|
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. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 10 2017 04:15 Simberto 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. 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.
You're right that I didn't refute the methodology here. The problem is actually much simpler that that: it's ultimately a semantic argument that involves the question of whether the methodology lines up with the definition given, and ultimately I don't give a fuck because I think semantic arguments are stupid and instead of arguing the labels we should be arguing the policies. That "American authoritarianism" is created as a separate definition to reduce ambiguity should bear testament to the fact that this argument is quite semantic.
|
isn't semantics at all, Trump's ethnic nationalism with big government behind it hasn't been present on this level of American politics in a long time. It's not accidental that he goes along so well with Le Pen, Putin or Orban. He's much more of a European far-right type than an American one.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 10 2017 04:30 Nyxisto wrote:
isn't semantics at all, Trump's ethnic nationalism with big government behind it hasn't been present on this level of American politics in a long time. It's not accidental that he goes along so well with Le Pen, Putin or Orban. He's much more of a European far-right type than an American one.
Then maybe you should make the case on policy points instead of on labeling based on arguments of the definition of authoritarianism.
|
The problem here is that mustaju shat up the thread with an inane argument over semantics in order to cover for the deficiencies in the original posts that I responded to. He has used three different definitions of "authoritarian" over the course of his posts: first a pure anti-Trump slur, then the Vox definition (which is also a slur), and then, finally, the definition that political scientists use.
|
On January 10 2017 04:35 xDaunt wrote:
The problem here is that mustaju shat up the thread with an inane argument over semantics in order to cover for the deficiencies in the original posts that I responded to. He has used three different definitions of "authoritarian" over the course of his posts: first a pure anti-Trump slur, then the Vox definition (which is also a slur), and then, finally, the definition that political scientists use.
I disagree. from my pov it was you who shat up the thread. I think this dispute should be taken to website feedback for adjudication, and we move on to other things.
|
do we really need to do this again? The wall, racial profiling, threats of torture, bossing around business and other forms of protectionism, his threats of religious controls and surveillance, stop and frisk, immigration, freedom of the press etc.. Like take a list of everything he has said and pick a dozen things. What has he actually planned or said that is not in one form or another authoritarian?
|
On January 10 2017 04:37 Nyxisto wrote:
do we really need to do this again? The wall, racial profiling, threats of torture, bossing around business and other forms of protectionism, his threats of religious controls and surveillance, stop and frisk, immigration, freedom of the press etc.. Like take a list of everything he has said and pick a dozen things. What has he actually planned or said that is not in one form or another authoritarian?
Like I said, this is an issue of semantics. It depends upon how you want to define authoritarian and use it. It's hard to have a civilized discussion when someone keeps using inconsistent terminology.
|
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.
If only debates were just citation wars. If you're continually having trouble proving a point beyond semantics, your recourse isn't to cite some paper using the term and allege because X is making a point, it isn't just reducible to a semantic one. And "peer reviewed polls, facts, and figures" misunderstands the argument about possible conclusions and their relevance to the topic at hand. I saw zero dispute about the conduct of the study/poll. The choice of self-evaluated perspectives on child rearing and its connection (beyond correlation) to certain disputedly-authoritarian viewpoints on governance isn't a question of polls, facts, and figures, or peer review or needing a lesson beyond reminding readers what constitutes a persuasive essay/paragraphs within a larger work.
|
On January 10 2017 04:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 04:37 Nyxisto wrote:
do we really need to do this again? The wall, racial profiling, threats of torture, bossing around business and other forms of protectionism, his threats of religious controls and surveillance, stop and frisk, immigration, freedom of the press etc.. Like take a list of everything he has said and pick a dozen things. What has he actually planned or said that is not in one form or another authoritarian? Like I said, this is an issue of semantics. It depends upon how you want to define authoritarian and use it. It's hard to have a civilized discussion when someone keeps using inconsistent terminology.
so you don't agree that those things are unambiguously authoritarian? Curbing civil liberties and limiting freedom of movement is what then?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 10 2017 04:37 Nyxisto wrote:
do we really need to do this again?
Let's not. We've had this discussion and frankly I would rather let sleeping dogs lie.
