You must log in or register to comment.
This is why conservatives should be sent to reeducation camps
Right-wing values can be summarized in one word: Hierarchy.
I sort of disagree, it’s that they want to feel safe and taken care of. They’ve made Trump their Jesus, literally. He is their shepherd and will only do well for them.
That’s why the gas and inflation going in the wrong direction after 2 years is fucking with their heads. If he’s wrong about one thing, and god can’t be wrong, then maybe he isn’t a god.
What I don’t understand is why is it the stupidest people getting put on that pedestal.
Because you have to be intelligent to admit you don’t know something.
specifically, social dominators end up on top. Authoritarians put them there.
Stupid and confident is a dangerous combination. Add arrogant, charismatic or attractive, and you get weaponised incompetence.
Weak people love confidence and will tolerate arrogance. Once a confident person starts observing those around them agreeing, following, defending them, they start to believe their own bullshit, and they learn through reward feedback that if they do anything with confidence and arrogance, even when they are wrong, weaker people will agree with them.
Stupid people like other stupid people
See also: British people who are weirdly pro-monarchy.
As I heard someone else say recently, everything with conservatives is either team sports or cuck porn and it really seems that’s true.
These heirarchies caused or exaserbated just about every major tragedy in history - war, genocide, slavery, rape, empire, colonialism, capitalism, etc.
But depending on how you look at it, 25-40% of humans just like heirarchies and want them, despite the misery they cause for both the empowered and disempowered.
That’s a huge problem - fascism will likely always have a base of supporters to come back from no matter how many times we defeat it, and you just can’t imprison/disenfranchise/exile that high a % of people for a wide variety of obvious reasons.
I fear this is a “this is who we are as an organism” problem that will follow our species wherever we go.
The desire for hierarchy and order isn’t an inherently bad one. A highly authoritarian individual will be the first to volunteer when someone needs to run into a burning building to save someone. They will be the first to volunteer to defend the community. They will also be the people that organize trash pickups, because littering is bad.
However, they can also be easily weaponized against others. Just like littering is against the natural order of things, and they will go out of their way to pick up litter, they can be convinced that other people are also against the natural order of things…with significantly more horrific outcomes.
The thing is, tree structures are very good ways to scale interconnected systems. Ask any computer scientist or computer networker about it.
This applies to societal systems as well. A bronze age society that has a feudal structure can manage a much larger area than a flat society. Armies can be coordinated that would be an ineffective mob otherwise.
That doesn’t make hierarchies nice for the people living in them, any more than the industrial revolution was actually nice for the people living through it. But they are an enabling technology, and societies that did not have hierarchy were eventually overwhelmed until almost every living human is living that way.
For sure it’s more effective with entreched heirarchies, bit i think it’s possible to use that organisational structure without it metastisizing into a perminant heirarchy. Anarchist federations do this, sortition is useful, turn-taking etc.
societies that did not have hierarchy
I don’t believe such a thing ever existed. Other mammals display heirarchies so it was probably present in a distant ancestor, predating humans and our societies.
It’s the nature, duration and intensity of heirarchy that has changed so remarkably in the last 15k odd years.
I wonder how many people think that their place in society would be a lot lower if it was based on competition, so it is better to preserve the system that keeps them where they are at.
Well, there are people that believe their position would be higher if the ‘others’ wouldn’t have taken that spot.
But depending on how you look at it, 25-40% of humans just like heirarchies and want them, despite the misery they cause for both the empowered and disempowered.
Get them into kink.
Seriously though, you can have consensual hierarchical structures that provide an outlet for those desires to the degree that they are innate. Is the desire to force everyone in the world to be a part of your hierarchy really part of that innate desire? Or is it more that some people feel more comfortable when they have a clearly defined status?
And it doesn’t have to be confined to kink, for example, in a community for a competitive sport or game, there can be a bit of an implicit social hierarchy based on skill.
Those kinds of hierarchies are a lot closer to the hierarchies that humans evolved with, applying to an immediate social group, within “Dunbar’s number.” There was never a long period of time (from an evolutionary standpoint) where state-wide or globe-spanning hierarchies were selected for, so it doesn’t really make sense that those would be innate and unavoidable desires.
