What is mentacide?

 

In 1933 Meerloo began to study the methods by which systematic mental pressure brings people to abject submission, and by which totalitarians imprint their subjective “truth” on their victims’ minds. In “The Rape of the Mind” he goes far beyond the direct military implications of mental torture to describing how our own culture unobtrusively shows symptoms of pressurizing people’s minds. He presents a systematic analysis of the methods of brainwashing and mental torture and coercion, and shows how totalitarian strategy, with its use of mass psychology, leads to systematized “rape of the mind.” He describes the new age of cold war with its mental terror, verbocracy, and semantic fog, the use of fear as a tool of mass submission and the problem of treason and loyalty, so loaded with dangerous confusion. The “Rape of the Mind” is written for the interested layman, not only for experts and scientists.

based on

https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/625181

https://archive.org/stream/RapeOfTheMind-ThePsychologyOfThoughtControl-A.m.MeerlooMd/RapeOfTheMind-ThePsychologyOfThoughtControl-A.m.MeerlooMd_djvu.txt

 

Left wing authoritarianism

Left-wing authoritarianism is not a myth, but a worrisome reality. Evidence from 13 Eastern European countries (2011) from Communist and Post-Communist Studies.

PDF at:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.397.3841&rep=rep1&type=pdf

From the abstract of The Presence of Left-Wing Authoritarianism in Western Europe and Its Relationship with Conservative Ideology (2006)

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3792538
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00532.x/abstract
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjo5PbhjejLAhVIshQKHURYDRYQFggvMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F227634076_The_Presence_of_LeftWing_Authoritarianism_in_Western_Europe_and_Its_Relationship_with_Conservative_Ideology%2Fpreview%2F0ff7c6170cf25dfdcf51f034%2FPreview-227634076_The_Presence_of_LeftWing_Authoritarianism_in_Western_Europe_and_Its_Relationship_with_Conservative_Ideology.pdf%3FinViewer%3Dtrue%26pdfJsDownload%3Dtrue%26disableCoverPage%3Dtrue%26origin%3Dpublication_detail&usg=AFQjCNEDsXHUhe1hIDWMLnF_5Zg2N08V5w

The Authoritarian Personality by Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford (1950) can be considered as one of the cornerstones of political psychology…

shame it’s BS used to shame one half of the political spectrum

Conversely, in the political activist sample high LWA scores were common among left-wing extremists and evidence was found for a two-dimensional LWA aggression-submission structure.

bbc sherlock moriarty eyebrow flash closeup lol flirt really rlly

Well, you get the picture.

Writings elsewhere obviously aren’t biased.
http://www.psych-it.com.au/Psychlopedia/article.asp?id=388

Hence, social dominance orientation and right wing authoritarianism evoke a distinct set of mechanisms to provoke prejudice.

Related concepts

Left wing authoritarianism

Altmeyer (1996) developed a measure of left wing authoritarianism–that is, a left wing variant of right wing authoritarianism. Left wing authoritarianism comprises the same three clusters of items as right wing authoritarianism; however, individuals who report left wing authoritarianism embrace institutions that want to overthrow the existing powers; they do not embrace the establishment. Specifically, the first set of items, called left-wing authoritarianism submission, relates to the inclination of individuals to submit to authorities who want to overthrow the establishment.

omg shut up stupid dumb idiots argh ahhhh hiddleston facepalm deep blue sea

I think that sentence gave me brain damage.

The second set of items, called left-wing authoritarianism aggression, refers to the tendency of individuals to espouse aggression and violence towards the establishment. The third set of items, called left-wing conventionalism, refers to the inclination of individuals to comply with the norms and standards of authorities who want to overthrow the establishment.

Van Hiel, Duriez, and Kossowska (2006) developed a variant of this measure, comprising eight items, that excludes left-wing conventionalism. They argued that conventionalism refers to adherence towards established traditions, contradicting the left-wing orientation.

We’re special!

According to Van Hiel, Duriez, and Kossowska (2006), left-wing conventionalism could be interpreted as individuals who follow left wing authorities; but this interpretation begins to merge with left-wing authoritarianism submission and thus seems redundant.

Four of the items in this revamped scale relate to left-wing authoritarianism submission: A typical item is “A revolutionary movement is justified in demanding obedience and conformity to its members” (Van Hiel, Duriez, & Kossowska, 2006). The other four items represent left-wing authoritarianism aggression. A sample item is “It would be wrong to solve our problems by acts of violence against the conservative Establishment” (reverse scored).

They use this word ‘revolution’ a lot.
I don’t think they know what it means?

This scale was then administered to a sample of voters as well as to another sample of political activists, including affiliates of a Stalinist party, a neo-Marxist communist party, an anarchy party, and right wing extremist movements. The psychometric properties differed between the voters and the political activists.

REALLY.

In the ordinary voters, left wing authoritarianism was positively related to ring wing authoritarianism as well as cultural conservativism–a measure that represents the extent to which individuals report contempt towards abortion, euthanasia, and premarital sex, for example. Left wing authoritarianism, however, was negatively related to economic conservativism, representing respect towards trade unions, economic equality, and government intervention (Van Hiel, Duriez, & Kossowska, 2006). These findings align to the proposition that more extreme attitudes, regardless of whether they support or disavow economic equality, are motivated by similar inclinations. For example, both left wing and right wing authoritarianism might represent an attempt to forge a sense of clarity in a threatening world.

Excuses, excuses. Minimizing. Shifting blame.

In the activist sample, however, a different pattern emerged. Left wing authoritarianism was inversely related to right wing authoritarianism. These individuals, presumably, had committed to a specific course of action to forge this sense of clarity (Van Hiel, Duriez, & Kossowska, 2006). Furthermore, as evidence of validity, left wing authoritarianism was significantly elevated in the left wing activist groups; these findings confirm that left wing authoritarianism is a viable concept.

Well, yes.

If it applies to both wings, it can’t be used to distinguish, making it quite useless. Presumably? Political “Science”.

It has a reference list but you can see they don’t try as hard when ‘studying’ the home team (we know about the liberal bias in academia) and they attempt to excuse the findings that neither wing is flawless.

The anti-spanking initiative is r-selected

Disclaimer: I came into this topic with an open mind and I was shocked by what I found.

Before we begin: We all know social science is indoctrinated by liberal bias (9/10 hiring decisions come on), so any parenting finding they present as untouchable requires as much doubt as global warming.

Before someone goes there, I hate to say it, but I doubt Stefan Molyneux knows psych data better than a guy who worked at the APA. Having data doesn’t mean shit, it’s the quality of the data. He keeps going on about this topic in a smug self-satisfied way with reference to simplistic philosophy over the scientific method as it applies here (they do differ substantially as we’ll see) and it irritated my amygdala enough to play Devil’s Advocate and see where the data took me.

I mean, if you watch that video I linked he even committed an ad hominem attack to anyone who disagrees and the psychogenetic fallacy, as well as the fallacy of dismissal and others. You’d be triggered too.

“In a meta-analysis of 26 studies, Larzelere and a colleague found that an approach they described as “conditional spanking” led to greater reductions in child defiance or anti-social behavior than 10 of 13 alternative discipline techniques, including reasoning, removal of privileges and time out
from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking.aspx

ummmm drinking oh dear no uh oh tyrion game of thrones drinking

THE FORBIDDEN FINDING. I could just leave it there, tbh. It’s tempting.

They refuse to control the data (confounds) properly because it would prove them wrong, that’s why the methods are dodgy. If you look at plenty of pro-liberal social studies (at least 90% of them presumably, going by hiring for research posts), the statistics are distorted to match public policy recommendations, making the studies themselves post-hoc and invalid. It’s justification for social engineering, not real science.

As in many areas of science, some researchers disagree about the validity of the studies on physical punishment. Robert Larzelere, PhD, an Oklahoma State University professor who studies parental discipline, was a member of the APA task force who issued his own minority report because he disagreed with the scientific basis of the task force recommendations. While he agrees that parents should reduce their use of physical punishment, he says most of the cited studies are correlational and don’t show a causal link between physical punishment and long-term negative effects for children.

Translation: he thinks they’re filthy liars so he showed them up with a real study (hence the meta-analysis method, the gold standard) and they have no genuine reply to this, it’s hilarious. He went on to explain their flaws too, because he’s savage.

Little known fact: You do have to prove causation. Before you start lecturing people. They cannot. What does that say? Well, what does proof involves? Statistical control of confounds, which they refuse to do for some strange reason. The same way behaviourists refuse to control for genetics in their studies, while saying out the other side of their mouths that it wouldn’t change their significant findings if they did….

This is why social science isn’t yet a real science. These people. Who ‘can’t’ do maths.

