|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 10 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
I would describe Trump as populist more so than authoritarian. Which sometimes overlap, but the latter has been used as a strawman often enough that I see little use in the descriptor. If a populist starts shouting authoritarian things because its popular, does that not make him an authoritarian? Assuming he goes on to put those things into practice, which is still up on the air with Trump.
It could, it could mean something else. I see "authoritarian" used as a pejorative that is used without always being fair, so I see its application as something akin to calling people racists. It's better to call out specific behaviors than assign a label.
|
what is this, political correctness for dictators? If someone is an autocrat you can call him an autocrat. As far as I know Trump still hasn't backed out of his Honecker style wall building plans
|
On January 10 2017 03:16 Nyxisto wrote:
what is this, political correctness for dictators? If someone is an autocrat you can call him an autocrat. As far as I know Trump still hasn't backed out of his Honecker style wall building plans
The question is not how we should feel about Trump, its about accuracy of definitions. Like, if I called someone a bitch its not because I mistook them for a female dog, its just me being aggressive. The discussion they're having is the accuracy of calling Trump a authoratarian.
|
On January 10 2017 03:06 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On January 10 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
I would describe Trump as populist more so than authoritarian. Which sometimes overlap, but the latter has been used as a strawman often enough that I see little use in the descriptor. If a populist starts shouting authoritarian things because its popular, does that not make him an authoritarian? Assuming he goes on to put those things into practice, which is still up on the air with Trump. It could, it could mean something else. I see "authoritarian" used as a pejorative that is used without always being fair, so I see its application as something akin to calling people racists. It's better to call out specific behaviors than assign a label.
some terms are overused, and misused; but if the term is well-defined and is being used correctly, then it seems fine. it's simply a good shorthand for a set of behaviors. labels are very useful if done accurately.
|
On January 10 2017 03:20 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 03:06 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On January 10 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
I would describe Trump as populist more so than authoritarian. Which sometimes overlap, but the latter has been used as a strawman often enough that I see little use in the descriptor. If a populist starts shouting authoritarian things because its popular, does that not make him an authoritarian? Assuming he goes on to put those things into practice, which is still up on the air with Trump. It could, it could mean something else. I see "authoritarian" used as a pejorative that is used without always being fair, so I see its application as something akin to calling people racists. It's better to call out specific behaviors than assign a label. some terms are overused, and misused; but if the term is well-defined and is being used correctly, then it seems fine. it's simply a good shorthand for a set of behaviors. labels are very useful if done accurately.
The problem here is that the accuracy of the label is very much in dispute.
|
On January 10 2017 03:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 03:16 Nyxisto wrote:
what is this, political correctness for dictators? If someone is an autocrat you can call him an autocrat. As far as I know Trump still hasn't backed out of his Honecker style wall building plans The question is not how we should feel about Trump, its about accuracy of definitions. Like, if I called someone a bitch its not because I mistook them for a female dog, its just me being aggressive. The discussion they're having is the accuracy of calling Trump a authoratarian.
well it's very accurate, both as far as his policies are concerned and his popularity among voters. The study mentioned in the vox article (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2016/01/27/donald-trump-is-attracting-authoritarian-primary-voters-and-it-may-help-him-to-gain-the-nomination/) shows authoritarianism as the one sentiment that pretty much all Trump supporters share.
|
On January 10 2017 03:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 03:20 zlefin wrote:On January 10 2017 03:06 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On January 10 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
I would describe Trump as populist more so than authoritarian. Which sometimes overlap, but the latter has been used as a strawman often enough that I see little use in the descriptor. If a populist starts shouting authoritarian things because its popular, does that not make him an authoritarian? Assuming he goes on to put those things into practice, which is still up on the air with Trump. It could, it could mean something else. I see "authoritarian" used as a pejorative that is used without always being fair, so I see its application as something akin to calling people racists. It's better to call out specific behaviors than assign a label. some terms are overused, and misused; but if the term is well-defined and is being used correctly, then it seems fine. it's simply a good shorthand for a set of behaviors. labels are very useful if done accurately. The problem here is that the accuracy of the label is very much in dispute.
i've no problem with that. by all means.
however it seemed to me that some were disparaging all use of the label in general, rather than whether it was fit in this particular instance.
I think you're getting some issues because different people are arguing different things, and the conversations get crossed some.
however, looking at the thread this post is part of it, it's pretty claer that you were in part decrying all use of the label.
|
On January 10 2017 03:31 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 03:20 zlefin wrote:On January 10 2017 03:06 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On January 10 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
I would describe Trump as populist more so than authoritarian. Which sometimes overlap, but the latter has been used as a strawman often enough that I see little use in the descriptor. If a populist starts shouting authoritarian things because its popular, does that not make him an authoritarian? Assuming he goes on to put those things into practice, which is still up on the air with Trump. It could, it could mean something else. I see "authoritarian" used as a pejorative that is used without always being fair, so I see its application as something akin to calling people racists. It's better to call out specific behaviors than assign a label. some terms are overused, and misused; but if the term is well-defined and is being used correctly, then it seems fine. it's simply a good shorthand for a set of behaviors. labels are very useful if done accurately. The problem here is that the accuracy of the label is very much in dispute. i've no problem with that. by all means. however it seemed to me that some were disparaging all use of the label in general, rather than whether it was fit in this particular instance. I think you're getting some issues because different people are arguing different things, and the conversations get crossed some. however, looking at the thread this post is part of it, it's pretty claer that you were in part decrying all use of the label.
A label that only serves to generate a semantic dispute about whether or not it is a fair label is not a useful one.
As far as I have seen, anyone who takes a hard line towards immigration has been labeled authoritarian.
|
On January 10 2017 03:06 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On January 10 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
I would describe Trump as populist more so than authoritarian. Which sometimes overlap, but the latter has been used as a strawman often enough that I see little use in the descriptor. If a populist starts shouting authoritarian things because its popular, does that not make him an authoritarian? Assuming he goes on to put those things into practice, which is still up on the air with Trump. It could, it could mean something else. I see "authoritarian" used as a pejorative that is used without always being fair, so I see its application as something akin to calling people racists. It's better to call out specific behaviors than assign a label.
You're straying. The use of authoritarian that was being used was very clearly defined. I will repeat it for you:
Authoritarianism is an individual predisposition concerned with the appropriate balance between group authority and uniformity, on the one hand, and individual autonomy and diversity, on the other.
...
The predisposition is labeled "authoritarianism" because suppression of difference and achievement of uniformity necessitate autocratic social arrangements in which individual authonomy yields to group authority.
And to be fair, I had to follow a quote trail to dredge up the original definition of American Authoritarianism which is being referred to by MacWilliams in his Vox, Politico, etc. articles. The original reference I found is Stenner (2005) and mostly available on Google Books: https://books.google.es/books?id=KMe-EAKFHFcC&lpg=PP1&ots=nPTirQkVG1&lr&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false
And note that while the Vox piece blows it up a bit, MacWilliams' original work (he seems to prefer referencing his Politico piece here: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533) seems pretty solid in noting this rise in American Authoritarianism and Trump as a fairly classical strongman figure. At the very least in his rhetoric, although whether his actions follow suit we can only guess at this point.
|
On January 10 2017 03:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 03:16 Nyxisto wrote:
what is this, political correctness for dictators? If someone is an autocrat you can call him an autocrat. As far as I know Trump still hasn't backed out of his Honecker style wall building plans The question is not how we should feel about Trump, its about accuracy of definitions. Like, if I called someone a bitch its not because I mistook them for a female dog, its just me being aggressive. The discussion they're having is the accuracy of calling Trump a authoratarian.
There's not much of a discussion. A discussion would mean that someone would provide a meaningful way to criticize the definition of authoritarianism, question the methodology of authoritarianism research or the Vox poll in particular.
However, that would mean providing a better definition of authoritarianism, showing a better way of measuring authoritarianism or ending the discussion by saying that authoritarianism does not exist. So far, the response has been emotional denial.
I also disagree with the claim that we should not criticize authoritarian populism until it has led to authoritarian results. The removal of norms can easily lead to the exploitation of power. I am very afraid of a situation where people are just too distracted by yet another meaningless tweet of his to prevent permanent damage.
|
On January 10 2017 03:35 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 03:31 zlefin wrote:On January 10 2017 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 03:20 zlefin wrote:On January 10 2017 03:06 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On January 10 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
I would describe Trump as populist more so than authoritarian. Which sometimes overlap, but the latter has been used as a strawman often enough that I see little use in the descriptor. If a populist starts shouting authoritarian things because its popular, does that not make him an authoritarian? Assuming he goes on to put those things into practice, which is still up on the air with Trump. It could, it could mean something else. I see "authoritarian" used as a pejorative that is used without always being fair, so I see its application as something akin to calling people racists. It's better to call out specific behaviors than assign a label. some terms are overused, and misused; but if the term is well-defined and is being used correctly, then it seems fine. it's simply a good shorthand for a set of behaviors. labels are very useful if done accurately. The problem here is that the accuracy of the label is very much in dispute. i've no problem with that. by all means. however it seemed to me that some were disparaging all use of the label in general, rather than whether it was fit in this particular instance. I think you're getting some issues because different people are arguing different things, and the conversations get crossed some. however, looking at the thread this post is part of it, it's pretty claer that you were in part decrying all use of the label. A label that only serves to generate a semantic dispute about whether or not it is a fair label is not a useful one. As far as I have seen, anyone who takes a hard line towards immigration has been labeled authoritarian.
That's because taking a hard line towards immigration, or "others" (more eloquently and correctly: threats to group uniformity) is one of the keystones of American Authoritarianism, as per its definition.
E: and note that I use American Authoritarianism to denote the origin of the definition, not to imply it is unique to America. It's to distinguish it from previous, different, and rather bullshit definitions of authoritarianism.
|
On January 10 2017 02:40 mustaju wrote:
Because I don't dismiss any (emphasis mine) deviation from the current order of things as authoritarian, just authoritarian deviation. Authoritarianism is defined by political scientists, and I suggest you read up about it before you make up your own definitions. It is a meaningful description of a subset of attitudes in a population that has a history of being used for some extremely dark chapters in human history. It is based on peer-reviewed methodology, the "label" exists since the 1940-s and has undergone research since then. Researching authoritarianism has hardly been a recent phenomenon, and is definitely not exclusive to Trump.
I also question your claim that you are not emotionally affected by the terminology. Maybe you can ask a neutral person for their opinion, and use their feedback to re-evaluate. Or just take a step back and calm down. I don't know about others, but I for one am not persuaded at all by your emotional reactions or evaluations, just about the fact that you are not actually addressing the issues while acting snide about it.
No, I really don't care about the terminology. It's all stupid semantics. What makes me angry is your constant moving of the goal posts by manipulating the terminology. Pick a definition of authoritarianism and stick with it.
|
On January 10 2017 03:35 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 03:06 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On January 10 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
I would describe Trump as populist more so than authoritarian. Which sometimes overlap, but the latter has been used as a strawman often enough that I see little use in the descriptor. If a populist starts shouting authoritarian things because its popular, does that not make him an authoritarian? Assuming he goes on to put those things into practice, which is still up on the air with Trump. It could, it could mean something else. I see "authoritarian" used as a pejorative that is used without always being fair, so I see its application as something akin to calling people racists. It's better to call out specific behaviors than assign a label. You're straying. The use of authoritarian that was being used was very clearly defined. I will repeat it for you: Show nested quote +Authoritarianism is an individual predisposition concerned with the appropriate balance between group authority and uniformity, on the one hand, and individual autonomy and diversity, on the other.
...
The predisposition is labeled "authoritarianism" because suppression of difference and achievement of uniformity necessitate autocratic social arrangements in which individual authonomy yields to group authority. And to be fair, I had to follow a quote trail to dredge up the original definition of American Authoritarianism which is being referred to by MacWilliams in his Vox, Politico, etc. articles. The original reference I found is Stenner (2005) and mostly available on Google Books: https://books.google.es/books?id=KMe-EAKFHFcC&lpg=PP1&ots=nPTirQkVG1&lr&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=falseAnd note that while the Vox piece blows it up a bit, MacWilliams' original work (he seems to prefer referencing his Politico piece here: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533) seems pretty solid in noting this rise in American Authoritarianism and Trump as a fairly classical strongman figure. At the very least in his rhetoric, although whether his actions follow suit we can only guess at this point.
It was polled in terms of their perceived attitudes towards child rearing:
Matthew MacWilliams, a doctoral candidate at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, conducted a poll in which Republicans were asked four questions about child-rearing. With each question, respondents were asked which of two traits were more important in children:
independence or respect for their elders;
curiosity or good manners;
self-reliance or obedience;
being considerate or being well-behaved.
If that isn't clearly something of a tenuous link that relies upon semantic arguments then I'm not sure what to say.
On January 10 2017 03:38 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 03:35 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 03:31 zlefin wrote:On January 10 2017 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 03:20 zlefin wrote:On January 10 2017 03:06 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On January 10 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
I would describe Trump as populist more so than authoritarian. Which sometimes overlap, but the latter has been used as a strawman often enough that I see little use in the descriptor. If a populist starts shouting authoritarian things because its popular, does that not make him an authoritarian? Assuming he goes on to put those things into practice, which is still up on the air with Trump. It could, it could mean something else. I see "authoritarian" used as a pejorative that is used without always being fair, so I see its application as something akin to calling people racists. It's better to call out specific behaviors than assign a label. some terms are overused, and misused; but if the term is well-defined and is being used correctly, then it seems fine. it's simply a good shorthand for a set of behaviors. labels are very useful if done accurately. The problem here is that the accuracy of the label is very much in dispute. i've no problem with that. by all means. however it seemed to me that some were disparaging all use of the label in general, rather than whether it was fit in this particular instance. I think you're getting some issues because different people are arguing different things, and the conversations get crossed some. however, looking at the thread this post is part of it, it's pretty claer that you were in part decrying all use of the label. A label that only serves to generate a semantic dispute about whether or not it is a fair label is not a useful one. As far as I have seen, anyone who takes a hard line towards immigration has been labeled authoritarian. E: and note that I use American Authoritarianism to denote the origin of the definition, not to imply it is unique to America. It's to distinguish it from previous, different, and rather bullshit definitions of authoritarianism.
And that's a self-admission that the argument is primarily semantic.
|
On January 10 2017 03:41 LegalLord wrote:
If that isn't clearly something of a tenuous link that relies upon semantic arguments then I'm not sure what to say.
that's actually been addressed in the article. You can't just ask people "do you like authoritarians mkay", parenting attitudes and such are fairly well established indicator to get the actual opinions about law & order, hierarchies etc..
A common question raised by skeptics of the four-question authoritarian scale is that the child rearing qualities it measures are not accurate estimators of an individual’s disposition to authoritarianism. One simple way to test this question and answer skeptics is to assess whether Trump voters express authoritarian attitudes on questions that theoretically should engage their authoritarianism. In other words, if Trump voters really are authoritarians, more often than not they should behave like authoritarians.
Several questions in my survey were designed to test for authoritarian behavior. These questions spring from a robust literature that begins with Fromm’s aptly named Escape From Freedom, spans seven decades and details both authoritarians’ fear of “the other” and antipathy for Madisonian democracy and the protection of minority rights from majority tyranny. As such, the questions probe survey respondents’ attitudes toward bedrock Democratic values that are the foundation of constitutional government and civil society.
|
Estonia4505 Posts
Thank you Nyxisto.
I'd like to ask about a topic which I am less familiar with. Maybe someone can point out some inaccuracies or distortions here about the Voting Rights Act:
+ Show Spoiler [web comic] +
|
On January 10 2017 03:41 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 03:35 Acrofales wrote:On January 10 2017 03:06 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On January 10 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
I would describe Trump as populist more so than authoritarian. Which sometimes overlap, but the latter has been used as a strawman often enough that I see little use in the descriptor. If a populist starts shouting authoritarian things because its popular, does that not make him an authoritarian? Assuming he goes on to put those things into practice, which is still up on the air with Trump. It could, it could mean something else. I see "authoritarian" used as a pejorative that is used without always being fair, so I see its application as something akin to calling people racists. It's better to call out specific behaviors than assign a label. You're straying. The use of authoritarian that was being used was very clearly defined. I will repeat it for you: Authoritarianism is an individual predisposition concerned with the appropriate balance between group authority and uniformity, on the one hand, and individual autonomy and diversity, on the other.
...
The predisposition is labeled "authoritarianism" because suppression of difference and achievement of uniformity necessitate autocratic social arrangements in which individual authonomy yields to group authority. And to be fair, I had to follow a quote trail to dredge up the original definition of American Authoritarianism which is being referred to by MacWilliams in his Vox, Politico, etc. articles. The original reference I found is Stenner (2005) and mostly available on Google Books: https://books.google.es/books?id=KMe-EAKFHFcC&lpg=PP1&ots=nPTirQkVG1&lr&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=falseAnd note that while the Vox piece blows it up a bit, MacWilliams' original work (he seems to prefer referencing his Politico piece here: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533) seems pretty solid in noting this rise in American Authoritarianism and Trump as a fairly classical strongman figure. At the very least in his rhetoric, although whether his actions follow suit we can only guess at this point. It was polled in terms of their perceived attitudes towards child rearing: Show nested quote +Matthew MacWilliams, a doctoral candidate at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, conducted a poll in which Republicans were asked four questions about child-rearing. With each question, respondents were asked which of two traits were more important in children:
independence or respect for their elders;
curiosity or good manners;
self-reliance or obedience;
being considerate or being well-behaved. If that isn't clearly something of a tenuous link that relies upon semantic arguments then I'm not sure what to say. Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 03:38 Acrofales wrote:On January 10 2017 03:35 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 03:31 zlefin wrote:On January 10 2017 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 03:20 zlefin wrote:On January 10 2017 03:06 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On January 10 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
I would describe Trump as populist more so than authoritarian. Which sometimes overlap, but the latter has been used as a strawman often enough that I see little use in the descriptor. If a populist starts shouting authoritarian things because its popular, does that not make him an authoritarian? Assuming he goes on to put those things into practice, which is still up on the air with Trump. It could, it could mean something else. I see "authoritarian" used as a pejorative that is used without always being fair, so I see its application as something akin to calling people racists. It's better to call out specific behaviors than assign a label. some terms are overused, and misused; but if the term is well-defined and is being used correctly, then it seems fine. it's simply a good shorthand for a set of behaviors. labels are very useful if done accurately. The problem here is that the accuracy of the label is very much in dispute. i've no problem with that. by all means. however it seemed to me that some were disparaging all use of the label in general, rather than whether it was fit in this particular instance. I think you're getting some issues because different people are arguing different things, and the conversations get crossed some. however, looking at the thread this post is part of it, it's pretty claer that you were in part decrying all use of the label. A label that only serves to generate a semantic dispute about whether or not it is a fair label is not a useful one. As far as I have seen, anyone who takes a hard line towards immigration has been labeled authoritarian. E: and note that I use American Authoritarianism to denote the origin of the definition, not to imply it is unique to America. It's to distinguish it from previous, different, and rather bullshit definitions of authoritarianism. And that's a self-admission that the argument is primarily semantic.
