Liberal vs Conservative -- semantic and historical approach

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jul 9, 2009
10,758
2,086
136
“In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four.”
George Orwell, 1984

A liberal authoritarian deserves to have a negative label. A conservative authoritarian deserves to have a negative connotation.

authoritarian
adjective
1.
favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed toindividual freedom:
authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
 

FFFF

Member
Dec 20, 2015
199
18
36
Political correctness is simply a mechanism to give certain people a false sense of moral superiority and help them reconcile with the contradictions in some of their beliefs and actions. Like @Moonbeam says, it's mostly an ego boost for people with low esteem who desperately crave acceptance among their peers and self-worthiness.

Liberalism didn't really get a bad name until it became synonymous with today's modern neo-liberalism which legitimized hypocrisy, all in the name of said "political correctness".
 
Last edited:

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
A liberal authoritarian deserves to have a negative label. A conservative authoritarian deserves to have a negative connotation.
authoritarian
adjective
1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.

Is this your nice way of saying that Christianity is evil? Quite honestly I did not know you were an atheist.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,026
2,879
136
I think I have mentioned once or twice that people hate themselves. If so, and if, as I have also said, the ego is a buffer we had to erect to protect ourselves from the agony of constant awareness of that thus making mental health the capacity to accept greater and greater negative facts about ourselves via feeling what we feel and integrating what we can learn about ourselves, our past, by opening ourselves to our worst fears.

Conversely, disfunction would lie in the direction of ego identification with external so called moral goods.

To experience these truths on a personal feeling level would, perhaps you can see, quite problematic. To have once been quite like everybody else, full of self confident ego, and to have in a therapeutic situation, broken into those feelings, lef me just say, was quite a surprise. Fortunately I las led there by somebody who had gone all the way and was, as he would say, 99.999 percent sure that he was OK. I am then a believer, but before that came a loss of faith in all truth.

Are you sure that your particular integration of what you've learned about yourself is the one and only right one? I'm not saying it is or isn't, but certainly the argument in psychoanalytic schools is that we ought not play a role in deciding how a person synthesizes the information they have learned and the experiences they have uncovered, and that we ought to remain neutral between the various psychic agencies (if working from a Freudian basis: id, ego, super-ego, and some might argue reality). There were some people who did "psychosynthesis".
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,758
2,086
136
Is this your nice way of saying that Christianity is evil? Quite honestly I did not know you were an atheist.
Of course, just the other day the evil Christian Authorities in power ordered me to give up my belief in evolution or they would jail me, they also ordered me to accept the consensus on climate change or i'd lose my job. Those damn Christian Authorities!
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
Of course, just the other day the evil Christian Authorities in power ordered me to give up my belief in evolution or they would jail me, they also ordered me to accept the consensus on climate change or i'd lose my job. Those damn Christian Authorities!

Well that is a rather shallow analysis. Christianity is absolutely authoritarian.

Janet Heimlich is an investigative journalist who has explored religious child maltreatment, which describes abuse and neglect in the service of religious belief. In her book, Breaking their Will,Heimlich identifies three characteristics of religious groups that are particularly prone to harming children. Clinical work with reclaimers, that is, people who are reclaiming their lives and in recovery from toxic religion, suggests that these same qualities put adults at risk, along with a particular set of manipulations found in fundamentalist Christian churches and biblical literalism.

1) Authoritarianism,creates a rigid power hierarchy and demands unquestioning obedience. In major theistic religions, this hierarchy has a god or gods at the top, represented by powerful church leaders who have power over male believers, who in turn have power over females and children. Authoritarian Christian sects often teach that “male headship” is God’s will. Parents may go so far as beating or starving their children on the authority of godly leaders. A book titled, To Train Up a Child,by minister Michael Pearl and his wife Debi, has been found in the homes of three Christian adoptive families who have punished their children to death.


2) Isolation or separatism,is promoted as a means of maintaining spiritual purity. Evangelical Christians warn against being “unequally yoked” with nonbelievers in marriages and even friendships. New converts often are encouraged to pull away from extended family members and old friends, except when there may be opportunities to convert them. Some churches encourage older members to take in young single adults and house them within a godly context until they find spiritually compatible partners, a process known by cult analysts as “shepherding.” Home schoolers and the Christian equivalent of madrassas cut off children from outside sources of information, often teaching rote learning and unquestioning obedience rather than broad curiosity.

