Mark Sumner on Daily Kos presents one of the weirder theories for, ah, current Republicans:
As in other mammals, the effects of infection by [Toxoplasma] gondii are very different between males and females. But here’s what happens to men infected by this tiny, single-celled organism:
… the personality of infected men showed lower superego strength and higher vigilance. Thus, the men were more likely to disregard rules and were more expedient, suspicious, jealous, and dogmatic.
Suspicious. Jealous. Quicker to make an immediate judgment. Less willing to listen to others. Guys who were ready to break the rules if it helped them personally. Sound familiar? Other factors, such as self-control and even “clothes tidiness” were found to be decreased by infection. Here’s another one: Infected men scored significantly lower than uninfected men when it came to establishing relationships with women.
It is very hard not to draw a line between these results and guys like Nick Fuentes screaming about “replacement theory” and fretting over declining sperm counts while claiming that relationships between men and women “are gay.”
I suppose it’s comforting, in a way, to think ideological opponents are being driven around the bend by an infection, all zombie-like. It may even be true.
But, considering this from the non-conventional point of view, could this be simply a way to avoid understanding your adversaries’ positions and reasons? To not acknowledge good points that might fatally damage your own religiously held ideological tenets?
Sure, Fuentes is freaking nuts. But not all Republicans are as nutty as he, and some may have valid points that should be addressed. Is this a way to avoid allowing any validity to your opponents?
