Hello:

Steve does these things.. I thought I'd do one too.

In North America (Stanley Milgram; Obedience to Authority; Obedience and Individual Responsibility Bob Altemeyer; The Authoritarians, University of Manitoba; The Authoritarian Spector, Harvard University John Dean; Conservatives Without Conscience George Orwell; "doublethink". 1984 Read more: Monzón...aka spice went to EP! - Profile | Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/profile/1588991/#ixzz2dSjiclUy) the following symptoms reveal right wing authoritarianism organized into four distinct categories.

1: Faulty Reasoning — Right-wing authoritarians (RWAs) are more likely to: Make many incorrect inferences from evidence. Hold contradictory ideas that result from a cognitive attribute known as compartmentalized thinking, as illustrated by Orwellian doublethink. Uncritically accept that many problems are 'our most serious problem.' Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs. Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear. Use many double standards in their thinking and judgments.

2: Hostility Toward Outgroups — RWAs are more likely to: Weaken constitutional guarantees of liberty such as a Bill of Rights. Severely punish 'common' criminals in a role-playing situation. Admit they obtain personal pleasure from punishing such people. Be prejudiced against and hostile towards racial, ethnic, national, sexual, and linguistic minorities. Volunteer to help the government persecute almost anyone. Be mean-spirited toward those who have made mistakes and suffered.

3: Profound Character Attributes — RWAs are more likely to: Be dogmatic. Be zealots. Be hypocrites. Be absolutists. Be bullies when they have power over others. Help cause and inflame intergroup conflict. Seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive in situations requiring cooperation.

4: Blindness To One's Own Failings And To The Failings Of Authority. Figures whom they respect— RWAs are more likely to: Believe they have no personal failings. Avoid learning about their personal failings. Be highly self-righteous. Use religion to erase guilt over their acts and to maintain their self-righteousness.

These are the hallmarks of Right-wing Authoritarianism. Recognizing them and the degree to which a political party promotes them is a matter for the individual to determine.

Comments?

Excon

Holy crap - that's dead on.

Sounds like Anthony Weiner.

I have been saying the same thing.

Sounds like some sort of weiner

Extremists don't bother me as much as all my conservative friends who spend half their days on Facebook posting anything and everything without researching it, and who constantly contradict themselves on just about anything in the Constitution, particularly freedom of religion (they want the gov't out of religion but not Christianity out of gov't).
Liberals aren't exempt from believing what they want to believe, or from subscribing to every taxpayer funded social program there is.

The Constitution does not ban God from government, it bans government from establishing a state religion.

Yes speech but like all generalities it is difficult for the masses to understand, same as gun rights, etc

The Constitution does not ban God from government, it bans government from establishing a state religion.


Yes, that would be true. The Constitution is a secular document whereby authority comes from the people.

Jonathan Haidt, a liberal professor at the University of Virginia and author of' The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom', found that conservatives could more readily put themselves in the shoes of liberals and understand morally where they were coming from. The reverse was not true of liberals. They have little understanding of those with opposing views to their own. He says :

“I think of liberals as colorblind,” ...“We have finely tuned sensors for harm and injustice but are blind to other moral dimensions. Look at the way the word 'wall' is used in liberal discourse. It's almost always related to the idea that we have to knock them down.”
To reach that conclusion Haidt had to travel outside the US and see the country from another perspective . The view behind the walls of liberalism prevented him from seeing the possibility of another way. He wrote “When an artist submerges a crucifix in a jar of his own urine, or smears elephant dung on an image of the Virgin Mary, do these works belong in an art museum?”... “Imagine that a conservative artist had created these works using images of Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela instead of Jesus and Mary.”

Arthur Brooks, published a book based on his research, "Who Really Cares", . He documented that conservatives, on average, are 30% more generous with their time, talent, and treasure in giving to private charities than are liberals. Conservatives, he found, also donated blood at a 17% higher rate than liberals -- in fact, Brooks found "if liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the US would jump by 45%". It's easy to be empathetic by using the State to force other people to give away their earnings .

smears elephant dung on an image of the Virgin Mary
Did you read what this meant symbolically to the artist, what the purpose was?

It really doesn't matter what you call yourself, since the constitution or any rule of law only works when people work together.

The constitution is based on equal protection under the law.

Did you read what this meant symbolically to the artist, what the purpose was?

Yeah yeah the lame stuff about fertility... that is why he also surrounded the Virgin Mary with porno images . If he doesn't understand why that would be offensive then that just proves Haidt's point about the libs being blind.

It really doesn't matter what you call yourself, since the constitution or any rule of law only works when people work together.

The constitution is based on equal protection under the law.

Then why post something that suggests conservatism is some kind of mental disease ?

Hello Carol:

Did you read what this meant symbolically to the artist, what the purpose was?No, of course, he didn't. The motivation of the artist wouldn't matter anyway.. It's the SUBJECT that disturbs them.
“Imagine that a conservative artist had created these works using images of Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela instead of Jesus and Mary.”The above clearly demonstrates the disconnect. They believe that liberals view art just like they do. Of course, we don't.

Excon

Hello Carol:
No, of course, he didn't. The motivation of the artist wouldn't matter anyway.. It's the SUBJECT that disturbs them.The above clearly demonstrates the disconnect. They believe that liberals view art just like they do. Of course, we don't.

excon

So you would approve it ? Maybe you would ,but the emperor found a guy who made videos that insulted Mohammed and threw him in jail.

Hello Carol:
No, of course, he didn't. The motivation of the artist wouldn't matter anyway.. It's the SUBJECT that disturbs them.The above clearly demonstrates the disconnect. They believe that liberals view art just like they do. Of course, we don't.

excon
Dear excon:

When I student taught back when rocks were cooling, it was a first grade in a parochial (Lutheran) school in the inner city, in a black neighborhood in Chicago. The attached Lutheran church had a Jesus-the-Good-Shepherd statue with outstretched arms standing above the altar. That Jesus statue was black.

My white conservative friends and relatives were aghast. "Jesus wasn't black. He was white, like us." In my white-neighborhood Lutheran church there is a similar statue above the altar. This Jesus statue could have been a double for George Clooney.

Carol

Hello again, tom:

so you would approve it ?Your use of the word "approve" further signifies the disconnect. I don't "approve" of art. I appreciate it, or not. I didn't appreciate the cross in the bucket of pee - NOT because it was a cross in a bucket of pee, but because it was bad art.

Excon

Hello again,

If the premise of the OP is incorrect, why can't Republicans achieve their objectives through normal political means? Why do they instead, threaten to blow it all up if they don't get their way?

I'll tell you why. The NORMAL political process involves COMPROMISE, and NO Republican is going to compromise. If he does, he's going to get called a RINO and he'll be primaryied. Right wingers don't argue about policy anymore. They argue who's righter than who. That's the death spiral right wingers are involved it. It's how the party is moving further, and further right. I think I made a thread entitled that.

excon

Patrick Henry said "Give me Liberty or Give me death" .He didn't say ,let's talk about it . To the Dems ,compromise =capitulation.. Yeah they will compromise as long as everything continues to trend in their direction. This has been ongoing for over 100 years . Not once have they compromised to trend things in a conservative trajectory . To them the natural "arch of history " leads us "Forward!" to their ideology . It' really just a question about how fast they take us there . Let's compromise on how fast we shrink the size of government. Let's compromise of how quickly we cut the tax rate ,let's set a schedule to bringing spending down . Let's compromise on which programs we eliminate instead of compromising on the rate of increase in the size of government... what ? Not so willing to compromise then are you.?.

Hello again, tom:
Your use of the word "approve" further signifies the disconnect. I don't "approve" of art. I appreciate it, or not. I didn't appreciate the cross in the bucket of pee - NOT because it was a cross in a bucket of pee, but because it was bad art.

excon

And we did not object to his right to his bad art, the objection was to using taxpayer dollars to fund it.

You mean like taxpayer dollars funding private religious schools that teach kids that the Earth is 6,000 years old?

You mean like taxpayer dollars funding private religious schools that teach kids that the Earth is 6,000 years old?

Not exactly no, because in fact the parent chooses to send their child there, as opposed to having no choice and forcing them to go to public schools for a good liberal indoctrination and undermining of parental rights and values. The thing is, you have no problem imposing beliefs and values on others with not only taxpayer dollars, but with our private dollars as well (the contraception mandate) - as long as it fits your world view.

liberal indoctrinationCan you define the tenets of this "indoctrination"? I'd be best to show policies that all schools are told to follow versus individual aberrations.

Can you define the tenets of this "indoctrination"? I'd be best to show policies that all schools are told to follow versus individual aberrations.

Been there, done that. I hate repeating myself.

You mean like taxpayer dollars funding private religious schools that teach kids that the Earth is 6,000 years old?

Would you believe it if they said the history of man is 6,000 years old

I went to Catholic school... First thing ,the school was funded by student tuition. . Second... we were not taught the earth was 6,000 years old. If you wanted a simple label for the Catholic position on the subject then the best one is probably 'theistic evolutionism'... that there is no inherent conflict between the scientific theories and creationism .

I went to Catholic school ...First thing ,the school was funded by student tuition. .Second... we were not taught the earth was 6,000 years old. If you wanted a simple label for the Catholic position on the subject then the best one is probably 'theistic evolutionism' ....that there is no inherent conflict between the scientific theories and creationism .

Yes Tom I remember the teaching you can believe whatever you want to provided you believe that God intervened to place a soul within man, I think it's called theistic convenientism but I also believe there is no conflict between scientific theories and creationism, science attempts to explain what they see within the available imperfect knowledge of the day

yes Tom I remember the teaching you can believe whatever you want to provided you believe that God intervened to place a soul within man, I think it's called theistic convenientism
Catholic teachings are consistent with the bible. Maybe you can show me where there is a date for the earths creation in Genesis. It's people who try to calculate back that are in fact doing their own brand of 'convenientism' (whatever that means). People who try to make a biblical case for the earth being apx 6,000 years old are fools who invite the ridicule they receive .

Catholic teachings are consistent with the bible. Maybe you can show me where there is a date for the earths creation in Genesis. It's people who try to calculate back that are in fact doing their own brand of 'convenientism' (whatever that means). People who try to make a biblical case for the earth being apx 6,000 years old are fools who invite the ridicule they receive .

Have you read the book of Genesis? Actually read it? It offers you an explanation for all those scientific discoveries that predate the history of man. The Earth was formless and void. Now scientists have discovered certain periods which may well be exactly when that refers to and more than one. People have counted back from the present era, and what have they discovered there is no history before about 6,000 years ago and very little indication man as we know him existed earlier than that. Everything earlier than that is conjecture and myth and we like to believe these myths because it is convenient. There is no early discovery of modern creatures excepting in the seas, there is just conjecture that various animals evolved and that sea creatures took legs and walked, show me a sea creature with legs. A period of glacialisation ended about ten thousand years ago, prior to that we have only myth to suggest what may have existed. The Bible is entirely silent regarding this because it isn't attempting to explain that