Fascism, Autocracy, Oligarchy Clearinghouse

TwiceHorn · June 27, 2021

On 6/24/2021 at 4:34 PM, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

so no harm, no foul, then? I suppose you'll also tell me those that conspired to kidnap and then ransom (and by some accounts murder) the Michigan governor were just petty criminals because they didn't succeed? Get the fuck outta here with that shit. What happened on January 6th should alarm every American. Because of your casual stance I am now very suspect of where your loyalties lie

No, that's not what he said.

The intention was to overthrow the results of a valid election at the behest of a would-be dictator.

That's bad enough.

But to believe that it held any real chance of succeeding is foolish and alarmist. Even had they killed Pelosi and Pence, and maybe all the Ds, there was little chance of the results of the election actually being thrown out. Which is not to trivialize the threat to their lives. But the "stop the steal" bullshit going on on Congress was bullshit political theater.

We got a lot of problems as a country and a society, but being actually close to having the government overthrown is not one of them. The means of attack are more subtle.

staboner · June 28, 2021

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

I side with this view more than you may think, but at the same time, for the Trumpkins out there, if we are to use battles and war analogies, January 6th was their Waterloo, their Gettysburg, their Stalingrad. Trump commanded that they be there and be "wild". He spent the better part of a year telling them that the Dems would steal the election, and he spent nearly two months after November 3rd, telling them that the Dems stole the election, and he made sure that January 6th was circled on their calendars. For somebody who had over 70 million votes, sure seems like a lot of those tens of millions had other things to do.

We need to address the elephant in the room though: Social media, Fox News/OAN/Newsmax, etc. A lot of these people wouldn't be so wound up/wound so tightly if they weren't spoonfed this crap on demand, and the talking heads were deliberately out to make them angry.

These days, these people aren't being wound up because of a Trump tweet, they damn sure aren't being wound up because of something Mitch McConnell or Kevin McCarthy said, or most other Republicans, or anything in the Republican platform. They are being wound up because they are living in echo chambers and being spoon fed stupid shit by Hannity, Tucker, etc. Of course, by that same token, because they are being fed this stuff from the comfort of their La-Z-boy, arguably their world views are being satisfied by FNC/OAN/etc. and they get to vent their feelings on Facebook/etc. and so they just don't feel compelled to get out and act.

I agree with this, but my man there are two elephants in the room. The internet and the American cancers. The later is a convergence of all kinds of shit, while the former needs reform - agreed. My global point is how does that reform actually happen in permanently divided society with no levers to enact change? It happens through authoritarian action and I see one party going there with glee and one old man with his limp dick in his hand.

to the cancer part - I missed the cancer side of things in 2008 and obama's election. I thought 'hey black guy awesome something x,y,z' and missed that the American cancers were now just going to regroup and come back stronger and dumber. Did you see that coming?

I sure didn't properly calculate the convergence of these cancers coming together to produce people this regarded. And a whole slew of halfwits too jaded to not support them. These are people with no bearing. You can call them cowards all you want - but IMO - its missing teeth as we haven't had the moment. We lost the chance at that moment when we did nothing with Jan 6th. I understand your point that to you this is the moment. I hope you are right but I just can't agree. Change never happens unless there is actual hardship. They are not experiencing any hardship whatsoever. They are regrouping and getting dumber while embracing everything anti-democratic from local office to POTUS.

To your point there - please tell me how you see that actually happening? because i don't see shit changing anytime soon. The responsible adults are incompetent and the dickheads aren't playing by the rules we all agreed to.

Mrs Whiggins · June 28, 2021

"They" actually seem to like it. As pampered and spoiled as some seem, there does not appear (to me) to be a travail that they are not willing to undergo to prove their loyalty to "the team." COVID deaths? Nope. Freezing to death after being abandoned at a rally or due to malfeasance by a failing grid due to profit motive? Nope.

It's all 'please sir, may I have another' all to have agency over others deemed as unworthy: people of color, women, people of another religion. It elevates the esteem in a world that is capricious, unpredictable, and at times, unfathomable. Rinse, lather, repeat.

gmr548 · June 28, 2021

We got a lot of problems as a country and a society, but being actually close to having the government overthrown is not one of them. The means of attack are more subtle.

Yeah, I don’t think you can confidently make this statement ahead of 2022 and 2024 without seeing what the courts do with GOP election takeovers and how they play out in practice. But I agree 1/6 specifically was not that flashpoint.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

atomheartbevo · June 28, 2021

32 minutes ago, staboner said:

To your point there - please tell me how you see that actually happening? because i don't see shit changing anytime soon. The responsible adults are incompetent and the dickheads aren't playing by the rules we all agreed to.

One way to stop that stuff long-term is for advertisers to bail. Right now, a lot of the boycotts don't last long enough to make a dent. Tucker calling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs a staff - a Green Beret, decorated combat veteran, etc. a "stupid pig", and mocking the military in general should have been enough to get a lot more advertisers to bail, and we'll see in the coming weeks if it has an impact.

There is one other way - the lawsuits against FNC, etc. that are winding their way through the courts - if those cost Fox News, etc. billions, Fox News might be a lot more careful about its choice of guests, and what its hosts can say.

If Fox News, OAN, etc. went away tomorrow, it would definitely deflate a lot of the anger on the right. While Tucker and Hannity only get less than 3 million, there's a lot of broadcast shows in the evening that are racking up 10 million or more viewers, but that 2-3 million that watch Tucker and Hannity are something else.

Mrs Whiggins · June 28, 2021

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

One way to stop that stuff long-term is for advertisers to bail. Right now, a lot of the boycotts don't last long enough to make a dent. Tucker calling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs a staff - a Green Beret, decorated combat veteran, etc. a "stupid pig", and mocking the military in general should have been enough to get a lot more advertisers to bail, and we'll see in the coming weeks if it has an impact.

There is one other way - the lawsuits against FNC, etc. that are winding their way through the courts - if those cost Fox News, etc. billions, Fox News might be a lot more careful about its choice of guests, and what its hosts can say.

If Fox News, OAN, etc. went away tomorrow, it would definitely deflate a lot of the anger on the right. While Tucker and Hannity only get less than 3 million, there's a lot of broadcast shows in the evening that are racking up 10 million or more viewers, but that 2-3 million that watch Tucker and Hannity are something else.

Lachlan is paying for Tucker w/o advertising though so he's like a RW loss leader. It's through the subscription services/contracts through cable. I suppose advertising could have an effect eventually, but I just don't see this happening soon enough. How many service people are willing to drop USAA?

With respect to Jan 6th and the future, it doesn't have to be a violent takeover just because that is what the fascist groups like the PB prefer--they love to 'crack skulls,' but really it's more about violence and intimidation making people fearful. Fearful people are more likely to vote conservative or to not vote at all. It is a cumulative effect.

wildcat09 · June 28, 2021

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, that's not what he said.

The intention was to overthrow the results of a valid election at the behest of a would-be dictator.

That's bad enough.

But to believe that it held any real chance of succeeding is foolish and alarmist. Even had they killed Pelosi and Pence, and maybe all the Ds, there was little chance of the results of the election actually being thrown out. Which is not to trivialize the threat to their lives. But the "stop the steal" bullshit going on on Congress was bullshit political theater.

We got a lot of problems as a country and a society, but being actually close to having the government overthrown is not one of them. The means of attack are more subtle.

What does this even mean? Thrown out by whom? The Constitution isn't self-executing, it requires people to enact it. And in the scenario we're contemplating, the only people with power and any actual desire to faithfully enact it have been murdered.

The optimists in this thread believe that the Constitution would've had an answer for what comes next if that mob murdered a ton of Congressional Dems, that everyone would agree on what that answer was, and that everyone would just sit back and let the appropriate process play out. Sorry, but that's incredibly foolish. Does anyone think Trump or Congressional Republicans in that scenario would play along? That Trump would leave the White House on January 20th and the all-Republican Congress would allow replacement Democrats to be seated? No. Trump would've said he was the real winner, Congressional Republicans probably would've reconvened and voted to certify Trump as the winner (after expelling the dozen or so Republicans who didn't want to go along with it), and come January 20th it would've been up to the military to decide if Trump was still President or not.

Or it could've played out a dozen different ways, because the Constitution doesn't have an answer for what happens if Congress fails to timely certify the election. The law at that point would be completely irrelevant; America's fate would be decided by the people in power: Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans. Democratic voters would certainly take to the streets and they would likely be met with substantial lethal force from Republicans and police. It would be extremely chaotic and Trump would probably invoke the Insurrection Act and order American troops into the streets. So it would ultimately be up to the military to ratify Trump's victory claims or not. Senior military brass mostly hated Trump so I wouldn't be surprised if they refused to support him and that would be the best case scenario, but in that scenario the Constitution would already be effectively dead. It's also likely, given how conservative the military is, that a decision from the brass not to support Trump would've splintered the military and sparked a civil war.

JimmyJames · June 28, 2021

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

What does this even mean? Thrown out by whom? The Constitution isn't self-executing, it requires people to enact it. And in the scenario we're contemplating, the only people with power and any actual desire to faithfully enact it have been murdered.

The optimists in this thread believe that the Constitution would've had an answer for what comes next if that mob murdered a ton of Congressional Dems, that everyone would agree on what that answer was, and that everyone would just sit back and let the appropriate process play out. Sorry, but that's incredibly foolish. Does anyone think Trump or Congressional Republicans in that scenario would play along? That Trump would leave the White House on January 20th and the all-Republican Congress would allow replacement Democrats to be seated? No. Trump would've said he was the real winner, Congressional Republicans probably would've reconvened and voted to certify Trump as the winner (after expelling the dozen or so Republicans who didn't want to go along with it), and come January 20th it would've been up to the military to decide if Trump was still President or not.

