Authoritarian LEADERS/Social Dominants/Both (Now with Colors and Fonts!) by Niki2

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Authoritarian LEADERS/Social Dominants/Both (Now with Colors and Fonts!)

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 17:02
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2443
PAGE 2 of 2

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 9:56 AM

Heya DT,

I get the feeling I really shouldn't try to be funny with you. Every time I try to lighten things up, you think I'm snarking. "Waa, boo-hoo" was expressive of my own sadness that you took my remarks so personally--I intended it as whimsical kind of self-deprecation but I was sincere. I know: fail.

My "winning the interwebz" was not about beating you at anything, it wasn't really directed at you, particularly. It was a reference to a lot of people lately--Niki, Kwicko, others--talking about "typing awards" and such. It was mostly expressive of my own self-consciousness at being so wordy.

So, I'll try not to be funny. I'll try.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
1. doesn't matter how people intend a word to mean, it matters what they actually do.

I get the feeling here that you may believe that language is wholly separate from reality--referring to reality but not expressive of reality? I've known linguists who thought that way. I don't think that way. I think language is connected to certain archetypal meanings--I think there are true meanings and less true meanings determined by the collective unconscious of humankind, if you will. I hope you don't think that's silly.

When I was little, I leaned that "love" meant manipulation and control, because such a definition was consistent with my parents' actions. When I grew up and after a bunch of therapy I leaned what "love" really means. I think meaning is highly influenced by context, but not determined by it.

Quote:
2. i humbly suggest not latching yourself to a political side, these are sinking stones, and alienate 1/2 the population at least. Election results in any country where communists run (and Chavez isn't arming them) indicate that this allegiance will alienate 96% of the population. In china it's law, and so you won't alienate anyone.

Y'know, DT, you and I HAVE been hanging out here for years and yet in these last few posts from you I've gotten a lot this friendly advice as if you're writing "Letters to a Young Internet Gladiator." I've spent years here specifically not latching myself to a political side. Specifically, as you say, learning "to talk the talk of all political viewpoints." But in the years since the 9/11 attacks I've seen the right discredit itself more and more each day and I've seen the left take tiny but incremental steps toward political relevance. And I've become extremely interested in the connections between psychology and politics. So my rhetoric, my allegiance, if you like, has shifted slightly. I'm okay with that for now.

Quote:
4. Egalitarianism is a leftist value. Unlike PWL, it requires totalitarian control to take it to the logical conclusion. Nature is by nature, unequal. Equality is an artificial opposition. Absolute equality requires absolute control.

This one is just way, way out there for me. Wow. Says a lot about how you view the left. I absolutely see NO logic in your conclusion. Equality to me is fundamentally an issue of respect and compassion, it is individual and thoroughly respects individual rights. The freakin' moment you start to force your notion of "equality" on another person, respect goes out the window, compassion is long gone, and your invasive actions have trumped any lip service you may have formerly given to "equality."

You obviously don't believe in equality. You obviously find a belief in equality irrational, unnatural--fundamentally corrupt, y'know, in terms of reason and logic (what were you saying about making an enemy of 1/2 the world?). So, I understand why you think communism should be defined by the Stalins and Lenins of the world--you don't see them in any kind of conflict with leftist ideals. Yikes.

God yes, communism is a flawed ideology, if for no other reason than that such monsters have been able to twist it so readily to their ends. I'm a big fan of Nietzsche, but, in the wrong hands...oopsy!

I thank my lucky stars they didn't call themselves the Anarchist Party.

Quote:
7. Why would communists quote neocons? That would be like Ahmadinejad quoting Bin Laden.

Um, you were sayin' that the neocons were socialists and I meant to say that no socialist I've ever met would agree with you. If you asked one, I'm sure she'd get a really disgusted look in her face and spit back, "Are you fucking kidding me? They're god damn fascists!" (Sorry, was tryin' not to get funny but--no excuse really, I just find communists funny.) I doubt Ahmadinejad would have such choice words for OBL.

Quote:
8. The neocons didn't *change* as people. They changed their tactics.

That's why I would never call them socialists. But you and I REALLY don't agree on what a socialist is.

Quote:
If you were to have your idyllic communal collectivist society, I can tell you already what the result would be:

1. It would be more efficient, because you wouldn't produce excess (why does every human need a motorized transportation device? Or their own washing machine?)