I am going to simply appeal to authority here. Someone who is writing his PhD on the topic has probably thought longer and harder about it than you have. Especially as he has written enough about it to actually get recognition from his peers on the matter. Now simply stating his methodology is shit is clearly not going to cut it. I would suggest finding the scientific paper that he wrote on the topic and following the rabbit hole a bit to see whether it is actually a clear and established link or something he made up (it's something I would do if I were peer reviewing an article like that). If preferred parenting methods do indeed have a strong correlation with authoritarianism as described by the previous definition, then it seems like a fairly decent proxy. However, I don't want to go down that rabbit hole, because I don't have time, and will simply assume that MacWilliams and his peers have actually done their jobs properly, and not dismiss his work out of hand upon your say-so.
As for the definition issue. The original work (Stenner's book) argues in quite some detail about how there was a lot of bad work done on both defining and studying authoritarianism. Mostly because it conflated it specifically with anti-semitism rather than the more general desire for uniformity. This is understandable as it was studied most specifically with regards to the rise of the Nazis. You could respond that authoritarianism is still just a proxy for xenophobia, but there seems to be something more than mere xenophobia as the author argues in a long bloody book about the topic. I'm also pretty sure that if we called it the rise of American xenophobia, you would also take issue with the terminology used 
|
On January 10 2017 03:49 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 03:41 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 03:35 Acrofales wrote:On January 10 2017 03:06 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On January 10 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
I would describe Trump as populist more so than authoritarian. Which sometimes overlap, but the latter has been used as a strawman often enough that I see little use in the descriptor. If a populist starts shouting authoritarian things because its popular, does that not make him an authoritarian? Assuming he goes on to put those things into practice, which is still up on the air with Trump. It could, it could mean something else. I see "authoritarian" used as a pejorative that is used without always being fair, so I see its application as something akin to calling people racists. It's better to call out specific behaviors than assign a label. You're straying. The use of authoritarian that was being used was very clearly defined. I will repeat it for you: Authoritarianism is an individual predisposition concerned with the appropriate balance between group authority and uniformity, on the one hand, and individual autonomy and diversity, on the other.
...
The predisposition is labeled "authoritarianism" because suppression of difference and achievement of uniformity necessitate autocratic social arrangements in which individual authonomy yields to group authority. And to be fair, I had to follow a quote trail to dredge up the original definition of American Authoritarianism which is being referred to by MacWilliams in his Vox, Politico, etc. articles. The original reference I found is Stenner (2005) and mostly available on Google Books: https://books.google.es/books?id=KMe-EAKFHFcC&lpg=PP1&ots=nPTirQkVG1&lr&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=falseAnd note that while the Vox piece blows it up a bit, MacWilliams' original work (he seems to prefer referencing his Politico piece here: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533) seems pretty solid in noting this rise in American Authoritarianism and Trump as a fairly classical strongman figure. At the very least in his rhetoric, although whether his actions follow suit we can only guess at this point. It was polled in terms of their perceived attitudes towards child rearing: Matthew MacWilliams, a doctoral candidate at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, conducted a poll in which Republicans were asked four questions about child-rearing. With each question, respondents were asked which of two traits were more important in children:
independence or respect for their elders;
curiosity or good manners;
self-reliance or obedience;
being considerate or being well-behaved. If that isn't clearly something of a tenuous link that relies upon semantic arguments then I'm not sure what to say. On January 10 2017 03:38 Acrofales wrote:On January 10 2017 03:35 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 03:31 zlefin wrote:On January 10 2017 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 03:20 zlefin wrote:On January 10 2017 03:06 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On January 10 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
I would describe Trump as populist more so than authoritarian. Which sometimes overlap, but the latter has been used as a strawman often enough that I see little use in the descriptor. If a populist starts shouting authoritarian things because its popular, does that not make him an authoritarian? Assuming he goes on to put those things into practice, which is still up on the air with Trump. It could, it could mean something else. I see "authoritarian" used as a pejorative that is used without always being fair, so I see its application as something akin to calling people racists. It's better to call out specific behaviors than assign a label. some terms are overused, and misused; but if the term is well-defined and is being used correctly, then it seems fine. it's simply a good shorthand for a set of behaviors. labels are very useful if done accurately. The problem here is that the accuracy of the label is very much in dispute. i've no problem with that. by all means. however it seemed to me that some were disparaging all use of the label in general, rather than whether it was fit in this particular instance. I think you're getting some issues because different people are arguing different things, and the conversations get crossed some. however, looking at the thread this post is part of it, it's pretty claer that you were in part decrying all use of the label. A label that only serves to generate a semantic dispute about whether or not it is a fair label is not a useful one. As far as I have seen, anyone who takes a hard line towards immigration has been labeled authoritarian. E: and note that I use American Authoritarianism to denote the origin of the definition, not to imply it is unique to America. It's to distinguish it from previous, different, and rather bullshit definitions of authoritarianism. And that's a self-admission that the argument is primarily semantic. I am going to simply appeal to authority here. Someone who is writing his PhD on the topic has probably thought longer and harder about it than you have.
