17 thoughts on “The Republican death drive: Refusing to sacrifice anything means sacrificing everything”

  1. There is a balance between individual and community responsibilities. This is true once two or more people live together at home or in a community. Does one have precedence over the other? Or can we accept that both are needed for economic, social and environmental well being?

    A twice divorced man I knew said, after breaking up with a girlfriend, that “sex is much simpler when only one person is involved”. Was he right or was he happy. Perhaps both, but we are social beings, so likely happy as sad.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  2. Psychology can be interesting, when presented by a real psychologist who has examined the subjects he is discussing, but when by a ‘professor of rhetoric and public culture’ who has clearly never had a frank discussion with a Republican in his life, not so much.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I mistyped. Meant to say “philosophy,” as Freudian Psychoanalysis has more purchase in philosophical communities these days.

      Still, I have what I suppose could be called conversations with you all fairly often, and despite having a firm grip on the politics of this country and all its important institutions, you all do spend a considerable amount of time whining about culture BS. For example, why would any of you care one iota that Biden intends to nominate a black woman to the SC when you have 5.5 justices that will vote in lockstep with Republican policies?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    2. …”who has clearly never had a frank discussion with a Republican in his life,”

      Maybe he has, but knows that a Republican is so full of fertilizer, it isn’t worth the time. 😇😇

      A little judge-y on your part, though. You disagree with someone, and then say something like that? What do you call that? Oh, yeah: Ad Hominem

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Only raw sewage might call someone full of fertilizer. Fertilizer has a significant positive purpose, raw sewage is, well, raw sewage.

        Like

        Reply

  3. What would it take to prove that Republicans have a Freudian “death drive”?

    Offhand, I’d expect at least a survey of Republicans who have undergone psychoanalysis sufficient to make the diagnosis. I’d want some evidence that the Republicans who underwent psychoanalysis are representative of Republicans in general. I might also want to see an equally rigorous survey of Democrats for comparison to see whether the characteristic attributed to Republicans is unique to them.

    There being none of that here, the very premise of the article looks pretty shaky to me.

    I suppose the larger question to be answered is, Why don’t Republicans and Democrats think alike and value the same things? Regrettably, I don’t have a good answer.

    My guess is that Republicans are generally smarter than Democrats.

    Like

    Reply

  4. Since the interviewee isn’t diagnosing specific people with specific disorders, a “rigorous” study is not needed. As I mentioned, very few clinicians are still doing Psychoanalysis anymore. The concepts developed by Freud and his successors (Lacan, etc.) are mostly used by film and literature critics, or as method of analysis for examining sociological phenomena. It is common to use long-established philosophical principles when discussing society. Capitalism, the protestant work ethic, the very specific way “liberty” is conceptualized as a set of negative rights only, are all a particular philosophical construct. When we discuss articles or events, we do so from particular philosophical perspectives. It’s why we seldom agree on anything.

    But, Republicans being generally smarter than Democrats, I’m sure you all already knew all that. But this begs the question: do you object to his application of Freudian concepts, or do his conclusions make you feel uncomfortable?

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. RE: “Since the interviewee isn’t diagnosing specific people with specific disorders, a ‘rigorous’ study is not needed.”

      If the goal is to accept unsubstantiated claims as valid, then of course no rigorous study is needed. The article, however, makes a specific central claim that is both questionable on its face and unproved. For that reason the article doesn’t qualify as either philosophical or a construct.

      Like

      Reply

        1. Since you ask, my preference is simply that people who make assertions also substantiate them. Otherwise, the resulting conversation is just babble.

          Like

          Reply

Leave a comment