Authoritarianism

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/psychological-dimensions-left-wing-authoritarianism/620185/

https://archive.is/4k3Nk

This is an interesting article. It talks about how for the longest time psychologists thought authoritarianism was only a right wing thing, but now we're seeing it rise up on the left. I've noticed lots of people who claim to be politically to the left call for censorship, deplatforming, firing, etc of anyone who says things they disagree with.

Authoritarian left, no such thing, ban her!

Is this a thing, really? Surely no one ever who has looked at history (or the life of Brian) believed that lefties wouldn’t fall foul of the power corrupts paradigm? 

All this really shows is that social science is a misnomer and those that practice it are fuckwits.

It's like they have ignored the existence of communist dictators.

I would question whether this constitutes the left in any meaningful way, and I would hesitate strongly to even call them left:

Intriguingly, the researchers found some common traits between left-wing and right-wing authoritarians, including a “preference for social uniformity, prejudice towards different others, willingness to wield group authority to coerce behavior, cognitive rigidity, aggression and punitiveness towards perceived enemies, outsized concern for hierarchy, and moral absolutism.”

It sounds like they set out to prove the left is authoritarian and like many round earthers here do, they redefined the terms to fit their argument. Its a zomg cancel culture grift.

The entire thing seems to also ignore the paradox of intolerance.

Its not terribly surprising this came out of a right wing think tank:

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, known simply as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), is a right-leaning Washington, D.C.–based think tank that researches government, politics, economics, and social welfare.

If you've paid any attention to what's happening in universities you wouldn't be able to deny it.

If you've paid any attention to what's happening in universities you wouldn't be able to deny it.

Whether or not you agree with anything happening in universities, it’s a big stretch to call it authoritarianism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on October 07, 2021, 09:38:33 AM

If you've paid any attention to what's happening in universities you wouldn't be able to deny it.

Whether or not you agree with anything happening in universities, it’s a big stretch to call it authoritarianism.

What do you call the opposition to freedom of speech? Should we invent a new word for it?

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 07, 2021, 10:02:05 AM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on October 07, 2021, 09:38:33 AM

If you've paid any attention to what's happening in universities you wouldn't be able to deny it.

Whether or not you agree with anything happening in universities, it’s a big stretch to call it authoritarianism.

What do you call the opposition to freedom of speech? Should we invent a new word for it?

I wouldn't call a university that opposes free speech to be 'left' or 'liberal'. Honestly when you start to get radical it's a new beast entirely and it doesn't matter which 'side' of the political spectrum you're on. 'far left' and 'far right' are more alike than either would care to admit

And 'far left' is not 'left' and 'far right' is not 'right'. They attract a completely different cohort of people and people who would say they are left leaning or 'liberal' I'd imagine are also disgusted at the 'political correctness' and 'newspeak' - well, at least from an Australian perspective.

Conservatives.... Now there's an ideology that by its definition infringes on peoples beliefs and tells them how to live. Conservatives is what dictates what a pregnant woman can not do with her body. Conservatives tell you that what you wear is too revealing. That you cant breastfeed in public. That a man can not love another man - and so on. Liberal by it's definition is pretty chill

Authoriaterian liberals can exist (haven't read the link yet).

Desegregation of schools is a good example.
A needed, progressive, liberal act that was forced upon schools with the national guard.

The civil war was another.  A literal war to force an entire half of the country to accept the end of slavery, even if we have to kill all the slavery lovers.

In times of great change, you need an authoritarian liberal.

Authoriaterian liberals can exist (haven't read the link yet).

Desegregation of schools is a good example.
A needed, progressive, liberal act that was forced upon schools with the national guard.

The civil war was another.  A literal war to force an entire half of the country to accept the end of slavery, even if we have to kill all the slavery lovers.

In times of great change, you need an authoritarian liberal.

The Democrats were the pro-slavery ones in that conflict.

Quote from: Lorddave on October 07, 2021, 10:51:35 AM

Authoriaterian liberals can exist (haven't read the link yet).

Desegregation of schools is a good example.
A needed, progressive, liberal act that was forced upon schools with the national guard.

The civil war was another.  A literal war to force an entire half of the country to accept the end of slavery, even if we have to kill all the slavery lovers.

In times of great change, you need an authoritarian liberal.

The Democrats were the pro-slavery ones in that conflict.