“The studies do not discriminate well between non-abusive and overly severe types of corporal punishment,” Larzelere says. “You get worse outcomes from corporal punishment than from alternative disciplinary techniques only when it is used more severely or as the primary discipline tactic.”

Such obscurity is always deliberate. Part of p-hacking. Heard of that reproducibility crisis?
Liberals see all forms of physical punishment as ‘too much’. To them, it’s all ‘abusive’, like disagreeing with a black guy is ‘racist’ or a gay man refusing to shag a woman is ‘sexist’. Well technically, theoretically speaking, but really no. Not in the real world. Where the data lives.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15898303

This meta-analysis investigates differences between the effect sizes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics for child outcomes in 26 qualifying studies. Analyzing differences in effect sizes reduces systematic biases and emphasizes direct comparisons between the disciplinary tactics that parents have to select among. The results indicated that effect sizes significantly favored conditional spanking over 10 of 13 alternative disciplinary tactics for reducing child noncompliance or antisocial behavior. Customary physical punishment yielded effect sizes equal to alternative tactics, except for one large study favoring physical punishment. Only overly severe or predominant use of physical punishment compared unfavorably with alternative disciplinary tactics. The discussion highlights the need for better discriminations between effective and counterproductive use of disciplinary punishment in general.

But the other researchers don’t want the truth. They can’t handle the truth. It’s black and white thinking from them on this subject. All bad, or all good, unlike literally any other human behaviour known to mankind. Did I mention another reason for its hot-potato status is racial differences?

Our results indicate that adolescents who perceive that their parents use an authoritative parenting style, regardless of their race, are less likely to engage in health-risk behaviors than adolescents who perceive that their parents use an authoritarian, permissive, or uninvolved parenting style. Conversely, in this study adolescents of all races who characterize their parents as uninvolved are more vulnerable to engaging in health-risk behaviors. The effects of the authoritarian and permissive parenting styles differ by race. In relation to the other parenting styles, the authoritarian style is more protective for Black adolescents than it is for White adolescents; while, the permissive style is more protective for White adolescents than it is for Black adolescents. The permissive parenting style and the authoritarian parenting style appear to have an equal effect on health-risk behaviors in Hispanic teens. source

TLDR: So being anti-authoritarian is actually racist.

hmm uhuh o rlly really ah sure thing

Don’t expect them to crack it anytime soon. Money’s on it being mediated by MAO genes. And if personality is innate after a certain point and we should accept this and tolerate differences, is it reasonable to ask people to change? Weren’t they Born This Way?

This whole debate, all this is a ruse that relates back to Authoritarianism, also called a parenting style but actually a political invention by Adorno, a personality metric to call conservatives mentally ill. It’s basically a medical label of prejudice. Adorno was an avowed Communist who worked as part of the Frankfurt School. Seriously, look it up.

No literally, he tried to make up a hodge-podge theory calling conservatives mentally ill. It’s quite funny how overtly biased he was.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/personality-theories.html#adorno

Case studies, e.g. Nazis

They piloted and developed a questionnaire, which they called the F-scale (F for fascism).

Those with an authoritarian personality tended to be:

• Hostile to those who are of inferior status, but obedient of people with high status [DS: hierarchical]

• Fairly rigid in their opinions and beliefs [DS: aka closed to manipulation attempts]

• Conventional, upholding traditional values

Liberals did political psychology before we did. They started it.

laughing rdj crack up

Despite how;

Still, the authors concluded that the authoritative parenting style is protective in regards to adolescent drug use, both concurrently and longitudinally (Adalbjarnardottir & Hafsteinsson, 2001). source

So it works. Literally, it works. The majority of their argument against is futile.

The whole idea of parenting styles is a joke. You know what the data shows? The still-conservative one called authoritative is the best for life outcomes. Do they follow outcomes for types of discipline? No, not really, and especially not the least-popular parenting ‘style’, permissive (lazy). Why wouldn’t liberals want to study that?

Little mentioned is the damage of the permissive (liberal) parenting style. Why? Well, it’s hardly ever researched and commented upon.

Parental permissiveness or indulgence was also associated with increased adolescent alcohol and tobacco use(22,23,27). source

Adolescents who described their mother as using a permissive parenting style were more likely to demonstrate a tendency to anticipate a more violent response to the hypothetical situation. [same source]

Sounds healthy. Mentally.

