Social role determines political views

[Conservationist]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.************/wp-content/uploads/typical_social_roles.jpg

I think it's true: your abilities and personality determine how you vote. You may be hardwired to be more conservative or more liberal no matter which party you're in, but nature's secret is that those attributes reflect the kind of role in which you're comfortable.

If you've got true leadership potential, meaning that you can go into an unknown situation and figure out a strategy and see it to completion despite unexpected twists and turns, you'll think like a historian when it comes to politics.

If you're a hard working, clear-thinking person, you'll do your best to defend society and always be from the Don't Fix It If It Ain't Broke camp.

But on the other hand if you can't stop spending your money and time on distractions, and therefore are always beneath the wheel, you're going to get defensive and join the It's Not My Fault horde, and want handouts, special permissions, exceptions, etc. on a constant basis because you'll see yourself as the perennial victim.

I bet this applies to music, too, but not musical genre per se (although all nu-metal fans are drones).

From this article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.************/2009/social-reality/nature-recycles-patterns/) which has offended 6,173 people so far.

[Mader]

do not dismiss life experience, or lack of

[Lucid]

I think your experience in these matters leaves a lot to be desired. And your opinion has clearly been influenced by media. Additionally this theory relies a lot on over simplification, stereotypes and irrational belief rather than a realistic outlook, facts or actual human behavior. Also, it is ideologically driven and thinly veiled reinforcement of one particular ideology using backward reasoning to arrive at a cause. :)

That said, the fact that you subscribe to an idiotic theory only marginally based in reality does not offend me. It's simply no different from believing that the Harry Potter series is real.

[PunkinA]

What does roundly educated mean?

...positions formed by patterns?

I feel like I am reading a horoscope.

[Conservationist]

Also, it is ideologically driven and thinly veiled reinforcement of one particular ideology using backward reasoning to arrive at a cause.

Internet chorus: correlation is not causation.

Please prove the opposite direction was not the case.

[firebee]

Seriously, though, while your parody of today's conservative movement brings a minor giggle, it's not really all that funny. We need an opposition party that is capable of rational discourse and not shedding members like a batch of recruits at Parris Island sheds hair. And I have a feeling that we're not going to have such a thing until long past when it would have been useful.

[Conservationist]

We need an opposition party that is capable of rational discourse and not shedding members like a batch of recruits at Parris Island sheds hair. And I have a feeling that we're not going to have such a thing until long past when it would have been useful.

Yeah, maybe because rationality has little to do with popularity!

[firebee]

Yeah, maybe because rationality has little to do with popularity!

I wouldn't have thought so before the Republicans managed to drive people away in droves through displays of astounding irrationality, but apparently there is a limit. Even in politics.

Possibly I'm looking in the wrong places, but I haven't seen any evidence of the sort of measured, rational thinking that used to be one of the high points of the conservative movement in quite some time -- the above cartoon, unfortunately, seems to be more typical. Let's examine it in more detail...

Obviously, two groups get complimentary labels and are being described in quite glowing terms -- "hard-working" or "efficiently-working", "educated", et cetera. (Side note: it's extremely amusing that the ideological group which has kicked rationality to the curb in favor of playing the cultural war, wants to put 'reality' and 'facts' in its column.) The Aristocrat and the Artisan are essentially iNtuitive and Sensor stand-ins for the reader to identify with according to their orientation.

So that's how they describe their group: prosperous individuals lacking in character defects, who stride boldly into the future to the tune of fife and drum. How do they explain why someone might not share their beliefs? Well, such people are clearly "uneducated", short-sighted, and form their political views on the basis of rampant character defects and slavish social affiliation.

Ironically, describing one's opponents in that way would constitute a beautiful example of "belittles those who disagree", putting the author in column C of their very own system. Although I'm sure they don't see it that way.

[yoginimama]

Yeah, maybe because rationality has little to do with popularity!

You're saying that the Birthers, "You lie!", "I hope he fails," Teabaggers, "Hellcare," Obama-as-Hitler sign-carrying, town-hall yelling and screaming, Dick Morris arguing that the 40-hour work week is a socialist aberration which should be banned from our shores (the huz heard tape of this on Stephanie Miller this AM and was laughing about it with me)...

...you're saying that all of these things strike you as rational? Or if not rational in themselves--as somehow an expression of a rational worldview?

I'm not seeing it.

[Conservationist]

Obviously, two groups get complimentary labels and are being described in quite glowing terms -- "hard-working" or "efficiently-working", "educated", et cetera.

What if they were mostly correct?

You didn't rule out that possibility because of the method of presentation, do you?

I also see a lack of proof that the left is (a) scientific or (b) rational, especially considering how they're in denial of biological determinism.





Conservationist added to this post, 1 minutes and 12 seconds later...

You're saying that the Birthers, "You lie!", "I hope he fails," Teabaggers, "Hellcare," Obama-as-Hitler sign-carrying, town-hall yelling and screaming, Dick Morris arguing that the 40-hour work week is a socialist aberration which should be banned from our shores (the huz heard tape of this on Stephanie Miller this AM and was laughing about it with me)...

...you're saying that all of these things strike you as rational? Or if not rational in themselves--as somehow an expression of a rational worldview?

I'm not seeing it.

It's comments like this that prove my point: your comment is irrational and illiterate.

What I said was:

Rationality doesn't make things popular.

What you tried to say it said:

Birthers are good.

Wait, what? You're not coherent here.

[yoginimama]

You know, you're right. I took a second look, and I did mis-read you. Firebee said "We need an opposition capable of rationality but we're not going to get one." You said "Maybe because rationality has little to do with popularity."

Apparently, therefore, you agree that many Republicans are promoting irrational discourse right now.

Where I'm confused is that you seem to be making that concession--they are being irrational--in the context of explaining to firebee that they're just trying to be popular.

Except firebee's point was that their irrational behavior wasn't working--was costing them popularity--so your apparent response ('rationality doesn't make things popular') is puzzling in that context.

And whether you believe that rationality is popular or not, what has that got to do with the nonsense spewing from the right?

[Conservationist]

You know, you're right. I took a second look, and I did mis-read you. Firebee said "We need an opposition capable of rationality but we're not going to get one." You said "Maybe because rationality has little to do with popularity."

Apparently, therefore, you agree that many Republicans are promoting irrational discourse right now.

Nope, please read the comment literally. It wasn't partisan.

[LordCorbin]

Was curious to read the article, unfortunately that site was blocked from my companys servers for "Violence/Racism/Hatred." Oops.

[firebee]

What if they were mostly correct?

Then a rational, educated person would be able to provide citations illustrating same, as opposed to a superficial and self-contradictory cartoon.


You didn't rule out that possibility because of the method of presentation, do you?


Did I move on quickly after a fallacy (type: ad hominem) or delusion (that "reality" is the sole territory of those presently opposed to "liberalism") showed itself?

...possibly.


I also see a lack of proof that the left is (a) scientific or (b) rational, especially considering how they're in denial of biological determinism.


Such proof is not necessary. And part of my point is that the left does not do "cold logic" well, which is why the right's utter abandonment of their post will ultimately land us in hot water.

Incidentally, you seem to have some kind of love affair with a thing you call "biological determinism". If it's the sine qua non of rational thought, you might do to define it, lest one come to the conclusion that you're attempting to sneak in an idea that you don't want to be challenged on.

[Conservationist]

Did I move on quickly after a fallacy (type: ad hominem) or delusion (that "reality" is the sole territory of those presently opposed to "liberalism") showed itself?

...possibly.


I don't think you understand what either of those terms mean.

Ad hominem is of the form "The speaker is of X attribute, therefore is incompetent." Some ad homs are not fallacies. For example, if the speaker really is retarded, who cares what his opinions are on world politics?

Second, you did not prove exclusivity on that "delusion."

[firebee]

Ad hominem is of the form "The speaker is of X attribute, therefore is incompetent." Some ad homs are not fallacies. For example, if the speaker really is retarded, who cares what his opinions are on world politics?

Victor: "Concerning world politics, I believe thus-and-so."

Sierra: "Your opinion regarding world politics is invalid."

Victor: "Why is it invalid?"

Sierra: "Because you are retarded."

Victor: "What is the proof that I am retarded?"

Sierra: "Because your opinion on world politics is thus-and-so."

Even if one were to avoid closing the circle by proving that Victor is in fact objectively retarded, this does not mean that a set of ideas are invalid because Victor supports them.

But I will give you this: In order to advance a fallacious position, one must be actually advancing a position that is nontrivial. This image is not doing that -- rather, it is engaging in self-congratulatory backslapping and a reinforcement of social identity (oh, I guess that would be "positions formed by social influence"). The fact that folks who receive positive reinforcement from said image are exhibiting behavior that the image itself refers to derisively is just icing on the cake.


Second, you did not prove exclusivity on that "delusion."

Exclusivity, as I said above, is not required. We might dispute the point of whether the conservative movement is primarily concerned today with engaging in blatant misinformation and whipping up base hatred among the ignorant, but in any case "the other side might be doing it too" is not a defense.

[pip]

Interesting....

Sorry! Access to This Website Is Currently Blocked
Web Address: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.************/2009/social-reality/nature-recycles-patterns/
Category: Violence/Hate/Racism

[firebee]

Was curious to read the article, unfortunately that site was blocked from my companys servers for "Violence/Racism/Hatred." Oops.

Filtering programs, considering their motives and methods, are not to be trusted in these matters. However, independent of the relevance of the labeling, it's fairly clear from reading the site why it was so labeled.

The evident answer for "what is biological determinism?" according to this site is the concept that the functioning level of an individual is primarily determined by inherited traits. One of the consequences of this notion, then, is that people who do not function well are of inferior genetic stock, and should be left to die or explicitly killed, depending on the situation. Hence the classification, although the author seems to see other races as being "out-group" to be left to their own concerns rather than inferior "in-group" members to be exterminated.

Given the novelty of his position (at least, I haven't seen its like before), it strikes me as somewhat jarring that the author hews very strongly to circa-1990s political labels and stereotypes (regarding which the portion quoted above is a relatively mild version). In fact, at certain points it appears that he is lamenting the stupidity of a position quite congruent with his own because it comes from a source or is written using the language of a group -- "hipsters" or "liberals" -- concerning whom he has a pet hate.

I'm also kind of interested to know the reason why Conservationist considers "ad hominem" to be at times a valid form of argument. It would make sense, if the positions on this site are roughly in agreement with his own, that classifying the originator of a position in the "untermensch" category would be taken to discredit that position.