Uh... I'm not sure how to respond to a counter-argument that ignores everything after the third sentence of my long post... I was speaking about the technical differences in flavors of authoritarianism and stated quite plainly that I was NOT doing a simple one-to-one conflation.
Given that the thread title is "Why are Republicans so Angry?", there are two possible interpretations.
1). You really should have made a different thread to talk about the Authoritarian Personality, given that this isn't what the thread is about.
2). You really do mean to imply that the GOP and 'social conservatives' are representative of one of various strands of the "Authoritarian Personality".
In either event, I disagree with the characterization itself, and think its both unfair and incorrect. Feel free to disagree, but you're wrong.
Did you really miss the part where I said they're not necessarily angrier than their counterparts? Or are you willfully ignoring it and rationalizing that by invoking the thread title as though I violated some kind of rule?
Last edited Wed Feb 1, 2012 1:18 am (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Did you really miss the part where I said they're not necessarily angrier than their counterparts? Or are you willfully ignoring it and rationalizing that by invoking the thread title as though I violated some kind of rule?
Naw, just sick of people not being to say what is that they mean, rather than hiding behind jargon and implied meaning.
When you use the term Authoritarian Personality, there is a very specific meaning that is meant here. By this, I mean explicitly the works of Teodor Adorno and his book "The Authoritarian Personality".
But hey, whatever. Either you've read your Adorno or you haven't. Just don't get pissy when someone calls you on it.
OMG, the liberals are explaining why conservatives are so angry while the conservatives deny this. I never thought that would happen in this thread! BJ even trotted out the "conservatives are happier" schlock. Wait, you can't be angry at the world and happy in your personal life? If anything, that might be the definition of sanity.
I'm a progressive and I am utterly furious. I cheer when Republican politicians fail and are insulted. I have no respect or pity for them and if I believed in god I would actively pray for their demise. I see them as the nation's worst political scourge since the southern secessionists. However, I have no consistent outlet beyond my voice and my keyboard. If the left was better organized and not mired in the stupidity of flabby relativism, then they would look just as pissed today as the base of the GOP.
So far I like this answer:
Spacejack wrote:
SHORT ANSWER: They're not, but they have better and more convenient avenues for openly displaying anger, in contrast to the typical liberal voice of desperation and sadness. It's just the tone that has evolved over time. EDIT: By which I mean "not angrier necessarily than their counterparts," not that they're not angry at all. They're plenty angry, but as has already been said, most folks are these days.
From my experience neither is less angry. Liberals just sound more defeatist because they have been in decline since 1968 and their ideas are tied up a society of inclusion, which creates some fun cognitive dissonance. Republicans on the other hand are increasingly encouraged to be angry within their party. Since they see their party as the only means to achieve "the true and only heaven" they are apt to scoff at liberal condemnation and keep on getting angrier. I do find it funny when they play the victim card that they ostensibly disdain. In our fractured culture there is no shortage of vapid martyrdom. In this regard both parties are of the same heart and mind.
Did you really miss the part where I said they're not necessarily angrier than their counterparts? Or are you willfully ignoring it and rationalizing that by invoking the thread title as though I violated some kind of rule?
Naw, just sick of people not being to say what is that they mean, rather than hiding behind jargon and implied meaning.
When you use the term Authoritarian Personality, there is a very specific meaning that is meant here. By this, I mean explicitly the works of Teodor Adorno and his book "The Authoritarian Personality".
But hey, whatever. Either you've read your Adorno or you haven't. Just don't get pissy when someone calls you on it.
Darilian
A) I don't give two shits what you're sick of. B) If you're going to bother disagreeing with a post, bother to read it first. C) "Pissy." Yeah, whatever.
Y'know it's very interesting you got so vehement about my accusation of Republicans being cookie-cutter authoritarians when a major, if not THE major implication of my post was "Perhaps OP is mischaracterizing this anger," which was more or less the same thing YOU said. The whole thing was devoted to examining ways in which the Republicans could legitimately SEEM more "angry" without actually BEING more "angry."
But by all means, keep burning that straw man you made out of the first three sentences of a two-page essay that even included a "short form" at the end.
And I'm using the term correctly. Someone who'd read my post would know that. You know, the one that included multiple uses of the phrase "the authoritarian liberal"?
I said my piece earlier. Keep burning the straw man all day; it doesn't have anything to do with my point.
And I'm using the term correctly. Someone who'd read my post would know that. You know, the one that included multiple uses of the phrase "the authoritarian liberal"?
So you're conceding that you haven't read the "The Authoritarian Personality", or anything else from Adorno?
I'm not too concerned much of anything you have to say on this matter anymore, actually. Continue to bask in your own awesomeness. I'm sure I just utterly failed to achieve the level of understanding that you did when reading it, due to my inherent inferiority to your dazzling brilliance. Have yourself a nice day now. I hope you had fun ignoring my point.
I'm not too concerned much of anything you have to say on this matter anymore, actually. Continue to bask in your own awesomeness. I'm sure I just utterly failed to achieve the level of understanding that you did when reading it, due to my inherent inferiority to your dazzling brilliance. Have yourself a nice day now. I hope you had fun ignoring my point.
Moral of the story- Don't use buzzwords and jargon if all you've done is read Wikipedia.
And I'm using the term correctly. Someone who'd read my post would know that. You know, the one that included multiple uses of the phrase "the authoritarian liberal"?
So you're conceding that you haven't read the "The Authoritarian Personality", or anything else from Adorno?
:p
Darilian
Dar, is that honestly relevant? Your point seems to be that his usage of a term is unfaithful to the original. However, even if that were the case, what do you hope to gain from pointing that out? "You've used a term incorrectly, thus your statements are all wrong"? Wouldn't it make more sense to try to figure out what was actually meant so that you can discuss the ideas themselves rather than getting "pissy" over terminology?
When you use the term Authoritarian Personality, there is a very specific meaning that is meant here. By this, I mean explicitly the works of Teodor Adorno and his book "The Authoritarian Personality".
When Teodor Adorno uses the term "Authoritarian Personality", Teodor Adorno has a very specific meaning.
When someone else uses the term, they are not bound to his meaning. He does not own the words.
EDIT: BTW, when you whine about someone having a thought that is different from some shitty philosopher you read, you sound like Ponytail Guy in this clip:
I appreciate the support, but I -WAS- using Altemeyer's definition, so I guess I really do fail whatever dogma test was involved. Furthermore I was using it as a truncated substitute for "Right-wing authoritarianism" as expressed by Altemeyer--I wished to avoid the use of the phrase "right-wing" since it did not contribute to my overall point and is a confusing turn of phrase in the first place.
And to be honest I understand the defensiveness over the term. I get the same way when I see feminists invoke "objectification."
I appreciate the support, but I -WAS- using Altemeyer's definition, so I guess I really do fail whatever dogma test was involved. Furthermore I was using it as a truncated substitute for "Right-wing authoritarianism" as expressed by Altemeyer--I wished to avoid the use of the phrase "right-wing" since it did not contribute to my overall point and is a confusing turn of phrase in the first place.
And to be honest I understand the defensiveness over the term. I get the same way when I see feminists invoke "objectification."
Well, there's your problem. You tried to use Altemeyer, but Altemeyer committed the same sacrilege as you by having his own original thoughts on the matter rather than regurgitating Adorno.
I appreciate the support, but I -WAS- using Altemeyer's definition, so I guess I really do fail whatever dogma test was involved. Furthermore I was using it as a truncated substitute for "Right-wing authoritarianism" as expressed by Altemeyer--I wished to avoid the use of the phrase "right-wing" since it did not contribute to my overall point and is a confusing turn of phrase in the first place.
And to be honest I understand the defensiveness over the term. I get the same way when I see feminists invoke "objectification."
I have some severe problems with the directions that Bob Altemeyer took Adorno in his work 'The Authoritarians' and his RWA scale. I agree with critics that it doesn't really describe anything, and lacks any sort of real predictive capability, therefore implying that his model is just the worst sort of social 'science' theory laden navel gazing.
If one looks at the questions that Altemeyer uses to define the RWA, one realizes that they are so loaded as to be meaningless. For instance, one of the questions “Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us” is obviously being read by Altemeyer as an endorsement of someone like Adolf Hitler. However, one only needs to look at the last election and the outpouring of 'belief' in then candidate Barack Obama's ability to 'change' the political culture of the nation in a 'better' direction to realize that BOTH sides would agree to this.
Sure, he goes on to argue that there are 'Left Wing' authoritarians- but his model doesn't really do a good job to describe either phenomenon- and conflating both along "Right" vs. "Left" lines only confuses the real insight that he DOES have-
That what he calls an 'authoritarian personality type' is better described not by the beliefs that someone has, but rather, by the MEANS that they process data.
At least Adorno was very specific as to who he was talking about when he wrote about the nature of prewar German political culture. Altemeyer, I find, is too messy and out to score ideological points to be of much use.
I would chime in but I noticed the title had the word "Republicans". If that were changed to "Former Republicans who are now Independents and consider themselves Conservative" then I would chime in.
(By the way, I'm pissed at President Obama but I was pissed at Former President Bush before that)
(On a side note, does anyone remember back when the press used to address a former Congressmen/Mayor/Governor/Judge/President as Former Title Name rather than Title Name? When did that change? Also, why does the press refer to Obama as Mister Obama rather than by President? Off topic I know, feel free to ignore)
(On a side note, does anyone remember back when the press used to address a former Congressmen/Mayor/Governor/Judge/President as Former Title Name rather than Title Name? When did that change? Also, why does the press refer to Obama as Mister Obama rather than by President? Off topic I know, feel free to ignore)
Where have you heard the press referring to "Mister Obama"? The only places I can recall hearing that were from foreign press like the BBC, and using "Mister" when referring to foreign dignitaries is commonplace.
