[The Catalyst]

The title had a character limit; so I'll say what I actually want to say. Why do extreme progressives believe those who disagree with them in public, libertarians and conservatives, intentionally are assholes or try to get them angry?

I guess this is due to narcissism, but even then this is mind-boggling to me.

I actually do believe they are somewhat genuine in this case when they think other people are trying to piss them off. The bizarre thing is even if you explain that if you look at it objectively you're actually doing a really bad job. That is, you're just going about your day saying what you think and it's them who get all triggered. Sure sometimes I get a kick out of triggering them but it's not something I go out of my way to do. That is to say, if I was going to try to make them angry I would do it much better. Roughly speaking, they're insulting my intelligence. To them of course, the fact that I disagreed with them and was going a bad enough job trying to anger them is proof enough I'm dumb, which is a really weird circular argument. (This is me being an example, but they'd do it to anyone who dares voice a disagreement with them)

Wouldn't their lives be so much better if they realised they get angry too easily and it's not other people who piss them off?

[LEMONed IScream]

Progressives hold "progress" dear. The problem is that the only have one view of progress. It's very linear, uninterruptible and unquestionable.

Everyone straying from party line is undesirable. Kurzgesagt, this is why.

[Sooth]

Why does a child stamp feet and cry at the iniquity of a parent not allowing them to eat a whole tub of ice cream?

[The Catalyst]

(06-11-2018 06:09 AM)Sooth Wrote:  

Why does a child stamp feet and cry at the iniquity of a parent not allowing them to eat a whole tub of ice cream?

I think this will sound nitpicky but it seems really different. In the instance of the child, the two differences are 1) the child is melting down and is affected by emotion clouding their judgment 2) the child isn't smart enough to realise other people have different points of view to their own. A calm, intelligent child should realise even if they get angry as a result of their parents actions, for the most part the parent isn't trying to get them angry.

Ostensibly some of these progressives are calm(well, as calm as you can be and still lean progressive) and intelligent(if measured by an IQ test). But they still believe dissenters are out to get them. Even if they are not calm in that moment they would still believe that when they are at their calmest and should be able to think clearly.

[Montrose]

I think Kohlberg theory of moral development is the right tool to analyze this situation.

Most progressives are stuck at the emotional level of moral development (level 3 of Kohlberg model). Typical conservatives are at level 4 (law and order) or even above. The problem is that someone who is at a certain level cannot possibly conceive higher levels. So progressives think that non-progressives are at level 1 (punishment obedience / law of the jungle) or 2 (instrumental selfish morals). And actually some are.

To be fair, some high minded liberals do operate at level 5 or 6, but in that case they are just crazy, or have an idiosyncratic agenda such as world government or global enslavement.

Incidentally, level 5 is achieved when someone recognizes the diversity of opinions. It is pretty obvious to anyone that has been on Twitter that liberals, in their overwhelming majority, have not achieved this level.

[CynicalContrarian]

Quasi / psuedo religions abound in a secular, hedonistic vacuum.

Whether due to selfishness (desire for mass welfare), envy (hatred towards capitalists & successful folk), self-loathing ("I'm miserable, so everyone else has to be as well") or a combination of the three.
You're typical socialist / "progressive" has latched onto a fantasy that mass government & mass bureaucracy is the answer.

To point out that human government / bureaucracy is more often than not, absolutely retarded. Is an affront to their carefully crafted & juvenile fantasy.

Without the juvenile fantasy of government aid & a bureaucratic helping hand, the useful idiot / soycialist would have to go it alone & attempt to thrive on their own merits.
Yet at some deep level, they are more than aware of how ugly they are outside & inside & how they'd be left on the Darwinian scrap-heap if forced to fend for themselves.

As such, any rational / logical discussion or dialog that exposes the inherent flaws of their fantasy will be met with anger, mass projection & tantrums.
In short - reee-steria.

[CynicalContrarian]

Said it before & I'll say it again.
Three generations of 'Useful Idiots' have spawned a generation of useless idiots...

[url=https://twitter.com/CJ_VOISINE/status/1006173376086401025][/url]

[Easy_C]

Because we sometimes are. The most effective way to win arguments with them is mild provocations that they react hyperbolically to.

[Super_Fire]

Don't discount the fact that progressives by their very nature deal in a world of polite lies, playing dumb, and subversion. Their reaction to being called out on this ranges from discomfort to outright hostility.

[T and A Man]

Quote:

Quasi / psuedo religions abound in a secular, hedonistic vacuum.

This, we now have the cult of equal (outcomes) and not being able to achieve equality is solely due to a persecutor.

Feminism is the obvious example, they believe men and some are equal, and as the persecuted, have moral righteousness on their side. Therefore if any deviance in thought exists, it must be a defect on behalf of the male.

The spousal violence is a manifestation of this in plain sight, with the message being "don't hit women" when the message should be "don't hit anybody" ... that however belies women hitting men, which is alright, because if she does hit him, she has rightfully judged him to deserve it.

"Progressive thought" is their own, immature, underpinning on monopoly of judgement.

White men are the least racist class of people on earth, and have created virtually all the institutes if equal opportunity in the planet.

Progressives drive a privilege to exert power over this group, expressing dissent is being "an asshole". Watch it now unfolding as it's being extended to Asians.

[redpillage]

(06-11-2018 06:28 AM)Montrose Wrote:  

I think Kohlberg theory of moral development is the right tool to analyze this situation.

Most progressives are stuck at the emotional level of moral development (level 3 of Kohlberg model). Typical conservatives are at level 4 (law and order) or even above. The problem is that someone who is at a certain level cannot possibly conceive higher levels. So progressives think that non-progressives are at level 1 (punishment obedience / law of the jungle) or 2 (instrumental selfish morals). And actually some are.

To be fair, some high minded liberals do operate at level 5 or 6, but in that case they are just crazy, or have an idiosyncratic agenda such as world government or global enslavement.

Incidentally, level 5 is achieved when someone recognizes the diversity of opinions. It is pretty obvious to anyone that has been on Twitter that liberals, in their overwhelming majority, have not achieved this level.

Excellent response. Here's a handy outline:

   

[redpillage]

(06-12-2018 05:11 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  

Progressives drive a privilege to exert power over this group, expressing dissent is being "an asshole". Watch it now unfolding as it's being extended to Asians.

You mean real Asians or British Asians? Anyway, I can't wait, because there's over Billion of them. Let's see how that plays out.

[Orson]

(06-11-2018 05:50 AM)LEMONed IScream Wrote:  

Progressives hold "progress" dear. The problem is that the only have one view of progress. It's very linear, uninterruptible and unquestionable.

Everyone straying from party line is undesirable. Kurzgesagt, this is why.

Progressives have returned to their historical fascist-envy phase, roughly from Wilson to FDR in US terms. or in other words, the progs are RE-gressive.

(SEE the first half of Jonah Goldberg's historical synthesis, "Liberal Fascism.")

[MrLemon]

Progressives are ALL the losers of the world. The failed-to-marry women, the gays, the wimpy guys, the begrudging paper-pushers working a dead end government job.

Progressives are "progressive" for one reason: because that's the way that they justify their loserdom. They see the winners and -HATE- their guts. Deep black hate.

Progressives create a narrative of the world in which it's not their fault they are losers. Bad people, like Trump, are holding them down.

When you don't accede to their narrative, it hurts them deeply. You are the author of their hurt...intentionally or unintentionally.

Therefore you are an asshole.

The winners who become progressive do so because that group gives them ready access to a lot of shock troops. The Weinsteins and the Silicon Valley zillionaires see liberalism as a way to get and hold power, nothing more.

[The Catalyst]

Reading this puts a lot of things in perspective(2012):

https://www.anonymousconservative.com/bl...th-dinner/

Quote:

Romney was great at the Al Smith dinner. The link to the transcript and video is here.

His speech was one big amygdala hijack for Obama, full of Narcissistic dogwhistles. He begins with a joke about how he loves attending this type of white tie dinner, because he and Ann get to wear the clothes which they wear normally around the house. To a normal person, Romney was making a self deprecating joke about his being stuffy. To a Narcissist, in competition with him, Romney was highlighting that he an Ann are rich robber barons. These things hurt Narcissists, strangely enough. I can only understand this by hearing Romney say it, and then picturing how my own narcissist would deflate into a fetid pool of envy, as he heard it.

Quote:

On the subject of how Liberals will see Mitt’s comments differently, here are two comments from readers, at the linked article,

“Kell,” who sees the world through the Narcissist’s lens (and assumes everyone else thinks like her as well), wrote a reply saying:

“…I did read Mr. Romney’s speech’s transcript in full. He is so insulting and gross. I don’t think he has any idea how badly his words fall on the ears of everyday Americans…”

“Chris,” who obviously knows a Narcissist, said,

“Just like the narcissist in chief, the comments here reveal Obama and his supporters can neither take any criticism, [nor] perhaps even a joke.”

This is sort of scary because it implies that you can just be yourself and people get "triggered" for no reason and feel completely justified in doing so. This is also Kiwi mentality- they narcissistically believe NZ is good/superior for [whatever excuse comes to mind](ie, no objective reasoning). But when foreigners just do their thing, particularly Americans, they are considered "arrogant".

Think this explains my life- I can believe what I believe and not do anything wrong, and people would read too much into it and believe I'm out to get them and are justified in trying to undermine me. I'm not sure how to solve this. The irrational hate to Trump, Lauren/Stefan makes me think this country is a goner.

While it seems in most places it's limited to politics, in NZ people seem so insecure it propagates to anything in general. Unless you believe the same stupid things Kiwis do they will cast you out no matter how positive/friendly you are.

[nomadbrah]

(06-13-2018 09:23 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

Progressives are ALL the losers of the world. The failed-to-marry women, the gays, the wimpy guys, the begrudging paper-pushers working a dead end government job.

Progressives are "progressive" for one reason: because that's the way that they justify their loserdom. They see the winners and -HATE- their guts. Deep black hate.

Progressives create a narrative of the world in which it's not their fault they are losers. Bad people, like Trump, are holding them down.

Good post.

I'd like to add one thing.

It's not about winning or losing, it's about fighting or not fighting.

It's not the same.

You might be a loser, because you lost, to a winner, but you were still in the fight.

The people we're talking about do not want to fight. They do not acknowledge the need to fight or the value of the fight.

The fighter is an archetype, win or lose.

You can be a loser, but a fighter, and people will respect that and understand it.

This is psychology here and fundamental personality type. Most centrists are not fighters either but stone cold calculating utilitarians. Which is why the left succeeds in bribing them so easily.

As on a more personal level, leftism is narcissim. A progressive has an infantile mind, in which subjective thought is considered real. "I believe I am good". As a GoodPerson, you think GoodThoughts, so naturally when someone disagress with you, they must not be good, thus BadPerson.

[Syberpunk]