?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Links: political psychology, gay marrage

The more educated Republicans/conservatives are, the more they reject science.
http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/154252/the_republican_brain:_why_even_educated_conservatives_deny_science_--_and_reality?page=entire
True of liberals? Apparently not: they start out with an anti-nuclear bias, but more education on the subject lessens their worries, moving them closer to the scientific consensus, rather than further away, as with conservatives and global warming.

Medicalization of anti-authoritarianism.
http://www.alternet.org/health/154225/would_we_have_drugged_up_einstein_how_anti-authoritarianism_is_deemed_a_mental_health_problem/?page=entire

Jeb Bush: "I used to be a conservative" http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73242.html

gay marriage passes Maryland's Democratic legislature, referendum likely
Initiative in Maine likely, to overcome the anti-marriage referendum three years ago
(No links, just heads up.)

Santorum more scary than you thought:
http://www.alternet.org/election2012/154242/agenda_for_the_dark_ages:_gop_frontrunner_rick_santorum%27s_5_most_extremist_themes

See the comment count unavailable DW comments at http://mindstalk.dreamwidth.org/308098.html#comments

Tags:

Comments

mindstalk
Feb. 27th, 2012 12:52 am (UTC)
Getting conquered is never a bundle of laughs, though that doesn't have much to do with the religion. As for ignoring them as idolaters, that's simplistic to the point of inaccuracy; consider the ecumenism of Akbar, for example, and I think another that I've forgotten. Sufism. Sanskrit books were translated into Arabic from the 8th century.

As for the British, while it's true in the beginning interactions had a lot of respect (along with the imperialism and looting), as I said, in the 1800s that was replaced with, well, regarding them as ignorant idolaters. Jones sure, but you can't forget MacCaulay, in 1833:

"I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature is, indeed, fully admitted by those members of the Committee who support the Oriental plan of education."

And the British choked off India's economic growth for a couple centuries, and caused or exacerbated lots of famines.
fpb
Feb. 27th, 2012 07:23 am (UTC)
Akbar was overthrown by his own people. There is no "instance": he was a self-indulgent exception (did not even stop to consider the inevitable Muslim reaction to his behaviour) and was followed by orthodox Muslim such as the monstrous Aurangzeb, who killed tens of millions in the umpteenth Muslim jihad and who incidentally is still regarded as a hero in Pakistan today. As for choking off India's economic growth, I won't even bother to answer that one. Please get off the kool-aid.
mindstalk
Feb. 28th, 2012 03:46 am (UTC)
"overthrown by his own people" is a novel version of "died of dysentery in his 60s." He did face rebellions, early on from the religious, near the end from one of his sons, both of which he suppressed. But father-son conflict was traditional for Mughal succession.

growth: data, not Kool-aid
http://james-nicoll.livejournal.com/951785.html?thread=13574121#t13574121
http://james-nicoll.livejournal.com/1147827.html
http://james-nicoll.livejournal.com/1147827.html?thread=17250483#t17250483
fpb
Feb. 28th, 2012 03:59 am (UTC)
I give up.
I read the first of the three threads you mention. I saw a great deal of figures out of context, generaliztion with no explanation, and a claim that Robert Mugabe's misgovernment of Zimbabwe was the fault of the British. You can't tell history from manipulated propaganda. Do by all means go on deluding yourself by the use of the worst possible sources. It is clearly a choice.
mindstalk
Feb. 28th, 2012 04:06 am (UTC)
I grant Carlos's apportioning of blame for Mugabe struck me as rather dubious, though I think I can see the context in which it makes some sense -- mostly the context that wants to give lots of credit to colonialism for anything good, while blaming bad things on the natives, even if educated by the colonialists.

As for the rest, I see more assertions by you without argument or evidence.

Edited at 2012-02-28 04:07 am (UTC)
fpb
Feb. 28th, 2012 04:29 am (UTC)
I don't have the time to try and prove that a donkey brays to someone who doesn't want to have it proved and would never accept evidence on the matter for anyone. Journalistic mismanagement of concepts so gross and large as to be essentially meaningless, issues disposed of in paragraphs that should have taken volumes merely to understand, jumbling data from incompatible times and places into one unholy mess, and worst of all the FUCKING RACISM of saying that everything bad in colonial and post-colonial history must be the colonizers' fault - as though the colonized had no will of their own, no good or bad culture to follow, no personality apart from the colonists give them. This is something I LOATHE and never excuse anywhere I find it. It is a perverted version of the worst of the White Man's Burden, and Nichol is so stupid that he actually thinks he is paying a compliment to the colonized when he denies that they have any responsibility for anything. This is as racist as the worst of the KKK, twisting data he does not understand to support his vicious schemes. Not that you will accept any of this, but it seems to me more than enough to reject that creature, root and branch.
mindstalk
Feb. 28th, 2012 04:44 am (UTC)
Leaving aside the actual argument:

* It's James Nicoll, not Nichol

* And it's not actually him at all; the one arguing about British culpability for Zimbabwe's authoritarianism was carloshasanax, aka Carlos Yu, with support from Doug M(uir). Nicoll didn't say anything on the subject. It's right there in front of you...
fpb
Feb. 28th, 2012 04:51 am (UTC)
Whatever. The whole thing was so bad as to make me wonder whether any of the participants had any idea how history is discussed.

And please, let's not go on. I'm tired and I see no profit in any of this.
mindstalk
Feb. 28th, 2012 04:17 am (UTC)
Out of curiosity, why *did* you friend me? Are there posts you actually enjoy reading? I think all your comments have been negative. Or is it trying to engage with the other political side, like my visiting your and other LJs? (Though I sometimes enjoyed posts on SF or writing too.)
fpb
Feb. 28th, 2012 04:21 am (UTC)
Because your responses sounded a lot better than what I have since found in your own LJ.
mindstalk
Feb. 28th, 2012 04:39 am (UTC)
I'm surprised. While I think I would tend to be on better behavior while "in other people's houses", as it were, I don't self-perceive a big difference in tone or style. I wonder if you were influenced by our having been on the same side in health care debates.

I did get to the point of not even trying to argue on values, just pointing out factual or logical errors when I saw them. But I am an atheist pro-choice social democrat, and I'm not going to hide my values on my own journal. Then again, we've been clashing over basic facts, which, I dunno. Obviously at least one of us has an epistemological problem. :)

Profile

Phoenix
mindstalk
Damien Sullivan
Website

Latest Month

July 2019
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Tags

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner