Hodson and Busseri (2012): second thoughts

The assumptions about social conservatism and ingroup-outgroup dynamics are odd:

According to social-dominance theory, the positive association between right-wing ideologies and negative evaluations of out-groups reflects the fact that both constructs share the core psychological element of a desire for hierarchies among groups (Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1996). Socially conservative ideologies have therefore been conceptualized as “legitimizing myths”: Although they are often rooted in socially acceptable values and traditions, such ideologies nonetheless facilitate negative attitudes toward out-groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; see also Jost et al., 2003; Sidanius et al., 1996; Van Hiel et al., 2010).

I would have thought that social conservatism and right-wing authoritarianism would rather be marked by a desire for hierarchies within groups.   Our paradigm for hierarchy is the legitimate authority and its subjects, which assumes a shared allegiance.  No doubt this reflects the social conditions of our primate ancestors, which engendered a mentality my fellow social conservatives and I are as yet too simple-minded to outgrow.  Be that as it may, out-groups are only conceptualized in a hierarchical relationship to the in-group to the extent that they are not seen as out-groups at all, but as accepted (even if perhaps inferior in status) parts of the social structure.  The natural categories for out-groups, at least to our unrefined minds, are ally and enemy, which are not hierarchical relationships at all.

What really seems off is their identification of out-groups

In a report of a recent American study, Keiller (2010) argued that the capacity for abstract (as opposed to concrete) thinking should facilitate comprehension of other people and the complex mental processing required for the interpretation of relatively novel information (i.e., the type of information encountered during intergroup contact). For instance, adopting another person’s perspective requires advanced cognitive processing, abstraction, and interpretation, particularly when the target is an out-group member (and thus “different”).  Given that perspective taking reduces prejudice (Hodson, Choma, & Costello, 2009), stronger mental capabilities may facilitate smoother intergroup interactions. Consistent with this rationale is Keiller’s finding that abstract reasoning negatively predicted prejudice against homosexuals…

Our results confirmed each component of the predicted model (see Fig. 2). Abstract reasoning negatively predicted prejudice, but this effect was significantly reduced when we included the mediators in the model. Lower levels of abstract reasoning also predicted greater right-wing authoritarianism, which in turn predicted elevated prejudice against homosexuals.  Independent of these effects, there was a simultaneous indirect effect through increased intergroup contact: Individuals who had a greater capacity for abstract reasoning experienced more contact with out-groups, and more contact predicted less prejudice

Notice the identification of homosexuals as an out-group.  What does one mean when one says that homosexuals are a “group”?  First, a group might just mean all the members of a category, and in this sense no one would deny that homosexuals are a group:  they’re the members of the set of all humans experiencing same-sex attraction disorder.  However, this alone isn’t enough to make the ideas of in-group/out-group dynamics applicable.  Liberals no doubt have a certain distaste for members of the “group” of murderers and members of the “group” of extortionists.  These are obviously not cases of an in-group being hostile to an out-group.  For that to make sense, the group in question must also have some sort of common life, that is, be a sort of rival community.  This is certainly the way liberals see homosexuals, as members of a minority group, the “gay community”.  It’s generally not the way conservatives have historically tended to see them.  Social conservatives have been more likely to regard homosexuals as deviant individuals, members of the shared community who are violating its norms.  Homosexual activism has changed this perception somewhat, making it clear that the norms being violated are not the homosexuals’ own, but the real import of this is to identify homosexuals as members of the group “liberals”.  Social conservatives do have some hostility to the liberal out-group, not because they fit into the category “hierarchical inferiors” but because they fit into the category “enemy/threat”.  The homosexual is still disliked qua homosexual primarily as a deviant individual.  Conservatives don’t take the “gay community” very seriously, it being little like the biological, religious, and political communities whose importance we recognize.  Saying that gays are disliked for their foreignness doesn’t quite capture the motivation.

It may be that the liberal is right, and that homosexuals should be regarded as members of a distinct and thick community rather than as individuals who engage in a particular act.  However, if the goal is to understand the conservative mentality, one must not rely on characterizations that conservatives themselves wouldn’t acknowledge.

20 Responses

  1. @Bonald: “Social conservatives do have some hostility to the liberal out-group, not because they fit into the category “hierarchical inferiors” but because they fit into the category “enemy/threat”.”

    And also because – as Leftists – Liberals are *necessarily* in service to sin.

    Not that Liberals as individual human beings are – regarded purely individually, if that has any real meaning – greater sinners than anyone else; but that *qua Liberals* they have chosen to serve evil – i.e. to serve that which opposes, subverts, inverts, attacks The Good (that is, attacks virtue, beauty and truth in their unity).

    So, even if Liberals were not a threat, they would still be an enemy of ‘Social conservatives’/ Christian reactionaries.

  2. Liberals are smart idiots, lost in their own cloud castles. They never talk about specifics and ALWAYS ignore real experience.

    For example, dislike of homos being rooted in homos flaming, dramatic, sissy and selfish behaviors and attitudes, combined with their repeated sexual predation upon boys, for example.

    Or, dislike of racial “outgroups” because of those racial outgroups are obnoxious, pushy, criminal, lazy, smelly, sleazy, violent, etc etc…

    Their whole premise is that dislike of deviancy and difference is IRRATIONAL and based on IGNORANCE. In fact, it is usually based on experience and observation.

    Conservatives are people who live by reality. Liberalism is the denial of reality in favor of fantasy, rejecting what-is, in favor of what-should-be.

  3. In Haidt-speak, homosexuality violates the purity/sanctity foundation not the ingroup/loyalty foundation.

  4. Liberals can kind of understand the in-group/purity foundation, but they mostly just don’t get purity or sacredness.

  5. Bonald: You put your finger on the basic problem with this theory: the absurd proposition that every individual is a member of one fixed group. This theory may be true of primitive tribesmen or feuding clans, but it is simply not the way modern identities or societies work. My allies on one issue are very often my enemies on another. If homosexuals try to shape grade-school sex education, they are my enemies; but if one day later some traditionalist packs the house next door with loud and slovenly renters, the homosexual couple down the street will be my allies.

    The irony of the quoted passages is that they state, fairly blatantly, that conservatives are lower than liberals because conservatives believe that some groups are better than each other. This is like the liberal claim that only stupid people believe that IQ is important.

    Isn’t it wonderful to read that, only three years ago, three social scientist–namely Hodson, Choma, & Costello, 2009–discovered that “perspective taking reduces prejudice.” Joe South (1970), take it away: “Walk a mile in my shoes, Walk a mile in my shoes / Before you abuse, criticize and accuse / Walk a mile in my shoes.”

    Humans have known that perspective taking reduces prejudice since they first climbed down out of the trees. That’s why wise men have always advised against taking certain perspectives.

  6. Liberals just don’t seem to be able to get conservatives and tend to interpret their in terms of things they do understand, which leads to all sorts of preposterous results. Thus conservatives supposedly don’t like homosexuals because they are part of an outgroup and want to gain power over them or opponents of abortion just want to gain power over women.

    Conservatives are much better at understanding liberals, but in my experience the besetting sin of conservatives trying to understand liberals is to impute too much covert religious motivation to their opponents. It is like most conservative can’t understand how someone couldn’t be even a little bit religious. A classic example is the essay linked to by Kristor
    here. Now, imputing covert religiosity to liberals will work to some extent for Kantian ethicists, environmentalists, axiomatic libertarians, virtue feminists (those who believe it is immoral for women not to use their intelligence to pursue a career, happiness be damned), and a few others. But for the most part liberalism is founded on the complete denial of the transcendent. Liberals aren’t in favour of abortion because it satisfies some need for ritual sacrifice, they are in favour of abortion because they think a fetus is just a clump of matter. Atoms and the void and all that. So, if conservatives want to better understand liberals they need to stop thinking of them as in any way motivated by religious concerns, except in so far as they completely deny them.

  7. Yes, that’s exactly what I was trying to say.

  8. But there are liberals and then there are liberals. Very few are as rigorously anti-transcendental as you say. While liberal principles are certainly anti-transcendental, my real-world experience of liberals leads me to conclude that most of them hunger and thirst after transcendence and will somehow contrive to discover it somewhere in their meaningless universe. Think Sagan’s “billions and billions,” or the phenomenon Lawrence Auster has often noted, of Darwinists sneaking meaning and significance and reverence for the beauty of nature into their meaningless pointless stupid shuffle of dead pebbles.

    Indeed, in order to prosecute a life at even the most basic, rudimentary way, one must feel at heart that one’s life is important, more important than one’s death. One must feel, i.e., that one’s life has some transcendent significance, over and above whatever meaning is conferred upon it by its mere material facticity, as against other competing facts. So I think there are in the world probably only about 7 truly thorough, thorough-going, self-consistent liberals such as you describe. This is the magnificent 7 – 2 of them, the Churchlands, “married” to each other! – who find it possible to believe that they themselves do not really exist.

  9. @Kristor – well, the problem in modernity now is that peoples’ transcendental instincts are so weakened and confused as to be easily suppressed or over-ridden when confronted with the precision of bureaucratic regulation and legalism (real science is dead and irrelevant – especially in professional science), and the pervasive mockery and zeal of institutionalized Leftism. What would they sacrifice for their transcendental instincts? Something, but not much.

  10. my real-world experience of liberals leads me to conclude that most of them hunger and thirst after transcendence

    My real world experience is the exact opposite. The typical response to religion I see is, “Its ok for other people, but I just don’t feel the need for it.” I also remember the Christian apologist John Patrick lecturing about his frustrations with the rise of those people who list themselves as having ‘no religion.’ “You can talk to an atheist, but you can’t talk to a ‘nothing.'” There are exceptions, but one shouldn’t base ones hopes on this.

  11. The exchange between The Man Who Was (Thursday?), Kristor and Dr. Charlton foregrounds an issue worth pursuing further. In a liberal frame of understanding, categories of sociological and political dominance predominate precisely because reality is reduced to the material; in contrast, the conservative frame of understanding tends to relate even the sociological and political back to transcendent categories. This is very evident with regard to the article under discussion, in which conservatives are subject to the liberal frame of ‘tolerance vs. intolerance’ or ‘impartiality vs. prejudice’. But this makes only the most tenuous contact with the frame in which (theistic) conservatives tend to see liberals, that of ‘accepting vs. rejecting metaphysics/transcendence/religion’, in which liberals – to employ Ann Coulter’s provocative term – appear quite straightforwardly as ‘Godless’.

    To be a secular modern – let me use this phrase rather than ‘liberal’ to avoid unnecessary conflation of politics and worldview – is to be suspended in tension between two equally unpalatable extremes. Either one perceives and accepts the metaphysical consequences contingent upon secular modernity – to wit, nihilism – or one fails to or refuses to, continuing to live as if there was meaning, value, purpose and all the rest, while denying, rejecting or ignoring the Transcendent. In a nutshell, the secular modern lives suspended between despair and self-deception. Which extreme will predominate will of course vary with the individual, but even the most well-adjusted – which is to say, the most self-deceived – live, I suspect, under the shadow – however distantly intuited – of meaninglessness.

    But do they? Let me offer two contrasting examples. The first, from James Sire’s, “The Universe Next Door”: “Kafka – perhaps the greatest artist of them all – lived an almost impossible life of tedium, writing novels and stories that boil down to a sustained cry: ‘God is dead! God is dead! Isn’t he? I mean, surely he is, isn’t he? God is dead. Oh, I wish, I wish, I wish he weren’t.’” The second, a recent discussion between academic philosophers Owen Flanagan and Alex Rosenberg on naturalism, to which both subscribe: http://www.philostv.com/owen-flanagan-and-alex-rosenberg/. (As an aside, Ed Feser has been happily abusing the latter figure on his blog in a series of ongoing posts) Both firmly agree that naturalism is the way things are and that “theism is off the table” – a phrase Flanagan seems to take some pleasure in repeating – and both are also smart enough to see that nihilism is the consequent result of the box they have placed themselves in. However, rather than driving through to the consequences, they settle upon the conviction that a “nice nihilism” – Rosenberg’s phrase – is not only perfectly possible and coherent, but what they themselves subscribe to. In other words, despite placing themselves in what is ultimately a nihilistic box, they are convinced, and would like to convince others, that – as they put it – they really do have a reason to get out of bed in the morning and that they really can be trusted with a man’s daughter or his money.

    How different an understanding such as this is from that expressed by Kafka above or by Matthew Arnold in “Dover Beach”! If a man finds himself intellectually compelled to accept naturalism, with its concomitant rejection of metaphysics and any possibility of a transcendent order, it should be in the spirit of one being marched to the scaffold to the beat of slow drums, not the falsely sunny, “nice nihilism” expressed above! As Arnold famously and tormentedly expressed:

    The Sea of Faith
    Was once, too, at the full, and round earth’s shore
    Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
    But now I only hear
    Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
    Retreating, to the breath
    Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
    And naked shingles of the world.

    But the joy and reprieve of our situation is that the “nightmare scenario” of naturalism is in fact false, that there are few reasons to accept it and many to reject it out of hand. While secular moderns live ‘under the shadow of meaninglessness’, we need not. Thank God. Thank God. Thank God.

  12. What Peter said.

    My point is that vanishingly few secular moderns truly grapple with the nihilism implicit in their ontology. They live lives characterized by self-deception, as Peter says, indulging themselves in all sorts of unprincipled exceptions that enable them to go on getting out of bed in the morning. They indulge themselves in operating as if there were meaning to things, when they “believe” that there is no such thing. But I think what they *really* believe is shown more accurately by the way that they behave – that, i.e., they want to be nice, and want their lives to be nice – rather than by the things that they say.

    They *have* to make these unprincipled exceptions in order to live their lives. Their lives belie their doctrines. So they are *not* really secular modernists at all, when push comes to shove. Rather, they are “secular modernists.” I.e., they are posers. They are just like the kids in high school who carried around a book by Sartre or Camus, that they never read, and styled themselves existentialists, but all grown up and really, really expert at dissembling about it, even to themselves. Deep down, no one is really fooled by such poses. Posers know they are posing; they just have a ton invested in their pose, and they don’t want to lose that massive investment (which is, after all, generating real returns). So they avert their gaze from the weaknesses at the foundations of their pose, and react with rage toward anyone who refuses to go along with their aversion to reality – anyone, that is, who offers to bring their world-view crashing down, forcing them to re-evaluate all sorts of things (relationships, job, habits, affiliations, the whole shooting match). This is part of the reason they are so defensive about their atheism, and so angry at theists.

    But it should also be said that the world cooperates with them in their self-deception. The nihilist who, in perfect contravention of his avowed principles, finds himself moved by the beauty of Brahms or the sunset, or by the glory of his children, or the complex order of nature, to a feeling that these things, and his life, are deeply meaningful and significant, and even numinous, is reinforced by the fact that those things *really are* deeply meaningful and significant. His feelings are *accurate.* The world really is charged with meaning, and with the Holy Spirit. It really is numinous.

    So, life makes it easy to avoid the implications of one’s nihilism in day to day living. Life makes it rewarding to behave as if nihilism is false. The nihilism, then, has its primary effect in the domains that are less tightly coupled to reality, and more dominated by linguistic discourse that is perfectly liable to depart from reality altogether, unless corrected: law, education, media, politics, and at the upper reaches of cognitive processing, that handle philosophy. We see nihilism put into moral practice mostly in regard to the really big questions of life. Few secular moderns tell their kids that it doesn’t matter whether they do their homework. It’s when they want to rationalize something big that they advert to nihilist moral reasoning – er, rationalization; as in, “It doesn’t really matter whether I keep my marital vows.”

    But only the wholly damned, I think, really believe such things through and through. Almost everyone knows in their guts that marital vows matter – this being the only reason for their existence in the first place. We are *built* to be religious beings, just like we are built to see color. As there are blind and color-blind people, so there are people to whom religion is just an empty category. But those blind from birth to religion have to be vanishingly few in number. And the constant use by “secular moderns” of what we trads all instantly recognize as religious language – as non-nihilist language – is a good indication that this is so. So, I think that it is not barking up completely the wrong tree to try to understand liberals as somehow defective religious beings who are trying to satisfy their native religious impulses without consciously recognizing that they are doing so. After all, if religion is true – if *any* religion is true – then its precepts describe a factor of all that is, that shapes absolutely everything by its nature and character; so that, if *any* religion (even a religion no one on Earth has yet discovered) is true, religion is a mere fact of material existence, and humans are all *necessarily* shaped by the rest of reality to be religious beings, however defective their religious faculties may be.
    And this is so even for those who describe themselves as “having no religion.” I can pretty much guarantee you that those folks are doing *something* that allows them to believe their feelings of numinosity to be veridical. I.e., they are practicing religion without realizing that that is what they are doing, just as they are seeing without realizing that they are reacting to photonic interactions with the cells of their retinae.

  13. This strikes me as one of the most clarifying comments I have read. In particular:

    “To be a secular modern … is to be suspended in tension between two equally unpalatable extremes. Either one perceives and accepts the metaphysical consequences contingent upon secular modernity – to wit, nihilism – or one fails to or refuses to, continuing to live as if there was meaning, value, purpose and all the rest, while denying, rejecting or ignoring the Transcendent. ”

    “the secular modern lives suspended between despair and self-deception.”

    ““nice nihilism” … despite placing themselves in what is ultimately a nihilistic box, they are convinced, … they .. have a reason to get out of bed in the morning and that they really can be trusted with a man’s daughter or his money.”

    “If a man finds himself intellectually compelled to accept naturalism, with its concomitant rejection of metaphysics and any possibility of a transcendent order, it should be in the spirit of one being marched to the scaffold to the beat of slow drums, not the falsely sunny, “nice nihilism” expressed above! “

  14. We are *built* to be religious beings, just like we are built to see color. As there are blind and color-blind people, so there are people to whom religion is just an empty category. But those blind from birth to religion have to be vanishingly few in number.

    This is just wishful thinking. People just don’t seem to be as deeply, intrinsically religious as we once thought they were. Clearly people are born with the potential to be much more religious than they currently are, and most people still have some extremely vestigial bit of religiosity left, but religiosity in most people seems to be something that needs to be turned on by the environment, and comfortable modern societies just don’t do that.

    I think Peter has it right, there is complete lack of anguish among our artists about the absence of God. The Victorians and even the existentialists to some degree felt the loss of religion keenly. Now, no one can even be bothered. There isn’t even much anger or hostility towards religion as such, just plain indifference. Even old time evangelical atheists like Dick Dawkins seem rather recherche. This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper.

    In short, you’re looking the vestiges of religion left in modern people and reading way, way too much into them.

  15. Perhaps you are right, and I have just been hanging around with the wrong crowd. Certainly, too, acculturation plays a major role in awakening any human capacity. And I totally agree that it is the prosperity of our age that enables men to distract themselves from ultimate things.

    But all they’re doing is whistling past the graveyard, and at some level they know it. At some level, they know there will have to be a reckoning, a come to Jesus moment. Everyone knows in his guts that he can run, but he can’t hide.

    And, to some extent they are aware of, and love, beauty and meaning in life; they value *something or other* as sacrosanct, even if it is the wrong thing to hold as sacrosanct.

    If they did not – if they believed, *all the way down,* that life was pointless meaningless stupid and vain – why would they keep living? If the answer is “the instinct to self preservation,” or something like that, then *by definition* they don’t believe in nihilism all the way down. On the contrary, their very guts disbelieve it.

  16. With regard to the tension between the positions of Kristor and The Man Who Was (– Kipling?) expressed here, I find myself, on the one hand, deeply sympathetic to Kristor’s position: “We are *built* to be religious beings, just like we are built to see color.” Man ‘is’ by nature ‘homo religiosus’ – to employ Eliade’s critical term – and, as such, “thirsts for being” and is conformed to it. As Augustine famously evokes, at the very beginning of his “Confessions”: “You have made us for Yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in You.” (‘Fecisti nos ad te et inquietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat in te.’) In the light of any traditional anthropology, grounded in a metaphysical vision, this is the essential understanding of the human being: we have come from God and are returning – are indeed conformed to return – to Him.

    And so the historical pattern of traditional societies broadly demonstrates, for while there have no doubt been materialists, atheists and skeptics to be found in traditional societies, they have been so few in number and insignificant in impact as to be broadly negligible in the historical record. And yet, the ‘contemporary’ evidence on the ground supports the position taken by The Man Who Was(n’t There?): the general attitude of most in the modern West, particularly in Western Europe, to the God question is simple indifference. Two books on the sociology of religion – Steve Bruce’s “God is Dead: Secularization in the West” and Callum G. Brown’s “The Death of Christian Britain” – bring this home with great force. Both studies focus on the case of the postwar secularization of Britain, and both conclude that it was real, rapid, unprecedented and is quite possibly irreversible. To quote the first, arresting paragraph of Brown’s study:

    “This book is about the death of Christian Britain – the demise of the nation’s core religious and moral identity. As historical changes go, this has been no lingering and drawn-out affair. It took several centuries (in what historians used to call the Dark Ages) to convert Britain to Christianity, but it has taken less than forty years for the country to forsake it. For a thousand years, Christianity penetrated deeply into the lives of the people, enduring Reformation, Enlightenment and industrial revolution by adapting to each new social and cultural context that arose. Then, really quite suddenly in 1963, something very profound ruptured the character of the nation and its people, sending organised Christianity on a downward spiral to the margins of social significance. In unprecedented numbers, the British people since the 1960s have stopped going to church, have allowed their church membership to lapse, have stopped marrying in church and have neglected to baptise their children. Meanwhile, their children, the two generations who grew to maturity in the last thirty years of the twentieth century, stopped going to Sunday school, stopped entering confirmation or communicant classes, and rarely, if ever, stepped inside a church to worship in their entire lives. The cycle of inter-generational renewal of Christian affiliation, a cycle which had for so many centuries tied the people however closely or loosely to the churches and to Christian moral benchmarks, was permanently disrupted in the ‘swinging sixties’. Since then, a formerly religious people have entirely forsaken organised Christianity in a sudden plunge into a truly secular condition.”

    To give a concrete example – a historical trace, as it were – to bring this disjunction home to the understanding, a historical production such as “The Prayer Book of Edward VII” (1904) (http://www.archive.org/details/bookofcommonpr00churuoft) – an unembarrassedly confident affirmation of communal faith and one of the most beautiful examples of early 20th century bookmaking – seems, in light of the contemporary state of religion in Britain, like an artifact from another world.

    Do contemporary individuals – secular moderns, with whom we rub shoulders on a daily basis – have a God-shaped hole in their hearts? Or has it been spackled over? To quote Paul, “There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.” [KJV: Romans 3:11]

  17. There is at least one way to resolve the tension between these two positions. Men may naturally apprehend or hunger for God, but they do not invariably apprehend or hunger for God. Men naturally seek, secure, and enjoy food, but they do not invariably do so. The natural tendency to nourish themselves is suspended, for instance, in grave illness, and especially mortal illness. I can’t say whether a people begins to die when it forgets God, or forgets God when it begins to die, but atrophy and apostasy are certainly linked.

    The sad example of England should be a caution for Americans because Christianity was in England, as it is in America, tightly bound up with nationalism. We have our “city on a hill,” they aimed to “build Jerusalem in England’s green and pleasant land,” and both of us entertained the dangerous idea that our nation was a chosen people. When history shows us that we are not, we imagine that God broke a promise he never made.

  18. @JMSmith – a shrewd comment.

    There is a lot of mileage, I think, in the idea you express of England suffering from a spiritual sickness – with symptoms such as chosen sterility, anti-nativism, coercive altruism, anti-materialistic materialism etc.


    It certainly feels like a sick society, a psychotic society in a fragile state of advanced decadence and corruption such that the greatest of all sins is to resist the forces of nihilism and destruction (the most conclusive evidence of hateful prejudice is to defend oneself against the charge of h-p…).

    Only the lack of a determined and organized foe ready and willing to take-over has (so far) prevented collapse – yet that is ever-changing, may already have changed sufficiently perhaps.

    (Anti-materialistic materialism is paradoxically lamenting that we live in a society corrupted by luxury and materialism combined with advocating wholesale egalitarian redistribution of resources. In other words mainstream elite Leftism.)


    ‘English nationalism was, in fact, *British* Nationalism, and Britishness was bound-up with the Empire – and that was probably its fatal flaw.

    However, ‘nationalism’ is used over-inclusively nowadays on the Left (i.e. in all mainstream culture) to include patriotism and spontaneous nativism.

    English patriots or ‘nationalists’ were often strongly opposed to the British Empire – Tolkien was an example.


    I suspect that humans cannot function without patriotism/ and a default assumption in favour of natives – the alternative is not universalism but inverted patriotism and anti-nativism – i.e. in its modern version this is political correctness.

  19. […] had a courteous combox disagreement at Throne & Altar the other day with commenter The Man Who Was, over whether most liberals […]

  20. […] while back, I spent some time talking about the study purporting to show that conservatives are stupid.  Now my Throne and Altar […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: