/lit/ - Literature

>>16096569
Utopianism leads to a whole lotta cope, no book needed

Are you really surprised that the most vulnerable people whose lives got ruined by capitalism abhor it?

COINTELPRO

>>16096592
Art thou illiterate?

Post to explain this OP

>>16096610
Sliding into absurdism, are we?

>>16096617
OP started it

>>16096569
Mark Fisher, capitalist realism and his other works. He suffered for depression a long time.

>>16096569
>self-position
Amerilards don't even know the difference between left-right and liberal-conservative. Their "self-position" assessment is worth precisely jack shit.

>>16096608
He’s right. What are you having trouble with?

>>16096569
>open up the source
>SSC SURVEY RESULTS 2020
lmao.

I don't understand that graph, could someone spill it out what is implied here?

>>16096569
What about monarchists? We aren't right, left, or center.

>>16096569
Rightwingers tend to externalize their mental distress. From claiming they just have a bad back to blaming Mexicans when they lose their job.

>>16096725
People who identify as far left are much more likely to have been diagnosed with a mental disorder than anyone else.

>>16096725
More self-declared lefties are diagnosed with mental illness.

>>16096736
That result is specific to the self-selected audience of a particular website.

>>16096569
I guess something to do with rural/urban divide in the US, since the graph is for the US.

>>16096725
It’s very vague. I guess it’s about the political spectrum and which side declares/claims certain disorders.
>>16096592 is right, but >>16096608 wants to discredit him

>>16096731
>we're all mentally ill so obviously you must be too which means your beliefs have to be an expression of mental illness even though we're the mentally ill ones
Holy cope

>>16096744
What website?

>>16096569
>>16096569
Leftists are more mentally aware and have a higher IQ so they will be recognized as having more "mental illness." The term of "mental illness" is just a cope to designate individuals who are more unique and have discernible talent to make them seem more deranged because they are out of the norm/don't accept the status quo. You will see that the right has less "mental illness" because they are dumb as bricks complacent ignorance is bliss types.

>>16096569
nothing surprising, but i insist that a lot of people in the middle only pretend to be progressive to appeal to the progressive group, that's why the figure is not much higher than that.

>>16096752
Not what he said.
You ever see a Trump rally? You ever see those anti-masker, anti-vacxers, flat-earthers?
Of course they don’t think they’re crazy

More IDpol.

>>16096771
>smort people get dewpressed
is there a more reddit way of thinking?

>>16096670
we all know what is implied when someone, asked this question, places themselves on the far left.

>>16096800
No, we don't. That's the problem.

>>16096776
Its cute how you think that not wanting to wear a mask is equivalent to materially measurable neurodivergent mental disorders. I'll say again, holy cope.

>>16096800
What about his post are you having trouble with?
Where do you place yourself?

>>16096789
This tbqh

>>16096569
>people who are mentally sick prefers policies which promise them equal rights as the neurotypicals.
really makes you think huh

>>16096813
Sounds like you got a few screws loose yourself.

People on the left are more likely to acknowledge and/or seek treatment for mental illness.

Maybe its because of a general tendency for right-wingers to blame marginalized people than take responsibility for problems that are largely their own fault i.e. "I'm not bipolar, its just all the femnazis that are making women hysterical and that's why I'm involuntarily celibate."

Maybe its anti-intellectualism manifesting itself as anti-psychiatry sentiment. Didn't some on the right in the US try to politicize PTSD as some sort of leftist hoax?

Maybe its right-wingers' tendency to turn to religious rather than medical authorities for mental health issues.

>>16096831
>im mentally ill so you are too!
Literally the only "argument" you have lmao

>>16096813
>I’ll say again.
No one knows who you are.
Again, have you seen them? Screeching and whaling and spitting at the camera. They think it’s all a hoax. I understand it’s not all of them, but you’re equating people like Jordan Petersons daughter as perfectly reasonable. She passed the virus to her dumb dad.

>>16096836
I never said I was mentally ill. You must have misunderstood my post.

>>16096835
nah, it's just that left wingers are overeducated but not smart, so they think that every change of mood implies a mental illness and their sensitivity leads to a lot of major reactions to insignificant stuff.

>>16096592
reminder lgbtq is a fruit of capitalism

>>16096870
Maybe, or maybe rightwingers exhibit the mental health equivalent of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

>>16096885
the greeks were homosexual, nigger

>>16096870
This may play a factor in some cases but not significantly to alter the tendencies the anon just pointed to.
Nah to your nah

>>16096885
The squashing together as a faux community, sure.

>>16096840
>no one knows who you are
You literally just replied to two of my posts you stupid nigger are you even reading them? Sure there are mentally ill people across the political spectrum, this is captured in the OPs study. Jordan Petersons daughter takes a slew of medications from screenshots I've seen posted here. But there is a clear baseline across the right and center which is only half the rate that is present at the far left end of the spectrum. Frankly this sits entirely in line with my anecdotal experiences of these freaks.

>>16096814
>Where do you place yourself?
I don't. I agree with the sentiment that the left-right spectrum is completely inadequate for containing the scope of anything that could be politically relevant.
But that survey isn't capturing people who have a problem with placing themselves on the left-right spectrum.
If I were questioned for that survey, I would first ask the researchers to define what they mean by left and right, and if they couldn't give me a satisfactory definition, I would decline to answer.
What's more, those who don't decline to answer are more likely to place themselves centre-left or centre-right to account for the nuance.
This has no bearing on the people who rated themselves as far left as possible. You don't do that if you have a problem with how the left-right spectrum is framed in modern political discourse. Anybody with half a brain knows that to rate yourself as far as far left can go implies a belief in at least some of the following:
-critical theory, intersectional theory
-progressive identity politics (implied by the aforementioned)
-radical feminism
-LGBT rights
(there may be some TERFs who consider themselves as far as far left can be, through a lack of self awareness and not realising that they have fallen from the graces of the left pole)
-anti-capitalism
-anti-monarchism
-anti-fascism
-Marxist philosophy of history, which asserts that all previous systems of social organisation are merely transient in a march of progress toward a utopian stateless society
-open borders (implied by the aforementioned)

I might have anti-capitalist leanings, and I honestly don't really care who people shag in the privacy of their own homes. But I realise that because I disagree with some of the other points above (particularly Marxist theory and progressive idpol), I can not in good faith consider myself "left of centre", never mind rate myself the furthest of the far left.
So that's what I mean when I say we all know what is implied when people rate themselves that far to the left. I don't think even boomers like JK Rowling would be so unaware of the political climate to do so.

>>16096835
try getting your information on the right beyond /pol/ you silly american

>>16096806
If you had any kind of interaction with the outside world you would have an idea of what people who self identify in these ways are like.

>>16096913
>there may be some TERFs who consider themselves as far as far left can be, through a lack of self awareness and not realising that they have fallen from the graces of the left pole
IdPol is radical liberalism, not leftism.

>>16096736
>>16096740
Thanks.

I thought the right-left thing was actually about directions in the graph rather than political positions, that's what I was missing.

Scott Alexander Siskind here. People answered the poll specifically to skew the results.

>>16096950
Class reductionism is liberalism. If you don't oppose white supremacy you're a fascist.

>>16096948
Sorry, you're just wrong. The mainstream media considers any anti-capitalist to be "far left", but considers identity politics to be centrist. Average people consider radical liberals to be "far left". Everyone has a different definition.

>>16096959
No, class reductionism is Marxism.

>>16096969
true

>>16096948
yeah basically this, that gets the point across a bit more concisely than my textwall

>>16096950
identity politics at their core are fundamentally illiberal. to suggest that people should be treated unequally under law on the basis of accidents of their birth (sex, gender, sexuality, race etc - class and religion aren't immutable parts of ones identity IMO), is fundamentally illiberal.
Progressive leftists calling for discrimination in law on the basis of race and sex, requiring a repeal of civil rights acts in order to enforce parity and equality of outcome, is illiberal.