I will simply say that such an appeal to authority is a self-acknowledged appeal to a fallacy. If the method does not defend itself - especially in the soft sciences where "the truth" is not so clearly defined - then it's not worth much. If you don't want to defend it yourself, that's fine - but it's not an argument.
In any case this entire discussion is both stupid and a rehash, and I'm bowing out.
|
Estonia4505 Posts
On January 10 2017 03:54 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 03:49 Acrofales wrote:On January 10 2017 03:41 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 03:35 Acrofales wrote:On January 10 2017 03:06 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On January 10 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
I would describe Trump as populist more so than authoritarian. Which sometimes overlap, but the latter has been used as a strawman often enough that I see little use in the descriptor. If a populist starts shouting authoritarian things because its popular, does that not make him an authoritarian? Assuming he goes on to put those things into practice, which is still up on the air with Trump. It could, it could mean something else. I see "authoritarian" used as a pejorative that is used without always being fair, so I see its application as something akin to calling people racists. It's better to call out specific behaviors than assign a label. You're straying. The use of authoritarian that was being used was very clearly defined. I will repeat it for you: Authoritarianism is an individual predisposition concerned with the appropriate balance between group authority and uniformity, on the one hand, and individual autonomy and diversity, on the other.
...
The predisposition is labeled "authoritarianism" because suppression of difference and achievement of uniformity necessitate autocratic social arrangements in which individual authonomy yields to group authority. And to be fair, I had to follow a quote trail to dredge up the original definition of American Authoritarianism which is being referred to by MacWilliams in his Vox, Politico, etc. articles. The original reference I found is Stenner (2005) and mostly available on Google Books: https://books.google.es/books?id=KMe-EAKFHFcC&lpg=PP1&ots=nPTirQkVG1&lr&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=falseAnd note that while the Vox piece blows it up a bit, MacWilliams' original work (he seems to prefer referencing his Politico piece here: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533) seems pretty solid in noting this rise in American Authoritarianism and Trump as a fairly classical strongman figure. At the very least in his rhetoric, although whether his actions follow suit we can only guess at this point. It was polled in terms of their perceived attitudes towards child rearing: Matthew MacWilliams, a doctoral candidate at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, conducted a poll in which Republicans were asked four questions about child-rearing. With each question, respondents were asked which of two traits were more important in children:
independence or respect for their elders;
curiosity or good manners;
self-reliance or obedience;
being considerate or being well-behaved. If that isn't clearly something of a tenuous link that relies upon semantic arguments then I'm not sure what to say. On January 10 2017 03:38 Acrofales wrote:On January 10 2017 03:35 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 03:31 zlefin wrote:On January 10 2017 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 03:20 zlefin wrote:On January 10 2017 03:06 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
If a populist starts shouting authoritarian things because its popular, does that not make him an authoritarian? Assuming he goes on to put those things into practice, which is still up on the air with Trump.
It could, it could mean something else. I see "authoritarian" used as a pejorative that is used without always being fair, so I see its application as something akin to calling people racists. It's better to call out specific behaviors than assign a label. some terms are overused, and misused; but if the term is well-defined and is being used correctly, then it seems fine. it's simply a good shorthand for a set of behaviors. labels are very useful if done accurately. The problem here is that the accuracy of the label is very much in dispute. i've no problem with that. by all means. however it seemed to me that some were disparaging all use of the label in general, rather than whether it was fit in this particular instance. I think you're getting some issues because different people are arguing different things, and the conversations get crossed some. however, looking at the thread this post is part of it, it's pretty claer that you were in part decrying all use of the label. A label that only serves to generate a semantic dispute about whether or not it is a fair label is not a useful one. As far as I have seen, anyone who takes a hard line towards immigration has been labeled authoritarian. E: and note that I use American Authoritarianism to denote the origin of the definition, not to imply it is unique to America. It's to distinguish it from previous, different, and rather bullshit definitions of authoritarianism. And that's a self-admission that the argument is primarily semantic. I am going to simply appeal to authority here. Someone who is writing his PhD on the topic has probably thought longer and harder about it than you have. I will simply say that such an appeal to authority is a self-acknowledged appeal to a fallacy. If the method does not defend itself - especially in the soft sciences where "the truth" is not so clearly defined - then it's not worth much. If you don't want to defend it yourself, that's fine - but it's not an argument. In any case this entire discussion is both stupid and a rehash, and I'm bowing out.
This logic assumes that every time someone posts peer-reviewed polls, facts and figures, someone has to give you a lesson regarding the parts you disagree with, even though the burden of proof is arguably on you to prove that the connection is, in fact, false.
|
On January 10 2017 03:54 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 03:49 Acrofales wrote:On January 10 2017 03:41 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 03:35 Acrofales wrote:On January 10 2017 03:06 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On January 10 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
I would describe Trump as populist more so than authoritarian. Which sometimes overlap, but the latter has been used as a strawman often enough that I see little use in the descriptor. If a populist starts shouting authoritarian things because its popular, does that not make him an authoritarian? Assuming he goes on to put those things into practice, which is still up on the air with Trump. It could, it could mean something else. I see "authoritarian" used as a pejorative that is used without always being fair, so I see its application as something akin to calling people racists. It's better to call out specific behaviors than assign a label. You're straying. The use of authoritarian that was being used was very clearly defined. I will repeat it for you: Authoritarianism is an individual predisposition concerned with the appropriate balance between group authority and uniformity, on the one hand, and individual autonomy and diversity, on the other.
...
The predisposition is labeled "authoritarianism" because suppression of difference and achievement of uniformity necessitate autocratic social arrangements in which individual authonomy yields to group authority. And to be fair, I had to follow a quote trail to dredge up the original definition of American Authoritarianism which is being referred to by MacWilliams in his Vox, Politico, etc. articles. The original reference I found is Stenner (2005) and mostly available on Google Books: https://books.google.es/books?id=KMe-EAKFHFcC&lpg=PP1&ots=nPTirQkVG1&lr&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=falseAnd note that while the Vox piece blows it up a bit, MacWilliams' original work (he seems to prefer referencing his Politico piece here: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533) seems pretty solid in noting this rise in American Authoritarianism and Trump as a fairly classical strongman figure. At the very least in his rhetoric, although whether his actions follow suit we can only guess at this point. It was polled in terms of their perceived attitudes towards child rearing: Matthew MacWilliams, a doctoral candidate at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, conducted a poll in which Republicans were asked four questions about child-rearing. With each question, respondents were asked which of two traits were more important in children:
independence or respect for their elders;
curiosity or good manners;
self-reliance or obedience;
being considerate or being well-behaved. If that isn't clearly something of a tenuous link that relies upon semantic arguments then I'm not sure what to say. On January 10 2017 03:38 Acrofales wrote:On January 10 2017 03:35 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 03:31 zlefin wrote:On January 10 2017 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 03:20 zlefin wrote:On January 10 2017 03:06 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
If a populist starts shouting authoritarian things because its popular, does that not make him an authoritarian? Assuming he goes on to put those things into practice, which is still up on the air with Trump.
It could, it could mean something else. I see "authoritarian" used as a pejorative that is used without always being fair, so I see its application as something akin to calling people racists. It's better to call out specific behaviors than assign a label. some terms are overused, and misused; but if the term is well-defined and is being used correctly, then it seems fine. it's simply a good shorthand for a set of behaviors. labels are very useful if done accurately. The problem here is that the accuracy of the label is very much in dispute. i've no problem with that. by all means. however it seemed to me that some were disparaging all use of the label in general, rather than whether it was fit in this particular instance. I think you're getting some issues because different people are arguing different things, and the conversations get crossed some. however, looking at the thread this post is part of it, it's pretty claer that you were in part decrying all use of the label. A label that only serves to generate a semantic dispute about whether or not it is a fair label is not a useful one. As far as I have seen, anyone who takes a hard line towards immigration has been labeled authoritarian. E: and note that I use American Authoritarianism to denote the origin of the definition, not to imply it is unique to America. It's to distinguish it from previous, different, and rather bullshit definitions of authoritarianism. And that's a self-admission that the argument is primarily semantic. I am going to simply appeal to authority here. Someone who is writing his PhD on the topic has probably thought longer and harder about it than you have. I will simply say that such an appeal to authority is a self-acknowledged appeal to a fallacy. If the method does not defend itself - especially in the soft sciences where "the truth" is not so clearly defined - then it's not worth much. If you don't want to defend it yourself, that's fine - but it's not an argument. In any case this entire discussion is both stupid and a rehash, and I'm bowing out.
The problem here is that you are attacking the statement that those questions are linked to authoritarianism, but you don't actually give any argument as to why that should be the case, deeming it self-evident for some reason. It clearly is not self-evident. Thus, if you want to attack actual research, you need to bring actual sources, not just "I don't think it is correct".
If you don't know why something is linked, but people in the field think that it is, the standard response isn't "I don't see why it should be linked, so it isn't", it should be trying to follow the trail of evidence that the people making that assertion should be making, and then either a) be convinced by their sources, or b) figure out the actual point at which you disagree, and support that with proof.
That is just basic methodology.
And you can't just spin the burden of proof around here either. If you as a random internet poster want to attack a study in the field, the burden of proof is on you. Either you find a study that disagrees, or you follow the source and make a clear argument where you disagree.
|
On January 10 2017 04:03 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 03:54 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 03:49 Acrofales wrote:On January 10 2017 03:41 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 03:35 Acrofales wrote:On January 10 2017 03:06 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On January 10 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
I would describe Trump as populist more so than authoritarian. Which sometimes overlap, but the latter has been used as a strawman often enough that I see little use in the descriptor. If a populist starts shouting authoritarian things because its popular, does that not make him an authoritarian? Assuming he goes on to put those things into practice, which is still up on the air with Trump. It could, it could mean something else. I see "authoritarian" used as a pejorative that is used without always being fair, so I see its application as something akin to calling people racists. It's better to call out specific behaviors than assign a label. You're straying. The use of authoritarian that was being used was very clearly defined. I will repeat it for you: Authoritarianism is an individual predisposition concerned with the appropriate balance between group authority and uniformity, on the one hand, and individual autonomy and diversity, on the other.
...
The predisposition is labeled "authoritarianism" because suppression of difference and achievement of uniformity necessitate autocratic social arrangements in which individual authonomy yields to group authority. And to be fair, I had to follow a quote trail to dredge up the original definition of American Authoritarianism which is being referred to by MacWilliams in his Vox, Politico, etc. articles. The original reference I found is Stenner (2005) and mostly available on Google Books: https://books.google.es/books?id=KMe-EAKFHFcC&lpg=PP1&ots=nPTirQkVG1&lr&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=falseAnd note that while the Vox piece blows it up a bit, MacWilliams' original work (he seems to prefer referencing his Politico piece here: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533) seems pretty solid in noting this rise in American Authoritarianism and Trump as a fairly classical strongman figure. At the very least in his rhetoric, although whether his actions follow suit we can only guess at this point. It was polled in terms of their perceived attitudes towards child rearing: Matthew MacWilliams, a doctoral candidate at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, conducted a poll in which Republicans were asked four questions about child-rearing. With each question, respondents were asked which of two traits were more important in children:
independence or respect for their elders;
curiosity or good manners;
self-reliance or obedience;
being considerate or being well-behaved. If that isn't clearly something of a tenuous link that relies upon semantic arguments then I'm not sure what to say. On January 10 2017 03:38 Acrofales wrote:On January 10 2017 03:35 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 03:31 zlefin wrote:On January 10 2017 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On January 10 2017 03:20 zlefin wrote:On January 10 2017 03:06 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
It could, it could mean something else. I see "authoritarian" used as a pejorative that is used without always being fair, so I see its application as something akin to calling people racists. It's better to call out specific behaviors than assign a label. some terms are overused, and misused; but if the term is well-defined and is being used correctly, then it seems fine. it's simply a good shorthand for a set of behaviors. labels are very useful if done accurately. The problem here is that the accuracy of the label is very much in dispute. i've no problem with that. by all means. however it seemed to me that some were disparaging all use of the label in general, rather than whether it was fit in this particular instance. I think you're getting some issues because different people are arguing different things, and the conversations get crossed some. however, looking at the thread this post is part of it, it's pretty claer that you were in part decrying all use of the label. A label that only serves to generate a semantic dispute about whether or not it is a fair label is not a useful one. As far as I have seen, anyone who takes a hard line towards immigration has been labeled authoritarian. E: and note that I use American Authoritarianism to denote the origin of the definition, not to imply it is unique to America. It's to distinguish it from previous, different, and rather bullshit definitions of authoritarianism. And that's a self-admission that the argument is primarily semantic. I am going to simply appeal to authority here. Someone who is writing his PhD on the topic has probably thought longer and harder about it than you have. I will simply say that such an appeal to authority is a self-acknowledged appeal to a fallacy. If the method does not defend itself - especially in the soft sciences where "the truth" is not so clearly defined - then it's not worth much. If you don't want to defend it yourself, that's fine - but it's not an argument. In any case this entire discussion is both stupid and a rehash, and I'm bowing out. This logic assumes that every time someone posts peer-reviewed polls, facts and figures, someone has to give you a lesson regarding the parts you disagree with, even though the burden of proof is arguably on you to prove that the connection is, in fact, false.
Let's follow the trail of the discussion:
1. You make a rather simple and un-nuanced claim: "we are witnessing the rise of AUTHORITARIANISM."
2. That assertion is questioned.
3. You link a Vox article, whose trail leads to a poll based on certain qualities of child rearing that forms the basis of the assertions.
4. This methodology is questioned, because while it may or may not be fair, it's certainly more debatable than the original "we are seeing the rise of authoritarianism" claim would suggest.
5. An appeal to authority is used to dismiss such concerns ("He is doing his PhD on this, OF COURSE he knows he is right"). To be fair, others (e.g. Nyxisto) chose to speak about the definition and its criticism, but that's a separate matter from the appeal to authority (and I simply find it to be a semantic argument that is far removed from the original assertion, and therefore not worth discussing).
6. The response is, no, you can't just do that, because that's not how it works.
7. You say, "it's not out job to educate you about peer reviewed conclusions."
Um... yes it is. You make the argument that Trump equals authoritarianism, you have to back it up. In part, by proving that the article in question is sound for supporting your point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