Parenting style is like learning style, it pathologizes natural differences for political gain around a kernel of truth. Mental illness is not a political pawn, nor should it be used as one. But again, which wing started that?

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/mental-illness-is-not-a-political-issue/17600#.VqR5n_mLTZ4

There is also a big difference between genuinely seeking to end unjust discrimination against those who suffer from severe mental-health issues, and making out that we’re all secretly a little bit mentally ill.

Is it to help people, as best as we can, to live normal lives? Or is it an attempt to medicalise further normal aspects of everyday life?

Casually diagnosing a misbehaving child with mental problems, such as anxiety or depression, is the equivalent of a get-out clause.

Girl crush.

We all know overdiagnosis is a problem, mathematically, as the majority (mentally healthy) cannot be the minority (mentally unhealthy) in a Medical Model. What type of person over-diagnoses or self-diagnoses?

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1566&context=lcp

Corporal punishment is usually correlated with behavior problems such as antisocial behavior and aggression.24 But correlation does not equal causation. What is open to dispute are the causal influences that explain those correlations. Making valid causal conclusions from correlations involving corrective actions is especially problematic, for correlations are biased against corrective actions, a problem known as the intervention selection bias.25 This selection bias occurs because of the poorer prognosis of those selected for the corrective action compared to the better prognosis of those not needing the corrective action.

aka Stefan is wrong.
And bad kids get disciplined more, they were bad to begin with. I love how nobody asks about psychopaths either. Like evil people pop into existence at age 18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

However, all kinds of nonphysical punishment also predicted higher antisocial behavior with the same controls.

Woops. That’s not to suppose to happen, is it, Stefan?

all predicted significantly higher subsequent hyperactivity, whereas physical punishment did not, β = .03, n.s. Therefore, the strongest causal evidence against customary spanking is not unique to spanking, but applies as much to most corrective actions, including most corrective disciplinary actions by parents and corrective interventions by psychotherapists.

That’s the sound of a hypothesis dying. Like a whale.
I don’t blame him for being a pacifist though. Being Canadian.
If the therapists are harming children, where’s your moral beacon?

In sum, the strongest causally relevant evidence against customary spanking yields small, apparently detrimental effects that can easily be due to a combination of several substantive and methodological factors that bias the results. Consistent with this, the first studies to use the same research methods for alternative disciplinary tactics showed similar results for corrective actions by both parents and professionals. In evaluating corrective actions by clinical psychologists, this type of evidence would not even be considered and would definitely not override the causally conclusive evidence that spanking can be effective for enforcing nonphysical disciplinary tactics, even in the most clinically defiant two- to six-year-olds.154

*crickets*

Under Conclusion.

Spanking must be understood in the broader context of the appropriate exercise of parental authority. Numerous studies have shown the superior effectiveness of authoritative parenting, especially compared with the extremes of authoritarian and permissive parenting.174 We have recently extended that evidence by documenting that ten-year child outcomes vary greatly by these preschool parenting patterns.175

Calling a parent a Nazi is pretty extreme, yes.

The use of normative spanking did not distinguish authoritative parents from other parenting patterns, although it was used more by authoritarian parents than by permissive parents. We think that authoritative parenting can be implemented by some parents without the use of any spanking, but we have no evidence of that from our study, as all authoritative parents used spanking at least occasionally.

As this alludes, hippies still spank their kids, they just lie about it. Getting the child to lie for them could be considered a form of abuse too, if you want to play that game.

There’s a load of duh conservative wisdom too before I move on.

Spanking should never be used in an infant’s first twelve months of life and rarely, if at all, before eighteen months of age. Parents should make sure their children know that any corrective discipline, including spanking, is motivated by love and concern for them. Parents must also be certain not to administer punishment too severely, whether physical or nonphysical. Finally, all punishment should be used in such a way that reduces the need to use it in the future. Every child is different, so not all disciplinary tactics will work as well with every child—or for every situation with the same child.

Parental authority figure. Authoritative role assumption. Duh?

Authoritarian should actually be called Tyrant. If the labelling system were culturally honest and followed, I dunno, the definition of English words?
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english-thesaurus/authoritarian

I was doing some pondering over this topic and the neurobiology that must be involved and came up with a pie-in-the-sky opinion theory. Since I’ve already established the direction the empirical evidence has headed, I wanna freestyle it to finish.

Wall of text incoming.

I was reading about the findings on spanking, and it seems to be r-types self-selecting for narcissism. As in, they don’t develop empathy, which is based on pain (all kinds) and physically structured by mirror neurons. For an example of how this pertains to modern issues, such impaired ‘theory of mind’ (low empathy) is implicated in Borderline Personality. From what I know of the brain, spanking would actively change the child’s personality (an unstudied effect, a remarkable gap in the research despite the known origin of spanking research -parenting style- being based in the personality of the parents) and this change would aim to make the child more socially humble and deferential, respecting of hierarchy, such as parental authority, (like the spanking parents themselves, making spanking a cultural meme and untouchable by liberals on this basis) and such traits are something we know to be actively K-selected. I even thought of a mechanism, most parents who spank only start once the child is of around pre-school age, wandering curious age, at the exact time of great neural pruning. What most people don’t know is that neural pruning can be triggered and directed by experiences of pain, and once those connections are gone, they’re dead forever. Pruning is vital for healthy brain development, and may be a hidden environmental factor (really epigenetic) in childhood development.
By refusing to admit any positive effects from spanking whatsoever (impossible in social science), they admit their bias, because at that exact time biologically in the child’s development, mild physical pain, no different morally than controlled exposure hand-ice studies conducted by psychologists themselves, would cause neural pruning of the decisive connections which led to that antisocial behaviour. It causes a rewiring of the brain for prosociality during the ‘window of opportunity’.
In the ‘social science’, they’ve tried to argue that spanking causes sociopathy but the genetics show there is a predisposition, so what, pray tell geniuses, is a parent supposed to do if they find their kid lighting fires? How are they supposed to discipline the child they found torturing cats or trying to kill their little sister by pushing her down the stairs? They have no answer for this, because their entire anti-scientific premise rests on All Child Are Innocent Angels Incapable of Wrongdoing, something any parent will tell you is BS. The number of abusive children is rising.
What is the social engineer’s answer to this? Does the parent require less protection, when the child is often below the age of criminal responsibility? One of the expert-given causes for such abuse is “lack of consequences for bad behavior”, what do you think that might mean? As for solutions: “There are no agencies or programs that protect parents from abusive children, adolescents or teenagers other than giving up their Parental Rights to the state they live in.” So it seems the case that if the parents refuse to use physical force altogether, the child might take the newly imbalanced power dynamic (game theory) as carte blanche and abuse the parent. Such sunny optimism as you see with the anti-spanking witch hunts fail to recognize this, despite their supposed stance against all abuse and violence. It irritates their amygdala, you see, making them ignore it. Like a child screaming in a supermarket. They’re That Parent.
If a parenting style fails to apply to all children (and you don’t know who’s pathological until they’ve killed the family cat), it fails and one cannot advise parents to undertake it in good conscience. Children are capable of great evil and not just the sociopathic ones (from ignorance, bad peer influence, genetic bequeath or sheer stupidity). If you ask real parents anecdotally, (bear in mind liberals avoid having children making their opinion dubious since they admit to hating kids in general) they’ll draw a connection between late Gen Y/ early Gen Z and NARCISSISM. Aka part of the Dark Triad. Why weren’t those connections pruned, compared to earlier generations? Many parents would say the anti-spanking initiative, and wouldn’t you know it, that generation is coincidentally the most heavily liberal known to mankind. They respect nothing and feel invincible, literally as if nothing could really harm them? ‘Import rapists? Sure! They would never hurt me!’ It would be a like a cultural version of Toxoplasmosis infection, because they speak from ignorance. Their brains are immature, but that isn’t an excuse, they aren’t insane and know logically right from wrong, and arguably that makes it worse. They follow their feelings knowing it’s wrong, the polar opposite of what the advocates of prohibition say should happen!

It’s widely recognized the rise in child narcissism is due to the Self Esteem Movement, but what caused the SEM? What new behaviours from parents, since it’s novel in children? Non-parenting parents. Genetic parents, who fail to take up the social role.

nonparents

Source: The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement

I’ll just paste this off wikipedia because I’m lazy.

A study conducted by Jean Decety and colleagues at the University of Chicago demonstrated that subjects with aggressive conduct disorder elicit atypical empathic responses to viewing others in pain.[89] Subjects with conduct disorder were at least as responsive as controls to the pain of others, but unlike controls, subjects with conduct disorder showed strong and specific activation of the amygdala and ventral striatum (areas that enable a general arousing effect of reward), yet impaired activation of the neural regions involved in self-regulation and metacognition (including moral reasoning), in addition to diminished processing between the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex.[89]

Absence of punishment rewards bad behaviour. They don’t learn to control themselves and cannot morally reason, the thing the anti-spanking people rely on as the bulk of their proposition.

What appears to be pathological altruism is in fact a weakened threat recognition system, and surely it’s better to teach a child the meaning of pain and suffering in a controlled environment than wait for it to metastasize in a potentially lethal way? None of the studies, though persuasive, account for these factors. Reasoning with a bad child doesn’t work. Some children are bad, where do they think bad adults come from? They pop into existence at age 18? Why even have clinical child psychology if no intervention could ever have changed them? What are good parents of a bad egg supposed to do? Pray? Cos that’s about as reasonable as ‘reasoning’ with them – humans are not logical animals. If it won’t work on adults (Israel/Palestine, anyone?) it certainly won’t work on a toddler. We have to teach classical logic and formal laws of maths when they’re at school, far too late, the superego/conscience is already formed, so expecting them to get it earlier on or as a baby is frankly retarded. So while I hate to say it, I’m forced to conclude that spanking is justifiable in certain conditions of very bad behaviour (especially criminal) and during the window of life phase time (childhood stage) it might be corrected for. A little bad does us good, in the long term? This is the low time preference view, which is, wouldn’t you know it, the preserve of conservatives. I call it the Eustress Hypothesis.

TLDR: Fear is something you learn and liberals haven’t.

Also, I find it funny liberals don’t believe in IQ unless they’re citing spanking studies, then negligible IQ drops are totally a real thing and a huge deal (unlike IQ drops from smoking pot, which are rounding errors apparently). 5 points of difference for example could be caused by anything, it was raining today so when the kid took the IQ test again he was sad? Education boosts IQ far more than spanking supposedly drops it, so what’s the problem? If we’re playing the IQ maths game? Does it take pointing out the obvious by twisting it the other way to make the faulty reasoning clear? Did they control for parental investment (extraneous variable) or what? No, they did not. This includes reading to them and other at-home education (itself a sign of parental IQ – another confound!). The IQ difference within this study doesn’t even remain over time, in the older age group, the difference is a stonking 2.8 IQ points! Wow! At which point they stopped measuring or failed to report on the data, which isn’t odd… To clue you in on how valid this widely cited dataset is, the guy who conducted it is a sociologist. Not even a child psychologist or anything psychologist (they tend to use different methodologies, different assumptions and much weaker statistics).

According to PC dogma, even yelling isn’t allowed now. So no form of discipline is acceptable to them, the r-types. Why yelling? It causes shame and apparently no child should ever feel shame for anything. http://jezebel.com/if-yelling-at-kids-is-as-harmful-as-spanking-what-the-1455310255

Gee, which political wing hates being ‘shamed’?

Different from guilt, which is too generic and makes them neurotic and indecisive as adults. Like Catholics.

I don’t expect liberals to avoid confirmation bias, we wouldn’t want them to be triggered by facts, would we? However, I expect better from the Alt Right. Quit taking tips on aggression from a non-scientist Canadian philosopher. Quit bothering me with assumptions that his proofs are correct when the internet is right there and you should use it. Topic covered? Can we drop it now?

I don't have anything funny to say about this

Video: A guide to the dark side (how to be PC)

1-infinity. Do everything The Guardian says. Especially when it contradicts. It is your Bible.

‘Danger’, ‘threat’ and ‘violence’ all pertain to your own fear (not evidence per se). Your individual hair-trigger fear of everything. Nothing is not ‘problematic’ (an excuse to whine, bitch and nag). Eschew critical thinking, embrace ‘critical theory’ (BSing about why everything is ‘problematic’, self-justification for being a shit-stirrer getting off on needless provocation). Rationality is evil – if it dares to disagree with you.

n.b. The form of ad hominem he refers to is called Poisoning the Well.

Government is your God

You appeal to it and beg it to solve your problems for you. You pray for long-sought proclamations to fell your enemies and appeal to its righteous authority when instated. There is nothing higher, you say. Its divinity cannot be revoked. Ah, but what of Revolutions? Never of Government you know, it must be the money. Money is the root of all evil, you misquote and lobby for your Government Gods to wreak vengeance on Wall Street for its believers. After all, we should be equal under God.

Some days I have trouble handling this amount of stupid