2. It would be less competitive. Competition is the birthplace of innovation, because it forces artificial necessity.

We don't need to guess, these societies exist all over the world and have for as long as there were people, the closest one to here is not 20 miles away. They're just about all right wing religious societies, but they uphold the ideas you're talking about. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just a glimpse into what it would be like.

Jesus Moroni! Wow. Presume much? You know I'm not a Communist, right? And if you can't see the difference between a cult and a peaceful, egalitarian community then, good golly, as Niki says: we will abso-freakin'-lootly need to agree to disagree.

Quote:
They even have us calling them conservative, something they didn't claim to be initially, they still don't talk the talk very well. I mean, Rummy and Cheney up there talking about family values? Give me a break. That's like Kerry on a goose hunt or Bush singing Kumbaya.

It's always a pleasure when our perspectives overlap like this.

Quote:
Still, I think as I said there's some good footwork here, but he carries his theories way too far.

Yeah, I can see where you're coming with that. I see his work in two halves. The fascinating studies he's done and his using that study to make some pretty sweeping statements about folk he's never studied. But I can surely see where he's coming from, even when it veers from the scientific method.

Quote:
I think Altmeyer is trying to explain Bush, but bringing a lot of baggage, which clouds his conclusions. My explanation of Bush would start with Bush is a frat boy who never did anything but get stoned and drunk, and if you want more sophisticated decisions than those two, you'll have to look at other people, not deeper into Bush.

Well, that's the thing. What you're saying is that he is largely unconscious, prey to the very anti-social and grandiose delusions of an addict--also easily manipulated, childish. Addicts are not manipulated into respect and compassion--they are manipulated into corruption and denial and expanding their abuses. I don't see that you and Altmeyer are really that far apart in principle here. I see where you diverge is largely a matter of rhetoric and political convictions.

Quote:
Re: Definitions.

The reason I say that a word is defined by how it was used is partly because I study linguistics, and this is the way non-loaded words get their meaning. Today, we would never use "profession" to mean someone's allegiance to the church, nor penitentiary to mean a place in a church where people go to confess their sins.

You surely would if you were Catholic, dude!

I think your linguistic theories haven't reconciled themselves to what the Internet is doing to language--even as we speak. You can't make those kinds of sweeping statements about what "we would never" mean, because the "we" we find on the Internet is too vast. What we can do, need to do, is try to understand our differences. Catholics use words in such-and-such a way, Leftists use words in such-and-such a way, etc. When you tell me that communism doesn't mean what communists say it means, I think you're trying to colonize me (you know, in the feminist sense of the word)--or at least, colonize the communists. Language now, more than ever, must be post-colonial. We need to broaden our definitions, not narrow them. Or so I think.

Quote:
The other reason I would cite is that how words have been used in reality is the only thing we can all agree on. I mean, if we look too competing speculations of what a word might be intended to be used, we'll never communicate.

But, but, but--how words have been used in reality cannot be agreed on if you discount the way this or that community uses words! You think language is some kind of majority rule phenomenon? Good luck with that.

Quote:
Anyway, yes you can apply these words how you want, but you run the risk of being misunderstood. If you apply them historically, you're pretty safe.

We ALWAYS run the risk of being misunderstood. History is written by the winners, man. Does that mean the language of those on the losing side is null and void? (Malcolm Reynolds and the so-called "Alliance" ring any bells?) You're sounding very Orwellian here, and not in a good way. Should minority languages just be lost down the memory hole?

Quote:
I would disagree on anarchy. Conservatives favor limited govt. Taken to the extreme that would be no govt. But left and right aren't important, it's a game they play with us.

You talk as if it's all some kind of lovely sliding scale that moves uninterrupted from Barry Goldwater to Peter Kropotkin based on "amount of government desired." It doesn't work like that. There are fundamental beliefs that make conservatism and anarchism incompatible. Just as conservatism doesn't mean people who believe in hording food, so philosophical anarchism is not simply lack of government. You know better than that. But maybe you believe the court of public opinion has decided that anarchism means Somalia and I'm a fool.

It is my observation that the more authoritarian one becomes in one's thinking, the further right that person is likely to be in their political views. Similarly, the deeper a person's non-authoritarian thinking goes, the more generous, communal, and civil libertarian they become. There's an ocean of wiggle room in the middle, of course.

Quote:
is speculation based on speculation until you have a theory which is all theory. Should one day one brick prove not to be entirely in place than the whole thing falls apart. I prefer to take it slower, step by step, make sure everything is solidly based and proven by reality before going on.

One man's speculation is another man's daily experience. I perceive that society as a whole behaves, in aggregate, not unlike an individual psychological entity. In principle I see the mechanisms that influence individual psychology are present in larger communities. Much of modern psychology is based on this principle and Alice Miller, in particular, has researched this and explicated it brilliantly. You may disagree, but don't go dismissing me out of hand when you kinda clearly don't know what I'm talking about. Maybe Frem can help us out here with some URL's and such.

Quote:
I can clear up the white supremacist connection:
Lew Rockwell.

I thought you might be able to do that for me. I like your spin on the Rockwell thing, I'm not quite as convinced as you, but I'd like to think that's how it went down. If Dr. Paul had gotten the nomination I presume he'd have been called to account for that crap more directly than I've seen him do. Thanks.

Quote:
2 hours to respond. Ouch. Okay, there was breakfast in the middle of that, and a computer crash. Is there a cure for FFF addiction?

Just say no?

I appreciate the care you put into your replies here, and your goodwill. I think we're engaging in something extremely vital and important, socially, something that's never been done on such a scale ever in our history--we're co-creating the language of the future, post by post.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 10:02 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Just, as an idea...

Our so called "leaders" were never supposed to be such...

They were going to be our "representatives".

We don't need "leaders".

Unless we are at war... and then THEY should be the first into battle.

But, thats just me. I may be wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 10:33 AM

BYTEMITE

I'm coming into the middle of an argument here, which is probably a futile endeavor, but oh well. I've noticed a couple of things here as I've watched you and DT present your cases.

I think your phrasing HAS accidentally made DT think that you are communist.

But he's got a point, too, HK. Communism may not have originally necessarily meant a strong centralized government, and rather communes, as you say, but in the modern times, I think when someone talks about a communist system, even folks on the left see it that way.

Now, don't get me wrong, because I empathize with the renaming of it, I do. For a little less than a decade now, I've felt that the best system of government is at a local level in small communities, with a heavy dose of cooperation, and no major overlying structure. By your definition, that'd be communist, yeah, and those would be communes? But the thing is, language is fluid, as you yourself are arguing. I identified as a communist about five years ago for the very reasons that you state, HOWEVER, I found a better way to describe myself, one that doesn't have any competing meanings in the mainstream language and so which better describes my position on preferring a lack of government.

Quote:
Similarly, the deeper a person's non-authoritarian thinking goes, the more generous, communal, and civil libertarian they become.

This is where you and I part ways, because I don't see authoritarian thinking as a primarily right trait. And I doesn't see generosity as a primarily left trait, and YES, I'm AWARE of the dictionary definition of liberal. I see this as a false division. I'm an atheist, and I live in Utah, but I can say, without feeling like my atheism or my political perspective is threatened, that the religious right can be very generous, even to people outside their group.

My belief is you can't just paint a broad stroke over a group of people, or even a person in particular. Every person has different ways where they'll fall on a particular issue. You can be authoritarian AND generous AND libertarian. It just depends what the topic is.

Where's Frem? I say we insert the "Plays by rules/Does not play by rules" and "Nice person/prick" political spectrum chart into this dialogue. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 10:48 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Where's Frem? I say we insert the "Plays by rules/Does not play by rules" and "Nice person/prick" political spectrum chart into this dialogue. :)

Will this do?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 10:53 AM

BYTEMITE

That works, yep. I think that originally the other chart was developed as a simplification of the alignment system, but I find it hilarious and true to life applying it to politics. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 11:08 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Nature is by nature, unequal. Equality is an artificial opposition. Absolute equality requires absolute control. ... It would be less competitive."

This is a strange dualism, and false to boot.

Are infants equal to adults ? Are the old and infirm equal in strength to the young and fit ?

How then do infants survive, given they are so unequal ? After all, in a purely competitive world the only 'natural' thing for them to do is die. Why then should older people be allowed to exist ? What would their value be ? (I would propose wisdom, but that is not a MATERIAL benefit.)

