Jump to content

Discussions on Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. (Split requested by Phi for All)


Acme
 Share

Recommended Posts

That suggests that you can't tell sex from politics.

You don't think there's a degree of politics involved in every sexual encounter?

.

EDIT: Sorry for the off-topic jaunt, Acme. We can request the mods split this off if the tangent continues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't think there's a degree of politics involved in every sexual encounter?

.

EDIT: Sorry for the off-topic jaunt, Acme. We can request the mods split this off if the tangent continues.

:lol: Jaunt away. The thread is a split from the git-go and "mine" only by proxy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Neither delusional or dishonest is in any definition of insane.

Neither does he represent ALL who label themselves 'conservative'.

 

Insane delusion is a part of the law of probate (IIRC) - if you make a will that is completely bat shit crazy it can be claimed you are suffering insane delusions.

 

More seriously being delusional is a psychiatric condition in which clearly false (but not necessarily bizarre) beliefs are held to be true. This would often fall within the common usage of the word insane - and there is no real medical usage of the word insane. Delusional is clearly, in common usage, included in the wider term insane.

 

To be honest I would not class the utter idiot on sky news as delusional - just unbelievably stupid, ill-informed and ready to say anything to get his few moments of air time. Dishonest - yes without doubt. But the speed of his volte face and apology would say to me that he was a mendacious bullshitter rather than a mentally ill believer. Although he did apologize to the people of the "beautiful city" of Birmingham - which is quite frankly mad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither delusional or dishonest is in any definition of insane.

Neither does he represent ALL who label themselves 'conservative'.

Re 1

Guess again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

Many forms of insanity include delusion as one of the symptoms.

 

That has been discussed at some length. The discussion already included the evidence and my qualifications.

 

To cut a long story short, would you describe someone who thought they were Napoleon as sane?

Of course it's possible that he's simply dishonest. Unless that's compulsive it doesn't mark him, or even Fox News, out as insane.

It just means they can't be trusted.

We already knew that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9288158/Fox-News-viewers-worst-informed-study-finds.html

(It's interesting to note that Fox News' reply was the corporate equivalent of an ad hom attack- a logical fallacy, rather than a valid rebuttal).

 

 

The second is a red herring; essentially nothing is representative of all people who label themselves conservative (with the tautological exception that they label themselves as Conservative)

 

The important point is not that all Conservatives seem to be like this guy, but that all the people like this guy seem to be Conservatives.

 

The mainstream Left wing doesn't seem to need to tell as many lies as the mainstream Right wing does.

 

Why is that?

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless that's compulsive it doesn't mark him, or even Fox News, out as insane

We have some evidence that it is compulsive, certainly on Fox News. They can't stop themselves.

 

 

 

The mainstream Left wing doesn't seem to need to tell as many lies as the mainstream Right wing does

There's a mainstream Left wing?

 

Rephrased: the Center and Center-Right factions don't tell as many lies and hawk as much bullshit as the mainstream Right wing does. The actual Left, of course, is in class by itself these days in agreement with physical reality - but they pay the price: they don't get any media time.

 

So we aren't talking about a wide political range here - we are talking about a very densely or numerously populated but otherwise narrowly restricted political characterization. These folks have a lot in common with each other, mentally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it that you accept my point, the guy who really thinks he's Napoleon isn't sane.

Do you also accept that the bloke who was on Fox news saying he believed that B'ham was a Moslem city and off-limits to those who follow other faiths, was also either deluded, or lying?

Not least because there's no logical route from "The place is totally Moslem" to "It's a no- go area for those who are not"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All "A" are "B" doesn't prove all "B" are "A".

But if it's true for a large enough sample, it supports the suggestion.
I can't check all Conservatives, but I have looked at a sample of them...

 

Can you show me the clearly sane ones please?

Can you, for example, show me the ones who don't believe in trickle down economics and who believe that the wealth inequality isn't a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the two examples you brought up are easy to refute, that makes my job a lot easier.

 

"Trickle down' economics, or the idea that giving tax breaks to big business or the wealthy, will stimulate the economy, is not just a Reagan Conservative policy. It is used in every State, in Canada, and even in England/Scotland/Ireland.

Business Tax rates are always lower than personal Tax rates in order to attract and keep business and industry in a particular area, no matter if that area is governed by Liberals, Conservatives or even Socialists. And no 'person' has ever gotten a Government subsidy as businesses often do.

