In writing the
"What is ArrCay?" doc, I comment on Mastodon as being the platform where many Twitter users went around the time Elon Musk acquired Twitter.
Since expounding on that topic gets into politics I wrote it here. This is kinda long and I veer off on related tangents so it may seem somewhat rambling at times. Maybe a side effect of my systems analysis thinking, but it's all related.
Apparently they were fine with the censorship issues at Twitter as long as the bias favored them; but remove the leftist bias and apply the same censorship rules equally... well that was just unacceptable for them to be subjected to their own rules. The mass exodus to Mastodon seemed to occur because they were losing control of the "safe space"
special kind of leftist liberal echo chamber they had cultivated. Maybe some of it had to do with their hatred of capitalism and therefore Musk by default, even though several of his views seem to be on the more liberal side. I say
special kind of leftist liberal because while they may commonly be labeled a liberal and/or leftist, they are so far on the extreme authoritarian side (as opposed to
libertarian) that they hardly resemble traditional liberal or "leftist" ideals. Or they are otherwise hypocritical of those ideals which they supposedly espouse - things like tolerance, acceptance, individual
liberties, etc. They are certainly not "classical liberals". They seem to be more aligned with totalitarian communism or similar flavor of authoritarian socialism; Political theories which tend to be quite hypocritical themselves.
A clarifying note here; my use of the term liberal herein generally means the American stereotypical reference. As I understand it, in Europe and other areas of the world "liberal" usually means "classical liberal" which more closely resembles the American "libertarian" or sometimes "conservative" - or to quote from wikipedia:
Classical liberalism [...] was foundational to the American Revolution and "American Project" more broadly. [...] political scholars have argued that classical liberalism still exists today, but in the form of American conservatism.
What is really meant by terms like "liberal" or "conservative" can get quite confusing, even within the American system. Part of the problem is that political beliefs aren't so two-dimensional. There are quite a few examples where someone identified as "conservative" has several "liberal" views/beliefs, and vice versa. Whether this confusion in precise meaning of various political terms has occurred by coincidence, or it's been socially engineered, over time is a thought exercise for another day.
While one may lean more partisan on either side, most Americans are really "independent" [the highest percentage identify as independent, or other third party and many that identify/register as Democrat or Republican rarely are in complete agreement with official party beliefs - it's just those they value most are closer in alignment]. The percentage of the "independent" category has been higher since 1991, except for 2004/2008, and has increased since then. Maybe the trend in recent decades of ruling factions from both major political parties being so similar that they've become known as the "Uniparty" has something to do with it.
Well that may have been more confusing than clarifying... Basically the reference is to the special snowflakes and extremists. So... Where were we? Political theories which tend to be quite hypocritical in and of themselves, right... Hey, I think libertarian socialism (sometimes equated with anarchism or some form of communism) is as great of a political idea as the next guy does. However, I realize that all socialist/communist theories are just that -
theories or "great ideas". Such utopian society ideals could be more aptly named unobtainiumism.
Communism in reality can only work amongst a like-minded group of people within a relatively small commun-ity - go figure!
It does not scale well, much less to a massive population. As history has repeatedly demonstrated, attempts at such forms of government devolve into some type of totalitarian dystopia - oppressive societies ruled by an authoritarian oligarchy or dictator. The practical application of socialist or communist ideals become the antithesis of their purported goals. That's just reality. Call it "human nature" if you like. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Here's an excerpt from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, "a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and founder of the AHA Foundation. She served as a member of the Dutch Parliament from 2003 to 2006. She was born in Mogadishu, Somalia..."
Why Socialism Fails
Broadly speaking, socialism typically refers to the ownership of things in common, rather than private ownership; it has been defined as “a form of social organization that prioritizes the common ownership of property and the collective control of economic production.” Quite optimistically, Michael Newman argues in Socialism: A Very Short Introduction that “the most fundamental characteristic of socialism is its commitment to the creation of an egalitarian society.” Some early socialists were more anarchist or individualist than others, but all these thinkers favored a reorganization of society along what they believed would be more equitable lines.
Generally, socialists of all persuasions share a critical view of industrial capitalism and its emphasis on private property, but socialists have differed (both in the nineteenth century and today) on the proposed remedy. Therefore, as Roger Scruton reminds us, the work of socialists is more frequently distinguished by its critique of capitalism than by its detailed description of what socialism should look like and how it should work. Among revolutionary socialists, socialism as it existed in the Soviet Union is frequently theorized as a transitional state, ultimately culminating in a communist utopia.
For decades, theory aside, economic socialism inflicted extraordinary misery on hundreds of millions of people in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics. The puzzle confronting us in 2020 is why, with so much empirical evidence on the rise and fall of authoritarian socialism, there is even a conversation on this topic, other than classroom discussions meant to inform students about some of the darkest pages of human history.