I am aware.  This is irrelevant as liberal is a political ideology and democrat is a political party that can have any ideology it wants.

Quote from: Lorddave on October 07, 2021, 10:51:35 AM

Authoriaterian liberals can exist (haven't read the link yet).

Desegregation of schools is a good example.
A needed, progressive, liberal act that was forced upon schools with the national guard.

The civil war was another.  A literal war to force an entire half of the country to accept the end of slavery, even if we have to kill all the slavery lovers.

In times of great change, you need an authoritarian liberal.

The Democrats were the pro-slavery ones in that conflict.

Ideological shifts happen. Same happened here in Oz. The 'Liberal' party is now deeply conservative and the 'Labor' party which used to be the homophobic conservitards are now great friends and allies of the Green party and are progressive and liberal

Trump may have been a repug but one of his idols (according to the oval office) was Andrew Jackson. Who was a democratic President. Pretty sure he wouldn't have been Obamas favourite lol.

I am aware.  This is irrelevant as liberal is a political ideology and democrat is a political party that can have any ideology it wants.

Incorrect. Lincoln himself said that the Republican Party was conservative at the time.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln3/1:137?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

From a Columbus, Ohio speech - "The chief and real purpose of the Republican Party is eminently conservative. It proposes nothing save and except to restore this government to its original tone in regard to this element of slavery, and there to maintain it, looking for no further change . . . than that which the original framers of the government themselves expected and looked forward to."

For comparison Andrew Jackson, one of the first Democrat presidents, is described as a Liberal:

https://liberapedia.wikia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#Was_Andrew_Jackson_Liberal_or_conservative.3F

Was Andrew Jackson Liberal or conservative?

"Viewed from our time, and with our understanding of Politics and Economics, Andrew Jackson's policies seem pretty elitist. However, Andrew Jackson was a liberal. Jackson's policies advanced the cause of Representative Government, Universal Rights, Federalism v. Nationalism, elimination of Aristocratic and Elite privilege, and elimination of Regressive Taxation."

Jackson is also described so in various works as being a father of modern liberalism:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/42866088



Jackson is regarded as a founder of the Democrat Party:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States)

Quote from: Lorddave on October 07, 2021, 11:12:05 AM

I am aware.  This is irrelevant as liberal is a political ideology and democrat is a political party that can have any ideology it wants.

Incorrect. Lincoln himself said that the Republican Party was conservative at the time.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln3/1:137?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

"The chief and real purpose of the Republican Party is eminently conservative. It proposes nothing save and except to restore this government to its original tone in regard to this element of slavery, and there to maintain it, looking for no further change . . . than that which the original framers of the government themselves expected and looked forward to."

"But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations."

Basically he's making an appeal stating that conservatism is about going to what the founders wanted, which was ALL men free and that those who are "conservatives" are actually fake conservatives because they want to make new rules and ideas that keep slavery.

For comparison Andrew Jackson, one of the first Democrat presidents, was described as a Liberal:

https://liberapedia.wikia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#Was_Andrew_Jackson_Liberal_or_conservative.3F

Was Andrew Jackson Liberal or conservative?

"Viewed from our time, and with our understanding of Politics and Economics, Andrew Jackson's policies seem pretty elitist. However, Andrew Jackson was a liberal. Jackson's policies advanced the cause of Representative Government, Universal Rights, Federalism v. Nationalism, elimination of Aristocratic and Elite privilege, and elimination of Regressive Taxation."

And?  I fail to see what your point is.  Because it sounds like your point is that Liberals in the 19th century wanted slavery but conservatives did not. 

Quote from: Lorddave on October 07, 2021, 10:51:35 AM

Authoriaterian liberals can exist (haven't read the link yet).

Desegregation of schools is a good example.
A needed, progressive, liberal act that was forced upon schools with the national guard.

The civil war was another.  A literal war to force an entire half of the country to accept the end of slavery, even if we have to kill all the slavery lovers.

In times of great change, you need an authoritarian liberal.

The Democrats were the pro-slavery ones in that conflict.

Who said anything about Democrats? Anti-slavery is a left value regardless of what party ascribes to it. Even our left in America is what the rest of the world would call right or conservative. This is exactly what I mean when I question the definitions above - depending on how you define left the acts described are categorically right.

Also as others have pointed out the parties switched leaning historically.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on October 07, 2021, 10:09:48 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 07, 2021, 10:02:05 AM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on October 07, 2021, 09:38:33 AM

If you've paid any attention to what's happening in universities you wouldn't be able to deny it.

Whether or not you agree with anything happening in universities, it’s a big stretch to call it authoritarianism.

What do you call the opposition to freedom of speech? Should we invent a new word for it?

I wouldn't call a university that opposes free speech to be 'left' or 'liberal'. Honestly when you start to get radical it's a new beast entirely and it doesn't matter which 'side' of the political spectrum you're on. 'far left' and 'far right' are more alike than either would care to admit

And 'far left' is not 'left' and 'far right' is not 'right'. They attract a completely different cohort of people and people who would say they are left leaning or 'liberal' I'd imagine are also disgusted at the 'political correctness' and 'newspeak' - well, at least from an Australian perspective.

Conservatives.... Now there's an ideology that by its definition infringes on peoples beliefs and tells them how to live. Conservatives is what dictates what a pregnant woman can not do with her body. Conservatives tell you that what you wear is too revealing. That you cant breastfeed in public. That a man can not love another man - and so on. Liberal by it's definition is pretty chill

I agree that opposition to free speech isn't liberal, but I do think it can be "left". I mean, communism is the far left extreme, but they aren't liberals.  I also agree that the far left and the far right aren't so different, especially in their tactics for getting what they want. One more thing I agree with is that the extreme of either side is very different from the more moderate people of both ideologies.

I wish more people expressed their disgust with the newspeak, but many of them are just too afraid. They need to keep their jobs, and they don't want to be threatened, and they don't want their families threatened. I get really annoyed when people say cancel culture doesn't exist, because they seem to think that because a wealthy person can't be canceled that means an ordinary person can't either.

I just read this one https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/mit-abandons-its-mission-and-me  His lecture was canceled because he is critical of DEI and proposed a different solution. Universities and corporations need to stop caving in to the Twitter mobs. Most of the people in the mobs are just jumping on the bandwagon, they don't go to MIT (or whichever university it may be). 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 07, 2021, 11:02:20 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on October 07, 2021, 10:51:35 AM

Authoriaterian liberals can exist (haven't read the link yet).

Desegregation of schools is a good example.
A needed, progressive, liberal act that was forced upon schools with the national guard.

The civil war was another.  A literal war to force an entire half of the country to accept the end of slavery, even if we have to kill all the slavery lovers.

In times of great change, you need an authoritarian liberal.

The Democrats were the pro-slavery ones in that conflict.

Who said anything about Democrats? Anti-slavery is a left value regardless of what party ascribes to it. Even our left in America is what the rest of the world would call right or conservative. This is exactly what I mean when I question the definitions above - depending on how you define left the acts described are categorically right.

Also as others have pointed out the parties switched leaning historically.

When did they switch? In 1964 the Democrats filibustered the historic Civil Rights act which gave blacks equal rights.

From the video:

In 2020 California Senate Democrats almost repealed equal protection laws in California which prohibited preferential treatment of persons based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment and education:

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020)



Democrats in the State Assembly and State Senate voted YES:



When the proposition appeared on the California ballot this Democratic scheme was later rejected by the populous and defeated.

"The fundamental difference between the liberal and the illiberal outlook is that the former regards all questions as open to discussion and all opinions as open to a greater or lesser measure of doubt, while the latter holds in advance that certain opinions are absolutely unquestionable, and that no argument against them must be allowed be heard. What is curious about this position is the belief that if impartial investigation were permitted it would lead men to the wrong conclusion, and that ignorance is, therefore, the only safeguard against terror. This point of view cannot be accepted by any man who wishes reason rather than prejudice to govern human action."

Bertrand Russell - Freedom and the Colleges

Good discussion about cancel culture (even if you don't agree with everything they say).

In 2020 California Senate Democrats almost repealed equal protection laws in California which prohibited preferential treatment of persons based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment and education:

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020)



Democrats in the State Assembly and State Senate voted YES:



When the proposition appeared on the California ballot this Democratic scheme was rejected by the populous.

Of course.  You did read the image, right?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 07, 2021, 12:31:17 PM

In 2020 California Senate Democrats almost repealed equal protection laws in California which prohibited preferential treatment of persons based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment and education:

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020)



Democrats in the State Assembly and State Senate voted YES:



When the proposition appeared on the California ballot this Democratic scheme was rejected by the populous.

Of course.  You did read the image, right?

Yep. The image says that a vote of "yes" means that you want to repeal equal protection laws. The proposition was approved by the Senate Democrats who voted yes in the image above and when it went onto the California ballot for the public vote it was defeated by the populous:



Reading through the link shows that Democrat politicians are arguing in favor of discrimination by race and Republicans are arguing against it -

Democrat Argument:

State Sen. Steven Bradford (D-35): "I know about discrimination. I live it every day. We live it in this building. Quit lying to yourselves and saying race is not a factor... the bedrock of who we are in this country is based on race."

Republican Argument:

Asm. Steven S. Choi (R-68): "Is it right to give someone a job just because they are white, or black or green or yellow? Or just because they are male? Repealing Proposition 209, enacted by voters 24 years ago, is to repeal the prohibition of judgment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity and national origin. We are talking about legalizing racism and sexism."

From the Ballot Summary:

The ballot summary was as follows: Permits government decision-making policies to consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to address diversity by repealing article I, section 31, of the California Constitution, which was added by Proposition 209 in 1996.

From the Official Voter Information Guide on the proposition:

Official Voter Information Guide: YES on Prop. 16 means EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS. All of us deserve equal opportunities to thrive with fair wages, good jobs, and quality schools. Despite living in the most diverse state in the nation, white men are still overrepresented in positions of wealth and power in California. Although women, and especially women of color, are on the front lines of the COVID-19 response, they are not rewarded for their sacrifices. Women should have the same chance of success as men. Today, nearly all public contracts, and the jobs that go with them, go to large companies run by older white men. White women make 80¢ on the dollar. The wage disparity is even worse for women of color and single moms. As a result, an elite few are able to hoard wealth instead of investing it back into communities. Prop. 16 opens up contracting opportunities for women and people of color. We know that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Yet, Main Street businesses owned by women and people of color lose over $1,100,000,000 in government contracts every year because of the current law. We need to support those small businesses, especially as we rebuild from COVID-19. Wealth will be invested back into our communities. YES on Prop. 16 helps rebuild California stronger with fair opportunities for all.

It's arguing in favor of abolishing equal protection laws in the state and allowing employers to hire based on race and sex. Wow.

And Senate Democrats unanimously voted for it. Despicable.

Look at the list of supporters for the proposition. The California Democrat Party and a bunch of Democrat politicians. Again, from the link -



The California Democrat Party, the democrat governor Gavin Newsom, and notable politicians like Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Boxer, and Pete Buttigieg, all wanted equal protection laws abolished.

Again, they all wanted to abolish the equal protection laws.

Disgusting.

It's arguing in favor of abolishing equal protection laws in the state and allowing employers to hire based on race and sex. Wow.

You would have to pick one of the more confusing, convoluted props to ever grace the Golden State. When you distill it all down, Proposition 209 (1996) prohibits the use of affirmative action. Prop 16 was to repeal the language in 209 to allow for affirmative action and defer to the Federal view of affirmative action.

It's right there in your link:

"Without Proposition 209, the state government, local governments, public universities, and other political subdivisions and public entities would—within the limits of federal law—be allowed to develop and use affirmative action programs that grant preferences based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting."

The bottomline, it was about how you feel about Federally allowed "affirmative action" versus not having "affirmative action." at all. A debate certainly well worth having. It's a really tough issue.

Disgusting.

What's disgusting is your ever present cherry-picking to try and present a one-sided argument and paint an issue in only your own twisted thought-process. In this case, with the lame, "Hey look, Dems are against equal opportunity!!!" It's a much broader, more complex issue than your single-cell myopic view.

Affirmative Action is only a "tricky issue" if you are a racist POS who is having a tough time trying to argue why one race should be preferred over another in employment and college admissions.

Affirmative action is racism.

When you populate schools based on a certain race rather than academic merit it is racism

When you hire based on race rather than merit it is racism

If you are preferring one race over another it's racism by definition. It's not good to eliminate Civil Rights protections so that employers can hire based on race. That's bad, and racist.

Affirmative Action is only a "tricky issue" if you are a racist POS who is having a tough time trying to argue why one race should be preferred over another in employment and college admissions.

Affirmative action is racism.

Trying to populate schools based on a certain race rather than academic merit = racism

Hiring based on race rather than merit = racism

If you are preferring one race over another it's racism. Get out of here with your racist sympathy. It's not good to eliminate Civil Rights protections so that employers can hire based on race. That's bad, and racist.

I guess we have had a severely racist federal government for decades, supported even by the SCOTUS.

“For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans. Affirmative actions include training programs, outreach efforts, and other positive steps. These procedures should be incorporated into the company's written personnel policies. Employers with written affirmative action programs must implement them, keep them on file and update them annually.”
https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/hiring/affirmativeact

Liberals are a large force in politics and the federal government. You are screaming at us to "look at what muh liberals did" as if it makes it any less racist.

Racism is historically legal, and racial discrimination is legal to some extent in states other than California, certainly. But just because racism is legal in some areas doesn't make it good.

The Supreme Court decision you are referring to as justification actually drastically limited what universities can do in Affirmative Action -

https://www.vox.com/22301135/supreme-court-affirmative-action-harvard-college-race-students-for-fair-admission-ed-blum

How affirmative action in university admissions works

For nearly half a century, the Supreme Court has placed tight limits on universities that wish to consider race when admitting students, and cases like Grutter and Fisher made those limits even tighter. Universities may not use quotas that set aside a certain number of seats for applicants of color, and they may not use formulas that grant a mathematical advantage to every applicant from a certain racial background.

In practice, affirmative action often functions as a tiebreaker when a university is trying to decide among multiple applicants, each of whom is likely to succeed at that institution.


But as bad as that still is, this 2020 California proposition wasn't even that. It just wanted to eliminate the equal protection laws altogether. There is no special wording to limit the extent of Affirmative Action, or to limit how far employers and schools can take it. It wanted to take an eraser to the equal protection law and give free reign to racism and sexism.

The people fighting against racial discrimination are the Republicans. According to the ballotpedia.org link the person behind the campaign for the 1996 California Proposition 209 which mandates that race and sex must be treated equally  by the state was Ward Connerly:



Clicking on that link:

https://ballotpedia.org/Ward_Connerly



The person behind this California bill banning racism was authored by a black Republican. Who would have thought? I thought Democrats were supposed to be the ones fighting for equality. In fact, it's just the opposite.

Liberals are a large force in politics
But as bad as that still is, this 2020 California proposition wasn't even that. It just wanted to eliminate the equal protection laws altogether. There is no special wording to limit the extent of Affirmative Action, or to limit how far employers and schools can take it. It wanted to take an eraser to the equal protection law and give free reign to racism and sexism.

Nope, wrong. It removed the language preventing affirmative action. And allowed for the federal guidelines regarding the use of affirmative action to be used.
The limits to affirmative action can not supersede the fed’s guidelines therefore the guardrails were already in place.
So you are wrong, there are federal limits that a state cannot surpass.

Again, affirmative action is very complex. Certainly still in place federally and in all but 8 states, of course, with limitations.

Now what all this has to with Authoritarianism, I’m not sure. But I’m sure you’ll find a way in that cherry-picking brain of yours to attempt to shoehorn something as multifaceted as ca prop 16 with your simplistic and banal interpretations into the mix.

Americans are so binary

If you're a repug you must think 'x' and if you're a dem you must think 'y'

It evades their logic if a repug could think differently to their group think and vice versa

So dumb

As stash said, that was the crux of the issue: the No part.

You say its racist to pick students based in race and not accedemic merit.  You aren't wrong.  But how do you ensure that?  How do you keep racists from ignoring blacks and picking whites even if blacks have better accademics?  Thats the problem that was attempted to be solved.

You also have the poverty cycle.  Which you know nothing about since you seem to have grown up in the "well offf enough" cycle.

Basically: being poor is expensive.  Any setback, even minor to you, could be catostrophic to someone barely able to survive.  And how do you raise your children up when you can't get a loan for school, let alone afford it outright?  Sure, scholarships, but that's one.  Maybe two or three per.  Out if hundreds if not hundred thousand all applying at once.  So what happens?  The children of poor parents end up poor themselves. 

And when one race is disproportionately stuck in the cycle of poor, you have a few options.
1. Give universal higher education paid for with taxes.
2. Force universities to accept some blacks over whites.

If you do as you suggested, then we're right back to the 50s.  And last I checked, shit was not great if you weren't white or rich.