How to help conservatives be more humane

[Deepak]

Would you take the Kazakh child's food to feed grandma? How much is one's tribe worth?

Would you deprive your tribe of a hot-dog eating contest to feed the starving Kazakh child?

Are there really any poverty induced starvation deaths in America, or is this a scenario imagined by biological machinery that, while its higher order functions can contemplate esoteric political theory, fundamentally operates in a world of all-against-all?

 

[Emily Lake]

Would you be willing to tell me where your tribe begins and some of the other tribes begin? Tell me how their tribe is different from your tribe, how their kids are different than your tribe's kids, how their ailing parents are different than your ailing parents. How are their dispossessed members different from the dispossessed members of your tribe? Exactly how do you know someone is "one of them?" And be specific. Please don't hand wave. You've just stated that other people are not your tribe, lots of other people.

It seems to me that people pick their "tribe." I know people who don't even associate with members of their own family except in courtrooms. Are they in the same tribe? Tribes are the next higher level of social organization above family bands, then comes chiefdoms and then states. Are those the tribes we should all be talking about?

Why do so many conservatives dislike the U.N. for example? Is it because the U.S. is their tribe? Why can't their tribe be bigger? What makes their tribe special? Is it just convenience, apathy, circumstance, fear, greed, lack of vision, what is it?

As I've already said, "tribe" is a fluid concept, and most people have multiple tribes:

All of us form groups. All of us are selective in the company we keep and the investment we put into other people's well being. All of us will be faced with choices about how to divide our time and our care and our energy. Most of us form multiple groups - groups are fluid and multifaceted, just as humans are. We shift between those groups, and as we do our level of commitment and our level of devotion to those groups also shift. Not all of our groups are as important to us as others. And all of us - and I do mean ALL - have people that we exclude from our groups. Sometimes for very good reason, sometimes for reasons I think are petty and irrational.

One of my tribes is "people who treat other humans with respect". People in the other tribe are "people who feel righteous about denigrating and insulting other humans for what I consider to be no good reason".

 

[Angry Floof]

Would you be willing to tell me where your tribe begins and some of the other tribes begin? Tell me how their tribe is different from your tribe, how their kids are different than your tribe's kids, how their ailing parents are different than your ailing parents. How are their dispossessed members different from the dispossessed members of your tribe? Exactly how do you know someone is "one of them?" And be specific. Please don't hand wave. You've just stated that other people are not your tribe, lots of other people.

It seems to me that people pick their "tribe." I know people who don't even associate with members of their own family except in courtrooms. Are they in the same tribe? Tribes are the next higher level of social organization above family bands, then comes chiefdoms and then states. Are those the tribes we should all be talking about?

Why do so many conservatives dislike the U.N. for example? Is it because the U.S. is their tribe? Why can't their tribe be bigger? What makes their tribe special? Is it just convenience, apathy, circumstance, fear, greed, lack of vision, what is it?

As I've already said, "tribe" is a fluid concept, and most people have multiple tribes:

All of us form groups. All of us are selective in the company we keep and the investment we put into other people's well being. All of us will be faced with choices about how to divide our time and our care and our energy. Most of us form multiple groups - groups are fluid and multifaceted, just as humans are. We shift between those groups, and as we do our level of commitment and our level of devotion to those groups also shift. Not all of our groups are as important to us as others. And all of us - and I do mean ALL - have people that we exclude from our groups. Sometimes for very good reason, sometimes for reasons I think are petty and irrational.

One of my tribes is "people who treat other humans with respect". People in the other tribe are "people who feel righteous about denigrating and insulting other humans for what I consider to be no good reason".

If you're not defending tribalism, what exactly are you objecting to in this thread? What initially triggered you to respond at all? You said something about liberals thinking they're better than conservatives or something, but that was not at all the point. That was just turning the topic to liberals rather than addressing the issues with conservative mentality and conservative ideology and how they give rise to inhumane societies.

Are you really bothered more by some outgroup ("liberals") saying something critical about conservatives than you are about the very real consequences of conservative selfishness, stupidity, and tribalism?

 

[Jarhyn]

As I've already said, "tribe" is a fluid concept, and most people have multiple tribes:



One of my tribes is "people who treat other humans with respect". People in the other tribe are "people who feel righteous about denigrating and insulting other humans for what I consider to be no good reason".

If you're not defending tribalism, what exactly are you objecting to in this thread? What initially triggered you to respond at all? You said something about liberals thinking they're better than conservatives or something, but that was not at all the point. That was just turning the topic to liberals rather than addressing the issues with conservative mentality and conservative ideology and how they give rise to inhumane societies.

Are you really bothered more by some outgroup ("liberals") saying something critical about conservatives than you are about the very real consequences of conservative selfishness, stupidity, and tribalism?

I'm going to level with you here. When I was a conservative, it never felt selfish, stupid, or tribalistic. The whole ideology is designed around mechanisms that hide and obfuscate the facts of selfishness, stupidity, and tribalism.

I was trained, the work of years from early childhood right up to the point I walked away, to see things from the perspective of me being justified in having, and other people not being justified in expecting some of that excess. It was always a "blessing", and a "gift", with no consideration to the fact that others of equal merit had been given nothing.

I was taught parables of Talents, and how the person. With three and earned three got six, and the person with two made a profit, and the person with one buried it and got nothing, and had his taken away. Translation? Poor people don't advance because they are lazy. But they don't outright say that.

They don't pay attention that poor people have bills exceeding their means, and get paid less than subsistence cost, as if they are literally disposable, and don't even have one talent to bury for a rainy day. All they are trained to see is people who buried their talents. Or that to make these profits, they were not doing productive work but again, leveraging and rent seeking on their money.

And it just keeps going on and on, insulating them from the larger perspective.

It took A LOT of honest investigation to wash away the obfuscation and get a clearer understanding, to see how I was being selfish or bigoted or stupid. It was painful work, too, constantly coming to terms with how wrong I was, as a never ending existential crisis. Until it did, mostly, end... With acceptance that I will always be wrong in part, but that I can always try to be less wrong.

 

[Trausti]

So, the premise of this thread is that progressives are humane? #wrongtrump

 

[Angry Floof]

So, the premise of this thread is that progressives are humane? #wrongtrump

Nope. Reality doesn't actually fit that black and white conservative framework.

 

[lpetrich]

As I have pointed out for years now, within the in-group community, conservatives are helpful neighbors, good friends, generous, compassionate, and willing to help anyone who needs it.

But according to their ideology, doing all that is rewarding irresponsibility and encouraging dependency and discouraging self-reliance and encouraging belief in one's victimhood. At least according to all the conservative rhetoric that I've had to suffer through.

 

[lpetrich]

So, the premise of this thread is that progressives are humane? #wrongtrump

Trausti, what's your point? That you are a victim?

 

[Angry Floof]

As I have pointed out for years now, within the in-group community, conservatives are helpful neighbors, good friends, generous, compassionate, and willing to help anyone who needs it.

But according to their ideology, doing all that is rewarding irresponsibility and encouraging dependency and discouraging self-reliance. At least according to all the conservative rhetoric that I've had to suffer through.

It's a way of making selfishness and callousness seem like morality.

 

[lpetrich]

Here is my application of conservative rhetoric about government to military and police forces. Many conservatives have a big blind spot there. It is almost as if they believe that soldiers and cops are vigilantes rather than government employees.

WARNING!!! My application of such rhetoric includes some very horrible blame-the-victim rhetoric about crime victims. It's there to indicate how horrible such rhetoric is.

End protection welfare!
Abolish all government military and police forces! They must all be turned into private companies or else disbanded.

• Let the market decide. If soldiers' and cops' services have any value, people will hire them, or else people will become vigilantes. Government coercion is unnecessary.
• Government protection is one-size-fits-all. Vigilantism, hired guards, and mercenaries can be adjusted to individuals' protection needs and desires, while government protection cannot.
• Government involvement in protection crowds out private investment in protection solutions, solutions that will invariably be superior to government ones.
• People who refuse to protect themselves deserve to be conquered and beaten up and stolen from and extorted from and raped and enslaved and murdered and whatever other crimes that they might suffer. Protection laziness ought to have consequences, and government protection protects people from the consequences of their actions.
• Crime victims are really crime enablers, and they deserve to suffer the consequences of their crime enabling.
• The cult of crime victimhood should be recognized for it is: a part of the cult of victimhood, a very popular way for people to try to evade responsibility for their actions.
• Self-protectors should not have to protect non-self-protectors by the government stealing from them to do so. Government protection is governments robbing Peter to protect Paul.
• Individuals are much better at protecting themselves than governments. Therefore, government protection is unnecessary and people should not be stolen from to pay for it.
• Advocates of government military and police forces are very condescending with their insinuation that people have no agency, that they are incapable of protecting themselves.
• If there are any people who are not capable of protecting themselves, then private charities like vigilantes will do much better at protecting them than governments.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Here is my application of conservative rhetoric about government to military and police forces. Many conservatives have a big blind spot there. It is almost as if they believe that soldiers and cops are vigilantes rather than government employees.

WARNING!!! My application of such rhetoric includes some very horrible blame-the-victim rhetoric about crime victims. It's there to indicate how horrible such rhetoric is.

End protection welfare!
Abolish all government military and police forces! They must all be turned into private companies or else disbanded.

• Let the market decide. If soldiers' and cops' services have any value, people will hire them, or else people will become vigilantes. Government coercion is unnecessary.
• Government protection is one-size-fits-all. Vigilantism, hired guards, and mercenaries can be adjusted to individuals' protection needs and desires, while government protection cannot.
• Government involvement in protection crowds out private investment in protection solutions, solutions that will invariably be superior to government ones.
• People who refuse to protect themselves deserve to be conquered and beaten up and stolen from and extorted from and raped and enslaved and murdered and whatever other crimes that they might suffer. Protection laziness ought to have consequences, and government protection protects people from the consequences of their actions.
• Crime victims are really crime enablers, and they deserve to suffer the consequences of their crime enabling.
• The cult of crime victimhood should be recognized for it is: a part of the cult of victimhood, a very popular way for people to try to evade responsibility for their actions.
• Self-protectors should not have to protect non-self-protectors by the government stealing from them to do so. Government protection is governments robbing Peter to protect Paul.
• Individuals are much better at protecting themselves than governments. Therefore, government protection is unnecessary and people should not be stolen from to pay for it.
• Advocates of government military and police forces are very condescending with their insinuation that people have no agency, that they are incapable of protecting themselves.
• If there are any people who are not capable of protecting themselves, then private charities like vigilantes will do much better at protecting them than governments.

That's probably why conservative ideology endorses enslavement while liberal ideology endorses empowerment. Psychologically that makes sense as a fearful person can only function if he can continually reinforce his sense of superiority. A conservative person is insecure to the point that he is constantly at war with himself and projects that insecurity. Liberal ideology wishes for egalitarianism and equality, and neither needs nor desires enemies to have an identity.

Conservatives and white supremacists are the slave owners of yesteryear. They are what remains of a time in human history when slave states were the norm, when human culture was tied to war, exploitation and enslavement.

 

[Tigers!]

Here is my application of conservative rhetoric about government to military and police forces. Many conservatives have a big blind spot there. It is almost as if they believe that soldiers and cops are vigilantes rather than government employees.

WARNING!!! My application of such rhetoric includes some very horrible blame-the-victim rhetoric about crime victims. It's there to indicate how horrible such rhetoric is.

End protection welfare!
Abolish all government military and police forces! They must all be turned into private companies or else disbanded.

• Let the market decide. If soldiers' and cops' services have any value, people will hire them, or else people will become vigilantes. Government coercion is unnecessary.
• Government protection is one-size-fits-all. Vigilantism, hired guards, and mercenaries can be adjusted to individuals' protection needs and desires, while government protection cannot.
• Government involvement in protection crowds out private investment in protection solutions, solutions that will invariably be superior to government ones.
• People who refuse to protect themselves deserve to be conquered and beaten up and stolen from and extorted from and raped and enslaved and murdered and whatever other crimes that they might suffer. Protection laziness ought to have consequences, and government protection protects people from the consequences of their actions.
• Crime victims are really crime enablers, and they deserve to suffer the consequences of their crime enabling.
• The cult of crime victimhood should be recognized for it is: a part of the cult of victimhood, a very popular way for people to try to evade responsibility for their actions.
• Self-protectors should not have to protect non-self-protectors by the government stealing from them to do so. Government protection is governments robbing Peter to protect Paul.
• Individuals are much better at protecting themselves than governments. Therefore, government protection is unnecessary and people should not be stolen from to pay for it.
• Advocates of government military and police forces are very condescending with their insinuation that people have no agency, that they are incapable of protecting themselves.
• If there are any people who are not capable of protecting themselves, then private charities like vigilantes will do much better at protecting them than governments.

I am most glad I have never met any of these conservatives(?) of which you speak.

 

[Tigers!]

That's probably why conservative ideology endorses enslavement while liberal ideology endorses empowerment. Psychologically that makes sense as a fearful person can only function if he can continually reinforce his sense of superiority. A conservative person is insecure to the point that he is constantly at war with himself and projects that insecurity. Liberal ideology wishes for egalitarianism and equality, and neither needs nor desires enemies to have an identity.

Why do you call those which whom you disagree your enemies? Hardly likely to improve relations.

 

[Jarhyn]

Here is my application of conservative rhetoric about government to military and police forces. Many conservatives have a big blind spot there. It is almost as if they believe that soldiers and cops are vigilantes rather than government employees.

WARNING!!! My application of such rhetoric includes some very horrible blame-the-victim rhetoric about crime victims. It's there to indicate how horrible such rhetoric is.

End protection welfare!
Abolish all government military and police forces! They must all be turned into private companies or else disbanded.

• Let the market decide. If soldiers' and cops' services have any value, people will hire them, or else people will become vigilantes. Government coercion is unnecessary.
• Government protection is one-size-fits-all. Vigilantism, hired guards, and mercenaries can be adjusted to individuals' protection needs and desires, while government protection cannot.
• Government involvement in protection crowds out private investment in protection solutions, solutions that will invariably be superior to government ones.
• People who refuse to protect themselves deserve to be conquered and beaten up and stolen from and extorted from and raped and enslaved and murdered and whatever other crimes that they might suffer. Protection laziness ought to have consequences, and government protection protects people from the consequences of their actions.
• Crime victims are really crime enablers, and they deserve to suffer the consequences of their crime enabling.
• The cult of crime victimhood should be recognized for it is: a part of the cult of victimhood, a very popular way for people to try to evade responsibility for their actions.
• Self-protectors should not have to protect non-self-protectors by the government stealing from them to do so. Government protection is governments robbing Peter to protect Paul.
• Individuals are much better at protecting themselves than governments. Therefore, government protection is unnecessary and people should not be stolen from to pay for it.
• Advocates of government military and police forces are very condescending with their insinuation that people have no agency, that they are incapable of protecting themselves.
• If there are any people who are not capable of protecting themselves, then private charities like vigilantes will do much better at protecting them than governments.

I am most glad I have never met any of these conservatives(?) of which you speak.

A couple of them are from these very forums. I have seen all of these arguments used (though not usually at the same time) to attack pretty much every government service. Usually they come from the "libertarian" crowd of the conservative sphere; it is very Ayn Rand.

 

[ZiprHead]

That's probably why conservative ideology endorses enslavement while liberal ideology endorses empowerment. Psychologically that makes sense as a fearful person can only function if he can continually reinforce his sense of superiority. A conservative person is insecure to the point that he is constantly at war with himself and projects that insecurity. Liberal ideology wishes for egalitarianism and equality, and neither needs nor desires enemies to have an identity.

Why do you call those which whom you disagree your enemies? Hardly likely to improve relations.

He didn't do that.

 

[Jarhyn]

That's probably why conservative ideology endorses enslavement while liberal ideology endorses empowerment. Psychologically that makes sense as a fearful person can only function if he can continually reinforce his sense of superiority. A conservative person is insecure to the point that he is constantly at war with himself and projects that insecurity. Liberal ideology wishes for egalitarianism and equality, and neither needs nor desires enemies to have an identity.

Why do you call those which whom you disagree your enemies? Hardly likely to improve relations.

He didn't do that.

Like, I'm pretty sure he did the exact opposite.

How do you read "Conservatives do too much PVP, liberals prefer PVE" and come away with "Liberals says he wants to PVP conservatives OMG!"*

*If you don't understand this terminology, you should probably not vote on anything or any office that impacts anyone under the age of 40. Just saying.

 

[Angry Floof]

Conservative mentality, as it is being described here, really should be referred to as right wing authoritarian mentality. "Conservative" doesn't necessarily mean closed and rigid. Part of the problem with right wing authoritarian mentality is the low capacity for empathy, seeing things in a different way, reflecting on other possibilities. There are conservatives who can actually do that.

I first became aware of this problem in the 90s while watching the Scientology critics movement. The cult of scientology is basically a machine that churns out right wing authoritarian followers: authority worship, outgroup demonizing, sense of moral superiority, unquestioning adherence to cult teachings, etc.

All the cognitive, psychological, and social mechanisms used to manipulate followers leave little or no capacity for understanding any other way of thinking. To some degree, even an honest hypothetical exercise in understanding opposing views is a violation of cult teachings. Similar to the Christian belief that an all powerful, punishing God can read their thoughts, in Scientology, followers are led to believe their own thoughts can be detected by auditors or OTs and that their thoughts can be poison if they stray from the doctrine. It's the same manipulation in different window dressing.

The cult spent, and is still spending, considerable resources to find the top of the critic hierarchy. Any critic that becomes prominent in the fight against the fraudulent cult becomes that enemy "head" in the minds of cultists, and they will do whatever it takes to take down that head. And they have successfully ruined quite a few people to that aim.

But the truth is that the critic movement is made up of a herd of independent cats who all came to similar conclusions about the cult and naturally will find each other and share info and pool together in their efforts. When right wing authoritarian manipulation has made you bury or discard your own conscience in favor of conformity to the social group, how would you recognize an independent mind? For those culties who eventually saw through the delusion and abuse, some of them experienced years or even decades of cognitive dissonance in their sacred practice of avoiding any thought or experience that did not comply to the authoritative teachings.

Scientology is a specifically codified machine whereas conservative political ideologies and fundamentalist religions of other stripes are more organic and "wild" you might say. But the mechanisms are the same, only the degree of influence and control varies. Either way, it can take quite a lot for a person to break out of that and be able to accept other perspectives without fear or violence.

 

[Tigers!]

That's probably why conservative ideology endorses enslavement while liberal ideology endorses empowerment. Psychologically that makes sense as a fearful person can only function if he can continually reinforce his sense of superiority. A conservative person is insecure to the point that he is constantly at war with himself and projects that insecurity. Liberal ideology wishes for egalitarianism and equality, and neither needs nor desires enemies to have an identity.

Why do you call those which whom you disagree your enemies? Hardly likely to improve relations.

He didn't do that.

See emboldened word.
They are his/her words not mine.

 

[lpetrich]

End protection welfare!
Abolish all government military and police forces! They must all be turned into private companies or else disbanded.

(snipped for brevity)

I am most glad I have never met any of these conservatives(?) of which you speak.

A couple of them are from these very forums. I have seen all of these arguments used (though not usually at the same time) to attack pretty much every government service. Usually they come from the "libertarian" crowd of the conservative sphere; it is very Ayn Rand.

Yes, that's the whole idea. If governments can never do anything right, then they should not be trusted to protect people.

 

[Jarhyn]

He didn't do that.

See emboldened word.
They are his/her words not mine.

"neither needs nor desires enemies"

Like, you cherry picked a single word to pull it out of context.

The sentence means the opposite of what you claim. The statement says that the left DOES NOT gin up "enemies", because our ideology doesn't depend on the need for an outgroup. Guess why I try so hard to explain this? I mean, I would love to see you... Ok, maybe not championing progressivism, but on board with it because of an acceptance that we can be in this together?

Essentially, the difference is, our group has no qualities that exclude people by birthright. Anyone can join, and we would love to see you. I would open my arms and greet Hitler himself, so long as he met me crying on his knees about howuch he regretted his life and was trying to not be a piece of shit. I might also put him in a situation where he would be put under great oversight, though; trust but verify, after all.