From a free e-book published in 2006 [0] and still relevant these days, there's a certain weird chunk of the population that is, er, consistency-impaired. > [A

From a free e-book published in 2006 [0] and still relevant these days, there's a certain weird chunk of the population that is, er, consistency-impaired. > [Authoritarians] don’t seem to scan for self-consistency as much as most people do. Similarly they tended to agree with “A government should allow total freedom of expression, even it if threatens law and order” and “A government should only allow freedom of expression so long as it does not threaten law and order.” And “Parents should first of all be gentle and tender with their children,” and “Parents should first of all be firm and uncompromising with their children; spare the rod and spoil the child.” [...] > When your ideas live independent lives from one another it is pretty easy to use double standards in your judgments. You simply call up the idea that will justify (afterwards) what you’ve decided to do. > [When presented with two opposite versions of a hypothetical scuffle between protest groups] the sentences low [Right Wing Authoritarian scoring] subjects imposed on the gay Mr. Langley and the sentences other low RWAs imposed on the anti-gay Mr. Langley, you find no difference. Lows typically punish the crime, not the person. But among high RWAs, Mr. Langley’s beliefs make a large difference. The gay Mr. Langley always gets a stiffer jail term than the anti-gay Mr. Langley. [0] TheAuthoritarians.org