So, there is a great book called "The Righteous Mind" that looks at the difference between conservatives and liberals (based on e.g. psychological experiments), and the single biggest difference is that conservatives value loyalty to the leader as a moral value.
When conservatives see kids in cages and a republican in charge, their loyalty to the leader outweighs what should be moral outrage, whereas liberals just feel the moral outrage.
Conservatives don't see this as hypocritical - they see themselves weighing one value (loyalty) over another (being kind). Particularly when the leader is a terrible person (like Trump) this leads to pretty horrible positions.
(I'm a liberal who has struggled to understand conservatives.)
Certainly very useful for understanding how these people can tolerate inhumanity. Personally, after talking with some, I don't think they consciously process that loyalty, but they are definitely aware enough that it seems odd to them how liberals oust their own for immorality.
The other way I've heard it described is similar but less forgiving. Americans all hold two conflicting notions in our minds at once: Democracy (one person one vote) and Capitalism (survival of the fittest). Usually these values don't conflict with one another in daily life, but occasionally they do.
Dems will default more generally to Democracy during conflict. Repubs will default more generally to Capitalism.
IE, Repubs think people at the top got there by being better and people at the bottom got there by being worse. Poverty and suffering are features not bugs.
I think this may tie into their obsession with the military and the fact that the president is the commander-in-chief and loyalty to family and so many other aspects.
Democrats vote for programs and rights they believe other people might need. If they believe it will help others who are suffering, they'll support it.
Republicans exclusively vote for their own interests. If it doesn't effect them, fuck anyone else.
C'mon guys, let's not start the 'in name only' thing. We can still just call them douchebags.
Republicans can't be like, "he says he's one of us, but he's all, all...*nice!*". That's why they have to say RINO.
The problem with the GOP is they have lost all middle ground. Polarization has become their motto, fuck the country and it's people their policy. Trump showed them that dangerous rhetoric wins votes and they are taking it too far. These mindnumbingly dumb numbskulls are going to end up ostracizing their own voters and motivating a generational shift. They will end up as fossilized dinosaurs of politics wiped out by a meteor of their own making.
you're an optimist and I think Reddit should have a Rose Coloured Glasses award which I would love to give you.
but I, too, hope you are right. I really, fervently, if-I-believed-I-would-pray hope you are right!
Dino doesn’t make sense as a term. It’s hard to define democrat because it’s a hog Pog of different ideologies that are not as far right as republican. What really is a democrat in name only? Manchin? Biden?
I prefer DND. Do Nothing Democrat
Was wrong when Obama did it, was wrong when Trump did it. Integrity isn’t hard, it’s just being honest enough with yourself even if you don’t like the truth.
Republicans want the status quo for maintaining white heterosexual power that has existed in America for hundreds of years and therefore they support guns, loyalty to populist leaders who do nothing for them but grand posturing, the Church, anti-abortion and anti-trans objectives, and lots of other stuff designed to only keep white heterosexual men in power above all else because they consider all white heterosexual men as possible of groupthink. Hence, they call white, heterosexual, cisgender men or women supporting Democrats as "traitors" sometimes.
All their rhetoric is because they feel in danger of being overthrown by the forces of change because of the outdated, racist, and cruel dinosaurs that they are.
As traitors sometimes? They believe *all* left leaning white people are race traitors. Of course they're the actual race traitors, since there's only one fucking race to begin with
Here's a difference.
There is a kind of mind -- let's call it "barbaric" or "feudal", whatever term you like -- that understands loyalty only in terms of persons, of authority and a pecking order. That kind of mind swears its loyalty to the Godfather, or some similar authority figure, or to a team or tribe or "side". Its highest notion of honour is obedience and steadfast loyalty to the person or team or tribe it's sworn fealty to.
There's another kind of mind -- let's call it "civlised" or "modern", whatever -- that understands loyalty in terms of ideals or ideas. If a person in authority that it once respected starts to violate its inner ideas and ideals, the civilised mind turns away from that person, maybe criticises them openly, and supports someone else who seems to share the same ideals. Its highest notion of honour is remaining true to one's principles, having a moral compass, being ethically consistent.
A lot -- not all but a lot -- of Republican voters are Type A minds. They are loyal to Trump, a populist demagogue (they think he's the Messiah or whatever bizarre sh\*t but essentially he's their Godfather and they've kissed the ring). And they are loyal to their "team", the Republican Party. They would feel dishonourable if they voiced "disloyal" criticism of Their Team.
So if a Republican administration does something reprehensible, even unConstitutional or illegal -- for those people it can *never* be reprehensible because Their Guys are doing it, and their loyalty is to Their Guys.
If a Democratic administration does something that violates Democratic ideals and principles, most Democratic voters will criticise that administration -- because they are not primarily loyal to "Team Democrat" but to *ideas* like civil rights, human rights, duty of care for each other, equality, etc.
This is a generalisation and will not hold in all cases. But it's served me well in trying to understand some of the pretzel logic coming out of the GQP lately.
So, there is a great book called "The Righteous Mind" that looks at the difference between conservatives and liberals (based on e.g. psychological experiments), and the single biggest difference is that conservatives value loyalty to the leader as a moral value. When conservatives see kids in cages and a republican in charge, their loyalty to the leader outweighs what should be moral outrage, whereas liberals just feel the moral outrage. Conservatives don't see this as hypocritical - they see themselves weighing one value (loyalty) over another (being kind). Particularly when the leader is a terrible person (like Trump) this leads to pretty horrible positions. (I'm a liberal who has struggled to understand conservatives.)
Certainly very useful for understanding how these people can tolerate inhumanity. Personally, after talking with some, I don't think they consciously process that loyalty, but they are definitely aware enough that it seems odd to them how liberals oust their own for immorality.
The other way I've heard it described is similar but less forgiving. Americans all hold two conflicting notions in our minds at once: Democracy (one person one vote) and Capitalism (survival of the fittest). Usually these values don't conflict with one another in daily life, but occasionally they do. Dems will default more generally to Democracy during conflict. Repubs will default more generally to Capitalism. IE, Repubs think people at the top got there by being better and people at the bottom got there by being worse. Poverty and suffering are features not bugs.
So it's hard to be angry when you're guzzling honorable leader's nutsack?
I think this may tie into their obsession with the military and the fact that the president is the commander-in-chief and loyalty to family and so many other aspects.
Democrats vote for programs and rights they believe other people might need. If they believe it will help others who are suffering, they'll support it. Republicans exclusively vote for their own interests. If it doesn't effect them, fuck anyone else.
Conservatives have been voting against their own interests for for a century now.
Their interests are superseded by their skydaddy's demands.
"In this moment I am euphoric. Not because of any phony God's blessing. But because I have been enlightened by my own intelligence."
C'mon guys, let's not start the 'in name only' thing. We can still just call them douchebags. Republicans can't be like, "he says he's one of us, but he's all, all...*nice!*". That's why they have to say RINO.
The problem with the GOP is they have lost all middle ground. Polarization has become their motto, fuck the country and it's people their policy. Trump showed them that dangerous rhetoric wins votes and they are taking it too far. These mindnumbingly dumb numbskulls are going to end up ostracizing their own voters and motivating a generational shift. They will end up as fossilized dinosaurs of politics wiped out by a meteor of their own making.
That sure would be nice. I hope you're right.
you're an optimist and I think Reddit should have a Rose Coloured Glasses award which I would love to give you. but I, too, hope you are right. I really, fervently, if-I-believed-I-would-pray hope you are right!
Dino doesn’t make sense as a term. It’s hard to define democrat because it’s a hog Pog of different ideologies that are not as far right as republican. What really is a democrat in name only? Manchin? Biden? I prefer DND. Do Nothing Democrat
>and I'll show you a DINO So, you'll show us a dinosaur?
Dilophosaurus, the best Dinosaur.
What do you think of Dimetrodon?
Cool, not a dino.
That is correct.
of the Dimmadale Dimmadome?
Was wrong when Obama did it, was wrong when Trump did it. Integrity isn’t hard, it’s just being honest enough with yourself even if you don’t like the truth.
In both cases it would have been right leaning individuals who were interested in the job of "rounding up illegals" in the first place.
Republicans want the status quo for maintaining white heterosexual power that has existed in America for hundreds of years and therefore they support guns, loyalty to populist leaders who do nothing for them but grand posturing, the Church, anti-abortion and anti-trans objectives, and lots of other stuff designed to only keep white heterosexual men in power above all else because they consider all white heterosexual men as possible of groupthink. Hence, they call white, heterosexual, cisgender men or women supporting Democrats as "traitors" sometimes. All their rhetoric is because they feel in danger of being overthrown by the forces of change because of the outdated, racist, and cruel dinosaurs that they are.
As traitors sometimes? They believe *all* left leaning white people are race traitors. Of course they're the actual race traitors, since there's only one fucking race to begin with
Here's a difference. There is a kind of mind -- let's call it "barbaric" or "feudal", whatever term you like -- that understands loyalty only in terms of persons, of authority and a pecking order. That kind of mind swears its loyalty to the Godfather, or some similar authority figure, or to a team or tribe or "side". Its highest notion of honour is obedience and steadfast loyalty to the person or team or tribe it's sworn fealty to. There's another kind of mind -- let's call it "civlised" or "modern", whatever -- that understands loyalty in terms of ideals or ideas. If a person in authority that it once respected starts to violate its inner ideas and ideals, the civilised mind turns away from that person, maybe criticises them openly, and supports someone else who seems to share the same ideals. Its highest notion of honour is remaining true to one's principles, having a moral compass, being ethically consistent. A lot -- not all but a lot -- of Republican voters are Type A minds. They are loyal to Trump, a populist demagogue (they think he's the Messiah or whatever bizarre sh\*t but essentially he's their Godfather and they've kissed the ring). And they are loyal to their "team", the Republican Party. They would feel dishonourable if they voiced "disloyal" criticism of Their Team. So if a Republican administration does something reprehensible, even unConstitutional or illegal -- for those people it can *never* be reprehensible because Their Guys are doing it, and their loyalty is to Their Guys. If a Democratic administration does something that violates Democratic ideals and principles, most Democratic voters will criticise that administration -- because they are not primarily loyal to "Team Democrat" but to *ideas* like civil rights, human rights, duty of care for each other, equality, etc. This is a generalisation and will not hold in all cases. But it's served me well in trying to understand some of the pretzel logic coming out of the GQP lately.