>>16096959
>Class reductionism is liberalism.
What...?

>>16096569
Just having depression or anxiety is counted as mental illness and makes up most diagnoses. The schizos on /pol/ have thread after thread telling posters that getting therapy is jewish so they're undiagnosed. Religious people which lean onto the delusional side seldom recognize things like bipolar disorder as being the cause behind manic states.
In addition, women are more liberal, and women are generally more likely to see health providers, even though being male drives up morbidity for most mental illness except BPD.

>>16096909
>You literally just replied to two of my posts
No one knows that or cares. You wanna be anonymous or not?

>>16096913
>I agree with the sentiment that the left-right spectrum is completely inadequate
That’s nice
> So that's what I mean when I say we all know what is implied
We don’t. Your post implies this as much.

>>16096965
This study has nothing to do with the media and is entirely about self-identification. Nobidy cares about your little pet criticisms of media portrayl it has nothing to do with what's being discussed here. If you have a healthy socialization you've met plenty of people who self-identify across this spectrum and you have an idea of exactly what kind of people this study entails on all ends.

>>16096908
Just imagine
you come home from work, a rough day. you hang up your coat and in slinks butterfly, on all fours as she has been all day, caked on make up falling off in bits.
"anon, I need..."
she turns her wide rump to you, pointed up into your face. even clothed it reeks.
"I need..."
she's sweating, and clouds of red collect anywhere her pasty, fishlike skin can be seen. you already know what she needs.
"pls anon"
either she drops her pants or they fall on their own, knowing what must happen. begrudgingly you remove your cock, erect out of a sense of duty more than anything else.
chubby fingers spread the ponderous cheeks, a yellow tinged string of some fluid webs between them, coyly hiding your goal. like the mouth of a hungry baby bird, her anus beckons to you.
you insert your glans and she begins moaning-- not wholly in pleasure-- and you can feel kernels of corn and other detritus grazing your urethra.
faster. harder. can't let it escape. if you pull out now, you'll just have to start over.
you coax the brown beast as butterfly moans louder, squeezing her sagged breasts in vain. just a little more. fingers clenching ass cheeks. minute farts escaping around your shaft. she's muttering something now, but you're. almost.
pushed out by a tidal wave of warm, viscous diarrhea. dangling, stained cock a witness to the tsunami of what once was a family sized portion of El Pollo Loco and drinkable yogurt. she's cumming, rubbing her vagina angrily-- but this is no vaginal orgasm: it is a pleasurable relief centered in the bowels, the fresh snow after an avalanche.
shit continues to pour, now only liquid, from her quivering anus. she thanks you
"thank you anon" *fart* "oh, thank you so much"
still on hands and knees, she leaves the way she came, leaving shitty cursive all over the wood floor. you proceed to the sink. in the other room you can hear the unmistakable sounds of a keyboard clacking.

Bros, if i don't make 100k by 30, i'm 100% killing myself. I mean, why even live as a failure?

>>16096569
Leftism is associated with substantially higher neuroticism than Rightism. It's also associated with lower conscientiousness, higher openness to experience, lower disgust sensitivity, and higher IQ

>>16096988
>I cant actually addresd your post so ill just dodge by pretending I have been involved in a losing multi-chain argument
These are my posts
>>16096813
>>16096909
>>16096752

You replied to each one in a successive chain here
>>16096776
>>16096840
>>16096988

You truly are a slippery nigger

>>16096958
Exactly.
The schizophrenic posters of lit would never identify as such

I always remember Deleuze saying the difference between left and right is how they would announce their address.

The left would say: earth > this continent > this country > this city > this neighborhood > this street > and that's my house.

The right would say: this is my house > it's in this street > this neighborhood > this city > this country > this continent > earth

Of course it's a metaphor, but it means the right is about "me first, if I have it spare I may help the next guy out". The left is about "we are in this together, only then we can think of our individuality".

I think the left is more inclined to blame themselves for problems that are practical, political, collective and much beyond themselves. They take it all in and have a tendency to think "what can I do to fix the world?", so it weights on their mental health way more, it doesn't matter how much of it is imagined or not. On the other side, the right tends to blame others for the problems "I'm just doing my thing, you guys are messing up", so they have a tendency to deny their part of it, it weights less on their consciousness. This means it is more likely for them to either deny or not realize they have mental issues.

I don't think either side is more or less depressed, just that the left will more easily accept it or explain it like so (whether true or false), whereas the left is more inclined to deny it or explain it some other way (whether it is the case or not).

>>16096977
Radical liberalism is not just "extra liberalism". It's its own bastardization. Its adherents go beyond mere tolerance of norm-breaking and actually lionize deviance for its own sake, berating anyone who refuses to worship at their upside-down altar.

>>16096992
You are delusional. What "far left" means varies wildly by country, generation, and culture. I'm sure it's a very tidy classification among your zoomer friends in Shitsburg, Ohio. But you can't generalize from that narrow experience.

>>16097050
But rather than going beyond liberalism, that political direction erodes liberal principles. It makes absolutely no sense to call it liberal in any way. Even if we ignore the fact that it treats people unequally in law, it still stands that in the march of progress, the left no longer appeals to notions of freedoms and liberties as it used to (ie for the repeal of legislation that criminalised homosexuality, the repealing of which was textbook liberalism). now, the left makes direct appeals to authority and considers it necessary for progress to restrict peoples' freedoms and rights (eg legislating against freedom of speech, legislating against the right to bear arms).
every way you look at it, it is illiberal. it does not go beyond anything in liberalism, it goes beyond in terms of progress at the expense of liberalism.

>>16097050
also your handy little chart is a pile of bull

>>16097084
It's only "liberal" in the everyday sense of the word, not in the sense of classical liberalism.

>>16097103
What does it not get right?

>>16096835
>Maybe its right-wingers' tendency to turn to religious rather than medical authorities for mental health issues.
So in reality half of both left and right are mentally ill?

>>16097069
>you couldn't possibly have met a politically diverse range of people from across the country now shut up and listen to me bitch about the media calling me a centrist!
>t neet

>>16097163
Get a grip, Amerilard.

>>16097175
>noooo you cant focus in on Americans when talking about a study by an American on an American blog with a predominantly american readership!
Ah got it so you're just retarded

>>16097112
>What does it not get right?
Addressing the top header or x axis first, which misrepresents liberalism.
It first rests on the premise that there is a traditional normative upon the basis of which there can be an other. The only bases for such a premise is historical, therefore one must be open to accept that the definition of the normative can change over time, and that today's "other", today's "deviants" could become tomorrow's normative, and vice versa.
What this means is that somebody maintaining the same political position over time, without ever altering it, could slip from being celebratory of the other (that subsequently becomes the normative), to being condemnatory of the other (that once was the normative).
This definition of "liberalism" still maintains a dichotomy and a principle of "othering" that is illiberal.
In contrast, actual liberalism's celebration of the "other" is not through a juxtaposition with the normative, but with its inclusion in the normative and the dissolution of any differences between other and normative. Such liberalism in principle would not change with time.
The chart's definition only makes sense if you belief in a linear philosophy of history, and thus is more rightly called progressivism than liberalism.

Addressing the side header or y axis, it is a purely marxist and materialist reduction of the right to presume that all ordering principles of hierarchical power are one and the same. within the right, capitalism proper refers to a purely quantitative and material ordering principle, and one that proponents of spiritual authority find perhaps more abhorrent than socialists do - after all, capitalists and socialists are both concerned with mere material distribution to the complete detriment of any qualitative ordering principle. as such, a lot of (but not all of) the people that you would (no doubt) place in the Alt-rightist box (in between capitalism and socialism) fundamentally reject being placed in the middle of an axis which they feel not to even be on.

>>16097103
Wow are you mad

>>16097115
I think that there is strong evidence to suggest that those with mental illnesses are at least underrepresented on the right and more accurately represented in the left This is due to the ideologies of both the left and right that these levels of representation occur. Whether or not levels of mental illness are equal I can't say for sure.

>>16097315
not an argument

>>16097213
>Addressing the top header or x axis first
The "traditional cultural norms" are subject to change, of course. But by virtue of being "traditional", any change would happen very slowly. For example, homosexual marriage is an example of something that is not traditional now and will never become traditional even a hundred years from now. A hundred years is not a long time when it comes to traditions, which span millennia and indeed often grow out of built-in biological instincts.

>This definition of "liberalism" still maintains a dichotomy and a principle of "othering" that is illiberal.
The classical liberalism you espouse depends on the existence of "the other". If there is no individual deviation from traditional norms, there is no need for classical liberalism in the first place. Everyone is the same, so tolerance of differences does not even arise.

>The chart's definition only makes sense if you belief in a linear philosophy of history
I don't see how. The chart appears to take no view at all on "philosophy of history" (which strikes me as a pseudoscience to begin with).

>Addressing the side header or y axis
Yes, it is a purely material classification. Yes, there are hierarchies that involve aspects of life other than material resources and enthno-cultural identities and practices. Spirituality, for example. But the chart is confined to political differences, and political regimes cannot impose spiritual demands on its citizenry. Only divine beings can do that. All the government can do is establish laws that determine the allocation of material resources and punishments for various 'crimes'. So it's not so much material reductionism tout court as it is material reductionism with respect to government action.

>Alt-rightist box (in between capitalism and socialism) fundamentally reject being placed in the middle of an axis which they feel not to even be on.
That's what the chart says, though. It says the Alt-Right neither condemns nor celebrates capitalism. Their focus, rather, is on ethnic and cultural issues, taking a strongly traditional stance.

>>16096569
Socialists are mentally ill. I like to think it's because their worldview has zero room for personal agency. It probably both creates and attracts the saddest fucks who don't know how to life. Socdems and liberals tend to be younger and therefore more suicidal.

>>16097471
>I like to think it's because their worldview has zero room for personal agency.
You have no idea what socialism is.

>>16096592
Ahaha

>>16097471
Very very based and still very unrefuted

>>16097471
>Socdems and liberals tend to be younger and therefore more suicidal
or maybe these groups are younger because they are more suicidal

>>16097432
>The "traditional cultural norms" are subject to change, of course. But by virtue of being "traditional", any change would happen very slowly. For example, homosexual marriage is an example of something that is not traditional now and will never become traditional even a hundred years from now. A hundred years is not a long time when it comes to traditions, which span millennia and indeed often grow out of built-in biological instincts.
This is arbitrary pedantry.

>The classical liberalism you espouse depends on the existence of "the other". If there is no individual deviation from traditional norms, there is no need for classical liberalism in the first place. Everyone is the same, so tolerance of differences does not even arise.
The existence of an othering in a prior social order does not negate the aim of liberalism to dissolve the difference between norm and other. Liberalism justifies itself by the fact that there have existed traditional orders where there was a norm and an other, and makes it its mission to change that social order into one in which there is no such distinction.

>I don't see how. The chart appears to take no view at all on "philosophy of history" (which strikes me as a pseudoscience to begin with).
The chart directly refers to deviance from "traditional cultural norms". There are only two ways to interpret this - one is to ignore history and speak only of cultural norms at a given moment, or one is to explicitly view those norms in their historical context. Given our disagreement is on the former, the chart necessarily takes a position on the latter, that is it implicitly considers history.

>But the chart is confined to political differences, and political regimes cannot impose spiritual demands on its citizenry. Only divine beings can do that. All the government can do is establish laws that determine the allocation of material resources and punishments for various 'crimes'. So it's not so much material reductionism tout court as it is material reductionism with respect to government action.
While nobody can enforce spirituality on another person, laws derived from spiritual authority can have material consequence. I can accept that the chart limits itself to the material, but it goes without saying that those who consider quality more important than quantity will take issue with the terminology (capitalism) being used to describe anything adjacent to their beliefs.

>That's what the chart says, though. It says the Alt-Right neither condemns nor celebrates capitalism. Their focus, rather, is on ethnic and cultural issues, taking a strongly traditional stance.
I guess. I don't really think there's any use in us arguing over the nuances of that particular axis of the chart any more.

No books needed. Oppression Olympians, aka the far left, will claim to have all sorts of disorders they don't.

Tldr, the left lies. Always.

>>16097432
I feel I didn't explain myself clearly enough in the last reply.
Liberalism as a movement of course acknowledges a history of discrimination between a normative and another, but the law this movement seeks to enshrine does not need to concern itself with any historical actuality of there being an other or a difference, the law merely needs to state that - regardless of the prior or current circumstances of its judicial domain - that there ought not be any legal discrimination between a "normative" and an "other" - or any legal discrimination at all. Liberal law ignores whatever socially or legally stipulated differences there may have been, and denies any substance to those differences.
Of course one of the problems with such simply stated liberalism is that it doesn't redress actual inequality of opportunity as a consequence of a prior social order, which has led to criticism of it by progressives.
I do not think it falls outwith the remit of liberal law to make general statements along the lines of "should it be observed that one ethnic group is particularly disadvantaged, the legislature should seek to amend this discrepancy".
Most of our law in the west is in fact, written in such a neutral manner. The issue is that it is not neutrally enforced, because the judiciary has been influenced by a social discourse which speaks of disparity and disadvantage unilaterally and focus only on the disadvantage of non-whites versus whites, women versus men, Muslims versus Christians etc. In such a world view, it is not considered that there may be a time when whites could be more disadvantaged than non-whites, men more disadvantaged than women etc. Nor is there an acknowledgement that whilst at a given time, men may enjoy net privileges compared to women, that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't any domains in which women are more privileged than men.
The static view that the privileged normative are always straight white men, and the oppressed other are always LGBT black women, and the enforcement on law based upon this belief, is identity politics and is illiberal.

>>16096592
unbelievably based. leave this shit site before it's too late

>>16096592
>>16096771
>>16096835
>>16096987
>>16097033


I just love all these excuses, people, lets face it, mental illness is just bad, it doesnt matter if its caused by capitalism, higher intelligence, higher neuroticism, individualism, self-diagnosis, etc

Leftism have more mental ilness, therefor they are simply the problem, our society can not afford to have large groups of mentally ill or mentally deficient.

The causes be damned, because clearly whatever the cause, there are some people who do not get mentally ill, those people are simply better and healthier, better adapted to their environment, stronger, etc.

>>16097686
Hahah. There’s no advantage to it.

>>16096569
That's easy to explain. The right-leaning people are older, and the older generation is hoarding all the wealth, leaving the youngsters to suffer.

>>16097807
>reddit spacing
Back to r/thedonald, boomer.

>>16097476
>be marxist
>deny that social progress happens through enlightened discourse
>insist that it happens because of material conditions beyond our control
Whence cometh personal agency?

>>16097808
Please refer to the posts here >>16097025 before you decide to move further in the thread lest we walk down already trodden roads.

>>16097807
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200803092125.htm
Article related is (You)

>>16096569
If my retard-math is correct, that means on average 24% of burgers are formally depressed or psychotic?

>>16096776
I wonder what mental illness you think you have?
Bipolar?

>all these butterfly responses
kek, she's truly rattled by this. You just know some part of her had a realization that she's fucking retarded while looking at this graph and we're witness to her breakdown

>>16098622
implying it's not a tripcode we all pass around to take turns dunking on rightoids

>>16098615
I don’t think I have any.
Believed in a god in my youth, but not very schizo now.
Love history and other non-fiction, but love fiction so much I’ve always wanted to be a filmmaker. I am a shy person, but I pass those online tests for autism. I don’t seem to be one.
I am eating all the chemically treated foods you are, but I don’t think my mother did (early 70s) so I’m likely not as damaged as your generation.
I’m addicted to caffeine, but that’s mild in comparison to the lazy addiction to the internet.
Pretty normal

>>16098622
It’s me trying to have a conversation.
>>16098627
Not this secure one.

>>16098627
>implying it's not a tripcode we all pass around to take turns dunking on rightoids

>>16096569
Unironically Ride the Tiger by /our/ boy

>>16096787
>We should go back to the castes system

>>16098681
yeah, it gets you guys mad alright

>>16096592
they're the biggest consumers of capitalist output ever, and their hedonistic faggot nefflix porn lifestyle leads to depression.

>>16098975
trannies are mentally ill

>>16099005
The telltale sign of an angry 4chan rightoid: he reaches into the grab bag of identities he hates, hoping, by sheer dumb luck (the only kind he ever has), to land on one that actually fits his abuser. The idea that a straight white man is pwning him online is just unfathomable.

>>16098963
Said no one.
We materialists would rather treat the schizophrenic to heal their minds. Delicate work not for this age, certainly.

>>16099016
I'm literally gay

>>16097807
>Mental illness is simply the problem
>Leftists have more mental illness therefore they are simply the problem
You can't complicate something then say "simply". If you're saying mental illness is the problem, then other second-degree factors aren't the problem, they're just related to it

>>16098539
Personal agency doesn't cause social change buckaroo, which is why you haven't caused any social change

>>16099045
Lol, God coming through with the follow-up pwnage.

>>16096569
It says "diagnosed". Conservatives are skeptical of mental health, so their pathologies remain undiagnosed and untreated

>>16099234
I guess that means attempts to organize around things like class solidarity are ultimately fruitless. Personal agency can't change society, so there's no point in grass roots activism. Guess you just gotta wait for dem capitalistic contradictions to happen so people respond like mindless automatons.

This is why socialists are depressed. :^) Pull yourself by your bootstraps bucko.

>>16096592
The only way to develop a mental illness is poor genetics and malnutrition

>>16099249
>It says "diagnosed". Conservatives are skeptical of mental health, so their pathologies remain undiagnosed and untreated
Teracope.

>>16099276
Gibberish post

>>16099309
Sorry that your socialist induced depression obscures the point that society is ultimately made up of individuals. Depression and anxiety can actually lead to some loss in IQ points. It shrinks the brain. Consider seeing a therapist to fix your socialism.

People that have trouble in society tend to look for answers as to why the problem exists. The right either has religion or wealth to cope

How do they define right and left?

>people less likely to succeed under capitalism dont like it
not a mystery

>>16096569
This book.

>>16100647
And this.

>>16096569
>>16096569
picking yourself up by your bootstrap is an overarching theme common among many right-leaning individuals (that are SCC readers). underlying this is the belief that you are an autonomous agent capable of making decisions (and taking responsibility for those decisions).
you have a shitty life? put in the work to make it better.
not making enough money? dial a few more phones to make some more sales.
and it goes on and on.
but youre only going to be willing to believe X thing in the future is worth sacrifice Y now if you think life is worth living (or at the very least, worth living for now-ish).
the flip side is also the willingness to acknowledge your own shortcomings and admit your own failures. knowing fuck up X was due to my poor decision Y also builds resilience. it means pointing the finger at yourself. it means "hey, if the problem stems from me, at least theres something i can do about it" versus "woe is me, the universe is conspiring against me, and what really can little me do."

>>16100380
Poor people are usually too stupid or too busy to become political extremists, if you self-identify as anything other than apolitical or "whatever seems to benefit me at the moment" you aren't an actual dreg of society. Commies have been aware of this for like a hundred years with their intellectual vanguardism shit. Intellectuals are middle to upper middle class, political extremism and the accompanying moral histrionics are fundamentally bourgeois

Far lefties need to be a victim. What is easier than having a mental condition.
Seems quite easy to explain.
We dont know if the same size for the left and right were equal. They could have chosen more self-identifying leftists for this study.

>>16098627
Why would you tripfag and brigade on 4chan? You're trying to use this site like reddit or twitter. Just go back there. This site's contrarianism makes shiling socially normative opinions pointless anyways