System Justification Theory - why people (even Dems) defend authoritarianism

[Bonobo]

After seeing the mind-boggling degree to which some people bend over backwards to defend TSA procedures -even as they become more egregious and start to spread out to other locations such as buses and trains - I decided to see if I could find some psychological theory that would explain this tendency.

I see echoes of the same thing when people defend social injustices, supreme court judge behavior and any theory that threatens their sense that everything is okay and fine. This explains, in my mind, why some people seem to have an obsessive need to try to "debunk" things which threaten their sense of a stable system that they understand (they call them "conspiracy theories")

For those interested, here is a link to an article on "System Justification Theory".

===========================================+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/System_Justification_Theory

System Justification Theory (SJT) is a theory of social psychology that postulates that people are motivated to bolster, defend, and justify the status quo – that is, the prevailing social, economic, and political arrangements. The system justification goal can be both conscious and nonconscious, vary according to situational and dispositional factors, and manifest itself in different forms, such as stereotyping, attribution, and ideology. System justification theory grew out of efforts to expand upon already established research and draw connections between a number of concepts, including Marxist and feminist theories concerning the role of ideology; cognitive dissonance theory; belief in a just world theory; and social identity theory.

When people have a heightened need to system-justify (such as when the system has been threatened), there are various means through which they can accomplish this goal of system justification, including directly endorsing certain ideologies, legitimizing existing institutions and authorities, as well as denying, minimizing, and rationalizing system problems. Often, system justification motivation is satisfied through the stereotyping of members of disadvantaged groups as less competent than members of advantaged groups. Endorsement of complementary stereotypes (e.g., “poor but honest,” “poor but happy”) by members of both disadvantaged and advantaged groups serves to perpetuate the existing hierarchy by creating an “illusion of equality” in society (Kay & Jost, 2003).
In order to defend and bolster the status quo, people can adopt various ideologies or belief systems that are system-justifying, including the Protestant work ethic, belief in a just world, meritocratic ideology, fair market ideology, benevolent sexism, social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, and political conservatism. Such ideologies and belief systems all explain the status quo in a way that maintains the general legitimacy of the existing order (Jost & Hunyady, 2005).

Another intellectual precursor to system justification theory was Lerner’s (1980) theory of “belief in a just world,” which posits that people tend to believe that their social world is predictable, orderly, and just. The theory of belief in a just world holds that people have a “justice motive” that leads them to fight injustice and only engage in rationalization, denial, and victim-blaming to maintain belief in a just world when they are prevented from seeking justice. In contrast, system justification theory maintains that people will defend and bolster the status quo even when potential opportunities to fight injustice are available.

[Psephos]

1. quite interesting - thx for a good post n/t

[Occulus]

11. Obligatory book reference: Bob Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians"

Free online as a PDF:

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

This book is also available in audio form, read by the author, on Audible.com.

[Bonobo]

12. Thank you for the link.

Failing to recognize fascism's creep is a sure way to guarantee it's spread.

It's coming and they will do anything they can (and they can do a lot) to make it look like it's for your own good.

Heads up.

[Occulus]

21. I hate authoritarians with the white-hot fury of a thousand exploding suns

and I will do anything, including giving my life, to stop them.

Authoritarians are the absolute bane of civilized society in any country, at any time. They are to be stopped, no matter the cost, using any and all tactics available. They are the most evil of the evil, and they deserve to be eliminated, in any context, by any means appropriate to that context.

Authoritarians are one personality type I will not tolerate, ever. I refuse to listen to them except to discern their current mode of attack so I may better fight them. I refuse to give them accurate information, I refuse to obey them, I refuse to piss on them to put them out if they're on fire. I'd prefer to pour on gasoline instead.

Authoritarians are the ultimate human manifestation of evil, and the ultimate cause of the broad evils of humanity. Anyone who thinks they have a place among us can go die in a fire.

I hate authoritarians, and I always will.

[FiveGoodMen]

71. !

:applause: :fistbump: :bounce: :toast: :yourock: :headbang: :thumbsup: :woohoo:

[socialist_n_TN]

78. A TRUE leftist. As am I.........

To me that's one of the PRIME components of a leftist personality type. A DEEP seated abhorence of authority and authoritarians.

[RaleighNCDUer]

92. Only the Sith speak in absolutes. nt

[Occulus]

104. Yes, well. Demons run when a good man goes to war.

Authoritarians- in particular authoritarian leaders- are the 'demons' of humanity.

Every last despot, every last dictator, throughout the whole of human history, has been such a personality type and they tend to attack on their turn for massive damage.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

89. I read this online about a year ago

I took the test and my results were about as far to the left as you can get. No wonder these bastards my blood boil.

Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians, answered a lot of questions for me.

[RandomThoughts]

2. Becareful not to 'join the status quo' by some way of fighting it.

Some end up becoming what they fight.

In that the options of how to fight are not as 'available' as some think, dependent on how you see it.

I am however due beer and travel money, and many experiences.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Awesome post!

It explains so much.

K&R

[Azathoth]

4. Yawn

For most people, the TSA issue has nothing to do with "justifying the status quo." It has to do with the ongoing delicate balance between individual rights and collective safety. It isn't self-deception or a subconscious need to defend group social structures for a person to decide that he or she would rather be groped by a TSA employee than risk dying in a midair hijacking.

Of course, the debate isn't helped by the fact that some of the most strident critics of the TSA will undoubtedly be first in line to attack the government for failing to protect its citizens when the next (inevitable) terrorist attack occurs.

[AlabamaLibrul]

5. "Of course, the debate isn't helped by the fact..."

The two are not contradictory -- TSA has been shown to be incredibly ineffective, so we're getting groped for what, exactly?

[Bonobo]

6. Astute and to-the-point reply! nt

[Azathoth]

19. They are contradictory when they come from professional critics

who demand the agency do a perfect job and refuse to give it any tools. You can argue that groping itself is ineffective, or that the TSA is not implementing it effectively. But if you conceed that groping is the only effective means of detecting some threats, then you are hypocritical if you oppose groping and still expect the TSA to protect you from those threats.