In less semantic news, Jared Kushner is going to be a senior advisor to the president. To the surprise of no one I suppose - why else would he and Ivanka be moving to D.C.?
|
On January 10 2017 04:44 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 04:39 xDaunt wrote:On January 10 2017 04:37 Nyxisto wrote:
do we really need to do this again? The wall, racial profiling, threats of torture, bossing around business and other forms of protectionism, his threats of religious controls and surveillance, stop and frisk, immigration, freedom of the press etc.. Like take a list of everything he has said and pick a dozen things. What has he actually planned or said that is not in one form or another authoritarian? Like I said, this is an issue of semantics. It depends upon how you want to define authoritarian and use it. It's hard to have a civilized discussion when someone keeps using inconsistent terminology. so you don't agree that those things are unambiguously authoritarian? Curbing civil liberties and limiting freedom of movement is what then?
If you want to use the the gradient and relative version authoritarian, sure, I'll agree that some Trump policies move in an authoritarian direction. What I reject is the use of authoritarian as a slur for dictator or autocrat as it pertains to Trump.
|
On January 10 2017 04:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 04:44 Nyxisto wrote:On January 10 2017 04:39 xDaunt wrote:On January 10 2017 04:37 Nyxisto wrote:
do we really need to do this again? The wall, racial profiling, threats of torture, bossing around business and other forms of protectionism, his threats of religious controls and surveillance, stop and frisk, immigration, freedom of the press etc.. Like take a list of everything he has said and pick a dozen things. What has he actually planned or said that is not in one form or another authoritarian? Like I said, this is an issue of semantics. It depends upon how you want to define authoritarian and use it. It's hard to have a civilized discussion when someone keeps using inconsistent terminology. so you don't agree that those things are unambiguously authoritarian? Curbing civil liberties and limiting freedom of movement is what then? If you want to use the the gradient and relative version authoritarian, sure, I'll agree that some Trump policies move in an authoritarian direction. What I reject is the use of authoritarian as a slur for dictator or autocrat as it pertains to Trump.
Trump is more of an authoritarian than Obama is a socialist. there
|
Estonia4504 Posts
On January 10 2017 04:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 04:44 Nyxisto wrote:On January 10 2017 04:39 xDaunt wrote:On January 10 2017 04:37 Nyxisto wrote:
do we really need to do this again? The wall, racial profiling, threats of torture, bossing around business and other forms of protectionism, his threats of religious controls and surveillance, stop and frisk, immigration, freedom of the press etc.. Like take a list of everything he has said and pick a dozen things. What has he actually planned or said that is not in one form or another authoritarian? Like I said, this is an issue of semantics. It depends upon how you want to define authoritarian and use it. It's hard to have a civilized discussion when someone keeps using inconsistent terminology. so you don't agree that those things are unambiguously authoritarian? Curbing civil liberties and limiting freedom of movement is what then? If you want to use the the gradient and relative version authoritarian, sure, I'll agree that some Trump policies move in an authoritarian direction. What I reject is the use of authoritarian as a slur for dictator or autocrat as it pertains to Trump.
Those are assumptions you made. I never called Trump an autocrat/dictator, neither did Vox (in that article at least). Authoritarianism is not a slur, it's a descriptor. Also, different political scientists use different definitions for authoritarianism, stressing different parts of the descriptor. I could have been clearer that I was paraphrasing. Vox was quoting MacWilliams, as has been established, an actual political scientist.
As for @danglars I did not see a reason to namedrop Altemeyer, but I saw every reason to defend his work from being offhandedly dismissed without researched. Simberto and Nyxisto addressed the matter better than I could.
|
On January 10 2017 04:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 04:37 Nyxisto wrote:
do we really need to do this again? The wall, racial profiling, threats of torture, bossing around business and other forms of protectionism, his threats of religious controls and surveillance, stop and frisk, immigration, freedom of the press etc.. Like take a list of everything he has said and pick a dozen things. What has he actually planned or said that is not in one form or another authoritarian? Like I said, this is an issue of semantics. It depends upon how you want to define authoritarian and use it. It's hard to have a civilized discussion when someone keeps using inconsistent terminology.
It's not an issue of semantics at all. You and LegalLord are trying to turn it into an issue of semantics because it'd be easier for you to simply dismiss the other side's definition of authoritarianism rather than address accurately the contents of the research mustaju presented. All you've done is state that you disagree with the definition and that you "question" the methodology, without actually presenting any actual meaningful argument against it.
I found the research on the topic interesting (and disheartening) when I read it (I may have posted this Vox article here at the time, but I'm not sure I did). We'll have to see how the trends studied among the U.S. population by McWilliams and others evolve over time, especially during Trump's presidency.
|
On January 10 2017 03:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 00:37 Dan HH wrote:
How tediously predictable, his phone must be suggesting 'overrated' as soon as he types 'o' at this point The funny thing is Meryl Streep's speech itself might be the best Trump ad lately. He did not need to do anything more than retweet the speech and put an 'lol' at the end of it, maybe offer Streep a more official job as Trump surrogate. She's my current nominee for best unofficial Trump surrogate of 2017, but it will likely be a close race and the year has just started. 2016 celebrity videos at the close of the campaign definitely topped this and I expect repeat performances.
Keep in mind you voted for a celebrity  .
|
On January 10 2017 05:40 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 03:03 Danglars wrote:The funny thing is Meryl Streep's speech itself might be the best Trump ad lately. He did not need to do anything more than retweet the speech and put an 'lol' at the end of it, maybe offer Streep a more official job as Trump surrogate. https://twitter.com/goldenglobes/status/818295979182960640She's my current nominee for best unofficial Trump surrogate of 2017, but it will likely be a close race and the year has just started. 2016 celebrity videos at the close of the campaign definitely topped this and I expect repeat performances. Keep in mind you voted for a celebrity .
Of course Trump, who apparently can't elevate himself higher than a youtube comment section answered with a tweet shitstorm of schoolboy taunts.
Really a great idea to put that dude in office. 2016, the year america lost all sense of decency.
|
Now now, good friend Biff, America is more than her President and politicians. Y'all French folk know this perhaps better than even we do
|
On January 10 2017 05:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 05:40 Doodsmack wrote:On January 10 2017 03:03 Danglars wrote:The funny thing is Meryl Streep's speech itself might be the best Trump ad lately. He did not need to do anything more than retweet the speech and put an 'lol' at the end of it, maybe offer Streep a more official job as Trump surrogate. https://twitter.com/goldenglobes/status/818295979182960640She's my current nominee for best unofficial Trump surrogate of 2017, but it will likely be a close race and the year has just started. 2016 celebrity videos at the close of the campaign definitely topped this and I expect repeat performances. Keep in mind you voted for a celebrity . Of course Trump, who apparently can't elevate himself higher than a youtube comment section answered with a tweet shitstorm of schoolboy taunts. Really a great idea to put that dude in office. 2016, the year america lost all sense of decency.
He is effectively distracting from his cabinet nominees, that much is for sure.
|
On January 10 2017 06:19 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 05:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 10 2017 05:40 Doodsmack wrote:On January 10 2017 03:03 Danglars wrote:The funny thing is Meryl Streep's speech itself might be the best Trump ad lately. He did not need to do anything more than retweet the speech and put an 'lol' at the end of it, maybe offer Streep a more official job as Trump surrogate. https://twitter.com/goldenglobes/status/818295979182960640She's my current nominee for best unofficial Trump surrogate of 2017, but it will likely be a close race and the year has just started. 2016 celebrity videos at the close of the campaign definitely topped this and I expect repeat performances. Keep in mind you voted for a celebrity . Of course Trump, who apparently can't elevate himself higher than a youtube comment section answered with a tweet shitstorm of schoolboy taunts. Really a great idea to put that dude in office. 2016, the year america lost all sense of decency. He is effectively distracting from his cabinet nominees, that much is for sure.
This i the 7d chess while everyone is playing Go analogy Trump apologist normally use isn't it?
|
On January 10 2017 06:00 farvacola wrote:Now now, good friend Biff, America is more than her President and politicians. Y'all French folk know this perhaps better than even we do
Believe me, my sense of national pride has lost a lot during the Sarkozy and then the Hollande years. Those guys are a national embarrassment of kolossal proportions, and yet they are models of decency and honour compared to that Orange dude of yours 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
