![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sabotabbyIt's been a good few days for me, emotionally as well as politically, by which I mean that I've won every fight I've picked and that's put me in a hell of a good mood. And I've picked a number of fights in unusual places for me. Granted, with people far below the level to which I was accustomed (I was called a "Canuck faggot," "commie fascist," and "traitor," none of which are effective counter-arguments to the points I was raising)—and let's be honest, I didn't so much as win arguments by rational discourse as the people I was—ahem—debating kind of couldn't figure out what the polysyllabic words meant.
And there was another issue, which struck me as I was groggily impersonating a CSIS agent at 6 am before I had my morning coffee (these things happen). Which is that the sorts of arguments I've been getting into with people who hold reactionary political beliefs are simply not winnable by any party, owing to radically different character alignments.
I am new to the world of role-playing games, but not so new to the concept of character alignment.* It's about as useful as any form of character typing, which is to say it barely holds up in an RPG, let alone when analyzing complex fictional characters.**
It's kind of fun to do in political flamewars, though.
For the purpose of arguing on the internet, I will identify myself as Chaotic Good (in real life, I am Chaotic Neutral in a Lawful Neutral profession, but let's go with the goggle-wearing pseudonymous character that I play on LJ). The person I was flaming this morning was Lawful Neutral. The people my LN opponent votes for are Lawful Evil.
(Here we distinguish between Authoritarian Leaders and Authoritarian Followers. The latter are not necessarily dumb, but they frequently are.)
The subject was immigration. Our LN was a supporter of Rand Paul, anti-globalization by kneejerk fear of a One World Government and the Evil Jews; in favour of closed borders and jingoistic nationalism. I have a certain amount of sympathy for people like that because they are generally quite a bit nuts and at least they don't want to invade other countries. But they are easily manipulated, so they do need to be confronted and purged. He was arguing that Some People Are Illegal.
I, of course, roll my eyes at the phrase "anti-globalization." We are already globalized; that's not the point. The issues are resource distribution, mobility of people versus mobility of capital, global human rights, and social justice. How we globalize, not whether or not we globalize. The idea that one person is entitled to more rights and resources, simply by virtue of being born on one side of an imaginary line or having filled out the required paperwork, is ridiculous to me. Humans are entitled to rights by virtue of being human.
This is where the discussion broke down before it even started. A Lawful Neutral believes that people, by virtue of having committed an act that is currently illegal, are themselves illegal. There are no extenuating circumstances, no gray areas. These are the white folks who would have opposed the Civil Rights Movement had they been around back then, because civil disobedience breaks laws.
A Chaotic-anything simply can't understand this argument. It isn't even a matter of intelligence versus stupidity. It's just that the Lawful Neutral can't disentangle morality and legality, and the Chaotic can't see how one intrinsically has anything to do with the other.
Anyway, the argument progressed exactly as I thought. I paraphrase a little:
Completely awesome. He couldn't even conceive of the idea that laws, or even national borders, could change if people got together and did something about it. It's like those Mormons who have to burn the old copy of the Book of Mormon when a new Word of God is issued. You can't ask them whether the old one was flawed somehow, and does this mean that the Word of God needed a correction? There is only the Word of God, perfect, as it has always been. The only way for current immigration laws to change is through the violent overthrow of the government.
Where it gets interesting for me is the cognitive dissonance that's inevitable with this kind of mindset. Because one cannot simply be Lawful Neutral in the real world; laws and governments are always changing, and no human being can possibly agree with them all. I suggested earlier that I think most authoritarian followers are Lawful Neutral in that they blindly worship authority because it is authority. But what happens when they are faced with a government that's not authoritarian?
I happen to think that Obama is neither left-wing nor anti-authoritarian, but that's irrelevant, because the LNs of the world think that he is. And now, holy shit, you have a guy in charge who is a socialistislamocommiefascist! What's a poor law-worshipper to do? Every instinct telling them that rules must be obeyed, that this is in fact the highest and only virtue, is coming into conflict with the utter terror that the rules are changing in a way that might not benefit them so much.
The result is the complete mental disarray of the Teabaggers and, closer to home, the conspiracy nuts. An unstoppable force meets an immovable object, and their entire mental framework shatters. You'd almost feel bad for them if they weren't such douchebags.
P.S. Sorry about the level of geekiness of this post. I think I grew a neckbeard just writing it.
P.P.S. Does someone know a good internet lawyer? I think I might have to go to internet-court to defend myself against charges of internet treason.
* The second one is stupid. Rorschach is not chaotic good.
** That's not to stop me from doing it anyway. When I'm bored, I figure out the alignment of my characters. I have been wrong or unable to tell in most cases, which leads me to believe that I'm doing something right.
And there was another issue, which struck me as I was groggily impersonating a CSIS agent at 6 am before I had my morning coffee (these things happen). Which is that the sorts of arguments I've been getting into with people who hold reactionary political beliefs are simply not winnable by any party, owing to radically different character alignments.
I am new to the world of role-playing games, but not so new to the concept of character alignment.* It's about as useful as any form of character typing, which is to say it barely holds up in an RPG, let alone when analyzing complex fictional characters.**
It's kind of fun to do in political flamewars, though.
For the purpose of arguing on the internet, I will identify myself as Chaotic Good (in real life, I am Chaotic Neutral in a Lawful Neutral profession, but let's go with the goggle-wearing pseudonymous character that I play on LJ). The person I was flaming this morning was Lawful Neutral. The people my LN opponent votes for are Lawful Evil.
(Here we distinguish between Authoritarian Leaders and Authoritarian Followers. The latter are not necessarily dumb, but they frequently are.)
The subject was immigration. Our LN was a supporter of Rand Paul, anti-globalization by kneejerk fear of a One World Government and the Evil Jews; in favour of closed borders and jingoistic nationalism. I have a certain amount of sympathy for people like that because they are generally quite a bit nuts and at least they don't want to invade other countries. But they are easily manipulated, so they do need to be confronted and purged. He was arguing that Some People Are Illegal.
I, of course, roll my eyes at the phrase "anti-globalization." We are already globalized; that's not the point. The issues are resource distribution, mobility of people versus mobility of capital, global human rights, and social justice. How we globalize, not whether or not we globalize. The idea that one person is entitled to more rights and resources, simply by virtue of being born on one side of an imaginary line or having filled out the required paperwork, is ridiculous to me. Humans are entitled to rights by virtue of being human.
This is where the discussion broke down before it even started. A Lawful Neutral believes that people, by virtue of having committed an act that is currently illegal, are themselves illegal. There are no extenuating circumstances, no gray areas. These are the white folks who would have opposed the Civil Rights Movement had they been around back then, because civil disobedience breaks laws.
A Chaotic-anything simply can't understand this argument. It isn't even a matter of intelligence versus stupidity. It's just that the Lawful Neutral can't disentangle morality and legality, and the Chaotic can't see how one intrinsically has anything to do with the other.
Anyway, the argument progressed exactly as I thought. I paraphrase a little:
LN: The main point of a nation is to protect the borders. What's the point of having a nation if territorial integrity is not respected?
CN: What's the point of having a nation?
LN: You may want to review the Canadian Criminal Code section 46. 2 (a) and (c).
46 (2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada, (a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province; (c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);
Careful the conversations you engage in. Planning for the overthrow of our nation might get you in hot water.
Completely awesome. He couldn't even conceive of the idea that laws, or even national borders, could change if people got together and did something about it. It's like those Mormons who have to burn the old copy of the Book of Mormon when a new Word of God is issued. You can't ask them whether the old one was flawed somehow, and does this mean that the Word of God needed a correction? There is only the Word of God, perfect, as it has always been. The only way for current immigration laws to change is through the violent overthrow of the government.
Where it gets interesting for me is the cognitive dissonance that's inevitable with this kind of mindset. Because one cannot simply be Lawful Neutral in the real world; laws and governments are always changing, and no human being can possibly agree with them all. I suggested earlier that I think most authoritarian followers are Lawful Neutral in that they blindly worship authority because it is authority. But what happens when they are faced with a government that's not authoritarian?
I happen to think that Obama is neither left-wing nor anti-authoritarian, but that's irrelevant, because the LNs of the world think that he is. And now, holy shit, you have a guy in charge who is a socialistislamocommiefascist! What's a poor law-worshipper to do? Every instinct telling them that rules must be obeyed, that this is in fact the highest and only virtue, is coming into conflict with the utter terror that the rules are changing in a way that might not benefit them so much.
The result is the complete mental disarray of the Teabaggers and, closer to home, the conspiracy nuts. An unstoppable force meets an immovable object, and their entire mental framework shatters. You'd almost feel bad for them if they weren't such douchebags.
P.S. Sorry about the level of geekiness of this post. I think I grew a neckbeard just writing it.
P.P.S. Does someone know a good internet lawyer? I think I might have to go to internet-court to defend myself against charges of internet treason.
* The second one is stupid. Rorschach is not chaotic good.
** That's not to stop me from doing it anyway. When I'm bored, I figure out the alignment of my characters. I have been wrong or unable to tell in most cases, which leads me to believe that I'm doing something right.