3) Fearof sin, hell, a looming “end-times” apocalypse, or amoral heathens binds people to the group, which then provides the only safe escape from the horrifying dangers on the outside. In Evangelical Hell Houses, Halloween is used as an occasion to terrify children and teens about the tortures that await the damned. In the Left Behind book series and movie, the world degenerates into a bloodbath without the stabilizing presence of believers. Since the religious group is the only alternative to these horrors, anything that threatens the group itself—like criticism, taxation, scientific findings, or civil rights regulations—also becomes a target of fear.

Bible Belief Creates an Authoritarian, Isolative, Threat-based Model of Reality

In Bible-believing Christianity, psychological mind-control mechanisms are coupled with beliefs from the Iron Age, including the belief that women and children are possessions of men, that children who are not hit become spoiled, that each of us is born “utterly depraved”, and that a supernatural being demands unquestioning obedience. In this view, the salvation and righteousness of believers is constantly under threat from outsiders and dark spiritual forces. Consequently, Christians need to separate themselves emotionally, spiritually, and socially from the world.These beliefs are fundamental to their overarching mental framework or “deep frame” as linguist George Lakoff would call it. Small wonder then, that many Christians emerge wounded.

It is important to remember that this mindset permeates to a deep subconscious level. This is a realm of imagery, symbols, metaphor, emotion, instinct, and primary needs. Nature and nurture merge into a template for viewing the world which then filters every experience. The template selectively allows only the information that confirms their model of reality, creating a subjective sense of its veracity.

On the societal scale, humanity has been going through a massive shift for centuries, transitioning from a supernatural view of a world dominated by forces of good and evil to a natural understanding of the universe. The Bible-based Christian population however, might be considered a subset of the general population that is still within the old framework, that is, supernaturalism.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,744
6,761
126
Are you sure that your particular integration of what you've learned about yourself is the one and only right one? I'm not saying it is or isn't, but certainly the argument in psychoanalytic schools is that we ought not play a role in deciding how a person synthesizes the information they have learned and the experiences they have uncovered, and that we ought to remain neutral between the various psychic agencies (if working from a Freudian basis: id, ego, super-ego, and some might argue reality). There were some people who did "psychosynthesis".
I believe that humanity is asleep and that would include most of psychiatry. I believe also that there is a mystical experience, an engightenment, an awakening, a psychological transformation that can't be expressed in words but which people have experience through history. I believe that experienced is characterized by a sudden collapse of dualistic thinking that if followed by an oceanic experience of ecstasy involving a perception of the oneness of everything. I believe, therefore that truth isn't a synthesis or some idea that the mind holds, but an experience of pure original being, that there is no truth that is this or that, but a conscious presence in the now. This truth is universal and open to all but is hidden by the belief there are opposites that are not just a product of thought. These are our unconscious unexamined assumptions as to how the world is. If you believe there is not a state of consciousness that creates or is characterized by presence in the now, that will be a prison that will work against that realization.

The only thing that the notion of self hate contributes to the equation is th mechanism by which we were imprisoned. Religion done right can carry a person right over self hate if one experiences, say, real forgiveness.

What does it matter the damage that was done if one can let go of it. There are a million paths to life but sust one present for each of us. We are in the present but we don't have a he energy to be there. We think and therefore are lderaming about thoughts from the past.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,744
6,761
126
Of course, just the other day the evil Christian Authorities in power ordered me to give up my belief in evolution or they would jail me, they also ordered me to accept the consensus on climate change or i'd lose my job. Those damn Christian Authorities!
Do not worry. I verything you are fighting to keep from happening to your mind happened long ago. Knowing that, remembering it is your real fear. You are safe but the damage is done.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Political correctness is simply a mechanism to give certain people a false sense of moral superiority and help them reconcile with the contradictions in some of their beliefs and actions. Like @Moonbeam says, it's mostly an ego boost for people with low esteem who desperately crave acceptance among their peers and self-worthiness.

Liberalism didn't really get a bad name until it became synonymous with today's modern neo-liberalism which legitimized hypocrisy, all in the name of said "political correctness".

I do love your a priori assertions like the one you just made about hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy does neo-liberalism attempt to legitimize?
 

FFFF

Member
Dec 20, 2015
199
18
36
I do love your a priori assertions like the one you just made about hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy does neo-liberalism attempt to legitimize?

