Mike Ditka: "There has been no oppression in the last 100 years that I know of."

[Steophan]

@BigT

Then again, to be honest, I haven’t seen an intellectual argument for conservatism in a long time.

Bullshit. You’ve posted on many threads on this board where there have been intellectual arguments for conservatism. That they don’t convince you doesn’t mean they don’t exist - and you would be immune to a rational argument you didn’t already agree with the conclusion to, anyway. You are neither intellectual nor rational, and don’t have the facility to recognise those things in others.

[Nava]

@Rick_Kitchen

Nah, if he’d said that back in the 50s, everybody would have said, “Of course there is. So?”

They didn’t call it opression. It was protection. Black people didn’t need to worry their kinky-haired little heads about things over their station.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Askthepizzaguy

No, far right or authoritarian extremist politics comes down to one thing: belief.

It’s not an assessment based on the facts or the history. It’s a belief that the world is full of bad people and that we need the government to imprison and kill them all, and that we need to stop giving money to the undeserving bad people. That means more money for the productive good people.

It’s a belief in good and evil where good is defined as what you already believe and who you already associate with, so that when they commit wrong acts, they’re still on the good side, but when one’s opponents do anything, or nothing, they’re still fundamentally wrong and evil…

Spot. ON.

[Little_Nemo]

@Askthepizzaguy

Still stereotyping. If that’s the case, then there would be no conservative scientists or astronauts, just as a relevant example. No researchers or botanists or marine biologists.

No, far right or authoritarian extremist politics comes down to one thing: belief.

It’s not an assessment based on the facts or the history. It’s a belief that the world is full of bad people and that we need the government to imprison and kill them all, and that we need to stop giving money to the undeserving bad people. That means more money for the productive good people.

It’s a belief in good and evil where good is defined as what you already believe and who you already associate with, so that when they commit wrong acts, they’re still on the good side, but when one’s opponents do anything, or nothing, they’re still fundamentally wrong and evil.

That belief doesn’t match reality, but like any religion or cult, it doesn’t matter. It is socially reinforced.

I’ve said this before. I think the central premise that underlies modern conservatism is the belief that life is fair.

That doesn’t sound like a terrible premise but you have to work through the implications. If you believe that life is fair, then you believe that if you do the right things in life then you will be successful in life. It’s a belief that bad things don’t happen to good people.

So if you’re living in a bad situation, it’s ultimately your own fault. You’re there because you didn’t put forth the effort that would have gotten you out of that situation. If you had put forth that effort then you would have succeeded. That’s what’s fair.

And if you’re in a good situation, you deserve to be there. You must be there because of your own efforts. It would be unfair if some people succeeded without any effort while other people had to work at it.

A belief that the universe is fair can be used to excuse a lot of awfulness. Because in a fair universe you get what you deserve.

[Sherrerd]

So we have in the posts just above, two theories on what underlies a pro-authoritarian orientation:

***Tribalism (essentially): My people are good and virtuous people, and those Other people are bad and lazy and violent and must be controlled and contained; and

***Just World-ism: If you’re a good person then you have a good life, and people who have a bad life or who suffer disaster must have deserved it in some way.

But the fact is that both of those mindsets can exist within the same person. More importantly, both of those mindsets can be explained by the “fear-preoccupied brain” theory. (This is the idea that those who are attracted to authoritarianism are more likely than others to be concerned by threats and threat-avoidance, and are more likely to see threats where others do not.)

If you are likely to see threats in new experiences and encounters, then of course you will prefer your own known group, and will be wary of and suspicious of strangers–thus, tribalism. If you are likely to see danger everywhere, then you will be attracted to the idea that you can control your own experience (by being a Good, Virtuous person, who according to this theory, will reap a Good life by so doing).

These are not three separate theories (of what makes someone pro-authoritarian). Instead, they are three aspects of the same phenomenon.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Sherrerd

If you are likely to see danger everywhere, then you will be attracted to the idea that you can control your own experience (by being a Good, Virtuous person, who according to this theory, will reap a Good life by so doing).

This ties in neatly with blaming the victim as a self-defensive strategy. I’m reminded of a fellow equestrian’s reaction when Christopher Reeve was paralyzed in a riding accident; she erupted in fierce declamations that he’d chosen to ride above his abilities, at a level of competition he wasn’t skilled enough for, on a horse too strong for him, which he’d put wrong into the fence where he fell. The horrifying fall was all his own fault.

Now, riding is inherently dangerous, it’s true; and perhaps her criticisms had some merit. But I was struck by how outsized her emotional reaction was, how vehement she was. It seemed to me defensive outrage; she would never overface her horse, would never ride beyond her abilities; thus she would never suffer such a dire fate.

[Defensive_Indifference]

@BigT

Is that a slam? Because 4chan’s political boards are not intelligent in the slightest. 4chan brings on the trolls, who aren’t actually interested in taking anything seriously. Sure, there are what seem to be sincere racists and stuff, but I don’t see any real argument for conservatism.

Sorry I missed this earlier. Yes, of course I was being sarcastic. Today’s conservatives are about as thoughtful as 4chan, as intelligent as a YouTube comments thread. It was not intended as a compliment.

[Sherrerd]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

This ties in neatly with blaming the victim as a self-defensive strategy. I’m reminded of a fellow equestrian’s reaction when Christopher Reeve was paralyzed in a riding accident; she erupted in fierce declamations that he’d chosen to ride above his abilities, at a level of competition he wasn’t skilled enough for, on a horse too strong for him, which he’d put wrong into the fence where he fell. The horrifying fall was all his own fault.

Now, riding is inherently dangerous, it’s true; and perhaps her criticisms had some merit. But I was struck by how outsized her emotional reaction was, how vehement she was. It seemed to me defensive outrage; she would never overface her horse, would never ride beyond her abilities; thus she would never suffer such a dire fate.

Yes, I expect she had no idea what she was revealing about herself.

We humans do expend a lot of mental energy trying to convince ourselves that we can control every aspect of living. But that’s self-delusion. And it’s not admirable to dismiss all the copious evidence that proves that it’s self-delusion.