Socialists lost the broad economic argument in the twentieth century because socialist systems (command economies) did not work. Why? In a capitalist economy, market prices, in a framework of private property, coordinate economic activity. Companies use prices to see which goods, products, and services are needed and where, at what time, and in what quantities. Firms compete, on the basis of market prices, to deliver these goods as efficiently as possible. Firms that miscalculate run the risk of bankruptcy. The most efficient and competitive firms—those that best meet the needs of the public—survive and thrive.
In a socialist system, however, there are no market pricing signals. This creates chaos throughout the economy. Economists in the West who participated in the “socialist calculation debate” of the 1920s and 1930s, including Friedrich Hayek, predicted this crucial flaw in socialism theoretically before it became painfully clear empirically. In a socialist system, unlike in a market system, orders to produce come from the top, frequently in the form of quotas. Yet in the absence of a market pricing mechanism to determine profit and loss, poorly performing organizations tend to persist under socialism: there is no bankruptcy to cull them. The public good suffers as a result. Crucially, in the absence of genuine private property, there may be little incentive to work hard if one cannot keep the fruits of one’s labor. Why cultivate a field carefully if you cannot benefit from the harvest?
Although socialism is capable of centrally driven technological innovation, in the absence of market pricing signals a socialist system cannot distribute technological or scientific blessings to the mass of the people in a way that increases their living standards in a sustained way.
Socialist systems are command economies that tell people to obey central economic plans, even if they have other ideas. Under socialism, you may wish to start a business, or you may have an idea for a new technology—too bad. You must do as you are told. Authoritarian socialism does not adapt to your wishes. Socialist economic planning depends on authoritarian measures to compel people to obey central directives. As a result, a “black economy” of smuggled goods frequently arises to meet the real needs that the central plan fails to fulfill.
The only "success" of socialist or communist societies have been complete failures at resembling the utopia they are supposed to be and have been ruled by an authoritarian oligarchy or similar dictatorship. One could say that socialism/communism is inherently authoritarian;
"socialist economic planning depends on authoritarian measures". As does "making everyone equal" because people are not, but out of the hundreds to millions of definitions of what "equal" really means the government has to fit everyone in the same box; and the people must conform to those standards, whether they agree or not. In reality the "everyone is equal" in this "new" utopia .gov actually means "some are more equal than others".
If we consider some basic psychology, it makes sense that such idealistic forms of government end up being led (and are still promoted) by authoritarian dictator types of people.
Generally speaking, authoritarian dictators tend to fit the clinical narcissist definition/traits, as opposed to the more common use of the term which often refers to a person with positive or "healthy" traits and maybe a couple of the traits generally considered negative in some cases.
The pathological types seem to be more often drawn to and found in politics. They are manipulative and exploitative. What better way to obtain/feed their pathological quest for ultimate "admiration", self-importance/grandiosity, control/power than to sell this "great idea" of their particular brand of socialist/communist utopian society knowing full well it's all bullshit. With enough lies, manipulation, and exploitation they build a following, and contribute to creating the right political climate (eg. condemning the entitled, wealthy class which they are part of [on that note, isn't it interesting how most of the politicians that go on about economic inequality and taxing the rich for their "fair share" are multi-millionaires that obtained their wealth being a "public servant" on a tax-dollar salary??], rallying people against the terrible policies and societal problems which they actually were involved/contributed in implementing) to bring them into power. At that point all that's left is to eliminate any threats to their regime and go full exploitation of the country for maximum personal gain, etc. Even in the off chance that this hypothetical leader truly did believe in the ideals they sold to obtain power, it would still fall victim to their Cluster B traits/behaviors. They are not altruistic, they lack empathy and genuinely don't care about the people, frequently go through life with enough denial and/or delusional thinking to ignore reality, and while quick to claim credit and praise for anything "positive" which they have even the slightest connection to, they notoriously avoid taking any personal responsibility for their negative actions/decisions.
Amongst the various political theories/systems of government, socialist/communist types seem to become authoritarian oligarchies or dictatorships easier and faster than others. This is an attractive "feature" for narcissistic types to exploit. The government responsible for ensuring(enforcing) an "equal" economy, ownership, etc., etc.... What could go wrong?
To get back to my thoughts on Mastodon and the mass influx of liberals to that platform, and it being where the most ignorant, intolerant users tend to be found... Interestingly, liberals tend to be more authoritarian. It's science:
Specifically, in the original manuscript, the descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck's psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative. - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajps.12216
According to Eysenck, this dimension included traits such as aggressiveness, manipulation, tough mindedness, risk taking, irresponsibility, and impulsivity versus their opposites.
"In line with our expectations, [Psychoticism] (positively related to tough-mindedness and authoritarianism) is associated with social conservatism and conservative military attitudes,” the study said.
The study also posited those who are socially liberal are more likely to possess behaviors associated with “Social Desirability,” or the desire to get along with others, than those who are socially conservative.
But in an erratum issued by the journal, first reported by Retraction Watch, the authors said those two findings were “exactly reversed." - https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/11/liberals-not-conservatives-more-likely-possess-psy/
So basically social conservatives "are more likely to...get along with others" and liberals are more likely to be antisocial authoritarians. Hmmm... This would seem to explain the liberal/leftist biased censorship issue Twitter had, which can now be found at many instances of Mastodon.
This data also supports a theory of mine that most liberals/leftists are Cluster B disordered. Or at least a much high percentage than anyone might guess from any related stats, based on my observance. Eysenck's "psychoticism" traits are a close match with traits of ClusterB's. Maybe I'm "armchair diagnosing" because I'm not a professional shrink, though I did take basic psychology in college and I have many years of first-hand relationship experience with bona-fide diagnosed ClusterB's. So when I see a familiar pattern of behaviors which are commonly exhibited by Cluster B types, especially behavior that rarely appears in "normal" people or even amongst those with other unrelated mental health conditions, the chances of being correct in my assessment of such a person is high enough that I really don't care if it's an "armchair diagnosis". You're free to ignore my opinion [to your own peril ;) ] or prove me wrong. It's not like I'm conducting some social science research study and publishing a peer-reviewed paper based on my theory or anything.
An interesting side note is that the prevalence of Cluster B disorders is underreported. I've seen 20% as the number of "likely personality disordered", which happens to be the same percentage rate of "high conflict divorces". 1 in 5 is quite significant though I'd consider that a low guess for actual Cluster B disordered; I think it's considerably higher. They seem to be everywhere as I wrote in a similar blog post, "Cluster B Disorders are the Real Pandemic", in 2021. There's several reasons that Cluster B in particular is underreported, a few are:
- Often a psychologist/counselor will give them a "less stigmatizing", or more benign diagnosis like C-PTSD, bi-polar, or just depression in an effort to keep them in counseling/treatment.
- Many professionals, after determining a patient is Cluster B, will refer them elsewhere without an official diagnosis because they just won't deal with them. This can often result in the patient "feeling betrayed", and/or demonizing the counselor and swearing off counseling/etc. in general.
- They tend to avoid mental health professional involvement because they are Cluster B disordered. It's part of their defining traits/beliefs; "there is nothing wrong with them or their behaviors" (narcissistic, manipulative), "it's everyone else" around them (projection, denial), they are generally masters of disguising their antisocial traits, etc. In some cases, they know they are and avoid treatment either because of the "stigma" or realizing that there is no "cure"*, so why bother. *-DBT (Dialectic Behavior Therapy) is, so far, the closest thing to a "cure", but involves years of dedication and the old saying common of psychologist jokes: "they have to want to change." DBT has a reported success rate of about 50% over a 10-year period.
Personally, I think there should be a public registry for Cluster B's and as a requirement to hold any position of power, particularly in government or "public service", there should be an evaluation to specifically screen for it. It should be an automatic disqualification. Anyone with such pervasive malevolent and antisocial behavioral traits, especially in combination with the manipulation, gaslighting, lies/denials, projection and such tools used to maintain a facade of altruism, empathy, and general goodwill, does not belong in any position of authority. Call it "stigma" if you want, I'd call it increasing "public awareness" and protecting the public from involvement with, or being the subjects of, some of the most destructive types of people.
ASPD is more commonly diagnosed in correctional populations where some studies have estimated that more than 70% of inmates have the personality disorder (Coid, 2002) ... prevalence for Cluster B personalities increase to more than 50% in psychiatric outpatient samples (El Kissi, Ayachi, Ben Nasr, & Bechir Ben Hadj, 2009) and well over 70% in jail or prison (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6818303/
Some other interesting general statistics from a study published in 2020:
Here are the statistics of young women diagnosed with a mental condition:
56% of young white liberals
28% of young white moderates
27% of young white conservatives
Here are the statistics of young men diagnosed with a mental condition:
34% of liberal/Democrat men
22% of moderate men
16% of conservative men
Read More: New Pew Study; White Liberals More Likely To Have Mental Problems | https://wbckfm.com/new-pew-study-white-liberals-mental-problems/
Those are general "*diagnosed* with a mental condition" self report survey stats so the actual numbers are likely higher, even considering that a small percentage may include some misdiagnosis and diagnosis of transitory conditions (eg. situational depression). From existing data that I've come across, my mostly anecdotal evidence based theory doesn't seem to be far-fetched.
While there are several examples from the tech world to support my theory, like the Twitter/Mastodon issue and other bigtech bias/censorship, there are plenty to be found in politics over the past several years.
If Trump is a “dictator,” why is he pushing to dismantle executive branch agencies and reduce concentrated power in Washington?
Wouldn’t that make a dictator’s job a lot more difficult?
Maybe those pretending Trump is a “dictator” are projecting?
I'd say yes, it's projection. And Flying Monkeys.
I have yet to see any rational evidence of this "Trump is a dictator" or "Trump want's to eliminate the Constitution" nonsense. Plenty of leftist politicians and propaganda amplifying and repeating statements like these, sure. But no logical basis to substantiate them. The "eliminate the Constitution" thing seems to be based on an isolated, character-limited social media post (where ignoring context and playing the "jump to conclusions" game based on a one-liner is easy) with nothing to corroborate such a claim. And these types of wild claims just don't fit or make sense - take the point made by Mike Davis, quoted above for example. Things like officially stated positions, and actual history of policies enacted, endorsed or voted upon, etc. tend to disagree with that narrative.
Anything that doesn't fit the narrative is buried for minimum exposure or not reported at all. Eg. all the election fraud, including actual arrests in election fraud cases, and major vote count discrepancies still being reported by precincts aren't seen on the evening news because it contradicts their "the election was not stolen" claim and the "most secure election ever" lie; the Jan 6 narrative which has plenty of issues besides being related to the election; all the "died suddenly" for "unknown reasons" and related bs, etc. Maybe the media outlets don't want to be the one's to "yell fire in a crowded theater". That may not be a primary reason, but it's likely one of them. Just think of the ramifications if they had honest investigative reporting around those particular topics. It just might trigger a repeat of the "2020 summer of love" and "mostly peaceful protests" aimed at them. What group is likely to be the most angered, feel betrayed and react violently/destructively to hearing the truth about these things from the "trusted source" they base their beliefs and reality on? It's not the millions of lawful gun owners. The vast majority of which are "conservatives" and already disagree with those particular narratives propagated by mainstream media. Hell... for some odd reason, they didn't bring their guns to the "insurrection".
I plan to be the last American president to be elected by the Electoral College. - Elizabeth Warren
So Warren would be a dictator, end elections, and would eliminate the Constitution. She's a threat to "our democracy". See, it's right there in her own words. Wonder why the Ministry of Truth, uh... I mean, mainstream media didn't... Oh yeah, same side, so no soundbites, ignoring context, jumping to conclusions treatment... far left/extreme liberal biases and agendas have been behind the vast majority of all news stories for many years now.
When one side only of a story is heard and often repeated, the human mind becomes impressed with it insensibly.
– George Washington
And all the major outlets parrot the same stories, often verbatim:
That's just the first one I found on PeerTube, I'm sure you could find more compilations on Rumble or elsewhere. PeerTube is another Fediverse app and I won't link to utube.
The "Our Democracy" tangent can be found in this separate post. ;)
Practically all "local" network news is pre-packaged for mass consumption. "Stay tuned for us to tell you what you should think and believe today." Any resemblance of objectivity or even-balanced bias (simply presenting the top opposing views on things) among the largest journalistic media sources is long gone. Reporting "just the facts, ma'am" is exceedingly rare. Heavily biased opinions and gross misrepresentations being presented as facts are par for the course now.
“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth” - law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels
Oddly enough, there is often actual evidence to be found amongst those creating and/or feeding such propaganda of the very sentiments/accusations they are attributing to their opponents. It's projection, a common trait amongst Cluster B's, especially to such blatantly obvious degree. Those starting and/or loudly repeating these sound bites are likely clinical Narcissists (or otherwise Cluster B personality disordered - all the same to me as they share most behavior traits and "defense mechanisms" such that their exact subcategory is hardly relevant to anyone outside a clinical setting). I would guess that projection is also the likely source of the "Trump is a narcissist" talk.
To quote a Psych actually involved with writing the DSM (who apparently otherwise supports or at least buys into leftist propaganda)
...the three most frequent armchair diagnoses made for Trump — narcissistic personality disorder, delusional disorder, and dementia — are all badly misinformed.
This sort of mud slinging, vitriol and trolling type of content from liberals is probably more common across Mastodon instances than anywhere else. I suppose repeating these propaganda soundbites is easier than developing one's own reasonably informed intelligent opinion, and some just thrive on the drama (another thing common with Cluster B's). A civil logical debate with these types is just not possible, if they will even attempt such a thing - many won't. I would categorize them mostly as Cluster B or Flying Monkey - sometimes as a garden variety NPC (Non Player Character).
I'm not saying that there aren't the same kind of extreme people on the conservative side because there are. They just don't seem quite as prevalent. And amongst those that appear to post mostly regurgitated soundbites/memes, not always but more often, they seem willing to offer at least some halfway reasonable, sometimes fairly informed, opinion or logic behind their views. Likewise, the "quieter", usually more moderate but sometimes rather extreme, liberals tend to have opinions/beliefs based on more than just what the party or media has told them they should believe.