[sabrina 1]

25. Why do people fear a terror attack more than other threats

to their lives that are far, far more likely to happen?

Because they have been propagandized for ten years and are susceptible to propaganda. Some people, otoh, use logic. If the miniscule threat of dying by terror requires the giving up of so many rights, why is there no such campaign to prevent people from dying of lack of Health Care eg? Since 9/11 not one American has died from terror, but nearly half a million have died from lack of or insufficient Health Care.

Explain that if you can. No one is being groped to prevent those deaths and it wouldn't help anyhow, just as it will not stop a terror attack.

Oh, and as a fierce critic of the TSA, I do not expect the government to protect me other than taking the normal precautions expected of any government. These extraordinary tactics are for one thing, money. Giving up rights to make Michael Chertoff an even more wealthy man, is not something I intend to do without a fight.

[SDuderstadt]

27. "Since 9/11 not one American has died from terror"

Categorically wrong, Sabrina. Why can't you get basic facts straight?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

[sabrina 1]

33. There have been attacks on American soil since 9/11 in which

Americans have died?? That link says nothing of the kind. You need to search deeper, although I doubt it will help.

Americans have died abroad in accidents and from natural causes also since 9/11. Iraq deaths occur because we invaded someone else's country and when you do that, you raise the chances of having someone take a shot at you. Outside of the war deaths, if you want to take this outside of the US, it's like that more Americans died of natural causes or due to accidents, than from terror.

Bottom line, terror is one of the least causes of death IN the US and probably out of the US also.

Yet people are so frightened by that miniscule threat they will give up the most important reason for living. Unbelievable. What a way to 'live'.

[SDuderstadt]

40. Sabrina...

I made your EXACT quote my subject line. Now, you are trying to move the goalposts.

Your claim is wrong. Instead of trying to spin it, why not admit that your claim is wrong?

P.S. American embassies are considered to be American soil.

[sabrina 1]

44. I was speciifcally talking about this country which anyone could

see considering I mentioned the US Health Care system causing so much carnage here. If I wanted to talk about other countries, I would have said so.

No American has died from a terror attack in this country since 9/11. Half a million have died from lack of HC, some painfully and slowly and yet there is no TSA attempting to prevent that terror from happening to so many Americans. It IS a National Security issue.

[SDuderstadt]

45. I provided your exact quote, Sabrina...

Your lack of precision is no one's fault but your own.

And, if you think about it, the fact that no American has died on domestic soil since 9/11 could just as easily be construed as a measure of the success of the security measures. Duh.

[socialist_n_TN]

81. I got your point sabrina and I agree with it.........

In the list of things that I'll probably die from, terrorism probably doesn't even make the top 50. And wherever it comes, an FBI/police raid comes in before it. IOW, to me it's more probable that I'll die by authoritarian violence before I'll die by a random terrorist attack.

[Eddie Haskell]

52. According to your link dude

almost all of those "terrorist" attacks occured outside of the US. There was one death on US soil.

June 1, Little Rock, Arkansas: Abdulhakim Muhammed, a Muslim convert from Memphis, Tennessee, is charged with shooting two soldiers outside a military recruiting center. One is killed and the other is wounded. In a January 2010 letter to the judge hearing his case, Muhammed asked to change his plea from not guilty to guilty, claimed ties to al-Qaeda, and called the shooting a jihadi attack "to fight those who wage war on Islam and Muslims."

Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million live with a serious illness caused by smoking.

http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag/osh.htm

[Azathoth]

32. Propoganda is one reason, but there is another

A plane hijacking/crash is both immensely dramatic and invariably lethal, which, combined with the fact that such an act necessarily requires the work of a truly depraved sadist, makes it a singularly terrifying and emotionally captivating event for many people. Lack of healthcare just doesn't invoke the "I could die in a fiery explosion at any moment" drama of a 9/11-style hijacking. Emotions don't take into account statistical probabilities.

... just as it will not stop a terror attack.

Well, therein lies the debate. The TSA is rather adamant that the only way to prevent certain kinds of attacks is to either grope people or use backscatter machines.

Oh, and as a fierce critic of the TSA, I do not expect the government to protect me other than taking the normal precautions expected of any government.

Fine with me.

[sabrina 1]

41. Well, you may be right re the fear of dying on a plane V lack of

health care. But if people were to really think about it, they would probably, given a choice without all the drama attached, choose to die in a plane crash, such as happened on 9/11, which is relatively fast and probably not too painful, rather than a long, slow painful death from cancer eg. I know I would.

The other illogical aspect of the fear of 'terror' in relation to flying is that flying itself, without any terrorist on board, can result in death. What can the TSA do about that? After all the groping and scanning etc. it's far more likely that a plane will go down because of pilot error than by terror. So, I don't understand the intense fear. It's not logical. Which is why I think it is mainly due to the scare tactics people have been subjected to.

[masmdu]

48. "Since 9/11 not one American has died from terror" (in US)...Not so, These come to mind immediately

10 killed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks

5 killed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks

2 killed
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/19crash.html

2 killed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting

13 killed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

[Eddie Haskell]

56. The anthrax was produced in a US government lab.

There are many, including a few members of Congress, who believe it was Government sponsored terrorism used to pass the Patriot Act.
http://www.thenation.com/article/158629/prayer-america

[7wo7rees]

96. +1

[sabrina 1]

63. What do you think we should do about the 500,000

who have died for lack of HC since 9/11? And how do those numbers compare to those likely to die from terror? Any Constitutional rights we need to give up to prevent those deaths

Should we surrender our Constitutional rights to deal with the number of Americans murdered by other Americans since 9/11?

How about deaths from drug and alcohol overdoses? Has giving up our Constitutional rights to 'fight the drug war' stopped the threat from drugs?

Did prohibition end Alcoholism?

Can the TSA abusive Constitution-violating practices prevent plane crashes and how many Americans have died in plane crashes since 9/11?

What ARE we so terrified of, if not of all the other causes of death in this country? Why the terror over one of the least causes of death over the past ten years?

[SDuderstadt]

64. Because people EXPECT to die from...

those other cause of death, Sabrina.

Duh.

[sabrina 1]

65. Really? I don't, anymore than I expect to die as a result of

a terror attack. But I do know that my chances of dying of any one of the above mentioned, and many I did not mention, causes of death are far greater than they are of dying of a terror attack.

Expect to die from lack of HC coverage?? No, many HAVE coverage but a catastrophic illness will cause them to lose it. Right now, many who WILL end up in that situation are definitely NOT expecting it assuming their coverage is good enough. Where is the TSA to prevent them from dying?? What rights should they give up in order to avoid that, much more significant threat to so many more people?

This 'terror' garbage is manufactured to sell security equipment. If it was profitable to terrorize people about lack of HC as a threat, the same effort would be put into doing so.

There is simply no logic to the irrational fears that have resulted in the destruction of our Constitutional rights, absolutely none.

[SDuderstadt]

67. You keep saying that...

Sabrina, but you've never provided a viable alternative one time.

Simple question: is airport security necessary? If so, why do we need it?? Please be specific.

[sabrina 1]

68. Better question: Should 44,000 Americans

be allowed to die simply because they lost their jobs and insurance when the Government is spending trillions on the military supposedly to save American lives?

Think about it for a while, maybe you'll come up with something other than trying to defend the indefensible.

[SDuderstadt]

70. Nice deflection...

Sabrina.



Simple question: is airport security necessary? If so, why? Why not just abandon it altogether?

You won't answer that question because it destroys your overall argument.

[sabrina 1]

76. No, the deflection was yours. I simply brought the topic

back to the facts stated several posts above, which you avoided commenting on by attempting to deflect with a link to attacks outside this country, in a not-so-clever attempt to redirect the conversation.

And again, you refuse to answer the question.

If saving lives is the issue, why is the least threat to American lives receiving so much money and attention, while some of the worst threats to American lives are being ignored?

I know the answer, I'm just curious to see if you do.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

83. That's it in a nutshell!

It's okay for someone to quietly die in the US from something that in the UK would be treated/cured no matter the persons social standing or wealth. But on the other hand, on any given plane there could be someone too special or too good to just die.

Look at this America;

http://www.nhs.uk/Pages/HomePage.aspx

Keeping the GREaT in Great Britain!! :) :) :)

lol, Americans settle for a lowly TSA worker to give them their 'health check up'. Just to save the rich fucker that might be on the plane, lol.

[gejohnston]

82. Other than the anthrax attack, those are criminal acts but not terrorist. The reason being

It was the only one that was to instill fear in a population. I had the DoD definition pounded in my head. I actually think is a good definition.

the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political.

In the USAF briefing I was at, the instructor specifically gave abortion clinic bombings as an example of domestic terrorism. (the context was that how to evaluate terrorist "chatter" and threat assessment. The example was if Operation Rescue was planning an attack, it would not be a threat to us because the base hospital does not do abortions, but the women's health clinic and locals would be getting a phone call.) Dr. Tiller's murder was a terrorist attack.

From what everything I read, the Fort Hood doctor was a classic case of "going postal".

[sabrina 1]

118. Thank you!

[hifiguy]

55. You have it in one. sabrina

Statistically speaking, any individual person is about as likely to be killed by a "terrorist" as by a falling meteor. Rational people understand this and respond accordingly. All of the BS invasive security measures are just another way to desensitize the sheeple into willingly accepting totalitarianism as the norm.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

106. Yes, there are many ways to die

No need to fear any particular one.

In the weeks after 9/11, two acquaintances died unexpectedly, one at the age of 23 of a cerebral hemorrhage, and the other in middle age of a blood clot after routine knee surgery.

[fascisthunter]

61. I think it's the Rich, Powerful and Wealthy

who are freaked out about terorism... they pull the strings, not we the little people.

[dixiegrrrrl]

85. I oppose groping and I DO NOT expect the TSA to protect me from threats.

See?
No inconsistency here.

[RaleighNCDUer]

116. That's just the point. We DON'T expect the TSA to protect us.

I've not heard of a single instance where they've apprehended a would-be terrorist at the gate. Not one. They did let the shoe bomber get on board. And the underwear bomber. And any number of people who walked knives and other assorted contraband through the gate, testing their ability to catch them. Remember the kid last year who died when he stowed away in a wheel well? That same kid COULD have planted a bomb in that wheel well - TSA didn't do much good there.

TSA is nothing but security theater.

[FiveGoodMen]

72. We're getting groped to remind us that they can do whatever they want

and we just have to take it.

[Pooka Fey]

80. Ding-ding-ding! We have the correct answer here, folks!

[SDuderstadt]

8. Excellent post n/t

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JDPriestly]

9. Certainly, security is important, but the TSA way overdoes it.

One of my sisters was stopped once. She is a really sweet person who is always helping people out. It was ridiculous. The worst of it was that she was attending a convention of Christian, religious women. How off the mark could the TSA get?

[Bonobo]

10. You mean a sealed container of cream cheese ISN'T a real threat?

Or mother's milk over an arbitrary 3 oz?

But I feel sceeeered when people can carry 3 oz. of liquid or not get their socks filthy from walking on dirty floors in the service of appearing to do security.

[SDuderstadt]

13. How in the world would...

the TSA know any of that?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Azathoth]

15. Well, that's the heart of the debate

How much is "overdoing" it? How much risk are we willing to live with? How much safer do the new practices really make us? All good questions for which I don't have the faintest answers. I do know, however, that one does not need to be pathological or engaged in elaborate rationalization and self-deception in order to take a particular side in the debate.

[SDuderstadt]

18. No, you just have to risk being labeled an...

"authoritarian" by those on the other side of the issue, which is ironic because I am a former state ACLU board member. My former colleagues roll on the floor with laughter when I recount how some here smear me as an "authoritarian". I have been a card-carrying member since undergraduate school.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Azathoth]

26. Wow, talk about a straw-man

but you would justify answers you don't have as reasonable ... That would seem to be the implication ... which would seem to justify any and all sides of the debate with a carte blanche acknowledgment of "reasonableness" without any requirement of said "reasonableness" being established

Your logic does not follow. There are no "answers" in this debate, only value-laden arguments, and, given the fact that I am not altogether unacquainted with the debate, I am quite satisfied that there are both reasonable and unreasonable arguments on each side. I never granted blanket "reasonableness" to all arguments on either side, and to respond as if I did is a blatant straw-man.

Hell, your theory would seem to confer "reasonableness" upon a side of the debate which argues that Muslims should never be allowed on planes with Christians aboard

Ah, well now we come to it. You've decided that you can't win the argument, so now you want to undermine the legitimacy of your opponents by associating them with extremism. The OP tried to delegitimize them by pathologizing them Milgram-style. This is a deplorable tactic.

Have you considered the possibility that you are simply deluded and mistaken as to the nature of "the debate"?

No, as I said before, I am fairly well-acquainted with the debate.

and I'd like to hear your ... theories... in the eventuality that you are judged to be completely wrong in your first round of judgments which, it seems to me, are rather arbitrary.

The only theory that is relevant to this thread is whether or not someone can support the TSA's actions without being either an extremist, as you have suggested, or a reflexive, self-deluded defender of the status quo, as the OP implied.

As it happens, my own "theory" on the topic of the TSA gropings is that I don't give a shit one way or the other. I think they are invasive and probably make us only marginally safer, but on the other hand, I can live with being patted down before I get on a plane, so if it is decided that the extra layer of protection and safety is prudent and desirable, I am perfectly fine with it, particularly given the fact that a commercial airplane crash is one of the most invariably lethal dangers any American can face.

[LooseWilly]

39. Edited sufficiently, anything can be made into a strawman...

You block-quoted me as follows

but you would justify answers you don't have as reasonable ... That would seem to be the implication ... which would seem to justify any and all sides of the debate with a carte blanche acknowledgment of "reasonableness" without any requirement of said "reasonableness" being established

but the actual paragraph was

That would seem to be the implication of: "one does not need to be pathological or engaged in elaborate rationalization and self-deception in order to take a particular side in the debate."—which would seem to justify any and all sides of the debate with a carte blanche acknowledgement of "reasonableness" without any requirement of said "reasonableness" being established before consideration of said "particular side in the debate".

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you realize that, by editing out the quote of yours which was the basis for the conclusions which I drew in said quote, you knew you were converting my passage from an analysis of something you said into an unsubstantiated statement placed into your mouth... thereby disingenuously converting my analysis into a strawman, which you could then use as a rhetorical attack upon my words without having to address the validity of what my words were saying

Would you now care to explain how "one does not need to be pathological or engaged in elaborate rationalization and self-deception in order to take a particular side in the debate." does not justify "all sides of the debate"? As I said... before you decided to butcher my statement and mis-represent it? I mean... you are the one maintaining this position, no? "There are no "answers" in this debate, only value-laden arguments"... right??? All my post was asking was that you more fully codify your personal "value-laden arguments" for general scrutiny.

Surely, you have no problem with that?

And as for your attack on my comment: "Hell, your theory would seem to confer "reasonableness" upon a side of the debate which argues that Muslims should never be allowed on planes with Christians aboard" ... I once again turn to your comment which I quoted (before you edited it out of your responses): "one does not need to be pathological or engaged in elaborate rationalization and self-deception in order to take a particular side in the debate."

I ask you to, rather than misrepresent my comments... answer how your statement does not confer reasonableness on that "particular side in the debate"? Better yet... why don't you explain why, despite all theoretical "reasonableness" that side of the debate is... "wrong"?

I was not, despite your half-hearted attempts to suggest otherwise, trying to associate you with extremists... but rather showing how your points could easily be conflated with those of extremists... how about you take some time to explicate how wrong I was... for the edification of all of your readers?... and not by attacking me but by showing how everything you were saying is actually a defense of the interests of citizens and not just a hinky paranoid fantasy of knee-jerk American xenophobic impulses?...

And... finally... if you don't give a shit about TSA gropings either way... why are you apparently defending them? Why have you bothered to post multiply in the thread? What bothers you so much about those who express an antipathy to the gropings that you are, so obviously, ok with?

I could, obviously, take the next step and make logical assertions on the subject... but I wouldn't really believe the assertions (not really really, anyway). This, of course, leaves me grasping for something to provide you to attack my personal integrity with now... but I'm afraid I'll have to leave that vacuum where it stands and trust that you will come up with something.

I look forward to being personally maligned again... sir. ;)

[Azathoth]

50. Come on

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you realize that, by editing out the quote of yours which was the basis for the conclusions which I drew in said quote, you knew you were converting my passage from an analysis of something you said into an unsubstantiated statement placed into your mouth... thereby disingenuously converting my analysis into a strawman, which you could then use as a rhetorical attack upon my words without having to address the validity of what my words were saying

First, you can't claim that I am deceptively editing you when your original post is right above mine. Moreover, I was replying to you, not citing what you said for others. My response is only meaningful to someone who has read your previous reply, so there is no danger of me hiding what you said. Second, the excised quote in no way changes the substance of what you wrote. You claimed that I issued a "carte blanche" assumption of reasonableness to the arguments on one side of a debate, which I most emphatically did not do. I did say that "one does not need to be pathological or engaged in elaborate rationalization and self-deception in order to take a particular side in the debate," which is something else entirely. It is perfectly possible to predicate one's support of the TSA on "unreasonable" arguments, but it is not essential.

Would you now care to explain how "one does not need to be pathological or engaged in elaborate rationalization and self-deception in order to take a particular side in the debate." does not justify "all sides of the debate"?

I don't know about "all sides," but my statement certainly implies that support for the TSA is not, ipso facto, self-deceptive or pathological. As a side note, you seem fixated on the notion that the "other side" needs to pass a basic test of legitimacy from which you have rather conveniently exempted yourself.

As I said... before you decided to butcher my statement and mis-represent it? I mean... you are the one maintaining this position, no? "There are no "answers" in this debate, only value-laden arguments"... right??? All my post was asking was that you more fully codify your personal "value-laden arguments" for general scrutiny.

Why? My personal opinion of the TSA is not relevant except as a way of changing the topic.

And as for your attack on my comment: "Hell, your theory would seem to confer "reasonableness" upon a side of the debate which argues that Muslims should never be allowed on planes with Christians aboard" ... I once again turn to your comment which I quoted (before you edited it out of your responses): "one does not need to be pathological or engaged in elaborate rationalization and self-deception in order to take a particular side in the debate."

You claimed that my statement that sane, non-self-deluded people could support the TSA "would seem to confer "reasonableness upon a side of the debate which argues that Muslims should never be allowed on planes with Christians aboard," a sloppy contention which simultaneously misrepresents what I said (hence the straw-man) and characterizes "the other side" as extremists. Conflating rational opposition with lunacy and extremism is a classic guilt-by-association delegitimization tactic. I could just as easily say that your apparent opposition to TSA pat-downs means you are defending the reasonableness of a side that supports mass terrorism and the murder of innocent civilians. Fair?

I ask you to, rather than misrepresent my comments... answer how your statement does not confer reasonableness on that "particular side in the debate"? Better yet... why don't you explain why, despite all theoretical "reasonableness" that side of the debate is... "wrong"?

This refrain is getting monotonous.

And... finally... if you don't give a shit about TSA gropings either way... why are you apparently defending them? Why have you bothered to post multiply in the thread? What bothers you so much about those who express an antipathy to the gropings that you are, so obviously, ok with?

Oh boy, where do I start with this one. This thread has nothing to do with TSA gropings and everything to do with pathologizing a group of people with whom the OP disagrees. And now, because I have defended them, you want to convict me of sharing their views, an imputation which is both fatuous and underhanded (and it is also, by the way, a favorite tactic of the Right). Further, you want to bolster your indictment against me by introducing as evidence the fact that I have responded to people in this thread; by your logic, the only way I can prove my case is to run away! Come on.

[LooseWilly]

107. When you edit my passages in quoting them, you *are* hand picking what you respond to.

That is disingenuous and it misrepresents what I originally wrote. Your defensive response: "First, you can't claim that I am deceptively editing you when your original post is right above mine. Moreover, I was replying to you, not citing what you said for others. My response is only meaningful to someone who has read your previous reply, so there is no danger of me hiding what you said." ignores the fact that I a not spending all of my time on monitoring your response... and the ignores the fact that many readers scan through posts and may not have read my above-post closely enough to realize that you are mis-representing me when you edit the quotes that you are responding to.

In fact, I looked at your response, and wondered at the quote... and had to go back and re-read my own post in order to spot the editing that you had made—which had totally changed the character, tone and content of what I had written. If you want to continue to delude yourself into believing that this is not a disingenuous practice, then I am in no position to stop you... but I don't want any other readers of this thread to make the mistake I nearly made of taking your quotes at face value—ever again.


Now... as to the point which I was trying to make, and which I can't help but think you are intentionally misunderstanding (or maybe you are too defensive on this point to acknowledge what I was saying, much as you seem to be turning to defensiveness regarding your deceptive quote editing)... I was simply making the point that saying something like "one does not need to be pathological or engaged in elaborate rationalization and self-deception in order to take a particular side in the debate." is the sort of thing that one says when defending a "particular side in a debate" which one does not 'necessarily' agree with... and that your use of this phrase was the sort of distancing one might use (or, more precisely, which I might use) were I to make an argument that I considered... well, complete bullshit.

So... to take another step in explaining what I thought would be obvious to a penetrating mind, my bad, I was saying that the use of that phrase was tantamount to a cop-out... and that it could be used to make an argument as full of shit as the one you quote above. I wasn't saying that you had made that argument ... I was saying that your cop-out phrase would justify something as over-the-top as the statement I threw out which was meant to be an extreme example of hyperbole.

I was trying to prod you into actually saying something of substance. An endeavor in which I have obviously failed... as all you have done thus far is become surprisingly defensive about a hyperbolic supposition that I suggested your vaguearies could justify arguing in favor of. (Why so defensive?, I can't help wondering.)

Ohh yeah, and you managed to get one of my posts deleted... presumably by convincing the mods that I was actually accusing you of something that I was merely saying your argumentative vaguearies would justify.

So... now that I've explicitly said I never thought you were proposing the extreme example that I was merely saying that your vaguaries would support if you, or someone else employing the same, were to make... now will you say why you seem to be arguing in defense of increased TSA liberties with search limitations?...

[JDPriestly]

35. Face it. TSA is a full employment program for the right-wing, uneducated

Bush-type, Fox-viewing voters. That's all it is. It gives the folks who wear the uniforms and run the expensive, unnecessary machinery a sense of power.

Remember, on top of the TSA folks you meet at the airports and now at the trains, they are also reading our posts on DU and probably our e-mails to family and friends too.

It's total control. The government has nothing better to do, and nothing more important to spend tax revenues on. That is the real problem.

[SDuderstadt]

42. Please prove that n/t

[JDPriestly]

46. Have you watched and talked to the people in the TSA uniforms?

I have met some really nice ones. I got lost in an airport on one of my trips, and a TSA employee kindly and courteously walked me to the right check-through point. I made my connection thanks to her. But they aren't hiring the brightest and best. They are hiring people who probably would not get jobs elsewhere in this economy. The people they hire (at least the ones I have met) are not bad. They are well meaning and obedient, but they aren't very creative or bright. They are Bushie types -- not your best students in school -- not independent thinkers.

That's why I say it is full employment for people who are not so intelligent. Nothing wrong with that, but we need them clearing brush and preventing the spread of fires -- at least some of them -- more than we need them ganging up on innocent travelers at airports.

And I personally don't mind the TSA checks. They have never hassled me. It's the principle of this. As I have said I traveled in Eastern Europe before Hungary opened its borders. I've seen this before. I know what it means -- authoritarianism -- the repressive state. It's not good, not good at all.

[Hugabear]

16. "Collective safety" should never be used as a rationale for undermining Constitutional rights

Using "collective safety" is a slippery slope to undermining our rights. The Patriot Act is great example of this; Bush argued that the Patriot Act was necessary for the country's security, that protecting the country from terrorism was more important than protecting our civil liberties. It's the same rationale that he used for his warrantless wiretapping program. It's the same rationale that some rethugs argued for on behalf of racial profiling, torture, etc.

[Bonobo]

17. FEAR is and has always been the way it is done.

Read your history and you will see that it is an ancient method that never loses its efficacy.

Fear, shock doctrine... or as Rahm Emanuel said "Why waste a good crisis?"

[Azathoth]

20. It's also the same rationale used for passing all kinds of gun control laws

The liberty vs. safety issue has always been with us, and we have always had to strike a difficult balance. If you want to defend a particular right, then you had better be prepared to tell people they are obligated to assume any risks incurred from that right.

[tomp]

53. al these "security" measures are a result of 9/11.

there has not been a thorough investigation of that event and many significant questions remain unanswered. the only thing we know for sure is that the official story is a lie.

people have been convinced they are in danger, but...from what, whom?

[SDuderstadt]

54. "the official story is a lie"

Oh, Christ. Here we go again.

Have you even read the "official story" or are you relying upon what someone told you to think about the "official story"?

[tomp]

57. of course, i'm just doing what i'm told.

seriously, you're going to defend the official story?

[SDuderstadt]

58. Every exact detail?

No. In general? Yes.

[tomp]

74. the devil is in the details, they say.

try googling unanswered questions regarding 9/11 and start answering. try even one. i'll be waiting.

[Eddie Haskell]

91. What someone told me ... John Farmer, Thomas Kean ...

John Farmer, senior counsel to the 911 Commission stated that the Commission "discovered that...what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue." Farmer continues: "At some level of the government, at some point in time … there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened...The (NORAD) tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public." Thomas Kean, the head of the 9/11 Commission, concurred: "We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

105. Authoritarians ALWAYS claim to be protecting us from something

It may be terrorists or the devil or nonconformity, but it's always "for our own good."

[SoDesuKa]

7. War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning

Chris Hedges' book War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning is a prelude to his later work accusing liberals of being far too accommodating. Recently, Hedges drew fire for defending Cornel West's attacks on President Obama.

"The communal march against an enemy generates a warm, unfamiliar bond with our neighbors, our community, our nation, wiping out unsettling undercurrents of alienation and dislocation," writes Chris Hedges, a foreign correspondent for the New York Times. . . .

He discusses outbreaks of nationalism, the wartime silencing of intellectuals and artists, the ways in which even a supposedly skeptical press glorifies the battlefield and other universal features of war, arguing not for pacifism but for responsibility and humility on the part of those who wage war."

http://www.amazon.com/War-Force-that-Gives-Meaning/dp/1400034639

This is fairly recent thinking, as is David Ray Griffin's thesis that America's true religion is not Christianity or Judaism or any combination of the two, but a naive believe in the goodness of America. This is why Americans tend not to question the official version of the 9/11 Report, which Griffin says is full of lies, omissions and distortions.

What is the American form of this nationalist faith? It is that “the United States is a fundamentally virtuous nation.” This faith does not mean that there can be no criticism of a America’s actions. “But the criticism is that the nation’s actions are not in its true interests or do not accord with its true character.” These criticisms hence express the nationalist faith, which is that our country is essentially good, never deliberately doing evil . . . "

http://davidraygriffin.com/lectures/911-and-nationalist-faith/

Eventually some American philosopher will synthesize the work of Hedges and Griffin to explain why Americans are so uncritical in accepting officially mandated restrictions of our traditional freedoms. However, I note with some optimism that some of this uncritical acceptance is starting to wear off, for instance, as air passengers are starting to resist being poked and prodded by government agents.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

108. Yup, the whole "This is the greatest country in the world" nonsense

usually spoken by those who have never been outside the country or whose travel has been limited to military service in war zones or resorts in Third World countries.

[RainDog]

14. k&r n/t

[suffragette]

23. Makes me think of Candide: "all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds."

Great post Bonobo.

K&R

[Mimosa]

28. Wish I could rec OP 1,000 times!

Excellent topic, Bonobo. :)

[JoeyT]

29. In the chest of every authoritarian beats the heart of a coward.

That's why any questioning of authority automatically elicits cries of "What about safety?! How will you keep us safe?!"

It doesn't matter if you can actually keep them safe, just claim you can and they'll trip over themselves to hand over their rights. They'll hand over yours too.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bonobo]

31. This OP, if you read it, is not specifically about the TSA issue.

It is a much larger examination into the psychological tendency for people to deny facts which threaten their world views.

It is related to cognitive dissonance.

Did you even READ the link?

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JoeyT]

34. It's difficult not to demonize

"It's ok to fondle non-consenting people if you promise to keep me safe!"

[SDuderstadt]

43. Dude...

Coming back with a silly strawman is not real convincing.

[aerie]

51. Bravo. n/t

[fascisthunter]

62. The Rich, Wealthy and Powerful

are the ones afraid, and they are afraid of anyone below them on the economic ladder. To them, everyone is a possible terrorist...

[Fuddnik]

79. Claim you can keep them safe.

The Neocons operating handbook. Or just about any politicians, anymore, really.

Create a big bad boogyman to keep everyone scared, and promise to protect them. I finally watching a film I've wanted to watch for a long time. "The Power of Nightmares". It's available on Netflix now. It shows tha parallel rise of both Radical Islam and the Neocons. And they both have their ideologies in the same roots.

Nobody wants to talk about the root causes of terrorism. Empire. Maybe if we quit fucking with everybody else in the world, and supporting every dictator who'll let us loot their countries resources, people would have no reason to fight back against us.

Instead, we have to sacrifice our liberties to allow the looting to continue.

I've been nearly killed, riding my motorcycle, by some half-blind geezer, more often than I've been attacked by terrorists. I stand a higher chance of getting shot in a bar than being killed by a terrorist.

These apologists should just go find their own police state and leave my country alone.

[Kaleko]

97. I couldn't have said it better if I tried.

Fuck yes, Fuddnik! :thumbsup:

[MrScorpio]

47. The first rule of a bureaucracy is to perpetuate itself

And it does that by convincing the people who can harm it that it is a necessity.

The only way to reduce a bureaucracy is by getting the bigger one that controls it to attack it.

I'm talking about Congress.

You want to reduce the amount of interference that the TSA has in our lives, then we need to elect the right people who are willing to take them on.

Otherwise, it's going to grow more out of control that it already is.

[Solly Mack]

49. k/r

[CrossChris]

59. This should be a sticky. THIS is what we're up against, above all else.

This is the force that leads people to deny injustices & problems with the system.

[Ignis]

60. K&R

Thanks for speaking to the deeper problem that is highlighted by the desire by some to give up great amounts of liberty for the illusion of safety.

[bvar22]

66. The TSA and the "Patriot Act" ...

...are not designed to prevent an external Terrorist attack.

They ARE designed to "keep order" (protect the upper 1%) after the coming Austerity Measures are imposed.
They gave us a preview in the Twin Cities during the Republican Convention 2008.

[felix_numinous]

69. K&R

Wow and the article demonstrated right here, excellent :)

I was raised by strict authoritarians and worked with them-- and have come to believe that they are a type of personality that feels secure within an institution. There is a place for them in society--just a seat at the big table, not in charge--or they will control freak us into a police state and love it.

We need structure in society, but we also need flexibility. We need creativity, imagination, fun, free time and free thought--and be free to relax. These are the 2 sides of the brain--the logical linear left and the impressionistic intuitive creative right! It is in our own nature to embrace our whole selves, both within and as expressed in society.

It is this militant authoritative punishing paradigm of going 'to war' with everything--that has obstructed our integration of the 2 sides of our own nature. They have put people who need more structure at odds with people who need more freedom.

The big forbidden secret is that we don't have to fight, we don't have to go along with this crap.

This subject always reminds me of 'Get Smart'--with the forces of CONTROL fighting the forces of CHAOS!!:) The joke was that it was a futile fight.

[Kaleko]

100. Absolutely lovely post.

Pure pleasure to read. Thanks.

[OnyxCollie]

73. K&R. nt

[Fuddnik]

75. Look at all the lovely examples in this thread.

Defend the indefensible until the day they die.

[Octafish]

77. K&R

Gee. The "status quo." Where have I heard that before?

"We've got the United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting."

[dixiegrrrrl]

84. That is fascinating.

I have long wondered just why some people maintain denial in the face of what many perceive as obvious.

I can see why the beneficiaries of a system would be happy to maintain status quo, but this sort of addresses the reason the victims of the same system support it.

[20score]

86. Great post! It explains the cognitive dissonance of some people on the left and the right.

[pam4water]

87. K&R

[judesedit]

88. Type "The Dumbing Down of America" in your browser. You'll find the answer to most of it right there

Let me know how you feel after that.

[backscatter712]

90. K&R! n/t

[drokhole]

93. "What the thinker thinks, the prover proves..."

It's difficult to express succinctly, but the concept presented in the OP (fantastic post, by the way) reminds me of an even more fundamental one, in which System Justification Theory may likely originate, that is defined incredibly well in a book by Robert Anton Wilson (and where the quote in my subject line comes from):

Prometheus Rising
http://www.amazon.com/Prometheus-Rising-Robert-Anton-Wilson/dp/1561840564
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_Rising

The book, among its incredible insights, elaborates extensively on a cognitive mode of development originally proposed by Timothy Leary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-Circuit_Model_of_Consciousness

What this all adds up to (whether we realize it or not) are individually constructed "reality tunnels"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_tunnel

...which are expressed a little more thoroughly here...

http://www.ultrafeel.tv/reality-tunnel-how-beliefs-and-expectations-create-what-you-experience-in-life/

...with a few videos that also begin to scratch the surface here...

Perception & Reality Tunnels
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whcLJrJHf3I

Neurological Relativism and Time-binding
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ-QV5U4IEA


So, in a round about way, my point is this - surreptitious indoctrination (on a societal scale) begins at an early age, and the longer it persists (without realization or reflection), the more entrenched in an individual it becomes. When it becomes firmly entrenched (whether through a failure or refusal of acknowledgement), we have phenomena like System Justification Theory. In my opinion, at least.

Thanks for another thought-provoking thread, Bonobo! :hi:

[RandomThoughts]

95. There is a group of people that will have to be destroyed.

Any attempt to show them that I am due beer and travel money, they can not feel or see.

Because they have no life or tree side, no empathy.

From that the only way to help them will be to destroy them, that may relight them, it might not in some cases. In my case I never needed that, since I shared my beer and travel money with anyone that needed it in my life before the current tasks, and even now share what I have. I also do not need redemption, however vindication will occur.

I personally do not think they have to be changed, accept that they think, or actively try to stop or do not correct, that I am due beer and travel money.

In that they become my business, and they will be handled in whatever matter best corrects the beer and travel money that is due to me.

Because it will be sent.

[drokhole]

99. I'm convinced your posts are a path to enlightment.

And I truly hope, one day, you are sent your beer and travel money. I'd send you some, but I can't afford the stamps (I spent it all on beer and travel).

[RandomThoughts]

102. The comment is for those with more then they need.

Your comment is a kind remark.

It makes sense out of many teachings for me, to see why some things were said. As you go through the steps, you see why some hardships have to occur to some people to help them, and sometimes why some are in hardship, that can handle it, to help other people realize and know what they should be doing.

The simplest of comments is

"what will it take" and by them not correcting what they should, they show that no amount of anything will get them to make the choice of what they should do. And there argument of 'why' becomes removed by showing it is there perspective by what they want to occur.

From that it is

Should 'there choice' be allowed to steal my choice, in that it becomes justifiable to take there choice, since that no longer is a factor by it being on both sides, or removing their choice is to free my choice.

And that builds the level of the tower of being able to take there free will of choice, by that choice trying to block my choice. And if that is the action of there choice, then removing there choice supports choice as much as it could be said to go against it.

So that becomes irrelevant, and the argument goes back to the other concepts of justice and compassion as the determiner, with the added legal ability of removing there free will.

It is devastating step for some, but explains why that happens to some. It would be much easier for them to correct the beer and travel money that is due to me.

Jessica Alba - Sin City Bar Scene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfpKjRitYdE


Brothers in Arms - Dire Straits
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5JkHBC5lDs

Bonnie Raitt - I Can't Make You Love Me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW9Cu6GYqxo

Bonnie Raitt - Nick Of Time
http://www.123video.nl/playvideos.asp?MovieID=407128

Dire Straits - Walk of Life
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZxVC0GB838


Constantine - Bring me to life (Evanescence)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx8d3K_hngw



Side note, any comment trying to think something is misuse of some thought or action, rules applied back, I am due beer and travel money and many experiences.

[drokhole]

110. On Nothing...

...that's everything:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssf7P-Sgcrk

Always a joy. :-)

[RandomThoughts]

111. I liked what he said, is if you strive for the nothingness, you are not in that state.

It is like the idea of doing the opposite to avoid following something, you still follow by doing the opposite.

Or even if you learn from a teacher, if you can not disagree with parts, and agree with parts, and also teach as you learn, then you are not learning, you are repeating what someone else thinks. To learn it has to include yourself in what you hear and see, and if everything also includes you, then you are a part of everything, at least how you see it.

If it is the nothingness that you seek, then you are not finding it, since by defining it as that, you limit what it is, and in not thinking you can define it, it becomes everything, or more likely anything.



Although none of that changes that I am due beer and travel money.

:shrug:

:)

[mia]

101. Thanks you for your post.

Lots of information to explore here.

[drokhole]

103. My pleasure!

I'd suggest, ultimately, the book itself (if you can get your hands on it). I'm not sure if it can be found online, or if it may be available at a local library, but it does an incredibly comprehensive job at explaining what I just poorly described. And it doesn't hurt that Wilson has a biting wit that makes the book a breeze to read!

Thanks for the kind response! :toast:

[snagglepuss]

94. to read later.

[DeSwiss]

98. K&R n/t

[H2O Man]

109. Recommended.

Outstanding. I'm glad to see OPs of this quality still appearing on DU.

Thank you.

[OnyxCollie]

112. I found that liberals, in particular those who did not have fear

of being personally victimized by a terrorist attack, were the most supportive of laws that aided the FBI in terrorism investigations.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x582516#582750

So before you blame the conservatives for supporting the PATRIOT Act, take another look.

It might be you.

[Bonobo]

113. Yes, indeed. It is that 'seeming paradox' that led me to search for some kind of explanation.

I knew there was SOMETHING behind it and as soon as I read about this, I was sure that this was the phenomenon at work.

[RandomThoughts]

114. Actually people that don't mind the patriot act.

Have not seen it used for smear. Or against innocent people as intimidation.

[OnyxCollie]

115. Or consider those things to be secondary, tertiary, or whatever,

in their belief system.

Edit to add: You'll find some of those right here on this board.

And it's likely that a few formed their opinion through compensation.

Edit to add (again): That compensation is your beer and travel money.

[RandomThoughts]

117. Wrong.

I know what you are saying, that somehow what I have learned is 'beer and travel money' That is an attempt to get me off the discussion.

To change the simple fact that the world should be more just and compassionate, and it is another smear, that time against those that help with ideas of justice and compassion, to set things right, a smear by those saying their help is what is paid.

That assumption says they are the 'fault' a grievous error in my view.

Simply put, any learning I have achieved, is not payment of the due of beer and travel money, and saying that is an attempt at a delusion to get me to somehow join in by thinking I should sell help that is to be used to correct the problem of beer and travel money being due.

And those that try and steal thoughts, they will not be answering to me, but they can send the beer and travel money that is due, those are different topics.

When I think of 'being sent to this site' as the only progressive site, and the 'manufactured' search results (although that could be from ISP black room or search engines, or hacks, or other various things) I think on being driven to the bank.

And that is not the beer and travel money either, but if it is required to remove what some 'have' on the journey to correct that which is due, then that can happen.

The debt is beer and travel money, and that has not arrived, and the only thing that has changed is it goes up everyday, and may reach the point where it is unpayable, then even the need for anyone with more then they need will be questionable.


Steppenwolf - Pusher man (Studio version)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1flUs2TwFg

[OnyxCollie]

119. Uh, sure.

(Note to self: DO NOT make idle conversation with Random Thoughts.)

[Bonobo]

120. Considering the posts today, I thought this should be kicked,

It appears that the main motivation is that some people can not accept the notion that everything is fine and that they don't have all the answers.