Comments
[Sign Guestbook]
545 Entries
Comments: Mykeru. Please try to pay attention to the topic. I realize that liberals have a general inability to remain on-topic,, but pop a "Vitamin R" and focus. The statement was a critique of a pyschological conclusion that conservatives needed support structure due to their fear of chaos. Your rant proves the fallacy of the statement, as you reiterate that conservatives generally want to reduce the scope of the federal government. It is the anti-intellectual liberals who fear uncertainity in their promotion of government to protect them from the "spooky" world. As for roads, police, fire, food & drug safety, etc. When you grow up you will realize that the vast majority of these functions are local government or corporate responsibilities not federal government functions. And yes, my home owners association paves it's own roads and pays for fire secvices. Are you proposing that the government provides safe food? If so, then can I sue the FDA for getting sick from a bad egg in August? Then again thank you for proving my general thought that liberals are anti-intellectuals.
Comments: "The conservative position is always that able persons can survive without as much support and therefore more chaos. The emotionally secure are the conservatives. We don't want the support systems of a communist state. " Just as much "support" as benefits you. Do you build your own roads? Put out your own fires? Police yourself? Make sure your food and drugs are safe and effective? Are you going to repel foreign invaders with your remy pump? You decry a perverse interpretation of any government you do not see yourself as benefiting from as "socialist", but you are willing to take advantage of all the commie-pinko socialism when it suits you. The day you drive on roads paid for and maintained on YOUR dime rather than OUR dime, and decline the services of socialized fire departments up to and including your own house being on fire, you can start lecturing people. Otherwise, you are just a hypocrite decrying gluttony who still hasn't pushed himself away from the buffet.
Comments: Gary. Why is it that you are singularly able to believe such contradictionary babble has any scientific significance? Let's analyze the following: "People who are the most fearful seek safety in stability and hierarchy, where more emotionally secure people can tolerate some chaos and unpredictability in their lives.” The conservative position is always that able persons can survive without as much support and therefore more chaos. The emotionally secure are the conservatives. We don't want the support systems of a communist state. Conservatives have more friends and broader experiences than liberals. I gotta agree with this finding. Conservatives understand how the world works. We understand that people can care for themselves. Liberals are not trusting and are generally incapable of making the correct decisions. Therefore they want a nanny-state to pick them up when they get a boo-boo. Liberals are intellectually stunted and remain in a constant childlike mentality. It's funny how the article proves so many truths about the liberals and attempts to attribute an opposite causality.
Comments: Although I should say up front here that I thought the relative sizes of conservative and liberal "in-groups" was the opposite of what this Vigil person quoted in the article is saying; that being that conservatives have the larger in-group of the two. At least it certainly seems counter-intuitive to me that the less trusting RWA-SDOs would have the larger group of friends and associates...the premise this guy then builds upon for his theory. Later in the article, the author of the article itself writes that this theory is generally at odds with other researchers in the field. But I wonder if this is where he makes his initial mistake...if indeed it is a mistake, of course. Dr.Bob? Anyone?
Comments: Here's a very interesting article, with some good links and references regarding the evolution of political beliefs: It starts out by referencing that "Motivated Cognition" study by Jost et al, and gets better from there. Oh! And is it just me? Or am I beginning to see a lot more references to authoritarianism and the psychology thereof in the mainstream media? I hope it's not just a case of selective awareness, but it really does seem like I'm finding relevant pieces much more regularly than even just a year ago. Crossing my fingers in any case <g>. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A New Take on Political Ideology
|
| Mykeru |
Comments:
Doug T Sez:
"Authoritarianism cannot occur in small governments", and since "The Tea Party favors smaller federal government", I guess, therefore, the Tea Party can't be authoritarian.
Brilliant. Maybe that should be changed to "No True Teabagger" just to page suitable homage to its fallacious ancestry.
Anyway, I hope that Bob Altemeyer has considered converting The Authoritarians to Kindle Format. It's the sort of book I'd like to carry around in digital format. The PDF is fine, but they tend to wrap like hell in Kindle for Droid. If done through Amazon, he can charge a nominal fee for the download, or free, as he sees fit.
The only way to combat the Useful Idiot lies and smokescreens of RWA followers is to try to inject some sanity into their crazed rhetoric. The Authoritarians is an excellent syringe for that purpose.
| Doug T. |
Comments:
Esker. As with most of the anti-intellectuals who visit this site, you fail to understand the fundamental flaw of your argument is the scope of government. Your linear viewpoint of left-wing and right-wing fails to account for the axis of government. Authoritarianism cannot occur in small governments. The Tea Party favors smaller federal government. I realize that asking a liberal to think is a stretch, bug consider the four extremes of the size and scope of central government. Large, highly controlled government: authoritarian, totalitarian, statism, communism, corporatist, kingdom, theistic. Large, loosely controlled government: socialist, democratic. Small, highly controlled government: theistic, kingdom, feifdom. Small, loosely controlled government: democracy, limited republic, tribal, anarchy. Altemeyer fails to discuss the fact that smaller central governments do not support authoritarianism because he cannot think of any forms of government which are small. In his limited world-view, Altemeyer cannot accept small, limited governments. He lives in a fantasy that government must always get in the way of progress by forcing you to do what he thinks is "right". For liberals, it is impossible to think of progressivism without increased government. Again, I realize that liberals cannot think for themselves, but I challenge you to educate yourself on the foundation of America. The thought of a small, Constitutionally-limited government was considered "liberal". It is the single most important philosophical contribution of America to the world. Smaller governments work: larger governments fail. In nationalistic societies, large governments which fail, turn to authoritarianism to wage war on an enemy. In disparate societies, when big governments fail, their authoritarians turn on themselves (France, Italy, present-day examlpes). Small governments fail with barely a whimper. Why in the heck do you fight for large government? Small federal government is the central theme of the Tea Party and the only path to avoid authoritarianism. Your fight for a massive, central government is misplaced due from your limited education and inability to analyze factual information. Altemeyer's missive is a political attack, nothing more, nothing less.
| Esker |
Comments:
I would be very interested to see Dr Bob's opinion on these two pieces (and I'd also like recommendations for further reading - thanks!):
http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/148588/fascist_america%3A_is_this_election_the_next_turn_/?page=entire
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html
The Authoritarians has been invaluable for alerting people to what is happening in America, and Dr Bob is thankfully no longer alone in seeing the warning signs and speaking out. But try to imagine the disaster ahead if this early warning is not heard all across America, or if heard, not heeded. I personally can only hope that enough people realise in time, vote anything other than Tea Party/GOP on November 2nd, and cut the frightening rise of the American RWAs off at the roots. You will lose forever the country you love if you let it go down the path it seems to be heading.
| Doug T. |
Comments:
Gary. And we have to remember, all the way back to last year, to remember that the climate-change-denier-in-cheif (Obama) was BP's largest recipient. Or did you forget that already? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html
| Doug T. |
Comments:
Miguel. These scholarly reports differ from Altemeyer, as they are written without political bias. It's my main point: Altemeyer is a hack. The following begs for an answer: If humans evolved to be religious, are atheists the real pathological deviants we need to be change? http://jessebering.com/publications-2009.php?year=2009
| Miguel |
Comments:
Gary...
Don't worry, those businesses are GOOD for us, everything GOOD comes from business. We don't want to interfere with their rights of contract and free speech...that would be un-American.
| Gary Williams |
Comments:
Saw - and at least tried to warn about this a mile or two back (paging Dr. Bob <g>
, but it still eats at you to read it in black and white, eh?
, but it still eats at you to read it in black and white, eh?Tea Party climate change deniers funded by BP and other major polluters
Midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites DeMint and Inhofe have received over $240,000 cont... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/24/tea-party-climate-change-deniers
| Miguel |
Comments:
Food for thought here...
Is Believing In God Evolutionarily Advantageous?
I always figured the god squad was afraid they'd do something bad if there wasn't a god keeping an eye on them.
| Gary Williams |
Comments:
Miguel. The link he provided as evidence that Hopfinger is merely some lowly blogger exaggerating his own status and worth, actually points to a 2 yr. old interview he gave describing the Alaska Dispatch as it was when it was still getting off the ground.
Typical......
| Miguel |
Comments:
Doug...
I'm willing to bet that his circulation is as high as Ben Franklin's...a blogger of an earlier time. Like Thomas Paine.
Still, keep marginalizing him while you still insist on making light of the abuse of AUTHORITY and the fact that the LEADER here sanctioned the suppression of inquiry.
It suits the pathology.
| < Previous 15 | Next 15 > |
Back to The Authoritarians