Conservatives & Libertarians are Autistic

  • Thread starter Thread starter RP 520
  • Start date Start date
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Status
Not open for further replies.
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10504

  • Duke University history professor Nancy MacLean recently declared that many conservatives and libertarians "seem to be on the autism spectrum" and that they "don't feel solidarity or empathy with others."
  • MacLean was delivering a lecture on her controversial book, "Democracy in Chains," which is intended to explore "the roots and agenda of the radical right."
"She was delivering a presentation on her book’s conspiratorial thesis about the American libertarian movement, which she claims originated with Nobel Prize-winning economist James Buchanan. Almost exactly one hour into the event, an audience member asked her “where his motivations” and ideas came from, and whether those are ideas are “ones of personal greed or…malevolence.”

After praising the interrogator for asking “such a profound question,” MacLean speculated that libertarian views might be the result of autism.

“As an author, I have struggled with this, and I could explain it in different ways. I didn’t put this in the book, but I will say it here,” she answered. “It’s striking to me how many of the architects of this cause seem to be on the autism spectrum—you know, people who don’t feel solidarity or empathy with others, and who have difficult human relationships sometimes.”"

edit: This James Buchanan, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Buchanan not the president btw.
 
Click to expand...
KerryDixon9 said:
Nearly all the lolcows I watch are rabidly left autists.

I can accept that the alt right are full of autists as well, but I'm not interested in reading their racist shit and ignore it. But if you're going to call out the right as autists then you really need to consider the spastics on your side as well.
Click to expand...
I was thinking, Im pretty liberal but this felt mostly like a sort of backhanded, underhanded dig. Like she wants to insult them or call them faggots or cucks, but those things are now anti-progressive and anti-liberal and instantly associated with nazis, so she calls them "on the spectrum", but then is afraid of backlash for even that, so she admits she wouldnt even put it in her book. Someone's a fringe moderate-leftist.
 
I'm surprised that she didn't just say that they have sociopathic tendencies. Isn't that an appropriate alternative to autism?
 
This article is kind of dumb. It makes it look like she was making some sort of serious theory that autism causes conservative political beliefs, instead of what it actually was: a one-off comment that they merely lack empathy.

Though her book is pretty retarded in general:
wikipedia said:
Her book claims that Buchanan saw a conflict between "economic freedom and political liberty", and that he sought (in his own words) "conspiratorial secrecy" in pursuit of what George Monbiot has described as "a hidden programme for suppressing democracy on behalf of the very rich".[1] The book has garnered heavy criticism from both libertarian and non-libertarian writers for its perceived flaws in the use of quotes, sources, and the accuracy of its overall thesis.[22] In particular, the claim that Buchanan supported segregation has been disputed as untrue and contradicted by evidence that MacLean's book omits. Buchanan played a key role in bringing prominent South African apartheid critic W.H. Hutt as guest lecturer to the University of Virginia in 1965, during which he also sharply condemned Jim Crow laws.
Click to expand...
Omitting evidence is a death knell for this type of book.

Simply being biased is one thing, but omitting evidence outright is a magnitude worse.
 
Adolf Von Merkel said:
I think is less taking politics too seriously and more thinking politics works like football or other sport that you have a team you like and you'll defend it like your life depend of it.
Click to expand...

This is literally American politics.

Everyone on your side is literally on the side of Jesus.

Everyone on the other side literally worships Satan and Hitler while sacrificing babies.
 
Clearly this professor has never heard of the Rubber/Glue dilemma of neoclassical philosophy. (Head, Richard. The first grader's almanac. Article 44, 35-189. (C) 2002.)
 
What this women was really saying: "muh toxic masculinity; womyn are the superior form of human and should run everything, then the world would be a Utopia." The unthinking belief of the narcissistic, dumbshit feminist who wants to mother and smother the entire world, lovingly, with a soft pillow of empathy, whether they want it or not.

Isn't it interesting how drastically the narratives about libertarianism (the philosophy if not the party) have changed over, say, the past decade? They used to be "socially liberal, economically conservative" outliers nobody paid attention to. Now they're apparently such a threat they need to be regularly demonized by both sides of the aisle.

Demonized. The people who would prefer you to have more freedom and less compelled action. Really gets that noggin' joggin'.
 
AnOminous said:
This is literally American politics.

Everyone on your side is literally on the side of Jesus.

Everyone on the other side literally worships Satan and Hitler while sacrificing babies.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but both sides get part of this right when they say it. The same part.
 
So if liberals are autistic and conservatives/libertarians are also autistic, what does that mean for people who are unaffiliated?
 
Non-Status quo ideologies always attract the mentally ill because they don't feel like they're part of society and want to change it, both the left and right are filled with people with mental issues that they project onto society. The right honestly comes off more just openly psychopathic and autistic to me, where the left is just filled with extremely oversensitive lol-cows who don't want to engage in any self improvement.

Orwell I think sums it up best from his experiences of being a Socialist and just facepalming at the state of the left. (I mean, fuck me Orwell literally fought actual fascists in spain in a full blown Socialist Revolution and he comes back to this shit)

The first thing that must strike any outside observer is that
Socialism, in its developed form is a theory confined entirely to the
middle classes. The typical Socialist is not, as tremulous old ladies
imagine, a ferocious-looking working man with greasy overalls and a raucous
voice. He is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years' time will
quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman
Catholicism; or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-
collar job, usually a secret teetotaller and often with vegetarian
leanings, with a history of Nonconformity behind him, and, above all, with
a social position which he has no intention of forfeiting. This last type
is surprisingly common in Socialist parties of every shade; it has perhaps
been taken over en bloc from. the old Liberal Party. In addition to this
there is the horrible--the really disquieting--prevalence of cranks
wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the
impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards
them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer,
sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist in England. - George Orwell
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom