interesting read on the psychology of conservatism

Interesting read - seems like conservatives become so out of fear, and the more fearful the population is, the greater the chances are that a conservative GVT will be elected.
 
2minkey said:
um, no i wasn't interviewed for that.

i wouldn't agree that "libs" are as you suggest. that being said, i have met several folks that i would consider to be left of center that are extremely abrasive, and have moralistic overtones as nauseating as any far right weirdo.

most of what yer saying strikes as some sort of rationalization for not bothering to try to understand the world in all its richness, and for wanting to make judgments of mental convenience. and if someone else if different, they must be a "lib" and all that other shit you spout.

and call me a "lib" however often you want, despite the fact that my voting record and personal values don't indicate that at all. but if it's easier for you, go ahead.
Click to expand...

In my experience, the farther you get in either direction, the more similar they become.
 
2minkey said:
most of what yer saying strikes as some sort of rationalization for not bothering to try to understand the world in all its richness, and for wanting to make judgments of mental convenience. and if someone else if different, they must be a "lib" and all that other shit you spout.

and call me a "lib" however often you want, despite the fact that my voting record and personal values don't indicate that at all. but if it's easier for you, go ahead.
Click to expand...


Are you sure the author hasn't met you:

Liberals argue, not to show the value of an idea, but to show the value of themselves, either to the other person, or to some other observer. They either want to “prove” their superiority or the other person’s inferiority (or more often both). Rationality simply isn’t required as long as they can feel good about themselves in the end.

That’s why debate with them so often devolves into personal attacks, attacks on the credibility of opposing sources, claims of bigotry, denial and evasion, and any number of other tactics which do nothing to advance their argument. All of these are psychological defense mechanisms (“you’re being too simplistic” and “the world isn’t black and white” are two major defense mechanisms liberals use when an opposing position is straight-forwardly true).
Click to expand...
 
Cerise said:
Are you sure the author hasn't met you:

Quote:
Liberals argue, not to show the value of an idea, but to show the value of themselves, either to the other person, or to some other observer. They either want to “prove” their superiority or the other person’s inferiority (or more often both). Rationality simply isn’t required as long as they can feel good about themselves in the end.

That’s why debate with them so often devolves into personal attacks, attacks on the credibility of opposing sources, claims of bigotry, denial and evasion, and any number of other tactics which do nothing to advance their argument. All of these are psychological defense mechanisms (“you’re being too simplistic” and “the world isn’t black and white” are two major defense mechanisms liberals use when an opposing position is straight-forwardly true).
Click to expand...

um, yeah pretty sure but you're doing a pretty good job of painting yourself with your own brush here.

there's lots of us here that have strong opinions and will take others to task when "bullshit" is detected. that doesn't seem to depend on political alignment.

your author is rationalizing an inferiority complex.

makes me think of...

dukakis.jpg
 
chcr said:
Gonz, anytime anyone, anywhere suggests that anything at all about the conservative agenda is not the greatest good and best for all people who have ever lived, you react like an eight year old. I picture you with your fingers in your ears shouting "la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la." You don't want to hear differing opinions, you want to shout them down. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Heard 'em, took 'em apart & now outright dismiss them.

A couple of years ago it was fun to point out the lunacy, in depth. Since nobody wants to play anymore, one liners suffice.
 
spike said:
Seems to describe cons just as easily. Probably easier. Self righteousness is the core of the religious right after all.
Click to expand...

One does not need to be religious to be conservative. One need not be conservative to be religious. They are not the same group.
 
Minky look what you made me do, a self imposed posting ban from 1/7/07 til 5/13/07 and you ruined it!
Its all your fault, I'm not to blame, I did not have sex with that woman!
 
Winky] Minky look what you made me do said:
there's lots of us here that have strong opinions and will take others to task when "bullshit" is detected. that doesn't seem to depend on political alignment.

your author is rationalizing an inferiority complex.
Click to expand...

Oooh! The author was correct: "attack on the credibility of opposing source"

Nice deflection :rolleyes:

You are being evasive about the point that libs have a NEED to feel important and it is essential for them to believe they are SUPERIOR to anyone else.

Does it hit too close to home for you to give a response that isn't phrased in
irrelevance and insolence?
 
Cerise said:
You are being evasive about the point that libs have a NEED to feel important and it is essential for them to believe they are SUPERIOR to anyone else.

Does it hit too close to home for you to give a response that isn't phrased in
irrelevance and insolence?
Click to expand...

I think that pretty much everybody needs to feel important. It's hardly just a liberal idology... as for superiority, that's so far off that it doesn't make sense at all.

EQUALITY is the liberal battle cry, mein freund...not 'kill'em and take their stuff' or 'This is the best country on the face of the earth..love it or leave it!!!'

- sounds more CON than LIB, eh
 
Cerise said:
Oooh! The author was correct: "attack on the credibility of opposing source"

Nice deflection :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

OH...alomost forgot. 2Minkey wasn't attacking the credibility of the source in what you quoted from him.

That would've been something like:
"Of course that the logic they'd use...everyone knows that Fox news is a NeoCon's wet dream"
or
"He's working for Big Oil - of course he's slamming liberal tree-huggers"
 
Cerise said:
You are being evasive about the point that libs have a NEED to feel important and it is essential for them to believe they are SUPERIOR to anyone else.
Click to expand...

That describes a majority of people in general and especially cons.
 
MrBishop said:
OH...alomost forgot. 2Minkey wasn't attacking the credibility of the source in what you quoted from him.

That would've been something like:
"Of course that the logic they'd use...everyone knows that Fox news is a NeoCon's wet dream"
or
"He's working for Big Oil - of course he's slamming liberal tree-huggers"
Click to expand...

Didn't 2minky mean that the author was trying to rationalize his own inferiority complex by inventing misleading explanations for the acts and opinions of the left? Believing that the line of thinking was defective-- therefore not credible--2minky was employing, as the author called it, the "psychological defense mechanism" of attacking the source when you don't like what they're saying. But hey, I've been wrong before ;)

I'm sure the answer will come down shortly.

... as for superiority, that's so far off that it doesn't make sense at all.
Click to expand...

Maybe condescension or ostentatiousness? Or just plain ol' cocky?
 
Cerise said:
Maybe condescension or ostentatiousness? Or just plain ol' cocky?
Click to expand...

Ostentatious? Liberals? Showing off through a display of their wealth? Vain, extravagant?
I'd hardly think so.

Condesension... hmmm... patronising when seen in its extreme, but then again,m the same can be said of the conservative side.
 
Cerise said:
Didn't 2minky mean that the author was trying to rationalize his own inferiority complex by inventing misleading explanations for the acts and opinions of the left? Believing that the line of thinking was defective-- therefore not credible--2minky was employing, as the author called it, the "psychological defense mechanism" of attacking the source when you don't like what they're saying. But hey, I've been wrong before ;)

I'm sure the answer will come down shortly.
Click to expand...

if you're thinking it was ad hominem, well, fuck it, you think whatever you want!

to me it was more of a mechanistic explanation. that works equally well in reverse.

let's face it, both cerise's author and the folks i quoted in the original posts are wankers, stuck to their own orthodoxies and bullshit rationalizations for being, um, whatever they are.

and that's really at the core of the issue. it's the "dittoheads" v the "kneejerk" liberals. neither group does very well in thinking for itself. and neither carries on very interesting conversations. and neither is very good as stepping back from ideological monkeypoo to listen to another opinion or idea. and neither... blah blah blah.

you go ahead and drink tang if you want to. i'm going to go find me an orange grove.
 
hey that's not funny! :D

i need to be right! i need to correct people! i'm a liberal! weeeee!

it was flavr-aid, not kool-aid, they drank at jonestown.

:retard:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top