• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The growing left-wing authoritarianism among Millenials

They are kids being kids. They'll grow out of it.

What is most frightening about it is precisely that they are not being "kids". For one, they are voting adults.

They are in their 20s acting like people do in their 20s.

They get more conservative and less tolerant of speech they disagree with as they get older
This has been shown to be false. People generally grow more tolerant of others but retain their ideas.

Odds are that this 40%
Those Las Vegas odds? Or Margie from the office Powerball pool?

violate liberties you find distasteful.
Which liberties are those?
 
That's why they're called the regressive left. Scratch a social justice warrior, reveal an authoritarian.

Oh, Truasti: and just what are you? People without any sense of social justice make statements like you just made. I suppose it is to be expected and the 1st amendment allows you to do that, but is it really wise?
 
That's why they're called the regressive left. Scratch a social justice warrior, reveal an authoritarian.

Oh, Truasti: and just what are you? People without any sense of social justice make statements like you just made. I suppose it is to be expected and the 1st amendment allows you to do that, but is it really wise?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Responsibility

I've always loved this idea. If I win the Powerball jackpot it will be built.
 
A word on authoritarianism

There have been a number of other attempts to identify "left-wing authoritarians" in the United States and Canada. These would be people who submit to leftist authorities, are highly conventional to liberal viewpoints, and are aggressive to people who oppose left-wing ideology. These attempts have failed because measures of authoritarianism always correlate at least slightly with the right. However, left-wing authoritarians were found in Eastern Europe [20] There are certainly extremists across the political spectrum, but most psychologists now believe that authoritarianism is a predominantly right-wing phenomenon.[21]

Although authoritarians in North America generally support conservative political parties, this finding must be considered in a historical and cultural context. For example, during the Cold War, authoritarians in the United States were usually anti-communist, whereas in the Soviet Union, authoritarians generally supported the Communist Party and were opposed to capitalism.[22] Thus, authoritarians generally favor the established ways and oppose social and political change. Hence, even politics usually labeled as right or left-wing is not descriptive. While Communism in the Soviet Union is seen as leftist, it still inspired the same responses. Furthermore, recent research indicates that political progressives can exhibit the qualities of authoritarianism when they are asked about conservative Christians.[23] This leaves questions over what makes various ideologies left or right open to interpretation.[citation needed]

According to Karen Stenner, an Australian professor who specializes in authoritarianism, racism and intolerance, authoritarianism is different from conservatism because authoritarianism reflects aversion to difference across space (i.e., diversity of people and beliefs at any given moment), while conservatism reflects aversion to difference over time (i.e., change). Conservatives, Stenner argues, will embrace racial diversity, civil liberties and moral freedom to the extent they are already institutionalized authoritatively-supported traditions, and are therefore supportive of social stability. Conservatives tend to be drawn to authoritarianism when public opinion is fractious and there is a loss of confidence in public institutions, but in general they value stability and certainty over increased uniformity. Authoritarians however, Stenner says, want difference restricted even when so doing would require significant social change and instability.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism#Right_and_Left
 
Nonsense.

Bullies will always find ways to justify their bullying.

Even with lies like these.

People can be seriously harmed by the words of others. That is a fact.
Prove it. Explain in detail how sound waves from a human's voice harms another person. Or how letters arranged in a certain sequence harms someone if their eyes view those words.

What would constitute proof?

Humans have a psychology and some are more prone to being harmed than others.

But it is ridiculous to claim humans can't be harmed by threats and intimidation and abuse, even if it is only in the form of verbal behavior.

That is the claim that needs some support.
 
Left wing authoritarianism?

Seriously?

Every time Trump says something more fascist, his poll numbers go up, but liberals are the ones who are authoritarian because we criticize Trump and criticize people who agree with Trump. Good grief.
 
Left wing authoritarianism?

Seriously?

Every time Trump says something more fascist, his poll numbers go up, but liberals are the ones who are authoritarian because we criticize Trump and criticize people who agree with Trump. Good grief.
And we oppress people by letting transgender people choose which bathroom to use.

- - - Updated - - -

Left wing authoritarianism?

Seriously?

Every time Trump says something more fascist, his poll numbers go up, but liberals are the ones who are authoritarian because we criticize Trump and criticize people who agree with Trump. Good grief.
And we oppress people by letting transgender people choose which bathroom to use.
 
I think a lot of people fail to realize what living in a non-democratic country would be like. Unfortunately, there's far too many people (and rising) that think that democracy is not a good way to run a country, both on the right and left. Especially among young people.

From the linked article:
For Americans born in the 1930s, living in a democracy holds virtually sacred importance. Asked on a scale of 1 to 10 how important it is to them to live in a democracy, more than 70 percent give the highest answer. But many of their children and grandchildren are lukewarm. Among millennials — those born since the 1980s — fewer than 30 percent say that living in a democracy is essential.

Also:
Most Americans are still horrified by the idea of living in an authoritarian regime, but the number of citizens who are open to some form of illiberal rule is going up. One of the most striking shifts we have seen concerns the number of Americans who think it would be a "good" or "very good" thing to "have the army rule." Twenty years ago, when the World Values Survey first asked this question, one in 15 Americans agreed with this sentiment. Today it's one in six.

The article also shows how this is not simply an American phenomenon, but a global one.
 
Correlation != causation.

The percentages may very well be because of less life experience, instead of being born a certain year.


????? Of course, the particular number of the birth year has nothing causally to do with it!! Where did you get that from?

I agree, it is their "experiences", among which includes the experience of being raised in a culture of whining, victimhood, and manufactured outrage, where the free expression of ideas is attacked and devalued.

Are you trying to say that maybe it is just that they have had less life experience and they will become more liberal and accepting of free speech when they get older?
All other research suggest just the opposite, that they will only get more intolerant of others speech, which is an aspect of authoritarian conservatism that increases with age.

In addition, the fact that the support for censorship is tied to specific types of speech (that which offends minorities) and that support is much stronger among Democrats and among women, suggests it is not tied to length of life experiences but rather tied to the specific kinds of socialization that relates to whether a Millenial identifies as "liberal" or "Dem" (even though censorship is the definitional anti-thesis of true liberalism).
I completely disagree. My children have grown up with so much hate speech, negative political ads, mudslinging, religious nutters, etc etc etc. To be honest, they are SICK OF IT. They're at a point where if human decency cannot prevail, then just 'make it illegal'. Granted this isn't thought out, but I completely understand their reactionary response.
 
Prove it. Explain in detail how sound waves from a human's voice harms another person. Or how letters arranged in a certain sequence harms someone if their eyes view those words.

What would constitute proof?

Humans have a psychology and some are more prone to being harmed than others.

But it is ridiculous to claim humans can't be harmed by threats and intimidation and abuse, even if it is only in the form of verbal behavior.

That is the claim that needs some support.
I believe the UK just added mental and verbal abuse as criminal acts against women. It's no longer just physical abuse.
 
I believe the UK just added mental and verbal abuse as criminal acts against women. It's no longer just physical abuse.
Only against women? So when a woman is verbally abusive against a man that's a-ok?

Again, typical sexist double standards in our society.
 
I believe the UK just added mental and verbal abuse as criminal acts against women. It's no longer just physical abuse.
Only against women? So when a woman is verbally abusive against a man that's a-ok?

Again, typical sexist double standards in our society.
Hold your outrage.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35192256
Domestic abusers who control victims via social media or spy on them online could face up to five years in prison under a new law which is now in force.
The legislation will target those who subject spouses, partners and family members to psychological and emotional torment but stop short of violence.
 
Hold your outrage.
I wonder why Playball chose to explicitly say "against women". Perhaps in practice women are never charged with it due to sexist attitudes among police and courts, similar as with actual physical abuse.

That's a different issue. The law was neutral in it's language, enforcement might not be.



_____________________________
PS: My challenge is still out there Derec:
https://secure.innocenceproject.org/donate/2015-holiday?source_campaign=701A0000000TQZC
 
????? Of course, the particular number of the birth year has nothing causally to do with it!! Where did you get that from?

I agree, it is their "experiences", among which includes the experience of being raised in a culture of whining, victimhood, and manufactured outrage, where the free expression of ideas is attacked and devalued.

Are you trying to say that maybe it is just that they have had less life experience and they will become more liberal and accepting of free speech when they get older?
All other research suggest just the opposite, that they will only get more intolerant of others speech, which is an aspect of authoritarian conservatism that increases with age.

In addition, the fact that the support for censorship is tied to specific types of speech (that which offends minorities) and that support is much stronger among Democrats and among women, suggests it is not tied to length of life experiences but rather tied to the specific kinds of socialization that relates to whether a Millenial identifies as "liberal" or "Dem" (even though censorship is the definitional anti-thesis of true liberalism).
I completely disagree. My children have grown up with so much hate speech, negative political ads, mudslinging, religious nutters, etc etc etc. To be honest, they are SICK OF IT. They're at a point where if human decency cannot prevail, then just 'make it illegal'. Granted this isn't thought out, but I completely understand their reactionary response.

Nearly all people currently under 30 grew up with far far less insulting, racist, sexist, bigoted language than prior generations. Even within politics, systematic analyses of political discourse, including campaign rhetoric, shows that hateful and dishonest mudslinging has been at least or more prevalent in the preceding centuries than it is today.
So that cannot possibly be an explanation for the growing support of authoritarian censorship.

The fact is that non-authoritarian, "organic" social progress and evolution has tempered bigoted and hateful rhetoric in public discourse. Despite this progress, the recent generation demands use of force to silence ideas they don't feel people should have. This is likely rooted in arrogant impatience, lack of respect for the importance of principles required for long-term progress and protection from malevolent use of power, and being socialized to be incapable of handling their own negative emotions in a healthy way. This latter point is tied to kids being socialized to run and tell an authority every time anyone hurts their feelings, so the authority can intervene, which is supported by reports from University counselling centers across the country being inundated with students who come crying to them and seeking fucking therapy for being spoken rudely to by their roommate and other similarly meaningless "insults" that any non emotionally unstable child, let alone adult, should be able handle without intervention or at least only by consulting their friends and peers about it.
 
I completely disagree. My children have grown up with so much hate speech, negative political ads, mudslinging, religious nutters, etc etc etc. To be honest, they are SICK OF IT. They're at a point where if human decency cannot prevail, then just 'make it illegal'. Granted this isn't thought out, but I completely understand their reactionary response.

Nearly all people currently under 30 grew up with far far less insulting, racist, sexist, bigoted language than prior generations. Even within politics, systematic analyses of political discourse, including campaign rhetoric, shows that hateful and dishonest mudslinging has been at least or more prevalent in the preceding centuries than it is today.
So that cannot possibly be an explanation for the growing support of authoritarian censorship.
We've seen an explosion in race related hatred in the last 7 years. A bunch more than I remember as a kid/teen in the 80's / 90's.
 
Nearly all people currently under 30 grew up with far far less insulting, racist, sexist, bigoted language than prior generations. Even within politics, systematic analyses of political discourse, including campaign rhetoric, shows that hateful and dishonest mudslinging has been at least or more prevalent in the preceding centuries than it is today.
So that cannot possibly be an explanation for the growing support of authoritarian censorship.
We've seen an explosion in race related hatred in the last 7 years. A bunch more than I remember as a kid/teen in the 80's / 90's.

Ever heard of this thing called the internet?
 
We've seen an explosion in race related hatred in the last 7 years. A bunch more than I remember as a kid/teen in the 80's / 90's.
Ever heard of this thing called the internet?
Yeah, that hasn't helped much to quell the rise of racial related hatred. It has turned into a massive circle jerk of ignorant fucks who have now normalized their views and are quite vocal about not liking niggers.... I'm sorry, I mean "thugs".
 
Back
Top Bottom