Left-wing authoritarianism exists and is a key predictor of psychological and behavioral outcomes

[Angry Floof]

Of course that's not completely false, or even partly false. Once Altemeyer identified a constellation of traits he called 'right wing authoritarianism'

That research existed before Altemeyer was born.

Are you really going to pretend you didn't know that? That you don't know how fascist traits are identified? That Altemeyer added "right wing" because those traits correspond with right wing ideological bases? Altemeyer was just the first one to put "right wing" in the name. He is far from the first to notice the correlation between the traits of authoritarianism and right wing ideology.

, it specifically embedded conservatism in it. Altemeyer himself distinguishes RWA from LWA.

I don't think you understand the research or his commentary about "LWA." What is research shows AND his publications describe is that the traits of right wing authoritarianism can be found among left wing politicians, but that it is rare. That is, RWA traits are found among left wing politics and social ideologies in very small numbers.

Left wing ideologies are not based in authority worship or control/punishment ideas or any of the other ideas and traits of right wing ideology.

Altemeyer never said that "LWA" is what you and your asinine "source" claim it is.

All of them, because RWA is defined as a cluster of three traits (again, Wikipedia). People who did not fit the pattern are not RWAs.

• Authoritarianism: tough attitude towards violations of social rules, norms and laws.
• Conservatism: favoring obedient and respectful support for societal authorities.
• Traditionalism: favoring traditional, religious social norms and values.

And right wing authoritarianism includes all of that. The fact that you can pick apart three different aspects of RWA or three related concepts does not make the definition of right wing authoritarianism magically disappear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

In psychology, the right-wing authoritarian is a personality type that describes somebody who is naturally submissive to his authority figures, acts aggressively in the name of said authorities, and is conformist in thought and behavior.[1] The prevalence of this personality type in a population varies from culture to culture, as a person's upbringing and education play a strong role in determining whether somebody develops this sort of personality. With the American population, the prevalence is somewhere between 20% and 25% of the population.[2]

And this "psypost" guy's article doesn't even come close to that weak ass tea. I can't believe you'd settle for such dishonesty and lazy, sloppy "research," Metaphor.

The psypost article summarises a peer-reviewed article and quotes an academic. You didn't critique any of the research itself--merely got angry that I'd posted it and finished off with the kind of nasty sarcasm that is par for the course.

I read through it and it is bullshit. Is there some particular part of that shit fest you'd like me to respond to?

OH, I know! How about the questions they chose to ask in their, like, totally scientific and objective methods for a "left wing authoritarianism test"?

"Our country will be great if we do what the best progressive minds tell us to do." (This is right wing mentality with "progressive minds" inserted where "authority figures" would be.)

It's almost like right wing minds can't fathom a group of people who don't need to defer to authority figures. Sure, everywhere there's dumb people or just people who have never been taught to think about anything like grownups who are happy to defer to someone else to run things. But that is not indicative of whether their ideological mentality or personality traits are authoritarian, or that deferring to experts is the same thing as deferring to authority figures.

"The science on climate change is so fraught with uncertainty that there is no ONE way to be right on this issue."

And what is the underlying ideological or personality trait that is being teased out by this question? Is it an indicator of authoritarianism to agree with this or disagree with it?

"Our country desperately needs an enlightened progressive leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the narrow-minded conservative ways that are ruining us."

This is not how anyone on the left thinks! Replace "enlightened progressive leader" with "right wing leader," and replace "narrow minded conservative" with "radical, left wing" and you will have, of course, a very typical right wing mentality and belief.

"The only way our country can get through the turbulent times ahead is to purge certain people of their “traditional” values."

Who took this test, anywhere, ever, and took this question seriously? Or any of them for that matter.

"Our country will be destroyed if we do not act to marginalize the conservative beliefs eating away at our community’s feeling of fellowship and increasingly progressive values."

No one thinks conservative beliefs are "eating away at our community's feeling of fellowship and increasingly progressive values." We think conservative beliefs are based in authority worship and tribalism, and we argue that authority worship and tribalism are not conducive to the peace and well being of hundreds of millions of people, much less billions.

That idea that "we" are a community and some outside force of opposing ideology is "eating away" at us, as you should recognize by now, a very right wing lens. It's not a liberal or progressive mentality. It's a right wing mentality in left wing window dressing because right wingers can't recognize anything else.

The questions almost entirely reflect the most extreme and cartoonish right wing interpretations of left wing minds, not actual liberal or progressive beliefs or traits.

The RWA test questions, as well as what used to be called the "fascist scale" test questions that preceded Altemeyer's work, are not distortions of people's beliefs and statements about their beliefs, and to boot, the attitudes reflected in the RWA questions are associated with virtually every authoritarian, fascist movement in history.

This is a reach, to say the least, and it would be comical if not for the depravity of it.

Serious question, Metaphor. How would you recognize someone who doesn't think like a right winger, only some just have a few ideological words switched out? Would you recognize someone who simply does not need to defer their every view on the authority figures of their in-group?

Do you really believe that left wing thinking is the same framework as right wing thinking only with different authority figures and terms? Like how gangs are all the same mentality of violence and tribalism but just have different colored hats?

Do you really not know that there are plenty of human beings who are neither right wing OR right wing but just with a left wing dress on?

You have to distort and misrepresent liberal and progressive thinking, meaning way of thinking and viewing the world and not just views on specific issues, to make it seem even close to the authoritarianism and inhumanity of right wing ideology. Right wing beliefs and traits do not have to be distorted in the least, just described. But I understand why simply defining right wing mentality is so enraging and why it would inspire some of you to work at twisting left wing traits and ideologies into that same framework.

B]There is a whole different way of thinking and perceiving the world that does not rely on handing over your conscience to authority figures[/B], whether you pathetically try to switch out some right wing phrases with left wing ones or not.

 

[Metaphor]

That research existed before Altemeyer was born.

"That research". Psychologists have been researching human behaviour for a hundred years. RWA is a specific constellation of traits that was formulated in the 1980s.

Are you really going to pretend you didn't know that?

Are you really going to continue this neverending mind-reading act?

I don't think you understand the research or his commentary about "LWA." What is research shows AND his publications describe is that the traits of right wing authoritarianism can be found among left wing politicians, but that it is rare. That is, RWA traits are found among left wing politics and social ideologies in very small numbers.

So...what, exactly? Did I suggest that the absolute raw numbers were the same or similar?

Left wing ideologies are not based in authority worship or control/punishment ideas or any of the other ideas and traits of right wing ideology.

Whatever left wing "ideologies" are based on, that does not preclude people on the left engaging in particular behaviours. It has been my experience that some on the left have an absolute bloodlust for control and punishment.

Altemeyer never said that "LWA" is what you and your asinine "source" claim it is.

Take it up with Wikipedia, not me.

And right wing authoritarianism includes all of that. The fact that you can pick apart three different aspects of RWA or three related concepts does not make the definition of right wing authoritarianism magically disappear.

In what universe did I say or imply that RWA didn't exist?

I read through it and it is bullshit. Is there some particular part of that shit fest you'd like me to respond to?

No.

OH, I know! How about the questions they chose to ask in their, like, totally scientific and objective methods for a "left wing authoritarianism test"?

"Our country will be great if we do what the best progressive minds tell us to do." (This is right wing mentality with "progressive minds" inserted where "authority figures" would be.)

It's almost like right wing minds can't fathom a group of people who don't need to defer to authority figures. Sure, everywhere there's dumb people or just people who have never been taught to think about anything like grownups who are happy to defer to someone else to run things. But that is not indicative of whether their ideological mentality or personality traits are authoritarian, or that deferring to experts is the same thing as deferring to authority figures.

Oy gevalt. It's a scale. People respond to items on the scale. The research does not imply that people with left wing ideologies must be authoritarian.

"The science on climate change is so fraught with uncertainty that there is no ONE way to be right on this issue."

And what is the underlying ideological or personality trait that is being teased out by this question? Is it an indicator of authoritarianism to agree with this or disagree with it?

Are you suggesting that because an item does not have obvious face validity to you, it doesn't measure what it claims to measure?

"Our country desperately needs an enlightened progressive leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the narrow-minded conservative ways that are ruining us."

This is not how anyone on the left thinks!

Okay. If you already know how everyone on the left already thinks, I can see we should replace empirical research with whatever you decree.

Replace "enlightened progressive leader" with "right wing leader," and replace "narrow minded conservative" with "radical, left wing" and you will have, of course, a very typical right wing mentality and belief.

You realise that's the point, right? You do realise that?

"The only way our country can get through the turbulent times ahead is to purge certain people of their “traditional” values."

Who took this test, anywhere, ever, and took this question seriously? Or any of them for that matter.

You do realise there are people in the world who have different minds to you, right? Including people on the left?

"Our country will be destroyed if we do not act to marginalize the conservative beliefs eating away at our community’s feeling of fellowship and increasingly progressive values."

No one thinks conservative beliefs are "eating away at our community's feeling of fellowship and increasingly progressive values." We think conservative beliefs are based in authority worship and tribalism, and we argue that authority worship and tribalism are not conducive to the peace and well being of hundreds of millions of people, much less billions.

Your solipsism is showing.

Serious question, Metaphor. How would you recognize someone who doesn't think like a right winger, only some just have a few ideological words switched out? Would you recognize someone who simply does not need to defer their every view on the authority figures of their in-group?

What on earth are you talking about? Are you suggesting I defer my 'every view' to 'authority figures'?

Serious question: are you so deranged about what you call right-wingers think that you think they are all mindless automatons?

Do you really believe that left wing thinking is the same framework as right wing thinking only with different authority figures and terms? Like how gangs are all the same mentality of violence and tribalism but just have different colored hats?

I believe there is a strain of leftists who are comparable to RWAs, especially with respect to their interpersonal behaviour and fanatical intolerance to the questioning of their beliefs.

Do you really not know that there are plenty of human beings who are neither right wing OR right wing but just with a left wing dress on?

I recognise your attempt to define LWAs out of existence, yes, I recognise what you are doing.

There is a whole different way of thinking and perceiving the world that does not rely on handing over your conscience to authority figures, whether you pathetically try to switch out some right wing phrases with left wing ones or not.

Since I do not think or perceive the world via handing over my conscience to authority figures, I already know there is a way to do it.

I note that it is you who cannot conceive of anyone on the right capable of doing so.

 

[Angry Floof]

Also, in looking through not just the article you posted but the linked articles and papers, I can't find how they associated the high scorers with left wing ideology. Metaphor, can you point me to that?

Something I meant to cover in the previous post:

The first is anti-hierarchical aggression. People who score high on this dimension agree with statements such as “The rich should be stripped of their belongings and status” and “We need to replace the established order by any means necessary.”

This is just silly. First, no one's "anti" hierarchical. Hierarchy and authority are useful constructs. NOT worshiping them is not necessarily ANTI. They're just not the inherent nature of humanity and do not need to be enforced or worshiped or taken as written in stone truths about anything other than the human ability to create constructs around our various behaviors.

The second is top-down censorship. People who score high on this dimension agree with statements such as “I should have the right not to be exposed to offensive views” and “Getting rid of inequality is more important than protecting the so-called ‘right’ to free speech.”

Still not sure who exactly is agreeing to these right wing cartoons of left wing ideology or how those who agreed with such statements were identified as left wing.

The third is anti-conventionalism. People who score high on this dimension agree with statements such as “All political conservatives are fools” and “The ‘old-fashioned ways’ and ‘old-fashioned values’ need to be abolished.”

More disingenuous and highly biased "research" here. Willingness to question conventions (and authorities and traditions) is not the same as right wing... OOPS, I meant rabid, violent opposition to it.

Anyone can be rabidly or violently in opposition to an existing fascist authority figure or government, and hopefully some of us are as there have been in opposition to any fascist government or dictator in history, and who all eventually won even as they lost tremendous numbers to executions and other attempts to eradicate them. That's one thing right wingers seem to always forget: we do fight back, and people of humane principles always have and always will fight back when right wing authoritarianism comes to power. You bet you'll see some blue haired girls screaming at you. It doesn't by any means make us the same as you. You really have to do some seriously biased and disingenuous mental gymnastics to believe otherwise. as your "research" also shows.

 

[Angry Floof]

Why don't they just come out and explicitly say that "LWA" is really just rich, powerful people and the boot lickers who love them being scared of ordinary people and powerless people rising up against their corruption and abuse of power? That would be a more honest assessment of left wing mentality.

But that wouldn't effectively equate left wingers with right wing authoritarianism, which is the goal of such "research."

I mean, y'all know there is something seriously wrong with right wing authoritarianism. Why not admit that and do something about it instead of allowing the rich and powerful to use you to support their corruption instead of just this "No, YOUUUUU, you're bad, too" bullshit? Why is it so important to project that shit onto people who don't suck up to power but demand that we prevent it from abusing the least among us?

"LWAs" are only a danger to corrupt powers. We already know who is posing a threat to our country with their zealotry and violence, and white supremacists are NOT leftist in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Metaphor]

Also, in looking through not just the article you posted but the linked articles and papers, I can't find how they associated the high scorers with left wing ideology. Metaphor, can you point me to that?

The political ideology measure is described on page 17.

This is just silly. First, no one's "anti" hierarchical.

Your solipsism is showing. What I will say is that there are many on the left who espouse anti-hierarchy views. They may or may not actually be against hierarchy. Some of them may want to replace what they perceive to be the current hierarchy with a different one of their preference.

Still not sure who exactly is agreeing to these right wing cartoons of left wing ideology or how those who agreed with such statements were identified as left wing.

So, they don't exist?

It doesn't by any means make us the same as you. You really have to do some seriously biased and disingenuous mental gymnastics to believe otherwise. as your "research" also shows.

Trust me, Angry Floof, I do not believe you to be "the same" as me. Not in a million years.

I get it. You refuse to believe there are people on the left with a constellation of traits that are analogous to RWAs. That speaks to your mindset, not reality.

 

[Metaphor]

But that wouldn't effectively equate left wingers with right wing authoritarianism, which is the goal of such "research."

Left wingers are not equated with RWAs. There is a constellation of traits that some left wingers have that puts them into the category LWA.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

​Like other authoritarians, Left-wing Authoritarians are psychopaths and nuts. News at 11.

I'm aware the bridge Metaphor is desperately trying to make here is connect liberals with left-wing authoritarianism. Quite the gap there though.

Exactly. Extremists are generally nuts, period.

 

[Angry Floof]

The political ideology measure is described on page 17.

Thanks.

Your solipsism is showing. What I will say is that there are many on the left who espouse anti-hierarchy views. They may or may not actually be against hierarchy. Some of them may want to replace what they perceive to be the current hierarchy with a different one of their preference.

Sounds very scientific. Yet left wingers or left wing groups don't pose a threat to national security or rank very high in terms of violence.

The willingness to commit violence in general and to support authority figures committing violence and all manner of depraved treatment against opposition is not remotely the same with left wing so called "authoritarians" as it is with right wing authoritarians.

There's a reason for this. No matter how you slice it or project it or twist it to make the powerful seem like cowering victims of heinous left wing violence, left wing ideology is not anything like the right in terms of either violence or authoritarianism, but that is what you and these researchers are trying to prove. It's just not true.

No matter how much bad behavior you can find among any group of any persuasion, right wing authoritarian followers are going to be at the top of the bad behavior list and any given right wing ideology can be correlated with that bad behavior and inhumane beliefs.

Whatever violence or bad behavior you can attribute to left wing ideology or people, it will never be authoritarian because it is against authority and power, not on behalf of it, again, no matter how desperate anyone might be to twist reality to make left wing mean authoritarian.

None of this so called research and nothing you have said challenges this reality in the least.

Still not sure who exactly is agreeing to these right wing cartoons of left wing ideology or how those who agreed with such statements were identified as left wing.

So, they don't exist?

Sure, but they're still not authoritarian and they're still not more violent than right wing authoritarians and such extremes are not typical left wing views.

Read again the list of questions asked in the RWA test. Very little in there, if anything, can be described as either extreme or distorted versions of right wing views.

It doesn't by any means make us the same as you. You really have to do some seriously biased and disingenuous mental gymnastics to believe otherwise. as your "research" also shows.

Trust me, Angry Floof, I do not believe you to be "the same" as me. Not in a million years.

Of course not. You would never in a million years value inclusivity, equality, protecting the vulnerable and least among us, or holding power accountable. You expressing such humane values and principles would mean the proverbial hell freezing over.

I get it. You refuse to believe there are people on the left with a constellation of traits that are analogous to RWAs. That speaks to your mindset, not reality.

There are, but they are rare, and that is reality. And whatever bad behavior you want to attribute to leftists in general is not authoritarian in nature. Even if the exaggerated "anti-convention, anti-tradition, anti-hierarchy" narrative were reality, it would be in opposition to authoritarianism. You and the researchers know this very well, and that is why you go to such back flipping pains to pretend that ideas of convention, tradition, and hierarchy have nothing to do with authority, power, status quo.

So one more time just in case I'm not clear:

1) RWAs do exist on the left but they are rare.

2) "LWA" is a misnomer because whatever bad behavior you might actually find on the left is not authoritarian in nature except in the rarest extremes and not typical. What is typical of left wingers is condemning and purging such people, not excusing and protecting them.

3) The misnomer is intentional because RWAs need to paint their opposition in the same authoritarian light of their own faults and weaknesses because that's easier and more on-brand than just dealing with their issues. (Come on over to the left where we offer support and resources for helping you to deal with your fears rather than exploiting them to manipulate you. )

4) Ideological violence is a right wing issue. Left wing violence doesn't even compare.

Related side note: Why are the right wing authoritarian followers in government in the US so opposed to investigating the left wing antifa insurrection at the Capitol on Jan 6?

 

[Angry Floof]

But that wouldn't effectively equate left wingers with right wing authoritarianism, which is the goal of such "research."

Left wingers are not equated with RWAs. There is a constellation of traits that some left wingers have that puts them into the category LWA.

Well, except for the authoritarian part. I would say that is important to this attempt to spread the authoritarianism stink around so as not to stand out.

 

[Metaphor]

The willingness to commit violence in general and to support authority figures committing violence and all manner of depraved treatment against opposition is not remotely the same with left wing so called "authoritarians" as it is with right wing authoritarians.

Irrelevant even if true. Nobody was trying to say they were exactly the same.

There's a reason for this. No matter how you slice it or project it or twist it to make the powerful seem like victims of heinous violence, right wing mentality and violence are far worse than left wing and that is what you and these researchers are trying to prove. It's just not true.

You are imputing motives to researchers and me that you have no evidence for.

No matter how much bad behavior you can find among any group of any persuasion, right wing authoritarian followers are going to be at the top of the bad behavior list and any given right wing ideology can be correlated with that bad behavior and inhumane beliefs.

If true, so what, exactly?

Whatever violence or bad behavior you can attribute to left wing ideology or people, it will never be authoritarian because it is against authority and power, not on behalf of it, again, no matter how desperate anyone might be to twist reality to make left wing mean authoritarian.

So you are trying to define LWAs out of existence. Second, nobody is trying to "make left wing mean authoritarian". Some researchers are exploring a constellation of traits that is present in some on the left that is analogous to a constellation of traits that is present in some on the right. Third, the idea that the left in general is against authority and power is an idea that can be entertained only by somebody firmly ensconced in the left and who has no capacity for self-reflection.

None of this so called research and nothing you have said challenges this reality in the least.

It is not so-called research. It is research that you disagree with even existing, apparently.

Sure, but they're still not authoritarian and they're still not more violent than right wing authoritarians and such extremes are not typical left wing views.

There are authoritarian leftists. There are leftists who wield the power of the State, and social censure, and corporate sponsorship, and academic capture, to enforce their beliefs and ideology.

Neither the authors, nor I, claimed they were 'typical'.

Of course not. You would never in a million years value inclusivity,

As somebody who has been an outsider in more than one context his entire life, I can guarantee you, you are wrong. But I do not value forcible inclusion. If there is a club that doesn't want me in it, I don't want to belong to that club, for example.

equality,

I value equality of opportunity, but I do not value equity. Individuals are not the same as each other and will not have the same outcomes.

You expressing such humane values and principles would mean the proverbial hell freezing over.

Wow. You really really want to demonstrate the psychopathic meanness and nastiness the authors talked about, don't you?

There are, but they are rare, and that is reality. And whatever bad behavior you want to attribute to leftists in general is not authoritarian in nature. Even if the exaggerated "anti-convention, anti-tradition, anti-hierarchy" narrative were reality, it would be in opposition to authoritarianism.

Non. There are leftists who have and do use power, from State power to other power hierarchies, to enforce their ideology on others.

You and the researchers know this very well, and that is why you go to such back flipping pains to pretend that ideas of convention, tradition, and hierarchy have nothing to do with authority.

I haven't pretended anything. I presented some research about a constellation of traits in some left wing people that is analogous to a constellation of traits in some right wing people.

So one more time just in case I'm not clear:

1) RWAs do exist on the left but they are rare.

They're called LWAs.

2) "LWA" is a misnomer because whatever bad behavior you might actually find on the left is not authoritarian in nature except in the rarest extremes and not typical. What is typical of left wingers is condemning and purging such people, not excusing and protecting them.

The left wing part describes the political ideology of the authoritarians under question, not a claim about left wing ideology in general.

3) The misnomer is intentional because RWAs

Now you are accusing the researchers, and me, of being RWAs. Evidence?

need to paint their opposition in the same authoritarian light of their own faults and weaknesses because that's easier and more on-brand than just dealing with their issues. (Come on over to the left where we offer support and resources for helping you to deal with your fears rather than exploiting them to manipulate you. )

I am neither on the right nor the left, and I have never been. On any single political issue I may have a position that is 'typical' of the left, or the right, or the centre. I was for state-recognised same-sex marriage while Hillary Clinton was waffling on about her firm belief in civil unions. And I have a 'conservative' belief about biological facts like that mammals cannot change sex.

4) Ideological violence is a right wing issue. Left wing violence doesn't even compare.

I think the 100 million people who died under State violence in left-wing regimes might have something to say about that.

Related side note: Why are the right wing authoritarian followers in government in the US so opposed to investigating the left wing antifa insurrection at the Capitol on Jan 6?

I don't know. Ask somebody who is opposed to it.

 

[Metaphor]

But that wouldn't effectively equate left wingers with right wing authoritarianism, which is the goal of such "research."

Left wingers are not equated with RWAs. There is a constellation of traits that some left wingers have that puts them into the category LWA.

Well, except for the authoritarian part. I would say that is important to this attempt to spread the authoritarianism stink around so as not to stand out.

Non. Left wingers do and have used State and other systems of power to enforce their ideologies.

 

[Angry Floof]

Well, except for the authoritarian part. I would say that is important to this attempt to spread the authoritarianism stink around so as not to stand out.

Non. Left wingers do and have used State and other systems of power to enforce their ideologies.

Another rarity, and even within those you will find the elements of authoritarianism at work, not people challenging authority and power.

 

[Metaphor]

Well, except for the authoritarian part. I would say that is important to this attempt to spread the authoritarianism stink around so as not to stand out.

Non. Left wingers do and have used State and other systems of power to enforce their ideologies.

Another rarity, and even within those you will find the elements of authoritarianism at work, not people challenging authority and power.

Um, that's the point. Left wingers, some of whom are authoritarian.

 

[Angry Floof]

Irrelevant even if true. Nobody was trying to say they were exactly the same.

Very relevant because, yes, the claim here is that authoritarianism exists on the left to a significant degree. Why the fuck would you be posting research that said "Authoritarianism is rare on the left"? You could just post a link to The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer.

You are imputing motives to researchers and me that you have no evidence for.

Oh, there's plenty of evidence. But fair point. We can pretend that's not true and that your mentality and world view encourages you to self reflect and not need to project your inadequacies onto the people you've been conditioned to hate and fear and you totally hold a deep and genuine desire for the needs of every human to be met through cooperation and compassion rather than clinging to ancient animal brain "might is right" dick waving and competition as survival strategies for our species. Sure.

No matter how much bad behavior you can find among any group of any persuasion, right wing authoritarian followers are going to be at the top of the bad behavior list and any given right wing ideology can be correlated with that bad behavior and inhumane beliefs.

If true, so what, exactly?

So stop trying to pretend left wing ideology is authoritarian or violent. It's not. Put your money where your mouth is and condemn the right wing cult in the US because it is a national security threat and the source of tremendous violence and conflict.

Whatever violence or bad behavior you can attribute to left wing ideology or people, it will never be authoritarian because it is against authority and power, not on behalf of it, again, no matter how desperate anyone might be to twist reality to make left wing mean authoritarian.

So you are trying to define LWAs out of existence.

There was never any such thing. The A stands for authoritarian, and left wing ideology is not authoritarian in nature. I'm sorry if I spoke badly by saying "LWAs are rare" or some such language. The term "LWA" just means "RWAs on the left." Left wing ideology is not authoritarian in nature. Left wing means willingness to challenge authority and hold power accountable and protect the vulnerable among us. This is the opposite of authoritarianism. Why is this rocket science?

Jesus fuck. If you find "authoritarian traits" in some people claiming left wing ideological identity, you did not find "left wing authoritarianism." You just found someone of left wing ideological identity who shows authoritarian traits.

You cannot say the same for right wing authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is built into right wing ideologies. If it wasn't, they wouldn't be right wing. If right wing ideology did not value worshiping authority, not questioning authority, conformity, traditions, punishment mentality toward dissent and non conformity, it would be liberal ideology.

Left wing values lean toward holding power accountable no matter who they are and demanding that the least among us be protected and cared for no matter who they are. These are fundamental differences in world view, in cognitive and perceptive traits, in values, in principles, and in regard for humanity.

[quote

Second, nobody is trying to "make left wing mean authoritarian". Some researchers are exploring a constellation of traits that is present in some on the left that is analogous to a constellation of traits that is present in some on the right. Third, the idea that the left in general is against authority and power is an idea that can be entertained only by somebody firmly ensconced in the left and who has no capacity for self-reflection.

It's not analogous, though. It's not the same in either nature or intensity, and no amount of language gymnastics will make that magically not true.

Bob Altemeyer already clearly said what you are claiming to say and claiming that the researchers are saying.

Unless you are saying that authoritarianism exists on the left to a significant degree and left wing authoritarianism is a big problem for the world?

Because it's not, and when I say that, you try to come back with "but that's not what we're saying." Would you be posting this thread if you thought it only said what Altemeyer already said and was not some kind of challenge to Altemeyer's research? There is no real point of this thread if you're now trying to pretend that's what you meant all along and you just found the research interesting.

None of this so called research and nothing you have said challenges this reality in the least.

It is not so-called research. It is research that you disagree with even existing, apparently.

It is disingenuous at best. Trying to pretend that hierarchy, convention, tradition are not part and parcel to authority is disingenuous to put it politely. So saying someone is "anti" any of those things makes them the opposite of authoritarian. But of course you and the researchers know this because you are not blithering idiots. I disagree with you and they on many things, but I have no illusions that any of you are stupid.

Or would you like to explain to me how hierarchy, convention, and tradition are not cornerstones of authoritarianism or they're unrelated to authority so much so that willingness to oppose or challenge any of those things could somehow make someone an authoritarian?

I wonder how long it took them to find a way of saying anti-authoritarianism is authoritarian.

Sure, but they're still not authoritarian and they're still not more violent than right wing authoritarians and such extremes are not typical left wing views.

There are authoritarian leftists. There are leftists who wield the power of the State, and social censure, and corporate sponsorship, and academic capture, to enforce their beliefs and ideology.

Neither the authors, nor I, claimed they were 'typical'.

They're not even relevant to the problem of authoritarianism, and as I said, those examples you might find tend to rely on right wing strategies and elements when you look closer than a sound byte.

And if you can identify those elements that give rise to fascist authorities, you should be able to object to them regardless of where you find them or what ideals were exploited to get there. (Scientology is very left wing, liberal, and progressive on the surface, but they are absolutely a right wing authoritarian organization. That veneer of humane, inclusive values is for recruitment purposes.)

Of course not. You would never in a million years value inclusivity,

As somebody who has been an outsider in more than one context his entire life, I can guarantee you, you are wrong. But I do not value forcible inclusion. If there is a club that doesn't want me in it, I don't want to belong to that club, for example.

equality,

I value equality of opportunity, but I do not value equity. Individuals are not the same as each other and will not have the same outcomes.

Who believes that? I don't. I do believe in helping as many people as possible to achieve what they want and to have their needs met. That "you think eveyrone has to be exactly teh sames" strawman is getting old.

You expressing such humane values and principles would mean the proverbial hell freezing over.

Wow. You really really want to demonstrate the psychopathic meanness and nastiness the authors talked about, don't you?

Yeah, because being mean to you is the same as holding a world view that is inhumane toward you or that I would ever exclude you from the principles that I hold that include every human being. And I actually would not call you psychopathic, but if your world view does not place a high value on holding power accountable, then your world view is very comfortable and welcoming to abusive psychopaths. Just fyi.

Anyway, saying something you don't like on the internet doesn't make me a right wing authoritarian follower. You are really sounding desperate. I'm going to wrap this up and stop wasting time on you. You know you can't support your earlier claims and that's why you're not making them anymore. You're just dodging and weaving now, and resorting to name calling.

There are, but they are rare, and that is reality. And whatever bad behavior you want to attribute to leftists in general is not authoritarian in nature. Even if the exaggerated "anti-convention, anti-tradition, anti-hierarchy" narrative were reality, it would be in opposition to authoritarianism.

Non. There are leftists who have and do use power, from State power to other power hierarchies, to enforce their ideology on others.

Left wing ideology and world view in general opposes exactly that, as you know, and we typically condemn abusers instead of excusing and protecting them like right wing authoritarian followers do.

You and the researchers know this very well, and that is why you go to such back flipping pains to pretend that ideas of convention, tradition, and hierarchy have nothing to do with authority.

I haven't pretended anything. I presented some research about a constellation of traits in some left wing people that is analogous to a constellation of traits in some right wing people.

Except now you know that it's not analogous and that the researchers used language to make you think it is.

So one more time just in case I'm not clear:

1) RWAs do exist on the left but they are rare.

They're called LWAs.

By people who apparently don't know what "left wing" or "right wing" or "authoritarianism" mean.

2) "LWA" is a misnomer because whatever bad behavior you might actually find on the left is not authoritarian in nature except in the rarest extremes and not typical. What is typical of left wingers is condemning and purging such people, not excusing and protecting them.

The left wing part describes the political ideology of the authoritarians under question, not a claim about left wing ideology in general.

Whenever you say, "On the left," and "left wing," you are talking about left wing ideology. If you find some people who do not actually hold left wing ideology but who show authoritarian traits, then it's not "left wing authoritarianism." It's authoritarians claiming some left wing ideological identity.

Thanks for that confirmation. Also, did the researchers make that clear? That they are not claiming that there exists authoritarian traits on the left but that they are only correlated with people claiming left wing ideological identities and not left wing ideology in general? Because the thread title might suggest something different. By "left wing authoritarianism" having some problematic "outcomes," it sure sounds like more than just "they found some traits among..." blah, blah, blah (a repeat of what Altemeyer said).

3) The misnomer is intentional because RWAs

Now you are accusing the researchers, and me, of being RWAs. Evidence?

You're not???

need to paint their opposition in the same authoritarian light of their own faults and weaknesses because that's easier and more on-brand than just dealing with their issues. (Come on over to the left where we offer support and resources for helping you to deal with your fears rather than exploiting them to manipulate you. )

I am neither on the right nor the left, and I have never been.

Are you talking about traits or ideological identity? By the way, are you outraged and saddened by the behavior of right wing America right now?

4) Ideological violence is a right wing issue. Left wing violence doesn't even compare.

I think the 100 million people who died under State violence in left-wing regimes might have something to say about that.

Let's hear about them. Name them and identify their authoritarian traits and see if you can tie those to actual left wing ideology and not just people claiming left wing identity. (See previous comment about Scientology as well as your own comments about identity vs ideology)

Related side note: Why are the right wing authoritarian followers in government in the US so opposed to investigating the left wing antifa insurrection at the Capitol on Jan 6?

I don't know. Ask somebody who is opposed to it.

Well, that would be pretty much all of right wing America. Are you a Liz Cheney among them? If so, good for you for not being completely corrupt and void of conscience!

 

[Angry Floof]

Another rarity, and even within those you will find the elements of authoritarianism at work, not people challenging authority and power.

Um, that's the point. Left wingers, some of whom are authoritarian.

Again, left wing ideology or just identity without regard to the ideology?

 

[Metaphor]

Very relevant because, yes, the claim here is that authoritarianism exists on the left to a significant degree.

Not the claim at all. In fact, you don't even believe the very minor claim that it can exist at all.

Why the fuck would you be posting research that said "Authoritarianism is rare on the left"? You could just post a link to The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer.

Probably I posted some research about the existence of left wing authoritarianism precisely because there are people like you who will deny reality and define it out of existence. You know, like you are doing right now.

Oh, there's plenty of evidence. But fair point. We can pretend that's not true and that your mentality and world view encourages you to self reflect and not need to project your inadequacies onto the people you've been conditioned to hate and fear and you totally hold a deep and genuine desire for the needs of every human to be met through cooperation and compassion rather than clinging to ancient animal brain "might is right" dick waving and competition as survival strategies for our species. Sure.

No, Angry Floof. "We" will not pretend anything. You can go ahead and continue pretending things on your own.

So stop trying to pretend left wing ideology is authoritarian or violent.

I didn't make the claim or pretend it. I don't think right wing ideology is authoritarian or violent, either. But I do think there is a constellation of traits that people with either ideology can have that makes a subset of them authoritarians.

It's not. Put your money where your mouth is and condemn the right wing cult in the US because it is a national security threat and the source of tremendous violence and conflict.

Angry Floof, what is "the right wing cult"? Who do you want me to "condemn"?

There was never any such thing. The A stands for authoritarian, and left wing ideology is not authoritarian in nature. I'm sorry if I spoke badly by saying "LWAs are rare" or some such language. The term "LWA" just means "RWAs on the left." Left wing ideology is not authoritarian in nature. Left wing means willingness to challenge authority and hold power accountable and protect the vulnerable among us. This is the opposite of authoritarianism. Why is this rocket science?

Yes, I realise you want to define it out of existence.

Jesus fuck. If you find "authoritarian traits" in some people claiming left wing ideological identity, you did not find "left wing authoritarianism." You just found someone of left wing ideological identity who shows authoritarian traits.

Yeah, you did find it.

You cannot say the same for right wing authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is built into right wing ideologies.

Really? Am I right wing? Does that mean I am a right wing authoritarian?

If it wasn't, they wouldn't be right wing. If right wing ideology did not value worshiping authority, not questioning authority, conformity, traditions, punishment mentality toward dissent and non conformity, it would be liberal ideology.

So RWA is a redundant term?

It's not analogous, though. It's not the same in either nature or intensity, and no amount of language gymnastics will make that magically not true.

Yes, it is analogous. There are people with left wing ideology who are exactly as authoritarian, and who want to and do wield formal and informal power to impose their ideology on others.

Unless you are saying that authoritarianism exists on the left to a significant degree and left wing authoritarianism is a big problem for the world?

Well, left-wing authoritarianism killed about 100 million people in the 20th century. Does that count?

Because it's not, and when I say that, you try to come back with "but that's not what we're saying." Would you be posting this thread if you thought it only said what Altemeyer already said and was not some kind of challenge to Altemeyer's research?

The existence of LWA challenges the existences of RWA? Really?

There is no real point of this thread if you're now trying to pretend that's what you meant all along and you just found the research interesting.

I do love when other people, I don't want to call them authoritarian, decide what is best for me, what I should and should not post and what my motives are.

It is disingenuous at best. Trying to pretend that hierarchy, convention, tradition are not part and parcel to authority is disingenuous to put it politely. So saying someone is "anti" any of those things makes them the opposite of authoritarian.

Plenty of the left say it. Some might even mean it. But there are those on the left who eschew traditional hierarchies to replace them with their preferred hierarchies.

But of course you and the researchers know this because you are not blithering idiots. I disagree with you and they on many things, but I have no illusions that any of you are stupid.

Well, no, I don't see how 'tradition', for example, goes hand in hand with 'authoritarian'. Growing up, we had a tradition of a roast lunch on Christmas day, with the 'good' china (we were poor, our good china was shit). It was a tradition but I can hardly see what was authoritarian about it.

Or would you like to explain to me how hierarchy, convention, and tradition are not cornerstones of authoritarianism or they're unrelated to authority so much so that willingness to oppose or challenge any of those things could somehow make someone an authoritarian?

I'd prefer you didn't take it upon yourself to floofsplain things to me.

And if you can identify those elements that give rise to fascist authorities, you should be able to object to them regardless of where you find them or what ideals were exploited to get there. (Scientology is very left wing, liberal, and progressive on the surface, but they are absolutely a right wing authoritarian organization. That veneer of humane, inclusive values is for recruitment purposes.)

Yeah, we've already been here. You want to define LWA as a literal impossibility.

Who believes that?

Every single person who believes that groups should have the same outcomes as each other believes it.

I don't. I do believe in helping as many people as possible to achieve what they want and to have their needs met. That "you think eveyrone has to be exactly teh sames" strawman is getting old.

What gets old is you questioning my lived experience.

Yeah, because being mean to you is the same as holding a world view that is inhumane toward you

I didn't say they were the same.

Anyway, saying something you don't like on the internet doesn't make me a right wing authoritarian follower. You are really sounding desperate. I'm going to wrap this up and stop wasting time on you. You know you can't support your earlier claims and that's why you're not making them anymore. You're just dodging and weaving now, and resorting to name calling.

LOL. "MY earlier claims". You fashioned claims from whole cloth that you attributed to me and the researchers and now you are attacking me for not defending claims you made. Oy gevalt.

Left wing ideology and world view in general opposes exactly that, as you know,

I don't "know" anything of the kind.

Except now you know that it's not analogous and that the researchers used language to make you think it is.

I do not "know" any such thing. What I know is that you disagree with the researchers and want to define LWA out of existence.

By people who apparently don't know what "left wing" or "right wing" or "authoritarianism" mean.

I know what they mean. But you don't--if you think left wing ideology precludes authoritarianism. It doesn't--either in theory or praxis.

Whenever you say, "On the left," and "left wing," you are talking about left wing ideology. If you find some people who do not actually hold left wing ideology but who show authoritarian traits, then it's not "left wing authoritarianism." It's authoritarians claiming some left wing ideological identity.

LOL. Now they're only "claiming" it. No true LWA.

Thanks for that confirmation. Also, did the researchers make that clear? That they are not claiming that there exists authoritarian traits on the left but that they are only correlated with people claiming left wing ideological identities and not left wing ideology in general?

I gave you the paper reference about how political ideology was measured.

You're not???

I am neither right wing nor authoritarian.

Are you talking about traits or ideological identity?

What is a right wing trait?

I don't have a right wing ideological identity, but I don't know what you mean by that.

By the way, are you outraged and saddened by the behavior of right wing America right now?

Am I outraged and saddened by 50% of the population? No.

Let's hear about them. Name them and identify their authoritarian traits and see if you can tie those to actual left wing ideology and not just people claiming left wing identity. (See previous comment about Scientology as well as your own comments about identity vs ideology)

I'm not going to give you a history of the authoritarian communist atrocities visited upon people in the 20th century. You must know about them already.

Well, that would be pretty much all of right wing America.

Alright luv.

 

[Angry Floof]

Whatever you say, Meta. But anyone reading will know that you and your researchers are trying to pass off anti-authoritarianism as "authoritarian traits" as well as implying that left wing ideology is authoritarian in nature.

The thread title and the article title imply that there is such a thing as left wing authoritarianism, but you say that's only people saying their ideological identity is left wing, not that left wing ideology is authoritarian. And that's true, it isn't.

So did they find "left wing authoritarianism" or did they find authoritarians posing as left wing because, as you said, neither you nor the researchers are claiming left wing ideology in general is authoritarian?

In other words, what the research supposedly found is not at all analogous to right wing authoritarianism, where the ideology in general does reflect authoritarian elements, which makes it no surprise that Altemeyer called it right wing authoritarianism.

There is nothing ideological on the left that supports "left wing authoritarianism," and authoritarian traits are rare among leftists.

The ideology is not authoritarian and the number of people identifying as left wing who demonstrate authoritarian traits are few, a small number that doesn't come near to being analogous to people identifying as right wing who demonstrate authoritarian traits.

You have agreed to these points already, and so did Bob Altemeyer in his book, The Authoritarians.

The only thing different about this so called research is that they are trying to pass off anti-authoritarian traits and concepts as authoritarian when they are actually closer to the opposite.

There's nothing analogous, nothing comparable, just some disingenuous language and definitions, and you fell for it.

 

[Metaphor]

Whatever you say, Meta. But anyone reading will know that you and your researchers are trying to pass off anti-authoritarianism as "authoritarian traits" as well as implying that left wing ideology is authoritarian in nature.

Ah, sure AF. It is really quite pointless to engage with you. You impute imagined positions to me and then get upset at me for them.

The only thing different about this so called research is that they are trying to pass off anti-authoritarian traits and concepts as authoritarian when they are actually closer to the opposite.

No. They are saying, and they said it quite unambiguously, that there is a constellation of traits, including authoritarian beliefs, that exists in some people on the left.

There's nothing analogous, nothing comparable, just some disingenuous language and definitions, and you fell for it.

Of course I fell for it. I'm simultaneously a mindless automaton who believes everything my authority figures tell me, but I am also independently evil and cruel.

 

[Angry Floof]

Talk about imagined positions.

Meta, why not just post The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer? He already said what you and the article you posted claim to be saying once the insinuations and disingenuous language are cleared up.

 

[Metaphor]

Talk about imagined positions.

Meta, why not just post The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer? He already said what you and the article you posted claim to be saying once the insinuations and disingenuous language are cleared up.

How about I don't tell you what to post, and you don't tell me what to post?