The proper duality isn't equality v competition.

It's cooperation v competition. And cooperation has it ALL over competition ... any day. Cooperation is how you achieve important things like survival of young and access to perspective, despite demonstrable material inequality.

"Competition is the birthplace of innovation, because it forces artificial necessity."

Somehow, I don't think fire, the bowl, language, writing, tool use, agriculture and other major human advances came about b/c of competition. And really, with all the serious and pressing SURVIVAL issues facing humanity today, I don't think we need artificial necessities. There are too many real ones already.

But in a general vein - what have competition and hierarchies gotten us ?

50% of the world lives on less than $2.50 per day.

Resources are being used up to make cheap goods that will be trash tomorrow - all to fuel the cycle of spending so that a very few somebodies make a profit.

Is this sustainable ? Is this sane ? Is this something you want to see continue into the future ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 12:10 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Niki

Quote:
I, like most people nowadays, vote for the "lesser of two evils". Voting for someone who is the best candidate does nothing anymore except waste your vote. I don't know how to change that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Quote:
I think absolute equality requires absolute COOPERATION. As such absolute equality is no more attainable than "absolute" anything else. But I believe the best equality we can manage is attained by cooperation, not control.

That's Kropotkin, in a nutshell, really.

HKC

Quote:
So, I'll try not to be funny. I'll try.

Not a hope in hell, but thanks for tryin!

Quote:
When I grew up and after a bunch of therapy I leaned what "love" really means.

I've always known what it meant.

The whole clip is here.
http://www.vachss.com/mission/behavior.html

Quote:
The freakin' moment you start to force your notion of "equality" on another person, respect goes out the window, compassion is long gone, and your invasive actions have trumped any lip service you may have formerly given to "equality."

I had thought this so abdundantly obvious it didn't need to be mentioned, and now I see it did - whoops.

Quote:
philosophical anarchism is not simply lack of government. You know better than that.

Damn well oughta, what with me explainin it over and over all the time, oh so patiently like one does to children with short attention spans, meh.

Quote:
One man's speculation is another man's daily experience. I perceive that society as a whole behaves, in aggregate, not unlike an individual psychological entity.

As do I, and repeatedly state so, with examples.

Quote:
In principle I see the mechanisms that influence individual psychology are present in larger communities. Much of modern psychology is based on this principle and Alice Miller, in particular, has researched this and explicated it brilliantly. You may disagree, but don't go dismissing me out of hand when you kinda clearly don't know what I'm talking about. Maybe Frem can help us out here with some URL's and such.

You'd need to be a little more specific about each thing though, cause to cover a whole issue usually winds up with a ton of em, just ask Wulf, lol.

Quote:
If Dr. Paul had gotten the nomination I presume he'd have been called to account for that crap more directly than I've seen him do. Thanks.

Well, white supremecist assholes pay taxes too, and I might not LIKE what they're sayin, they DO get a say - I'm sure there's plenty of hate-whitey types who voted for Obama, but as he did not include such in his platform I am not inclined to blame HIM for that.
I can't see Dr. Paul givin em the time of day, honestly, his nature doesn't really allow for it.

Miss Bytemite:

Quote:
Where's Frem? I say we insert the "Plays by rules/Does not play by rules" and "Nice person/prick" political spectrum chart into this dialogue. :)

There ya go!

Frem was in court putting the capstone on a prosecutors case by participating in the dog n pony show under threat of warrant and violence (we call that a summons, argh!) over a couple caught-in-the-act creepers I no longer gave a rats ass about the minute they were in custody and my clients property was returned.

The whole fuckin thing is so OBVIOUSLY theatre and the real deals made in the back rooms before they even walk into a courtroom, it serves neither the victims nor the accused any kind of justice at all and in the end serves none but itself.

And the pittance of reimbursement didn't even pay the tab for gas and parking, much less my time - the only high point of the entire three ring circus was getting to hear the suspects bitch and fuss about being owned so badly by local security... without ever quite realizing exactly WHO they were sitting next to, until some clerk handed me the relevant paperwork - cue a couple bricks getting shat, especially when I turned, chuckling, and winked.

Oh yah, and the metal detector freakin out when I walked through it and them trying to wand me, that was hi-larious, given all the metal I got in and attached to me.

It's all bullshit though, just a pretty show for the ignorant masses, cause it's all been decided before any of us peons of the public are even allowed in there.

Bah.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 12:33 PM

DREAMTROVE

1. There aren't any rules here, but there is a protocol. Rue, that's outside of the protocol. No RTLs post aborted foetuses, there's no porn, no mutilated Iraqi corpses. You know why? Because that lowers the level of debate to "The horror, the horror." Quite frankly, I have no use for the Kurtz rhetorical style. Can we stick to a higher level

2. I'm not here to debate politically with anyone, I avoid these topics, and getting caught in one is against any attention. I find myself here, and the peer pressure would be on my to defend all statements, which is a waste of time, they stand by themselves.

HK

I think you take this too seriously, but you have interesting things to say. I hope in the future they're shorter ;) I'm going to revert to my previous policy of not reading passed 160 words.

Two answers for you though:

1. Language. You have a point about the internet, but that's the development of polarizing language. If the right wing blogs call God a warrior and the left calls God a peacemaker, then we don't know what God is, he has no track record, so we're screwed. But if the right calls Obama a socialist and the left calls him a moderate, then they can continue until they're at the extremes of the left calling him a right wing plan and the right calling him a commie, and the two will never communicate with one another.

Our mutual language must be based on reality. What Obama says and does defines Obama. What he said is that he considers himself a Reaganite. I think that in reality he's closer to FDR, but somewhere in the middle. I take issue with some of the things he does, but I'm going to judge Obama based on what Obama does. Just like I did with Bush (Talk about devision: The left: He a Nazi! the right: He's the Son of God!) Reality: Bush is an asshole.

On equality: What I believe is irrelevant. I have to live in the world I see.

The world is Cat eats Mouse. Deny it, or deal with it. Don't tell me that I'm riding some crazy fringe ideology here or have some deep bias on this cat/mouse thing. I might have a darker view than others, but I'm calling cat eats mouse based on what I see.

Kathy,

This isn't about humans. Sure, humans are unequal: some humans have guns. Israelis and the palestinians aren't equal, though they're genetically very similar, one has lots of money and lots of guns. See the whole cat mouse thing.

The only way you're going to change that balance is if you have absolute control over the situation. If you're world dictator, you can fix it.

Jews left europe, because they were getting kicked around, they went to palestine, and kicked someone else around. The palestinians should probably go somewhere else if they're sick of being kicked around, because throwing stones at Israeli soldiers is just going to get them killed. For any group fleeing a hostile environment, I recommend the US as a destination: it's relatively friendly to newcomers, and there's a ton of space, resources, etc. everyone is relatively well off. Inner cities are a lot richer than the area around me, but no complaints from here.

I do, however, have to get to work, so I can pay the bills, such as it is. I may live in poverty, but I do have to work for it, and actually, I enjoy my poverty. No one is shooting at me. I think that's a plus. People in the inner city might not have that advantage, but here's one thing I *do* believe in: I think Obama is going to change that, and if he succeeds, well than hats off to Barack Obama.

Oh, any one more thing, just on Obama: I read that he's put an end to the selling of our national forests to logging companies. If this is true, than score one for Obama on that side as well.

I still have major issues with him: The war, and the economy. I think the economy is headed for such a fall that if might end the war by default.

We'll see. Certainly Obama's neighborhood is looking a lot better ATM than it did two years ago (I was just there.)

DT out, I really must get to work. Sorry. It's not that I don't appreciate all the input, discussions, I do, but I have been measuring my time, and this is costing me a fortune just to be here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 1:21 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Can we stick to a higher level ..." of --- non-debate ? What exactly are we sticking to ? You post your thing, other people post their things (as long as you find them acceptable), but no one discusses them ? A Babel of DT-censored voices all going at the same time ? Is that what you are proposing we 'stick' to ?

50% of the world lives on less than 2.50USD per day.

I'm not sure people here understand what it means. It means not enough water. Not enough food. Not enough shelter. No medical care. It means painful and early death for many. The picture I posted IS what it means. It IS the end result of our current system.

Is that what you don't want to discuss ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 5:02 PM

DREAMTROVE

Kathy,

Count me in that 50%.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE