• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

The only answer to authoritarianism is democracy.

Those that bad mouth democracy and try to make it harder to vote are authoritarians.

What the US needs is democracy and more democracy.

Especially in the workplace.
Those that try to run other people's lives are authoritarians. Employee-owned workplaces are legal in the US. If you and some other like-minded workers want to set up a business that works that way, go for it. But in an anticapitalist country, if somebody wants a normal job working for a private for-profit business, he'll be stopped by government -- wait for it -- authority.
 
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.
Even if you were to succeed in proving that, it would just reflects the worse on you. Are you really the one person in a million? You don't actually come off as all that atypical.

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.
Well, kudos to you for not trying to stop your own authoritarianism stink from standing out from the overall background level among left-wingers.

(For the benefit of those unfamiliar with AF's political views, she advocates "dismantling" the NRA. She wants to do away with NRA members' right to free speech and free association because "They are not butterfly collectors. They're not the Cincinnati Ladies' Auxiliary." She argues as though the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect people's right to say whatever she has no objection to, and somehow she infers that she's not an authoritarian. :rolleyes: )
 
(For the benefit of those unfamiliar with AF's political views, she advocates "dismantling" the NRA. She wants to do away with NRA members' right to free speech and free association because "They are not butterfly collectors. They're not the Cincinnati Ladies' Auxiliary." She argues as though the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect people's right to say whatever she has no objection to, and somehow she infers that she's not an authoritarian. :rolleyes: )

Fucking hell. Angry Floof is just as bad as Stalin then!

Wait, I just realised I'm not a fucking moron and just realised this type of hyperbolic rhetoric kinda shows how benign left wing authoritarianism is today.
 
The only answer to authoritarianism is democracy.

Those that bad mouth democracy and try to make it harder to vote are authoritarians.

What the US needs is democracy and more democracy.

Especially in the workplace.
Those that try to run other people's lives are authoritarians. Employee-owned workplaces are legal in the US. If you and some other like-minded workers want to set up a business that works that way, go for it. But in an anticapitalist country, if somebody wants a normal job working for a private for-profit business, he'll be stopped by government -- wait for it -- authority.

That is merely saying if people want dictatorship that is fine with you.

It isn't fine with me.

I oppose that immoral human arrangement.

In all it's forms.
 
... Angry Floof is just as bad as Stalin then!

Wait, I just realised I'm not a ... moron and just realised this type of hyperbolic rhetoric kinda shows how benign left wing authoritarianism is today.
I.e., what it takes for a leftist to recognize authoritarianism in his own side of the political spectrum is killing twenty million people. Merely restricting civil liberties to only the people who agree with him? Move along, nothing to see here.
 
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?

That was rhetoric, Metaphor. That's when there's a point to make in the statement or question and it's not to be taken literally.

Once your (and the researchers') claims and insinuations are cleared of bait-and-switch language and examined more closely, they say nothing new on the subject.

Frankly, I'm glad there's a continuing effort to examine and falsify Altemeyer's work and the work that preceded him. I've been actively looking for challenges since 2008. But this effort is not a genuine effort and offers nothing of new insights or truths about authoritarianism.
 
That is merely saying if people want dictatorship that is fine with you.
No. A normal workplace is not a dictatorship. The circumstance that you irrationally make believe that it is one does not magically cause me to be saying dictatorship is fine with me.

It isn't fine with me.

I oppose that immoral human arrangement.
And for some bizarre reason you imagine this makes you a different kind of life-form from a run-of-the-mill Christian fundamentalist who isn't fine with gay sex and opposes that "immoral" human arrangement.

In all it's forms.
Arbitrarily labeling whichever arrangement other people make with one another "dictatorship" doesn't change the reality that you're the one who means to dictate to them whether they're allowed to live the way they prefer. You do not oppose dictatorship. You are perfectly fine with a dictatorship of you.

And, apparently, you are also perfectly fine with a dictatorship of the proletariat. As I recall, you're a fan of the Spanish Anarchists. They were in the habit of seizing workplaces, shooting the old bosses, telling the workers to elect new bosses, holding the elections while standing around packing pistols, and conducting the elections without secret ballots.
 
... Angry Floof is just as bad as Stalin then!

Wait, I just realised I'm not a ... moron and just realised this type of hyperbolic rhetoric kinda shows how benign left wing authoritarianism is today.
I.e., what it takes for a leftist to recognize authoritarianism in his own side of the political spectrum is killing twenty million people. Merely restricting civil liberties to only the people who agree with him? Move along, nothing to see here.
Oh, are we back to selling cakes to all comers being authoritarianism?
 
... Angry Floof is just as bad as Stalin then!

Wait, I just realised I'm not a ... moron and just realised this type of hyperbolic rhetoric kinda shows how benign left wing authoritarianism is today.
I.e., what it takes for a leftist to recognize authoritarianism in his own side of the political spectrum is killing twenty million people. Merely restricting civil liberties to only the people who agree with him? Move along, nothing to see here.
Oh, are we back to selling cakes to all comers being authoritarianism?

Common Jimmy, I think you already know that all men are created equal except any that want a gender transition cake. How authoritarian of you to expect otherwise.
 
The op and follow-up attacks on posters here in the forum don't make any sense at all. We've all taken the political compass and all of the left-leaning persons in the forum are in the left, pro-liberty quadrant. Likewise, most of the right-wingers are in the right pro-liberty quadrant, though it's possible some are in the authoritarian right quadrant, I don't remember seeing that. When you look at western countries such as UK, US, Australia, most politicians are following along that diagonal from left liberty quadrant up to right authoritarian quadrant. No one in the forum has been criticizing the political compass in the past and so trying to do it now just as a means to support these nonsense attacks would be very politically biased and obvious.
 
The op and follow-up attacks on posters here in the forum don't make any sense at all. We've all taken the political compass and all of the left-leaning persons in the forum are in the left, pro-liberty quadrant. Likewise, most of the right-wingers are in the right pro-liberty quadrant, though it's possible some are in the authoritarian right quadrant, I don't remember seeing that. When you look at western countries such as UK, US, Australia, most politicians are following along that diagonal from left liberty quadrant up to right authoritarian quadrant. No one in the forum has been criticizing the political compass in the past and so trying to do it now just as a means to support these nonsense attacks would be very politically biased and obvious.

Right wing authoritarianism isn't just a place on a spectrum. It's the human nature behind the spectrum. The more closed minded you are, the more right wing you tend to be. The more fearful you are, of change, of Other, of new ideas, etc., the more right wing you tend to be. And that's the mentality that is ok with dehumanizing the Other. The more you want to or have been conditioned to obey authority without question, the more right wing you tend to be. Etc.

It should be obvious how such minds will be easy to manipulate for right wing leader types (same general us vs. them world view, but obey no authority but themselves, like Trump, for example) to use as they please. Also very easy for such leaders to justify sending those followers off to kill people, whether in organized "legal" war or just zealous violence against whoever the leader has identified as the enemy.

Given the right conditions for a long enough time, anyone can end up in that mindset regardless of where they started. But when you don't start out with that right wing mentality I mentioned above, and your world view and mentality are more open, less fearful, more concerned with making sure everyone is taken care of and not just you and yours, more open to new experiences and different cultures, more willing to question authority, the less likely you will end up being ok with extreme right wing us. vs. them violence even in times of fear and unrest.

Even if the left can be bat shit crazy in its extremes, and it can, trying to find an equivalent to right wing authoritarianism among leftists is not just futile and stupid, it's a distraction from whatever problems may well arise on the left and especially distracts from the problem of right wing authoritarianism.
 
... Angry Floof is just as bad as Stalin then!

Wait, I just realised I'm not a ... moron and just realised this type of hyperbolic rhetoric kinda shows how benign left wing authoritarianism is today.
I.e., what it takes for a leftist to recognize authoritarianism in his own side of the political spectrum is killing twenty million people. Merely restricting civil liberties to only the people who agree with him? Move along, nothing to see here.

I didn't realise commies under the bed is still a thing. Personally, I would be willing to sacrifice my civil liberties if I had the same influence and tax freedoms a non-profit organization (please stop laughing) like the NRA.
 
... Angry Floof is just as bad as Stalin then!

Wait, I just realised I'm not a ... moron and just realised this type of hyperbolic rhetoric kinda shows how benign left wing authoritarianism is today.
I.e., what it takes for a leftist to recognize authoritarianism in his own side of the political spectrum is killing twenty million people. Merely restricting civil liberties to only the people who agree with him? Move along, nothing to see here.
Oh, are we back to selling cakes to all comers being authoritarianism?
Why did you write that?

As you know perfectly well, what we are "back to" is that prohibiting AF's political opponents from organizing politically to speak out in favor of gun rights, urge politicians to support gun rights, and rile up voters to defeat politicians who they feel oppose gun rights, is authoritarianism. And I support gun control. People who disagree with me and AF on a controversial issue do not thereby magically lose their equal right to participate in the political process. That's not in the same league with disputes over cake discrimination. This is not rocket science*.

But as far as selling cakes to all comers goes, who here has been accused of authoritarianism for advocating selling cakes to all comers? As you know perfectly well if you followed the cake thread, untermensche and Jarhyn were quite explicit and open about NOT advocating selling cakes to all comers. They demand that the government practice viewpoint discrimination in favor of their own ideology, same as every other species of theocrat.

(* Pax, Gospel.)
 
I didn't realise commies under the bed is still a thing.
You're the one who brought up commies, not I; so take your strawman and stuff it.

Personally, I would be willing to sacrifice my civil liberties if I had the same influence and tax freedoms a non-profit organization (please stop laughing) like the NRA.
Your option. It's being willing to sacrifice other people's civil liberties that makes one an authoritarian.
 
It's being willing to sacrifice other people's civil liberties that makes one an authoritarian.

No, it isn't. As a general definition and as a social science and poli science term, that's not what the word authoritarian means.

When your country's government does succumb to authoritarianism, you can bet a lot of civil liberties will be stripped, and we just narrowly avoided succumbing to an authoritarian administration, though it left enough damage that our democracy could yet possibly not recover.

Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of a strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting.

Sound familiar? Hint: it's not the current administration in the U.S. that can be characterized this way. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom