss any conservative argument as wrong and accept almost all liberal arguments as right with little questioning, which I shouldn't have to tell you is dangerous to how you view the world.

Accepting any conservative argument as wrong=true
Accepting any liberal argument as right=false
Liberals can be as bad as conservatives, and just how bad they are is usually a function of how closely they resemble conservatives. Nationalist Democrats, for example.

Thus the problem. To use Cody's words, you're using the genetic fallacy to dismiss arguments without actually thinking about them.

In conclusion, you can't generalize that all or even most people in a particular group are motivated by their own egos or self-interest unless there's really no other explanation, because chances are, many are just as convinced that their viewpoints will help society just as much as you are convinced in the validity of your own.

Being convinced your viewpoints help society does not bear on your moral state. Saying that Nazis wanted to help the world by burning Jews does not excuse them from culpability. The moral factor here is only pride; the feeling that their race was superior to the Jews. Burning Jews is not immoral (let's imagine a Jew was running at me with a knife and my only weapon of defense was a can of gas and a match); feeling that you are superior to Jews is absolutely immoral and the effects of this are, predictably, abuse of Jews.

And you think conservatives are as bad as Nazis were? What?

But they don't hear Charles though
But they don't hear Charles though
But they don't hear Charles though
But they don't hear Charles though

Are you okay?
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2011 9:19:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Is it Okay to Psychoanalyze the Left-Wing?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2011 10:04:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Telling yourself that your actions are for the good of the country doesn't make you good. Conservatives are bad, and they are bad inherently.

What did I just say about generalizing?

1) Rush Limbaugh is a conservative.
2) Conservatism is nationalist
3) Nationalism is based on pride (i.e., an feeling of inherent superiority over others)
.:. Rush Limbaugh, at least in his conservative political endeavors, is immoral.

Substitute any name in for "Rush Limbaugh," and if the first premise holds true (if they are indeed conservative) then the rest of the proof holds true.

This is because the nature of conservatism is that of nationalism. The nature of nationalism is pride, and the nature of pride is superiority. Conservatives uniformly place a sense of superiority of their nation over that of others, and it is precisely this impetus that dooms them all to the depths of immorality.

I recall that the Republicans were chanting "USA" when they nominated John McCain, but is that any better than the Democrats all shouting "Obama"? Don't try to tell me that American liberals don't currently think that America is the best country there is.

Before we go any further, let me just say that I am not trying to say that liberalism and conservatism are polar opposites, therefore implying that liberalism is inherently good. In fact, liberals tend to have many conservative attributes. Using your example further, take a look at the 2008 Pres candidates. How many were Christian, and how many were not? Mike Gravel was the single only non-Christian candidate, a no-namer that barely kept his nose above "nobody" status and was barred from later primaries due to lack of popularity. Many liberals are nationalist, religious, power-hungry and authoritative.

The difference I am trying to drive home is that liberalness doesn't inherently include these concepts. You cannot generalize them the way you can with conservatives because these negative attributes aren't part of the party platform. In fact, liberals often have to make up for this by reminding us that they are pro-military, pro-America, etc. because they know that the conservative is going to gain these 'qualities' by default while they aren't. So in practice, I can't think of many if any instances where I'm going to put a Democrat in one box and a Republican in another on moral grounds, because the same cancer (conservatism) that affects one also affects the other.

As far as shouting Obama or USA, I think they're both idiots, but morally speaking one is definitely worse than the other. Let me put it to you this way. Imagine you were a visitor from Afghanistan, and you happened to attend each of these nominations. You first go to the Obama nomination and walk into the middle of a crowd yelling Obama! Obama! How do you feel? You may not be too familiar with this Obama character, and you probably wouldn't think much of it. Now, your Afghani self walks into the Republican convention. You walk into a crowd yelling USA! USA! Now how do you feel? Not too freaking safe!

The difference here is that one is a celebration of a man, excluding no one, and the other is a nationalistic chant which definitely does exclude our Afghani friend. Standing in the middle of that, our friend may justifiably start fearing for his life. If I was in the midst of a large group of Afghani's shouting "Afghanistan! Afghanistan!" and then started seeing people's eyes leveling on me, being an obvious non-Afghani, I would wish I was back in Kansas right away.

Shouting Obama isn't as bad, as my example shows, but it is still an example of pride. A McCain supporter might feel nervous in the middle of that in the same sense, but the degree is less because we're comparing a simple choice (I could wake up a McCain supporter in the morning, decide to support Obama at lunch, and change back in the evening) as opposed to being the member of a race or a country which really doesn't change. Furthermore, one is based on intellectual values, while one isn't. Judging someone based on their beliefs is always more justifiable than race, nationality, etc.

Besides, what you could see as pride and superiority, others could see as just loyalty to one's fellow citizens.

As opposed to who? There's no difference. If I say I'm going to be loyal to Charleslb and defend him simply because he's my comrade (as I jokingly have done) then that means that even if your arguments are more appealing then I will still defend him. Why should we be loyal to Americans and tell Mexicans to go to hell?

Well, yeah. Obama isn't the president of the world, he's the president of America. As president, he's expected to present the American viewpoint.

Lot's of subjectivity in this statement. Who "expects" him? I don't! Who decides how nationalist he is? Is that written in the Constitution? "Viewpoint" is a rather soft term, and most conservatives wouldn't shrink to that. They would use much stronger language.

They make it out as some conspiracy that the Obamas are out to screw over the U.S., but really it's just the right-wingers exercising nationalistic pride and the liberals choosing not to.

So now Obama is "the liberals"?

Not very precise of me, but yeah, basically. "Some liberals, including the Obamas" would probably have been better.

I don't really see how pride is necessary to realize that the president of the country should try to actually represent that country.

Represent how? I would say he "represents" us simply by holding the office, and any other expectations are subjective.

Now, how would you justify the love of power over people's economic decisions by just about all liberals?

I wouldn't jump to the side of most liberals since they are pretty conservative in certain ways, but I would first question your insistance of declaring that economic decisions happen in a vacuum. Any economic decision, even that of an honest, small-scale businessman, requires power and authority. I would say that a small parcel for personal territory is necessary and just, as far as property goes, but as soon as someone claims more that they are robbing others of their rights to use that land. Even small parcels, if placed wrong (e.g., in riparian zones, wetlands, other sensitive areas) can be damaging.

Accepting any conservative argument as wrong=true
Accepting any liberal argument as right=false
Liberals can be as bad as conservatives, and just how bad they are is usually a function of how closely they resemble conservatives. Nationalist Democrats, for example.

Thus the problem. To use Cody's words, you're using the genetic fallacy to dismiss arguments without actually thinking about them.

I've thought about conservatism. It's based on pride. Pride is an immoral intent. This is much different than judging someone based on thier genetics.

And you think conservatives are as bad as Nazis were? What?

In magnitude? Perhaps not, but as America's influence continues over time and increases in proportion to the rest of the world, we could get there. In principle, perhaps not as much, because it doesn't seem to be as acutely conservative, but there are some striking commonalities that are indeed similar.

But they don't hear Charles though
But they don't hear Charles though
But they don't hear Charles though
But they don't hear Charles though

Are you okay?

Probably not. Call 9-1-1
kfc
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2011 12:22:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Tsup Charles, I don't really know you personally, but your communism is really just an Oedipus complex gone haywire, because that's true of the whole of communism. I'm not even gonna bother giving reasons to think this mind, although I'll fill 10,000 characters just rephrasing this over and over again.

Ideologies don't have motivations, individuals have motivations.
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
6/28/2011 3:15:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/28/2011 10:04:28 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Telling yourself that your actions are for the good of the country doesn't make you good. Conservatives are bad, and they are bad inherently.

What did I just say about generalizing?

1) Rush Limbaugh is a conservative.
2) Conservatism is nationalist
3) Nationalism is based on pride (i.e., an feeling of inherent superiority over others)

Do you really think that conservatives think, "I am an American, therefore I am superior to that Australian, that African, that Italian, and that Indian over there"? Really?

By the way, what's your opinion on rooting for your national team during the Olypmics?

.:. Rush Limbaugh, at least in his conservative political endeavors, is immoral.

Substitute any name in for "Rush Limbaugh," and if the first premise holds true (if they are indeed conservative) then the rest of the proof holds true.

Too bad you're misunderstanding national pride.

This is because the nature of conservatism is that of nationalism. The nature of nationalism is pride, and the nature of pride is superiority. Conservatives uniformly place a sense of superiority of their nation over that of others, and it is precisely this impetus that dooms them all to the depths of immorality.

I recall that the Republicans were chanting "USA" when they nominated John McCain, but is that any better than the Democrats all shouting "Obama"? Don't try to tell me that American liberals don't currently think that America is the best country there is.

Before we go any further, let me just say that I am not trying to say that liberalism and conservatism are polar opposites, therefore implying that liberalism is inherently good. In fact, liberals tend to have many conservative attributes. Using your example further, take a look at the 2008 Pres candidates. How many were Christian, and how many were not? Mike Gravel was the single only non-Christian candidate, a no-namer that barely kept his nose above "nobody" status and was barred from later primaries due to lack of popularity. Many liberals are nationalist, religious, power-hungry and authoritative.

Now you're associating "religious" with "nationalist, power-hungry, and authoritative"? What?

The difference I am trying to drive home is that liberalness doesn't inherently include these concepts. You cannot generalize them the way you can with conservatives because these negative attributes aren't part of the party platform. In fact, liberals often have to make up for this by reminding us that they are pro-military, pro-America, etc. because they know that the conservative is going to gain these 'qualities' by default while they aren't. So in practice, I can't think of many if any instances where I'm going to put a Democrat in one box and a Republican in another on moral grounds, because the same cancer (conservatism) that affects one also affects the other.

It's a cancer now? When you willingly misinterpret platforms, almost anything could be viewed as a cancer.

As far as shouting Obama or USA, I think they're both idiots, but morally speaking one is definitely worse than the other. Let me put it to you this way. Imagine you were a visitor from Afghanistan, and you happened to attend each of these nominations. You first go to the Obama nomination and walk into the middle of a crowd yelling Obama! Obama! How do you feel? You may not be too familiar with this Obama character, and you probably wouldn't think much of it.

Except that they're practically putting this Obama guy on a pedestal. Things won't turn out well for them.

Now, your Afghani self walks into the Republican convention. You walk into a crowd yelling USA! USA! Now how do you feel? Not too freaking safe!

Why would I feel unsafe? Is it unexpected or unusual? Americans shouting the name of their own country? I wouldn't be surprised if this happened in another country.

The difference here is that one is a celebration of a man, excluding no one, and the other is a nationalistic chant which definitely does exclude our Afghani friend.

Chanting "Obama" excludes about 6 billion people, no?

Standing in the middle of that, our friend may justifiably start fearing for his life. If I was in the midst of a large group of Afghani's shouting "Afghanistan! Afghanistan!" and then started seeing people's eyes leveling on me, being an obvious non-Afghani, I would wish I was back in Kansas right away.

I don't think chanting "USA" became "everybody look around for foreigners to glare at." Why would they do that? Seriously?

Actually, the first question is, why is this guy attending the Republican National Convention?

Shouting Obama isn't as bad, as my example shows, but it is still an example of pride. A McCain supporter might feel nervous in the middle of that in the same sense, but the degree is less because we're comparing a simple choice (I could wake up a McCain supporter in the morning, decide to support Obama at lunch, and change back in the evening) as opposed to being the member of a race or a country which really doesn't change.

What would a McCain supporter be doing at that convention? Your examples aren't making much sense. Being a member of a country could easily change, and it's easier to choose your country than your president, actually.

Furthermore, one is based on intellectual values, while one isn't. Judging someone based on their beliefs is always more justifiable than race, nationality, etc.

Who said the Republicans were judging anybody? Oh, wait, you did. Why?

Besides, what you could see as pride and superiority, others could see as just loyalty to one's fellow citizens.

As opposed to who? There's no difference. If I say I'm going to be loyal to Charleslb and defend him simply because he's my comrade (as I jokingly have done) then that means that even if your arguments are more appealing then I will still defend him. Why should we be loyal to Americans and tell Mexicans to go to hell?

Loyalty just means that you don't betray your country or its principles. As for the immigration problem, the country has a hard enough time taking care of its own citizens.

Well, yeah. Obama isn't the president of the world, he's the president of America. As president, he's expected to present the American viewpoint.

Lot's of subjectivity in this statement. Who "expects" him? I don't! Who decides how nationalist he is? Is that written in the Constitution? "Viewpoint" is a rather soft term, and most conservatives wouldn't shrink to that. They would use much stronger language.

Well, I expect him to. The point of a government is to protect the rights of its citizens, no?

They make it out as some conspiracy that the Obamas are out to screw over the U.S., but really it's just the right-wingers exercising nationalistic pride and the liberals choosing not to.

So now Obama is "the liberals"?

Not very precise of me, but yeah, basically. "Some liberals, including the Obamas" would probably have been better.

So my thinking that the president should wear red, white, and blue reflects poorly on my psychology?

I don't really see how pride is necessary to realize that the president of the country should try to actually represent that country.

Represent how? I would say he "represents" us simply by holding the office, and any other expectations are subjective.

I think he's supposed to try to represent us as the nation who elected him. He can represent us well, or he can represent us poorly.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2011 3:22:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/28/2011 10:04:28 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Now, how would you justify the love of power over people's economic decisions by just about all liberals?

I wouldn't jump to the side of most liberals since they are pretty conservative in certain ways, but I would first question your insistance of declaring that economic decisions happen in a vacuum.

I declared that?

Any economic decision, even that of an honest, small-scale businessman, requires power and authority.

I want a burrito.
Taco Bell wants my money.
I exchange my money for a burrito.
Where was the power and authority?

I would say that a small parcel for personal territory is necessary and just, as far as property goes, but as soon as someone claims more that they are robbing others of their rights to use that land.

Who are you to judge how much land is "necessary and just"? And what gives others the right to use any particular patch of land. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.

Even small parcels, if placed wrong (e.g., in riparian zones, wetlands, other sensitive areas) can be damaging.

Placing land? Now I'm lost.

Accepting any conservative argument as wrong=true
Accepting any liberal argument as right=false
Liberals can be as bad as conservatives, and just how bad they are is usually a function of how closely they resemble conservatives. Nationalist Democrats, for example.

Thus the problem. To use Cody's words, you're using the genetic fallacy to dismiss arguments without actually thinking about them.

I've thought about conservatism. It's based on pride. Pride is an immoral intent. This is much different than judging someone based on thier genetics.

The genetic fallacy is not based only on genetics, but on the origin of the argument. What specific parts of conservatism would you say is based on nationalism, pride, etc.?

And you think conservatives are as bad as Nazis were? What?

In magnitude? Perhaps not, but as America's influence continues over time and increases in proportion to the rest of the world, we could get there. In principle, perhaps not as much, because it doesn't seem to be as acutely conservative, but there are some striking commonalities that are indeed similar.

Striking commonalities? Enlighten me.

But they don't hear Charles though
But they don't hear Charles though
But they don't hear Charles though
But they don't hear Charles though

Are you okay?

Probably not. Call 9-1-1

They want your address... I don't know it...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2011 4:21:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/28/2011 9:19:56 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Is it Okay to Psychoanalyze the Left-Wing?

Sure it is, but see my original post for my take on the usual lame conservative psychoanalysis of leftists.
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.
interrogator
Posts: 1,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2011 4:22:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Charles. Say what you will. But here in America, the country is taking a more
Liberal approach to life. Now thanks to the current adversity they are dealing with.
They realize that communism does not work. It is about time they got it right.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 9:40:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/29/2011 4:22:57 PM, interrogator wrote:
Charles. Say what you will. But here in America, the country is taking a more
Liberal approach to life. Now thanks to the current adversity they are dealing with.
They realize that communism does not work. It is about time they got it right.

Alas, too many have yet to wake to the rude reality (rude from their ideological perspective) that capitalism doesn't work at all well either, and is turning out to be an even more globally lethal failure than Soviet-style "communism".
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.