« Pro-Life Science and Abortion | Main | Olympics, I Wish I Knew How To Quit You »

August 09, 2016

Comments

" I'm not seeing the difference. "

Well, there are several difference.

First, Authoritarian are 'born that way', they not choose to be bigot, they born with authoritarian brain, they can't help it. so blaming them is hipocrisy.

Second, Authoritarian doesn't like 'new group' and social 'change'. Thus authoritarian in USSR will be Communist loyalist, authoritarian in Islamic countries would be pro-Islam instead of anti-Muslims, authoritarian born in Portland would hold LGBT and Feminism as normal. They just accept their childhood society and hostile to any 'change'. They not Racist or Sexist because of some reason, so in time authoritarian might choose different target.

I don't think the article says anything about how people become authoritarian, so assuming that people are just born that way seems off.

I don't really see the connection between the two pieces.

I read the Vox piece when it came out, and I think the important aspect is that white authoritarians used to be split between the parties. Since the Civil Rights Act, they become more and more concentrated in the GOP.

This is a problem because they're only about 30% of the voters. That's not enough to win on a national level, but it IS enough to dominate the party they're in -- which is currently the GOP. The more they dominate the GOP, the more other people they force out, making them ever more frustrated at their lack of power.

The problem for the US as a whole and the GOP in particular is that these people need to be either educated/soothed out of their authoritarianism (to reduce them below 30% of the population), split between the parties -- or discouraged from voting. I don't know if any of these can happen.

As for the SB Nation thing: AFAIK the dominance of US women is because of Title IX. US Men are less dominant than they used to be because more countries are competing seriously. US women dominate because in many countries women don't compete at that level.

For instance, in fencing the first event where US consistently medaled was Women's Sabre, because the European fencing powerhouse countries resisted it for being "unwomanly".

US dominance in women's sports is also a function of the collapse of the Eastern European Communist sports programs, which used to dominate many of the women's events.

The weakness that I see in the Vox piece is that it takes the findings and projects them rather blindly.

But some of us remember the late 1960s. The country's racial context was still shaking from the Civil Rights Movement. And the social fabric was being changed by everything from drugs to protests of the VietNam War. (Not to mention grooming -- "long-haired hippies" was a standard epithet.)

Perhaps in response, the authoritarians came out in force. For a while. But by the mid-1970s, they were far less in evidence.

So why would this round of social and demographic changes be any different? Sure, it could result in significant negative changes. Or it could fade back into the woodwork.

I guess I just don't have a sufficiently authoritarian personality to get hysterical over it. Unhappy, sure. But not apocolyptic.

Dr S, is it Title IX per se? Or is it just that American culture is far more welcoming of women athletes than most? Of which Title IX could just as easily be a symptom as a cause.

Also, is American culture specifically more welcoming than the other very high population countries in the world? We might not be all that different (today, not when women's sabre came along) from much of the Western World -- just have a much bigger population to draw from. I wonder what the medals numbers look like on a per capita basis?

As for why American women win more medals than men? The state of men's athletics may well be more balanced worldwide. At the numbers we are seeing, especially at the extremes of skill levels in the Olympics, it wouldn't take much.

uh-oh, I discovered Olympic Medals Per Capita, a site at which near-infinite time can be wasted.

What Medals Per Capita shows is that the US is eh, a middle-of-the-pack shower generally. Jamaica is consistently near the top per capita and by GDP. Hungary makes the best consistent showing for European countries (for Summer Olympics only, of course - Winter is a very small pool). NZ and the Bahamas do very well, and Australia is often near the head of the pack.

I think that improved (per capita) success can come a combination of factors:

- a culture that values athletics.
That means giving potential athletes encouragement, especially family ad social encouragement. If people (or, most often women) just don't do things like that, your success will be limited.
That also definitely includes valuing that involves money -- e.g. sponsorships for participants, etc.

- Population. The more people you have, not only will you have more entrants total, but there is more chance for your people to compete against each other and get better. So even per capita numbers can go up.

- Economy. A big population isn't as much help if most of it is too poor to put time and effort into athletics. Not to mention if a lot of people are too poor to get a decent diet, limiting their physical development.

- Environment. Both parts. If the air in your population centers is seriously polluted, it's going to hurt. Contrawise, if people can be athletic outside and do so pretty much year around, outdoor sports are going to have a benefit. (When I was growing up, the top athletic conference was routinely the Pac 8. Simply because kids here could practice outside year around.)

In special circumstances, e.g. sports which don't require much in the way of facilities, money for facilities is less significant. See Jamaica -- you can run track on a dirt road or a beach. But money still helps.

I think perhaps the special sauce is special because it combines a number of different ingredients. None of which, by itself, would do the job but all of which help.

Hey Doc, my thought is that folks who complain about change find themselves slapped in the face with it all the time. This is not to take their side (a realistic attitude towards change would probably solve a lot of problems), but I have to wonder if the folks cheering for the women really understand that what that sbnation article's title is "USA women are kicking the world's butt, (and they can kick your butt too!')

I'm reminded of the scene from the Entourage where Turtle wants to ask Ronda Rousey out and ends up trying to last 30 secs in the ring with her.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2qha9s

Looking for that clip, I found this
http://www.sportingnews.com/mma/news/ronda-rousey-jerry-ferrara-entourage-scene-video-kevin-connolly-dan-patrick-show/1txlsl6og4jkj1xgbjyt4pr7o2

According to Connolly, Ferrera was initially willing to take the beating from Rousey, but once the undefeated MMA dynamo explained just how lethal she was, Ferrera opted to split time with the body double, who wound up taking the majority of the contact.

As a sports junkie for well over half a century - I attended the Olympic Trials (track & field) in 1952, for goodness' sake - I have too many reactions to the sports half of this thread even to try to articulate them.

But just this one for now - the Olympic medal count, or OMC adjusted for population, is a particularly blunt and useless index to anything, primarily because the number of medals is not remotely commensurate with the achievement implied. For example, a single exceptional gymnast or swimmer can accumulate half a dozen medals in one Olympiad, whereas a soccer or basketball team, representing the effort of many individuals in an endeavor that often involves much greater public resonance, is limited to one.

Jamaica has done exceptionally well, for a small country. So has New Zealand. Etc.

Michael Phelps, even before tonight, has won more gold medals than Jamaica. In its entire Olympic history.

It is possible to have an interesting conversation about sports, and comparative excellence, and why some nations/groups seem to be better at a particular historic moment than others. I've taken part in many such conversations over the years.

Starting with the Olympic Medal Count is not how you get there.

I don't really see the connection between the two pieces.

"The classic authoritarian style : simply, powerful, and punitive"

"America's women are going to kick the world's ass at the Rio Olympics"

Just saying.

"America's women are going to kick the world's ass at the Rio Olympics"

Anything can happen in sports. Serena and Venus Williams got beat in doubles by the Czech Republic's Lucie Safarova and Barbora Strycova 6-3, 6-4, the latter two having never competed in the Olympics and who I believe were unseeded.

The Williams sisters are a tennis juggernaut and a national treasure, as are all of worthy folks who represent us at the Olympics.

Now set the sisters down in the midst of a Trump rally. Asskickers? Half the racist woman-hating vermin in the hall, who think tennis is for elite faggots anyway, IF they even knew who the ladies were, would be thinking "booty call those losers", and the other half would be thinking, how did those swarthy welfare moochers get in here without being stopped and beaten by security, if not pulled over on their way here, searched and seized, and maybe gunned down for good measure.

The world does not have a single, unified ass for kicking.

The U.S. has its own sizable ass, yes, but right now the Republican Party has its head firmly jammed up it, which is why the rest of us are having trouble sitting down and getting comfortable.

I applaud anyone who kicks that ass right now, because a severe, hopefully fatal, final kick to the Republican head is required.

America's ass requires an enema with a blunt instrument. We're a f*cking disgrace.

Also, none of this is factual:

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/08/12/ill-find-us-a-way-to-make-light/

But, it's true.

Meanwhile, Clinton slipped and fell. Or at least that's what SHE claims, right.

Trump and the Republican Party, on the other hand, have shown no lack of ability to be coordinated, stand-up assholes.

Their brain lesions are more along the lines of deadly prions.

They need to be put down.

@ Doctor Science-

"This is a problem because they're only about 30% of the voters. That's not enough to win on a national level, but it IS enough to dominate the party they're in..."

Donald Trump is only 7 or 8 points behind, despite having virtually no campaign, no expertise and the discipline of a rutting hippo. With partisan polarisation how it now stands in US politics, a more capable authoritarian candidate could easily peel off enough less naturally authoritarian voters to win. (And even Trump might still win!)

If you 'dominate' one of the main political parties, and can vaguely hold it together, you will eventually get into power.

"Holding it together" would appear to involve consistently coming up with one, max two, authoritarian candidate every four years. Probably for several cycles. Authoritarians being how they are, that could be a challenge. (Unless they manage to just recycle the same guy each time.) Hand-offs of power, or even just the prospect of power, aren't really their core competency.

I don't really understand.

Dr S was suggesting that authoritarians could come to dominate the party. But if they do, they will also take the presidency, even if their core constituency is ~30% of the electorate - because recessions and scandals happen and Dems are not going to win general elections indefinitely.

I'd say that, while they may dominate the party, that isn't necessarily the same as getting the Presidential nomination on a regular basis. Especially if those who do keep getting defeated. Not saying that it can't happen, just that I think it unlikely.

Yes, folks will get tired of the Democrats. Yes, things happen which will get people in a Time For A Change mood. But there are also countervaling factors. Which I think make it likely that a new party to arise before the probability of an authoritarian getting in gets too large.

I see what you mean. Yeah, I think it's probably more likely that they nominate a True Conservative or a generic R next time around, who manages to co-opt the authoritarians. After all, mainstream party is already pretty authoritarian, even if it hasn't generally been led by charismatic strong-men like Trump.

Maybe True Conservatives are doing this too:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/scientists-suggest-aliens-harnessing-energy-200000535.html

See ya later, Tea Party, now that you grifted yourselves into bullshit land:

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/08/15/late-night-no-surprises-open-thread-how-we-killed-the-tea-party/

Never fear, the grass roots will rise again to be separated from their hard-earned tax dollars by the filthy true conservatives maggoting the Republican Party.

Yes, boredom with Democrats will set in again (road, bridges, healthcare .... yawn .. when is Hillary going to finally blow something up?), boredom being the base motivator of all crap in America.

https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/764909726278836225

...reaping the whirlwind.

Crocodile tears from the very people who have pretty much destroyed mainstream media?

Bullshit!

They accomplished everything they set out to do, make a sewer of the national discourse and delegitimize/destroy every institution for their own ends, while separating their so-called base from its money to live in self-righteous luxury and pontificate from on-high against nearly every self-interest of that base.

They armed their base with military weaponry.

This is not the whirlwind.

This is merely a gust before the real storm overwhelms them ... violence. Probably from their Right. Nut then the rest arwe gping to have to put those dogs down. F*ck em all.

William F. Buckley is mentioned as some original point from where whining about the biased mainstream media commenced.

Really? He was a racist segregationist and the media said so, though not nearly enough much of the media.

Tell me precisely how he was any different from the old, racist, Confederate Democrats who he recruited into the Republican Party?

What's not objective about that? He got his own show on public television, which I enjoyed because it was so oddly reprehensible but gentlemanly. PUBLIC television.

These filth were thrown every sop their way. Every move made in their direction was political nonsense tailored to appease these unappeasable c*cksuckers.

They slapped everyone down and moved farther right at every turn.

Oh, they are just now discovering they've gone too far?

Because of Donald Trump?

Long live Trump!

" Nut then the rest arwe gping to have to put those dogs down.

That's Pig Latin for "But then the rest of us are going to have ....."

If Trump wins, which he could well do, watch all of the conservative filth abandon the lifeboats they've recently boarded disguised as women and children and wearing two life vests, swim to the depths, reclaim their staterooms on the Titanic and enjoy their huge tax breaks and the shiny new military equipment, while f&cking the poor in the ass.

You watch. Republicans are full of sh*t.

Trump is Galt's Gulch and they are going to love it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad