It's really true.

The world would be better if a bunch of people could just admit they are into mental BDSM and they are subs

Eh, I don't think that is universally true.

There was an article about one of those "tradwife" influencers who got a divorce recently after realizing that she hated the very idea, but only after she was engulfed in the life.

Sort of? This is giving way to much logic to an emotional situation. The reason fanboys choose Musk isn't because he has leadership or patriarchal qualities, he just has money which they think is the same thing as being smart. They can project themselves on to him and experience his wealth or veneer of expertise vicariously through a fantasy.

This still is the relationship men have with patriarchs. It's just obfuscated by the fact that Piss-odor guy isn't competent in the ways associated with rulership

Stamp on my brain, master

That's what the AI is for.

I'll say that most people that like billionaires is only because they fantasize into becoming one by winning a lotto prize or by hustling. The same way I fantasize I'm a wizard, but I don't expect any magical intervention to turn me into one.
I just need to first find that talking toad.

Can Claude wear stilettos?

Religion, narcissistic family members, social media algorithms, sandwich shops... all tuned to churn out subs.

Techno Fuedalism, yo!

Musk fanboys aren’t the only ones who love hierarchy. Just about everyone will agree with the phrase “someone needs to be in charge” regardless of politics.

What's under that though? Is it another belief? Such as; some jobs are so horrible people must be forced into them? Or perhaps; life being told what to do is easier than having to decide? Or simply; I'd prefer to be cog in a great machine? Part of a team?

Or maybe just, some jobs bad and good, only a few people are suited for them? Is it false meritocracy to hide the shame of having accepted plutocracy? Or perhaps an earnest acceptance of the game of Capital. Acceptance that ones own position must be due to ones own mistakes, and ergo, a superiors is due to their good choices? That kind of justice?

What is it, and can we change their underlying belief?

We all have our heroes that we look up to. We all think that the other's heroes are stupid and bad and our heroes are geniuses and good.

We all get disappointed with our heroes and inevitably find out that they were stupid and bad, too. So, we stop reading, and take a nap from noon to two a.m. Then we all get up and we are all sad

Nobody inherently believes anything. They observe the world as they grow up, they listen to the things their parents and friends say, they listen to music and the media. We all are influenced by the environment around us and then we have the balls to say "I'm an independent thinker".

I think listening to whatever someone tells you they believe is a waste of time. They don't hold fast to principles. It's some combination of regurgitating the environment back and reinforcing pleasurable experiences and removing painful experiences.

No kink shaming the subbies.

I think your interpretation is still too cerebral. People don't follow money because it's money. Money has become essential to our individual survival, so success with money is essentially conquering the threats to individual survival, and I think that is why people revere him and other billionaires.

At the end of the day, we're all shit scared of our own end, and we've been tricked into believing that money is our way out of that inevitability. Money is God, so those with lots of money are closer to God, if not a god themselves.

As I heard someone else say recently, everything with conservatives is either team sports or cuck porn and it really seems that's true.

20% of people are wired this way and will seek hierarchy no matter what. Those 20% convince the morons to vote with them. That's where we're at.

Maybe is we glaze the rich enough, they'll give some of their wealth to us.

I saw an interview with a lady comparing Trump to megachurch preacher and it made perfect sense. You have these people giving their last dollars to a guy living in a mansion and flying in a private jet because that's what god wants. They are conditioned since childhood to just accept that some people are there to exploit them and their purpose is to be exploited by them. Having leader like Trump makes perfect sense to them. It's just conservative brain doing its usual thing.

Conservatives are naturally a servile people. They desire to be ruled. They want a daddy.

I'm only okay with one of those.

(Also you forgot shipyards, BTW.)

These heirarchies caused or exaserbated just about every major tragedy in history - war, genocide, slavery, rape, empire, colonialism, capitalism, etc.

But depending on how you look at it, 25-40% of humans just like heirarchies and want them, despite the misery they cause for both the empowered and disempowered.

That's a huge problem - fascism will likely always have a base of supporters to come back from no matter how many times we defeat it, and you just can't imprison/disenfranchise/exile that high a % of people for a wide variety of obvious reasons.

I fear this is a "this is who we are as an organism" problem that will follow our species wherever we go.

Every time I've had an honest, constructive conversation with a conservative, I've found the root of their beliefs is fear, whether they are conscious of it or not.

This makes me realize that if you have a feudalism, master-slave kind of dynamic thing that you want for your life, feel free. I'm not one to judge.

Just don't bring me into your weird little fucking kink.

Let me make my own fucking choices.

Yeah, they want a pyramid shape to the world.

They want a single big daddy on top of them, and then an enormous pile of other people below them to be a big daddy to.

As long as they are not at the bottom of the pile, they're happy.

I'm not even so sure about the second part. Plenty of them seem happy to be perpetual bottoms.

Definitely.

It seems that populism/fascism is 'ingrained' in our simple minds. But that begs the question, why do some of us reject it? Random chance, empathy, or education?

Saving this to post every time someone comments with that stupid theory.

See also: British people who are weirdly pro-monarchy.

They need other races to be below them

But depending on how you look at it, 25-40% of humans just like heirarchies and want them, despite the misery they cause for both the empowered and disempowered.

Get them into kink.

Seriously though, you can have consensual hierarchical structures that provide an outlet for those desires to the degree that they are innate. Is the desire to force everyone in the world to be a part of your hierarchy really part of that innate desire? Or is it more that some people feel more comfortable when they have a clearly defined status?

And it doesn't have to be confined to kink, for example, in a community for a competitive sport or game, there can be a bit of an implicit social hierarchy based on skill.

Those kinds of hierarchies are a lot closer to the hierarchies that humans evolved with, applying to an immediate social group, within "Dunbar's number." There was never a long period of time (from an evolutionary standpoint) where state-wide or globe-spanning hierarchies were selected for, so it doesn't really make sense that those would be innate and unavoidable desires.

Personality difference.

theauthoritarians.org

Found Richard Dawkins's account

Same reasons cults work. They want someone else doing the thinking and leading for them, and surrender responsibility and blame to someone else. It's never their own fault, so they want a system where they don't have to be responsible or feel at fault.

I wonder how many people think that their place in society would be a lot lower if it was based on competition, so it is better to preserve the system that keeps them where they are at.

What I don't understand is why is it the stupidest people getting put on that pedestal.

Yep, but uh, it's not just conservatives. There are lots from all sorts that want someone else to make the decisions, for both good and ill

The thing is, tree structures are very good ways to scale interconnected systems. Ask any computer scientist or computer networker about it.

This applies to societal systems as well. A bronze age society that has a feudal structure can manage a much larger area than a flat society. Armies can be coordinated that would be an ineffective mob otherwise.

That doesn't make hierarchies nice for the people living in them, any more than the industrial revolution was actually nice for the people living through it. But they are an enabling technology, and societies that did not have hierarchy were eventually overwhelmed until almost every living human is living that way.

Because I was taught as an American that I should be a rugged individual, which is incompatible with fascism. I also do not really enjoy much sports so this tribalism blah blah just doesn't do it for me. I also don't much like circuses and spectacles; fairs, to me, are just meh.

And I could probably ignore it when it's benevolent, but it's often malicious like germ warfare.

I don't think it's ingrained and then rejected, i think it's present in some % of humans because heirarchic organisation is useful in limited, temporary contexts.

Pirate ships were feircely egalitarian until a target was sighted, then the captain is a dictator until the loot was secure. Some hunter-gatherers had a season of authoritarianism (say, hunting season) in between seasons of different social organisation.

So like how sickle cell anemia is debilitating but grants near immunity to malaria, heirarchophilia has just enough limited benefits that it remains as a variant within the population.

Or that's how i think about it.

Stupid people like other stupid people

Well, there are people that believe their position would be higher if the 'others' wouldn't have taken that spot.

And women

"Rugged individualism" is also incompatible with hierarchies but these people aren't thinking that far into it. It's just a myth that makes it your fault when society fails.

Conservatives do tend to have larger amygdala

https://neurosciencenews.com/brain-structure-political-ideology-27703/

Because you have to be intelligent to admit you don't know something.

This is why conservatives should be sent to reeducation camps

For sure it's more effective with entreched heirarchies, bit i think it's possible to use that organisational structure without it metastisizing into a perminant heirarchy. Anarchist federations do this, sortition is useful, turn-taking etc.

societies that did not have hierarchy

I don't believe such a thing ever existed. Other mammals display heirarchies so it was probably present in a distant ancestor, predating humans and our societies.

It's the nature, duration and intensity of heirarchy that has changed so remarkably in the last 15k odd years.

Stupid and confident is a dangerous combination. Add arrogant, charismatic or attractive, and you get weaponised incompetence.

Weak people love confidence and will tolerate arrogance. Once a confident person starts observing those around them agreeing, following, defending them, they start to believe their own bullshit, and they learn through reward feedback that if they do anything with confidence and arrogance, even when they are wrong, weaker people will agree with them.