Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Which Political Mentality is More Dangerous?

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 4:40:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So then, it's a matter of easily verifiable historical fact that left-of-the-ideological-aisle folks have done their share of expressing dominance and violence. This seems to simplistically lead some on the conservative side to rationalize that "Hey, being prone to authoritarianism and aggression and uncompassion has nothing to do with right-left brandings of people's mentality, it's a foible that the human mind is susceptible to regardless of one's politics".

Although there's some truth to this, it really is a rather overly simplistic and dismissive stance. And, moreover, it just boils down to the ole "Everyone is doing it, so don't criticize me and mine" defense, which is right up there with "The devil made me do it" as lame defenses go.

It should be a mere truism that people's mind-set influences their behavior. And the fact that people of different mind-sets and ideologies will sometimes engage in the same or similar conduct doesn't actually refute said commonsense truism. Not at all. The way this works is really quite simple, individuals with mind-set A may be predisposed to certain behaviors, but other factors may be at play in certain contexts that produce the same behaviors in people with mind-set B, even though mind-set B is the very antithesis of mind-set A. The fact that folks with mind-set B exhibit the same sort of behavioral tendencies doesn't change or even bear on the fact that mind-set A types have a distinct psychology that inclines them to these tendencies. That is, the fact that everyone is doing it doesn't necessarily refute the possibility that certain individuals are doing it for certain reasons specific to their mind-set.

Now then, Anders Breivik's right-wing rampaging against progressives , for instance, most certainly had something to do with his ideological-psychological profile. The belligerency and butchery that he directed at the children of the Norwegian Labor party was not randomly released rage, it betokened an unltraconservative mentality that is dominance-oriented in nature. His actions were an inadequate-feeling, manqué right-winger's pathetically overcompensatory way of asserting some personal dominance, of making himself feel like a powerful somebody for once. And of striking a blow at the supposedly unmanly weaklings whom such a mentality looks down on with alpha-male contempt.

Yes, once again, I do unequivocally acknowledge that non-right-wingers also sometimes feel the egoistic need to assert their powerfulness, but this doesn't change or diminish the fact that a certain type of mentality, i.e. the rightist's dominance-oriented mentality, is much more pronouncedly predetermined to act out this particular need. The orientation of those with SDO (social dominance orientation) in the direction of valuing strength and power, the insensitive and hard attitudes that go along with such caveman values, the hostility to those who don't share one's macho point of view, and the political rationalization of all of the above can and do make SDO individuals a good deal more likely to act out in a dominant and even violent fashion.

Mr. Breivik is just the latest and most tragic example of this. Sure, one could try to counter by citing all of the last century's left-wing "terrorists", and of course the mass-murdering regimes of Stalin and Mao. But this merely returns us to the point that I made above, that other factors can come into play that produce violent and homicidal behavior.

Mm-hmm, for example it doesn't at all follow from the fact that Stalin and Mao killed millions that therefore leftists have the same SDO mind-set as rightists. In the case of the Stalinist & Maoist reign of terror that claimed so many lives, the perpetrators, tovarichs Stalin and Mao, and their Marxist-Leninist minions, were shaped by and playing out the history of their societies more than the philosophy and mind-set of socialism.

Well, Russia and China were of course societies whose political culture had no established tradition whatsoever of democracy and humanitarianism, of respect for human liberties and rights and dignity. Quite the opposite, the Russian and Chinese political traditions were authoritarian and abominable from a human rights perspective. Soviet and Chinese "communism" were of course products of these inauspicious political traditions. Soviet and Chinese "communism" were simply the old wine of brutal tyranny in the new wineskins of a perverted version of Marx's philosophy.

Unfortunately this perverted version of Marxism, plus the advances of modernity significantly ramped up the brutality and lethality of tyrants and the result was twenty million human beings murdered by ole Uncle Joe Stalin, and another thirty million offed by Chairman Mao and his mad policies. But fundamentally speaking, it was Russian and Chinese psychology, conditioned by the history and political culture of these countries, and not leftist psychology, that was the culprit in causing the horrendous loss of life in the USSR and the PRC under their most infamous dictators.

And the same can be said about the violence of other so-called leftist regimes and movements. History and culture is usually more of a factor when leftists behave badly. Some psychology is involved too, of course. But, not so fast there, it's not the quintessential psychology of leftism that manifests itself in tyranny and terrorism. Rather, again, it's the case that leftist psychology can be distorted by history & culture, and this is usually when it leads to crimes against life. The fundamental, undistorted leftist mind-set is pro-tolerance, pro-compassion, pro-human potential, and pro-life. Hardly a mind-set that's inclined to cause cruelty and carnage.

Any involvement, then, of genuinely leftist psychology in the atrocities committed by totalitarians and terrorists has been tangential and a consequence of a twisting of that psychology. In the case of rightist psychology and uncompassion-aggression, on the other hand, we find a more direct and connate connection.

That is, the core attitudes of "conservatism" are distinctly dominance-oriented and hyper-masculinely hard. "Conservatism" openly advocates the mentality that alpha capitalists should be unfettered to behave as such; that welfare recipients and the homeless are morally weak bums who shouldn't be "coddled" by a maternal welfare state (note the characteristically, tell-tale hard language that conservatives like to use, not exactly the mark of someone who's merely taking a rational position); that the solution to crime is to dominate the criminal element by empowering the police to crack heads more freely; that the way to deal with foreign enemies is by using our military might; that the way to morally strengthen society is by domineeringly forcing Biblical morality on the public with the force of law, etc.

All of this definitely bespeaks a certain less-than-loving, less than ethically enlightened dominance-oriented mind-set, one that is much more at fault when conservatives behave badly. Sure, people on the left can become villains, sure we're not all saints. But such things as the moral despotism that the religious right is seeking to establish, the identification of free-market touting Republicans with the dominant owners of the capitalist system, the diehard male chauvinism of conservative knuckle-draggers, the macho militarism of Tory troglodytes, and the recent ruthless killing spree of Anders Breivik, all do go to strongly indicate and indict a semiconscious mentality that is intrinsic to the consciously professed ideology of the right-wing. This Neanderthaloid, dominance-oriented mentality is the true, if unacknowledged, nature of rightism, and it's what makes rightists truly more apt to be unkind and dangerous than 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.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 4:52:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 4:40:43 PM, Lasagna wrote:
C-C-C-COMBO bREAKER

Okeydokey, anything to add that's of an on-topic nature?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 4:54:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 4:40:43 PM, Lasagna wrote:
C-C-C-COMBO bREAKER

Looks like there's no conclusion. Combobreaker fail.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 5:02:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 4:54:54 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/25/2011 4:40:43 PM, Lasagna wrote:
C-C-C-COMBO bREAKER

Looks like there's no conclusion. Combobreaker fail.

I tried to do this before, but I lost by a SECOND.
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.
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 5:14:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conservatives often adhere to a Christian-based, "strict-father" type morality. They believe that to not follow their sense of morality is in itself a mark of weakness in character and thus immoral. That is why they feel they can justify their stances on issues like gay marriage, abortion, and prostitution (to name a few). Just like any political ideology, this mindset can be pushed to justify further intrusions into personal freedoms, such as seen in Nazi Germany.

Liberals on the other hand go off a more nurturance-based morality. In theory, this morality supports differences of opinion and supposedly supports all sides equally. However, this is only true as long as the opinions those people hold do not go against the main tenets of liberal morality (i.e. social obligation to help the poor, disadvantaged, sick, etc..., rehabilitation and empathy rather than punishment for criminals, and progressive tax systems). Liberals justify their right to tax the rich because they believe it is a social obligation of that person to help out the less fortunate. It does not matter to them what the opinion of the rich person is, it is his duty to give more because he has more. Liberals see this as a case of the ends justify the means (i.e. the coercive taxation of some of the betterment of all is moral, so anyone against this form of taxation is immoral).

Both mainstream political ideologies can be dangerous when challenged, although I don't think it is possible to say one is worse than the other. Conservatives and liberals both seek to oppress immorality, the only problem being that they have two different moral systems. Conservatives don't support gay marriage because they believe that no one is truly gay and that someone "being gay" constitutes weak character. Having a weak character is immoral and thus allowing it is also immoral. Liberals support government welfare programs because it is the moral obligation of everyone to help out the weak. Thus, someone who does not support helping the poor is immoral and to force that person to stop his immorality is a moral act. In either case, someone is being oppressed because they share different views than the main group.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 5:26:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Any mindset of "us vs them," even if not political, is dangerous (but even more so when political). When you view others that have a disagreement with you as your enemy that you need to defeat, where you coming to agree with them is a "loss" and them coming to agree with you is a "win" everyone is going to end up worse for it.

That kind of mind set locks people into provincial ideas where the more ignorant and un-moving one is, the more they feel like they are winning, when the only thing they are doing is obstructing and preventing progress.

This can happen with democrats, republicans, socialists, conservatives, totalitarians, or anarchists. It doesn't really matter. Once you hit the point of "my ideaology is right and I'm no longer going to entertain the idea that it could be wrong and there could be something better," you've hit a dangerous place that puts you in line with Nazism, Stalinism, and McCarthism of "those that disagree should be imprisoned or killed."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 5:27:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What is it in the psychology of American culture that would lead to leftist terrorist groups such as the ones mentioned in your previous thread?

Nearly every ideological group will have a terrorist if it is large enough, but I believe that a terrorist has a mindset independent of the majority that allows for mass murder to achieve ends; there is nothing to suggest that any particular ideology produces more terrorists besides your own shaky speculation.

You're also slipping on your self-declared definition of conservatism. You claim that conservatives are those who have social dominance mindsets, and claim that libertarians therefore fit that description; however, in this post you you claim that conservatives seek to strengthen the military, further empower the police, and enforce Biblical morality upon the population, three things that libertarians are directly against.

As for the rest of your post in which you repeated claim that many conservative policies are evidence of a cruel social dominance mindset, we've been over this before; if you don't understand the motivation behind a policy, you cannot hope to guess the mindset behind it.

Meanwhile, perhaps you would like to respond to things I have posted on your other threads?
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 5:28:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
i'm sensing a pattern. charles why not just make a thread titled "why conservatives are mentally ill and borderline evil" and keep adding to it instead of starting a new thread every time you want to make a claim about how a large diverse group of people thinks and feels?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 5:30:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 5:28:35 PM, belle wrote:
i'm sensing a pattern. charles why not just make a thread titled "why conservatives are mentally ill and borderline evil" and keep adding to it instead of starting a new thread every time you want to make a claim about how a large diverse group of people thinks and feels?

I think he did make a thread called that.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 6:02:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 5:28:35 PM, belle wrote:
i'm sensing a pattern. charles why not just make a thread titled "why conservatives are mentally ill and borderline evil" and keep adding to it instead of starting a new thread every time you want to make a claim about how a large diverse group of people thinks and feels?

"Borderline"?
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
7/25/2011 6:03:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 4:54:54 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/25/2011 4:40:43 PM, Lasagna wrote:
C-C-C-COMBO bREAKER

Looks like there's no conclusion. Combobreaker fail.

Yes, I managed to fit this one into a single post!
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
7/25/2011 7:22:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 5:14:29 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
Conservatives often adhere to a Christian-based, "strict-father" type morality...

I would just add that such an authoritarian form of morality indicates the dominance-oriented mentality my analysis focuses on as the psychological explanation of "conservatism".

That is why they feel they can justify their stances on issues like gay marriage, abortion, and prostitution (to name a few).

Precisely the point that I made in my last post, in the politics section. That is, although it isn't always a consciously cynical decision, "conservatives" use morality as a way of trying to colonize and dominate everything from the private behavior of people in their own boudoirs to the public sphere on a number of issues. Again, this all speaks to the SDO (social dominance orientation) of the right.

Just like any political ideology, this mindset can be pushed to justify further intrusions into personal freedoms ...

It leads not merely to the sort of "intrusions into personal freedoms" that would disturb libertarian types, but to uncompassionate policies, such as the deregulation of corporate greed, which unleashes it on working-class folks, consumers, and the poor; the elimination of social welfare programs for the needy, which btw leads to real & cruel human suffering, libertarians!; using the criminal justice system to maintain control over the underclass created by the deficiency of our society in the area of social justice; discrimination against minorities and homosexuals, and so on.

Liberals on the other hand go off a more nurturance-based morality. In theory, this morality supports differences of opinion and supposedly supports all sides equally.

It does so in practice, as well. Does this mean that progressives are all perfect beings? Certainly not, we don't all live up to our best attitudes and values 24/7. But at least the attitudes and values that we espouse and sometimes endeavor to actualize are "kinder and gentler" than those of dominance-oriented conservatives, and when we succeed in actualizing them the result is happier than the result of conservatives politically actualizing their alpha-male mentality.

However, this is only true as long as the opinions those people hold do not go against the main tenets of liberal morality (i.e. social obligation to help the poor, disadvantaged, sick, etc..., rehabilitation and empathy rather than punishment for criminals, and progressive tax systems).

Should "tolerance" be licentious?! Does being a tolerant progressive have to mean holding an anything goes attitude? This confuses tolerance and indifference. Compassion actually mandates that we be intolerant of certain things, such as the desire of conservatives & right-libertarians to toss the poor out into the cold of a free-market society with no social safety net; such as using the department of corrections to punitively warehouse members of our capitalist status quo's underclass, and to visit the harsh and retributive morality of conservatives on individuals who do in fact need empathy and rehabilitation; such as the efforts of conservatives to protect the exploitative and malfeasant moneyed elite from shouldering their fair share of the tax burden of maintaining a society with a decent quality of life for all, etc.

Liberals justify their right to tax the rich because they believe it is a social obligation of that person to help out the less fortunate...

Well duh! From each according to his ability, as the principle goes. It's a principle whose equitability is easily recognized by anyone who isn't biased against it, either by being rich, or by identifying with society's rich alpha capitalists.

Have you ever noticed how conservatives like to use the word "entitlement", as if to connote that the poor have a lot of nerve thinking that they're "entitled" to any assistance in the face of the poverty their supposedly weak characters have let them in for. But of course it's really the rich who have an overdeveloped sense of what they're entitled to. They think that they're entitled to exist and function like perfectly autonomous economic agents, with no obligation to society at all. They seem quite convinced that it's their inalienable right to enjoy the highest degree of laissez-faire impunity in expressing their greed. Rubbish, they have no such special right whatsoever. They just have a flatulently inflated sense of entitlement. One that conservative ideology goes along with, since its an ideology geared to the interests of society's alphas.

Liberals see this as a case of the ends justify the means ...

To advocate, as conservatives do, that the fat cats should be able to parasitically prey on the underdog and not be required to give anything back to society, is indeed to advocate an immoral position, i.e. a position that promotes socioeconomic injustice and the suffering of the poor who will be harmed by the underfunding of the social safety net.

As for the end justifies the means thinking that you attribute to progressives, well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I for one don't think in terms of the end justifying the means when it comes to taxing the rich fairly. There's nothing to justify here, unless you think like a conservative, i.e. unless you think that the rich have some God-given entitlement to not share some of the wealth they've exploited & expropriated from the working poor. All that the redistribution of wealth through taxation and the funding of social programs does is actualize our ethical sense that society and life are interdependent propositions, that we all exist in a web of interrelated relationships and responsibilities and aren't privileged to operate like discrete egoic units looking out for #1 to the exclusion of all social considerations.

Well, perhaps if you wish to be such a selfish egoic unit, then paying your taxes would be subjectively experienced like an imposition, but your moral and spiritual ignorance of your interdependence with the rest of society can't be an excuse to get away with tax evasion.

Both mainstream political ideologies can be dangerous when challenged, although I don't think it is possible to say one is worse ...

The difference between the worldview of the left and that of the right, however, is that the rightist worldview is intrinsically conducive to social uncompassion. The historical crimes of leftists, on the other hand, were the result of aberrations of "leftism", due mostly to historical and culturally-specific factors. So I beg to differ, I think that it is possible to say that rightism is worse, in an ethical sense, than leftism.

Conservatives and liberals both seek to oppress immorality, the only problem being that they have two different moral systems.

The "liberal" moral system is based on compassion, the conservative onhis/her social dominance orientation. This does indeed make the liberal moral system better.

Next you compare progressive and conservative morality in the areas of progressive advocacy for the poor vs. conservative opposition to equality for gays. You argue that both sides favor imposing their point of view and are therefore equivalent. Well, if the only value in your value system is "freedom", then all people, of whatever ideological camp, who would infringe on it for any reason are equivalent. Some of us have fuller and more multi-dimensional value systems, we don't live in an ethical flatland where everyone who seeks to balance our freedom with other concerns are equivalent bad guys. There is a difference that matters between infringing a rich capitalist's freedom to keep all of his ill-gotten gains, and infringing on the rights of harmless homosexuals to be themselves. The former case is legit, the latter isn't. So, the upshot here is that, once again, leftist morality is in point of fact "better".
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
7/25/2011 7:23:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 6:08:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Any responses to the actual responses to your post?

There's a detailed one right above.
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 8:27:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 7:23:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/25/2011 6:08:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Any responses to the actual responses to your post?

There's a detailed one right above.

You realize that you posted it about an hour after he said that? Pointing out that you did something that people said you didn't do before you actually did them just makes you look like you want credit.
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 8:50:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 5:26:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Any mindset of "us vs them," even if not political, is dangerous (but even more so when political).

Agreed. But this doesn't mean living like a political Pollyanna in willful denial that there are different perspectives and psychologies in the world. Without falling into an us vs. them outlook we need to take note of and seek to understand the ideologies and mentalities afoot in our society, for elective ignorance is never a smart or wise approach to being in the world

When you view others that have a disagreement with you as your enemy that you need to defeat, where you coming to agree with them is a "loss" and them coming to agree with you is a "win" everyone is going to end up worse for it.

Agreed again. However, this certainly doesn't mean glossing over or being indifferent to the real and significant differences in the philosophies and mind-sets of different political factions. And it doesn't mean refraining from doing battle with individuals and factions in politics who aim to impose an uncompassionate ideology that will have painfully real consequences for a great many human beings.

That kind of mind set locks people into provincial ideas where the more ignorant and un-moving one is, the more they feel like they are winning, when the only thing they are doing is obstructing and preventing progress.

Sure, being too partisan in one's mind-set can be unconstructive, but being too impartial and dégagé about one's core values can also be counterproductive to the end of implementing them for the betterment of the world. It can lock people into a mind-set of not feeling moved enough to struggle with one's opponents, to struggle for progress. The result is political ineffectuality.

This can happen with democrats, republicans, socialists, conservatives, totalitarians, or anarchists. It doesn't really matter.

Yes, anyone can get locked into a partisan and dogmatic mind-set, but certain mentalities are more prone to it, such as the fundamentalist and the right-wing mentalities.

Once you hit the point of "my ideaology is right and I'm no longer going to entertain the idea that it could be wrong and there could be something better," you've hit a dangerous place that puts you in line with Nazism, Stalinism, and McCarthism of "those that disagree should be imprisoned or killed."

Agreed. But this doesn't mean that one can always concede the legitimacy of the positions of one's opponents. For example, you mention the Nazis, well, exactly which positions of the Nazis would you be prepared to open-mindedly entertain as possibly legitimate?

Hmm? Was the führer principle that rationalized dictatorship perhaps something you'd concede a smidgen of legitimacy to? Or the Nazi belief that Germans had some "manifest destiny" to seize lebensraum from their neighbors by military force. Or Nazi racial theory? Or the Nazi belief that Jews are behind all of the world's evils?

Yes, where pray tell might we entertain the idea that Nazi thinking was right, and our thinking wrong? Let's see, well, the Nazis did know how to make the trains run on time. Oh, but darn it, they also used the trains to carry out the Holocaust. All jesting aside, where precisely are we to be open-minded with some ideologies such as Nazism?

We can of course concede that not every German citizen of the Nazi era was evil, but certainly the ideology they lived under and that some of them subscribed to was thoroughly evil and rotten to its core values. The most magnanimous we can be is to say that many Germans were misguided and didn't appreciate the depth of the evil of Nazi ideology. We can't go beyond that and say that Nazi ideology was possibly right on some questions and the opposition to Nazi ideology was wrong.

Quite simply, although we should usually try to avoid "hitting the point of 'my ideaology is right and I'm no longer going to entertain the idea that it could be wrong and there could be something better,' ", we should also not take our receptiveness to other points of view to the extreme that we become philosophically wishy-washy moral relativists who lack clear & definite principles that we stand for. If we do then we've hit a dangerously apathetic place that puts us in line with all of those passive accessories to evil throughout history who've rationalized their passivity.

Yes, recognizing that there are genuine differences between people's worldviews and the human consequences of politically enacting certain worldviews, making a good faith effort to adopt the most humane and human potential-affirming worldview, and taking a solid stand for it is not the same thing as succumbing to us against them absolutism. Let's never forget this. And there's certainly nothing conducive to dualistic dogmatism about my critical analysis of rightism and how it quite poorly stacks up, psychologically-morally, against leftism. My critique merely highlights certain fundamental and key differences between the conservative and progressive mind-sets, it doesn't at all advocate the kind of left-wing bigotry you seem to be imputing to it.

Before concluding I'd just like to say thank you for taking the time to contribute a thoughtful reply to this thread. Although we certainly disagree on a number of points, nonetheless your reply is intelligent and well articulated and not ad hominem. For this I'm sincerely appreciative. Please feel welcome to reply with your rebuttals.
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
7/25/2011 8:57:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 8:27:33 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 7/25/2011 7:23:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/25/2011 6:08:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Any responses to the actual responses to your post?

There's a detailed one right above.

You realize that you posted it about an hour after he said that? Pointing out that you did something that people said you didn't do before you actually did them just makes you look like you want credit.

I merely pointed out that I have in fact replied to someone's criticisms of my thesis. For you to try to convolutedly make this into something to find fault with me about is just downright, well, petty. Come now, do you really dislike me so much that you'll resort to such petty faultfinding?
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.
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 9:33:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 7:22:18 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/25/2011 5:14:29 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
Conservatives often adhere to a Christian-based, "strict-father" type morality...

I would just add that such an authoritarian form of morality indicates the dominance-oriented mentality my analysis focuses on as the psychological explanation of "conservatism".

It's not so much of a "dominance-oriented" mentality, it's more of an "obedience to authority" morality. Obedience to the conservative morality is moral and dissent is immoral.


That is why they feel they can justify their stances on issues like gay marriage, abortion, and prostitution (to name a few).

Precisely the point that I made in my last post, in the politics section. That is, although it isn't always a consciously cynical decision, "conservatives" use morality as a way of trying to colonize and dominate everything from the private behavior of people in their own boudoirs to the public sphere on a number of issues. Again, this all speaks to the SDO (social dominance orientation) of the right.

I think you could argue the exact same thing about liberal implementation of their ideology. You yourself have said that it is right to force a "fat cat" to pay more taxes to help the poor. Does this not constitute domination of the private behavior of an individual, i.e. what he does with his money. Just because you believe he has some man-made social obligations to society doesn't give you the right to enforce your view upon him.
Just like any political ideology, this mindset can be pushed to justify further intrusions into personal freedoms ...

It leads not merely to the sort of "intrusions into personal freedoms" that would disturb libertarian types, but to uncompassionate policies, such as the deregulation of corporate greed, which unleashes it on working-class folks, consumers, and the poor; the elimination of social welfare programs for the needy, which btw leads to real & cruel human suffering, libertarians!;

It is true that they eliminate many social programs, but it is not to benefit the rich and "corporate greed." Conservatives believe that you "get what you deserve", meaning if you work hard you will be successful. They don't see social problems as a valid excuse for poverty. Whether or not this view is correct, however, is another thing entirely. I just want you to understand where they are coming from.

Liberals on the other hand go off a more nurturance-based morality. In theory, this morality supports differences of opinion and supposedly supports all sides equally.

It does so in practice, as well. Does this mean that progressives are all perfect beings? Certainly not, we don't all live up to our best attitudes and values 24/7. But at least the attitudes and values that we espouse and sometimes endeavor to actualize are "kinder and gentler" than those of dominance-oriented conservatives, and when we succeed in actualizing them the result is happier than the result of conservatives politically actualizing their alpha-male mentality.

Now this is where the argument gets interesting, as you can directly apply it to the common government as a family metaphor. Conservatives advocate obedience to their moral code and any dissent must be punished or they themselves are being immoral. Liberals support spreading their views through more empathetic means that the "child" (citizen) will then return to society. The "problem" with the conservative view is that it is often too harsh, too unforgiving, and leaves the weak to rot. The "problem" with the liberal view is that it often spoils the citizen, and instead of installing in them virtues to make them a better member of society, it promotes laziness and discourages hard work and effort.

However, this is only true as long as the opinions those people hold do not go against the main tenets of liberal morality (i.e. social obligation to help the poor, disadvantaged, sick, etc..., rehabilitation and empathy rather than punishment for criminals, and progressive tax systems).

Should "tolerance" be licentious?! Does being a tolerant progressive have to mean holding an anything goes attitude? This confuses tolerance and indifference.

Conservatives feel the same exact way! Except for them it is ingrained as part of their morality that indifference to immorality is in itself immoral. Liberals are slightly more accepting, only finding immorality in ideas that go directly against their ideology. You confuse humanitarianism with self-righteousness. In other words, you believe that you are doing a great service by enforcing your morality on people with "flawed" views but in actuality are blinded to the flaws in your own philosophy.

Compassion actually mandates that we be intolerant of certain things, such as the desire of conservatives & right-libertarians to toss the poor out into the cold of a free-market society with no social safety net; such as using the department of corrections to punitively warehouse members of our capitalist status quo's underclass, and to visit the harsh and retributive morality of conservatives on individuals who do in fact need empathy and rehabilitation; such as the efforts of conservatives to protect the exploitative and malfeasant moneyed elite from shouldering their fair share of the tax burden of maintaining a society with a decent quality of life for all, etc.

Then why aren't you? ;)

Liberals justify their right to tax the rich because they believe it is a social obligation of that person to help out the less fortunate...

Well duh! From each according to his ability, as the principle goes. It's a principle whose equitability is easily recognized by anyone who isn't biased against it, either by being rich, or by identifying with society's rich alpha capitalists.

That's a false dichotomy, it's not a choice between those with a soul and those "greedy fat cats" and their supporters. Their are other reasons for disagreeing with that statement, and disagreeing with it doesn't make you biased. The "to each according..." ideology takes for granted the idea that the coercion of the few for the many is an acceptable course of action. By that same line of thought you could advocate slavery.

Have you ever noticed how conservatives like to use the word "entitlement", as if to connote that the poor have a lot of nerve thinking that they're "entitled" to any assistance in the face of the poverty their supposedly weak characters have let them in for. But of course it's really the rich who have an overdeveloped sense of what they're entitled to. They think that they're entitled to exist and function like perfectly autonomous economic agents, with no obligation to society at all.

I don't remember signing any "obligation" to society. In my ideological economy (a nearly completely free market), people earn what they get by providing some type of product or service to their fellow man. If this service benefits society, then the consumer will buy into it and both the people who provide and society will benefit. There is no reason to take someone's possessions and forcibly redistribute them to others who have provided less of a service to society.

Liberals see this as a case of the ends justify the means ...

To advocate, as conservatives do, that the fat cats should be able to parasitically prey on the underdog and not be required to give anything back to society, is indeed to advocate an immoral position, i.e. a position that promotes socioeconomic injustice and the suffering of the poor who will be harmed by the underfunding of the social safety net.

That's assuming you believe that a successful economy (which is a result of these "fat cats") hurts the working class.

But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 9:34:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 8:57:46 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/25/2011 8:27:33 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 7/25/2011 7:23:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/25/2011 6:08:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Any responses to the actual responses to your post?

There's a detailed one right above.

You realize that you posted it about an hour after he said that? Pointing out that you did something that people said you didn't do before you actually did them just makes you look like you want credit.

I merely pointed out that I have in fact replied to someone's criticisms of my thesis. For you to try to convolutedly make this into something to find fault with me about is just downright, well, petty. Come now, do you really dislike me so much that you'll resort to such petty faultfinding?

The way you say it often seems as though you're trying to point out that they're wrong, when they're right.
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.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 10:22:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 5:26:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Any mindset of "us vs them," even if not political, is dangerous (but even more so when political). When you view others that have a disagreement with you as your enemy that you need to defeat, where you coming to agree with them is a "loss" and them coming to agree with you is a "win" everyone is going to end up worse for it.

That kind of mind set locks people into provincial ideas where the more ignorant and un-moving one is, the more they feel like they are winning, when the only thing they are doing is obstructing and preventing progress.

This can happen with democrats, republicans, socialists, conservatives, totalitarians, or anarchists. It doesn't really matter. Once you hit the point of "my ideaology is right and I'm no longer going to entertain the idea that it could be wrong and there could be something better," you've hit a dangerous place that puts you in line with Nazism, Stalinism, and McCarthism of "those that disagree should be imprisoned or killed."

Opinion: I agree. This would be my perspective as well.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2011 7:31:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would argue that the totalitarian mindset, while it can be applied to either left wing or right wing politics, is the most dangerous. Purely because it seeks to erode people's capacity to resist and once that is gone, any hope of a Government of the people for the people goes with it.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2011 10:40:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 8:50:28 PM, charleslb wrote:

Agreed. But this doesn't mean living like a political Pollyanna in willful denial that there are different perspectives and psychologies in the world. Without falling into an us vs. them outlook we need to take note of and seek to understand the ideologies and mentalities afoot in our society, for elective ignorance is never a smart or wise approach to being in the world

If someone else has an "us vs them" mentality, responding to it with a "fight fire with fire" is not going to help, because then others will see you holding an "us vs them" and the process will repeat, just breeding more and more "us vs them." One of the classic signs of "us vs them" is broad brushing and generalization. Like "libertarianism is a mental disorder" or "socialists are a plague" or what have you.



Agreed again. However, this certainly doesn't mean glossing over or being indifferent to the real and significant differences in the philosophies and mind-sets of different political factions. And it doesn't mean refraining from doing battle with individuals and factions in politics who aim to impose an uncompassionate ideology that will have painfully real consequences for a great many human beings.

It's not "battle" it's debate (at least it should be). Everyone (for the most part) has the goal of bettering society, they just all have different views on what "better" is and how to get there. It should be no different than scientists who have different theories on the same event, collaberating to get a better understanding for all.



Sure, being too partisan in one's mind-set can be unconstructive, but being too impartial and dégagé about one's core values can also be counterproductive to the end of implementing them for the betterment of the world. It can lock people into a mind-set of not feeling moved enough to struggle with one's opponents, to struggle for progress. The result is political ineffectuality.

being too open to change is far better than being too resistant to it.





Yes, anyone can get locked into a partisan and dogmatic mind-set, but certain mentalities are more prone to it, such as the fundamentalist and the right-wing mentalities.

I would disagree with the toss in of "right-wing mentalities." There are many left wing mentalities which do this, namely Communism. It is simply not as common now because of the USSR mucking it up back in the 40's - 80's, but simply because it has mostly gone "out of style" doesn't mean that it isn't as prone to it as others.



Agreed. But this doesn't mean that one can always concede the legitimacy of the positions of one's opponents. For example, you mention the Nazis, well, exactly which positions of the Nazis would you be prepared to open-mindedly entertain as possibly legitimate?

Restrictions of Tobacco consumption, keynesian economics, military styles, technology, gene research, etc.


Hmm? Was the führer principle that rationalized dictatorship perhaps something you'd concede a smidgen of legitimacy to? Or the Nazi belief that Germans had some "manifest destiny" to seize lebensraum from their neighbors by military force. Or Nazi racial theory? Or the Nazi belief that Jews are behind all of the world's evils?

You have to be open minded about such views prior to dismissing them. Is your knowledge of Nazi limited to "I was taught they were evil in 1st grade, and so held that view, locked it in, and won't listen to anything else on the subject" or is it "I read through Mein Kampf, Inside the Third Reich, and other such literature to get an indepentend understanding of Nazism and what they were thinking, and why they thought that why and determined from there that they were wrong in their ideals."


Yes, where pray tell might we entertain the idea that Nazi thinking was right, and our thinking wrong? Let's see, well, the Nazis did know how to make the trains run on time. Oh, but darn it, they also used the trains to carry out the Holocaust. All jesting aside, where precisely are we to be open-minded with some ideologies such as Nazism?

We can of course concede that not every German citizen of the Nazi era was evil, but certainly the ideology they lived under and that some of them subscribed to was thoroughly evil and rotten to its core values. The most magnanimous we can be is to say that many Germans were misguided and didn't appreciate the depth of the evil of Nazi ideology. We can't go beyond that and say that Nazi ideology was possibly right on some questions and the opposition to Nazi ideology was wrong.

No one ever said that opposition was wrong, and the Nazi were right on somethings (not the genocide things). To dismiss it all because of the most in-your-face aspect of Nazism is intellectual dishonesty.


Quite simply, although we should usually try to avoid "hitting the point of 'my ideaology is right and I'm no longer going to entertain the idea that it could be wrong and there could be something better,' ", we should also not take our receptiveness to other points of view to the extreme that we become philosophically wishy-washy moral relativists who lack clear & definite principles that we stand for. If we do then we've hit a dangerously apathetic place that puts us in line with all of those passive accessories to evil throughout history who've rationalized their passivity.

Those "clear & definite principles that [you] stand for" is the exact thing you were criticizing the religious right on. That they hold certain morals, derived from outside of them, as absolute that can be altered. If you hold that your morals (or principles) are absolute, you have no grounds to criticize them for the same thing.


Yes, recognizing that there are genuine differences between people's worldviews and the human consequences of politically enacting certain worldviews, making a good faith effort to adopt the most humane and human potential-affirming worldview, and taking a solid stand for it is not the same thing as succumbing to us against them absolutism. Let's never forget this. And there's certainly nothing conducive to dualistic dogmatism about my critical analysis of rightism and how it quite poorly stacks up, psychologically-morally, against leftism. My critique merely highlights certain fundamental and key differences between the conservative and progressive mind-sets, it doesn't at all advocate the kind of left-wing bigotry you seem to be imputing to it.

Taking a stand is not an us vs them thing. That's the difference of fighting for something and fighting against something. Though I would disagree that either "leftism" or "rightism" stacks up better against each other morally, as morals are highly subjective. Obviously, if you apply "right" morals, the rightism does better, and if you apply "left" morals, the leftism does better.

Heck, if you apply Nazi morals, Nazism stacks up pretty well.


Before concluding I'd just like to say thank you for taking the time to contribute a thoughtful reply to this thread. Although we certainly disagree on a number of points, nonetheless your reply is intelligent and well articulated and not ad hominem. For this I'm sincerely appreciative. Please feel welcome to reply with your rebuttals.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2011 4:22:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 9:33:20 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
It's not so much of a "dominance-oriented" mentality, it's more of an "obedience to authority" morality. Obedience to the conservative morality is moral and dissent is immoral.

Yes, of course the "authoritarian personality" is also a distinct feature of the psychology of many conservatives. And of course the "authoritarian personality" and a social dominance-oriented mentality aren't entirely interchangeable profiles, but there's often considerable overlap. That is, the two analyzes of the conservative mentality aren't at all contradictory, rather they dovetail together nicely. My own emphasis in this and other threads has been on SDO (social dominance orientation), but thank you for pointing out the tie-in of authoritarianism.

I think you could argue the exact same thing about liberal implementation of their ideology. You yourself have said that it is right to force a "fat cat" to pay more taxes to help the poor. Does this not constitute domination of the private behavior of an individual, ...

This is like arguing that when people advocate implementing their desire for physical security and the use of self-protective force in the form of police force and imprisonment to prevent murderers from killing again that they're revealing a desire to dominate others. No, not all use and advocacy of force is necessarily symptomatic of a SDO mentality.

It is true that they eliminate many social programs, but it is not to benefit the rich and "corporate greed." Conservatives believe that you "get what you deserve", meaning if you work hard you will be successful...

Come now, the current "debt ceiling standoff" reveals this to be rubbish. The intransigence of conservatives is all about benefiting the superrich by upholding their bogus sense of entitlement to be greedy in an unfettered fashion and to not give anything back to society in the form of taxes. Further, it's about dealing with the nation's debt problem by instead penalizing social security, Medicare, and Medicaid recipients. Really now, would you assert that giving corporate fat cats plenty of corporate welfare is a case of people "getting what they deserve", and that giving the proverbial shaft to folks on social security and other forms of government assistance is also a case of getting what one deserves?! Is this how conservatives fight the good fight for the concept of giving people what they deserve?!!!

You then articulate what you take to be the conservative rationalization for being champions of society's alpha capitalists, and foes of the working class and the poor. You add the disclaimer that you don't necessarily buy this rationalization, but you still hand conservatives the defense that they sincerely believe in their own rationalizing rhetoric. I agree that conservatives facilely fall back on the rationalization you articulate, however I'll do you one better and assert that it's utter rubbish and that the real reason for their favorable attitude toward the rich, and quite unfavorable attitude toward the needy, is their alpha-male/female mentality that feels admiration for the strong and contempt for the weak. The conservative's conscious reasoning in defense of thse alpha attitudes are just a lot of ideological stuff & nonsense.

Now this is where the argument gets interesting, as you can directly apply it to the common government as a family metaphor.

Ah, I already see where you're going, and it's not such an interesting place. You're going to suggest that progressives infantalize the poor by treating them like incapable children who need to be coddled by a maternal welfare state. The rub here for conservatives who use this "family metaphor" is that they're really only projecting their own way of thinking about and viewing the poor onto progressives. It's actually conservatives who see the poor as inferiors and parasitically childlike creatures. And of course this is due, once again, to their SDO mentality that thinks in Tarzan-like binaries such as me strong productive man, poor people weak pathetic children.

Conservatives advocate obedience to their moral code and any dissent must be punished or they themselves are being immoral.

Yes, the SDO mentality also fancies moral superiority and dominance. Hence the holier-than-thou war being waged for the morals and soul of our society by the religious right, aka the "culture war". The "culture war" is really just another vehicle for the expression of the conservative's will-to-social-dominance.

Liberals support spreading their views through more empathetic means that the "child" (citizen) will then return to society.

There you go, infantalizing needy people and claiming that this is how we on the progressive side regard the poor.

The "problem" with the conservative view is that it is often too harsh, too unforgiving, and leaves the weak to rot.

You got that spot-on.

The "problem" with the liberal view is that it often spoils the citizen, and instead of installing in them virtues to make them a better member of society, it promotes laziness and discourages hard work and effort.

You're starting from a place of the fundamental attribution error (as it's called in the field of psychology). The fundamental attribution error involves jumping to the assumption that someone in an unhappy condition is there because of his characterological failings, rather than admitting possible external factors affecting his/her life. The fundamental attribution error, which is really just psychologist-speak for sanctimonious judgmentalism, when committed in regard to how the poor are viewed of course leads to the conservative portrayal of them as work ethic-lacking bums who need a kick in the pants from the "free market", not a hand up from the welfare state.

Nope, the poor are not merely lazy, virtue-deficient individuals who need to discover the ability to pull themselves up by their own characterological bootstraps. Poverty is caused by the nature of the capitalist system. It's caused by giving too much license to the greed of capitalists. It's caused by the consequences of the greedy behavior of capitalists (the current recession, which was caused by the greed of a few Wall Streeters is a case in point). It's caused by corporations creating unemployment by exporting jobs to countries where they can be performed by choiceless peons in sweatshops. It's caused by capitalist greed relentlessly driving up the cost of living, etc. But you and the conservatives you're defending prefer to focus on the supposed sinfulness of the innocent victims of the elite.

... Liberals are slightly more accepting, only finding immorality in ideas that go directly against their ideology. You confuse humanitarianism with self-righteousness...

No, you confuse conservative jugmentalism with the desire to see all poor people in a more self-sufficient state.

Then why aren't you? ;)

Why aren't I what, tolerant? I am, I'm just not inclined to be uncritical about what's really going on in the Neanderthaloid recesses of the conservative psyche.

The "to each according..." ideology takes for granted the idea that the coercion of the few for the many is an acceptable course of action.

If we're ascending a mountain and one of our fellow climbers takes a fall and you perversely refuse to help me pull him up by his safety line and I therefore compel you in some manner to lend a hand against your will, well, technically I'm coercing you, but of course I'm not really being a coercive SOB at all, I'm merely eliciting your participation in doing the humanitarian thing. Welfare and taxing the rich to fund it is like this. It's not a matter of the government being coercive, it's a matter of society eliciting humanitarianism from its members.

I don't remember signing any "obligation" to society...

That's because you're a "libertarian".
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 4:25:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ha!, apparently, conservatives, your man on the radio, Glenn Beck, identifies with the right-wing mass assassin of progressive children, Anders Breivik. On his show he's been trying to villainize the victims by characterizing them as indoctrinees in a Hitler Youth-like camp of the Norwegian left! The obvious motivation for trying to make Breivik's victims out to be less sympathetic is of course that Beck, and others of you on the right, do in fact identify & sympathize with him and the extreme rightist mentality that he acted out in his psycho-ideologically driven murder spree.

And why might it be that some of you identify with Mr. Breivik to the extent that you're even trying to downplay the heinousness of his actions? Could it possibly be that on some level you-all recognize and feel an affinity for the dominance-oriented rightist mentality that impelled him to perpetrate a one-man anti-progressive pogrom on Utoya island? Could it be that you cognitively-emotionally resonate with that mentality because it's at the core of conservative thinking?

And could it perhaps therefore be that you're so darn touchy about being compared to someone like Anders Breivik because the comparison reveals the psychologically underlying and ethically-intellectually illegitimate nature of your ideology. Hmm? I know that conservatives are rather proud to portray conservatism to be quite the moral and rational stance, but then someone like Norway's right-wing terminator comes along and shoots your supercilious self-image full of holes along with his victims. And then someone such as myself points this out and you defensively react by shooting the messenger. All of this shooting around you conservatives, yours really is an aggressive mind-set, prone to uncompassion and occasional outbursts of destructive behavior.

Oh well, I guess that I should graciously thank Glenn Beck for confirming my critical analysis of rightist psychology by letting the cat of his own identification with Breivik's mentality out of the bag of his unconscious. Whether or not most conservatives have the integrity to admit it, Beck and Breivik speak for and have tragically outted them. Thanks 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.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2011 4:43:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 10:22:03 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/25/2011 5:26:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Any mindset of "us vs them," even if not political, is dangerous (but even more so when political)...

Tiel wrote: Opinion: I agree. This would be my perspective as well.

Did you read my reply?
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 5:29:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/26/2011 7:31:16 AM, Veridas wrote:
I would argue that the totalitarian mindset, while it can be applied to either left wing or right wing politics, is the most dangerous. Purely because it seeks to erode people's capacity to resist and once that is gone, any hope of a Government of the people for the people goes with it.

Hey now, that's not always true. Totalitarian doesn't always seek to erode a person's capacity to resist any more so than any other ideaology (not as an ideaology at least).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2011 6:08:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/26/2011 5:29:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/26/2011 7:31:16 AM, Veridas wrote:
I would argue that the totalitarian mindset, while it can be applied to either left wing or right wing politics, is the most dangerous. Purely because it seeks to erode people's capacity to resist and once that is gone, any hope of a Government of the people for the people goes with it.

Hey now, that's not always true. Totalitarian doesn't always seek to erode a person's capacity to resist any more so than any other ideaology (not as an ideaology at least).

That's precisely what a totalitarian would say.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2011 6:11:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/26/2011 6:08:50 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 7/26/2011 5:29:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/26/2011 7:31:16 AM, Veridas wrote:
I would argue that the totalitarian mindset, while it can be applied to either left wing or right wing politics, is the most dangerous. Purely because it seeks to erode people's capacity to resist and once that is gone, any hope of a Government of the people for the people goes with it.

Hey now, that's not always true. Totalitarian doesn't always seek to erode a person's capacity to resist any more so than any other ideaology (not as an ideaology at least).

That's precisely what a totalitarian would say.

busted :P
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2011 9:00:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 5:28:35 PM, belle wrote:
i'm sensing a pattern. charles why not just make a thread titled "why conservatives are mentally ill and borderline evil":

Because he doesn't think they're merely "borderline" evil, he thinks they drink the blood liberal children while jacking off to pictures of Ronald Reagan.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)