Because rightwing disinformation is comprised of "alt facts" that deliberately set out to present a nefariously divisive image of America. In essence it is the Divide and Conquer strategy of Authoritarianism and it works most effectively on those more prone to be fearful of change AKA "conservatives". It is so effective that "conservatives" believe that liberals are out to "destroy" our nation and that the media is all "fake news" and that scientific facts are "propaganda". The REALITY is the opposite but it has become impossible to get through to "conservatives" because whenever the facts and reality are presented they trigger cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias which effectively prevents them from dealing with reality. Easy enough to prove this to be the case with the following example. The British Monarch was Authoritarian and the Founding Fathers were LIBERALS in the MODERN sense of the term because they opposed the authoritarian status quo and were willing to die for the concept of self determination for We the People. Did anything in the above cause cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias? If it did that proves that rightwing disinformation about liberals is triggering it. If your immediate response was to deny that the Founding Fathers were LIBERALS in the modern sense of the term then rightwing disinformation is the cause for that denial of factual reality. So this is not about "groups" but instead it about understanding how individuals react when they discover that the disinformation that they believe to be true turns out to be lies instead. They just REFUSE to accept the facts and hang onto the disinformation instead. This is scientifically established behavior and the Authoritarian powers-that-be are EXPLOITING it so as to divide and rule We the People to our detriment and their benefit.
Thank you for proving my point about rightwing disinformation and how it triggers cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.
I just don't think of myself or others first and foremost as members of groups rather than individuals. I don't group ideas. I don't think that way. I'm jus not a group think kind of guy. The way that you look at people and ideas from a group think perspective is quite foreign to me. I've been trying to get my head around it lately. I think that it is fascinating, and it seems to be rather pervasive. Your post does serve as an excellent example of group think. Indeed, you've taken group think to a whole new level what with your grouping of ideas now. Good show of it I say, good show.
At the time of his rule, most of the people around him would have identified as quite "liberal", in the modern sense. They were forging a new society and holding people to new rules and murdering those who didn't conform to the modern plan. That's not the least bit conservative. If Putin were imposing an agenda that you favored, you'd be all for his authoritarian behavior. The modern liberal is just as authoritarian as the modern conservative. Instead of peacefully gathering consensus for his morals and values, the modern liberal believes that violent bullying is the best method.
Ok. I get it. You're using the type of ignore wherein you write a post declaring that you're ignoring him. The post is the ignore/ignoring. Is that It? I'm a little confused.
Yes, your content does indicate a degree of confusion so allow me clarify. I am using the term ignore in the sense of disregarding the contents as lacking the necessary merit to be taken seriously. My post is merely a notification that I will not stoop to responding in kind to undeserving content and if they want to engage me they need to raise their game. Curiously enough there are some that do accept the challenge and subsequent discussions can be fruitful. However that is the exception rather than the rule.
To me you’re all self obsessed authoritarians. Thinking you’re special when you’re basic. Such is the narcissist, thinking you’re beautiful while being a common snowflake.
@BleedingHeadKen makes a good point. You have no argument other than to say that you're ignoring him? Weak. I bet you're going to ignore this too.
These are the two things that need to be addressed. Being 'anti authoritarian" usually indicates that the individual is so arrogant that they believe that only their version of life is then what is acceptable. Thusly leading directly to authoritarian/dictators who, historically have been grown this way. Secondly, conservative doesn't mean anything in this context. If I am liberal and I continue to support the existence of liberalism, I am in fact being conservative. Which is diametrically opposed to being "progressive" meaning that change is necessary or required to that solid liberalism, ie, using the first rational for authoritarianism to overcome those liberties that I would protect with my conservative nature. Liberals don't in fact avoid authoritarianism. Just watch any liberal style government in Europe that marches steadily towards autocracy....
As if "cancel" culture isn't as liberal and authoritarian as it comes. Being authoritarian is part of being human.
Part of what I am seeing here.... If we can get the government to tax the hell out of the middle class, the wealthy, and the corporations, and then we give that money to "the people," we can all sit around and smoke pot all day with no worry of where our next meal will come from. And that would be the ultimate in freedom and anti-authoritarianism! Yep.
Liberalism is a path, not a destination. After all, the liberal ideal is the continual improvement of the human condition. It was liberals who took down kings, and conservatives who defended those kings. It has been liberals who have been wearing down the tyrany of Christianity, while the conservatives have been trying to conserve it. Currently Elizabeth Warren has been fighting to reign in the power of the wealthy and powerful, while the conservatives want to give them ever more tax cuts and ever less regulation. It is the liberals, like Warren and Sanders, who are pushing back on an aristocracy that more and more comes to dominate and control our lives. I don't know what they have feeding you all, but regulations, for the most part, protect us, regular people, liberal and conservative alike fron the abuses of the rich and powerful.
LOL! Too bad there are no liberals as you describe. There are only liberals who are really communists.
Authoritarian seems to be the natural state of man. Violent Authoritarians. The biggest baddest man ruled and that was that. Over the past 300 hundred years or so, the mostly European culture that includes the US and Canada, has been becoming more and more peaceful, and less and less violent. A lot if it has been the liberal version of democracy, where all the people vote for our leaders. If the ballot box can settle differences, what is the need for violence. Europe, for thousands of years had been at near constant war with. It was with the breaking up of the control on power of the Catholic Church, and the rise of scientific thought that brought about the idea of a society ruled not by men, but by law. That men's passions be tempered through the rule of law, not the whim of a monarch.
Communism is an economic system where the central government controls the means of production. No one is advocating for that.