...and by the way, multinational corporations are the most authoritarian entities in the history of everything, and being employed by one is a thousand times worse than working for Hitler. And liberals absolutely love multinational corporations when they progressify and diversity-wash their public images.
Nah, not really buying this.
First up, conservatives absolutely love corporations. They're a major part of the power structure. And you do see conservatives bending over backwards to justify the actions of corporate leaders as good and proper, and downplaying their crimes when they occur. Which is totally in line with what Bob Altermeyer writes about how authoritarians react to challenges to the status quo.
Er, what's this about conservatives? We were talking about what
liberals like, and I'm saying they like big and authoritarian corporations almost as much as fiscal conservatives do. It's just that liberals like their megacorps with a dash of progressive
chic – Apple is absolutely fabulous but Halliburton is obviously ebul.
Sources of authority include religious, economic, military, law enforcement and government. Notably, it's only really the elected part of this that I see conservatives having any problem with over-reach. The non-elected parts of this power structure seem fine and dandy to most conservatives.
Again, I wasn't talking about conservatives but liberals. The corporate world is a bloody
huge source of authority in most people's lives, and so-called "anti-authoritarian" liberals are basically okay with that. Am I wrong?
Sure, the conservatives have some names they pull out to try and prove they're not 100% sucking the dicks of rich people, but that list of names is very small, and the logic is retarded: rather than the stratified system of wealth and ownership being a problem, it's that one guy George Soros who's responsible for 90% of the problems with America. So a structural / class issue is reduced to "if we could only get rid of that one (Jewish) rotten apple", which prevents people logically thinking through the issue at all. It's a red herring basically.
Soros is the biggest bogeyman of them all for both the far-right and the far-left, naturally because he is – Dun-Dun-Duuun – a progressive liberal!
Soros is a well known supporter of American progressive and American liberal political causes.[12] Between 1979 and 2015 Soros donated more than $11 billion to various philanthropic causes.[13][14] He played a significant role in the peaceful transition from communism to capitalism in Eastern Europe (1984–89)[9] and provided one of Europe's largest higher education endowments to the Central European University in Budapest.[15] Soros is also the chairman of the Open Society Foundations
I have no love for Soros but many "reasonable centrist" people (liberals) seem to think that he's "okay" in some incomprehensible manner.
Meanwhile we have the "liberal" version of authoritarianism, which looks to mainly be concerned with limiting how much power one person can wield over another.
Lol, nope. The managers of big corporations are mostly college-educated liberals who wield absolute authority over their employees, many of whom also happen to be college-educated liberals.
EDIT: But none of that is to say that a new form of Authoritarianism could grow up around what were previously "liberal" ideas. Look at conservative support for some proposals that were previously seen as extreme liberal positions, but have been around so many generations they've become the status quo. Additionally, look at some intolerant campus types for a microcosm of that occurring. Bob Altermeyer writes about how authoritarians like to blend in, to be conventional, to go with the flow. With Political Correctness becoming the dominant ideology on college campuses, many of these same types of personalities could attach themselves to this rather than something else. Because to attach yourself to something unpopular is to stand out, to not be part of the herd, which is against how this personality type thinks. So it's theoretically possible for a progressive movement to be hijacked by the influx of a lot of people who in previous generations would have become conservatives. Getting too popular and mainstream for you own good, basically.
Yes, that's a pretty common hypothesis, and I think there's some truth to it. This does raise the question of why it's called
right-wing authoritarianism in the first place, though.
...you do realize he's just mocking the guy who wrote the paper, right?
Half-mocking, half-serious.
Author
Topic: Murrican Politics Megathread 2016: There Will Be Hell Toupée (Read 1588226 times)