r/PoursTea • Timendi Causa Est Nescire • 12h ago

⚠️Trigger Warning⚠️ There's a clear difference.

Post image
26.4k Upvotes

607 comments sorted by

View all comments

58

u/Shido_Ohtori 12h ago

"Perceived victimhood, authoritarianism, populism, and white identity are the most powerful predictors of support for violence, though military service, conspiratorial thinking, anxiety, and feelings of powerlessness are also related."

Studies also show that "radical acts perpetrated by individuals associated with left-wing causes are less likely to be violent. In the United States, we find no difference between the level of violence perpetrated by right-wing and Islamist extremists.", and numerous investigations show that "right-wing populists are generally more likely to justify political violence compared to mainstream voters and non-voters".

Conservatism -- by definition -- is "a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing the importance of established hierarchies and institutions (such as religion, the family, and class structure), and preferring gradual development to abrupt change".

The sole value of conservatism is respect for and obedience to [one's perception of] traditionally established hierarchy, and hierarchy dictates that those on top (in-groups) are rightfully idolized and receive privileges, credibility, and resources, while those on the bottom (out-groups) are demonized/dehumanized and/or bound by restrictions, scrutiny, and lack of resources.

To them, the second-greatest injustice imaginable is for those [they perceive to be] on top [of social hierarchy] to be bound by the restrictions, scrutiny, and lack of resources reserved for those on the bottom. The first greatest injustice is for those on the bottom to have access to the rights, credibility, and resources reserved for those on top.

Conservatives absolutely need an underclass [for society] to demonize and dehumanize in order to maintain [their] hierarchy, and every single one of their policies and rhetoric work to do exactly that. Unless the accusation is one of disrespecting hierarchy, every right-wing accusation is a confession -- every. single. one; always! -- as it is never the act itself that upsets them, but rather, the social standing of the person doing the act, as said act is a privilege meant for those on top of [their perceived] hierarchy (See also: pedophilia - Trump and the Catholic church versus LGBTQ+ and drag queens; protests - January 6th vs. BLM and No Kings; parental rights - anti-LGBTQ+ vs pro-LGBTQ+; indoctrination - religion vs. education).

Those who believe all people are people see hypocrisy, while those who believe some people are "more/less" people than others see hierarchy. Hypocrisy implies a sense of equality/parity, as the accusation of such is that someone is violating a universal or common standard. Hierarchy directly states that there is no equality/parity, that different social strata have different standards, that the only universal standard concerning hierarchy is that those on top are allowed privileges which are denied to those on the bottom, and that the bottom are held to standards which the top are exempt from.

"Know your place" is their mantra.

3

u/CaterpillarJungleGym 11h ago

I once took this morality survey thing. It was intense and took a while. And everything was on a scale, it wasn't a just yes/no. At the end they ask you to rate where you see yourself on a political like spectrum. Those that were conservative tended to value things like obedience and maintaining order. Whereas people who were more in the other side valued individualism and free thinking. That was like 20 something years ago. Can't remember who had the poll but the data visualization was on point.

2

u/Shido_Ohtori 10h ago

Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind offer insight from the conservative perspective concerning morality, via five sets of moral intuitions: Harm/care, Fairness/reciprocity, In-group/loyalty, Authority/respect, and Purity/sanctity. Conservatives endorsed all five equally, while liberals consistently showed greater endorsement and use of the Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity foundations.

2

u/CaterpillarJungleGym 10h ago

I'm not sure I fully follow. Are we saying purity/sanctity is one thing? Where is the opposite. Should it be purity/creativity? Loyalty/openness. Fairness/Justice

1

u/Shido_Ohtori 10h ago

While those are the terms the study I provided use, Haidt himself used the following dichotomies in his book (elaborated upon on pages 110-126, and summarized on page 127):

Care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation.

1

u/CaterpillarJungleGym 10h ago

Those don't seem equivalent in neutrality. Sanctity vs degradation are harsh. Sanctity vs change is more neutral. I'm guessing this author came to an interesting conclusion.

1

u/filthytelestial 10h ago

They're definitely not, you're right. The author is a moderate at best. I don't know why people keep listening to and quoting him.