mspart

In the mid-1990s, the influential Canadian psychologist Bob Altemeyer described left-wing authoritarianism as “the Loch Ness Monster of political psychology—an occasional shadow, but no monster. ” Subsequently, other psychologists reached the same conclusion. Big ouchie there for BB. In other excerpts from the Atlantic: An ambitious new study on the subject by the Emory University researcher Thomas H. Costello and five colleagues should settle the question. It proposes a rigorous new measure of antidemocratic attitudes on the left. And, by drawing on a survey of 7,258 adults, Costello’s team firmly establishes that such attitudes exist on both sides of the American electorate. (One co-author on the paper, I should note, was Costello’s adviser, the late Scott Lilienfeld—with whom I wrote a 2013 book and numerous articles.) Intriguingly, the researchers found some common traits between left-wing and right-wing authoritarians, including a “preference for social uniformity, prejudice towards different others, willingness to wield group authority to coerce behavior, cognitive rigidity, aggression and punitiveness towards perceived enemies, outsized concern for hierarchy, and moral absolutism.” Published last month in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, the Costello team’s paper is persuasive, to the point that you have to wonder: How could past researchers have overlooked left-wing authoritarianism for so long? “For 70 years, the lore in the social sciences has been that authoritarianism was to be found exclusively on the political right,” the Rutgers University social psychologist Lee Jussim, who wasn’t involved in the new study, told me in an email. Yes we see where Ban is getting his "information" and obviously swallowed it hook line and sinker. I have to wonder at a person, especially a supposedly educated person such as these academics that would have believed that authoritarianism only exists on the right. What idiots!! May I name a few on the Left: Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez. These were certainly not on the right and if these idiots can't see that they were Authoritarian beasts, then there is no reason anyone should listen to them at all. It is patently obvious as I said before that authoritarianism is to be found on all sides of the spectrum. Anyone who denies this is an idiot (I don't know how to say this any softer so sorry if I ruffle a few feathers) and not thinking right and shouldn't be in positions of influence at all. Common sense is lacking with these people. mspart

I feel much better about it, don't you!! Caveat: I'm not on Twitter (x) and have no skin in the game. If what he says is true, it is a good thing. mspart

I believe Joe has lied throughout. Like I said, that is not an impeachable offense. What he did while VP has no bearing on his High Crimes and Misdemeanor while President and I don't believe he can be impeached for that now. Getting the DOJ to treat his son differently might be a corruption thing but that would have to be proved beyond a shadow of doubt and I have seen no evidence pointing to that. It is possible the DOJ did that on their own initiative or it could have been directed. I doubt it was directed by anything other than non-traceable verbal or non-verbal cues. Certainly, nothing would have or should have been in a text or email. That would be enough to impeach and the D's might have to go along with that at that point. But I don't think the House is to that point yet and the Senate is almost evenly divided and certainly there won't be 67 Senators going along with conviction. That means some combination of the 48 Ds and 3 I's would have to vote for conviction assuming all 49 Rs do, and that is not a given. Fool's errand. It will be looked upon by the left the same way the impeachment of Trump was looked upon by those on the right. As a game and stupid waste of time. mspart

There are those that would dispute your assertion. I believe if the R's want to impeach, that will happen. I believe in order to move the Ds in the Senate, there will have to be some ironclad evidence that the whole country can recognize and it would be suicide for a D Senator not to vote to convict, something on the order of Nixon. They are not there yet as most of the evidence I have seen is circumstantial. Nothing directly tying the President to anything like treason or corruption while President. He obviously lied on the campaign trail and while President. But that apparently is not reason for dismissal - See Bill Clinton. mspart

Sorry for the consecutive posts. mspart

Not worthy of a ban mspart

Not liking what he does. mspart

I'm not for banning Ban. mspart

Agreed. mspart

Same mspart

He actually looked like that under his suits. They were so big it made him look very slim. But he was buff dude!! mspart

Agreed. mspart

Boy, what would happen if McCarthy did that? mspart

Nice haircut!! mspart

There's physics for you. mspart

They tried to impeach Trump before he took office. mspart

And so does the Tank. If Sad is at top level, no one beats him. If Snyder is at top level and Sad is slightly lower, Sad wins most of the time. I think Sad would have to be unprepared as Steam said for Snyder to win, or Sad would have to make an unrecoverable mistake. What would be cool is if Snyder could figure out a weakness and exploit it to pin the Tank like what happened to him some time ago. mspart

What physics do you speak of? mspart

Is that what he is doing today? mspart

Ban, I must say you are a master of convoluting what people tell you. You feign surprise saying you think I am concerned about N word books. Far from it, you are concerned about banning books. I gave you examples of non R people doing that and you excuse that away with faulty and non germane illogic. And then say I am concerned about N words. My argument is that authoritarianism is on both sides and somehow through your dizzying illogic you come up with me being concerned about books with N words. It is an exercise worthy of an 8th grader. I love your handle name, but I tire of your excessive need to put out false tropes. If you believe them I'm sorry for you. If your students believe them, I sorry for them being influenced by you. It is a sad situation where a person takes facts and twists them to illogical conclusions and then repeats and repeats until people tire of the tail chasing. It is petty and immature. You keep on being you, it obviously has brought you much peace in your life. Peace out. mspart

Oh we have come aways eh! mspart

Ban, you continue to prove me correct. mspart

None of it makes me think. Very bad people were in the US and had a plan to do this. And they did it as part of a jihad they had in mind. The final leg of their triumph was stymied by courageous people aboard the last flight. We can continually thank our lucky stars for those people and their sacrifice. I remember the day clearly. I was awakened by a phone call of a co worker saying they heard something was going on in NYC but they didn't have access to any news. Could I check it out? So I was at home ( I had just moved to Hawaii), he went to work a little early, I was just about to get up to get ready to head in, so I turned on the TV and was both horrified at what I saw and fascinated. I told him and he couldn't believe it either. That was a surreal and crazy day. I watched as people jumped from the buildings. I watched the 2nd airliner go in. I watched both towers fall. mspart

These were not 30 percenter folks doing this as you call them. They were your people. Authoritarianism happened way in the past, in the near past, and today by many different groups. The fact that you WON'T acknowledge that authoritarianism happens in more than one sphere is a wonder for an educated person such as yourself. mspart

Wiser men? mspart