So, liberals want order (mitigate the chaos) while conservatives actually create order?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
My plan to save American democracy
Collapse
X
-
The OP is that people are basically stupid. I agree. That's why "the people" as a whole need as little power as possible, either directly or indirectly. This means that we need much, much greater restrictions on the power of government, especially at the federal level. The US system is basically fine, and I think that the original intent was for strictly limited government, but unfortunately that isn't the result.
The less that government can do, the less that stupid people can pressure it to do. It's tough to vote for welfare (either individual or corporate) if the government lacks the power to enact welfare, for example.Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Floyd
The OP is that people are basically stupid. I agree. That's why "the people" as a whole need as little power as possible, either directly or indirectly. This means that we need much, much greater restrictions on the power of government, especially at the federal level. The US system is basically fine, and I think that the original intent was for strictly limited government, but unfortunately that isn't the result.
The less that government can do, the less that stupid people can pressure it to do. It's tough to vote for welfare (either individual or corporate) if the government lacks the power to enact welfare, for example.
Comment
-
Well, people are stupid in that they don't seem to have the critical thinking skills to see past the media's sensationalist bull****. Also, people are stupid for voting on issues and in elections where there will be far-reaching consequences, when they are uninformed.
Yes, they don't have time to spend hours a day on current events, but if they don't have the time/inclination to devote a little study to what they are voting on, then they really are too stupid to vote.Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
Comment
-
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So, liberals want order (mitigate the chaos) while conservatives actually create order?
Conservatives believe that there is a pre-existing order or pre-existing rules and man must follow them and work within them. Attempts at radical man-led change are most likely to be wrong because they undermine said order and replace it with man-made chaos.
So, either you think:
Universe orderly, man introduces chaos (Conservatives)
Universe chaotic, man introduces order (Liberal)If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
Comment
-
Originally posted by ramseya
There, the exact opposite (superiority instead of inferiority) leads to Conservatism and Authoritarianism.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Comment
-
Kidicious:
well my point was less a statement of opinion and more a point to make the exact opposite claim as Agathon's authoritarian psychology people, to undermine their idea about preoccupations about inferiority leading to authoritarianism. I figured if I made a compelling case for the opposite, it undermines those thinkers.
It's not always true obviously. I do think my point explains why certain people do become conservatives (I think it applies to Schwarzenegger, for example, and probably to McCain, as well, and to all the privileged Republicans like Dubya Bush and Mitt Romney, as well as the non-privileged but brilliant Republicans like Condoleezza Rice and Clarence Thomas). All those people, for various reasons, were very successful individuals (even if in Bush' case it was due to a silver spoon), whom I imagine did, at the dawn of the Conservatism, wonder why they were successful and why others aren't and believed it all lies in the individual's enterprise or lack thereof.
I'm sure though JFK probably fitted that easy living mode though, between his silver spoon and his (I am told) good looks, and he was obviously a Democrat. So the case, obviously, isn't always true or even true more than half the time.
Just goes to show you how ascribing psychological traits to political beliefs doesn't make much sense, even if it can be compelling for some people.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ramseya
Agathon:
Please, for god's sake, don't tell me you actually believe that crap? That Robert Altemeyer is hardly an unbiased researcher. His publications:
* Enemies of Freedom: Understanding Right-Wing Authoritarianism, 1988 (ISBN 978-1555420970)
* The Authoritarian Specter, 1997, which examines the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 (ISBN 0-674-05305-2)
* Amazing Conversions: Why Some Turn to Faith and Others Abandon Religion, 1997 (ISBN 978-1573921473)
* Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers, 2006 (ISBN 978-1591024132).
* The Authoritarians, 2006 (available online at theauthoritarians.com )
Every one of those publications screams intense bias (except maybe Amazing Conversions).
Looking at the wikipedia article on his concept of "Right-wing Authoritarianism", Republicans are described as if they were Nazis, the article saying that they "say they value freedom but actually want to undermine the Bill of Rights, do not value equality very highly, and oppose measures to increase equality."
You have nothing.
Moreover, you do not appear to understand what a "right wing authoritarian" is. It isn't someone who is necessarily right wing, but someone who supports the established authorities (it's an older sense of "right"). Altemeyer's personality test was given to residents of the Soviet Union, and the high RWAs were the people who supported the establishment there.
If you want a psychological motivation behind different political beliefs, I highly doubt Republicans are the ones with dreaded feelings of inferiority. My suspicion is quite the opposite; that Republicans were the ones who tended to be always successful in their youth; some so because they were born with silver spoons, others weren't but had certain advantages which made things easier for them, anything from being intelligent to athletic to physically attractive to even White... Hear me out...
I'm terribly sorry that I prefer to believe him rather than your attempt to weasel away from a truth you don't like.
There, the exact opposite (superiority instead of inferiority) leads to Conservatism and Authoritarianism.Only feebs vote.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Zevico
Those are generalisations I am unwilling to accept without actual evidence.
I would be interested in how you would differentiate between authoritarian and non-authoritarian people on a broad societal level. It sounds to me like an impossibility. Such generalisations are unlikely to hold for all people. It would hardly be fair to discriminate against 'innocent' non-authoritarians who subscribe to 'conservative' views.Only feebs vote.
Comment
-
The sad truth is that if you take a conservative, the more conservative that person is, the more likely it is that they have a fascist type personality. As if the constant militarism and religiosity did not give it away.
There's absolutely no reason why each side in a political debate must be equally rational. And in fact, it turns out that they are not. Authoritarians gang up one one side of the debate, and they are notoriously irrational and bigoted. Remove them from the political process, and everyone will be better off.Only feebs vote.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ramseya
Kidicious:
well my point was less a statement of opinion and more a point to make the exact opposite claim as Agathon's authoritarian psychology people, to undermine their idea about preoccupations about inferiority leading to authoritarianism. I figured if I made a compelling case for the opposite, it undermines those thinkers.
It's not always true obviously. I do think my point explains why certain people do become conservatives (I think it applies to Schwarzenegger, for example, and probably to McCain, as well, and to all the privileged Republicans like Dubya Bush and Mitt Romney, as well as the non-privileged but brilliant Republicans like Condoleezza Rice and Clarence Thomas). All those people, for various reasons, were very successful individuals (even if in Bush' case it was due to a silver spoon), whom I imagine did, at the dawn of the Conservatism, wonder why they were successful and why others aren't and believed it all lies in the individual's enterprise or lack thereof.
I'm sure though JFK probably fitted that easy living mode though, between his silver spoon and his (I am told) good looks, and he was obviously a Democrat. So the case, obviously, isn't always true or even true more than half the time.
Just goes to show you how ascribing psychological traits to political beliefs doesn't make much sense, even if it can be compelling for some people.
Another study that was done showed that conservatives are very different parents than liberals are. Conservatives spank their children much more than liberals do. Liberals tend to rely on talking sense into their kids more than conservatives do. I've heard conservatives tell their children "don't speak when adults are speaking." That kind of thing is going to make kids feel inferior. When they grow up they are conservatives too many times, or they are liberal but tend towards having authoritarian attitudes themselves.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Comment
-
Originally posted by BeBro
Lotsa commies are quite conservative at the core.
Look, it's all very well to have people talking out of their asses, but the research shows that conservative pretty much means fascist or semi-fascist in most cases.
As far as I am concerned, trying to deny it is like trying to deny the theory of gravity. The research is there, and it is unambiguous. In our societies, the authoritarians are for the most part the people we label the political "right".
Frankly, it's obviously true to any thinking person. One only has to witness the pathetic attempts of Apolyton conservatives to define their ideology, let alone to defend it. It's not an ideology, it's a pathology.
After all, if science demonstrated that blacks were inherently stupider, you can bet that your local tories would be jumping all over it.Only feebs vote.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Agathon
Not the ones that live in western societies.
Look, it's all very well to have people talking out of their asses, but the research shows that conservative pretty much means fascist or semi-fascist in most cases.
Blah
Comment
Comment