Ok, let's give a few examples:

  • Blacks can't be racists.
  • It's okay to hit a man, while the reverse is despicable no matter the context.
  • The claim that women are payed less than men, ignoring situations where women are actually paid more.
  • It's okay for groups like antifa to be violent and suppress others because of who they're against.
  • The support for censorship at universities and colleges.
In short, everything can fall under: "Do as I say, not as I do."
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Let's keep it simple with some examples:

"Blacks can't be racists."
"Antifa is fighting fascists so it's okay for them to incite to violence and supress


Ok, let's give a few examples:

  • Blacks can't be racists.
  • It's okay to hit a man, while the reverse is despicable no matter the context.
  • The claim that women are payed less than men, ignoring situations where women are actually paid more.
  • It's okay for groups like antifa to be violent and suppress others because of who they're against.
  • The support for censorship at universities and colleges.
In short, everything can fall under: "Do as I say, not as I do."

That's merely your characterization of what nobody said.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
Let's keep it simple with some examples:

"Blacks can't be racists."
"Antifa is fighting fascists so it's okay for them to incite to violence and supress


Ok, let's give a few examples:

  • Blacks can't be racists.
  • It's okay to hit a man, while the reverse is despicable no matter the context.
  • The claim that women are payed less than men, ignoring situations where women are actually paid more.
  • It's okay for groups like antifa to be violent and suppress others because of who they're against.
  • The support for censorship at universities and colleges.
In short, everything can fall under: "Do as I say, not as I do."

Regarding the women hitting men thing, early on in my marriage, my wife got very angry and slapped me. I just laughed. That was the only time she struck me. I have never been the least bit tempted to strike her. If is unfathomable to me. For me, any man that strikes a woman is a loathsome piece of shit, a coward and a bully. You are correct that I don't view it in any remotely similar way in the reverse situation.

If you get the shit kicked out of you by your wife, you probably don't want me on the jury. If you kick the shit out of your wife, you damn sure don't want me on the jury.
 

FFFF

Member
Dec 20, 2015
199
18
36
Regarding the women hitting men thing, early on in my marriage, my wife got very angry and slapped me. I just laughed. That was the only time she struck me. I have never been the least bit tempted to strike her. If is unfathomable to me. For me, any man that strikes a woman is a loathsome piece of shit, a coward and a bully. You are correct that I don't view it in any remotely similar way in the reverse situation.

If you get the shit kicked out of you by your wife, you probably don't want me on the jury. If you kick the shit out of your wife, you damn sure don't want me on the jury.

And here we have it folks, a person who can't recognize the double standard in his own words. It's not about who's stronger, it's about legitimizing hipocrisy, understand?
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,758
2,086
136
Well I am always eager to learn new data. How is fundamentalist Christianity different from authoritarianism?
In present day America if you don't like your religion, you leave it and walk away. It's not as if the Catholics are going to send out catechism officers or child welfare police or other authorities to send you to Catholic prison if you don't toe their line. Baptists are not going to throw you in jail if you don't pay your tithes.
They have no authority over you unless you give it to them. Try that with your State or Federal or local authorities.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
And here we have it folks, a person who can't recognize the double standard in his own words. It's not about who's stronger, it's about legitimizing hipocrisy, understand?

Dude, I outright admitted that I have a double standard on that. Why would you think I don't recognize something that I openly admit? I HAVE A DOUBLE STANDARD with regards to wife beating.
 

FFFF

Member
Dec 20, 2015
199
18
36
Dude, I outright admitted that I have a double standard on that. Why would you think I don't recognize something that I openly admit? I HAVE A DOUBLE STANDARD with regards to wife beating.

Ok, so you recognize you're a hypocrite. Good.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
In present day America if you don't like your religion, you leave it and walk away. It's not as if the Catholics are going to send out catechism officers or child welfare police or other authorities to send you to Catholic prison if you don't toe their line. Baptists are not going to throw you in jail if you don't pay your tithes.
They have no authority over you unless you give it to them. Try that with your State or Federal or local authorities.

That isn't entirely compelling for me. There are consequences to leaving your religion, sometimes serious. If you don't like your government, you can choose to leave your country, but there will also be consequences. However, if the government was really authoritarian, there is no way in hell you would get to just leave the country.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
Ok, so you recognize you're a hypocrite. Good.

