MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Tracking Down the Elusive Left-Wing Authoritarian

"Left-wing authoritarians can be just as prejudiced, dogmatic, and extremist as right-wing authoritarians."

In The Authoritarian Specter, the Harvard social scientist Robert Altemeyer asked, "Is the 'authoritarian on the left' like the Loch Ness Monster: an occasional shadow, but no monster?"

Altemeyer is the man who in 1981 devised the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale, a test widely used to measure this personality and ideological variable. Social scientists generally report that right-wing authoritarians are conformists who obey established authorities, adhere to conventional social norms, and are hostile to people who flout both. Using such tests, they have argued that conservatives have a higher need for structure, lower attributional complexity, lower openness to experience, and higher perceptions of threat than do liberals—basically, that conservatives are mentally and socially rigid.

Now a new study in the journal Political Psychology claims that left-wing authoritarianism is no mere shadow. "I became interested in left-wing authoritarianism in particular because some people have said it isn't a very real or likely phenomenon—and yet I know people I would describe as left-wing authoritarians," the study's lead author, University of Montana social psychologist Lucian Conway, tells PsyPost. "So I was curious to figure that out." The researchers set out to test the authoritarianism symmetry hypothesis, which "suggests that the same processes that create authoritarianism in right-wing persons also operate in left-wing persons in essentially equal degrees."

Conway and his colleagues created a Left-Wing Authoritarianism (LWA) scale by rewriting the RWA to be targeted toward acceptance of liberal authoritarian leaders. For example, an item from the standard RWA scale reads: "It's always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubts in people's minds." In the LWA scale, this was adapted to read: "It's always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in science with respect to issues like global warming and evolution than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubts in people's minds."

The researchers then administered their new LWA scale to several hundred college students and to several hundred other people recruited via Mechanical Turk. Participants filled out questionnaires on their political and ideological predilections, measuring among other things their prejudices about religious and racial minorities, their tendency toward dogmatism, and the strength of their convictions.

Once all of the numbers were crunched, the researchers' results were consistent with the authoritarianism symmetry hypothesis. In fact, after sorting participants into conservatives and liberals based on whether they scored in the top or bottom half of a 10-point conservatism scale, the researchers found that "the highest score for authoritarianism was for liberals on LWA."

"Our data suggest that average Americans on the political left are just as likely to be dogmatic authoritarians as those on the political right. And those left-wing authoritarians can be just as prejudiced, dogmatic, and extremist as right-wing authoritarians," Conway tells PsyPost.

What is surprising is that these results are apparently so surprising to many social scientists. After all, what is political correctness other than conforming to established authorities and adhering to conventional social norms with respect to issues like racial, gender, and income inequality, environmental problems, abortion, hate speech, and gun rights, while exhibiting hostility to folks who flout them?

For more background for Conway's earlier research, see my article, "Liberals Are Simple-Minded."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "I became interested in left-wing authoritarianism in particular because some people have said it isn't a very real or likely phenomenon—and yet I know people I would describe as left-wing authoritarians," the study's lead author

    I take it this guy was exposed to a lot of new ideas in college.

  • John||

    How does someone come to believe that there is no such thing as left-wing authoritarians? I am totally baffled by that.

  • Microaggressor||

    I've read Stalin described as right wing, because he was authoritarian and communism is supposed to be stateless. As though that makes you right wing by definition.

    Even though he was following Marx's orders quite diligently in using the state as the vanguard of the revolution to bring about the vision of a socialist utopia.

  • DJF||

    """"communism is supposed to be stateless""""

    """"Withering away of the state""""

    That was something Engels threw in but never explained

  • Microaggressor||

    Yeah, I'd like someone to try to explain authority figures voluntarily relinquishing their power.

  • silver.||

    I've tried to distill my entire problem with communism into this one single issue, and I still can't get socialists/communists to think critically.

    Okay. So. When the government is taking all of our money and redistributing it evenly to everyone and all's well, how do we ensure that somebody like Trump or Bush or whoever you hate can't come in and start spending it all on nukes instead? Do we have presidents for life? What happens if that president is bad?

    -We'll have an uprising!

    But we'll have relinquished all of our guns.

    -That'll never happen!

    :( :( :(

  • Sevo||

    "How does someone come to believe that there is no such thing as left-wing authoritarians? I am totally baffled by that."

    John, he's in Boston; there's something in the water there...

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Kennedy Cum.

  • shortviking||

    Dead bodies too

  • Paloma||

    The two do go together, don't they

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Especially if you're !Martha Moxley

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    Love that dirty water.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's what makes the pizza taste so good.

  • DarrenM||

    They need a decent sewage system, then.

  • sarcasmic||

    Nobody wants to believe they're an authoritarian. The people doing the original "studies" were no doubt left wingers, and they weren't going to let the "study" show themselves to be authoritarians. Just the other guys.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    "It's always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubts in people's minds."

    That question is so stupidly biased in it's writing that I can't believe anyone gives a shit about the results.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I dare say anyone who argues against liberty and freedom is pro authoritarian.

    I see a lot of that on both sides.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Do they actually believe that, or are they just doing a con job?

  • Trumptard||

    Most leftists (I mean the true ideologues, not the average person who voted for Obama because they want to prove they are good people) are mentally ill. They are malcontents and utopians revolutionaries who probably have daddy issues and really enjoyed the move "The Breakfast Club". These people are beyond delusion.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    You do remember that movie ended with the rebel having never beaten the jock in a fight, the nerd girl being "normalized" and becoming the jock's girlfriend, and the nerd boy remaining chickless, right?

  • LeGaston||

    There's a similar thing I've run into with some people on the right, generally of an objectivist bent, who insist that the Nazis were leftists because they were statists. And of course there's no such thing as a right-wing statist, statism being a leftist impulse. (Well, that and the Germans had to go and confuse things a bit by calling their ideology "National Socialism".) Then of course you have people on the left, generally of a Marxist bent, who try to claim that Fascism was capitalist or traditionalist, because it was on the right and therefor inherently so. Well, that and they don't know what "corporatist" means, and imagine that it has something to do with for-profit corporations.

    For something that's just an extremely attenuated historical analogy to the sorts of policies advocated by royal advisers who happened to sit to a particular side of the French throne, the whole left-right dichotomy really seems to have people blinkered into imagining that it's some sort of objective phenomenon. Even to the extent of possessing immutable qualities and inherent sins.

    What's even more baffling is this guy wrote that in 1981! I could see someone imagining such a thing now, when the Soviet Union's been gone for almost three decades, but how the hell...

  • Toranth||

    No, people don't think the Nazis were left-wing because they were statists, they think they were left-wing because they were freaking socialists.
    Take a look at the social and economic policies of the Nazis pre-war. They believed in strong workers rights, were anti-business and anti-capitalist to the point of implementing some of the strictest capital controls in any Western nation, and implemented so many welfare and wealth distribution programs that even Mao and Stalin approved.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Good analysis.

  • Bartleby||

    Hitler, at various times, was the head of both the German Socialist and Communist parties. His allegiance shifted based on his ascendancy and rank within those organizations. When he finally came to broad power it was with the support of the Socialists against the Communists and "Anarchists" (whoever they were). The Reichstag fire/bombing was blamed on the Communists but most evidence points to a false flag attack by the Socialists to sway public opinion against them and consolidate his political base.

    Hitler was a past master of declaring his political opponents enemies of the state. Was his personal political philosophy Socialist? It's unlikely; his sole ideology was power and he accepted it from anyone willing to give it to him. Nevertheless, his broad support came from the National Socialists, who were in fact Socialists, so yes, for political purposes Hitler and the Nazis were Socialists. Their first actions were to nationalize critical infrastructure, finance, transportation and manufacturing. They abolished trade unions in favor of the State as the universal facilitator of collective bargaining. Many cling to that as a proof the Nazis weren't Socialists since they clearly hated the trade unions, which is either intentionally deceptive or extremely naive; the Nazis recognized no political or economic force other than the Nazis and demolished all competitors.

    The Progressives will never admit their Nazi roots and will continue to re-write history at every opportunity.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Was his personal political philosophy Socialist? It's unlikely; his sole ideology was power

    That makes him a textbook socialist.

    -jcr

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Nearly all leftists are authoritarian or authoritarian enthusiasts. The idea that they are in any way 'rare' or 'elusive' is rocking delusional.

  • Nardz||

    Exactly this.
    There are some, very few, who believe in local socialism or anarchy. These few are willing to admit their idea relies entirely upon voluntary participation. Even then, some are more or less delusional about it as a realistic possibility.
    The vast majority of "left wing" (whatever that means anymore - let's go with collectivist) are pure authoritarians. They don't acknowledge the impossibility of collectivism without authoritarian measures. When confronted with specific hypothetical (inevitable) situations, they brush it off as somehow not force - since we all owe something to (the god) society.

  • Nardz||

    Ultimately, they concede the necessity of forced compliance... yet they still refuse to call it authoritarian.
    There are three individuals who achieved the progressivism to the purest/fullest: Mao, Stalin, and Hitler

  • Nardz||

    I will admit, from a purely objective standpoint, those three had immensely impressive achievements - perhaps unrivaled in the sheer mass of their accomplishments.
    They were effective to an unrivaled degree - which is not to condone or recommend their careers in any way.
    Yet I do think there is a subconscious, vigorously repressed, acknowledgement of this fact in all leftists.

  • Nardz||

    Collectivists worship Civilization. Enhancement of Civilization destroys Man proportionally. Sanity is to realize that Civilization is a tool, a necessary evil, and recognize that trade off. Fanaticism elevates Civilization to an absolute, an end in itself, the ultimate goal of which is Utopia: annihilation of Man.

  • Paloma||

    WTF?

  • John||

    So the hundreds of millions of dead bodies and the various Orwellian nightmare states that arose over the course of the last 100 years were not enough to convince these clowns that there was such a thing as leftwing authoritarians? They needed to run a study to figure this out?

  • Bubba Jones||

    That and the cognitive dissonance that 95% of *government employees* are left of center. Who are all these non-authoritarian people who work for the authorities?

  • DaveSs||

    Or even the softer authoritarianism of

    You can't own X, you should live in cities because its good for you us, you should live in a small multi dwelling unit, you should give 60% of your earnings to the State, you can't take a wage lower than X, you shouldn't be allowed to earn a wage higher than X, and so on.

  • Microaggressor||

    Also, you can't burn anything that contains carbon. You will be monitored at all times of your life for the goal of decarbonization. What could possibly be authoritarian about that?

  • Paloma||

    Plus those who disagree with the 97% of scientists who affirm global warming should be sent to concentration camps!

  • sarcasmic||

    You can make any choice you want, as long as I agree.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "Or even the softer authoritarianism of"

    Softer my aunt Annie's ass. Big A, little a, Aaa.

  • Sevo||

    John|3.8.18 @ 3:35PM|#
    "So the hundreds of millions of dead bodies and the various Orwellian nightmare states that arose over the course of the last 100 years were not enough to convince these clowns that there was such a thing as leftwing authoritarians?"

    OK, another thought:
    He's pulling a Tony and the sophistry here is to deny they were authoritarians since they were totalitarians?

  • Tony||

    You know that the left-right political spectrum and the left-right economic spectrum are two different things, yes?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Lol.

  • Tony||

    Also a shorthand that perhaps doesn't adequately capture the complexity of human political systems.

    Stalinism was communist (a left-wing economics system, if you will), but it was also a cult of Stalin (an authoritarian par excellence, often described as the extreme end of right-wing politics).

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    ...by leftists.

  • Tony||

    None of whom think Stalinism was a great idea.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Odd how many of them keep waving the serp i molot at their Anti-Totalitarian rallies, then.

  • Paloma||

    Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera thought it was a swell idea.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You all have tiny chubbies for Stalin whether you care to ad it to it. You're all evil slavers.

    NOW GO DRINK YOUR FUCKIMG DRANO YOU COMMIE BITCH

  • buybuydandavis||

    "No true Socialism"

  • Sevo||

    "None of whom think Stalinism was a great idea."

    The Guardian:
    Arthur Ransome wrote from Russia for The Guardian and other publications. He knew and supported Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks. He was a friend of the butcher Dzerzhinsky.
    The Guardian supported Stalin, and sacked the brave Malcolm Muggeridge for telling the West about the genocidal Ukrainian Famine (when perhaps 7 million people were deliberately starved to death by Stalin).
    Today, The Guardian opposes the war on Islamic fascism and calls for appeasement.
    The Guardian and Left-wing mass murderers: a love story, Sean Thomas, 3 Oct 2013. - Lenin, Milosevic, Mao, the Soviet Union, the KGB. And that's without getting started on the Islamists.

    The Nation:
    The Nation supported Lenin. See tribute on his death in 1924.
    A Nation of Fools by Ryan O'Donnell discusses The Nation's history of support for Castro, the Sandinistas, and so on.
    Mother Jones also supported Castro and the Sandinistas.
    Today, The Nation opposes the war on Islamic fascism and calls for appeasement.

  • Sevo||

    The New York Times:
    The New York Times supported Stalin, and denied the Ukrainian Famine was happening.
    For his support for Stalin their reporter Walter Duranty won the Pulitzer Prize in 1932.
    Stalin's Apologist: Walter Duranty: The New York Times Man in Moscow.
    Pulitzer-Winning Lies by Arnold Beichman - Duranty actually said: "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs." Think about what this means: You can't improve society without killing several million innocent men, women and children. Really?
    Today, The New York Times opposes the war on Islamic fascism and calls for appeasement.

    The dramatist Maxim Gorky cheered on the Lenin killing, and later cheering on the Stalin killing. He called for the extermination of Stalin's enemies "like lice". He supported the gulag system, and glorified the use of innocents as slave labour.

    Sidney and Beatrice Webb supported Stalin, and denied the Ukrainian Famine happened.

    George Bernard Shaw despised democracy and loved dictators.
    He supported Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler. He supported the Soviet purges. He denied the Ukrainian Famine happened. He denied the Holocaust happened.
    See Shaw - and a lesson in evil, by Benedict Nightingale, The Times, August 29, 2000. And search.
    More on Shaw and the Webbs' praise for Stalin here.
    When asked what Britons should do if the Nazis crossed the channel into Britain, Shaw replied, "Welcome them as tourists."

  • Sevo||

    H.G. Wells did not exactly support Stalin, but, like many intellectuals, he had no understanding of what Stalin was. Wells on Stalin in 1934: "I have never met a man more candid, fair and honest, and it is to these qualities and to nothing occult and sinister, that he owes his tremendous undisputed ascendancy in Russia. ... I had thought before I saw him that he might be where he was because men were afraid of him, but I realize he owes his position to the fact that no one is afraid of him and everyone trusts him."

    Journalist couple Lincoln Steffens and Ella Winter supported the Soviet Union.
    The playwright Lillian Hellman was a Stalinist, and supported the Stalin terror.
    Harold Laski supported the Stalin terror.
    Britain's Labour leader Clement Attlee (later Prime Minister) praised Stalin's Soviet Union in the 1930s.
    In Ireland, feminist and republican Hanna Sheehy Skeffington supported the Soviet Union.
    Novelist Eric Ambler supported the Soviet Union in the 1930s (but saw sense later).

    The Soviet tyranny and democide was not inevitable. As Ariel Cohen points out, it was caused by western inaction: "If the West had seriously supported the anti-Communist forces in Russia, the Bolshevik dictatorship would likely have tumbled in the 1920s."

    And this is just pre-WWII, you fucking idiot
    http://markhumphrys.com/left.tyranny.html

  • DarrenM||

    In hindsight.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Keep on lying, Tony. It's all you know how to do.

    -jcr

  • MarkLastname||

    Plenty did at the time, and some people at the NYT are still trying to rehabilitate the old leftist murderous regimes.

  • Will Nonya||

    "often described as the extreme end of right-wing politics" by those on the extreme left...

    Neither authoritarianism nor totalitarianism fall on a left/right spectrum of either economics or politics.

  • Tony||

    As people can favor more control in one area and less control in another, I don't think any of these terms are adequate to cover entire political systems.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Which is why the Nolan chart has two spectrums, not one.

  • Bartleby||

    Will writes: "Neither authoritarianism nor totalitarianism fall on a left/right spectrum of either economics or politics."

    It's certainly true authoritarianism can't fall on a left/right spectrum for government; all forms of government are authoritarian by definition. I can't include true anarchy as a form of government, but even it is subject to brutal authoritarianism in practice.

    Totalitarianism is the sole dimension governments can be judged on; the degree to which the individual is respected by the State. So far, Constitutional Democracies/Republics are the best balance we've found between total anarchy and total state control. That's why America was considered "the Great Experiment" at its founding and it's the threat of totalitarianism, not the threat of authoritarianism, that we constantly face.

    The American system depends on the three branches to protect the Constitution and check totalitarian (tyrannical) control of society. America has been in a long descent into totalitarianism since at least the Civil War and the Lincoln administration. Each step towards it has been ushered in by some perceived existential threat by "the other".

    Unless America resists totalitarianism, its progress will continue.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    SMDH

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Yes, which is why I'm always in the corner looking outwards.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    "left-wing authoritarians can be just as prejudiced, dogmatic, and extremist as right-wing authoritarians."

    So.....duh.

  • DamnDirtyApe||

    Stunning results! Who would have thought there were assholes on the left as well as the right?

  • Azathoth!!||

    There is no such thing as a 'right-wing' authoritarian. The right wing starts with individualism, with individual liberty and responsibility as a base. It CANNOT be 'authoritarian'.

    The 'right wing' that leftists describe as 'authoritarian' is the one that exists just to the right of communism--and far to the left of most other ideologies. They created this to absolve themselves of the excesses of national socialism while extolling it's virtues under the guise of 'international' socialism.

  • Libertymike||

    Conservatives, Neo-Cohens, GOP types, and cucks are all located upon the progressive spectrum.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "Conservatives are on the progressive spectrum".

    #YouHeardItHereFirst

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I fucking hate the Neo-Cohens! Anything after Various Positions is crap!

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Haven't been hearing a whole lot from the Neo-Cohens the last year or so.

  • gormadoc||

    That's because Suburbicon bombed.

  • Paloma||

    The Paleo Cohens were bad enough!

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Original Cohens, or no Cohens at all!

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    With all these Cohens, I'd like a dozen jumbo Coeggs please.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    My preferred Cohen was Leonard. Now THAT was some OG Cohen.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "Alright, everybody, here's the plan: all of you commies go sit on the left side of the assembly hall, and all you small-government individualist classical liberals go sit on the right."

    -Assemblée Nationale floor planner

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Lol.

  • Curt||

    LOL... I see what you did there. It's an article about someone's faux surprise at debunking the ridiculous notion that the left-wing can't possibly be authoritarian. Since, the surprise depends entirely on complete fantasy concepts about what the left-wing believes, you respond with a comment that starts with complete fantasy about what the right-wing represents. Or at least with regards to the US.

    The political spectrum suggested is pretty interesting. I'm trying to figure out how to draw it in my head. A line or a square wouldn't work. It seems like it puts the right-wing of the US slightly to the right of communists and national socialists. But, I'm not sure where that puts the US left-wing (between? further left? further right?). The centrists of the US are spread among the rest perhaps across another dimension. Then, I guess libertarians are on the far right and separated from everything else by a worm hole. I think drawing it requires a spiral or helix. Maybe one of those moebius strips.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    It would take a moebius strip constructed in an 8 dimensional space.

  • Will Nonya||

    the confusion comes because people have conflated a social conservative with a "right-wing" conservative.

    Sadly both the Dems and GOP are both left wing parties. They both believe in big, leftist government. they only come into conflict when arguing over which parts of others lives they want to control. Neither side argues any more that the government shouldn't control citizens lives but whether how much they should control.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    There hasn't been a successful political party in our history that argued for less government control since the British fucked off from Yorktown. Certainly not a right-wing one.

  • BYODB||

    The results sort of speak for themselves, even if one doesn't know much history.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    True. You can't buy enough votes with less government.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Wait, there are left-wing non-authoritarians?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I met one once. He was so, so high.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Those were half of my good friends in HS. The other were more libertarian types who were, of course, also so, so high.

  • Microaggressor||

    Just imagine if there was no private property, man. There would be no need for a state because there would be no greed, man, because we'd all have all the stuff we need. *Hits bong* The police only arrest thieves because their authoritarian capitalist overlords brainwashed them to do it. Without police enforcing this ideology, nobody would have a reason to protect their own property because we'd be awash in wealth that falls from the heavens. (This is what Tony believes)

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Karl Hess.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    You mean Barry Goldwater's speech writer was a leftie?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Does it matter? I assume he typed those speeches.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    Because we are the government, and the government is us. So as long as the government is run by good-thinking progressives, then the government isn't forcing you to do anything, you're just doing it yourself.

  • sarcasmic||

    We're all authority!

  • Arizona_Guy||

    "The authoritarianism is coming from inside the house!"

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Nah, they're just spoofing the GPS

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Media? Credibility?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Microaggressor||

    Feminism and communism are two peas in a pod. Someone told me it has to do with evolutionary behavior patterns - men were the producers of resources, and women were the distributors to the family and dependents (funnily this dynamic is becoming routine in my personal life). They didn't need to concern themselves with production of those resources, only the distribution, which is frighteningly similar to socialism. It should be no surprise it historically leads to poverty and famine.

  • vek||

    More or less. Women's minds fundamentally work differently than male minds. Frankly, I don't think the normal female mind (Women are individuals, and some are actually sane!) is suited to creating or maintaining any level of civilization. If it was there would have been some great female dominated civilizations in history... But there literally has never been one. Just a few backwards tribal groups.

    On average they just don't have interest in producing or improving things. They're also overly concerned with fairness, even if it is cutting off your nose to spite your face to achieve it. And on and on. I've read a lot of studies on female psychology over the years, and plenty of YouTube vids/blogs discussing the topic. Women are just not to be trusted with choosing how the world works, because their instincts are all wrong. They destroy civilization more or less when you let them run amuck, which is what we're doing right now unfortunately.

    Women are why dodge ball gets banned at school, and how socialism/egalitarianism has infected the entire western world. Men might make right wing authoritarian governments, but I'd take that shit over feminized socialism any day of the week!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    "The blood of women and all survivors flow from the fountains of UT"

    So their periods all synched up?

  • JoeBlow123||

    Every once in awhile when I find these spaces on twitter populated by communists or fascists it is an interesting time. Found a dudes twitter that was quoting Josef Stalin and another that was bashing the US for killing "innocent" Iraqis retreating from Kuwait. Another calling for the destruction of the bourgeoisie and the rising up of the proletariat who is... a college student at a major university.

    People are interesting.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    "Protesters" "Protest" a Jordan Peterson Speech By Smashing Stained Glass Windows, Chanting "Lock Him In and Burn It Down"
    ...A garrote, of course, is a deadly weapon. It doesn't even have a legitimate secondary use as self-defense weapon: It's a weapon used to attack someone by surprise from behind only and strangle them to death. It cannot be used in a non-surprise, non-from-behind attack.

    So she's carrying a weapon of silent assassination....

  • ||

    ...A garrote, of course, is a deadly weapon. It doesn't even have a legitimate secondary use as self-defense weapon: It's a weapon used to attack someone by surprise from behind only and strangle them to death. It cannot be used in a non-surprise, non-from-behind attack.

    So she's carrying a weapon of silent assassination....

    Not to rain on the crazy parade and I understand that it's not your speech directly, but if I string out 88 garrotes of varying length and thickness, I'm pretty sure a guy like Mozart could find some pretty bitchin' things to do with them besides silently assassinating people. If I had to defend myself empty handed vs. with a garrote, I'd choose the garrote.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    You also use it for various other cutting tasks. When you slice soft materials like raw clay you use a garrote.

  • Paloma||

    "Protesters" remind me of Ziggy Sobatka from The Wire.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Did the survey takers know what they were being tested for? Because setting up the "proper authorities vs rabble-rousers" dichotomy is pretty big tell.

  • sarcasmic||

  • End Child Unemployment||

    Not in the mind of authoritarians. I see/hear people all day long making appeal to authority arguments and looking down their nose at anyone who dares question the high priests of climate change.

  • Tony||

    It is not always fallacious to appeal to authority figures. It is fallacious to do so fallaciously. They're called experts for a reason. Jesus Christ it's like a fucking kindergarten in here.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    If you're referring to their arguments, it's fine. If you're appealing to the person themselves, it's always fallacious.

  • Tony||

    First of all this is conflating a rule of formal logic with the everyday human practice of thinking. And what people here want to do is take that rule and suggest that it means that all of climate science is some kind of giant global conspiracy. Which is a positive claim in and of itself being sold by authority figures, only ones without any relevant credentials.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Actually it's attempting to enforce rules of formal logic on everyday human practice of thinking. Because that's what logical people do.

    And pointing out your stupidity is no apology for the stupidity of people that get their climate opinions from Rush Limbaugh, any more than pointing out theirs is for yours.

  • Tony||

    The only reason I "believe in" mainstream climate change claims is because that's what the community of experts on climate science says. And that's why it's the mainstream view.

    There's a tiny possibility that it's all wrong, that the laws of physics are wrong, or that it's a giant hoax, but that's something you have to prove do you not?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    The truth of the assertion isn't being adjudicated here. The fact that you believe it because "smart people say so", rather than exclusively because "I find their arguments persuasive", is.

  • Tony||

    I find their arguments persuasive as well, but not being an expert I am far more prone to faulty judgment than they are. Like you.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    And less prone to being biased by the lure of fame and wealth if you choose the more alarmist position. So, it balances out.

    Incidentally, this is actually a lot like European Colonialism: were the conquistadores better educated than the Incas and Aztecs? Yes, they were. But were they as trustworthy in regards to the latter's best interests? No.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Their math is shit. Politically motivated by your friends to use AGW as a fear based delivery system for your otherwise discredited policy ideas. I think you know deep down it's all bullshit, but noting matters to you more than big helpings of Marxism.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No, the burden of proof is on the one advancing the hypothesis. You must reject the null hypothesis. You are such a moron when it comes to debating the scientific method.

  • Tony||

    Denying mainstream climate science findings is a hypothesis of its own you retard.

  • vek||

    Tony, the problem I have with it is this:

    All their predictions have been horribly wrong. They all but refuse to ever admit that. They then slander people putting forth alternative theories, simply because they don't match their current ideas. Often these other theories have predicted the real world data better than the mainstream theory. Yet that's not worthy of inspection?

    I think the planet it heating up. We have some part to play in that. It is the ABSOLUTE ARROGANCE in the face of all of their models being utter garbage that worries me. They don't have a fucking clue how any of it really works, but they're pretending they do, and then trying to totally fuck up the entire global economy based off of KNOWN BAD MODELS.

    It's way to shaky to take as the gospel. I entertain that they might be half way right, but they've surely not proven it empirically yet.

  • Bartleby||

    Tony writes: "The only reason I "believe in" mainstream climate change claims is because that's what the community of experts on climate science says."

    If that's true Tony, you've kneecapped your own argument. A scientist believes nothing. The evidence presented is all that's important, and the reproducibility of the experiment is critical. Scientific consensus is formed by reproduced experiment, not opinion.

    Read: Kesten C. Green and J. Scott Armstrong, "GLOBAL WARMING: FORECASTS BY SCIENTISTS VERSUS SCIENTIFIC FORECASTS", ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
    VOLUME 18 No. 7+8 2007

    for a well documented discussion.

  • Microaggressor||

    It is always a fallacy. You don't seem to know what fallacy means. It doesn't mean "wrong". It means insufficient as evidence to assert a claim. You can use appeal to authority as a supporting argument, but it does not by itself prove anything. Hope this helps.

  • Tony||

    Here's the authority on the subject: Your fallacy is appeal to authority. Read that.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Thus confirming that it is, in fact, always a fallacy to appeal to them.

  • Microaggressor||

    However, it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

    I read it. Did you?

  • Tony||

    Do you think I don't understand what the appeal to authority fallacy is?

    Do you refuse to believe the earth is spherical until you get a chance to go to space?

  • Paloma||

    The earth being spherical is not based on any authority's opinion. There is a set of logical arguments for it. So yes, I do think you don't understand what an appeal to authority fallacy is.

  • Tony||

    Logical arguments for why the earth is spherical? Don't you mean observational evidence that you trust?

    A person with no knowledge of current science would logically conclude that the earth is flat, because from where he stands it is. It looks flat, therefore it is, the axiom being "what I see is true."

    At this point, in 2018, what is the point of this desperate rejection of climate science? Why do the politics matter so much to you that you're willing to make yourself look like an idiot? Or are you just so bought-in to the blog BS that you can't get it out of your head?

    Pretend like it's not something so politicized and then go read about it the same way you would any other field of research.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Pretend like it's not something so many scientists' careers are staked on and then go read about it the same way you would any other field of research

  • Tony||

    Conspiracy theory with no basis in evidence.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    It's a conspiracy theory to suggest that scientists get more fame and book deals for fearmongering than for saying "everything's fine"?

  • Tony||

    Yes. It's also obviously ridiculous.

  • Tony||

    And it's a conspiracy because it requires the complicity of like every educated person on earth who's not an American Breitbart dupe.

    And Ron Bailey is part of the conspiracy, so I don't know what you're doing reading him.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    You misrepresent my position. Your criticisms are valid against the allegation that AGW itself is a fiction. I am alleging that the apocalyptic severity that many people ascribe to AGW is an exaggeration.

    And there are plenty of scientists who would either agree with, or not rule out that assertion, as Bailey has covered extensively.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "Conspiracy theory with no basis in evidence"

    So the fact that it is largely career suicide for a credentialed climatologist to dispute the currently accepted theories, regardless of evidence, means nothing to you? Of course not. Hell will freeze over before you move out of lockstep with your progressive masters.

    This is a part of why you are such a loathsome hated git here. You are obviously disingenuous, and will never discuss anything outside the lens of progressivism and it's edicts. Which is also a part of why I assert you are such a valueless shitbag. If you actually had any real principles, I would have some respect for you, even if we don't see eye to eye.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    And if you believe the world is round because "your teachers said so", that, too, is stupid.

    You should believe it because it's the most consistent explanation for why the sun rises from the same direction every morning, the stars aren't in the same position the whole night through, and ships can bring stuff from China to the Pacific Coast more quickly than to the East Coast.

  • Tony||

    Okay but I'm not going to outright claim that quantum physics is a bunch of hooey just because I can't do the math. Come on now. You're not getting that by rejecting mainstream science you are also making a positive claim.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    The fallacy is claiming that quantum physics isn't a bunch of hooey because "smart people say".

    And it's ironic you chose quantum physics as your example, given that Albert Einstein and the scientific elite of the early 20th century rejected them when they first showed up. Using your Argumentum Ad Scientific Consensus, you would have been required to take the wrong side.

    And I'm not rejecting mainstream science- not only do I accept AGW *to some degree of severity*, I'm only rejecting the idea of... well, "Argumentum Ad Scientific Consensus".

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony we reject current AGW models because the math is WRONG, not because we don't know how to do it.

  • Bartleby||

    Somehow, I sense you'll have difficulties explaining the limitations of partial differential equations to Tony. I don't believe he has the necessary background.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    "A person with no knowledge of current science would logically conclude that the earth is flat, because from where he stands it is. It looks flat, therefore it is, the axiom being "what I see is true.""

    No, because if the Earth were flat there would be no horizon and that horizon would not be height dependent. Seriously, have you ever passed a geometry class?

    At this point, in 2018, what is the point clinging to a failed hypothesis?

    No tropical tropospheric hot spot
    No change in ACE
    Temperatures below the 95% CI for CMIP5
    No model skill in predicting ENSO events
    No model skill in predicting regional temperature or precipitation rates

  • Paloma||

    When I was five years old I noticed the Sun and Moon were both round and spherical. I then assumed the Earth must be also. Later I found out I was right. In first grade you believe your teacher as an authority. But later I found out she had followed logical arguments, as did others. It didn't take Columbus not falling off the earth to change anyone's idea that the Earth is round and spherical, the Ancient Greeks had already figured that out.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Apologies, but simply observing with the naked eye the sun and moon as a 5 year old, you would have no proof they are spherical as opposed to being a planar disc.

    Note: I do know that through proper analysis of consistent naked eye observations of the moon, one can prove it's spherical, but believing that inconsistent observations of a 5 year old, none of which were tracked/compared or otherwise scientifically analyzed, can prove the moon and/or sun are spheres is wrong.

    It's just that now that this knowledge is part of basic human knowledge for hundreds of years, it's no longer understood today just how difficult it was for humans living thousands of years ago to come to these conclusions before anyone else had.

    That same behaviorism/thinking mechanism can be seen in many humans loving today who self-admittedly think we have almost perfect knowledge, where anything they believe, they're sure humans 200 years from now will agree, even though this same person believes humans from 200 years ago did all kinds of things we wouldn't tolerate today.

    These may seem very different and admittedly, it's much more difficult to truly appreciate how hard defining zero was as compared to the simple historical comparison needed to become self-aware that we don't have all the answers... but both are examples of thinking failures stemming from arrogance.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, the one tjngher I believe about you is that you attempt to appeal to phallacy..

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I wish I could say you're lowering the discourse, but we're already here.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    NTTAWWT!

  • Greg F||

    It is not always fallacious to appeal to authority figures.


    In you case Tony it appears to true. You are either to stupid or lazy to actually address the arguments. You therefore fall back to the appeal to authority. You would have championed Eugenics back in the day because following the herd is what you do.

  • BYODB||

    Or, shorter study, confirmation bias can be written into a questionnaires.

  • BYODB||


    What is surprising is that these results are apparently so surprising to many social scientists.

    Oh, Ron. You're one of the sane one's I see. Too bad so many consider guys like you to be the crazy folks.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    He has to keep his poker face up on things like this.

  • Azathoth!!||

    The RWA scale is, itself, an example of leftist bias. It's statements display how leftists believe right wing people think.

  • BYODB||

    And, worse, it was specifically designed to achieve their desired end result of claiming that only those dirty 'righties' could be authoritarian. As if the past 100 years of history doesn't make that claim self evidently untrue. Sheesh. 'Social science' indeed.

  • silver.||

    If your degree has "science" in it, it isn't really a science.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    :(

  • gormadoc||

    How about materials science or computer science?

  • BYODB||

    I thought computer science was a language...kidding! Well, half kidding.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    :((((

  • BYODB||

    Are those...extra chins? I guess I pictured you as more of the scrawny type... ^_-

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Nope. I'm exactly as wide as I am tall. 7' on each side.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    There's always one exception to the rule. One.

  • Tony||

    Social scientists generally report that right-wing authoritarians are conformists who obey established authorities, adhere to conventional social norms, and are hostile to people who flout both. Using such tests, they have argued that conservatives have a higher need for structure, lower attributional complexity, lower openness to experience, and higher perceptions of threat than do liberals—basically, that conservatives are mentally and socially rigid.

    Hence John's incessant screeching about the Muslim menace.

  • sarcasmic||

    "It's always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in science with respect to issues like global warming and evolution than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubts in people's minds."

    Hence your incessant screeching about climate deniers.

  • Tony||

    There are facts and then there are lies. Or are we just going to undo the Enlightenment entirely?

  • Dick Puller, Attorney at Law||

    You say that as if you think it's a bad idea.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Or are we just going to undo the Enlightenment entirely?

    You and your leftist cohorts certainly are trying.

  • Microaggressor||

    So, how do you know that your facts are the correct ones? We already talked about appeal to authority. But if you can't be bothered to engage in debate, you will never be able to identify which facts you hold dear were wrong all along.

  • Tony||

    Believe it or not I attempt to be a skeptic. The real psychological distinction that matters is the willingness or lack thereof to reexamine one's beliefs and alter as necessary as new evidence comes in. I am not perfect, but it is at least something I value. You can't realistically deny that there are people who are more stubborn or who reject this mindset entirely.

    And there are real debates happening, but not between liberals and conservatives/libertarians, because the latter don't really believe in an empirical approach to the world.

    Some questions do get answered eventually, and we move on. Otherwise what's the point?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Minimum wage laws, organic farming, ethanol mandates and price controls: The Party of Empiricism, ladies and gentlemen.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Some questions do get answered eventually, and we move on. Otherwise what's the point?

    You truly misunderstand science if you believe that things are solved conclusively and we never reexamine it.

  • Tony||

    You truly misunderstand science if you believe that you get to pick and choose what findings to believe based on what some blog told you.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Except I have said nothing of the sort, but I directly quoted you.

  • Greg F||

    Tony projecting:

    You truly misunderstand science if you believe that you get to pick and choose what findings to believe based on what some blog told you.
  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    You truly misunderstand science if you believe that you get to pick and choose what findings to believe based on what someone without who disagrees with the consensus told you

    What kind of fallacy is this, again?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "someone without who"... I got nothin'.

  • Finrod||

    Indeed. As the old saying goes: scientific progress does not consist of replacing a theory that is wrong with a theory that is right; it consists of replacing a theory that is wrong with a theory that is more subtly wrong.

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    Tony, try to be a skeptic about the notion that all Republicans, right-wingers, libertarians, tea-partiers, gun owners, conservatives, southern straight white males, and Reason posters share the exact same set of beliefs, opinions, attitudes, and capacity for rational thought and use of formal logic.

    From your posts, I think that's what you believe. I am much less likely to be persuaded by a bigot. I'm sure you can appreciate that much.

  • Sevo||

    There are fewer really good examples of projection than Tony posts at least once a day.

  • Just Say'n||

    Actually that definition better describes your typical progressive more so than your average conservative or libertarian these days.

  • Tony||

    "You have no choice but to accept transgender rights!" I suppose by some cutesy definition can be described as an authoritarian mindset, but it could also just be called having an opinion. "Ship transgender people to camps because they make me feel icky!" is a different type of approach to the world.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    A "strawman argument" approach, specifically.

  • Tony||

    It takes more of an open mind to be accepting of transgender people than to feel icky about them. This is the well-established psychological difference between conservatives and liberals.

    I'm not saying there aren't plenty of stupid liberals who go dogmatic on their beliefs, but we're mixing definitions so much here we're not talking about anything.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    I was referring to the "right-wingers want to send trans folk to camps bit".

  • Tony||

    They're still in the shouting at their TV phase, but give the Limbaugh crowd real power and just see what they do with it.

  • gormadoc||

    "I have no evidence for this and premise the existence of such evidence on a scenario that won't ever happen without any actual analysis, so you can trust me."

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Gormadoc, it's rude to steal my response before I have a chance to post it.

  • Tony||

    Well camps are a bit out of fashion for obvious reasons.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Admitting hyperbole? We're making progress!

  • Paloma||

    It was Che Guevara who actually shipped homosexuals to internment camps, that is, if he didn't outright shoot them. I guess that's why all the conservatives love his t-shirts so much.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    How about "transgenderism is in reality a form of severe body dismorphia, and should be treated as such"?

  • DarrenM||

    Did you mean to use "dismorphia"?

  • vek||

    How about sending people who believe strongly in the second amendment to camps Tony? So called liberals have indeed supported that! Same can be said for Christians actually. And capitalists. And any number of other people.

    But the left totally isn't authoritarian at all. AT ALL.

  • BYODB||

    A transgender right to what, exactly, that is being denied to them?

  • Tony||

    Same things as any other marginalized people: the same access to the benefits of society as the majority enjoys.

  • BYODB||

    So you couldn't think of anything, huh? Weird.

  • Tony||

    Mostly it's about not passing laws meant to harm them.

  • BYODB||

    Such as? Still can't think of anything, can you.

  • Tony||

    The laws protecting our precious daughters in bathrooms from the cross-dressing child molester menace?

  • BYODB||

    Is that what happened? Weird, I thought it was a law that was explicitly to force business owners to obey the government. It's almost like what you're talking about was specifically a response rather than the first shot across the bow.

    Why is transgender a more valid delusion than other delusions, such as believing you're the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte? Should there also be a French statesmen restroom at all businesses, just in case?

  • Tony||

    At least you're nicely demonstrating the small-minded fear of difference that right-wing authoritarianism depends on.

  • BYODB||

    No, I'm telling you that you're making shit up that never happened and claiming that as a reason that something else happened.

    It's quintessential 'fake news'.

  • Tony||

    Who defines what counts as delusional behavior? Is it psychologists or is it talk radio fatheads?

  • BYODB||

    Delusional behavior is well defined, you can look it up yourself if you want. It has a name, even, and medical professionals refer to it as gender dysphoria and it is a disorder.

    Believing you are a thing that you are demonstrably not is a shorthand definition for delusional if it's any help.

    Having a mental disorder doesn't necessarily make a person unfit to be in society, but understandably we probably don't need a host of laws for this carve out any more than we need laws for those people who believe they are cats and demand litter boxes.

  • Bartleby||

    Tony asks: "Who defines what counts as delusional behavior? Is it psychologists or is it talk radio fatheads?"

    There's a difference?

    Delusional, by it's nature, is the strong belief in something for which there is no objective evidence; an idiosyncratic behavior". Both distinctions you mention exhibit that characteristic.

    To question the validity of a finding simply because it's common to two or more distinct groups is illogical.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    So you can't name any specific laws "meant to harm them". Just vague references to things you don't like.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    "Mostly it's about not passing laws meant to harm them."

    Like what? Be specific.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Nice. You were asked for specifics and gave an extremely vague abstraction.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Same things as any other marginalized people: the same access to the benefits of society as the majority enjoys.

    Actually I would agree with this statement 100%. Let's downsize the government till everyone is treated exactly the same under the law. No more cronyism, no more winners and losers, no more deciding couples are better than singles or polys, no more of 90% of what government does.

  • vek||

    Hey Tony, how about the right of the other 99.5% of the population to not be weirded out by someone with an oddly functioning brain? I have tranny friends, I don't have a problem with them. But I can understand whysomebody wouldn't want a naked 18 year old boy (who thinks he's a girl) who is a senior in a school shower with their naked 14 year old daughter after PE class.

    It would weird out almost everybody in the room who isn't the one person with a malfunctioning brain. So why should 99.5% of the population have to put up with bullshit so .5% can have their malfunction validated?

    Again I don't even mind trannies. I have used the same bathrooms as them even!!! They're not bad people or whatever... But they are a genetic anomaly. Why do we have to bend over backwards to kiss this groups ass? MAYBE the person who is the weirdo should just learn to deal with the fact they're a weirdo, and go hang out at places where other weirdos hang out. That's where I met my tranny friends! Forcing their shit into every corner of society is causing more harm and nuisance than it's removing.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    vek - But isn't this a great market differentiator?

    HyVee just moved into my area and they installed a giant bank of individual restrooms. If I'm out and about and need to do a shopping trip and also need a little privacy to relieve my bowels, I'm going to go to HyVee instead of Walmart across the street.

    Walmart has better prices, HyVee has better bathrooms. If trannies in your bathroom bothers you, and you also have a need for a bathroom, HyVee is your place. If HyVee gains marketshare due to their bathrooms, Walmart will follow.

    If not, you have a choice.

  • vek||

    Sure! And in my perfect world businesses would be free to post "No chicks with dicks allowed" signs on their front door, and cater to whoever the hell they wanted. Another place could have a single shared bathroom with no stalls at all, just toilets in a single large open room so everybody could watch each other crap!

    Unfortunately we caved with public accommodation laws in the 60s with that pesky civil rights act. I personally don't care about bathrooms, but I do understand why some people might. If it were all left up to individuals that would be fine.

    The problem is even if we allowed businesses to decide with no legal repercussions, that would still leave all the government owned spaces. Inevitably lefties would still be pushing for letting 18 year old boys into shower rooms with 14 year old girls, which understandably weirds a lot of people out.

    As far as real world stuff goes, IMO I think the "rules" (whether legal or merely social) should generally lean towards modesty, as modesty usually doesn't offend. If you take "Do what ya feel man!" too far it becomes acceptable for a 60 year old guy to be butt naked taking a dump while masturbating in front of a pre-school while blasting punk rock. I just don't think that's cool, and neither does almost anybody else. Does that make me an authoritarian Nazi? Maybe to some people, but I just call that reasonable. Private property anything goes, but public spaces should be reasonably modest.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    All good points. I probably agree, but I don't see the government getting involved as helping anything in either direction. I have a hard time worrying about 'government owned spaces', because in my ideal world there just wouldn't be that many of them, but that's obviously fantastical thinking...

    Thank you for your thoughts! I like the 'reasonably modest' concept.

  • vek||

    For sure! Yeah there's always a difference between "in theory" and "in practice" because the world is soooooo wrong as it stands.

    I tend to think more about the "in practice" part of things, with the occasional day dream about the perfect world scenario. I don't think we'll ever have anything close to an AnCap world, because human nature is a mix of collectivist and individualist, and people like some structure... But I can imagine us going back to something more like the USA in the past, which DID happen in the real world. In that world you're still going to have some government buildings, public lands, and need to work out reasonable compromises on a lot of issues, like the silly transgender thing.

  • Bartleby||

    Vek writes: "If you take "Do what ya feel man!" too far it becomes acceptable for a 60 year old guy to be butt naked taking a dump while masturbating in front of a pre-school while blasting punk rock. I just don't think that's cool..."

    OK, now wait just a second there...

  • vek||

    I do like punk rock if that's your issue with my statement! LOL Not so keen on 'baitin' old dudes taking dumps though...

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I don't know, but I can say that I am against them, and also myself and everyone I know is for shipping transgender people to camps. It's not fair that they make us feel icky.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    BestUsedCarSales SHUTS DOWN Triggered Libtard Idiots

    You gotta make a video blog of this so I can post it to Youtube.

  • sparkstable||

    Do you find them triggering? Does their speech and claim about being trans serve to invalidate your experience... the experience that because you have a penis you are male or that because you have a vagina you are female?

    That's the problem with the whole gambit. If it is true, It can not be universally applied. If it is universally applied, it can't be true as it creates antithetical scenarios.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    I believe the argument is that transgender people have opposite-sex neural elements, actually. Not that I'm an expert.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Only libtards can be triggered. I'm just red-pilled. Sorry if you don't understand that you fucking soyboy.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    What do 19th century Indian colonial auxiliaries have to do with this?

    Also, it's spelled with an "e", not an "oy".

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I say ship them to tennis camps! And fat camps for the chunky trannies!

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Show them a nice day! LET THEM RELAX A WHILE!!!

  • Ron||

    thats right not letting transgenders use whatever bathroom they feel like is the same as sending them to internment camps. hell of a leap you have there

  • Tony||

    So let's go to the real deal: A person in Nazi Germany agitating for Jewish rights, looking up to Jewish rights authority figures, and refusing to compromise on the position, is not practicing the same kind of mentality as the Nazi. Or is he?

  • sparkstable||

    He isn't. One is a claim of what MUST BE DONE TO the Jew (This is the Nazi). The other is a call to understand what CAN NOT BE DONE to the Jew justly.

    One is a call for action. The other is a call for no action. The latter is a call to remain in the state of nature where the Jew and German are both alive and not attempting to disrupt that balance.

  • Tony||

    There's no such thing as no action.

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    Wow.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    To quote Rush:

    If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

  • vek||

    Wait, wait, wait here... You're not saying you're against gassing the Jews are you? Totally lame dude. Everybody knows the Nazis were pretty well justified since the Jews were like, Jewish and stuff.

    And nobody else would take them.

    But they do have Israel nowadays though.

    Maybe we can just send the trannies to Israel? The Jews are soooooo warm, inviting and liberal I'm sure they'd take them so we don't have to gas them.

    Except, I forgot, they're totally not! They're throwing all the illegal refugees out of their country. And they have a sweet wall already. And you more or less have to be Jewish to move there, because it's an ethnostate.

  • BYODB||

    If I self identify as a cat, is a business obligated by force of law to provide me with a litter box?

  • Tony||

    Not yet, but by all means get in line. Gather your fellow cats and develop a political activism strategy. Oh wait, you're cats. Good luck with that.

  • BYODB||

    lol, so if I self identify as a cat I am a cat. That's exactly the reasoning flaw that you refuse to otherwise see.

  • Tony||

    This is an argument that is 100% about semantics. At the moment a cat is literally a different species, so you can't be one. Gender according to increasingly mainstream definitions is indeed fluid.

  • sparkstable||

    At one time mainstream definitions said blacks could be property, that kings had legitimate claims over all others, that the sun orbited the world, and more.

    That's a weak defense and you know it.

  • Paloma||

    If someone is physically born a male but identifies as a female, why would I care? And if he or she wants to have a sex change operation, again, why would I care? As long as I don't have to pay for it.

  • BYODB||

    It's not a semantic argument, it's an illustration or a metaphor if you prefer.

    Amusingly, it seems to be one that you can't muster any cogent response to either. As if the species has any bearing on things whatsoever. Demonstrably, transgender people are not the gender they believe they are.

    This is textbook delusion, and there is no way around that. What you and others are saying is that any delusion should be treated as if it was objective fact. That, or explain why this delusion is deserving of special legislation.

    No one, to my knowledge, ever bothers to explain why transgender in particular is so deserving. Probably because they deny it's a delusion in the first place, which is...simply not true. It is a lie.

  • Tony||

    Liberals didn't go out searching for transgender phenomenon to champion as a cause. It turns out there are transgender people in the world, and that apart from the stigma they get for being transgender they are perfectly normal people.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The order of magnitude higher suicide rate among all transgendereds over the general population indicates otherwise. That suggests that on average they are deeply troubled and blaming that all on external factors does them no favors.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    "Liberals didn't go out searching for transgender phenomenon to champion as a cause."

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • vek||

    Interestingly BYODB, I read some years back about a combo of hormone and maybe something else I don't recall therapy tried in the 1970s/80s on gay people. It apparently turned the vast majority of them straight while they were taking their regiment of stuff, and they got turned on by the opposite sex and everything. This went away and they went back to being gay after stopping the treatment.

    I don't think they tried it on trannies, but it was a crazy read. In short brain chemistry modification, like with other mental abnormalities, may in fact be a real "cure" for such things if we found the right combo of drugs/hormones. Although I suspect actual brain wiring has something to do with it too.

    I mean I don't really care if fags wanna fag myself. But for those that don't want to be gay or whatever, it might be fixable. That said, I don't like they idea of them FORCING their views/opinions on me or superseding my rights because theirs are somehow morally superior.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I'm not a tranny and I can't use whatever bathroom I want either. So it's not like they're being denied anything.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Was this a legal requirement before? Because that's a big difference.

  • DarrenM||

    Even if you were forced to use a particular restroom and you thought it should be the other one, I doubt you would freak out about it and complain that your rights were being violated.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    Yep, you either unequivocally celebrate transgenderism, or you want to send them to camps.

  • Tony||

    So what do you want to do about them?

    How do you support or not support people?

  • BYODB||


    So what do you want to do about them?

    How about nothing? Or if that doesn't work for you, whatever it is that we do with other delusional citizens?

  • Tony||

    Nothing is an improvement on what some grandstanding Republican lawmakers are doing.

    But see it's your attitude that's the problem because attitudes lead to laws.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    What are they doing? Exactly? Be specific.

    Other than fights over the bathroom, I can't think of anything.

  • BYODB||

    Nothing is precisely what was being done before people tried to 'help' the transgender people by passing laws that forced businesses to do x, y, or z. So, again, you need to lie to pretend that this was a fight that started because anyone was denying 'rights' to transgender people.

  • Mickey Rat||

    What Republicans have been has been a reaction to the laws proposed by Democrats to force adherence to a dogma on trangendets that eliminates private space for women and the rationale for separate women's athletic organizations.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, is there actually anything going on, or is this just more of the 'republican' Voices in your head scaring you?

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    I can't believe you wrote about this. Enjoy your writing usually...the subject and the basic premise is terrible.

  • Just Say'n||

    I think that if there were conservative students using violence to silence speakers and the Republican party were advocating that laws be implemented to curtail speech no social scientist would struggle to determine whether there is such a thing as a 'right wing authoritarian'.

  • BYODB||

    It's hard to admit that the ethos that 'feels good' to you ultimately results in a whole lot of blood each and every time it's tried, but that's because socialists don't understand the difference between government and society. It's one of the foundational errors socialists routinely make, and they make it every time since mankind itself is not altruistic by nature but they really want to believe that it is.

    Socialists just can't figure this one out. I have no problem if you and your friends want to go and live on a hippie commune and practice socialism to your hearts desire. In fact, more power to you for living what you preach. Lazy socialists, however, are simply social parasites. Somewhat ironically, even socialists think this and much of the blood spilled was to 'correct' that laziness.

    Whoops! So what I'm saying is that socialism can work, but only when it has nothing to do with the government. Essentially it's the reverse of what most self-styled socialists say it should be. This is because most self-styled socialists are of the lazy variety.

  • silver.||

    AKA they want free shit?

    Nooo. Humans aren't like that!

  • BYODB||

    Essentially, yes, they want their free shit. That's why they insist the government should be socialist. Without the force of the state, they can't legally take the fruits of other people's labor against their will.

    Hence why a commune makes their 'members' (or whatever you want to call them) participate or GTFO. There is no larger free rider problem in history than socialism, and most socialists inevitably find that killing off the free riders is the most efficient solution to the inevitable decline in productivity.

    Plus, people tend to fight back when you try to steal everything they own which makes a certain large amount of murder absolutely necessary at the start of any and every socialist 'revolution'.

  • vek||

    Ya know, if capitalists just got over our morals and killed the free riders in capitalist systems, we'd be a hell of a lot more productive than the socialist society without freeriders! It's like the best of both worlds!!! LOL

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    The researchers then administered their new LWA scale to several hundred college students and to several hundred other people recruited via Mechanical Turk

    You expect me to trust this study when you admit that a Japanese FPS character was instrumental in its execution? Oh, no. Fool me once, Bailey...

  • Tony||

    This is absurd. They're trying to figure out who's more authoritarian, but they change the definition of authoritarian depending on whom they're asking? What?

    Trusting in science isn't the same kind of thing as trusting in religious or political leaders. Why don't we all sit and think about why that is from our nonexistent pews in the nonexistent Church of Science.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    That they are called "universities" instead of churches does not change the fundamental concept.

  • Tony||

    Uh huh. So we're just gonna play the total relativism card to make ourselves feel better about not being accepted by academia.

    "God says so" is not the same thing as "Research has found."

    Otherwise what's the point of Ron Bailey?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    The appeal to a higher concept is different in those cases. The selfish, small-minded demogogue appealing to it is not. That the former refer to themselves as "priests" and the latter refer to themselves as "tenured professors" is also irrelevant.

  • Tony||

    Priests don't have to get peer-reviewed and they only read one book.

  • BYODB||

    Modern peer review has been determined to not actually work terribly well, if at all, if you actually read anything that Ron writes or his sources.

  • Tony||

    So all research is suspect except that which is reported by Ron?

  • BYODB||

    I guess you missed the part where I said 'or his sources' which was well documented and well researched.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    None of which renders the professor's brain less susceptible to the instincts of pride, lust and avarice that nature selects for, or more capable of using its 3 pounds or so of neurons to calculate the best and likeliest outcomes for the unfathomably complex systems that are a society, an atmosphere, or a country's worth of wheat farms.

  • Tony||

    But empirical methods beat pulling some confirmation bias from a random dude's blog, yes?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    And letting each 3 lb brain control its own little patch of property, instead of imposing its delusions of grandeur on all the rest, beats both.

  • Tony||

    If only we could each have our own little patch of atmosphere or ocean.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    But we can have our own little patch of land and vehicle. There's no fixing the Tragedy of the Commons above our heads, but we can at least not add another below.

  • Tony||

    If our economic and political system requires us to destroy the global environment, guess what that means about the quality of that system.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Your assumption that that is true, and that its being true gives you the right to control the people who disagree, is where we find our way back to the bit about "a 3 lb lump of neurons imposing its delusions of grandeur on the rest".

  • BYODB||

    Empirical methods might, but modern peer review is notably not empirical if you look at reproducibility rates of published studies.

  • Greg F||

    But empirical methods beat pulling some confirmation bias from a random dude's blog, yes?


    The "random dude's blog" Tony uses is Skeptical Science.

  • gormadoc||

    You display a startling lack of knowledge on how religious figures involved in theology work. Honestly, they probably read more books than scientists and they go through similar collaborative processes as scientists in their research and findings.

    Note that none of this makes anything priests or scientists say necessarily true.

  • Tony||

    I am not a scientist but I do happen to have an education in philosophical theology. Science is about uncovering what is. The other is a bunch of attempts by smart people to rationally justify their childhood religion (they're all failures).

  • BYODB||


    I do happen to have an education in philosophical theology

    The weird thing is that you've never shown any bit of that education in conversation.

  • Tony||

    Because I reject it all as stupid nonsense. But I am well read in it, thought it was kind of against my will.

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    No

  • Greg F||

    I am not a scientist ...


    Which has never stopped Tony from telling a scientist they are wrong.

  • vek||

    Tony, your idea that colleges/professors/science are infallible is total bullshit. Many types of science are relatively uncorrupted, but almost all the ones that touch on anything remotely political are so filled with lies it is mind boggling.

    Schools teach complete lies like:

    Gender doesn't exist, when it does.

    There is no difference between men and women, when there clearly is, and it is backed up by all the data ever collected.

    I could go on for eons. The so called social sciences are basically nothing more than left wind propaganda at this point. The fact that you buy into it all hook, line, and sinker, shows that you're accepting of top down authoritarianism, even when it is contrary to known facts that happen to be out of vogue in your religious circle.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The claims of scientists should always be approached with a skeptical eye. Especially claims from the soft sciences which, by their nature, lack rigor.

  • Tony||

    That means weighing evidence in existence, yes? Is that what you do with respect to climate science, or do you just read some guy's blog and take it as gospel because it tells you what you want to believe?

  • Mickey Rat||

    I know the climate models are inaccurate. I have some professional experience with computer environmental modeling and realize how badly they can turn out if you do not enter your variables correctly. I know we do not fully understand or even know all the variables that go into how the climate works.

    Therefore I take apocalyptic claims with large chunks of salt.

  • Tony||

    So your own expertise outstrips the combined expertise of the entire global scientific community on this subject? I get that you're grasping firmly to the goalpost in order to move it at a moment's notice, but doesn't that suggest an entirely different psychological issue here?

  • BYODB||

    It's not the entire global scientific community, as just one obvious problem with your claim. 'The Consensus' is actually wrong at it's core, but we've given you evidence to prove that before that you ignored then so why do it again.

    The climate is changing, no one really denies that. The contention is the why, and you must distract from that to make your opponents appear more unhinged than they really are.

    Riddle me this, what was the PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere around 500 million years ago? Care to guess?

  • Tony||

    I wouldn't prefer to guess, I'd have to consult those exact same experts who say that humans are causing global warming right now.

  • BYODB||

    Using the figures of those very climatologists (although, really, they're not the same scientists in every scenario) it would likely be somewhere between 1500-3000PPM compared to todays ~350PPM.

    Notably, life on Earth ends somewhere to the tune of ~170PPM.

    These are facts. No one denies them, unless you'd care to say that the methods of guessing at prehistoric CO2 atmospheric concentrations are somehow flawed.

    It tends to lend itself to the notion that our climate is far more robust than many modern scientists want to pretend. Especially since we know, for a fact, that these same scientists explicitly and intentionally overstated the effects of any potential AGW as stated in those long-forgotten 'Climategate' emails.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Mickey isn't the one arguing he and his clique should be given the reins of the atmosphere.

  • Tony||

    Yes he absolutely is. Arguing for unchecked increases in greenhouse gases, overtly or by implication, in the atmosphere is not doing nothing.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "Everyone who uses ICE vehicles or products shipped using them" is not a clique.

  • Mickey Rat||

    I don't take extraordinary claims as Gospel without extraordinary evidence, especially when those claims are driving a political agenda I find troubling. I like the scientific method, but I am not an acolyte of scientism.

  • Tony||

    To reject the mainstream view on climate science is to necessarily accept an extraordinary claim: that the global community of experts on the subject are engaged in a conspiracy of some kind.

  • Microaggressor||

    No conspiracy is necessary. They're just rational human beings following incentives to put food on the table.

    Anyway, the important contention is whether climate change will be apocalyptic or not. Let's go a bit further: will it be harmful enough to justify the cost of mitigation by the proposed methods like carbon taxes.

    Problem is, there isn't any scientific evidence proving this. Because it hasn't happened. The scientific method involves testing a hypothesis against reality. If there is no test, you're not following the scientific method. What you're doing is soothsaying.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    No, it isn't. It's to accept that the idea that actually has 97% support, eg "that GW is A to some extent", is probably correct, but the range of predictions for its severity and impact are subject to the same will to sensationalism that journalism is. "If it bleeds poisons the planet, it leads... and if the Satanic kindergarten cult carbon apocalypse isn't real, we can't let that stop us".

  • Tony||

    The problem here is you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Start with Wikipedia if you like.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "Nuh-uh" is not a response.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "To reject the mainstream view on the Ptolemic Model of the Cosmos is to necessarily accept an extraordinary claim: that the global community of experts on the subject are engaged in a conspiracy of some kind." - circa 1633

  • Tony||

    Talk about fallacies.

    You're saying that since most people were wrong about one thing, you get to claim that most people are wrong about whatever particular subject you want.

    You are not exempt from empirical rules. You have to explain why pumping CO2 into the atmosphere doesn't have any effect. That would be an extraordinary challenge to our current understanding of physics.

  • Mickey Rat||

    I am saying that an appeal to a consensus does not mean that the underlying science is good. Particularly when the evidence given is known to be flawed. And again, my thought about any extraordinary claim is skepticism, especially a claim tied to a an authoritarian political agenda. Credulity has no place in evaluating science or public policy.

  • TGoodchild||

    "You have to explain why pumping CO2 into the atmosphere doesn't have any effect."

    Nobody is proposing this is the case.

  • Microaggressor||

    You're saying that since most people were wrong about one thing, you get to claim that most people are wrong about whatever particular subject you want.

    Your Cathy Newman impression is on point.
    No, what he's saying is, as this example demonstrates, that it is possible and plausible for the consensus to be wrong because it has many times in the past. Skepticism doesn't mean I get to disregard whatever I want. It means not taking a position until convincing evidence is made available.

    You have to explain why pumping CO2 into the atmosphere doesn't have any effect. That would be an extraordinary challenge to our current understanding of physics.

    Nobody has taken that position in this comment thread (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman). We are just questioning the certainty of the catastrophic predictions of the future, which haven't had a chance to be tested, therefore they aren't backed up by the scientific method. You read Ron Bailey a lot, can you think of a few scientific sounding predictions of the future that never came to pass?

  • Mark22||

    You have to explain why pumping CO2 into the atmosphere doesn't have any effect.

    It does have an effect, just not a very large one by itself.

    Where AGW scientist are making stuff up out of thin air and without a sound scientific basis is in their actual temperature predictions and the interventions they propose.

  • Greg F||

    To reject the mainstream view on climate science Eugenics is to necessarily accept an extraordinary claim:


    This is in effect the depth of Tony's thinking. Which is no thinking at all. He simply follows the herd.

  • Mark22||

    To reject the mainstream view on climate science is to necessarily accept an extraordinary claim: that the global community of experts on the subject are engaged in a conspiracy of some kind.

    You mean like the kind of global conspiracy of experts that produced ether theory? That opposed germ theory? That opposed quantum theory? That prescribed low fat diets?

    The fact is that the scientific community frequently adopts hare-brained theories and clings to them for decades even if there is tons of evidence that they are false. To a non-scientist like you (and you are not a scientist no matter what you delude yourself into believing), this may seem surprising, but the mechanisms by which it happens are quite simple.

    "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

  • vek||

    Tony, even by all the mainstream scientists own admission, and by their current modeling work, they are AT LEAST 50% off the mark with what they have worked up. This is applying their models to predict historical actual outcomes. If their best models are off by 50%+ from observed trends, why in gods name should I have confidence in their future predictions for 50 or 75 years from now???

    Correct Answer: I shouldn't have confidence!

    They're overestimating the whole thing. 50 years from now it'll be some small amount warmer, but nothing even close to what the alarmists are saying. Same as overpopulation/starvation, or the ozone hole, acid rain, etc etc etc. We made minor changes to deal with those problems, and that's all that will be needed for this too. It's not going to be the end of the world.

  • Letholdus||

    I really don't understand where this idea about a consensus in the scientific community comes from. There is so so so little that we know and the data is always conflicting. The changes to the ozone by specific chemicals is documented but the data is very incomplete. I think it's in the best interest of any company to produce less waste, and any human specifically, but as far as atmospheric science goes (my wife is probably the top scientist in her field now and the number atmospheric chemistry program in the US) there absolutely is no scientific consensus on climate change, not by a long shot. It IS leftist rhetoric. I have a direct pipeline to some of the most cutting edge studies all over the world, and what the media portrays about this science is laughable TO THE SCIENTISTS. Ven is 100% correct in saying that this imaginary "concensus" is based on modeling errors that occur and persist and sometimes have politically motivated, skewing variables. I habe seen some pretty absurd stuff. Guess what my wife does? Modeling!! Guess what else? Every day results can show something off and she could be like some people and take those tests that show what would support some sort of political agenda, but living in a bubble as she does, she runs the tests over and over. She has told me many times that her training dictates that. I ask her "does everyone do that?"

  • Letholdus||

    The answer was not only no, but when I dug deeper as to the nature of the study I understood something more about how modeling and very imperfect testing methods could be used for political purposes VERY easily. I really like how much leftists authoritarians talk about the scientific community like they are in agreement with each other, nothing could be farther from the truth. W/e

  • Letholdus||

    ...in addition, certain changes in the environment i.e. atmosphere have zero data before about a century ago, there does exist historical data don't get me wrong, but it amounts to basically something like, how was the weather, and assuredly, it absolutely did get hot, the cold, then hot and on and on.

  • vek||

    Yup. I've talked to a couple climate scientists. One had just got back from one of their big global meetings, and he buys in hook, line, and sinker. But he's always seemed like kind of a dope to me. Another says basically what I believe, which is that the earth is heating, we're contributing at least a little, but even amongst scientists nobody knows how much. He is disgusted with how the media and politicians run away with these wild conclusions based off of ONLY the worst case scenarios.

    Even the IPCC has a RANGE of estimates in their reports. The lowest of their range, which is probably still high, means it is a total non issue more or less. Does the media ever quote the low end estimate from the IPCC? Nope. Only ever the higher ones. If that's not skewed I don't know what it.

  • Letholdus||

    No doubt, and in a science with such an incredible amount of variables, like atmospheric chemistry for example, it's almost laughable that a consensus could be reached in any regard, our leftists buddy keeps talking about empiricism. There is no empirical evidence situated anywhere near or around his claims of consensus in the matter. It's at best propaganda, at worse we all know a precursor to real tyranny. Besides variables, it is very unlikely most experiments could ever even significantly be controlled for in our lifetime. This is all coming from a person who holds the environment in high regard, it's always good to waste less, I don't see anything but a great step if the world's business decided that in order to do business internationally with their business, another company had to meet certain air quality requirements. I once lived in China, my lungs are still recovering

  • vek||

    Yup. We just don't have the ability to properly model the climate yet, not even close.

    I too don't want to completely destroy the environment, which is like most people. One thing I've found tragic is that all this freaking out about climate change has in fact detracted from dealing with other REAL environmental problems people could be spending their time/money/effort of dealing with. I think we're doing pretty okay overall, but there are small things, and plenty of local things, that could be done to protect nature in ways that aren't authoritarian or ridiculous.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You progs have a church of pseudo science. It's called AGW. You have an entire faith based around discredited scientific claims.

  • Tony||

    So clearly you can link me to credible scientific sources that validate your claim.

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    What would be the point of that?

  • Finrod||

    You first.

  • Bartleby||

    Tony;

    You aren't persuasive in your argument and it seems clear you aren't trying. A person who was honestly trying to persuade wouldn't take the approach you have, which is dogmatic, arrogant and poorly supported.

    It seems clear you're another "liberal" sock puppet who's sole purpose is to draw fire, with the intention of allowing your "opponents" room to make your position appear foolish and ignorant in the minds of people who may still be undecided on the issue. In essence, you're an instrument of persuasion, but unable to be persuasive.

    After many decades of this it becomes tiresome. You people (all of you, on both sides of this "debate") need to find something a bit more compelling, or at least a little more entertaining. It's become a tiresome shtick that's just a waste of bandwidth cluttering up what could be an otherwise intelligent discussion of a completely different subject.

    Go home.

  • Mickey Rat||

    This is a surprising finding to social scientists due to corruption of the Humanities to an ideological agenda. The authoritarian Leftist was not elusive, it was the elephant in the room since the guillotine.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Left to right:

    Communism => Socialism/Marxism (Nazism, Fascism) => Republicanism => Minarchism => Anarchism

    When you get further and further from the total state, you get less and less authoritarian. I don't believe the spectrum allows for left and right authoritarianism. It would not make sense to call oneself a "moderate" between two different authoritarianisms.

  • Microaggressor||

    Most people don't think of the left-right paradigm this way, though. It's just libertarian wishful thinking. The way it's actually used is based on the coalitions that can be formed from popular opinion. So using it as a label isn't really descriptive of any policy position, and we should probably stop doing it.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Anarchism is a form of Marxism, dude.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Anarcho-capitalism isn't.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Anarchism isn't Anarcho-capitalism. That's why they had to add the "o-capitalism" at the end.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I have to say, I don't really understand Anarchism. I probably need to read more about it.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    No private property, no central government, village councils decide how the wheat farms are run.

    So, "pixellated Marxism", if you will.

  • Microaggressor||

    I always understood anarchism to mean simply no state. What happens in that absence is where the -communism and -capitalism suffixes come in.

    The anarcho-communist position is that without a state to uphold property rights, there will be no property rights. It's the same fallacy Bastiat pointed out that if we don't want the state to do something, does it mean it won't happen at all? A lot of people protect their home with a gun; they don't depend on the police to prevent burglary. So it's pretty obvious that anarchism would be de facto capitalist, and anarcho-communism depends changing human nature to eliminate the concept of greed and even the slightest amount of self-interest. Communist states frequently committed eugenics to attempt to achieve this (but, in the presence of economic failure, it usually backfires and makes people even more selfish than before; what a shame).

  • Microaggressor||

    But yes, the people who call themselves just "anarchists" are almost exclusively communists. Almost as though there's a sense of shame in admitting you're a communist. Funny how that works.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Anarchism doesn't actually mean "no state". It literally means an arkhos- "no chieftan"- which is usually taken by its adherents to mean "no bosses"... which means no CEOs, no nuclear families, and no private rights of exclusion (eg "property") at all (since they inevitably lead to someone being the "boss" of more stuff- eg richer- than others). The village sovets would consider anyone holding property privately to be a "thief"- and deal with them by the same mechanisms used to deal with genuinely violent actors.

    That's why Rothbard had to append "-capitalism" to his version: to make it clear that he wasn't seeking "true" anarchy, in which there would (officially) be no figures of authority whatsoever, but rather anarchy except for the hierarchy resultant from the retention of private property.

    True anarkhos = no private property.

  • Jackie Moreno||

    No.

    Anarchy is no Rulers. With no Rulers comes no State. With no State comes no LAW.
    The fundamental problem is that wherever there exists Law there exists those deviants and outliers who are psychologically compelled to disobey it. So too, wherever there exists an excess of Law, there exists innocent people who unknowingly transgress its boundaries and bad actors who conspire in secret to act above it.

    The human's biggest mistake is to assume that the species is not inherently good and peaceful by nature. Even if you do believe that this is the case, please do the rest of the people a favor and try not to share this assumption so liberally. It only serves to reinforce the immense evil that exists out there in the world and it gives those bad actors a larger foundation to stand on: "See? I am an animal whose very nature it is to inflict pain and suffering. Even those who are not like me do agree that violence is descriptive of our base nature."

    Another thought is that Statists like to reduce all things political to dichotomies, I have noticed. It is not Anarcho-Capitalism OR Anarcho-Communism. It is every variety of Peaceful Coexistence that can possibly be conceived of. In its best expression, Anarchy it is akin to Voluntaryism or Contributionism.

    It seems very unlikely that paper currency, in its present form and usage, can continue to exist in some benign fashion alongside total Anarchy. So Anarcho-Capitalists are much moreso on your team than they are mine.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    The human's biggest mistake is to assume that the species is not inherently good and peaceful by nature

    You've never actually met any other members of your species, have you?

    Not that I don't envy you that, void knows. But you may want to do some more field research before you present your findings. Maybe stand in line at your local grocery store a few times. Or drive through a major thoroughfare at 5:15 PM on a weekday. Or spend more time reading comments at Reason. Get some firsthand knowledge.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "But yes, the people who call themselves just "anarchists" are almost exclusively communists."

    The people who call themselves just "anarchists", are, in my experience, usually just thugs who heard the phrase, "bomb throwing anarchist", and thought, "Cool, I get to throw bombs!". They're not intellectual enough to be communists, which requires that you at least think, albeit badly.

    Real anarchists pretty much always hyphenate it in some way.

    I personally count myself as an anarcho-capitalist of the David Friedman school. But I've gradually come to the conclusion that E. O. Wilson's quip about Communism, ("Nice theory, wrong species.") is likely true of anarchism, too. At least under present circumstances.

  • Mark22||

    The anarcho-communist position is that without a state to uphold property rights, there will be no property rights

    The "anarcho-communist position" is that anybody who wants property rights will be exterminated, the family will be destroyed, and then children will be raised communally to embody the ideal communist new man.

    So it's pretty obvious that anarchism would be de facto capitalist,

    It will only be "de facto capitalist" if most people play by free market rules. However, if people are too dumb to survive in free markets by themselves, anarchism just deteriorates into lawlessness and mass violence.

    Communist states frequently committed eugenics to attempt to achieve this

    Eugenics is about the improvement of heritable characteristics (IQ, health, etc.), the domain of progressives and fascists. Communists assume that conformance to communism can be achieved through education; deviations from communist doctrine are usually ascribed to bourgeois corruption and a failure of education.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Anarchism is a form of Marxism, dude.

    No, it's not.

    Early Marxists and fellow travelers used the term as shorthand for the Marxist Total State that is the end goal of Marxism/communism--the tenets of the State so well ingrained into a much diminished humanity that 'people' can no longer comprehend anything different. A hive of creatures that were once human.

    It's strict biological hierarchy. Not anarchy. That's where the New Soviet Man leads.

    This is one of the steps before that awful end--

    No private property, no central government, village councils decide how the wheat farms are run.

    A 'village council' is a government. A central one.

    Anarcho-capitalism is anarchy. It recognizes ownership only insofar as one can keep others from taking one's things. It accepts the idea of trade--but leaves making sure you get what you pay for to the individual. It allows for no overarching structure whatsoever. That's anarchy.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    A 'village council' is a government. A central one.

    I meant "central" as in "encompasses many villages and suchlike, over a wide geographic area".

    I've only read a little anarchist dogma, but one of their big "takeaways" is that they think "face-to-face interaction" is key to cooperative behavior, and "distant" headquarters of power promote antisocial behavior.

    I think that's nonsense, of course. It's basically the same as "State's Rights" being used as an excuse for slavery. But it is a structural difference between Anarchism as theory and, say, Communism as it was practiced. Now, whether those village councils would stay decentralized is another kettle of fish.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Anarcho-capitalism is anarchy... It allows for no overarching structure whatsoever.

    It would still allow for large corporations and non-profit institutions, which would be able to exert a "gatekeeper" effect and, thus, would be at least vaguely "overarching". For an example of this, consider the attempted censorship undertaken by Facebook, Google and Youtube.

    Can they stop people from seeing "bad things"? No. Can they make it harder, and make it less likely that people will even know what to look for? Yes.

    Anarchists think they can create a world where no one is told what to do, even by their manager or parents. That means no business, no nuclear family, "communal" everything.

    And they think that vesting power in a village council The People will allow that to happen.

    That this is impossible hardly disqualifies them from being Marxist- indeed, it is essentially a litmus test for it- and is a reflection of the unfortunate truth that a society with "no overarching structures"- that is, True Anarchy- is physically impossible.

    Rivalrous goods require someone to be in charge of their distribution. That means structure, which will inevitably, at least sometimes, become overarching. Capitalism ameliorates this sad truth to the greatest possible extent, by ensuring there are competing structures, but it is incurable. There is no True Anarchy.

  • Bartleby||

    There have been living examples of anarchy as recently as the US west circa 1830. Unincorporated territories such as Wyoming had no federal or even state level government. At most they were feudal, which is what anarchy really looks like in practice. It doesn't manifest as an idealistic free state in which everyone is blissfully equal and all treat each other well, with respect and dignity. Anarchy is raw dominance by the strongest, nothing more noble. It's existed throughout history and it's characterized by forceful rule, always by the well armed. It's just bullying and thuggery. It's not difficult to reproduce and it hasn't failed to survive because it was a great idea run into the ground by collectivists. It's brutal.

    Anarchy has failed repeatedly whenever there's been a brief frontier period that allowed it to rise. Entire myths have developed around it in the American West, from "Tombstone" to "The Unforgiven". Anarchy isn't an enlightened form of self governance and it's proven dysfunctional over and over, nearly as many times as Communism and Socialism. It never grows large enough to really compete with either of those in history books, but it has always existed and there are many examples for anyone really interested in seeing its results. All anyone need to do see anarchy in contemporary use is visit Africa, where it's the dominant form of social order.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    All of those times and places you list are, by definition, not "true anarchy", because they involve someone, somewhere, telling someone else, somewhere, what to do.

    Which is the point: true anarchy is physically impossible. Because there is always someone telling you what to do.

    Now, if you're saying those places were stateless, that's fair enough. But as I mentioned above, anarchy is not actually a synonym for stateless. An arkhos by definition disallows the presence of a chieftain, which all societies, including the ones you listed, have had. It is often used to mean "stateless", yes. But properly understood, it refers to a theoretical concept that has never been realized... and never will be realized.

    Describing any given society as being in a state of "anarchy" is akin to saying it is in a state of "being invaded by goblin sorcerers": it's predicated on the presence of something which does not, and cannot, exist.

  • Mark22||

    Left to right:

    No, the left-to-right scale is simply: "divides people by class" => "divides people by class and race" => "divides people by race".

    The scale you list is the totalitarian-to-liberty scale, except that anarchism actually is not the most liberal ideology there, since it fails to protect liberty.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    It doesn't seem like anyone agrees on much as far as the "left-right" definition is concerned, but there are definitely leftists that divide by race, and rightists that divide by class.

    Robert Mugabe was definitely a left-wing tyrant, and he absolutely used a sort of "racial marxism", with "black and white" complimenting and becoming de facto synonymous with "proletariat and bourgeoisie", to rally his supporters and justify his monstrosity.

    Meanwhile, the terms "right and left" orginate from the French Assemblée Nationale, and both factions in that kerfuffle were class-based. "Right-wing" was used as a synonym for old-guard aristocrats and monarchists for at least a century afterward, and aristocracy- Feudalism- is basically the flipside of the coin from Marxism: where the latter claims to give power to the poor, the former overtly flaunts its belief that those who already have money (eg the "landed") are superior to the lowly serfs.

    Indeed, the historical case for defining "right-wing" as "classist on behalf of the wealthy" is arguably stronger than the case for defining it as "racist": lots of very leftist organizations were very racist, whereas lots of "right-wing" tyrannies- Tsarist Russia, Fascist Italy, Putin's Russia, Duterte's Philippines- were or are only peripherally interested in race.

    My personal definition is basically "tyrants who admit they don't care about you" (Right) vs. "tyrants who lie, to you and themselves, by insisting they do care" (Left).

  • Brett Bellmore||

    And this is why the right typically stops at authoritarian, while the left continues until it arrives at totalitarian.

    C.S. Lewis: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    I don't actually think there's any meaningful difference between the robber baron and the moral busybody.

    Regardless of whether you describe it as "right" or "left" in nature, the Holocaust was in no way exercised for the good of its victims. No Nazi was under any delusion that extermination was for the Jews' and Romani's "own good". And while it is perfectly fair to argue that, say, the Soviet farm collectivization (which was, ostensibly, at least for the peasantry's own good, if not the kulaks') was as harmful as the Holocaust (if you include all accidental starvation deaths from the 1920s forward), it is a little absurd to suggest it is worse than deliberately killing 12+ million people. Furthermore, no NKVD thug was under any delusion that the Purges or the Ukrainian Holodomor were exercised for the good of their victims, either.

    I think the real difference between Right and Left is concentrated vs distributed violence. The Right focuses its wrath on the "other", while usually allowing the "right" people a relatively liberal society (see: Pinochet, Franco), with only the most execrable right-wing dictatorships significantly interfering with the (wealthy ethnic majority) population's lives. The Left, OTOH, attempts to create equality by the sword (/Kalash), and ends up killing most of its victims "entropically", based on who has the bad luck to be on the wrong Kolkhoz at the wrong season. And neither of those is "better".

  • ||

    Meh.

    Of course the results of this study are welcomed here. Confirmation bias ftw.

    If the results were different, folks around here would be quick to point out the lousy quality - and lousy record for reproducibility - of most social science work.

    Sociology is as bad as statistics in terms of finding the result you'd like to find.

  • BYODB||


    Of course the results of this study are welcomed here. Confirmation bias ftw.


    You're late to the party, we already noted this exact amusing thing far above and how it was also present in the first study. It's one bad study to make fun of another equally bad study, which is funny. ^_-

  • MasterThief||

    Exactly. I would have to look into the actual study more to find out how their terms were defined, how their subjects could be categorized for relevant variables, and how the questions were phrased and answered. From the phrasing of the question showed, I already have an issue with word choice.
    This study could be a complete crock of shit that doesn't follow the scientific method and I'd be fine tossing out its conclusions along with all other bad studies. The laughable part of this is that "social scientists" would have any reason to doubt that left-wing authoritarianism exists. I'd say there is plenty of data and anecdotes already out there to conclude it exists and is common. If anything, these researchers must be defining their terms in order to eliminate the possibility of overlap between what is left and what is authoritarian. It's a bit like the bs definition of racism being "power plus privilege" that somehow makes it impossible for a non-white to be racist.

  • Bartleby||

    "Sociology is as bad as statistics in terms of finding the result you'd like to find."

    Throwing statistics under the bus with Sociology doesn't advance your argument. Statistics is a branch of mathematics and it's commonly and very successfully used to help us understand the behavior of physical systems. Virtually all contemporary scientific disciplines including quantum mechanics depend on statistics. Probability theory is completely derived from statistics.

    Sociologists use statistical methods to support their wild assertions and there's no law against doing that, but it's an entirely different issue.

  • Dick Puller, Attorney at Law||

    Left-wing authoritarians? Nonsense!

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Did the people who put up the banner ask for the THX1138 extras to show up, though?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Tracking Down the Elusive Left-Wing Authoritarian

    Elusive?

  • Microaggressor||

    So elusive I get to hear their public shaming rituals on a daily basis.

  • Karl Hungus||

    You would think cracking open any history book would confirm the prevalence of leftist authoritarians throughout history.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Tracking Down the Elusive Left-Wing Authoritarian"

    Elusive!

    Bwahahahaha!

  • GILMORE™||

    -i know the reaction by people is, "are you kidding?",

    and that of course there are huge swaths of the left that are self-evidently statist and authoritarian to the extreme

    but i think the point is that the same people who routinely plead for TOP MEN to impose top-down, one-size-fits-all, federally enforced solutions to everything up to and including things like

    - regulating how many children you can have
    - imprisoning people for disagreeing with state-sanctioned consensus

    ...and literally a million other examples, wherever you look....

    ... when you actually survey them? and ask if they prefer "state-enforced solutions to everything" they SAY "nuh uh, not me, i'm all for freedom of everything!"

    the point is that, unlike conservatives, who outwardly worship institutions like the military and the police and will score very high on 'respect for authority' measures.... leftists *think of themselves as open minded and liberal*

    tho in reality, every time they get any power, they go FDR-tarded and use the state to bulldoze the public into line

    the point should not be "left authoritarians are *elusive*. It should be "left authoritarians are *deluded*... and that polling/surveys are clearly a terrible way to measure what people actually are (when what they really tell you is, 'how they want to see themselves')

  • Mark22||

    tho in reality, every time leftists get any power, they use the state to bulldoze the public into lineopen mass graves

    FTFY

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    tho in reality, every time leftists humans get any power, they use the state to bulldoze the public into open mass graves

    FTFY #2

  • buybuydandavis||

    "the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale"

    I've taken this piece of crap. It's basically a test for whether you're religious, and whether you think children actually have something to learn from their parents.

    If you believe in the wonders of a Day Zero civilization, you're completely unauthoritarian. Like the Bolsheviks. And the Khmer Rouge.

    Pardon me while I watch the Left Wing UnAuthoritarians round up the kulaks.

  • Microaggressor||

    If you believe in the wonders of a Day Zero civilization, you should watch First They Killed My Father on Netflix and see how it went down. They outlawed private property on the spot!

  • MasterThief||

    Attempting one right now.
    https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/RWAS/1.php

    On the first question I already don't know how to answer because I disagree with the first part and agree with the second. There is no button for "everybody is full of shit." Continuing down, I really don't think there is an accurate way to answer any of these questions from a libertarian perspective without shifting the results in directions that don't line up with the ideology. How a person interprets the questions really does shift things wildly.
    I got 41% on it despite answering from a libertarian perspective with conservative social beliefs (responsibility, self-sufficiency, family, etc.) I'm definitely right wing, but don't see the initiation of force as a justifiable method of nudging society in a more stable and moral direction.

  • mtrueman||

    "After all, what is political correctness other than conforming to established authorities and adhering to conventional social norms with respect to issues like racial, gender, and income inequality, "

    Political correctness and it's embrace of the gay agenda is the opposite of established leftist authorities have worked for. Fidel Castro and his persecution of gays should be known to Ron. Political correctness is more than just conforming to Fidel's ideas on sexuality. Political correctness opposes them. Those pushing hardest the political correctness agenda are not in positions of authority, but are students, and the young generally. It's a grass-roots phenom.

  • Mark22||

    You erroneously ascribe consistency to authoritarian ideologies and fall into the left/right trap. Extreme left and extreme right regimes are both totalitarian and oppressive. And how they treat homosexuals is determined by political expediency, not by any consistent ideology. Hillary's "evolution" on gay marriage was quite typical.

    "Political correctness" does not consistently defend homosexuals, it's just a way of oppressing people and can be wielded in many different ways. If progressives decide it is politically expedient to beat up on homosexuals, they can simply redefine homosexuality as a disease again, or they can change the relative importance of sexual orientation to gender and race in their analysis of intersectionality. In fact, gay white males are already increasingly being ostracized by gay organizations, and it's only going to get worse.

  • mtrueman||

    Sorry Mark22, you are spouting nonsense. You think Fidel and Hitler and these authoritarians mistreated gays out of political expediency? Hillary? Who's that?

    ""Political correctness" does not consistently defend homosexuals"

    But it consistently defends homosexuality. Nobody expects it to defend all such individuals.

  • Mark22||

    Altemeyer is the man who in 1981 devised the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale, a test widely used to measure this personality and ideological variable.

    It's also total bullshit: communist and socialist regimes traditionally score high on that scale.

    What is surprising is that these results are apparently so surprising to many social scientists. After all, what is political correctness other than

    You're missing the forest for the trees: fascism, communism, socialism, and progressivism are all collectivist ideologies with only minor policy differences between them; collectivism is necessarily authoritarian and totalitarian.

  • mtrueman||

    " fascism, communism, socialism, and progressivism are all collectivist ideologies with only minor policy differences between them"

    What are the minor differences in policy which differentiate between the regimes of Hitler, Lenin, and Obama?

  • vek||

    WOW I'm amazed that people (well leftist academics anyway) are shocked by this. Can leftists be authoritarian??? No way!!! I mean Stalin and Mao were TOTALLY live and let live freewheelin' folks right?

    Anyone who didn't notice that left authoritarians are as bad as the right is insane.

    I think they're both equally bad in different ways, but the difference between the two IMO is that SOME of the things right wing authoritarians happen to push happen to also be good for making a society function smoothly. Whereas the leftist stuff all mostly just causes chaos and disorder, while being just as prudish in different ways.

    Conservative social norms may be "stifling" but they also promote strong and stable families, hard work, decent moral values etc. Leftist social norms create weak families (or none at all!), degenerate drug addicts, slackers, etc.

    They're both bad in their own way, but Leave It To Beaver World is probably a lot more functional than SJW World, right?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The problem with the left authoritarians, is that if you give them power, they tend to progress from "authoritarian" to "totalitarian". I think it's because, unlike the right-wing ones, they don't just want obedience, they want your heart and mind, too.

  • vek||

    I think that's pretty accurate. You must truly love Big Brother!

  • mtrueman||

    The right wing have no need to be totalitarian. They have powerful natural allies in the church and business. The left have traditionally been opposed to these authoritarian institutions. Lenin's Bolshevik regime quickly came into conflict with the traditional authoritarian institutions, while Hitler got along very well with business, the military and the aristocracy.

  • vek||

    True. In a way many right wing governments outsource the authoritarian aspects to other institutions. But is that not better to some degree at least? Division of powers and all that. Not to mention they also, in theory, lack the power of the state to enforce things. Plus private entities in libertarian philosophy are "allowed" to push their views, and if they're accepted then that's fine.

    In recent years I've come to appreciate more traditional values, as I have watched how much "do as thou wilt" has completely fucked up society. I'm all for social enforcement of some social norms at this point, because the way things are working now is sure as shit not working well.

  • MasterThief||

    Well said. That sentiment is why I'm a conservative libertarian. Sure, the two don't line up on all issues, but there are some fundamental principles that create a lot of overlap. The concept of personal autonomy and belief that the more locally problems are solved, the better the outcomes will be for those involved.
    I don't want to see this country become right-wing authoritarian where all tenets of conservative/traditional morality is rigid law. I think they really need to define what a right-wing authoritarian society looks like (monarchy? theocracy?). I think the left is necessary in regards to keeping enough pressure against traditionalism to open up the opportunity for innovation. I find that LWA tends to look similar to RWA in being held together by a strong leader (monarchy, despotism, dictatorship, etc.) and essentially is theocratic with secular morals held together by worship of the state or "dear leader." In the utopian view of leftists for what a communist/socialist society looks like, it is still totalitarian with the mob being the enforcer rather than a central authority. They need some mechanism to keep everyone in line rather than the more natural limitations found in libertarian and conservative thinking (you don't produce, you die/harming other is punished.)

  • vek||

    I agree with pretty much all of that. There is vastly more overlap, or at least lack of conflict, between conservative views and libertarian. Left wing ideology is almost 100% opposite of libertarianism. Hence it is a lot easier to see a libertarian society with conservative influences/aspects actually existing and working, versus a left wing one. The USA was basically a conservative libertarian society until it started getting destroyed. I just want to start going back that direction a bit!

  • Trumptard||

    Yeah! Take that ENB and Eobby Sauve!

  • Bartleby||

    All forms of collectivism, including Socialism and Communism in their various forms, require a central authoritarian government to exist. There are no examples of collectivist societies that did not have a central ruling party. They are inherently not populist democracies, but are instead composed of an unelected central committee, typically the survivors of a military takeover (see Mao's China and the USSR for classic examples), although they may be the result of a "soft" takeover by appointed bureaucrats, as is the case of the European Union and USA.

    The dimensionality of collectivism/individualism isn't authority, it's totality. All forms of government are authoritarian, but they vary on the degree of totalitarianism, which is simply the extent to which they regulate and control individuals. The USA is a Socialist government and has been since at least 1913, however to the extent its government institutions and authorities are limited by a Constitution, it isn't a totalitarian state. Regulatory and Judicial erosion has led to an increasingly totalitarian government in America over the past hundred years, arguably since the end of the US Civil War.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online