March 21, 2015 at 10:38 am #8306jerry1949Spectator
Since I’m going to get extra shitty credit, fuck it. I’ll just be, shitty. That way it is all perfectly clear going forward, k?
If that’s what you want to do. But I wasn’t being all that serious and didn’t expect to be taken seriously.March 22, 2015 at 7:46 am #8325duxruleParticipant
“Are you open to the possibility you could be wrong about either?”
At about the same percentage as you are about the fallacies involved with the Catholic Church.March 22, 2015 at 9:52 am #8327AmusParticipant
Is Mr. Altemeyer absolutely certain about his beliefs about “RWAs”? Or do you think he thinks he might be wrong about them? He’s coming across as being very dogmatic about it.
Mr. Altimeter is pretty upfront about his work and himself if you were to read the “book” which I’m fairly confident you will not. Sometimes looking into the mirror is a hard thing to do.
As to his “beliefs”;
The second reason I can offer for reading what follows is that it is not chock full of opinions, but experimental evidence. Liberals have stereotypes about conservatives, and conservatives have stereotypes about liberals. Moderates have stereotypes about both. Anyone who has watched, or been a liberal arguing with a conservative (or vice versa) knows that personal opinion and rhetoric can be had a penny a pound. But arguing never seems to get anywhere. Whereas if you set up a fair and square experiment in which people can act nobly, fairly, and with integrity, and you find that most of one group does, and most of another group does not, that’s a fact, not an opinion. And if you keep finding the same thing experiment after experiment, and other people do too, then that’s a body of facts that demands attention.3 Some people, we have seen to our dismay, don’t care a hoot what scientific investigation reveals; but most people do. If the data were fairly gathered and we let them do the talking, we should be on a higher plane than the current, “Sez you!”
As to himself;
I have found that some people make assumptions about why I study authoritarianism that get in the way of what the data have to say. The stereotype about professors is that they are tall, thin, and liberals. I=m more liberal than I am tall and thin, that=s for sure. But I don=t think anyone who knows me well would say I am a left-winger. My wife is a liberal, and she and all her liberal friends will tell you I am definitely not one of them. Sometimes they make me leave the room. I have quite mixed feelings about abortion, labor unions, welfare and warfare. I supported the war in Afghanistan from the beginning; I disapproved of the war in Iraq from its start in March 2003.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party, or any other political party. I do give money to various parties, trying to defeat whomever I am most disgustatated with at the time. (My political contributions have almost become automatic withdrawals from my bank account since one of our sons became a Member of the Legislative Assembly in our province.) I did not flee to Canada in 1968 because of the war in Viet-Nam. I crossed the border
with my draft board=s good wishes because the University of Manitoba offered me the best job I could find. And my research has not been funded by Asome liberal think-tank@ or foundation. Instead, I paid for almost all of it out of my own pocket. I have not had a research grant since 1972–not because I am opposed to people giving me money, but because I proved so lousy at getting grants that I gave up. (Whereas I, like my politician son, found I was a soft touch whenever I hit me up for some dough.
Here are two prevalent forum dogmas:
the right of a woman to choose an abortion
that same-sex sexual relations are normal
Does anyone doubt either of the above? Is there anything that could change your thinking about them? Are you open to the possibility you could be wrong about either?
I’m always reevaluating.
Can you say the same?March 22, 2015 at 11:41 am #8331missing_kskdParticipant
A new argument is a new argument. Sometimes, it’s exciting! A reconsideration becomes warranted. Lots to think about and discuss.
Other times, it’s meh.
When we really want to sell it to others, it’s very important to understand whether or not the arguments will be potent. Using the same ones over and over and over is a clash.
New ones have potentials.
Where new ones are lacking? Impasse.
Science provides a great model here. New ideas are invoked all the time. They shoot ’em down rapidly, but every once in a while, one has that potential and they swarm on it, feeling it out, maximizing the understanding it holds for them.
Ordinary people can do this too.March 22, 2015 at 12:36 pm #8333Andy BrownParticipant
“… is that normal?”
What is “normal” is subjective. The etymology: ORIGIN mid 17th cent. (in the sense ‘right-angled’): from Latin normalis, from norma ‘carpenter’s square’ is about hard math, so trying to extend the word to human behavior is a stretch to begin with.
During sex, Jack’s girlfriend, Ann, let her Irish setter share the bed. Since the dog took an interest in the proceedings, the arrangement made Jack uncomfortable. When Jack expressed misgivings, Ann attacked him as obsessive. Jack told Ann that he would be seeking my opinion. Good, she said. I was just the guy.
Was Jack neurotic? Was Ann perverse? I chose not to answer; with or without diagnoses, the two would break up (presently, they did) or enter the sort of stable relationship where the woman calls the man fussy and the man considers the woman irrational. But I did note that my role—fledgling psychiatrist—now qualified me to adjudicate: Who is normal?
Here’s another blurb along those lines:
The matter of what is normal can’t be and must not be a mere statistical nicety. It can’t be and must not be “normal” to be a Christian just because 95% of your community is Christian. It can’t be and must not be “normal” to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex just because 90% of the general population is heterosexual. It can’t be and must not be “normal” to own slaves just because all the landowners in your state own slaves. “Normal” can’t mean and must not mean “what we see all the time” or “what we see the most of.” It must have a different meaning from that for it to mean anything of value to right-thinking people.
Nor can it mean “free of discomfort,” as if “normal” were the equivalent of oblivious and you were somehow “abnormal” when you were sentient, human, and real. This, however, is exactly the game played by the mental health industry: it makes this precise, illegitimate switch. It announces that when you feel a certain level of discomfort you are abnormal and you have a disorder. It equates abnormal with unwanted, turning “I don’t want to feel sad” into “I have the mental disorder of depression.”
In this view “normal” is living free of excessive discomfort; “abnormal” is feeling or acting significantly distressed.
So where as you might consider someone else’s behavior (sexually or otherwise) to be “abnormal,” it really is not your judgement call. Legal issues aside (robbing banks is illegal, being gay is not), where and with whom you choose to put your sex organ into play is a personal call.
My question is why are right wing bible thumping conservatives so judgmental? Isn’t that “abnormal” behavior? It’s one thing to choose how you live, but the entire notion of telling others how to live seems just wrong (within the obvious limits of traffic lights and such).
Why is it that the Jewish guy has to <constantly> point out it was Matthew that said “”JUDGE NOT, LEST YE BE JUDGED”?
Isn’t that, in the case of F&B, another reason why he is constantly harangued here? After all, he judges everyone else’s (here and in the news) against his own standards every day in almost every thread he posts in.
Also, in an earlier post it was written:
An honest man never has to keep telling people he’s honest. The same rule applies to a network that’s fair and balanced.
Isn’t that the salient point? Faux news has been shown to be accurate about 11% of the time. Since accuracy is not a requirement in broadcasting (Faux is not in the business of journalism in spite of all the rhetoric to the opposite), their constant cry of being fair and balanced is no more than a logo and shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than “hit power radio” or “keep on kissin.” If you are one inclined to put faith or stock in Faux, citing them as being true to their logo is pretty lame.
P.S. KINK was never true to the music, either. Never. Ever.March 22, 2015 at 6:21 pm #8355VitalogyParticipant
Forum Dunce says: Here are two prevalant forum dogmas:
the right of a woman to choose an abortion
that same-sex sexual relations are normal
Let me ask you this: Do either of these actions directly affect YOU? Your answer is no. And it’s at this point that you should just shut the fuck up.
I’m not a woman, but I will let the woman make the choice on whether to have an abortion. The women closest to me in my life are my Wife, Mom, Sister, and Mother in Law, and all are ardently pro-choice. Quite possibly militant, and for the right reasons. They need to be to fight off the Broadways, herbs, and F&Bs.
I’m not gay, so I have a “normal” marriage and I don’t have to worry about the pitfalls of not having a “government recognized contract of togetherness” when it comes to taxes, inheritance, and whole lot of other shit.
Here’s some perspective. I abhor religion and church at the same level you abhor abortion. The difference between me and you is that you are trying to take away people’s rights because you abhor their choices. People like me aren’t trying to close down your church or eliminate the unnecessary tax benefits religion enjoys in order for them to operate.March 22, 2015 at 7:21 pm #8356jerry1949Spectator
The difference between me and you is that I am paying attention to the actual discussion at the moment and you’re not. This issue is “dogma” and being “dogmatic” and those were just two examples of leftist dogmatism. There are other examples but those are two obvious ones.
Amus contends that right wingers are dogmatic, but I say that liberals are just as dogmatic about their ideals.March 22, 2015 at 11:01 pm #8358skepticalParticipantMarch 22, 2015 at 11:33 pm #8359missing_kskdParticipant
The left does generally use rational, fact based arguments as the basis for new law.
The left does not recognize religious authorities as a basis for new law. Because First Amendment. Also, not Christian Nation.
Fact based, rational arguments are the norm. This isn’t dogma, just reasoned debate.March 23, 2015 at 7:55 am #8369AmusParticipant
Amus contends that right wingers are dogmatic, but I say that liberals are just as dogmatic about their ideals.
Nope. Not even close.
There are exceptions of course.
Some are right here.
But by and large it’s not in the mindset.March 23, 2015 at 12:34 pm #8390Andy BrownParticipant
After some thought and research, it appears the notion of dogma as associated with anything political only applies to the conservative side of the spectrum.
The reason is based on the accepted definition of dogma, which is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true: e.g. the Christian dogma of the Trinity. Most right winged conservative dogma fits the definition. Progressive thought, to the contrary, rarely if ever concludes that a principle is incontrovertible. After all, whereas conservative means holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, progressive or liberal is all about favoring or promoting change or innovation with the acknowledgement that this will often be happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.
Ergo, reference to “liberal dogma” or “progressive dogma” is oxymoronic. Liberal politics has no dogma, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t appear in writing. It just doesn’t have any applicable accurate meaning. If you venture outside of politics into economics, the term “neo-liberalism” does have meaning but even then the meaning of the term has changed, whereas if you take folks like F&B and Broadway at their word, Christian discipline hasn’t changed and therefore the word dogma clearly and accurately applies.
Many reference books clearly associate the term dogma with right wing politics and Christianity. Without any analysis, that alone is an indicator of its general usage.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.