As for Tax breaks to the wealthy, IIRC, it was President Obama, a Democrat, who bailed out the bankers and investors who caused the crash of 2008, so they could give themselves bonuses for a 'job well done', while the people who lost their homes are still suffering 6 yrs later ( yes, I know, a very 'simplistic' analysis ).

 

I don't know how many Conservatives would claim that wealth inequality is a good thing. Probably just as many as the filthy rich Liberals ( Democrats ) who hold political office in the US. Or doo you know of any who have given away their fortunes to run for political office ?

Here in Canada we have a former Liberal Prime Minister, who was a Finance Minister during the period of biggest spending cuts by a government ( 2003-2005 ), and who happens to own Canada Steamship Lines, every single ocean going vessel of which, is registered in Liberia to avoid Canadian taxes.

 

But back to your original assertion ( A is a subset of B ), that is not my personal opinion of how things work. There is no such thing as a 'conservative' or a 'liberal'. We as individuals, pick and choose policies we like from the conservative or liberal menu. The labels we assign to each other do the harm. As an example, equal rights were first championed by Conservatives in the US, yet Liberals are always called 'progressive', never Conservatives. And is 'change' or 'progression' always a good thing ?

 

I don't think anyone would disagree that running trillion dollar deficits is a bad thing, especially for your kids who will have to pay down that debt.

And as Phi for All suggested previously, it is not a bad thing if your daughter dresses conservatively

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Trickle down' economics, or the idea that giving tax breaks to big business or the wealthy, will stimulate the economy, is not just a Reagan Conservative policy. It is used in every State, in Canada, and even in England/Scotland/Ireland.

Business Tax rates are always lower than personal Tax rates in order to attract and keep business and industry in a particular area, no matter if that area is governed by Liberals, Conservatives or even Socialists. And no 'person' has ever gotten a Government subsidy as businesses often do.

As for Tax breaks to the wealthy, IIRC, it was President Obama, a Democrat, who bailed out the bankers and investors who caused the crash of 2008, so they could give themselves bonuses for a 'job well done', while the people who lost their homes are still suffering 6 yrs later ( yes, I know, a very 'simplistic' analysis ).

 

I don't know how many Conservatives would claim that wealth inequality is a good thing. Probably just as many as the filthy rich Liberals ( Democrats ) who hold political office in the US. Or doo you know of any who have given away their fortunes to run for political office ?

Here in Canada we have a former Liberal Prime Minister, who was a Finance Minister during the period of biggest spending cuts by a government ( 2003-2005 ), and who happens to own Canada Steamship Lines, every single ocean going vessel of which, is registered in Liberia to avoid Canadian taxes.

 

But back to your original assertion ( A is a subset of B ), that is not my personal opinion of how things work. There is no such thing as a 'conservative' or a 'liberal'. We as individuals, pick and choose policies we like from the conservative or liberal menu. The labels we assign to each other do the harm. As an example, equal rights were first championed by Conservatives in the US, yet Liberals are always called 'progressive', never Conservatives. And is 'change' or 'progression' always a good thing ?

 

I don't think anyone would disagree that running trillion dollar deficits is a bad thing, especially for your kids who will have to pay down that debt.

And as Phi for All suggested previously, it is not a bad thing if your daughter dresses conservatively

""Trickle down' economics, ..., is not just a Reagan Conservative policy."

Nobody said it was.

But the important thing is that it doesn't work.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/21/offshore-wealth-global-economy-tax-havens

" There is no such thing as a 'conservative' or a 'liberal'"

Then why worry about them?

In particular, why keep using those terms?

 

Incidentally, from my point of view (and, I think that of most of the world) America doesn't have any Left wing politicians actually in office.

 

 

 

" IIRC, it was President Obama, a Democrat, who bailed out the bankers and investors who caused the crash of 2008,"

You seem to have muddled him up with Dr Who.

From

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

 

"Assumed office

January 20, 2009"

 

So, you seem to be saying there's nothing insane about Conservatives (which, you say, don't exist anyway)- the problem is the crash caused by Mr Obama shortly before he became president.

 

Glad we got that settled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying there's nothing 'insane' about people who have conservative values ( and probably also some liberal values ), That is what I have objected to right from the start of this thread. It is an attempt to label people and ideas as irrelevant and unworthy of discussion.

But there obviously are people who could be considered insane.

 

Also note that I did not claim that Pres. Obama caused the recession. rather, when he took office, he reacted to it by bailing out the banks ( not judging his actions, just stating what he did ).

 

And you're right, American Democrats are not considered Liberal nor progressive in Europe or Canada.

 

As for 'trickle down' or 'supply side' economics, they seem to have worked rather well in bringing the US out of the Great Depression. Poor people weren't given tax cuts nor were the rich taxed more heavily. The government injected massive amounts of money in make work projects ( with industry a.k.a. big business ), who then provided jobs to the common people.

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

" It is an attempt to label people and ideas as irrelevant and unworthy of discussion. "

Or it's a question based on some observations.

 

"As for 'trickle down' or 'supply side' economics, they seem to have worked rather well in bringing the US out of the Great Depression."

Seems like time travel

"Supply-side economics developed during the 1970s in response to Keynesian economic policy"

 

From

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying there's nothing 'insane' about people who have conservative values ( and probably also some liberal values ), That is what I have objected to right from the start of this thread.

 

After this many pages, I thought the argument would have settled on "Conservatives", not "people who have conservative values". There seems to be a world of difference.

 

I think it's similar to the Republican party. My brother clings to being a Republican, because he identified with the party under Eisenhower. Too many Republicans today are following a different platform than the one that gets implemented by the leadership. And those who label their entire outlook as "Conservative" seem to have an agenda that's often not what someone who has conservative values would approve of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also note that I did not claim that Pres. Obama caused the recession. rather, when he took office, he reacted to it by bailing out the banks ( not judging his actions, just stating what he did

W bailed the banks out, in October 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008

 

Obama did not bail the banks out. He didn't even get to set up the administration of the bailout, as he did with W's bailout of General Motors, so it was set up without the strings or accountability that GM was saddled with.

 

 

 

As for 'trickle down' or 'supply side' economics, they seem to have worked rather well in bringing the US out of the Great Depression.
Say what!? FDR rejected such voodoo, and adopted what we now term Keynesian economic tactics.

 

Poor people weren't given tax cuts nor were the rich taxed more heavily.
The poor were not federally taxed much in the first place, and the rich were taxed much more heavily - Roosevelt dramatically increased marginal income tax rates on the rich.

 

The government injected massive amounts of money in make work projects ( with industry a.k.a. big business ), who then provided jobs to the common people.
The government provided jobs directly to hundreds of thousands of common people, and paid them directly. It also contracted with private companies for massive government projects - not trickle down, actual work.

 

That is not supply side economics, but Keynesian.

 

Conservatives live in a fantasy, a rewritten history and fictionalized description of the political and physical world. They never have their facts straight. And there is something crazy about that.

Edited by overtone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you should look at a simple definition of 'trickle down' economics ( later re-christened ' supply side economics' for spin ), overtone.

" Giving tax breaks to the wealthy and big business, as they supply the jobs which will improve the economy for all "

 

Now you're right, tax breaks were not provided to the rich, but massive amounts of money were provided to big business, who then provided the jobs that turned around the great depression. The term 'trickle down economics' may not have been in use at the time , but that is essentially what it was !

 

And sure, the Troubled Asset Relief ( or is it Release ) program was initiated by GWB in 2008, and the first half of the bail out went out in Oct-Nov of that year. The second half did not get released until the spring of 2009, when BO was in office, meaning he also approved of the method of dealing with the situation ( again, not passing judgement, just statement of facts ). And if you go back to my post #241, you'll see that I had stated that it is not only conservatives, but also supposed liberals ( President BO ), that throw money at big business if the situation deems it necessary.

 

Oh, and making a thinly veiled implication that my memory is failing me, I'm trying to re-write history or live in a fictional world, is simply an attack on me, not my argument. The only purpose of which is to discredit my ideas and opinions similarly to what the title of this thread attempts to do.

I thought you were above that overtone.

I must have been crazy !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a pretty clear distinction between giving tax breaks to organisations that employ people and giving tax cuts to people who stash it in overseas accounts.

 

There;'s also a clear distinction between

"supposed liberals ( President BO ), that throw money at big business if the situation deems it necessary"

and those who do it all the time as a means to buy votes and influence.

Pointing out that an argument doesn't tally with the rules of cause and effect- the cause has to come first- is an attack on the argument.

Admittedly, it doesn't reflect well on the person who advances that argument in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you're right, tax breaks were not provided to the rich, but massive amounts of money were provided to big business, who then provided the jobs that turned around the great depression. The term 'trickle down economics' may not have been in use at the time , but that is essentially what it was !

I was right when I pointed out that FDR dramatically raised taxes on rich people, and used the money to have the government hire and pay wages to hundreds of thousands of unemployed people who worked for the government on government projects, as well as hire contractors to do work for the government on government projects. The economy is jolted or stimulated from the bottom up, as the demand created by the wage money in poor people's pockets motivates the launching of private business ventures and subsequent prosperity.

 

That is the opposite of Supply Side economic policy. In Supply Side policy, also known as Reaganomics, Voodoo Economics, and Bullshit, the government in a recession dramatically lowers taxes on rich people, these rich people than use the extra money to launch business ventures and hire people to work on these private business projects. The government hires nobody itself, and does not provide government projects for people or businesses to work on. The economy is jolted or stimulated from the top down, as the supply of money in rich people's pockets motivates the launching of private business ventures and subsequent prosperity.

 

 

And sure, the Troubled Asset Relief ( or is it Release ) program was initiated by GWB in 2008, and the first half of the bail out went out in Oct-Nov of that year. The second half did not get released until the spring of 2009, when BO was in office, meaning he also approved of the method of dealing with the situation ( again, not passing judgement, just statement of facts ).

No, it means that his job was to manage an operation he inherited, mandated by law. His approval of the thing was no more relevant than his approval of the Iraq War - another mess that W&Co set up so Obama would be stuck with the hassle and the bill (remember how necessary emergency appropriations for financing the Iraq War were deliberately postponed from when they were due in November '08 until January '09, so that one of Obama's first actions as President would have to be throwing billions of dollars from his budget into W's Folly? )

 

 

 

 

Oh, and making a thinly veiled implication that my memory is failing me, I'm trying to re-write history or live in a fictional world, is simply an attack on me, not my argument.
It's the observation behind the entire thread, the thread topic. You, like most conservatives, apparently live in a world of fantasy. The events, facts, and physical circumstances you argue from are slapstick fictions, bizarre and inherently comical inversions of event and sequence and standard vocabulary and physical fact and simple logic. The topic is whether acting crazy like that implies that you are crazy, in some mild fashion.

 

The notion that FDR's New Deal and WWII financing were examples of supply side economics in application, for example, is crazy. It's not just wrong, it's nutso. FDR's New Deal was what Reagan was explicitly attacking when his administration proposed adopting Supply Side measures instead. Reaganomics was explicitly invented and argued for and employed in opposition to and rejection of FDR's economic policies and Keynesian economics in general.

 

And it's not an aberration: a couple of years ago you guys were arguing that FDR's horrible Keynesian economic policies what made the Great Depression so bad - remember? That was goofy too - bad enough in itself. They're both goofy in themselves. But what makes the current batch of US "conservatives" special is their flipping from one to another of these mutually contradictory delusions without the slightest sign of cognitive dissonance.

 

We could fill a bookshelf with this stuff. We could start with a few books extolling the capitalist economic policies of Mussolini and Hitler for "making the trains run on time" and other superior efficiencies (invented facts, their trains did not run on time etc), followed by a few books telling us all that the Nazis were a leftwing political faction whose evils can be laid to their Socialist economic policies (invented policies, the Third Reich ran on private capitalist industry). We could go on to shelve the multiple reversals in paranoia from Big Government Black Helicopters Oppressive Surveillance to Terrorists With Nukes We Need Homeland Security and back again, I count something like 6 of these flips since Carter.

 

And so forth. What is going on, behind this display of intellectual farce? If "stupid is as stupid does" (Forrest Gump's mother), can we say that "crazy is as crazy talks"?

Edited by overtone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished reading The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney, and that book answers the questions pointed out here quite nicely. There was a divergence on the right, and particularly the far right isolating itself from academia and evidence in the 60's, exacerbated by Reagan in the 80's to the point that laws were passed that made it nearly impossible to influence policy with science, giving significant advantage to big industry, such as tobacco, oil, and sugar. George W. Continued to totally dismantle any chance for the government to utilize evidence to inform policy, and the propoganda has led many conservatives to believe that science is just a liberal brainwashing field. When they use the term "junk science" they are referring to real science that hasn't passed the conservative standard that is unrealistic in real practice. They call valid science "sound science" and the definition is quite rigid, meaning if it isn't direct laboratory cause and effect, it cannot pass the standard. Because of this, anything involving modelling is out, probability is out, psychology, economics, climate science, sociology, medicine etc. cannot meet the minimum standard and gets labeled "junk science" by conservatives.

 

Is this delusional, on the same scale that religion is. They believe what they are taught, and in the strongly conservative states, there is a concerted effort to remove critical thinking from schools. They feel it promotes liberal ideation, and socialism or communism will follow.

 

I personally believe the big industry buys these guys to do their bidding, and doubt many of them actually believe what they are saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.