Same reasons cults work. They want someone else doing the thinking and leading for them, and surrender responsibility and blame to someone else. It’s never their own fault, so they want a system where they don’t have to be responsible or feel at fault.
Definitely.
It seems that populism/fascism is ‘ingrained’ in our simple minds. But that begs the question, why do some of us reject it? Random chance, empathy, or education?
I don’t think it’s ingrained and then rejected, i think it’s present in some % of humans because heirarchic organisation is useful in limited, temporary contexts.
Pirate ships were feircely egalitarian until a target was sighted, then the captain is a dictator until the loot was secure. Some hunter-gatherers had a season of authoritarianism (say, hunting season) in between seasons of different social organisation.
So like how sickle cell anemia is debilitating but grants near immunity to malaria, heirarchophilia has just enough limited benefits that it remains as a variant within the population.
Or that’s how i think about it.
Because I was taught as an American that I should be a rugged individual, which is incompatible with fascism. I also do not really enjoy much sports so this tribalism blah blah just doesn’t do it for me. I also don’t much like circuses and spectacles; fairs, to me, are just meh.
And I could probably ignore it when it’s benevolent, but it’s often malicious like germ warfare.
“Rugged individualism” is also incompatible with hierarchies but these people aren’t thinking that far into it. It’s just a myth that makes it your fault when society fails.
Personality difference.
The world would be better if a bunch of people could just admit they are into mental BDSM and they are subs
Religion, narcissistic family members, social media algorithms, sandwich shops… all tuned to churn out subs.
I’m only okay with one of those.
(Also you forgot shipyards, BTW.)
Stamp on my brain, master
That’s what the AI is for.
Can Claude wear stilettos?
Found Richard Dawkins’s account
Conservatives are naturally a servile people. They desire to be ruled. They want a daddy.
Yep, but uh, it’s not just conservatives. There are lots from all sorts that want someone else to make the decisions, for both good and ill
Yeah, they want a pyramid shape to the world.
They want a single big daddy on top of them, and then an enormous pile of other people below them to be a big daddy to.
As long as they are not at the bottom of the pile, they’re happy.
I’m not even so sure about the second part. Plenty of them seem happy to be perpetual bottoms.
They need other races to be below them
And women
Every time I’ve had an honest, constructive conversation with a conservative, I’ve found the root of their beliefs is fear, whether they are conscious of it or not.
Conservatives do tend to have larger amygdala
https://neurosciencenews.com/brain-structure-political-ideology-27703/
I saw an interview with a lady comparing Trump to megachurch preacher and it made perfect sense. You have these people giving their last dollars to a guy living in a mansion and flying in a private jet because that’s what god wants. They are conditioned since childhood to just accept that some people are there to exploit them and their purpose is to be exploited by them. Having leader like Trump makes perfect sense to them. It’s just conservative brain doing its usual thing.
Sort of? This is giving way to much logic to an emotional situation. The reason fanboys choose Musk isn’t because he has leadership or patriarchal qualities, he just has money which they think is the same thing as being smart. They can project themselves on to him and experience his wealth or veneer of expertise vicariously through a fantasy.
This still is the relationship men have with patriarchs. It’s just obfuscated by the fact that Piss-odor guy isn’t competent in the ways associated with rulership
I think your interpretation is still too cerebral. People don’t follow money because it’s money. Money has become essential to our individual survival, so success with money is essentially conquering the threats to individual survival, and I think that is why people revere him and other billionaires.
At the end of the day, we’re all shit scared of our own end, and we’ve been tricked into believing that money is our way out of that inevitability. Money is God, so those with lots of money are closer to God, if not a god themselves.
This makes me realize that if you have a feudalism, master-slave kind of dynamic thing that you want for your life, feel free. I’m not one to judge.
Just don’t bring me into your weird little fucking kink.
Let me make my own fucking choices.
It’s really true.
20% of people are wired this way and will seek hierarchy no matter what. Those 20% convince the morons to vote with them. That’s where we’re at.