Or it could've played out a dozen different ways, because the Constitution doesn't have an answer for what happens if Congress fails to timely certify the election. The law at that point would be completely irrelevant; America's fate would be decided by the people in power: Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans. Democratic voters would certainly take to the streets and they would likely be met with substantial lethal force from Republicans and police. It would be extremely chaotic and Trump would probably invoke the Insurrection Act and order American troops into the streets. So it would ultimately be up to the military to ratify Trump's victory claims or not. Senior military brass mostly hated Trump so I wouldn't be surprised if they refused to support him and that would be the best case scenario, but in that scenario the Constitution would already be effectively dead. It's also likely, given how conservative the military is, that a decision from the brass not to support Trump would've splintered the military and sparked a civil war.

This is exactly the scenario trump wanted. Chaos and he emerges as the leader.

Pods · June 28, 2021

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

What does this even mean? Thrown out by whom? The Constitution isn't self-executing, it requires people to enact it. And in the scenario we're contemplating, the only people with power and any actual desire to faithfully enact it have been murdered.

The optimists in this thread believe that the Constitution would've had an answer for what comes next if that mob murdered a ton of Congressional Dems, that everyone would agree on what that answer was, and that everyone would just sit back and let the appropriate process play out. Sorry, but that's incredibly foolish. Does anyone think Trump or Congressional Republicans in that scenario would play along? That Trump would leave the White House on January 20th and the all-Republican Congress would allow replacement Democrats to be seated? No. Trump would've said he was the real winner, Congressional Republicans probably would've reconvened and voted to certify Trump as the winner (after expelling the dozen or so Republicans who didn't want to go along with it), and come January 20th it would've been up to the military to decide if Trump was still President or not.

Or it could've played out a dozen different ways, because the Constitution doesn't have an answer for what happens if Congress fails to timely certify the election. The law at that point would be completely irrelevant; America's fate would be decided by the people in power: Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans. Democratic voters would certainly take to the streets and they would likely be met with substantial lethal force from Republicans and police. It would be extremely chaotic and Trump would probably invoke the Insurrection Act and order American troops into the streets. So it would ultimately be up to the military to ratify Trump's victory claims or not. Senior military brass mostly hated Trump so I wouldn't be surprised if they refused to support him and that would be the best case scenario, but in that scenario the Constitution would already be effectively dead. It's also likely, given how conservative the military is, that a decision from the brass not to support Trump would've splintered the military and sparked a civil war.

Exactly. The Constitution is a fucking piece of paper without humans backing it up. We assign it meaning, but that's your normalcy bias fucking with you if you think the GQP wouldn't wipe their ass with the Constitution to hold onto a single Senate seat.

Mrs Whiggins · June 28, 2021

The "Generals" and other current and former military taking the (it was unprecedented, correct?) step to publicly state no involvement was a sad state of affairs IMO in that it revealed what you all affirm. The scenario laid out by @wildcat09 and the chaos surrounding it whether orchestrated by bad actors such as Bannon, Stone, et al on the outside, or abetted by people on the inside such as Miller (both of them), Patel, various pols, at this point isn't going to matter.

Fox has shown their hand by attacking Milley and the rest of the military because that was one of the obstacles this last go around, and as Craig Johnson noted in his podcast, if a military does get involved (in the future), that's pretty much it--that cat is never going back in the bag and endless rounds of govt takeovers are now in the cycle, simply because people are made aware that the possibility even exists.

It is these slow steps to possibilities that pave the way for authoritarian rule. All the little things that got broken along the way-the ethics violations, the tear gas, the unmarked vehicles, the counterinsurgency attacks by various groups, the social media propaganda, and the eventual seditious attack on the Capitol are now entered as things that a sadly large part of the country sees as an aberration or righteous or political theatre. We've talked about it time and time again on this forum and why it got separated into its own thread. It has not gone away, and while the Lazy Boy Bayonette Brigade is not arising out of their chairs at this point in time, it is naive to think that the path to fascism or minority rule will happen in the exact same fashion as prior events in history.

*Also, given the line of succession--I still have a very deep suspicion of Pompeo (and Chad Wolfe for that matter). Pompeo is a cagey dude and for him to seize the moment would not have been that big of a surprise (if @wildcat09's scenario had played out). Pompeo has had Koch backing for decades.

Mrs Whiggins · July 13, 2021

The Atlantic's David Frum with the article:

In response to his own tweet, he posits. "yes, post-presidential Trumpism is fascism" (I maintain it was there all along, within the bureaucracy of his like-minded administration and enabled by William Barr).

Captainant · July 13, 2021

I only just read through this thread, and holy shit atomheart, you gotta read more history. You're like the 1924 NYT proclaiming that Hitler was done and dealt with after the putsch because he went away to never be seen again in Austria.

Not like he was chancellor and then dictator of Germany a mere 11 years after his first attempt. And he never once changed his script or talking points the whole way - just doubled down and took advantage of well meaning rubes who thought THIS would be the line he stops at.

Mrs Whiggins · July 13, 2021

I don't think I can stress this enough how much is hinging upon 2022 and ultimately 2024 in the United States and ultimately for democracy worldwide.

This list is not exhaustive, and the causes and reasons vary but the greater global unrest, exacerbated by the pandemic, is EXACTLY the type of scenario in which an autocratic/authoritarian leader thrives. There are a lot of humans that revert to the comfort of having someone who will tell them what to do, who will take control, who will give them someone or something to hate in order to somehow make it all better.

Belarus-clamp down on protests

Brazil--protests against Bolsonaro's COVID handling

Columbia-protests

Cuba-protests

Georgia (the country) protests after journalists beaten, one killed, while covering anti-LGBQT actions and government cover-up following the death.

Haiti--assassination

Hong Kong-China clamps down on protests and warns US

Hungary-protests against Orban's anti-LBGQT laws

Myanmar-coup, protesters being shot

Poland-protests for reproductive choice, equality

China benefits when we (or other countries) withdraw into nationalism. They step into the vacuum and they write the rules of engagement. Not the best direction for the world to be heading for humanity. We have one planet upon which we can currently reside.

Edited July 13, 2021 by Mrs Whiggins

Biff Tannen · July 13, 2021

10 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I don't think I can stress this enough how much is hinging upon 2022 and ultimately 2024 in the United States and ultimately for democracy worldwide.

This list is not exhaustive, and the causes and reasons vary but the greater global unrest, exacerbated by the pandemic, is EXACTLY the type of scenario in which an autocratic/authoritarian leader thrives. There are a lot of humans that revert to the comfort of having someone who will tell them what to do, who will take control, who will give them someone or something to hate in order to somehow make it all better.

Belarus-clamp down on protests

Brazil--protests against Bolsonaro's COVID handling

Columbia-protests

Cuba-protests

Georgia (the country) protests after journalists beaten, one killed, while covering anti-LGBQT actions and government cover-up following the death.

Haiti--assassination

Hong Kong-China clamps down on protests and warns US

Hungary-protests against Orban's anti-LBGQT laws

Myanmar-coup, protesters being shot

Poland-protests for reproductive choice, equality

China benefits when we (or other countries) withdraw into nationalism. They step into the vacuum and they write the rules of engagement. Not the best direction for the world to be heading for humanity. We have one planet upon which we can currently reside.

I fully agree and this should be more than enough reason for Dems to grow a collective spine, tell the Rs to get fucked, and take the reins to steer us back to sanity and make meaningful change.

I almost got through that sentence without laughing/crying.

Mrs Whiggins · July 14, 2021

Putting this tweet here as this is exactly where it belongs. A couple of notes:

Matt is a fascist. He actually states as such, and like Nick Fuentes, he supports a specific white fascism, so deaths of persons who are not white are not something to care about. He has honed his craft to the point where he has a following that is not insignificant. He frequently will put truths in his comments because that is more persuasive with recruiting people who are reluctant to embrace what he is selling.

Make no mistake, what he is selling is something you won't like once you've bought a ticket.

In his tweet, he is normalizing the death of abused and mistreated children. His grain of truth is that these indigenous schools often had "cemeteries" which they did. Death due to childhood illness was more common in the early 20th century and that little tidbit he drops to support the first bit. This serves to deflect from the recorded writings of the official (in Canada) at the time who specifically wanted indigenous children in boarding schools because of and not in spite of diseases. I can't remember the exact words of his writing, but it was essentially a solution to the "problem" of indigenous people (if we kill your children through neglect, then no further generations will be born).

But the deflection worked because folks started getting worked up about whether the graves were marked or unmarked, how much grave sites deteriorate over time and completely stopped talking about a government program put in place to take children from their parents and place them in schools and not care if they lived or died and then not inform parents that their child was dead.

Now why would Matt Walsh wish to deflect from that type of discussion? Because fascists see no problem with separating children from their parents. Four more years of child separations and who knows what else that happened at the US border would have been just fine with Matt.

Mrs Whiggins · July 30, 2021

It hasn't gotten a lot of play because it happened at the state/local level in Floida but a government official using the power of the state to harass someone in this manner (this was a personal phone number) is fascism, IMO:

Captainant · July 30, 2021

1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

It hasn't gotten a lot of play because it happened at the state/local level in Floida but a government official using the power of the state to harass someone in this manner (this was a personal phone number) is fascism, IMO:

Waiting for the 1A concerns from donk and Ana and the rest of the bothsides gang

Mrs Whiggins · August 20, 2021

Rather than crosspost in the Stephen Miller thread, putting this here because it has already gone mainstream among the GOP and is not exclusive to Stephen Miller. Attacking ally, Germany, and promoting white nationalism is their platform and will only grow more blatantly obvious in the months ahead. Click on Zimmer's tweet for the full thread.

Satchel · September 21, 2021

It’s scary just how little we knew about the threat we were facing:

RDCanecutter · September 21, 2021

I heard Rush froth-ranting the same fantasy way back when.

washparkhorn · September 22, 2021

5 hours ago, Satchel said:

It’s scary just how little we knew about the threat we were facing:

Scary how close they came to a viable legal claim.

washparkhorn · September 22, 2021

Professors Eastman and Tribe need to explain themselves regarding and anti-democratic (small d) instruction manuals.

Satchel · September 22, 2021

On 6/27/2021 at 8:04 PM, atomheartbevo said:

One way to stop that stuff long-term is for advertisers to bail. Right now, a lot of the boycotts don't last long enough to make a dent. Tucker calling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs a staff - a Green Beret, decorated combat veteran, etc. a "stupid pig", and mocking the military in general should have been enough to get a lot more advertisers to bail, and we'll see in the coming weeks if it has an impact.

There is one other way - the lawsuits against FNC, etc. that are winding their way through the courts - if those cost Fox News, etc. billions, Fox News might be a lot more careful about its choice of guests, and what its hosts can say.

If Fox News, OAN, etc. went away tomorrow, it would definitely deflate a lot of the anger on the right. While Tucker and Hannity only get less than 3 million, there's a lot of broadcast shows in the evening that are racking up 10 million or more viewers, but that 2-3 million that watch Tucker and Hannity are something else.

It might be apparent to some, but I honestly don’t understand why these people are so angry. Trump promised them his election would usher in a period of prosperity and winning unrivaled in history. He said they would get tired of winning, and yet, they remained pissed throughout his presidency.
It amazes me that in 2021, we seem to still be bound by a set of privileged restrictions regarding who can get angry and to what extent their anger should be taken seriously.

Mrs Whiggins · September 22, 2021

1 hour ago, washparkhorn said:

Professors Eastman and Tribe need to explain themselves regarding and anti-democratic (small d) instruction manuals.

Thanks for posting the link to that article. What a read.
I’m seeing where Smeagol is getting some of his ideas he’s been tweeting about in his bid to primary Governor Abbott.
Damn. Just right out there with that “whaddya gonna do about it” attitude they have.

Mrs Whiggins · September 23, 2021

Let's see:

Immigrant outrage? Check

Weird enlarged balls on person no one has ever heard of but is somehow relevant to a celebrity story outrage? Check

Budget and other legislation tied up with obstruction? Check

MTG, Madison Cawthorne, Matt Gaetz, and Ted Cruz tweet designed to stay relevant? Check

Making certain that the United States does not suffer a second coup? Ummm, about that......

bolverk · September 23, 2021

On 7/13/2021 at 3:51 PM, Mrs Whiggins said:

I don't think I can stress this enough how much is hinging upon 2022 and ultimately 2024 in the United States and ultimately for democracy worldwide.

This list is not exhaustive, and the causes and reasons vary but the greater global unrest, exacerbated by the pandemic, is EXACTLY the type of scenario in which an autocratic/authoritarian leader thrives. There are a lot of humans that revert to the comfort of having someone who will tell them what to do, who will take control, who will give them someone or something to hate in order to somehow make it all better.

Belarus-clamp down on protests

Brazil--protests against Bolsonaro's COVID handling

Columbia-protests

Cuba-protests

Georgia (the country) protests after journalists beaten, one killed, while covering anti-LGBQT actions and government cover-up following the death.

Haiti--assassination

Hong Kong-China clamps down on protests and warns US

Hungary-protests against Orban's anti-LBGQT laws

Myanmar-coup, protesters being shot

Poland-protests for reproductive choice, equality

China benefits when we (or other countries) withdraw into nationalism. They step into the vacuum and they write the rules of engagement. Not the best direction for the world to be heading for humanity. We have one planet upon which we can currently reside.

You need to add France to this list. Marine Le Pen is poised to be (once again) Macron's main opposition in France's presidential election next year, and she got about a third of the vote in the second round of the last one. Since then, France's own Far Right has been making waves and is only emboldened by shit like the submarine deal that was torpedoed, which they're using to make Macron look soft by not standing up to America and the rest of les Anglo-Saxons (a loose term the French say with scorn when talking about the English-speaking world). It definitely doesn't help when we appear to be aligning with the Brits who just left the EU, and France is more-or-less the foreign policy/military leader (Germany can't really be that, because....well, you know) of that indispensable bloc of allies. Unfortunately, ignoring French concerns drives a wedge between AUKUS and our continental NATO partners, which gives ammunition to French Right Wing nationalists (and fascists) like Le Pen who are at best skeptical about NATO as well as the entire EU project.

Satchel · September 27, 2021

We ignore Trump’s plan to undermine democracy at our own peril:

Biff Tannen · September 27, 2021

Not sure where to put this, but the debt ceiling thing is just theater by the Rs right? I heard the Dems can get around it without issue.

atomheartbevo · September 27, 2021

29 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Not sure where to put this, but the debt ceiling thing is just theater by the Rs right? I heard the Dems can get around it without issue.

Has to be. If they had the ability to shut everything down and wreck the economy, and there was nothing that the Dems could do about it, I don't think they would, because it would be pretty easy to fuck over enough people in the middle who would show up and vote next year (and not for the (R)'s).

Brisketexan · September 28, 2021

Has to be. If they had the ability to shut everything down and wreck the economy, and there was nothing that the Dems could do about it, I don't think they would, because it would be pretty easy to fuck over enough people in the middle who would show up and vote next year (and not for the ®'s).

I say let them. DARE THEM. Let the GQP torpedo the economy. Let them cause mass suffering. Get out in front on the messaging right now. And the suffering will be horrific. Hang it around their necks as an albatross.

Brisketexan · September 28, 2021

You need to add France to this list. Marine Le Pen is poised to be (once again) Macron's main opposition in France's presidential election next year, and she got about a third of the vote in the second round of the last one. Since then, France's own Far Right has been making waves and is only emboldened by shit like the submarine deal that was torpedoed, which they're using to make Macron look soft by not standing up to America and the rest of les Anglo-Saxons (a loose term the French say with scorn when talking about the English-speaking world). It definitely doesn't help when we appear to be aligning with the Brits who just left the EU, and France is more-or-less the foreign policy/military leader (Germany can't really be that, because....well, you know) of that indispensable bloc of allies. Unfortunately, ignoring French concerns drives a wedge between AUKUS and our continental NATO partners, which gives ammunition to French Right Wing nationalists (and fascists) like Le Pen who are at best skeptical about NATO as well as the entire EU project.

Interesting counter observation….the German elections this weekend were a strong showing on the left, and showed a decline in their ultra-right party, AfD. I don’t know what that means broadly, but it’s interesting.

bolverk · September 28, 2021

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Interesting counter observation….the German elections this weekend were a strong showing on the left, and showed a decline in their ultra-right party, AfD. I don’t know what that means broadly, but it’s interesting.

Indeed. Hopefully my fears are overblown and the Far Right wave has already crested on the Continent, but I can tell you a couple of my friends were freaking the fuck out a few years ago when they realized about a third of their countrymen showed themselves to support a fascist in the last election. Having said that, marginalizing France is playing with fire. I think the Biden administration belatedly figured that out and threw Macron a bone after seeing his reaction and maybe comprehending the context for it a bit better.

The nature of the Franco-German alliance is an interesting one. Germany takes care of the internal domestic affairs of Europe while France generally takes the lead in their international dealings by leveraging its former position as a colonial power. Certainly, part of that is based on Gallic pride and the nostalgia of being a grand pouvoir, but it's also firmly entrenched in the pragmatic recognition of them being a middling global power that needs the backing of their EU partners. It's kind of the same with the UK in recognizing their limits - though they're just content to ride America's coattails to extend their international reach.

It's sort of an interesting dynamic where the Continent and the Anglosphere (hopefully) remain friendly rivals but promote shared interests under a common NATO umbrella. We just need to all tamp down the nationalists under each of our roofs to make the shit work. The way we do that is to better understand and not worsen the domestic climate in each with our own hubris.

JimmyJames · September 28, 2021

51 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Interesting counter observation….the German elections this weekend were a strong showing on the left, and showed a decline in their ultra-right party, AfD. I don’t know what that means broadly, but it’s interesting.

Any country that actually has free voting like Germany does looks at what is currently happening in America and shudders at the implications and votes accordingly.

Mrs Whiggins · September 30, 2021

Anne Applebaum has been discussing Poland and Belarus on her twitter account and some of what has been going on their politically of late. It is extremely relevant in comparison to events stateside. Does the family and friends in positions of power and influence sound familiar? Isn't just the Trumps who took advantage of this. Or the way their state television uses old images to depict migrants as degenerate pedophiles and stoke nationalist fervor.

Satchel · October 1, 2021

Why?

Brisketexan · October 2, 2021

Why?

Because….and follow me here….the American right is entirely Christo-fascist. It’s is not any more complicated than that.

Pick up any book, go to any museum, and read the stories on the rise of fascism in Europe pre WWII. The parallels aren’t just striking; they’re so spot-on as to be terrifying. I walked out of the German history museum exhibit on the rise of naziism, which specifically focused on public activities, how society went along, etc….and my hands were shaking.

The alignment between the GQP and white sypremacists/nazis isn’t coincidental. It’s perfect and expected.

bolverk · October 6, 2021

WARNING: This is kind of a long read. I'm not sure where else to put it than here, since this thread is sort of a meta-analysis of what the hell is going on in this country. The following is an analysis of various polls that do a good job describing (and confirming) what we've been discussing. There's also a note of caution regarding hubris from the intellectual side of things. Worth a read and something to ruminate on.

Spoiler

Trump True Believers Have Their Reasons

By Thomas B. Edsall. Mr. Edsall contributes a weekly column from Washington, D.C. on politics, demographics and inequality.

Just who believes the claim that Trump won in 2020 and that the election was stolen from him? Who are these tens of millions of Americans and what draws them into this web of delusion?

Three sources provided The Times with survey data: The University of Massachusetts-Amherst Poll; P.R.R.I. (the Public Religion Research Institute); and Reuters-Ipsos. With minor exceptions, the data from all three polls is similar.

Alexander Theodoridis, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts, summed it up:

About 35 percent of Americans believed in April that Biden’s victory was illegitimate, with another 6 percent saying they are not sure. What can we say about the Americans who do not think Biden’s victory was legitimate? Compared to the overall voting-age population, they are disproportionately white, Republican, older, less educated, more conservative, and more religious (particularly more Protestant and more likely to describe themselves as born again).

P.R.R.I. also tested agreement or disagreement with a view that drives “replacement theory” — “Immigrants are invading our country and replacing our cultural and ethnic background” — and found that 60 percent of Republicans agreed, as do 55 percent of conservatives.

The Reuters/Ipsos data showed that among white Republicans, those without college degrees were far more likely to agree “that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump,” at 69 percent, than white Republicans with college degrees, at a still astonishing 51 percent. The same survey data showed that the level of this belief remained consistently strong (60 percent plus) among Republicans of all ages living in rural, suburban or urban areas.

With that data in mind, let’s explore some of the forces guiding these developments.

In their September 2021 paper, “Exposure to authoritarian values leads to lower positive affect, higher negative affect, and higher meaning in life,” seven scholars — Jake Womick, John Eckelkamp, Sam Luzzo, Sarah J. Ward, S. Glenn Baker, Alison Salamun and Laura A. King — write:

Right-wing authoritarianism played a significant role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In subsequent years, there have been numerous ‘alt-right’ demonstrations in the U.S., including the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville that culminated in a fatal car attack, and the 2021 Capitol Insurrection. In the U.S., between 2016 and 2017 the number of attacks by right-wing organizations quadrupled, outnumbering attacks by Islamic extremist groups, constituting 66 percent of all attacks and plots in the U.S. in 2019, and over 90 percent in 2020.

How does authoritarianism relate to immigration? Womick provided some insight in an email:

Social dominance orientation is a variable that refers to the preference for society to be structured by group-based hierarchies. It’s comprised of two components: group-based dominance, and anti-egalitarianism. Group-based dominance refers to the preference for these hierarchies and the use of force/aggression to maintain them. Anti-egalitarianism refers to maintaining these sorts of hierarchies through other means, such as through systems, legislation, etc.\

Womick notes that his own study of the 2016 primaries showed that Trump voters were unique compared with supporters of other Republicans in the strength of their

group-based dominance. I think group-based dominance as the distinguishing factor of this group is highly consistent with what happened at the Capitol. These individuals likely felt that the Trump administration was serving to maintain group-based hierarchies in society from which they felt they benefited. They may have perceived the 2020 election outcome as a threat to that structure. As a result, they turned to aggression in an attempt to affect our political structures in service of the maintenance of those group-based hierarchies.

In their paper, Womick and his co-authors ask

What explains the appeal of authoritarian values? What problem do these values solve for the people who embrace them? The presentation of authoritarian values must have a positive influence on something that is valuable to people.

Their answer is twofold:

Authoritarian messages influence people on two separable levels, the affective level, lowering positive and enhancing negative affect. and the existential level, enhancing meaning in life.

They describe negative affect as “feeling sad, worried, or enraged.” Definitions of “meaning in life,” they write,

include at least three components, significance, the feeling that one’s life and contributions matter to society; purpose, having one’s life driven by the pursuit of valued goals; and coherence or comprehensibility, the perception that one’s life makes sense.

In a separate paper, “The existential function of right‐wing authoritarianism,” Womick, Ward and King, joined by Samantha J. Heintzelman and Brendon Woody, provide more detail:

It may seem ironic that authoritarianism, a belief system that entails sacrifice of personal freedom to a strong leader, would influence the experience of meaning in life through its promotion of feelings of personal significance. Yet, right wing authoritarianism does provide a person with a place in the world, as a loyal follower of a strong leader. In addition, compared to purpose and coherence, knowing with great certainty that one’s life has mattered in a lasting way may be challenging. Handing this challenge over to a strong leader and investment in societal conventions might allow a person to gain a sense of symbolic or vicarious significance.

From another vantage point, Womick and his co-authors continue,

perceptions of insignificance may lead individuals to endorse relatively extreme beliefs, such as authoritarianism, and to follow authoritarian leaders as a way to gain a sense that their lives and their contributions matter.

In the authors’ view, right-wing authoritarianism,

despite its negative social implications, serves an existential meaning function. This existential function is primarily about facilitating the sense that one’s life matters. This existential buffering function is primarily about allowing individuals to maintain a sense that they matter during difficult experiences.

In his email, Womick expanded on his work: “The idea is that perceptions of insignificance can drive a process of seeking out groups, endorsing their ideologies and engaging in behaviors consistent with these.”

These ideologies, Womick continued,

should eventually promote a sense of significance (as insignificance is what drove the person to endorse the ideology in the first place). Endorsing right wing authoritarianism relates to higher meaning in life, and exposing people to authoritarian values causally enhances meaning.

In “Race and Authoritarianism in American Politics,” Christopher Sebastian Parker and Christopher C. Towler, political scientists at the University of Washington and Sacramento State, make a parallel argument:

Confining the definition of authoritarianism to regime rule, however, leaves little room for a discussion of more contemporary authoritarianism, at the micro level. This review shifts focus to an assessment of political psychology’s concept of authoritarianism and how it ultimately drives racism. Ultimately, we believe a tangible connection exists between racism and authoritarianism.

Taking a distinct but complementary approach, David C Barker, Morgan Marietta and Ryan DeTamble, all political scientists, argue in “Intellectualism, Anti-Intellectualism, and Epistemic Hubris in Red and Blue America” that

Epistemic hubris — the expression of unwarranted factual certitude” is “prevalent, bipartisan and associated with both intellectualism (an identity marked by ruminative habits and learning for its own sake) and anti-intellectualism (negative affect toward intellectuals and the intellectual establishment).

The division between intellectualism and anti-intellectualism, they write, is

distinctly partisan: intellectuals are disproportionately Democratic, whereas anti-intellectuals are disproportionately Republican. By implication, we suggest that both the intellectualism of Blue America and the anti-intellectualism of Red America contribute to the intemperance and intransigence that characterize civil society in the United States.

In addition, according to the Barker, Marietta and DeTamble, “The growing intellectualism of Blue America and anti-intellectualism of Red America, respectively, may partially explain the tendency by both to view the other as some blend of dense, duped, and dishonest.”

In an email, Marietta wrote:

The evidence is clear that the hubris driven by intellectual identity and the hubris driven by anti-intellectual affect lower our willingness to compromise with those who seem to lack character and honesty. I suspect the divide in perceptions, but unanimity in hubris, feeds the growing belief that democracy is failing and hence anti-democratic or illiberal policies are justified.

Marietta reports that he and his colleagues

conducted a series of experiments to see what happens when ordinary citizens are faced with others who hold contrary perceptions of reality about things like climate change, or racism, or the effects of immigration. The results are not pretty.

Once they realize that the perceptions of other people are “different from their own,” Marietta continued,

Americans are far less likely to want to be around them in the workplace, and are far more likely to conclude that they are stupid or dishonest. These inclinations are symmetrical, with liberals rejecting conservatives as much (or sometimes more) than conservatives reject liberals. The disdain born of intellectual identity seems to mirror the disdain arising from anti-intellectual affect.

I asked Barker about the role of hubris in contemporary polarization and he wrote back:

The populist Right hates the intellectual Left because they hate being condescended to, they hate what they perceive as their hypersensitivity, and they hate what they view as an anti-American level of femininity (which is for whatever reason associated with intellectualism).

At the same time, Barker continued,

the intellectual Left really does see the G.O.P. as a bunch of deplorable rubes. They absolutely feel superior to them, and they reveal it constantly on Twitter and elsewhere — further riling up the “deplorables.”

Put another way. Barker wrote,

The populist/anti-intellectual Right absolutely believe that the intellectuals are not only out of touch but are also ungodly and sneaky, and therefore think they must be stopped before they ruin America. Meanwhile, the intellectual Left really do believe the Trumpers are racist, sexist, homophobic (and so on) authoritarians who can’t spell and are going to destroy the country if they are not stopped.

What is a critical factor in the development of hubris? Moral conviction, the authors reply: “The most morally committed citizens are also the most epistemically hubristic citizens,” that is, they are most inclined “to express absolute certainty regarding the truth or falsehood” of claims “for which the hard evidence is unclear or contradictory.”

Moral conviction plays a key role in the work of Clifford Workman, a postdoctoral fellow at the Penn Center for Neuroaesthetics at the University of Pennsylvania. Workman, Keith J. Yoder and Jean Decety, write in “The Dark Side of Morality — Neural Mechanisms Underpinning Moral Convictions and Support for Violence” that “People are motivated by shared social values that, when held with moral conviction, can serve as compelling mandates capable of facilitating support for ideological violence.”

Using M.R.I. brain scans, the authors “examined this dark side of morality by identifying specific cognitive and neural mechanisms associated with beliefs about the appropriateness of sociopolitical violence” to determine “the extent to which the engagement of these mechanisms was predicted by moral convictions.”

Their conclusion: “Moral conviction about sociopolitical issues serves to increase their subjective value, overriding natural aversion to interpersonal harm.”

In a striking passage, Workman, Yoder and Decety argue that

While violence is often described as antithetical to sociality, it can be motivated by moral values with the ultimate goal of regulating social relationships. In fact, most violence in the world appears to be rooted in conflict between moral values. Across cultures and history, violence has been used with the intention to sustain order and can be expressed in war, torture, genocide, and homicide.

What, then, Workman and his co-authors ask, “separates accepting ‘deserved’ vigilantism from others and justifying any behavior — rioting, warfare — as means to morally desirable ends?”

Their answer is disconcerting:

People who bomb family planning clinics and those who violently oppose war (e.g., the Weathermen’s protests of the Vietnam War) may have different sociopolitical ideologies, but both are motivated by deep moral convictions.

The authors propose two theories to account for this:

Moral conviction may function by altering the decision-making calculus through the subordination of social prohibitions against violence, thereby requiring less top-down inhibition. This hypothesis holds that moral conviction facilitates support for ideological violence by increasing commitments to a ‘greater good’ even at the expense of others. An alternative hypothesis is that moral conviction increases the subjective value of certain actions, where violence in service of those convictions is underpinned by judgments about one’s moral responsibilities to sociopolitical causes.

In a 2018 paper, “A multilevel social neuroscience perspective on radicalization and terrorism,” Decety, Workman and Robert Pape ask: “Why are some people capable of sympathizing with and/or committing acts of political violence, such as attacks aimed at innocent targets?”

For starters, they note:

Disturbing as it may be, individuals who become radicalized and involve themselves with terrorist organizations are, by and large, ordinary people. These individuals have typically functioning brains; they are not mad but are fanatics. Most are not psychopaths and, with the exception of ‘lone wolf’ terrorists are not especially likely to have psychiatric diagnoses.

Instead, Decety, Pape and Workman contend that

people who are otherwise psychologically typical may develop values and strong emotional ties to narratives and causes and become radicalized. Many individuals who sympathize with and even join terrorist organizations are educated and seemingly rational.

This immediately raises another question: “Are there characteristics that distinguish individuals who merely hold extreme views from those who act on those views by engaging in ideologically motivated violence?”

Decety, Pape and Workman cite a range of findings:

From political psychology:

Individuals who are cognitively inflexible and intolerant of ambiguity may become captive audiences for ideological, political, or religious extremists whose simplistic worldviews gloss over nuance. Indeed, cognitive inflexibility has been positively associated with authoritarian aggression, racism, and ethnocentrism.

From neuroscience:

The radicalism dimension, which included items such as “People should use violence to pursue political goals” was related to increased activation of the ventral striatum and posterior cingulate.

From the study of moral values:

Violations of sacred, moral values may trigger disgust and/or anger responses that may set the stage for ideologically-motivated violence.

The tools of political science, neuroscience, evolutionary theory, psychology, cognitive science and sociology are all necessary to understand the ongoing upheaval in politics — not just in America but also globally.

On Sept. 30, for example, the University of Virginia Center for Politics and Project Home Fire released a survey showing unexpectedly large percentages of voters agreeing with the statement:

“The situation in America is such that I would favor states seceding from the union to form their own separate county.”

Among Trump voters, 52 percent agreed, with 25 percent in strong agreement; among Biden voters, 41 percent agreed, 18 percent strongly.

There are credible reasons to find this alarming.

Mrs Whiggins · October 6, 2021

44 minutes ago, bolverk said:

WARNING: This is kind of a long read. I'm not sure where else to put it than here, since this thread is sort of a meta-analysis of what the hell is going on in this country. The following is an analysis of various polls that do a good job describing (and confirming) what we've been discussing. There's also a note of caution regarding hubris from the intellectual side of things. Worth a read and something to ruminate on.

Reveal hidden contents

Trump True Believers Have Their Reasons

By Thomas B. Edsall. Mr. Edsall contributes a weekly column from Washington, D.C. on politics, demographics and inequality.

Just who believes the claim that Trump won in 2020 and that the election was stolen from him? Who are these tens of millions of Americans and what draws them into this web of delusion?

Three sources provided The Times with survey data: The University of Massachusetts-Amherst Poll; P.R.R.I. (the Public Religion Research Institute); and Reuters-Ipsos. With minor exceptions, the data from all three polls is similar.

Alexander Theodoridis, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts, summed it up:

About 35 percent of Americans believed in April that Biden’s victory was illegitimate, with another 6 percent saying they are not sure. What can we say about the Americans who do not think Biden’s victory was legitimate? Compared to the overall voting-age population, they are disproportionately white, Republican, older, less educated, more conservative, and more religious (particularly more Protestant and more likely to describe themselves as born again).

P.R.R.I. also tested agreement or disagreement with a view that drives “replacement theory” — “Immigrants are invading our country and replacing our cultural and ethnic background” — and found that 60 percent of Republicans agreed, as do 55 percent of conservatives.

The Reuters/Ipsos data showed that among white Republicans, those without college degrees were far more likely to agree “that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump,” at 69 percent, than white Republicans with college degrees, at a still astonishing 51 percent. The same survey data showed that the level of this belief remained consistently strong (60 percent plus) among Republicans of all ages living in rural, suburban or urban areas.

With that data in mind, let’s explore some of the forces guiding these developments.

In their September 2021 paper, “Exposure to authoritarian values leads to lower positive affect, higher negative affect, and higher meaning in life,” seven scholars — Jake Womick, John Eckelkamp, Sam Luzzo, Sarah J. Ward, S. Glenn Baker, Alison Salamun and Laura A. King — write:

Right-wing authoritarianism played a significant role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In subsequent years, there have been numerous ‘alt-right’ demonstrations in the U.S., including the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville that culminated in a fatal car attack, and the 2021 Capitol Insurrection. In the U.S., between 2016 and 2017 the number of attacks by right-wing organizations quadrupled, outnumbering attacks by Islamic extremist groups, constituting 66 percent of all attacks and plots in the U.S. in 2019, and over 90 percent in 2020.

How does authoritarianism relate to immigration? Womick provided some insight in an email:

Social dominance orientation is a variable that refers to the preference for society to be structured by group-based hierarchies. It’s comprised of two components: group-based dominance, and anti-egalitarianism. Group-based dominance refers to the preference for these hierarchies and the use of force/aggression to maintain them. Anti-egalitarianism refers to maintaining these sorts of hierarchies through other means, such as through systems, legislation, etc.\

Womick notes that his own study of the 2016 primaries showed that Trump voters were unique compared with supporters of other Republicans in the strength of their

group-based dominance. I think group-based dominance as the distinguishing factor of this group is highly consistent with what happened at the Capitol. These individuals likely felt that the Trump administration was serving to maintain group-based hierarchies in society from which they felt they benefited. They may have perceived the 2020 election outcome as a threat to that structure. As a result, they turned to aggression in an attempt to affect our political structures in service of the maintenance of those group-based hierarchies.

In their paper, Womick and his co-authors ask

What explains the appeal of authoritarian values? What problem do these values solve for the people who embrace them? The presentation of authoritarian values must have a positive influence on something that is valuable to people.

Their answer is twofold:

Authoritarian messages influence people on two separable levels, the affective level, lowering positive and enhancing negative affect. and the existential level, enhancing meaning in life.

They describe negative affect as “feeling sad, worried, or enraged.” Definitions of “meaning in life,” they write,

include at least three components, significance, the feeling that one’s life and contributions matter to society; purpose, having one’s life driven by the pursuit of valued goals; and coherence or comprehensibility, the perception that one’s life makes sense.

In a separate paper, “The existential function of right‐wing authoritarianism,” Womick, Ward and King, joined by Samantha J. Heintzelman and Brendon Woody, provide more detail:

It may seem ironic that authoritarianism, a belief system that entails sacrifice of personal freedom to a strong leader, would influence the experience of meaning in life through its promotion of feelings of personal significance. Yet, right wing authoritarianism does provide a person with a place in the world, as a loyal follower of a strong leader. In addition, compared to purpose and coherence, knowing with great certainty that one’s life has mattered in a lasting way may be challenging. Handing this challenge over to a strong leader and investment in societal conventions might allow a person to gain a sense of symbolic or vicarious significance.

From another vantage point, Womick and his co-authors continue,

perceptions of insignificance may lead individuals to endorse relatively extreme beliefs, such as authoritarianism, and to follow authoritarian leaders as a way to gain a sense that their lives and their contributions matter.

In the authors’ view, right-wing authoritarianism,

despite its negative social implications, serves an existential meaning function. This existential function is primarily about facilitating the sense that one’s life matters. This existential buffering function is primarily about allowing individuals to maintain a sense that they matter during difficult experiences.

In his email, Womick expanded on his work: “The idea is that perceptions of insignificance can drive a process of seeking out groups, endorsing their ideologies and engaging in behaviors consistent with these.”

These ideologies, Womick continued,

should eventually promote a sense of significance (as insignificance is what drove the person to endorse the ideology in the first place). Endorsing right wing authoritarianism relates to higher meaning in life, and exposing people to authoritarian values causally enhances meaning.

In “Race and Authoritarianism in American Politics,” Christopher Sebastian Parker and Christopher C. Towler, political scientists at the University of Washington and Sacramento State, make a parallel argument:

Confining the definition of authoritarianism to regime rule, however, leaves little room for a discussion of more contemporary authoritarianism, at the micro level. This review shifts focus to an assessment of political psychology’s concept of authoritarianism and how it ultimately drives racism. Ultimately, we believe a tangible connection exists between racism and authoritarianism.

Taking a distinct but complementary approach, David C Barker, Morgan Marietta and Ryan DeTamble, all political scientists, argue in “Intellectualism, Anti-Intellectualism, and Epistemic Hubris in Red and Blue America” that

Epistemic hubris — the expression of unwarranted factual certitude” is “prevalent, bipartisan and associated with both intellectualism (an identity marked by ruminative habits and learning for its own sake) and anti-intellectualism (negative affect toward intellectuals and the intellectual establishment).

The division between intellectualism and anti-intellectualism, they write, is

distinctly partisan: intellectuals are disproportionately Democratic, whereas anti-intellectuals are disproportionately Republican. By implication, we suggest that both the intellectualism of Blue America and the anti-intellectualism of Red America contribute to the intemperance and intransigence that characterize civil society in the United States.

In addition, according to the Barker, Marietta and DeTamble, “The growing intellectualism of Blue America and anti-intellectualism of Red America, respectively, may partially explain the tendency by both to view the other as some blend of dense, duped, and dishonest.”

In an email, Marietta wrote:

The evidence is clear that the hubris driven by intellectual identity and the hubris driven by anti-intellectual affect lower our willingness to compromise with those who seem to lack character and honesty. I suspect the divide in perceptions, but unanimity in hubris, feeds the growing belief that democracy is failing and hence anti-democratic or illiberal policies are justified.

Marietta reports that he and his colleagues

conducted a series of experiments to see what happens when ordinary citizens are faced with others who hold contrary perceptions of reality about things like climate change, or racism, or the effects of immigration. The results are not pretty.

Once they realize that the perceptions of other people are “different from their own,” Marietta continued,

Americans are far less likely to want to be around them in the workplace, and are far more likely to conclude that they are stupid or dishonest. These inclinations are symmetrical, with liberals rejecting conservatives as much (or sometimes more) than conservatives reject liberals. The disdain born of intellectual identity seems to mirror the disdain arising from anti-intellectual affect.

I asked Barker about the role of hubris in contemporary polarization and he wrote back:

The populist Right hates the intellectual Left because they hate being condescended to, they hate what they perceive as their hypersensitivity, and they hate what they view as an anti-American level of femininity (which is for whatever reason associated with intellectualism).

At the same time, Barker continued,

the intellectual Left really does see the G.O.P. as a bunch of deplorable rubes. They absolutely feel superior to them, and they reveal it constantly on Twitter and elsewhere — further riling up the “deplorables.”

Put another way. Barker wrote,

The populist/anti-intellectual Right absolutely believe that the intellectuals are not only out of touch but are also ungodly and sneaky, and therefore think they must be stopped before they ruin America. Meanwhile, the intellectual Left really do believe the Trumpers are racist, sexist, homophobic (and so on) authoritarians who can’t spell and are going to destroy the country if they are not stopped.

What is a critical factor in the development of hubris? Moral conviction, the authors reply: “The most morally committed citizens are also the most epistemically hubristic citizens,” that is, they are most inclined “to express absolute certainty regarding the truth or falsehood” of claims “for which the hard evidence is unclear or contradictory.”

Moral conviction plays a key role in the work of Clifford Workman, a postdoctoral fellow at the Penn Center for Neuroaesthetics at the University of Pennsylvania. Workman, Keith J. Yoder and Jean Decety, write in “The Dark Side of Morality — Neural Mechanisms Underpinning Moral Convictions and Support for Violence” that “People are motivated by shared social values that, when held with moral conviction, can serve as compelling mandates capable of facilitating support for ideological violence.”

Using M.R.I. brain scans, the authors “examined this dark side of morality by identifying specific cognitive and neural mechanisms associated with beliefs about the appropriateness of sociopolitical violence” to determine “the extent to which the engagement of these mechanisms was predicted by moral convictions.”

Their conclusion: “Moral conviction about sociopolitical issues serves to increase their subjective value, overriding natural aversion to interpersonal harm.”

In a striking passage, Workman, Yoder and Decety argue that

While violence is often described as antithetical to sociality, it can be motivated by moral values with the ultimate goal of regulating social relationships. In fact, most violence in the world appears to be rooted in conflict between moral values. Across cultures and history, violence has been used with the intention to sustain order and can be expressed in war, torture, genocide, and homicide.

What, then, Workman and his co-authors ask, “separates accepting ‘deserved’ vigilantism from others and justifying any behavior — rioting, warfare — as means to morally desirable ends?”

Their answer is disconcerting:

People who bomb family planning clinics and those who violently oppose war (e.g., the Weathermen’s protests of the Vietnam War) may have different sociopolitical ideologies, but both are motivated by deep moral convictions.

The authors propose two theories to account for this:

Moral conviction may function by altering the decision-making calculus through the subordination of social prohibitions against violence, thereby requiring less top-down inhibition. This hypothesis holds that moral conviction facilitates support for ideological violence by increasing commitments to a ‘greater good’ even at the expense of others. An alternative hypothesis is that moral conviction increases the subjective value of certain actions, where violence in service of those convictions is underpinned by judgments about one’s moral responsibilities to sociopolitical causes.

In a 2018 paper, “A multilevel social neuroscience perspective on radicalization and terrorism,” Decety, Workman and Robert Pape ask: “Why are some people capable of sympathizing with and/or committing acts of political violence, such as attacks aimed at innocent targets?”

For starters, they note:

Disturbing as it may be, individuals who become radicalized and involve themselves with terrorist organizations are, by and large, ordinary people. These individuals have typically functioning brains; they are not mad but are fanatics. Most are not psychopaths and, with the exception of ‘lone wolf’ terrorists are not especially likely to have psychiatric diagnoses.

Instead, Decety, Pape and Workman contend that

people who are otherwise psychologically typical may develop values and strong emotional ties to narratives and causes and become radicalized. Many individuals who sympathize with and even join terrorist organizations are educated and seemingly rational.

This immediately raises another question: “Are there characteristics that distinguish individuals who merely hold extreme views from those who act on those views by engaging in ideologically motivated violence?”

Decety, Pape and Workman cite a range of findings:

From political psychology:

Individuals who are cognitively inflexible and intolerant of ambiguity may become captive audiences for ideological, political, or religious extremists whose simplistic worldviews gloss over nuance. Indeed, cognitive inflexibility has been positively associated with authoritarian aggression, racism, and ethnocentrism.

From neuroscience:

The radicalism dimension, which included items such as “People should use violence to pursue political goals” was related to increased activation of the ventral striatum and posterior cingulate.

From the study of moral values:

Violations of sacred, moral values may trigger disgust and/or anger responses that may set the stage for ideologically-motivated violence.

The tools of political science, neuroscience, evolutionary theory, psychology, cognitive science and sociology are all necessary to understand the ongoing upheaval in politics — not just in America but also globally.

On Sept. 30, for example, the University of Virginia Center for Politics and Project Home Fire released a survey showing unexpectedly large percentages of voters agreeing with the statement:

“The situation in America is such that I would favor states seceding from the union to form their own separate county.”

Among Trump voters, 52 percent agreed, with 25 percent in strong agreement; among Biden voters, 41 percent agreed, 18 percent strongly.

There are credible reasons to find this alarming.

I would just rep that w/o comment, and I'm still going to follow your suggestion and mull the whole thing over but I have to add that was a really good read and this is definitely a good place to put an article such as this. While the poll data is 'local' so to speak, the psychology is not wholly limited to just that. And, specifically, the thread has to do with isolating out the specific/general fascist-authoritarian-dominionist acts & trends away from the usual GOP chicanery so that these acts may be discussed in just such a manner. Very very good read and thank you for posting it.

Brisketexan · October 6, 2021

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

WARNING: This is kind of a long read. I'm not sure where else to put it than here, since this thread is sort of a meta-analysis of what the hell is going on in this country. The following is an analysis of various polls that do a good job describing (and confirming) what we've been discussing. There's also a note of caution regarding hubris from the intellectual side of things. Worth a read and something to ruminate on.

Reveal hidden contents

Trump True Believers Have Their Reasons

By Thomas B. Edsall. Mr. Edsall contributes a weekly column from Washington, D.C. on politics, demographics and inequality.

Just who believes the claim that Trump won in 2020 and that the election was stolen from him? Who are these tens of millions of Americans and what draws them into this web of delusion?

Three sources provided The Times with survey data: The University of Massachusetts-Amherst Poll; P.R.R.I. (the Public Religion Research Institute); and Reuters-Ipsos. With minor exceptions, the data from all three polls is similar.

Alexander Theodoridis, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts, summed it up:

About 35 percent of Americans believed in April that Biden’s victory was illegitimate, with another 6 percent saying they are not sure. What can we say about the Americans who do not think Biden’s victory was legitimate? Compared to the overall voting-age population, they are disproportionately white, Republican, older, less educated, more conservative, and more religious (particularly more Protestant and more likely to describe themselves as born again).

P.R.R.I. also tested agreement or disagreement with a view that drives “replacement theory” — “Immigrants are invading our country and replacing our cultural and ethnic background” — and found that 60 percent of Republicans agreed, as do 55 percent of conservatives.

The Reuters/Ipsos data showed that among white Republicans, those without college degrees were far more likely to agree “that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump,” at 69 percent, than white Republicans with college degrees, at a still astonishing 51 percent. The same survey data showed that the level of this belief remained consistently strong (60 percent plus) among Republicans of all ages living in rural, suburban or urban areas.

With that data in mind, let’s explore some of the forces guiding these developments.

In their September 2021 paper, “Exposure to authoritarian values leads to lower positive affect, higher negative affect, and higher meaning in life,” seven scholars — Jake Womick, John Eckelkamp, Sam Luzzo, Sarah J. Ward, S. Glenn Baker, Alison Salamun and Laura A. King — write:

Right-wing authoritarianism played a significant role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In subsequent years, there have been numerous ‘alt-right’ demonstrations in the U.S., including the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville that culminated in a fatal car attack, and the 2021 Capitol Insurrection. In the U.S., between 2016 and 2017 the number of attacks by right-wing organizations quadrupled, outnumbering attacks by Islamic extremist groups, constituting 66 percent of all attacks and plots in the U.S. in 2019, and over 90 percent in 2020.

How does authoritarianism relate to immigration? Womick provided some insight in an email:

Social dominance orientation is a variable that refers to the preference for society to be structured by group-based hierarchies. It’s comprised of two components: group-based dominance, and anti-egalitarianism. Group-based dominance refers to the preference for these hierarchies and the use of force/aggression to maintain them. Anti-egalitarianism refers to maintaining these sorts of hierarchies through other means, such as through systems, legislation, etc.\

Womick notes that his own study of the 2016 primaries showed that Trump voters were unique compared with supporters of other Republicans in the strength of their

group-based dominance. I think group-based dominance as the distinguishing factor of this group is highly consistent with what happened at the Capitol. These individuals likely felt that the Trump administration was serving to maintain group-based hierarchies in society from which they felt they benefited. They may have perceived the 2020 election outcome as a threat to that structure. As a result, they turned to aggression in an attempt to affect our political structures in service of the maintenance of those group-based hierarchies.

In their paper, Womick and his co-authors ask

What explains the appeal of authoritarian values? What problem do these values solve for the people who embrace them? The presentation of authoritarian values must have a positive influence on something that is valuable to people.

Their answer is twofold:

Authoritarian messages influence people on two separable levels, the affective level, lowering positive and enhancing negative affect. and the existential level, enhancing meaning in life.

They describe negative affect as “feeling sad, worried, or enraged.” Definitions of “meaning in life,” they write,

include at least three components, significance, the feeling that one’s life and contributions matter to society; purpose, having one’s life driven by the pursuit of valued goals; and coherence or comprehensibility, the perception that one’s life makes sense.

In a separate paper, “The existential function of right‐wing authoritarianism,” Womick, Ward and King, joined by Samantha J. Heintzelman and Brendon Woody, provide more detail:

It may seem ironic that authoritarianism, a belief system that entails sacrifice of personal freedom to a strong leader, would influence the experience of meaning in life through its promotion of feelings of personal significance. Yet, right wing authoritarianism does provide a person with a place in the world, as a loyal follower of a strong leader. In addition, compared to purpose and coherence, knowing with great certainty that one’s life has mattered in a lasting way may be challenging. Handing this challenge over to a strong leader and investment in societal conventions might allow a person to gain a sense of symbolic or vicarious significance.

From another vantage point, Womick and his co-authors continue,

perceptions of insignificance may lead individuals to endorse relatively extreme beliefs, such as authoritarianism, and to follow authoritarian leaders as a way to gain a sense that their lives and their contributions matter.

In the authors’ view, right-wing authoritarianism,

despite its negative social implications, serves an existential meaning function. This existential function is primarily about facilitating the sense that one’s life matters. This existential buffering function is primarily about allowing individuals to maintain a sense that they matter during difficult experiences.

In his email, Womick expanded on his work: “The idea is that perceptions of insignificance can drive a process of seeking out groups, endorsing their ideologies and engaging in behaviors consistent with these.”

These ideologies, Womick continued,

should eventually promote a sense of significance (as insignificance is what drove the person to endorse the ideology in the first place). Endorsing right wing authoritarianism relates to higher meaning in life, and exposing people to authoritarian values causally enhances meaning.

In “Race and Authoritarianism in American Politics,” Christopher Sebastian Parker and Christopher C. Towler, political scientists at the University of Washington and Sacramento State, make a parallel argument:

Confining the definition of authoritarianism to regime rule, however, leaves little room for a discussion of more contemporary authoritarianism, at the micro level. This review shifts focus to an assessment of political psychology’s concept of authoritarianism and how it ultimately drives racism. Ultimately, we believe a tangible connection exists between racism and authoritarianism.

Taking a distinct but complementary approach, David C Barker, Morgan Marietta and Ryan DeTamble, all political scientists, argue in “Intellectualism, Anti-Intellectualism, and Epistemic Hubris in Red and Blue America” that

Epistemic hubris — the expression of unwarranted factual certitude” is “prevalent, bipartisan and associated with both intellectualism (an identity marked by ruminative habits and learning for its own sake) and anti-intellectualism (negative affect toward intellectuals and the intellectual establishment).

The division between intellectualism and anti-intellectualism, they write, is

distinctly partisan: intellectuals are disproportionately Democratic, whereas anti-intellectuals are disproportionately Republican. By implication, we suggest that both the intellectualism of Blue America and the anti-intellectualism of Red America contribute to the intemperance and intransigence that characterize civil society in the United States.

In addition, according to the Barker, Marietta and DeTamble, “The growing intellectualism of Blue America and anti-intellectualism of Red America, respectively, may partially explain the tendency by both to view the other as some blend of dense, duped, and dishonest.”

In an email, Marietta wrote:

The evidence is clear that the hubris driven by intellectual identity and the hubris driven by anti-intellectual affect lower our willingness to compromise with those who seem to lack character and honesty. I suspect the divide in perceptions, but unanimity in hubris, feeds the growing belief that democracy is failing and hence anti-democratic or illiberal policies are justified.

Marietta reports that he and his colleagues

conducted a series of experiments to see what happens when ordinary citizens are faced with others who hold contrary perceptions of reality about things like climate change, or racism, or the effects of immigration. The results are not pretty.

Once they realize that the perceptions of other people are “different from their own,” Marietta continued,

Americans are far less likely to want to be around them in the workplace, and are far more likely to conclude that they are stupid or dishonest. These inclinations are symmetrical, with liberals rejecting conservatives as much (or sometimes more) than conservatives reject liberals. The disdain born of intellectual identity seems to mirror the disdain arising from anti-intellectual affect.

I asked Barker about the role of hubris in contemporary polarization and he wrote back:

The populist Right hates the intellectual Left because they hate being condescended to, they hate what they perceive as their hypersensitivity, and they hate what they view as an anti-American level of femininity (which is for whatever reason associated with intellectualism).

At the same time, Barker continued,

the intellectual Left really does see the G.O.P. as a bunch of deplorable rubes. They absolutely feel superior to them, and they reveal it constantly on Twitter and elsewhere — further riling up the “deplorables.”

Put another way. Barker wrote,

The populist/anti-intellectual Right absolutely believe that the intellectuals are not only out of touch but are also ungodly and sneaky, and therefore think they must be stopped before they ruin America. Meanwhile, the intellectual Left really do believe the Trumpers are racist, sexist, homophobic (and so on) authoritarians who can’t spell and are going to destroy the country if they are not stopped.

What is a critical factor in the development of hubris? Moral conviction, the authors reply: “The most morally committed citizens are also the most epistemically hubristic citizens,” that is, they are most inclined “to express absolute certainty regarding the truth or falsehood” of claims “for which the hard evidence is unclear or contradictory.”

Moral conviction plays a key role in the work of Clifford Workman, a postdoctoral fellow at the Penn Center for Neuroaesthetics at the University of Pennsylvania. Workman, Keith J. Yoder and Jean Decety, write in “The Dark Side of Morality — Neural Mechanisms Underpinning Moral Convictions and Support for Violence” that “People are motivated by shared social values that, when held with moral conviction, can serve as compelling mandates capable of facilitating support for ideological violence.”

Using M.R.I. brain scans, the authors “examined this dark side of morality by identifying specific cognitive and neural mechanisms associated with beliefs about the appropriateness of sociopolitical violence” to determine “the extent to which the engagement of these mechanisms was predicted by moral convictions.”

Their conclusion: “Moral conviction about sociopolitical issues serves to increase their subjective value, overriding natural aversion to interpersonal harm.”

In a striking passage, Workman, Yoder and Decety argue that

While violence is often described as antithetical to sociality, it can be motivated by moral values with the ultimate goal of regulating social relationships. In fact, most violence in the world appears to be rooted in conflict between moral values. Across cultures and history, violence has been used with the intention to sustain order and can be expressed in war, torture, genocide, and homicide.

What, then, Workman and his co-authors ask, “separates accepting ‘deserved’ vigilantism from others and justifying any behavior — rioting, warfare — as means to morally desirable ends?”

Their answer is disconcerting:

People who bomb family planning clinics and those who violently oppose war (e.g., the Weathermen’s protests of the Vietnam War) may have different sociopolitical ideologies, but both are motivated by deep moral convictions.

The authors propose two theories to account for this:

Moral conviction may function by altering the decision-making calculus through the subordination of social prohibitions against violence, thereby requiring less top-down inhibition. This hypothesis holds that moral conviction facilitates support for ideological violence by increasing commitments to a ‘greater good’ even at the expense of others. An alternative hypothesis is that moral conviction increases the subjective value of certain actions, where violence in service of those convictions is underpinned by judgments about one’s moral responsibilities to sociopolitical causes.

In a 2018 paper, “A multilevel social neuroscience perspective on radicalization and terrorism,” Decety, Workman and Robert Pape ask: “Why are some people capable of sympathizing with and/or committing acts of political violence, such as attacks aimed at innocent targets?”

For starters, they note:

Disturbing as it may be, individuals who become radicalized and involve themselves with terrorist organizations are, by and large, ordinary people. These individuals have typically functioning brains; they are not mad but are fanatics. Most are not psychopaths and, with the exception of ‘lone wolf’ terrorists are not especially likely to have psychiatric diagnoses.

Instead, Decety, Pape and Workman contend that

people who are otherwise psychologically typical may develop values and strong emotional ties to narratives and causes and become radicalized. Many individuals who sympathize with and even join terrorist organizations are educated and seemingly rational.

This immediately raises another question: “Are there characteristics that distinguish individuals who merely hold extreme views from those who act on those views by engaging in ideologically motivated violence?”

Decety, Pape and Workman cite a range of findings:

From political psychology:

Individuals who are cognitively inflexible and intolerant of ambiguity may become captive audiences for ideological, political, or religious extremists whose simplistic worldviews gloss over nuance. Indeed, cognitive inflexibility has been positively associated with authoritarian aggression, racism, and ethnocentrism.

From neuroscience:

The radicalism dimension, which included items such as “People should use violence to pursue political goals” was related to increased activation of the ventral striatum and posterior cingulate.

From the study of moral values:

Violations of sacred, moral values may trigger disgust and/or anger responses that may set the stage for ideologically-motivated violence.

The tools of political science, neuroscience, evolutionary theory, psychology, cognitive science and sociology are all necessary to understand the ongoing upheaval in politics — not just in America but also globally.

On Sept. 30, for example, the University of Virginia Center for Politics and Project Home Fire released a survey showing unexpectedly large percentages of voters agreeing with the statement:

“The situation in America is such that I would favor states seceding from the union to form their own separate county.”

Among Trump voters, 52 percent agreed, with 25 percent in strong agreement; among Biden voters, 41 percent agreed, 18 percent strongly.

There are credible reasons to find this alarming.

This is what we’ve been saying, dude. And see my previous references to Jonathan Haight’s “The Righteous Mind,” which is a pretty good discussion on this topic.

And the biggest nugget in there, from my perspective, is the discussion of “cognitive inflexibility:"

Quote

Individuals who are cognitively inflexible and intolerant of ambiguity may become captive audiences for ideological, political, or religious extremists whose simplistic worldviews gloss over nuance. Indeed, cognitive inflexibility has been positively associated with authoritarian aggression, racism, and ethnocentrism.

Remember how the DT crowd constantly harps on and mocks our reference to "nuance," like when we note that their hot-button issues (e.g., "immigrants bad! America good!") are actually complex and nuanced? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Cognitive inflexibility is, literally, deadly. To people. And to nations. And here in River City, it's only getting worse, not better. Remember how I say it only gets worse, and there is not bottom? Read this piece. Understand the end-points that the authors/experts consistently point to: violence, bloodshed, to the point of "cleansing." This is where we are going. And we are doing so at a full sprint.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Brisketexan

hpslugga · October 6, 2021

40 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This is what we’ve been saying, dude. And see my previous references to Jonathan Haight’s “The Righteous Mind,” which is a pretty good discussion on this topic.

And the biggest nugget in there, from my perspective, is the discussion of “cognitive inflexibility:"

Remember how the DT crowd constantly harps on and mocks our reference to "nuance," like when we note that their hot-button issues (e.g., "immigrants bad! America good!") are actually complex and nuanced? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Cognitive inflexibility is, literally, deadly. To people. And to nations. And here in River City, it's only getting worse, not better. Remember how I say it only gets worse, and there is not bottom? Read this piece. Understand the end-points that the authors/experts consistently point to: violence, bloodshed, to the point of "cleansing." This is where we are going. And we are doing so at a full sprint.

They do that because it's a stupid person's idea of a smart thing to say.

And it's not just cognitive inflexibility; it's cognitive bias that's a huge problem. The people you speak of are extremely ignorant and incompetent on such matters, but they are extremely confident in their own abilities...and they wonder why I accuse them of being afflicted with the Dunning Kruger Effect.

Bullneck · October 6, 2021

On 7/30/2021 at 8:17 AM, Mrs Whiggins said:

It hasn't gotten a lot of play because it happened at the state/local level in Floida but a government official using the power of the state to harass someone in this manner (this was a personal phone number) is fascism, IMO:

That's fucking insane.

Mrs Whiggins · October 6, 2021

2 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

That's fucking insane.

It's the Fascism, Autocracy, and Oligarchy thread so it's actually pretty on point for them. Remember? Anyone against them is insane and degenerate. You know, like AntiFa.

Satchel · October 7, 2021

Yale history professor, Tim Snyder, has updated his bestseller on tyranny:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-road-to-tyranny-a-graphic-narrative

Edited October 7, 2021 by Satchel

DonkeyCigars · October 7, 2021

14 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

This is what we’ve been saying, dude. And see my previous references to Jonathan Haight’s “The Righteous Mind,” which is a pretty good discussion on this topic.

And the biggest nugget in there, from my perspective, is the discussion of “cognitive inflexibility:"

Remember how the DT crowd constantly harps on and mocks our reference to "nuance," like when we note that their hot-button issues (e.g., "immigrants bad! America good!") are actually complex and nuanced? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Cognitive inflexibility is, literally, deadly. To people. And to nations. And here in River City, it's only getting worse, not better. Remember how I say it only gets worse, and there is not bottom? Read this piece. Understand the end-points that the authors/experts consistently point to: violence, bloodshed, to the point of "cleansing." This is where we are going. And we are doing so at a full sprint.

The craziest part of your entire post is not that I agree with you, but that (again, I repeat), you can't or won't see that YOU are one who is cognitively inflexible, yourself! You are married to a talk track and a narrative and every situation or conversation or discussion turns into a nail for which you can use your emotionally comforting hammer to strike.

I've posted before how your sloppy use of Dunning-Kruger Effect is wrong and a disservice to the term, to no real avail, but you are mostly guilty of Bulverism.

Unfortunately for your narcissism, you are not tragically unique in that regard on this site. You have plenty of company!

Quote

Bulverism

Description: This is a combination of circular reasoning and the genetic fallacy. It is the assumption and assertion that an argument is flawed or false because of the arguer's suspected motives, social identity, or other characteristic associated with the arguer's identity.

Logical Form:

Person 1 makes argument X.

Person 2 assumes person 1 must be wrong because of their suspected motives, social identity, or other characteristic associated with their identity.

Therefore, argument X is flawed or not true.

Edited October 7, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

Neonmoon · October 7, 2021

Democracy is in decline because of

Idiocy fostered by Deregulated News Media & Unregulated Social Media

with unfettered capitalism smothering the will of the people through dark money.

And antiquated protections of the minority being used to control the majority.

Mrs Whiggins · October 7, 2021

Donkey:

PLEASE LEAVE THIS THREAD.

YOUR CONTRIBUTION ABOVE HAS NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE TOPIC.

YOU WANT TO HAVE A DEBATE/DISCUSSION WITH BRISKET REGARDING HIS WORLDVIEW?

THEN START A NEW THREAD DEVOTED TO THAT TOPIC.

I THOUGHT YOU WERE SMARTER THAN THAT.

TODAY I LEARNED I WAS WRONG.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Mrs Whiggins

ndawg · October 7, 2021

22 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

This is what we’ve been saying, dude. And see my previous references to Jonathan Haight’s “The Righteous Mind,” which is a pretty good discussion on this topic.

And the biggest nugget in there, from my perspective, is the discussion of “cognitive inflexibility:"

Remember how the DT crowd constantly harps on and mocks our reference to "nuance," like when we note that their hot-button issues (e.g., "immigrants bad! America good!") are actually complex and nuanced? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Cognitive inflexibility is, literally, deadly. To people. And to nations. And here in River City, it's only getting worse, not better. Remember how I say it only gets worse, and there is not bottom? Read this piece. Understand the end-points that the authors/experts consistently point to: violence, bloodshed, to the point of "cleansing." This is where we are going. And we are doing so at a full sprint.

Just to put a slightly different spin on a take that I completely agree with, I wonder if these people have plenty of cognitive flexibility, it's just been subverted. For example, I've noticed that they'll happily adjust from believing that COVID vaccination was dangerous one day, to believing that Trump should get credit for the vaccination the next.

I think for most of us, cognitive flexibility is used to help us adjust our understanding and mindset when faced with our own errors as well as the constant stream of subtle changes in the world around us. Our brains experience all sorts of pleasant neurotransmitters when we exercise that cognitive flexibility, refine our understanding, and consequently know that we're now better equipped to meet reality that before. On the other hand, people who have no capacity to recognize their own errors and are unable to perceive those subtle changes in the world around them -- like the gradual shift in ideology of a political party -- don't ever experience the minor ecstasy of learning more about themselves and the world around them. Perhaps their supply of cognitive flexibility, starved of its natural relationship with our capacity to learn and grow, seeks something else to cling to... and ultimately transforms into a misshapen reflex that formulates the rationalizations needed to prevent reality from disrupting the flow of neurotransmitter cocktails that we all experience by agreeing to meet reality as grown-ups.

Brisketexan · October 7, 2021

8 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

The craziest part of your entire post is not that I agree with you, but that (again, I repeat), you can't or won't see that YOU are one who is cognitively inflexible, yourself!

I mean, you're lying, so at least you stay on brand.

Matters on which I have admitted, in this very board, completely changing my take on over the past 20 years or so:

Trickle down economics (a concept I once bought, thinking it made sense....real-world efforts at applying it demonstrated otherwise)

Universal healthcare (used to favor the US model, now think that there are dozens of models we should look to in order to provide basic healthcare to all)

War in Iraq (I supported it, because I still thought that we could pull off nation-building. No excuse for that one, I was stupid).

Ryan Leaf should have been the #1 pick in the '98 NFL draft, not Peyton Manning (Leaf looked to have better tools, didn't account for how much of a headcase he was)

And plenty of others.

I have watched things evolve, and learned from them. I see a shitload of gray. For fuck's sake, I have been one of the loudest voices on "everything is some shade of gray, no major issues have simple solutions, they are complex problems that involve a lot of nuance."

So, you know, pretty much the exact opposite of what you are saying. Because you are a troll. You disseminate and support partisan bullshit, all while disingenuously CLAIMING not to. But the proof is in your posting.

I'm comfortable with my posting record. And I'm comfortable criticizing yours. Lots of inner peace on that front.

DonkeyCigars · October 7, 2021

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I mean, you're lying, so at least you stay on brand.

Matters on which I have admitted, in this very board, completely changing my take on over the past 20 years or so:

Trickle down economics (a concept I once bought, thinking it made sense....real-world efforts at applying it demonstrated otherwise)

Universal healthcare (used to favor the US model, now think that there are dozens of models we should look to in order to provide basic healthcare to all)

War in Iraq (I supported it, because I still thought that we could pull off nation-building. No excuse for that one, I was stupid).

Ryan Leaf should have been the #1 pick in the '98 NFL draft, not Peyton Manning (Leaf looked to have better tools, didn't account for how much of a headcase he was)

And plenty of others.

I have watched things evolve, and learned from them. I see a shitload of gray. For fuck's sake, I have been one of the loudest voices on "everything is some shade of gray, no major issues have simple solutions, they are complex problems that involve a lot of nuance."

So, you know, pretty much the exact opposite of what you are saying. Because you are a troll. You disseminate and support partisan bullshit, all while disingenuously CLAIMING not to. But the proof is in your posting.

I'm comfortable with my posting record. And I'm comfortable criticizing yours. Lots of inner peace on that front.

Out of respect to whigs, let's take this offline.

Sorry @Mrs Whiggins for being a distraction here; I hadn't read the thread and got pulled offsides impulsively. Didn't mean to derail, I was planning on not posting anymore but in order to minimize continued fall-out please nobody respond to my briskettexan hate.

DigglerontheHoof · October 7, 2021

2 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Out of respect to whigs, let's take this offline.

Sorry @Mrs Whiggins for being a distraction here; I hadn't read the thread and got pulled offsides impulsively. Didn't mean to derail, I was planning on not posting anymore but in order to minimize continued fall-out please nobody respond to my briskettexan hate.

You are the king of passive aggressive cunts.

Sign In

Fascism, Autocracy, Oligarchy Clearinghouse

Recommended Posts

TwiceHorn 31450

Link to comment

Share on other sites

staboner 4969

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Link to comment

Share on other sites

gmr548 16576

Link to comment

Share on other sites

atomheartbevo 89648

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Link to comment

Share on other sites

wildcat09 29349

Link to comment

Share on other sites

JimmyJames 12271

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Pods 7552

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Captainant 27654

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Biff Tannen 45673

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Captainant 27654

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Satchel 6938

Link to comment

Share on other sites

RDCanecutter 26411

Link to comment

Share on other sites

washparkhorn 9939

Link to comment

Share on other sites

washparkhorn 9939

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Satchel 6938

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bolverk 29661

Link to comment