When Conspiracists Psychoanalyze

Status
Not open for further replies.

econ41

Senior Member
There's no way @Mick West is gonna go through and separate these 4 or 5 topics. He should just add a "Chit chat gish gallop moved to:" post, and start a "Misc Political crap and Left Brained Men" :) thread in Rambles (because literally no outside reader cares what "republic" means in different countries or to watch a long argument about April's comment.)

split start here
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/when-conspiracists-psychoanalyze.12536/post-280426
Thanks @deirdre - that is probably the best option. I wasn't thinking as an Admin or Mod.

I hope I can access it - and it shouldn't be limited to "left-brained" - unless we want left-brainers to keep them going round in circles. ( << And, for the benefit of those "left-brainers", my comment is intended as a JOKE.)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Or probably the one before:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/when-conspiracists-psychoanalyze.12536/post-280390

Otherwise we'll have to start the whole thing over again.
or you can just let her express herself. she is explaining the psychology of a conspiracy theorist, from her world view.

If i have to listen to bunk the left spreads without being allowed to comment on it (off topic warnings), then she should be able to say one semi-bunk thing without others comment on it. Personally i think the way she phrased it was fine. Because that's the way many "heard" it. and she is expressing her world view.

the specific details of it , 2 years later, are irrelevant now.

Someone can start a proper debunk thread on the claim. And get all pedantic and nit picky in the new thread.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
I can do that. I have been politely and perversely pounced on and prosecuted for pontificating in ponderous pedantic prognosticating on anything from poop to politics.

Alfred Lord Tennyson just pooped proverbially in his grave.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
trust me, you qualify just fine. :)

plus i didnt say "FOR left brained men". < and we circle back to men not actually listening :p
^^bit of a joke, im fine with your interpretation.

As to my qualifications, my wife still keeps telling me: "Sam, less is more."

(Giving @deirdre here graciously a field day for being right. Again. But not about needing to be from Mars to know about Mars.)
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
All this talk of left-braininess is actually very much on topic. We've touched upon the theme on another thread (Men and Geekiness) sometime back.

Having spend much of my youth with other zit-faced boys all smelly and huddled in unventilated rooms full of sci-fi books and dragon posters, geeking out on anything ranging from role-playing games, computer games, favourite animal species, space exploration and war planes to fundamental scientific questions and philosophical debates. Maybe one or two girls joined us as regulars but ones who could somewhat comfortably be diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum. :)

Whether due to cultural or biological reasons, or both, boys and men seem to be, on one hand, more into "winning", and into belonging to the "winning team". It's kind of a primordial instinct. Yup, very childish, but it's there. On one hand, it can motivate men to immerse very deeply into a particular subject-matter in order to intellectually prevail over the competitors that represent personally uncomfortable views. This bratty motivation can then generate an impression of being extremely well-versed, knowledgeable and intelligent. To many sensible outsiders (I didn't say women, but yes, especially you guys) it just looks a little childish, with a bunch of nerdy and competitive kids lost in translation without seeing the forest from the trees. Left-braininess, unhinged, can sometimes create such a fog for self-awareness as to make very smart men look extremely stupid at the same time. MB is a case in point. :p

Another consideration is the dichotomy between holistic/intuitive and analytical thought patterns. Again, it could be cultural, biological or in fact simply my own subjective misunderstanding. But men tend to fall deeper into all sorts of rabbit holes, whether ufological or skeptical, political, conspiracy-theoretical, fringe or mainstream. Male thought patterns tend to be (while by no means always are) more analytical and intensely focused on the specifics, while female thought patterns tend to sweep more broadly but cursorily. Almost as if there's some mutual complementarity. A match made in hel... heaven!
 

econ41

Senior Member
All this talk of left-braininess is actually very much on topic. We've touched upon the theme on another thread (Men and Geekiness) sometime back.

Having spend much of my youth with other zit-faced boys all smelly and huddled in unventilated rooms full of sci-fi books and dragon posters, geeking out on anything ranging from role-playing games, computer games, favourite animal species, space exploration and war planes to fundamental scientific questions and philosophical debates. Maybe one or two girls joined us as regulars but ones who could somewhat comfortably be diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum. :)

Whether due to cultural or biological reasons, or both, boys and men seem to be, on one hand, more into "winning", and into belonging to the "winning team". It's kind of a primordial instinct. Yup, very childish, but it's there. On one hand, it can motivate men to immerse very deeply into a particular subject-matter in order to intellectually prevail over the competitors that represent personally uncomfortable views. This bratty motivation can then generate an impression of being extremely well-versed, knowledgeable and intelligent. To many sensible outsiders (I didn't say women, but yes, especially you guys) it just looks a little childish, with a bunch of nerdy and competitive kids lost in translation without seeing the forest from the trees. Left-braininess, unhinged, can sometimes create such a fog for self-awareness as to make very smart men look extremely stupid at the same time. MB is a case in point. :p

Another consideration is the dichotomy between holistic/intuitive and analytical thought patterns. Again, it could be cultural, biological or in fact simply my own subjective misunderstanding. But men tend to fall deeper into all sorts of rabbit holes, whether ufological or skeptical, political, conspiracy-theoretical, fringe or mainstream. Male thought patterns tend to be (while by no means always are) more analytical and intensely focused on the specifics, while female thought patterns tend to sweep more broadly but cursorily. Almost as if there's some mutual complementarity. A match made in hel... heaven!
I'm game to discuss "left-brainedness" if some Admin or Mod can take action on the "split the thread" suggestion made by @deirdre.

(But then I'm also prepared to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different forms of national constitutions - IF I could do so whilst my foreigner's metaphoric head remains connected to my torso.)

So, time for a few self-awareness confessions.
1) I don't think I'm genuine "right-brained". I'm possibly so ultra "left-brained" that I can pretend and understand and go along with and prefer some "right-brained" perspectives. (I'll give an example for the delectation of those persons who are comfortable with meta-process discussions. (If you know what I mean you should be comfortable - otherwise, ignore the sidetrack.))

2) I am politically centralist and not locked to party loyalty in my AU context.
----"Centralist" on what I believe is the "normal" non-US definition of the simplistic "left v right" vector. Where on the US spectrum anything slightly "left" of the traditional, conservative, small Government GOP is "left" or "socialist" etc etc and both those terms are swear words. AKA I mostly align with US Democrats and, I see their pragmatic operation in US politics as centralist NOT "LEFT" I'm sure many Democrats would go further left if it was pragmatically and electorally possible in the US political culture.

__ on "party loyalty" most Aussies see themselves as "supporters of theXYZparty. They don't identify as "Democrats" or "Republicans" in US terminology. (i.e. "liberal coalition" or "Labor" in Aussie terminology AND BOTH our main parties are mislabelled.)

A couple more can stay on the backburner for now.

The Example. Some years back (circa 1990) I needed to take a career sidetrack. Into a sort of "touchy-feely" organisation change process. The organisers called for volunteers. They wanted right-brainers. I was probably the most left-brain available. And they were desperate to get at least one token engineer in the team. And I had a lot of followers.

In the selection process they got the candidates seated in a circle and asked us, in turn, to describe how we saw ourselves. Typically looking for right-brainers. Some people said they were fish, sheep (?) etc etc. I had time to think and when my time to claim came I said "I see myself as a 'geodesic dome')" (one of those hemispherical domes which have a frame of linked triangles.) Now there is not much more left brain than a structural frame with thousands of components each in its own exact space. BUT I put the example in a right-brained context. Got the job. They sent me to sort out some accountants who - arguably - are more left-brained and on a lower rung of the charisma ladder than engineers. And that takes some doing.

I'll leave it there - real life calls.
 
Last edited:

FatPhil

Senior Member.
2) I am politically centralist and not locked to party loyalty in my AU context.
----"Centralist" on what I believe is the "normal" non-US definition of the simplistic "left v right" vector. Wher on the US spectrum anything slightly "left" of the traditional, conservative, small Government GOP is "left" or "socialist" etc etc and both those terms are swear words. AKA I mostly align with US Democrats and, I see their pragmatic operation in US politics as centralist NOT "|LEFT" I'm sure many Democrats would go further left if it was pragmatically and electorally possible in the US political culture.
For reference, it's not perfect, but this diagram may be used to help guage what is left, and what is right, in the US political scene:
pc2020.png
-- https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020
These points are guesses based on how they would answer the political compass questionaire based on public statement they've made (but I don't think their voting record, which would simply nudge them towards their party's nub, as they've lost agency by the time most of them are voting).
 

econ41

Senior Member
I haven't done that plot for myself in the last few years. I think there is a Metabunk thread with at least one of mine posted. And I haven't done it again --- Yet!
But I usually finish in the moderate part of the green area - between "Hawkins" and "Gabbard"
 
Last edited:

Ann K

Senior Member.
These points are guesses based on how they would answer the political compass questionaire based on public statement they've made (but I don't think their voting record, which would simply nudge them towards their party's nub, as they've lost agency by the time most of them are voting).
As well as the problems inherent in self-reported characteristics, they're also outdated ones, as Gabbard, for example has done a complete flip-flop.

Me? I'm with the penguin...
7267280B-F9CD-45F9-A4D5-7C0C0A33D114.jpeg
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
So you're saying it changed?
There was a change. Changing is an action. Germany was the agent behind that action. Germany changed its form of government. Germany changed.
re: "the agent behind", Germany was made to change in 1918.
Article:
The message asking for an armistice went out on 4 October, hopefully to be accepted by President of the United States Woodrow Wilson. In late October, Wilson's third note seemed to imply that negotiations of an armistice would be dependent on the abdication of Wilhelm II.

Your statement is correct as regards grammar, but questionable as regards politics.
The US does seem to have a peculiar fascination with the past and a resistance to change.
Coming from a Brit, that's ironic. Why do you keep the King around? ;)

And number three, the UK doesn't use popular vote to elect its government - nor Sweden, nor the Netherlands
only with your specific usage of that phrase
Article:
Popular election or popular vote may refer to:
• Any election in a democracy
• ...

Article:
The term “popular vote” has two different meanings. The first simply refers to a democratic vote which has been put to an entire electorate, which could be in the form of an election or referendum. [..]

The second meaning of the term refers to the decision made by voters reflected in the share of votes won by a particular candidate, party or option in a referendum.

Every democracy elects at least (one house of) its legislature by popular vote in the first sense, even if the end result is not proportional to the popular vote in the second sense.

Article:
popular vote

• an act of voting by all the people in a country or area:

• a single vote in an election:
- Joe Biden won the greatest number of popular votes of any presidential candidate in history.
- George W. Bush was declared the winner despite receiving fewer popular votes overall than his opponent, Al Gore.


the popular vote
• If someone wins the popular vote in an election, they get the most single votes. :


Article:
popular vote
in British English

1. the vote of all a country's or constituency's voters, as opposed to that of a particular group such as an electoral college, or parliament

2. to win the popular vote: to get a majority as regards the votes cast by individual voters

Article:
In the [Swedish] Parliament, the 349 members are elected by popular vote on a proportional representation basis


Article:
The Netherlands [...] has a bicameral parliament; a first chamber (the Senate) is elected by the country's 12 provincial councils and a second chamber (the House of Representatives) by popular vote.


When you write "doesn't use popular vote", you negate both meanings, and that's incorrect.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
only with your specific usage of that phrase

Which is the meaning we've all (bar one) been using throughout the discussion, and I think commonly understood as the prominent meaning at this point in time.

But if you'd rather we all change to your preferred expression I'm okay with that.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Where on the US spectrum anything slightly "left" of the traditional, conservative, small Government GOP is "left" or "socialist"
that's not true.

slightly left is liberal.
left is a spectrum ranging from everyday democrats or independents. to "hard left" folk.
socialists are the far left. (but then you may be defining "socialist" differently too :) )

For reference, it's not perfect, but this diagram may be used to help guage what is left, and what is right, in the US political scene:
is that Tulsi Gabbard you put further left than Warren?

that chart doesnt help guage what is left and right. I am moderate right. and my dots fell around here. I've always had a problem with Obama being further right than me. He IS further right then most probably think, but he isnt further right than me. (He is more authoritarian than me..but that may just be because social programs are also authoritarian really)
1665070252383.png

they're also outdated ones, as Gabbard, for example has done a complete flip-flop.
no. she still spouts her lefty ideas.




edit: yea i just took it again. no way Obama would answer those questions as further right than me (note i only strongly agreed or disagreed 1x) .
1665071404283.png
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
but then you may be defining "socialist" differently too

I checked the dictionary and it's true, there are different definitions of that word:

Rest of the world: a normal person who believes it's good to help others
US: a kind of demon who is intent on destroying civilization and should be burned at the stake (see also: communist)

I also noticed we have different definitions of the word communist too though.

This definition malarkey is a real rabbit hole! :eek:
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
Coming from a Brit, that's ironic. Why do you keep the King around? ;)

I think the only General Election ballot paper I saw was the 1992 one (the one where a million middle-aged Daily Mail reading housewives* put Mr. Grey in power), and to be honest I don't remember the "Sack the Queen [ ]"** question. For decades I had a joke response to every comment made about the Queen by my foreign friends (which were almost all of my friends, I've spent almost the entirity of 1993 onwards outside the country, and never looked for ex-pat groups.) - "I didn't vote for her". I've stopped using that in the last decade, perhaps I should resurrect it now there's a new twist.

[* It's a stereotype, it was certainly a running joke at the time amongst satirists, but I seem to remember the demographics support it reasonably well. If you can find data you can deep dive on, filter by sex and socio-economic group, and almost certainly you'll see Women/ABC1 the most Con-favouring cell, and filter by sex/age, and again, Women/60+ and Women/40-59 will be the most Con-favouring, for example, and these are the classic Daily Mail readership.]
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
But if you'd rather we all change to your preferred expression I'm okay with that.
I haven't asked that.

I have asked to be aware that normally, "democracy" and "elected by popular vote" do not imply proportional representation, and the negations sit better with me when that distinction is made.

An election does not fail to be "by popular vote" if its effects are not proportional.
A country does not fail to be a democracy if its election system is not proportional.
At least in what I observe to be common parlance, and contrary to the vocabulary used in this thread.
Please be aware.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Rest of the world: a normal person who believes it's good to help others
US: a kind of demon who is intent on destroying civilization and should be burned at the stake (see also: communist)
Exactly. And the US spectrum is skewed "right" relative to the rest of us. OR actually "foreshortened on the left". Nothin wrong with it provided we are aware of it and can "translate". Both ends - communist or fascist - are off the scale of acceptance for me.
 

econ41

Senior Member
I've stopped using that in the last decade, perhaps I should resurrect it now there's a new twist.
What frustrates me the most is that much discussion of different constitutional arrangements focuses on "Monarchy" and totally misses the real issue. The real advantage from my perspective. The Head of State role is legally and by convention non-political.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
is that Tulsi Gabbard you put further left than Warren?

From where are you getting the idea that I put anyone anywhere?

From what I was reading in 2018-2020, Tulsi Gabbard was definitely further left than Warren, so I agree with politicalcompas.org on their assessment. Warren made some superficial attention-grabbing left-sounding soundbites - dog-whistles, you night call them - but never voiced a coherent policy that I would describe as being left-leaning; she was classic corporatist, like the majority of them, and that's clearly right wing.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
I have asked to be aware that normally, "democracy" and "elected by popular vote" do not imply proportional representation

Do our American friends even know what "proportional representation" is? Or that it exists?

Definitely good to be aware. But I think you're mostly talking about confusions that are potential but haven't happened - and potentially confusing things by introducing extra (and extraneous) terms.

Exactly. And the US spectrum is skewed "right" relative to the rest of us.

To be fair, the Iranian-Somalian part of me might be persuaded to disagree with that.

From where are you getting the idea that I put anyone anywhere?

From careful reading of your post. ;)

(O-oh, I'm teasing again. Must be the New Yorker in me. If only they hadn't invented sarcasm.)
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
I checked the dictionary and it's true, there are different definitions of that word:

Rest of the world: a normal person who believes it's good to help others
US: a kind of demon who is intent on destroying civilization and should be burned at the stake (see also: communist)

I also noticed we have different definitions of the word communist too though.

This definition malarkey is a real rabbit hole! :eek:

But you guys need to KNOW that when you read articles about AMerica from American outlets, how Americans use the word "socialist".
Context: Right Brain.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Do our American friends even know what "proportional representation" is?
i havent been following MEndel's talk here as it sounds too complicated. To me proportional representation is related to "how many" house of representatives each state gets. and how "many" electors.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
But YOU need to know that you're not speaking for all Americans.
you don't think socialist is far left? that is an interesting revelation. thanks.

Article:
Two years after Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez toppled a congressional power broker and challenged New York’s political conventions, the far-left movement that boosted her to the national stage has demonstrated it is here to stay.
...
The Democratic Socialists of America, which backed Ocasio-Cortez’s insurgent win, claimed four new seats in the state Legislature in June’s primaries.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
And stop trying to constrain discussion to the limitations of the American usage of words.
"Centralist" on what I believe is the "normal" non-US definition of the simplistic "left v right" vector. Where on the US spectrum anything slightly "left" of the traditional, conservative, small Government GOP is "left" or "socialist"

sorry i guess you're saying i read your "us spectrum" sentence here wrong too. so youre saying more 'on the us spectrum as i visualize it in our context, anything left of conservative is "socialist"'

gottcha.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
But you guys need to KNOW that when you read articles about AMerica from American outlets, how Americans use the word "socialist".
in popular US parlance:
• a "socialist" wants to give money to the poor
• a "conservative" wants to give money to the rich


you don't think socialist is far left?
AOC is a "democratic socialist" (in actuality and in European parlance; German Chancellor Scholz is one, too, as is French president Macron and the British Labour party). "Pure" socialists are farther left, nearer the communist end of the spectrum. AOC is seen as far left in the US because that side of the spectrum is "condensed" in the US compared to other countries.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
"Pure" socialists are farther left, nearer the communist end of the spectrum. AOC is seen as far left in the US because that side of the spectrum is "condensed" in the US compared to other countries.
i know. that's what i said.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
i havent been following MEndel's talk here as it sounds too complicated. To me proportional representation is related to "how many" house of representatives each state gets. and how "many" electors.

@Mendel is saying every real democracy across the world is based on a "popular vote" -- even under systems where these votes are not accurately reflected in the final result (seats in a legislature or the single 'seat' of the president). In other words, the fact that the share of seats won are not necessarily accurately proportional to the exact distribution of the votes cast by the electorate does not eliminate the other fact that single votes by the entire electorate were still cast in the election. A popular vote still occurred and was required by the system for the final result, however disproportionate. The US is a case in point. He's right.

@deirdre, @Rory and @econ41 are saying that "popular vote" denotes all the single votes cast by the entire electorate. You're also right, and what you're saying does not contradict with what Mendel is saying.

In addition, you seem to be saying that "proportional" means, amongst other things, that the electoral votes assigned to each state in the US presidential elections are roughly proportional to the population of those states. Which is also a perfectly legitimate use of the word "proportional".

In other words, some confusion arose from the different usage of the term "proportional" where Mendel seemed to employ it to mean accurate proportionality whilst you're saying it can still be a proportional system without being accurate. You're both right as long as we understand what you both mean by the same term.

In sum, much ado about nothing. We're great at it at MB. ;)
 

Rory

Senior Member.
in popular US parlance:
• a "socialist" wants to give money to the poor
• a "conservative" wants to give money to the rich

UK politics and how it has changed since the 1980s, summed up nicely by Stewart Lee:


"In the 1980s the Labour Party believed that the poor, who did not deserve to be poor, should be helped by the rich, who did not deserve to be rich. Meanwhile, the Conservatives thought that the poor, who deserved to be poor, should not be helped by the rich, who deserved to be rich. And that is the 1980s explained.

It's very different today. Today both the main parties believe that the poor should be tied up in a bin-bag and thrown into a canal. The Conservatives, to be fair to them, at least have the guts to look as if they mean it."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=at_zUPnnx3Q
Content from External Source
@deirdre, @Rory and @econ41 are saying that "popular vote" denotes all the single votes cast by the entire electorate.

To be precise, I'm not saying that's what it denotes, I'm saying that's how people here are using it; how it's used in the news; how everyone I've ever heard use it has meant it (Mendel excepting); and that no one seems to have a problem or a confusion with it.

It also works in a sentence such as "so and so won the popular vote but lost the election", which seems to be about the most common use of the term, while Mendel's meaning doesn't (even if, as you say, he's technically correct).
 
Last edited:

Mauro

Senior Member
you don't think socialist is far left? that is an interesting revelation. thanks.
Italian socialists are surely not considered far left since at least ~50 years, not that there are many left nowadays, following a giant corruption scandal in the 90s which sunk the party, together with a big chunk of the Italian political class. In their heydays (the 80s, up to 1994 when the scandal struck) they were considered close to the center of the political spectrum and they headed a center-left government. Leftward of them we had the Communist party, which, I can assure you, was much milder than what an American usually imagine 'communists' to be. Leftward of the Communists there were a few more small parties which were considered the true 'far' left.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
UK politics and how it has changed since the 1980s, summed up nicely by Stewart Lee:
then we have to define "poor", in america now it seems anyone making under 150,000 (sometimes under 75,000$) a year is "poor". kinda blows your mind, the real poor have gotta be thinking "wtf?"

*and just to piss everyone off more on 2 levels, conservatives (generally) believe "private enterprise", like charities and churches ie. donations, should care for the poor. its not really that they think the poor should suffer or deserve it, its more they think tax payers shouldnt be forced against their will to pay for other people [small governemt].but the lefties dont want to pay for the war machine [big government], so it all kinda evens out as far as people paying for things they don't support.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top