Friend Infected With Right Wing Brain Worms - What to Do?

You might mean word rather than movement, there.

the halfassed joke only works because Jones looks like a bloated Bill Hicks imo

Bill Hicks stuffed with gammon

bill gaiman

My relative is now talking about how they are a cultural racist. I knew this was coming but paradoxically it makes it easier. Instead of thinking to myself, 'do they know where they are going with all this? how can they not see?" it captures position pretty well, is very into hierarchies of people. I'm still fairly surprised at self-defining with the R word even with the modifier as i didn't realize that was a thing in right-wing circles (maybe it isnt)

i’ve heard “cultural chauvinist” before as a self-descriptor for right wingers who believe the “west is the best.” I think this is an “out” for people who want to act racist and have racist opinions but then be able to weakly deny that they are actually racist. (“It’s not about race it’s about culture, bro.”) your relative might be trying to say this but is too dumb to formulate it correctly.

your relative might be trying to say this but is too dumb to formulate it correctly.

Or you could accept the idea that they know - and mean - exactly what they're saying.

Either way they are racist.

Well I'm fairly ok with accepting the idea if someone says they are racist that may be a strong indicator of such!

Yeah you didn’t need my Vox explainer for that I was just trying to give some context

Unnecessarily facetious on my part, wasn't intended. Ok it was intended a little bit because the submit post button said please press me before the other kermit regained control

fake plastic treesh

i’ve heard “cultural chauvinist” before as a self-descriptor for right wingers who believe the “west is the best.”

― Trϵϵship

yeah i think the proud boys describe themselves as "western chauvinists". right-wingers these days will sometimes occasionally attempt to use euphemisms, but they're really bad at it and fool nobody.

I was having lunch yesterday with my two identical twin gender neutral siblings, who had come in from Montreal to counter-protest the Unite The Right demo. It was a huge success, apparently, there were 300 protesters and the Unite The Right people cancelled, it was just a few stragglers. A Toronto Sun columnist (Sue-Anne Levy) wrote about it, from a "the anti-hate crew seem themselves to be quite hateful" and described a scenario in which Sue-Anne was being chased by a bunch of "leftist lesbians", which we all thought was really amazing and hilarious.

So I was eating lunch and my sibling Iz was talking about how a complaint was filed against them at university recently. Apparently a man in their class, named Barry, complained that Iz created "a hostile environment" in the classroom. The professor was unsympathetic and told Barry to grow up. I asked Iz what they'd done to be hostile to Barry.

Iz said that Barry was prone to asking extremely dumb questions in class. They said that the class was reading a work by Foucault, and that Foucault made it clear, right off the bat, that this work was a phenomenological examination-- the very first paragraph. Barry, criticizing Foucault in his question, asked about why Foucault might not have made some practical observations in this work. Iz rolled their eyes and Barry saw them do it. Barry said, "what is it, Iz?" Iz replied, "nothing, just that your question is really dumb."

Iz went on to talk about how Barry was always interrupting discourse about this topic or that-- cops, white people, etc.-- by talking about intentionality. "Oh, but they don't MEAN to act this way." Iz looked pointedly at me and said, "WHY DO PEOPLE DO THIS." (It wasn't an accusation, Iz just knows that I always find ways to empathize with any argument.) We were on the sidewalk when they asked me this, smoking, and so I couldn't just pull an answer out of my ass, but I did tell them, "I know why, but I can't describe it just yet."

I saw this thread pop up and thought again about it. "Infected with right wing brain worms." I'd be interested to know if there are any neurological studies about people who assume "right-wing" views of thought. I think of my aging relatives embracing more protectionist ideologies. I think of my uncle, age 67, dating a black woman, who nevertheless takes issue with "black lives matter" and has a laundry list of excuses-- "we've come so far since the 60s, I was out marching, I hope you know"-- he's right! he was a big activist back then. I think of individuals I know with serious mental health difficulties, and their tendencies toward embracing enormous conspiracy theories, reading and learning and espousing deeply political feminist literature, but then turning around and testing "the limits of free speech" by posting pictures of Woody Allen and calling him "my hero" in a transparent move to initiate discourse about the nature of "allegations" and their binding power.

And what I wanted to say to Iz was that I want to speak to neurologists, or read up on it, because I've been tracking my own thought process. I can tell when my mind is in a state of objective, healthy processing. And I can tell when my mind is full-tilt amygdala fight-or-flight mode. Having dealt with trauma, and dealing now with aging, and the feeling that the language-of-progressive-politics is leaving me behind-- a woman recently told my bf that suggesting the consumption of alcohol to a potential consumer ("Come crack open a cold one with the girls," i.e.) was ableist-- I am still laughing about it--

--having dealt with all manner of mental situations that have transformed me from the normal, objective, book-reading, engaged person that I am at-least-half-of-the-time, I can absolutely positively identify with Barry. If the man is constantly feeling like the discourse is running against him, that he's made to feel stupid, that he might not sail through the class on the basis of his remarkable intellect as he'd hoped he would, that he might get a C+ to Iz's A, that I'm sure he is also aware that Iz is a genius and is at Columbia on a full scholarship.. and yet he's TRYING SO HARD... would he not feel inclined to defend people in positions of "oppression" because he is giving others the empathy he wishes he himself was afforded?

tl;dr: I think people become "right-wing" because of real-life trauma and/or the terrors of aging-- I instinctively believe it's a neurological thing.

I don’t know the neuroscience of it, but I think definitely people turn to right wing ideologies out of a sense of defensiveness. People who feel trapped and cornered are not inclined to feel generous and that extends to their thinking about the world in general. That’s why right wing media is so poisonous — it’s a whole packaged worldview built for people who are inclined to feel resentful and are looking for a target. Roger Ailes even said his target audience was “age 55 to dead” or something.

There are plenty of non-reactionary reasons to resist Foucault though. When I was undergrad and we read him and everyone kinda blandly nodded along and was like, “sure, society works this way,” I took it as evidence that they didn’t really do the reading or else were just trying to go along with what they thought the professor believed.

lots to think about in that post, fgti

I'm back in Tennessee this week for unhappy reasons and I'm stunned by the realization that all the middle-aged men i see, pot bellies, whitening hair, coach's shorts, etc, and all the middle-aged women i see, hair sprayed into immovable sculpted nests, hideous sweaters, jewelled bracelets, foundation makeup etc, are virtually identical carbon copies of the middle-aged people i knew back in the 70s and 80s growing up here but they're THIRTY YEARS YOUNGER than those people were and somehow they grew up to just replace them, their styles and mentality just morphed into them. you always hear "we just gotta wait for the old people to die off". but young people become old people. and they don't just become old they replicate everything about those old people. fuck, i got driven around by some of these people probably, smoking cigarettes, shooting pool, listening to, like, fishbone and faith no more, and now they look exactly like, i dunno, bill parcells

Interesting, Treeship, I'd never heard about that Roger Ailes thing lol. I don't want to talk about Foucault tho! I just felt that the whole story (gender neutral identical twin siblings, counter protest, Columbia, a debate in class about "phenomenological") was delicious with all the details

xp
maybe related, but those who are more likely to feel disgust easily are more likely to be conservative.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/caveman-politics/201203/are-you-easily-disgusted-you-may-be-conservative

Evidence suggests that harm avoidance and the need for fairness underlie people's moral judgments in a number of cultures. While liberals rely primarily on these two values, conservatives also rely on desires for group loyalty, authoritative structure, and, most importantly here, purity. Following this logic, Kevin and other researchers became interested in the potential for a relation between disgust and political orientations. They speculated that conservatives are more disgust sensitive than liberals as a result of their concern with purity-related norms and that this difference would manifest itself on issues that some may associate with sexual purity...

I think the number of people who are in a philosophy class that just don't understand the idea of phenomenological cases, even if they've made it through a prior course, and it can seem dumb. Dumb questions are kind of par for the course in some college classes, especially those where discussion is encouraged or mandatory. I'm still rolling my eyes, decades later, at a couple specific incidents but I can laugh them off now. And those kids weren't even professing any sort of conservative ideology! They were just dumb.

ugh. Tracer so much otm.

My cousin is early 30s, but the move has not been a drift rightwards - its been more a politicization of an existing thought model. He doesn't really have empathy (not in a 'mean' way, just has trouble seeing things from other points of view, or actually seeing anything that isn't tangible). Whats appealing to him I think is order and hieararchy, and knowing where you are. That certain things are objectively best, and also that objectivity and his own subjectivity are broadly the same thing, that it is self-evident that some groups of people are better than others.

he is more than ok with non-white people, as long as they are called James or Steve and not Sahir or Jamal. If they would conform and be a James, he wouldn't have a problem with them (this links in a bit with what Matt DC said on the 'white people' thread, about the group of white britons who are generally comfortable with black British people but can't really cope with Eastern Europeans or North Africans. Major desire for people to conform to a set way of being. The out group also includes liberals, people at university, labour supporters, artists, teachers.

For him theres a distinct hierarchy of groups and theres a large amount of leeway and deference to groups above, and very little to groups below, who are instrincally objectively bad, or at least, worse, and that this is a natural order and shouldn't be played around with

I mean, I feel like I'm just typing out a dictionary definition of conservatism. What is most striking is the removal of nuance, theres no give and take in conversation whatsoever, its more like a series of statements. I'm trying harder just to steer conversations away from where this absolutism has taken hold but there's less and less ground

But this all predates any political leanings! It was actually always there, just manifested differently. And.I see now that the difficulties in conversation were always there, a feeling of why is this combative? why does this feel like a battle to come out on top? Now it is the same but incredibly political, and I dread conversations as it is feels like they have prepared themselves for war and theres less and less ground on which to avoid this way of doing things

Anyway I hope my post wasn't interpreted by anyone as "BARRY IS A HERO!!!!" more like I'm just trying to map my own responses and observations about my own thought patterns on to people with right wing brain worms, to better understand why it's happening, and it might happen to all of us eventually

It feels like a 'do-er' mindset as opposed to a 'thinker' mindset. Just get on and get it done, don't sit around pontificating and listening and reading the manual and thinking', all just a waste of time, just get on with it. and that theres something untrustworthy about people who might want to find out whats in the ground first before sticking a pole in there

That can also come with fear of aging. You’re more aware that time is passing all the time, even when you’re pondering interminable questions.

I decided not to go to my (ex)friend’s wedding. I tried to engage with him of Facebook, but it was fruitless. He keeps sharing pro far-right stuff. ‘Free Tommy’ stuff, pro- French NF, anti-gay right’s, anti- feminism. He’s started sending me #walkaway crap. I want him to be happy, but I can’t imagine being in his company without it kicking off into a huge argument, which would not be great at a wedding.

There are notions like permanence and certainty and stark binaries which are valorized by our society but which are pernicious because they are ultimately illusory. It feels like the extent to which those notions pervade within an individual is the extent to which that individual is likely to create a bubble of resistance against a world that stubbornly refuses to conform to those notions. Particularly, perhaps, as aging and one's impending mortality serve to directly undercut those notions.

also that objectivity and his own subjectivity are broadly the same thing

this is a concept that's really hard to get past, and drives a lot of the dialogue about how some groups (mysteriously, the ones with valid complaints) are more driven by "emotion" as opposed to some objectivity

it's really easy to fall into rhetorical arguments where every fringe case comes in and it's evident in every stupid debate about human rights. "if we let people define their own terms, what's to stop me from marrying my dog?"-style flourishes. rather than addressing specific concerns, the "objective" mindset tends to question the entire validity of discussion, not the validity of argument. and that's where it becomes clear the so-called objectivity is a thin veneer over very subjective ideas about the status quo

the recurring concept that comes up as more objective is the idea of meritocracy. the word was coined in a satirical context, and that's been completely lost in its wholesale adoption. the entire point is that a meritocracy is like a utopia: a hypothetical perfect state that's never attainable, a nowhere. the reality is that human cognitive and social biases will always be at the forefront, and you have to identify and question those biases. but objective dudes, again, claim that they're above bias

I don't think the "drift rightwards" comes with aging so much as cohort -- there are relatives of mine well into their 60s, and their political views are still incredibly malleable. sometimes it seems like they depend entirely on who's in their circle of friends this year.

most definitely

my parents seem to have gotten tired of several of their neighbors who have gotten more defensive but are relatively open to whatever far-left political thing I bring up. there seems to be more groupthink among the others and they're just not into it

I decided not to go to my (ex)friend’s wedding. I tried to engage with him of Facebook, but it was fruitless. He keeps sharing pro far-right stuff. ‘Free Tommy’ stuff, pro- French NF, anti-gay right’s, anti- feminism. He’s started sending me #walkaway crap. I want him to be happy, but I can’t imagine being in his company without it kicking off into a huge argument, which would not be great at a wedding.

― Leaghaidh am brón an t-anam bochd (dowd), Monday, August 13, 2018 9:38 AM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it's really easy to fall into rhetorical arguments where every fringe case comes in and it's evident in every stupid debate about human rights. "if we let people define their own terms, what's to stop me from marrying my dog?"-style flourishes

― mh, Monday, August 13, 2018 10:10 AM (thirty-seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Good god I just realized dowd's ex-friend is marrying a dog to own the libs

I think people become "right-wing" because of real-life trauma and/or the terrors of aging-- I instinctively believe it's a neurological thing.

Older conservatives have a saying they like to toss around, that if you aren't a liberal at age 20 you have no heart, but if you aren't a conservative by age 50 you have no brain. This is bullshit, but somewhat revealing bullshit, in that it reflects the fact that many older conservatives were liberals when they were young and this formula allows them to reconcile the two and even claim it is evidence of their excellence as humans to be endowed with a heart and a brain. (Note: you will never see them describing Young Republican types as "heartless".)

My theory is simple enough. Young people base their politics largely upon theory, because the majority of their lives they have been spectators on the fringe of the adult world and they've spent their young lives trying to piece together explanations for what they see. The 'liberal' point of view is based on explanations of society that allow room for social change and improvement. This is very appealing to a young person, who ardently hopes the world won't be so messed up in the future, and has confidence that everyone naturally wants to fix what is so clearly broken. This aligns well with the "heart" rubric cited above.

As one ages, it becomes excessively obvious that fixing the world is beyond their power. If progress is made is one area, it is just as easy to find regress in another. The stubborn fixity of greed, ignorance, selfishness and fear in society seem insurmountable. The apparent hopelessness of improving anything leads them to abandon hope and ideals. In the absence of hope comes cynicism, fear and selfishness. Thus, a conservative is born.

This is a very old story, but no matter what the aging conservative wants to believe, this does NOT align with "having a brain", but rather from stopping thinking because the problems got too hard and complicated. If you are turn conservative at age 50 it doesn't mean you gained a brain, but that you've lost heart.

Having kids makes you selfish. Mortgages and all that shit.

(should have kept that for the controversial opinions thread)

I think that premise comes from people who were always concentrated on their own interests, but their circumstances changed and they attribute most of it to their own success -- or lack thereof, but claim an understanding that self-agency is important.

like great, old guy, you're no longer going to get drafted to fight in a war and you own a house. worked for you, so I guess it works for everyone

a bunch of my parents' peers are late-era baby boomers who did reasonably well working in businesses started by their own parents' generation, and they've reached retirement age or are near retirement just as the industries they worked in have become irrelevant or defunct

"c ya! have fun with your 'renegotiated' pensions!!"

As one ages, it becomes excessively obvious that fixing the world is beyond their power. If progress is made is one area, it is just as easy to find regress in another. The stubborn fixity of greed, ignorance, selfishness and fear in society seem insurmountable. The apparent hopelessness of improving anything leads them to abandon hope and ideals. In the absence of hope comes cynicism, fear and selfishness. Thus, a conservative is born.

well, it's probably simpler:

"I'm older and I miss life in my twenties, it can't be that I'm not in my twenties anymore, it must be that the world has gotten worse since then," and then finding a scapegoat in people they didn't like anyway

also I don't think that "liberals are liberals because they're young and think the world will be better in the future" works anymore -- like, to take the big one, climate change virtually guarantees it will not.

The goalposts seem to have moved to something different, the 'friends(/relatives) infected with brain worms' were 20/30 something at the beginning of the thread, which implies a much quicker transformation. Older generations being more right wing is surely something separate from this

The world is changing faster and faster and faster and not for the better in many ways (austerity, climate, automation, etc). I can totally understand anyone wanting to accept ‘objective’ ‘facts’, hierarchies, etc etc in the face of instability and uncertainty. Can’t condone it though.

Aimless your assessment is spot on, from where I'm sitting

id imagine simply having the good shit as opposed to wanting all the good shit you dont have is worth about 60% of converts

So turns out that he is a genuine concern that the breakdown of society is imminent, due to 'activists'

On surface it feels like the stereotype of the 73 year old Fox Viewer somewhere in the US who lives in a world created and sustained by media. But this is a 31 year old who lives in a UK city and has a good job and no obvious potholes. The created world at some point seems to have taken over the experienced world

I can understand it if someone lives in the sticks and rely on the media to tell them what the world is beyond the end of the driveway, but its disconcerting to see it happen to someone who's lived experience doesn't tally with this increasingly apocalyptic vision. There are so many different 'theys' that are on the cusp of destroying society, but each 'they' is never really explained, where they are, how many they are, how - it feels incredibly existential

Another thing that is striking is the source of any story

CR: Some people did a bad thing why is no one talking about it

A: Where did it happen? Not heard about this story, where did you read it?
CR: Internet

A: Where on the internet?
CR: Twitter

A: What twitter, do you have a link?

I;m then given someones name, but no url, no specific story. that i have to find for myself, which i dont want to spend my time doing. But its like blood out of a stone, and invariably when/if the story is located, it doesnt say what it was purported to say at all. its almost like the facts of a story are window dressing around some more fundamental truth. 'a crime is happening', 'where is this crime happening"? 'i dont know but you can be sure there is one happening somewhere'

People want to belong. Orthodoxies supply rules for belonging. There are some orthodoxies on display in this thread that I strongly agree with that aren't self-evidently true, and if I questioned them I'd be 51'd so fast your head would swim (and there aren't 51 individuals left on ILX). Folks these days find the orthodoxy that fits their bias -- I don't like that trend and think it's dangerous regardless of your ideology, but it's not currently worth alienating people and getting labelled to talk about it.

On surface it feels like the stereotype of the 73 year old Fox Viewer somewhere in the US who lives in a world created and sustained by media. But this is a 31 year old who lives in a UK city and has a good job and no obvious potholes. The created world at some point seems to have taken over the experienced world

I had to sit through some LBC the other day and one of the callers started every sentence with a panicked "the far left agenda"; it struck me that a generation or two ago, the rhetoric would've been more along the lines of "bloody kids, why won't they get a job, why aren't they thankful for the society we've given them"...reactionary but much more mundane in its outview, activists seen as spoiled children. But now I much more often hear this cast as, like, apocalyptic.

there are always people who think they're not only living in the end times, but that the complete breakdown is imminent. it's a very self-centered view, in my experience, in that the person who's invested in this crap wants to think their time is somehow more important than any other in history

there are major crises that happen on a daily basis, both local and global, but they're not easily grasped or connected to a single cause. so they're only paid lip service in roll-up conspiracies claiming that there's a shadowy cabal

i'm very suspicious of conspiracy theories in general, but on the other hand that peter thiel sure does get around

as far as I can tell he's participated in a few really obvious conspiracies. they're all public knowledge and not theoretical!