Well I am a hypocrite on too many issues to keep count and that could be another. In my defense, I try not to be and I was the "victim" of spousal abuse myself.... lol,,,
 

FFFF

Member
Dec 20, 2015
199
18
36
Well I am a hypocrite on too many issues to keep count and that could be another. In my defense, I try not to be.

Hey, recognition is the first step to change. On that matter, you're coming ahead of many members on these boards.

I wish you good luck and may one day be free of your social programming.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Not the discussion I imagined walking into. And I don't agree that having an open mind means seeing merit where merit rests. That is called being correct, and although open mindedness gives greater opportunity to be correct, neither does it assure it, nor does correctness assure open mindedness.

I also think it absurd that, when it comes to political policy, there should be some expectation that there is a single correct answer.

I see a series of compromises. Perhaps you could determine which compromise is best, but that requires a universally agreed upon weighing of values in the context of time. And expecting that also seems laughable to me.

But I don't either seek or claim open mindedness. I have my values and ideas, and I seek to share them as such in order to see the external response and learn from that. And I also try to dig deeper when someone expresses their point of view because I want to be able to access their thinking and help get to its roots. Perhaps the product is more open mindedness, but that's not the explicit goal. I'm interested and enjoy it. And sometimes I hit a line that I do not agree with crossing. So I shut it down.

As for liberal and conservative, these are words that I think have poorly defined meanings, and I had trouble breaking the idea of them as synonyms for Democrat and Republican. Now I know better and would be viewed as fairly liberal for an American, but based on upbringing actually feel it easier to connect to the mindset of conservatives despite most often disagreeing. That doesn't bother me as much as a liberal who has little understanding or desire to understand the basis for their beliefs even if I share them.

I mean no offense. Your opinion is the normal one for a good person newer to our political situation. It assumes both sides simply have 'good people' with different views approaches on doing what's best.

The thing is, that's not the situation - but it takes time to learn that. You need to be open to the possibility that maybe there is only one correct party out of the two as well as the possibility that there isn't.

If you insist that regardless of the facts, they both 'have merit', then you have already lost.

Now, I'll say, they make it a LOT harder on you because unlike, say, the leader of North Korea or mass murderers or ISIL who don't pretend to be 'good guys', the parties - no matter how many millions they're trying to kill - WILL strongly try to appeal to you as good guys.

Witness Paul Ryan's learning to describe his "kill the poor" ideology as "help the poor". He knows it's a massive, 'big', perverse lie, but he also knows that just claiming he wants to help the poor is enough to make millions think he couldn't be possibly ruthlessly trying to kill them.

It MUST just be a difference of opinion on how best to help the poor. Except it's not.

Political lesson: people project.

Just as liars think everyone lies and thieves think everyone's a thief, good people think others are honest also.

And the sharks know that and take advantage. They have an utterly ruthless and devastating agenda people cannot even comprehend until they get educated about it.

Your last point is well-taken. I have a saying for it, 'being right for the wrong reasons'. I see people who have great positions on issues, but not for the right reasons. But that still has value over voting for great damage and in fact is a needed part of our voter base.

Any party will be made up of a good number of people who don't have the 'right reasons' for positions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: greatnoob

compcons

Platinum Member
Oct 22, 2004
2,270
1,340
146
Ok, let's give a few examples:

  • Blacks can't be racists.
  • It's okay to hit a man, while the reverse is despicable no matter the context.
  • The claim that women are payed less than men, ignoring situations where women are actually paid more.
  • It's okay for groups like antifa to be violent and suppress others because of who they're against.
  • The support for censorship at universities and colleges.
In short, everything can fall under: "Do as I say, not as I do."

I think you need to get some clarification on the definition of PC versus double-standard. (Politically, one party has tried to blur those lines.)

Technically, PC is avoiding (or trying to avoid) insulting people. For example, calling someone who makes a bad decision "retarded" could be offensive to someone who is in fact medically retarded (or those who may have friends who are retarded).

It can easily be taken to extremes (hence the notion that PC has made people "soft" or fragile) and can be seen to infringe on individuals freedom of speech (which is one reason you don't see much legislation around the topic as it would almost always violate the first amendment .

Your examples above all seem very much like double-standards, which have nothing to do with PC. Double-standards are the do as I say, not as I do and are more in-line with hypocrisy. For example, someone who complains about a person who takes too much damn vacation or plays too much golf, and then doing those exact things themself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane