Left, Right, Ambidexterious

So, I recently got into a short “discussion” on Facebook concerning politics in general. The other individual was someone who had voted for Trump and frequently writes post criticizing the opposition. One thing that I found interesting is that he distinguished between being a liberal and being part of the left. The former was generically defined as being a supporter of free speech and tolerance, while being a “lefty” meant to him being an anti american, anti free speech, pro islam, identity politics loving individual.

I have seen the term “rabid left” used in a few other media posts by this individual (and members of his family). To summarize what has popped up in my newsfeed, he and his immediate relations are of the opinion that news sources like CNN are propagators of false information, that Trump’s presidency is in the nation’s best interests, and the majority of those aligned with the democratic party are prone to violent outbursts, attacking free speech, overusing the victim card, and a couple of other things that remind me of what Milo Yiannopoulos used to write in the Brietbart (before that video came went viral and he upset near everyone across the political spectrum). Heck, considering that at least two of them are into creative writing (as well as charming and visually attractive), perhaps one of them could become the next Yiannopoulos.

Anyway, due to the current presidential administration being run by such a polarizing figure who was the center of many controversial topics in recent history, it is not surprising that quite a number of people are being very vocal in their opinions on the matter. Of course, what I would like to know is where they are getting the information they use to back up their opinions.

So, what is the current situation with the left and the right? What does it mean to be “left” or “right” for that matter?

There is a rather long and interesting history of the terms left-wing and right-wing that can be traced back to the French Revolution (apparently they originally referred to literal “wings” of the governing building), but let’s focus on the contemporary definitions in relation to politics and public perception in the US.

For the most part, the left-wing has generally characterized as being composed of those parties that support progressiveness, internationalism, equality in the form of a level playing field, limited governing, and similar values. The right can be generally be characterized by tradition, nationalism, equality in the form of everyone has opportunity to advance, authority, and other mostly conservative values. Whether or not this simplistic, dichotomous explanation can actually be applied to the current political sphere is something I don’t really know (although I think it is obvious that the real situation is much more complex and nuanced; after all, socialism is considered a left-wing value yet historical socialist states have apparently required authoritarian governments to function).

In the contemporary US, there are two main political parties that have the most influence, The Democratic Party and the Republican Party, with the former generally supporting liberal values and the right conservative ones (however, there are plenty of individuals in both parties who do support values that are associated more with the other side).

During the 2016 presidential election, it seemed to me we had a lesser of two evils type of deal. On the one hand, we had Clinton, who was apparently seen as a tool of the establishment and too flexible in her political stance (ironically, she was disliked during the 1990s for being too naive and ideologically rigid). On the other hand, we had Donald Trump, who is famously nationalistic, anti-immigrant, prone to making false statements while accusing the media of making false statements, and rather rude.

Apparently, a lot of people were genuinely shocked by his winning of the election. I know that quite a few friends of mine were in a bad emotional place that Wednesday. It has also apparently instigated violence and irrationality among those viewed as members of the left, if pro-Trump media sources are anything to go by (meanwhile, other media sources–quiet a few of them probably biased in the other direction–will go into great detail about what repercussions Trump’s decisions are generating and how they will screw up the country).

There definitely were quite a few protests after the election, and I expect there to be more in the days to come. There will also continue to be people who strongly condemn or support the actions/goals of those protesting, and there will be a lot of selectiveness in which facts get cited to support predefined opinions (assuming they aren’t skewed in the first place).

I do not think the left has gone rabid. A think that a few fringe groups are definitely engaging in irrational behavior, but for the most part I suspect that people actively critical the current administration are being played up by media more focused on entertainment and pundits who just want to sway your opinion. Also, it seems to me that those of american conservative mindset (and this is just speculation based on only a few observations and second hand accounts) are defined by maintaining some sort of “traditional” set of values, and they view the left as being to cozy with those that would threaten those values, such as members of the LGBT community and immigrants from very different cultures. They are also more likely to trust in an authoritarian government if said government seems like it will protect the nations “fundamental” values. Of course, this is a general observation that does not include liberals who voted for Trump and conservatives who didn’t.

With rural conservatives in particular (I’m from a rural area, as are most of my conservative peers), the main fear seems to be that the interests of the perceived focus of the “left agenda” is centered on the social and economic developments of cities and urban environments with emphasis on social justice for minorities, and that the white-middle class worker has no place in this. If memory serves correct, these people are definitely worried about losing their jobs to corporations and immigrants (although why a billionaire businessman would help with that is beyond me). There were also a few people I am aware of (there are probably much more) who voted for the current president basically because he would shake up things, bringing about any sort change and new developments (for good or ill) that could not be expected from the opposition.

I recently learned about something called Terror Management Theory, which I think kind of explains a lot about human behavior. Basically, humans have the same instincts and drives to survive and avoid that which could kill them, while also having the cognitive ability to recognize that death is inevitable and that there is nothing they can do to change that. Pretty much every belief system ever functions to prevent the sort of mental breakdown that would otherwise result from this contradiction, and is reinforced when faced with reminders of death. Studies were done that show that subliminal exposure to reminders of death cause one to more strongly support their beliefs, while the possibility of ones beliefs being proven wrong results in greater contemplation of mortality. More information has been included in the links below.

The reason that I mentioned this theory is that I think that Trump managed to win in part by feeding into the unconscious desire for immortality that characterizes most belief systems. Any rhetoric of those who seek to destroy our nation is going to eventually tie into the fear of death, while his promise of making the nation “great again” is directly connected to the main ideals of the nationalist’s belief system. Also, the majority of people who voted for Trump were apparently Baby Boomers, people who are either at or past the halfway point of their expected life spans, and the closer one gets to death the more likely it is that they will have strong belief systems to manage their terror (that certainly explains colonoscopies).

Frankly, I think any sort of political victory can be tied to propaganda that takes advantage of the TMT (and I am pretty that anyone else with a brain has already concluded that).

Before 2016, I did not have any particular political views, except that I sympathized more with liberal ideals than conservative (as well as slightly more libertarian than authoritarian). I did not have much more than a passive interest in what was going on with the governing bodies in my country, although I did try to make informed decisions whenever I had to vote for something. These days, I find it difficult to do any sort of research without getting pissed off or assuming that which makes sense to me is actually accurate. I also find it emotionally difficult to get into any sort of discussion without wanting to back out after five minutes. It is also frustrating how biased information can be, as well as how easily I can be swayed about something by that which plays into my own biases and prejudices.

It is natural for people to have differing views of the world, and to align with those that share similar views while classifying the less similar as opposition. Every irrational, emotional tendency can be explained easily as instincts that allowed our ancestors to survive. However, in a world where first impressions are generated based on skewed secondhand reports and sensationalist media, one must strive to keep calm and dig out the facts from the hyperbolic mud. Of course, what one must often differs greatly from what one actually does.

 

Links

http://digital.library.pitt.edu/a/americanleft/about.html

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-us/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/07/the_people_who_hate_hillary_clinton_the_most.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/the-left-right-political-spectrum-is-bogus/373139/

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/02/are-conservatives-more-scared-of-stuff-than-liberals.html

https://www.uni-ulm.de/fileadmin/website_uni_ulm/iui.inst.160/Psychologie/Sozialpsychologie/19_Greenberg_Arndt_Terror_Management_Theory.pdf

Anonymity and Men in Grey

I used to share an apartment with a cousin of mine named Graeme (he moved in with his fiancée not too long ago). Graeme is a rather mild-mannered, introverted math major who generally presents himself as a tolerant and thoughtful individual. He is also an avid hunter, fisherman, and all around outdoorsman. Basically, he is good at observing the physical world around him without disturbing it.

It was Graeme who introduced me to the concept of the “Grey Man” back in 2011 (he had apparently chosen the term for his instagram handle). A grey man apparently is someone who does not stand out from the background, who is able to not draw attention to themselves and whatever skills or resources they possess. He (or she, or xe) is generally well prepared for any sort of problem and deliberately acts and dresses in manner that leaves practically no impression. Basically, it seems like a term applicable to a successful spy or a survivalist in hostile territory (unsurprisingly, it is quite a popular concept on various blogs and forums centered around survival theory, disaster scenarios, and possibly the US constitution’s second amendment; links to some that I found are located below).

Naturally, the professional, pragmatic anonymity of a grey man is much different from the anonymity of a mob, a mask, or a web account, where people who just happen to have their identity obscured feel the need to behave in a most noticeable manner. When one’s identity is hidden (or if one thinks that their identity is hidden), then one may behave in a less inhibited manner.

In the case of the internet, there is the “Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory”, which is referred as the Online Disinhibition Effect” in more polite circles. When communicating with someone online, you cannot physically perceive them, nor can you really expect any immediate or severe consequences for what you might say. Therefore, you are less likely to censure whatever message you want to give. Naturally, this has happened even with people on social media who use their real names and share the site with people they know in real life.

Incidentally, general lack of inhibition means that people online are more prone to being flirty and affectionate as well as full of rage and obnoxious opinions. On an unrelated note, disinhibition in general is found in psychopaths (at least according to Wikipedia).

An individual can and will also act with less inhibitions in the physical world when they are part of a larger crowd. The anonymity of being part of a larger whole results in deindividuation, a term that I learned recently refers to lessening of individual identity in favor of blind obedience to a group goal. The size of the group makes it easier to lose the distinctions of individuality and lesson any individual feelings of responsibility, which means each individual has experienced a reduction of risk apprehension and similar behaviors. It is through deindividuation that ordinary people become looters, form lynch mobs, and give in to crowd hysteria.

The wearing of masks, especially identical masks, probably increases the amount of deindividuation and resulting disinhibition that occurs. For the record, I think that deindividuation is required to get soldiers to function properly in a unit, and can potentially be used effectively in nonviolent protesting as well (if the crowd’s objective is to be peaceful, then everyone is going to be peaceful, dammit!).

Obviously, the masking of identity involved in a mindless mob or online antagonisms is antithetical to the grey man, who deliberately crafts and utilizes their anonymity to further a longterm goal of survival, rather than winding up in circumstances where a person feels that they can safely give into their short-term impulses. One of a grey man’s objectives is to avoid the attention of the deindividuated mob.

On the subject of my cousin, Graeme used the moniker for his social media account as a joke about his tendency to stick to the background and go unnoticed when people watching, as well as his decent survival skills. However, he does have an online persona that differs somewhat from his “normal” one. While not an asshole, Graeme is definitely more prone to sarcasm online than he is on real life, and is slightly more willing to share opinions on political and social matters (he also likes to post images and links related to mothman, MIBs, and similar spookiness, mostly due to the fact that “Grey Man” also happens to be the name of a famous ghost, and he thinks it would be in character for his pseudonym to like such things). For the most part, he is still laid back and non-impulsive; he just happens to be developing a distinct online alter-ego as well.

Fortunately, Jekyll and Hyde situations probably have no basis in reality (but I will investigate, just in case…)

 

Sources from which I gained information:

Gray Man Strategies 101: Peeling Away the Thin Veneer of Society

Becoming The ‘Gray Man’: 10 Ways to Blend In and Survive

How To: The Modern Grey Man Philosophy

How the Internet Created an Age of Rage

The Online Disinhibition Effect

Deindividuation

You Are Not So Smart – Deindividuation

Coastal Observer: The Grey Man