Fox host Jesse Watters has a way to “fix” homelessness: make people feel ashamed of themselves as they lay dying in the streets.
You must log in or register to comment.
“One minor observation before we deal with the homelessness stuff is that I am constantly fascinated by how often the right invokes “purple hair” as a sign of everything that’s wrong with the country. It interests me in part because it seems to be an admission that even mild cultural nonconformity (non-approved hair colors, a piercing in the wrong place) upsets the right. To me, this proves that those who say they are on the side of “individualism” and “freedom” in fact believe in a stiflingly narrow set of possible ways to exist, and dislike even the most modest deviation from its arbitrary norms.”
This is the what angers me as well. Conformity is simply enforcing a mindset that leaves zero room for the individual, and it’s rampant in everything from religion to politics to students in a classroom.
The left doesn’t want everyone to be left in the same way the right does. We just want the right to see though the lies and stupidity of thinking we should all be exactly the same.
It interests me in part because it seems to be an admission that even mild cultural nonconformity (non-approved hair colors, a piercing in the wrong place) upsets the right.
I don’t think it’s about cultural nonconformity, per se - there are plenty of people leaning conservative all the way to protofascist who will tell you they’re nonconformist, and to whatever extent that might actually be true, a number of them take delight in the shock value that the expressed nonconformity provokes. This is all anecdotal, but I think when they talk about ‘Purple hair, et al.’ I think it has more to do with the objectification of women and how hierarchy and authoritarianism apply in conservative contexts.
Male conservatives, especially in digital spaces, view women almost exclusively in one of two camps: as wives and mothers, to service a man’s needs before anything else, or as ‘radical feminists’ with any number of more derogatory terms appended. It’s why they get so up in arms when a woman in the media expresses an opinion of any kind, on any topic, that doesn’t conform strictly to that worldview, even when men on any part of the political spectrum express the exact same opinions. Any woman who dyes their hair purple, or gets a piercing, or a visible tattoo, wears suggestive clothing in public, or does anything to alter their appearance to ‘anything outside of stepford wife territory,’ is summarily filed into that latter camp, because the expression of individuality implies that a woman will see themselves as an equal individual, and when most conservatives see women as things to service male needs before their own, it upsets them when a woman exists alongside in the social hierarchy, rather than beneath.
Again, this is all anecdotal, but that’s how I see conservative acquaintances talk about and treat the women in their lives.
The cruelty is always the point, it’s never just a side effect; right-wing politics isn’t as much an ideology as it is an excuse for them to hurt others.
Here's some light reading on the subject of conservatism and the sort of people who support it:
In the present research (N = 675), we focus on the relationship between the dark side of human personality and political orientation and extremism, respectively, in the course of a presidential election where the two candidates represent either left-wing or right-wing political policies. Narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and everyday sadism were associated with right-wing political orientation, whereas narcissism and psychopathy were associated with political extremism. Moreover, the relationships between personality and right-wing political orientation and extremism, respectively, were relatively independent from each other.
We found eleven significant correlations between conservative [Moral Intuition Survey] judgments and the Dark Triad – all at significance level of p<.00001 – and no significant correlations between liberal [Moral Intuition Survey] judgments and the Dark Triad. We believe that these results raise provocative moral questions about the personality bases of moral judgments. In particular, we propose that because the Short-D3 measures three “dark and antisocial” personality traits, our results raise some prima facie worries about the moral justification of some conservative moral judgments
Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models.
We report longitudinal data in which we assessed the relationships between intelligence and support for two constructs that shape ideological frameworks, namely, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO). Participants (N = 375) were assessed in Grade 7 and again in Grade 12. Verbal and numerical ability were assessed when students entered high school in Grade 7. RWA and SDO were assessed before school graduation in Grade 12. After controlling for the possible confounding effects of personality and religious values in Grade 12, RWA was predicted by low g (β = -.16) and low verbal intelligence (β = -.18). SDO was predicted by low verbal intelligence only (β = -.13). These results are discussed with reference to the role of verbal intelligence in predicting support for such ideological frameworks and some comments are offered regarding the cognitive distinctions between RWA and SDO.
Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students seeking entry to United States’ universities. At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education (e.g., gross enrollment at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) and performance on mathematics and reading assessments from the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) project. They also correlate with components of the Failed States Index and several other measures of economic and political development of nations. Conservatism scores have higher correlations with economic and political measures than estimated IQ scores.
Right-wing ideologies offer well-structured and ordered views about society that preserve traditional societal conventions and norms (e.g., Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003). Such ideological belief systems are particularly attractive to individuals who are strongly motivated to avoid uncertainty and ambiguity in preference for simplicity and predictability (Jost et al., 2003; Roets & Van Hiel, 2011). Theoretically, individuals with lower mental abilities should be attracted by right-wing social-cultural ideologies because they minimize complexity and increase perceived control (Heaven, Ciarrochi, & Leeson, 2011; Stankov, 2009). Conversely, individuals with greater cognitive skills are better positioned to understand changing and dynamic societal contexts, which should facilitate open-minded, relatively left-leaning attitudes (Deary et al., 2008a; Heaven et al., 2011; McCourt, Bouchard, Lykken, Tellegen, & Keyes, 1999). Lower cognitive abilities therefore draw people to strategies and ideologies that emphasize what is presently known and considered acceptable to make sense and impose order over their environment. Resistance to social change and the preservation of the status quo regarding societal traditions—key principles underpinning right-wing social-cultural ideologies—should be particularly appealing to those wishing to avoid uncertainty and threat.
Indeed, the empirical literature reveals negative relations between cognitive abilities and right-wing social-cultural attitudes, including right-wing authoritarian (e.g., Keiller, 2010; McCourt et al., 1999), socially conservative (e.g., Stankov, 2009; Van Hiel et al., 2010), and religious attitudes (e.g., Zuckerman, Silberman, & Hall, 2013).
With Donald Trump the Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee for the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, speculations of why Trump resonates with many Americans are widespread-as are suppositionsof whether, independent of party identification, people might vote for Hillary Clinton. The present study, using a sample of American adults (n=406), investigated whether two ideological beliefs, namely, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) uniquely predicted Trump supportand voting intentions for Clinton. Cognitive ability as a predictor of RWA and SDO was also tested. Path analyses, controlling for political party identification,revealed that higher RWA and SDO uniquely predicted more favorable attitudes of Trump, greater intentions to vote for Trump, and lower intentions to vote for Clinton. Lower cognitive ability predicted greater RWA and SDO and indirectly predicted more favorable Trump attitudes, greater intentions to vote for Trump and lower intentionsto vote for Clinton.
In Study 1, alcohol intoxication was measured among bar patrons; as blood alcohol level increased, so did political conservatism (controlling for sex, education, and political identification). In Study 2, participants under cognitive load reported more conservative attitudes than their no-load counterparts. In Study 3, time pressure increased participants’ endorsement of conservative terms. In Study 4, participants considering political terms in a cursory manner endorsed conservative terms more than those asked to cogitate; an indicator of effortful thought (recognition memory) partially mediated the relationship between processing effort and conservatism. Together these data suggest that political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought; when effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases.
Damn, that’s a lot words to say “shutting down thinking makes you hard-right”
This article is one of the best explanations of the inhumane right-wing mindset that I’ve ever read. Outstanding.
What a complete jackass. Wow.
Conservatives ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
