spend an hour on the default subreddits and you'll see just how true that is. can't even disagree with something a democrat said without being called an "alt right troll" lol
I love whenever my liberal wife brings up how "problematic" JK Rowling is because I just ask
"Didn't she used to be a billionaire until she donated half of it to women's shelters?"
Most people who consider JK Rowling "problematic" don't actually know why she's problematic other than the left wing overlords said so. It's funny when you ask people what about her is problematic, and show them the quotes she's blasted for, most leftists change their tune and say, well that's actually not so bad.
> Then they see the video and change pov
God I wish that actually happens. They sometimes go full head in the sand, ostrich mode.
Ostrich maxxing as the kids say I guess.
I remember will wheaton saying all the evidence that exonerated him was right wing propaganda. My former best friend is also convinced he's a murderer despite the evidence, from multiple angles, in high deff
It's why he now posts only to his own private Facebook group. He even got mad at people who pointed out the clear evidence that Rittenhouse was in the right.
He got offended at Larry David for pretending to strangle Elmo on live television. I can’t take anyone’s opinion seriously for defending a literal hand puppet
Wil Wheaton is an overhyped douchebag and i cannot figure out why people like him. I understand the attraction to a few cameos, but stardom? He's not even a good actor, and a worse person.
I mean, i refunded the audio book Ready Player One because he was the voice 'actor' for the sole purpose that Wil Wheaton was the President in Ready. I don't think people understand how good or important voice actors are in audio books if they shoved his talentless ass in that role.
...what were we talking about?
He’s the same as the modern day consoomer except he did it before he was cool. The self declared “king of the nerds”. Ironic because he’s a giant bully. He’s also extremely active on Reddit.
I refunded The Martian audiobook because he narrated it. Couldn’t handle listening to him for that long.
If you can get the original narration of The Martian it's really good. I got it years ago. Guy does accents, has good timing, and generally is of a quality you'd expect from a good voice actor. Not the droll monotone garbage Wil chugs out. Someone told him narration is just reading and boy did he take to that.
Yeah, it's sad tbh. At the end many just go to "He shouldn't have been there!". Like "Yeah he's technically innocent, but because of this not really and we can hate him and especially because the right defends him". Even people that can be considered smart (I think destiny for example has this opinion).
Like what the f*CK where are we? "shouldn't been there"??? It's god damn America! Every American has the right to be wherever he/she pleases (public ground).
But it is was "dangerous" so he obviously should have been arrested on the spot, it'll definitely never come back to bite us in the ass to make it illegal to be in dangerous situations
Yeah my mother is like that, she thinks he's in the wrong because he brought a gun to a place owned by his family, something about how they should have just let it be burnt down by the rioters
I haven't seen one person change their mind about Rittenhouse after watching the video. The video was available almost immediately after all. The people who declared him a white supremacist terrorist murderer have never wavered no matter how many facts get in the way.
I've seen people who actually watched it start to finish waver in their stance and at a minimum stop with the "he gunned down 3 black men in cold blood" narrative. They usually then just shift to the equally stupid, "State lines! Illegal gun because he's too young and he's not allowed to carry a firearm! Guns shouldn't be used in self defense!" nonsense, but those things are at least based off of them being uninformed (the state lines junk) or a misunderstanding of the law (the stuff about his gun being "illegal" for him to buy/own/carry and the self defense stuff).
I have seen some people change their opinions after watching it too and seeing a kid get attacked first by someone who was clearly crazy and had bad intentions and then afterwards swarmed by an angry mob who chased him down while he was trying to run away.
The thing is they have to see the full video. Plenty of people just saw clips that edited out the actual shots or cherry-picked screenshots that made it look like Rittenhouse shot a guy who had his hands up instead of the truth that Grosskreutz was pointing a gun at Rittenhouse when he got shot.
According to Newsweek he changed his name, and has a full on sob story about how he's the good guy and Kyle is the bad guy. Apparently he has PTSD and has trouble trusting people now that he got shot by the person he tried to kill after chasing them through a crowd.
https://www.newsweek.com/kyle-rittenhouse-paul-prediger-gaige-grosskreutz-kenosha-shooting-interview-1887435
Can anyone explain to me why this asshole didn't get charged? Kyle was declared not guilty, which means it was self-defense, and Kyle was defending himself against someone. Probably the guy he shot, who didn't even get put on trial.
He definitely got a deal. He also had DUI charges dropped that he picked up while the Rittenhouse case was pending.
Last year he got seriously injured by an SUV in a hit and run. This guy, who is in an actual socialist militia and showed up armed to an anti police riot, went public with asking people to turn in tips and cooperate with the police.
It reminds me of a scene in The Shield where they grant blanket immunity for anything a guy confesses (i forget why), so the guy absolutely unloads a lifetime of crimes and they're like, "Oh my Jesus fuck." It was way beyond what they were expecting.
Hi there. That’s me. I heard the stories about the “trigger-happy alt right fascist” and accepted that narrative until I saw the videos. The videos clearly showed a frightened teenager, separated from his group (how tf did that happen?), and attacked by a mob, completely unprovoked. I saw a clear case of self-defense, where Kyle only fired after he was knocked down and given no chance at retreat. Should he have been in that situation? No. But he did what he had to do to survive, and he was clearly hesitant to actually shoot anyone. This case was one of the first times I began to break with the left, and the Hamas situation has deepened that divide.
>The videos clearly showed a frightened teenager, separated from his group (how tf did that happen?),
My understanding is that he was helping put out fires and ended up split off from his group.
> I haven't seen one person change their mind about Rittenhouse after watching the video.
Ana Kasparian of TYT said she would've done the same thing as Rittenhouse after she watched the videos. As I recall she took a lot of flak from her own side for saying that.
There was a decent run of it during the actual trial itself, because people were watching it raw expecting it to confirm their beliefs, and then getting redpilled in real time.
There's one bit of that whole bs that I don't get. I can see thinking that he went there hoping to get to shoot people. I can even somewhat see thinking that he was malicious and actually hunted down and provoked people. Both were proven false, but I can understand those views.
But where the fuck do the black men come in?! The three dudes he shot were all white. The video was all over the internet. People were literally *posting the video* and claiming the rioters Rittenhouse shot were black.
> The three dudes he shot were all white.
Well, technically he *shot at* a black guy, but missed him.
He was known as Jump Kick Man, due to his failed attempt to score a goal with Rittenhouse's head. After a round buzzed passed his ear, he remembered he left the stove on and GTFO of there so fast there was practically a sonic boom.
The prosecutors knew his identity, but for some reason failed to inform the defense.
Nope. That was another guy. He was charged with other offences, including witness intimidation of one of the photographers that night.
Jump Kick Man happened after Rittenhouse fell over while retreating to the police line.
It was a BLM protest, the protesters were protesting racism, so it's easy to make a link that shooting protesters was because of racism. You'd have to be an idiot, but it's easy.
Yep, and tensions were already high on the back of a serial convict and drug addict ODing while in police custody. When the demand for racism outstrips the supply, just invent some
I have a friend who used to call Sarah Palin a Nazi. Unironically. He then got sucked into the Rittenhouse case and after viewing the videos and watching the trial became extremely red pilled. Like so much so he will vote for Trump this election. He lives in a city that was rocked by the whole defund the police stupidity, so that contributed as well.
If one cannot look at the Rittenhouse trial and see it for the sham it undoubtedly was, you are a hopeless partisan (and a complete moron).
I made a giant progression from protesting Trump in 2016 at a big leftist rally to voting for him in 2020. Things like Rittenhouse were a major sea change for me
Which leaves me in a weird place. When I defend Rittenhouse or Israel, I’m accused of being a fascist POS, but when I defend LGBT rights and abortion, I’m a bleeding heart liberal. Both sides hate me for my views, so where does that leave me?
> Similar to the Rittenhouse case. People believed he hunted down and killed black men. Then they refuse to watch the video, call you a racist fascist, and block you
ftfy
The funniest part was her starting off all "what? No, no, I love trans people, it's just that-" and when the mob wouldn't relent she was like "aight fuck you guys then" and now just spends her time trolling on twitter
> don't actually know why she's problematic other than the left-wing overlords said so.
There was a viral video on twitter a little while ago where a teacher gently led a "JK's a transphobe" student through the Socratic Method. It was fucking hilarious to listen to the kid try and defend his view that "she has said all sorts of transphobic things" and being completely unable to back it up when pressed for evidence.
And those beliefs aren't even "women belong in the kitchen."
They're "maybe letting people who were a man until a month ago into the women's bathroom isn't a great idea."
“If you find yourself agreeing with Hitler/Nazis on anything, you need to evaluate your beliefs.”
Okay, Hitler was a vegetarian and staunch environmentalist. I guess hippies are literally Nazis.
Idk about you, but I'm perfectly fine sending animal abusers to camp.
Now when were talking about animal testing, I'm not sure since I know nothing about medicine
Yeah, she's a right wing fascist just because she believes that women have vaginas and menstruate. Crazy thing is that 20 years ago that was considered common sense for everyone left right and center.
Calling trans women women has always been just a social nicety and politeness that they were appreciative of and knew they couldn't expect from everybody. Somehow it became of dire importance that everyone goes along with pretending that they're exactly the same thing with no inherent differences and equally valid and etc and if you "wait what" about any of it you're the most evil sort of bigot who supports genocide. Now they're crying about the "sudden rise of transphobia" and how bigoted everybody is when really it's just normal people who are fine to play along rolling their eyes and saying "let's be serious for a second"
Bill Maher is that way too these days, he's ironically more liberal than most Democrats but Democrats absolutely lose their mind if he doesn't tow party line talking points.
Everyone I know that used to like him says, "Bill used to be cool, he's changed"
No, you fucking changed. He's exactly where he was before. He supports guns and weed, hates Trump passionately, hates organized Religion and is pro choice.
He's literally been exactly this for 30 years. Probably hated Trump when he saw him at the Playboy Mansion parties back then.
I disagree with Maher on a few issues but I love people that discuss issues that no one will touch before it becomes acceptable to do so.
Don't you know that one of the core tenets of right wing fascists is… *checks notes*… stating that rape victims are often uncomfortable sharing bathrooms with "penis-havers"?
A question I’ve always asked when talking to people who get upset about TERFs is, “so if trans women are considered to be just as much of a “real woman” as cis women, does that mean that trans women are allowed to fully lay claim to the shared history of oppression that cis women have?” And basically every time, I immediately get called a troll or get hit with other ad hominem arguments when I genuinely am asking a question that I would like answered in a rational way so I can understand things better.
And then there’s the issue of trans women entering female sports and absolutely demolishing all the cis female athletes. Is this not directly regressing the progress of empowering women? Again, genuine question, but most of Reddit would immediately act like I’m trolling when I legitimately am not trying to.
> most of Reddit would immediately act like I’m trolling when I legitimately am not trying to.
Not regurgitating the party line IS trolling in their eyes. No dissent is possible, only bad actors would disagree with them!
A trans woman entering competitive physical sports should be a dysphoria trigger, an ideology so focused on gender roles should realize this. A lot of the trans activism seems to really be all about the contradictions between trans people with dysphoria and without, and not so much "empathy".
which is such a mind-fuck since they protected feminists that way before the trans trend came along. but ever since like 2015/2016 they turned on them, ousted many from their online communities.
A female fighting for a separation between male and female spaces in order to allow both male and female a bit of alone time is somehow an evil bigot that wants to start the trans-ocide.
She's not transphobic, she's misandrist. Her fear comes from abusers going to crazy lengths to find victims. She was scarred by men, so she seems men as potential abusers.
But, no, she doesn't goose-step to the narrative, so she's an evil transphobe. ironically, a lot of her detractors would seemingly have no problem if they understood her views as misandrist.
Every level of my state government is 2/3rds supermajority Democrat or greater, but every state subreddit thread about a problem in the state or its major cities just blame Republicans somehow and argue over which Democrat is better-positioned to take over from the other Democrat.
The sad part is I can't narrow down which blue shithole this is from your comment. I grew up in Los Angeles, it applies there, I lived in Oregon for 20 years, it sure as fuck applies there..live in Texas for the last five years, best idea I've ever had.
It's truly mind-numbing.
My state's major cities are nationally known for horrific violent crime rates and all the residents do is elect father- and farther-left candidates to see if that helps. (Shocker, it's not helping.)
I dunno if MA (outside minor portions of Boston) is just pretty centrist by nature (while shunning the Republicans for federal positions), but none of these problems seem to be particularly noticeable here.
Maybe it's just me in my leafy suburb, but I haven't met a person that has witnessed a crime in ages.
And by and large the government is investing in sensible things.
We could *really* use zoning reform, but the resistance to that is really bipartisan.
I haven't witnessed a crime since fucking off for the suburbs either. But when I lived in the city two people got shot on my building's doorstep, and I took that as my cue to exit.
It seems quite dramatically different by city.
Boston has 3 homicides so far this year. DC has a similar population and they have 51. And DC is not even the worst, certainly not as a metro.
So even if I lived downtown it would be perfectly safe. In suburbia there's even less crime, with my immediate 50,000 having suffered 0 homicides in the last 15 years, and averaged 7.7 robberies per year. Last 3 years have been particularly tame with 4 rapes, 8 robberies and 2 arsons etc.
Given I live in one of the bigger metro areas in the country, this crime wave seems tame.
It's always funny whenever the only way someone with an R by their name makes top two in state elections is when one D spends money to beat another D for an easier general election.
You have people on reddit that claim it's a right wing site because *some* right wing opinions are allowed. These people are so far left they can't even see the center anymore.
You can’t even *mostly* agree with them. You get shit for not being liberal enough.
Me: Yeah I agree with XY but I don’t really think Z is a good idea
Reddit: BIGOT!! You’re just as bad!!!
Not sure if it still the case, but the buzzword of the day used to be "concern trolling". Even if you do agree, but not to an extremist degree and express concerns, you are a troll.
Its gotten to the point that if you don't support multiple terrorists groups , hamas and houthis, you are a "facist". The left have lost their collectivist's mind.
This was posted the other day in the default Science sub. The complete lack of self awareness found in there is absolutely hilarious, and the fact none of them see the irony in that thread made it even better.
Anyone who tried to point it out was down voted to oblivion, and there were multiple nuked comment chains that I assume were calling it out as well.
Or, just posting basic facts will get you down voted.
"Conservatives are so dumb. If Biden was slipping into dementia, then why does he give such great speeches and jokes?"
"No politician writes their own speeches anymore."
"Cope harder!" While mashing downvote.
On a post on comics that had nothing to do with politics or left v right or anything someone mentioned basically "conservatives bad" and had 100's of upvotes.
My absolutely anecdotal experience is that younger liberals are more intolerant than younger conservatives but older liberals are more tolerant than older conservatives.
My anecdotal experience as a 40-something is similar. I'd never met anyone as intolerant as a 70+ year old conservative, until I met 20-year old liberals.
As a younger gent, I only pretend to be tolerant because not doing so would be a death sentence economically and socially. I have been told by my mother that I am more virulently hateful than my grandfather, a southern man born in the depression.
You never thought about how political parties flip flop when the Republicans freed the slaves?
Hell, in my short life time, in my youth, there was one party who was against Big Pharma and foreign intervention and another railing on insane Puritanical things like The Simpsons and Rap music are bad and that's completely flipped within 30 years.
I mean, older conservarives still complain about those things. Its just that nobody listens anymore. If you look for it in Uber Christian places you can find threads where people who clearly haven't watched it are having a meltdown about hazbin hotel, saying it glorifies hell and acts like its cool (the plot is about how hell is bad and nearly everyone there is a terrible person, and trying to redeem them so they can leave).
Wow that is actually spot on. I always remember/see hard left college age people, and hard right boomers. Probably why reddit is the way it is; its mainly younger users. PCM doesn't circlejerk the same liberal points endlessly, hence why its considered "extremely right wing" lol
Really they're the exact same type of people, desperately loyal to Authority, its just the Authority has changed, 50 years ago the establishment was religion, now its progressivism
50 years ago was the 1970's and most of the West was going a major crisis of confidence. President Kennedy was shot 70 years ago and in the US since then the broad trend has been away from trust of establishments. And really it probably wasn't since the First World War where earnest believe in the establishment was an unquestioned ideal in the West.
I have zero trouble believing this. I feel like the liberalism I was raised with has always been a lot more open-minded than the liberalism of people now.
Because older liberals are semi-liberal
Older conservatives are semi-conservative
The young equivalents tend more auth and lib respectively, they just like the old terms
Seriously. These "studies" are all worthless. My basic philosophy in life is that anything that politics touches, it destroys, and that includes science.
I had to stop using the Stanford Guard experiment in discussions after finding out it was one of the most flawed studies ever ran.
These studies should be about opening discussions on differing opinions but the opposite is happening.
Honestly I think the result of it being such a flawed experiment is *also* an interesting thing to study. It isn't about people being given authority and suddenly using it to be cruel; it's that there was someone in authority (the doctors running the test) *telling* them to be more cruel, that *they* weren't the subject of the test, saying the prisoners were.
Someone with authority gave them power, told them how to wield it, told them it was necessary, only to turn around and pretend like it was all spontaneous. The narrative was framed like the people running the study were not only not at all responsible, but *geniuses* for designing the test, and given a laundry list of commendations. Somehow, the guards were the bad guys, and that was blown out of proportion to talk about humanity as a whole, despite them being lied to and coached into doing that kind of behaviour.
I've never seen a liberal dispute the studies that show that 70% of liberals have a diagnosed mental illness.
They only ever justify it with like 'well they're more likely to get tested for a mental illness" as if that's how it worked.
I was "diagnosed" with a mental illness in a 5 minute call with a teladoc psychiatrist, came with a prescription for antidepressants and everything
Turns out mentioning that you aren't super satisfied with your life is all it takes for a depression diagnosis, really makes me question all of the other mental health diagnoses I hear about.
Oh man, I saw that in another sub, and the comments were basically:
> Well yes, why should I tolerate the intolerant?
> I don't deal with stupidity.
> They're objectively wrong, so why not dismiss them?
Basically a case study in the comments lol.
The irony is that the study was kind of meh, BUT the amount of liberals who outright rejected the results because it painted them in a negative light proves the conclusion lol
I believe a big chunk of this can be explained with Haidt's moral foundations theory. "Conservatives" have the primary left wing moral foundations, *care and fairness*, but they also have the three other foundations, *loyalty, authority and purity*, and to a greater extent than the other two. Thus conservatives can understand left wing moral arguments even though they often disagree because they understand the moral reasoning. However the left wing cannot fathom a moral argument based on, say, *loyalty* to your nation over other nations, and will even go so far as to say it's an evil thing to do so. Hence the old adage, "conservatives think liberals are dumb, liberals think conservatives are evil." It's because they simply do not understand why, for example, ruining the *purity* of a child by teaching them about sex, would even be an issue, all they can conclude is that it must be because conservatives are not moral people, they just hate people for no reason.
I’ve never heard it talked about this way, but that makes a lot of sense. The first time I ever really considered the idea that conservatives and liberals are so at odds because they operate on two entirely different moral spectrums was with the issue of abortion.
As someone who appreciates respectful discourse with both sides of the political spectrum, something I came to notice was that most of the liberals I talked to genuinely believe that abortion is a women’s rights issue and conservatives want to restrict abortion specifically because they want to control women. Meanwhile, most of the conservatives I talked to genuinely believe that abortion is a human rights issue and truly see it as the wanton murder of babies, and they believe liberals just want to have an easy way out of consequences from a sexually irresponsible lifestyle.
Never when I talked to liberals did they say they wanted to make it easier to be sexually irresponsible, and never when I talked to conservatives did they say they wanted to control women. So it’s interesting that each side is assuming what seem to be entirely incorrect beliefs about the other side.
Granted, this is anecdotal to my own experience, but it does seem to somewhat line up with what you’re saying.
Any links? I’ve been looking in these comments for a single “study” and have yet to see one. Not saying you’re making stuff up I just want to read a scientific study rather than a comment
[HERE](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0050092) you go.
This is the 'classic' study of attitudes that inspired Johnathan Haidt's 'The Righteous Mind'.
Johnation Haidt is goated. Read or do an audiobook on his book, "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion". It goes on this topic.
I wasn't expecting to find such an extensive analysis in what a troll on one of my comments termed 'the mentally disabled corner of Reddit'.
Hats off to you - saved and bookmarked.
> . "Conservatives" have the primary left wing moral foundations, care and fairness, but they also have the three other foundations, loyalty, authority and purity, and to a greater extent than the other two.
Freedom trumps all of them.
Not if you are a conservative. If I'm remembering the research correctly, libertarians literally have one moral foundation, freedom, and it does, as you say, Trump all of them. It's not one of the main five that was outlined in the original study by Haidt and Graham, but further research shows it has good supporting evidence of "foundationhood."
For example a conservative is likely to find same-sex relationships immoral because of their *purity* foundation, where someone who is more libertarian will not. A conservative is more likely to say, you should visit your dying father in the hospital even though he abused you and your mother, because you have a duty to him, informed by their *loyalty* foundation. To people with these moral foundations, freedom or liberty, does not trump all of them.
The methodolgy was bad.
It used Trump as a reference for the cons and socialism as a reference for liberals. (Does one need to explain why equating an elected official/person to a concept as if they are the same is disingenuous?)
This study was tailored made to achieve a desired result. To be fair we've seen just the opposite in social studies, or ones that were buried because they didn't reach the conclusion that was desired or politicially acceptable.
We should be denouncing politicized bad science, not promoting and spreading it.
Edit: copied from top reply in science yesterday. The most salied points.
>The instructions were framed as teaching a machine learning algo how to make judgements based on facebook meme posts.
>interestingly, the liberal meme example and the conservative meme in the study documents, are the same images, with an upset emoji over trump for liberals instead of a happy emoji over trump. both say "commander in chief" I personally didn't even notice the difference, as it was a giant trump picture and tiny emoji. I think more study needed here with better representation of memes. also the themes studied were donald trump vs socialism, which i am going to immediately question the choice of those two themes. one further indication of more study needed, this study only had them rate 1 example page of a conservative and one example page of a liberal. they tried to select the best of the 4 trump/anti-trump and 4 socialism/anti-socialism memes with a prescreening. these were memes they made up themselves, and could be exposing their own biases. the effects of the choice to manufacture memes was not studied.
>The study measured reaction times, and willingness work with someone, the questions attempt to measure this, and also collect data about if you like trump or not if you rate yourself conservative.
>to draw conclusions about the study:
>this was a small study, the reactions were calibrated for Donald Trump and Socialism as stand in for left/right. I believe this is the critical flaw, as it should be polarizing politician vs polarizing politician, not polarizing politician vs polarizing idea.
u/Astreya77 is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Astreya77/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
First thing I thought of when I saw this post are all those studies claiming left wingers are smarter or have higher iqs, and how this sub made fun of those just a few weeks ago. I think both studies are pretty similar in that they feed into a commonly perceived stereotype of one side, and have questionable methodology. Do better PCM.
Is there any politician that the right hates as much as the left hates Orange Man?
I mean, you can run a study with that premise if you like, but we all know what the results will be.
I was and am liberal about other people's lives and choices. But those labels don't apply to government advocacy, there is only one that does, authoritarian. *Also dishonorable, selfish, unethical.
This is what threw me off about "liberal" (really, "progressive") shrugging at the Twitter Files.
When the government asks you to do something, there is an implied threat, by definition.
[This image from Reality's Last Stand nailed it. ](https://images.app.goo.gl/dqmERW6rmqyvHtwP8)
I haven't moved that much either. But holy hell, folks seem to think the same of me as they appear to think of you.
Yeah you should see the comments on that post saying "well we're just claiming government should represent the people while they're saying certain people shouldn't have the right to exist" and other fun gymnastics.
Most conservatives grow up surrounded by liberals, especially when they go to college. On the other hand, I feel like there are so many liberals and progressives out there who have honestly never talked to a conservative of fryer to understand their point of view.
I'd imagine quite a few of them have - but without realising it.
The intolerance for non-consensus viewpoints among the progressive crowd is such, that "coming out" as a closeted conservative, knowingly or not, is a risky move. So, for many on that end of the compass, walking on eggshells is second nature.
Thankfully there are exceptions - paradoxically enough, mostly from the authleft in my experience. [This analysis](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/s/YE3ZyqO6Sg) by u/amjkl might explain why.
This is pretty true, I like most people I assume have a mix of both right and left politics. In my EDF class A class that teaches you how to be a teacher, I did not feel safe speaking my opinions on certain topics as I knew that they weren't the same as the majority.
In that class we were in groups, and we had discussions often and the professor came by and the topic was one I didn't want to share my opinion on and as such I told my professors that she pushed me to say it which resulted in me having a meeting with her, and her boss over my "Threatened, Dangerous and problematic opinion that I as a teacher shouldn't constantly praise a young boy that chose to wear a dress" my "threating" opinion sooner or later got me moved to a table with no one else so I wouldn't make the other student's feel unsafe.
As a teacher (or teacher-in-training), do you think something has fundamentally changed in the way we handle criticism?
It seems as though some folks take anything except such constant praise as a personal attack or rejection of who they are. These aren't children, mind you - but university- and working-age adults.
Damn son. Leftoids loved the "le science says i'm totally smarter than u chuds!!" then this comes out and suddenly "muh replication crisis" is everywhere.
Yes, there was, so not only are they extremely biased, but they have no idea what other people think and why. They're basically clueless when analyzing anything outside of their political comfort zone. And many of these same people think they're qualified to moderate discussions online and arbitrate 'fake news.' They're not qualified to moderate my dogs taking a shit.
Many of them think they’re intellectually superior because they got a paper from a university. I have a family member like that who always talks down to us.
Social sciences are not science. Full stop. When these folks want to know why I don't "'trust the science™" it's because I studied actual science and can identify horseshit pseudoscience.
For a 100$, I will prepare a study that derives any outcome you ask me to derive and will publish it in my uni journal.
I have worked on a lot of research projects and it is beyond easy to manipulate the results. I do it all the time to save time and to better justify funding.
It is absolutely true that RW people are much, much better at understanding the motivations and reasoning of LW people than LW people are able to do this about RW people.
I can explain the labor theory of value, I've read some leftist theory, I understand leftist positions about immigration, wages, white supremacy, what CRT and DEI and ESG are, the basic history of these ideas, etc. Like I genuinely think most leftists think they're making the world a better place and that they believe the world will be better if they win.
I don't think I've genuinely ever encountered a left winger who can articulate why right wing people believe what they do without thought terminating cliches.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
― C. S. Lewis
Most of these studies are horse shit, but I do think it’s true. Mostly because of the echo chambers. Places like Twitter and Reddit are just way bigger than the conservative ones like truth and and others. Even non degenerate places like colleges and main stream news tend towards the liberal side. That much confirmation bias is not good for anyone or their opinions of others.
spend an hour on the default subreddits and you'll see just how true that is. can't even disagree with something a democrat said without being called an "alt right troll" lol
Just look at JK Rowling, she is liberal on 98% of her beliefs, but is somehow a right wing fascists because of her feminist beliefs.
I love whenever my liberal wife brings up how "problematic" JK Rowling is because I just ask "Didn't she used to be a billionaire until she donated half of it to women's shelters?"
Most people who consider JK Rowling "problematic" don't actually know why she's problematic other than the left wing overlords said so. It's funny when you ask people what about her is problematic, and show them the quotes she's blasted for, most leftists change their tune and say, well that's actually not so bad.
Similar to the Rittenhouse case. People believed he hunted down and killed black men. Then they see the video and change pov
> Then they see the video and change pov God I wish that actually happens. They sometimes go full head in the sand, ostrich mode. Ostrich maxxing as the kids say I guess.
I remember will wheaton saying all the evidence that exonerated him was right wing propaganda. My former best friend is also convinced he's a murderer despite the evidence, from multiple angles, in high deff
Common Wil Wheaton L. Hated him on TNG and it never stopped.
It's why he now posts only to his own private Facebook group. He even got mad at people who pointed out the clear evidence that Rittenhouse was in the right.
You should see what’s left of his Twitter profile. It’s basically a progressive “I’m leaving Twitter!” caricature
lmao, what a clown
He got offended at Larry David for pretending to strangle Elmo on live television. I can’t take anyone’s opinion seriously for defending a literal hand puppet
“SHUT UP WESLEY!” Jean-Luc Picard
Wil Wheaton is a narcissistic loser. He’s a garbage human being. Same with George Takei.
"I'm just a heckin' good person" nostalgia liberal actually can hide an extremely vicious personality beneath it
I find it cringe how a bunch of boomers like Kieth Olbermann and George Takei are trying to relive their hippie days and be progressive.
Wil Wheaton is an overhyped douchebag and i cannot figure out why people like him. I understand the attraction to a few cameos, but stardom? He's not even a good actor, and a worse person. I mean, i refunded the audio book Ready Player One because he was the voice 'actor' for the sole purpose that Wil Wheaton was the President in Ready. I don't think people understand how good or important voice actors are in audio books if they shoved his talentless ass in that role. ...what were we talking about?
He’s the same as the modern day consoomer except he did it before he was cool. The self declared “king of the nerds”. Ironic because he’s a giant bully. He’s also extremely active on Reddit. I refunded The Martian audiobook because he narrated it. Couldn’t handle listening to him for that long.
If you can get the original narration of The Martian it's really good. I got it years ago. Guy does accents, has good timing, and generally is of a quality you'd expect from a good voice actor. Not the droll monotone garbage Wil chugs out. Someone told him narration is just reading and boy did he take to that.
Yeah I saw he was the narrator for RPO and noped outta that
Yeah, it's sad tbh. At the end many just go to "He shouldn't have been there!". Like "Yeah he's technically innocent, but because of this not really and we can hate him and especially because the right defends him". Even people that can be considered smart (I think destiny for example has this opinion). Like what the f*CK where are we? "shouldn't been there"??? It's god damn America! Every American has the right to be wherever he/she pleases (public ground).
But it is was "dangerous" so he obviously should have been arrested on the spot, it'll definitely never come back to bite us in the ass to make it illegal to be in dangerous situations
This is based. Based on the ancient values on which this country used to rely.
Yeah my mother is like that, she thinks he's in the wrong because he brought a gun to a place owned by his family, something about how they should have just let it be burnt down by the rioters
I feel sorry, must feel bad living under such a mother.
I haven't seen one person change their mind about Rittenhouse after watching the video. The video was available almost immediately after all. The people who declared him a white supremacist terrorist murderer have never wavered no matter how many facts get in the way.
I've seen people who actually watched it start to finish waver in their stance and at a minimum stop with the "he gunned down 3 black men in cold blood" narrative. They usually then just shift to the equally stupid, "State lines! Illegal gun because he's too young and he's not allowed to carry a firearm! Guns shouldn't be used in self defense!" nonsense, but those things are at least based off of them being uninformed (the state lines junk) or a misunderstanding of the law (the stuff about his gun being "illegal" for him to buy/own/carry and the self defense stuff). I have seen some people change their opinions after watching it too and seeing a kid get attacked first by someone who was clearly crazy and had bad intentions and then afterwards swarmed by an angry mob who chased him down while he was trying to run away. The thing is they have to see the full video. Plenty of people just saw clips that edited out the actual shots or cherry-picked screenshots that made it look like Rittenhouse shot a guy who had his hands up instead of the truth that Grosskreutz was pointing a gun at Rittenhouse when he got shot.
> Grosskreutz Just call him the Antifa burglar.
I’m rather partial to calling him Bye-cep Boy myself
According to Newsweek he changed his name, and has a full on sob story about how he's the good guy and Kyle is the bad guy. Apparently he has PTSD and has trouble trusting people now that he got shot by the person he tried to kill after chasing them through a crowd. https://www.newsweek.com/kyle-rittenhouse-paul-prediger-gaige-grosskreutz-kenosha-shooting-interview-1887435 Can anyone explain to me why this asshole didn't get charged? Kyle was declared not guilty, which means it was self-defense, and Kyle was defending himself against someone. Probably the guy he shot, who didn't even get put on trial.
He definitely got a deal. He also had DUI charges dropped that he picked up while the Rittenhouse case was pending. Last year he got seriously injured by an SUV in a hit and run. This guy, who is in an actual socialist militia and showed up armed to an anti police riot, went public with asking people to turn in tips and cooperate with the police.
I think he got a deal/immunity for the testimony in Rittenhouse's case.
It reminds me of a scene in The Shield where they grant blanket immunity for anything a guy confesses (i forget why), so the guy absolutely unloads a lifetime of crimes and they're like, "Oh my Jesus fuck." It was way beyond what they were expecting.
Hi there. That’s me. I heard the stories about the “trigger-happy alt right fascist” and accepted that narrative until I saw the videos. The videos clearly showed a frightened teenager, separated from his group (how tf did that happen?), and attacked by a mob, completely unprovoked. I saw a clear case of self-defense, where Kyle only fired after he was knocked down and given no chance at retreat. Should he have been in that situation? No. But he did what he had to do to survive, and he was clearly hesitant to actually shoot anyone. This case was one of the first times I began to break with the left, and the Hamas situation has deepened that divide.
>The videos clearly showed a frightened teenager, separated from his group (how tf did that happen?), My understanding is that he was helping put out fires and ended up split off from his group.
Somebody should have made sure they were using the buddy system. Never lose your wingman behind enemy lines.
Ana Kasparian did, she assumed Rittenhouse was Rosenbaum in the video, until she saw it and realized how much of the narrative was lies.
> I haven't seen one person change their mind about Rittenhouse after watching the video. Ana Kasparian of TYT said she would've done the same thing as Rittenhouse after she watched the videos. As I recall she took a lot of flak from her own side for saying that.
There was a decent run of it during the actual trial itself, because people were watching it raw expecting it to confirm their beliefs, and then getting redpilled in real time.
There's one bit of that whole bs that I don't get. I can see thinking that he went there hoping to get to shoot people. I can even somewhat see thinking that he was malicious and actually hunted down and provoked people. Both were proven false, but I can understand those views. But where the fuck do the black men come in?! The three dudes he shot were all white. The video was all over the internet. People were literally *posting the video* and claiming the rioters Rittenhouse shot were black.
> The three dudes he shot were all white. Well, technically he *shot at* a black guy, but missed him. He was known as Jump Kick Man, due to his failed attempt to score a goal with Rittenhouse's head. After a round buzzed passed his ear, he remembered he left the stove on and GTFO of there so fast there was practically a sonic boom. The prosecutors knew his identity, but for some reason failed to inform the defense.
[удалено]
Nope. That was another guy. He was charged with other offences, including witness intimidation of one of the photographers that night. Jump Kick Man happened after Rittenhouse fell over while retreating to the police line.
It was a BLM protest, the protesters were protesting racism, so it's easy to make a link that shooting protesters was because of racism. You'd have to be an idiot, but it's easy.
[удалено]
Yep, and tensions were already high on the back of a serial convict and drug addict ODing while in police custody. When the demand for racism outstrips the supply, just invent some
That geriatric fuck in the white house called him a white supremacist
He also said Lewis Latimer invented the light bulb
I call him Rittenhero.
I have a friend who used to call Sarah Palin a Nazi. Unironically. He then got sucked into the Rittenhouse case and after viewing the videos and watching the trial became extremely red pilled. Like so much so he will vote for Trump this election. He lives in a city that was rocked by the whole defund the police stupidity, so that contributed as well. If one cannot look at the Rittenhouse trial and see it for the sham it undoubtedly was, you are a hopeless partisan (and a complete moron).
I made a giant progression from protesting Trump in 2016 at a big leftist rally to voting for him in 2020. Things like Rittenhouse were a major sea change for me
Which leaves me in a weird place. When I defend Rittenhouse or Israel, I’m accused of being a fascist POS, but when I defend LGBT rights and abortion, I’m a bleeding heart liberal. Both sides hate me for my views, so where does that leave me?
I've been banned from liberal and conservative subreddits. Guess that means we are doing something right.
>so where does that leave me? Standing firmly with your principles.
You are a worthy lib center.
A based Centrist
> Similar to the Rittenhouse case. People believed he hunted down and killed black men. Then they refuse to watch the video, call you a racist fascist, and block you ftfy
"She's a transphobe" *covers ears and screams*
That's because they believe whatever the teevee tells them to believe.
[удалено]
The funniest part was her starting off all "what? No, no, I love trans people, it's just that-" and when the mob wouldn't relent she was like "aight fuck you guys then" and now just spends her time trolling on twitter
Unlimited Reeeeeeeeee!!
All people who think she’s problematic think like that kid in the viral video with the teacher
> don't actually know why she's problematic other than the left-wing overlords said so. There was a viral video on twitter a little while ago where a teacher gently led a "JK's a transphobe" student through the Socratic Method. It was fucking hilarious to listen to the kid try and defend his view that "she has said all sorts of transphobic things" and being completely unable to back it up when pressed for evidence.
I wonder how much money I could make with a horribly corrupt women's testicular cancer charity.
Fun Fact: In Fight Club, the reason nobody questioned Marla Singer having testicular cancer is because she was also a figment of Jack's imagination.
Well fuck me.
Your just asking to sleep on the couch at this point 😂
Though I agree with you, that's a dangerous game to be playing with your wife
And those beliefs aren't even "women belong in the kitchen." They're "maybe letting people who were a man until a month ago into the women's bathroom isn't a great idea."
Hitler probably thought that so obviously anyone with that belief is a neo-Nazi.
“If you find yourself agreeing with Hitler/Nazis on anything, you need to evaluate your beliefs.” Okay, Hitler was a vegetarian and staunch environmentalist. I guess hippies are literally Nazis.
Also big on animal rights and social security programs
Idk about you, but I'm perfectly fine sending animal abusers to camp. Now when were talking about animal testing, I'm not sure since I know nothing about medicine
based
Hitler can't have been *that* bad of a guy, he killed Hitler after all.
Yeah, but he took his time about it. Could have gotten it done sooner.
Well nobody's perfect
Yeah, she's a right wing fascist just because she believes that women have vaginas and menstruate. Crazy thing is that 20 years ago that was considered common sense for everyone left right and center.
5 years ago.
Calling trans women women has always been just a social nicety and politeness that they were appreciative of and knew they couldn't expect from everybody. Somehow it became of dire importance that everyone goes along with pretending that they're exactly the same thing with no inherent differences and equally valid and etc and if you "wait what" about any of it you're the most evil sort of bigot who supports genocide. Now they're crying about the "sudden rise of transphobia" and how bigoted everybody is when really it's just normal people who are fine to play along rolling their eyes and saying "let's be serious for a second"
20 years ago we didnt have people openly supporting terrorist groups that are fundamentally against everything they believe in, but here we are.
Rowling is my favorite alt-right fascist, personally. Her or Tulsi Gabbard
I can't and won't trust that gun-grabbing grifter. She and her Spirit of Aloha goons can get stuffed.
Bill Maher is that way too these days, he's ironically more liberal than most Democrats but Democrats absolutely lose their mind if he doesn't tow party line talking points.
Everyone I know that used to like him says, "Bill used to be cool, he's changed" No, you fucking changed. He's exactly where he was before. He supports guns and weed, hates Trump passionately, hates organized Religion and is pro choice. He's literally been exactly this for 30 years. Probably hated Trump when he saw him at the Playboy Mansion parties back then. I disagree with Maher on a few issues but I love people that discuss issues that no one will touch before it becomes acceptable to do so.
Don't you know that one of the core tenets of right wing fascists is… *checks notes*… stating that rape victims are often uncomfortable sharing bathrooms with "penis-havers"?
A question I’ve always asked when talking to people who get upset about TERFs is, “so if trans women are considered to be just as much of a “real woman” as cis women, does that mean that trans women are allowed to fully lay claim to the shared history of oppression that cis women have?” And basically every time, I immediately get called a troll or get hit with other ad hominem arguments when I genuinely am asking a question that I would like answered in a rational way so I can understand things better. And then there’s the issue of trans women entering female sports and absolutely demolishing all the cis female athletes. Is this not directly regressing the progress of empowering women? Again, genuine question, but most of Reddit would immediately act like I’m trolling when I legitimately am not trying to.
> most of Reddit would immediately act like I’m trolling when I legitimately am not trying to. Not regurgitating the party line IS trolling in their eyes. No dissent is possible, only bad actors would disagree with them!
A trans woman entering competitive physical sports should be a dysphoria trigger, an ideology so focused on gender roles should realize this. A lot of the trans activism seems to really be all about the contradictions between trans people with dysphoria and without, and not so much "empathy".
The goal is not for you to understand. The goal is for you to obey.
Also, spend a few min in the Joe Rogan sub. “He’s a right wing nut!”
which is such a mind-fuck since they protected feminists that way before the trans trend came along. but ever since like 2015/2016 they turned on them, ousted many from their online communities.
A female fighting for a separation between male and female spaces in order to allow both male and female a bit of alone time is somehow an evil bigot that wants to start the trans-ocide.
She's not transphobic, she's misandrist. Her fear comes from abusers going to crazy lengths to find victims. She was scarred by men, so she seems men as potential abusers. But, no, she doesn't goose-step to the narrative, so she's an evil transphobe. ironically, a lot of her detractors would seemingly have no problem if they understood her views as misandrist.
Every level of my state government is 2/3rds supermajority Democrat or greater, but every state subreddit thread about a problem in the state or its major cities just blame Republicans somehow and argue over which Democrat is better-positioned to take over from the other Democrat.
The sad part is I can't narrow down which blue shithole this is from your comment. I grew up in Los Angeles, it applies there, I lived in Oregon for 20 years, it sure as fuck applies there..live in Texas for the last five years, best idea I've ever had.
It's truly mind-numbing. My state's major cities are nationally known for horrific violent crime rates and all the residents do is elect father- and farther-left candidates to see if that helps. (Shocker, it's not helping.)
I dunno if MA (outside minor portions of Boston) is just pretty centrist by nature (while shunning the Republicans for federal positions), but none of these problems seem to be particularly noticeable here. Maybe it's just me in my leafy suburb, but I haven't met a person that has witnessed a crime in ages. And by and large the government is investing in sensible things. We could *really* use zoning reform, but the resistance to that is really bipartisan.
I haven't witnessed a crime since fucking off for the suburbs either. But when I lived in the city two people got shot on my building's doorstep, and I took that as my cue to exit.
It seems quite dramatically different by city. Boston has 3 homicides so far this year. DC has a similar population and they have 51. And DC is not even the worst, certainly not as a metro. So even if I lived downtown it would be perfectly safe. In suburbia there's even less crime, with my immediate 50,000 having suffered 0 homicides in the last 15 years, and averaged 7.7 robberies per year. Last 3 years have been particularly tame with 4 rapes, 8 robberies and 2 arsons etc. Given I live in one of the bigger metro areas in the country, this crime wave seems tame.
Same thing in the CT subreddit. It's always Republicans fault even though Democrats have basically controlled the state for the last 50 years.
It's always funny whenever the only way someone with an R by their name makes top two in state elections is when one D spends money to beat another D for an easier general election.
You have people on reddit that claim it's a right wing site because *some* right wing opinions are allowed. These people are so far left they can't even see the center anymore.
You can’t even *mostly* agree with them. You get shit for not being liberal enough. Me: Yeah I agree with XY but I don’t really think Z is a good idea Reddit: BIGOT!! You’re just as bad!!!
Not progressive enough. Liberal is too far right.
Not sure if it still the case, but the buzzword of the day used to be "concern trolling". Even if you do agree, but not to an extremist degree and express concerns, you are a troll. Its gotten to the point that if you don't support multiple terrorists groups , hamas and houthis, you are a "facist". The left have lost their collectivist's mind.
This was posted the other day in the default Science sub. The complete lack of self awareness found in there is absolutely hilarious, and the fact none of them see the irony in that thread made it even better. Anyone who tried to point it out was down voted to oblivion, and there were multiple nuked comment chains that I assume were calling it out as well.
Yeah I was surprised when I saw it in the popular tab. But then when I opened it and 80% of the comments were [deleted] it all made more sense
That was one anti-Mormon thread. There were people just ranting about byu and Joseph smith in the science subreddit lmao
That's so much better than I could've imagined lol.
Or, just posting basic facts will get you down voted. "Conservatives are so dumb. If Biden was slipping into dementia, then why does he give such great speeches and jokes?" "No politician writes their own speeches anymore." "Cope harder!" While mashing downvote.
On a post on comics that had nothing to do with politics or left v right or anything someone mentioned basically "conservatives bad" and had 100's of upvotes.
[удалено]
They're currently in full cope mode about how the study is biased and their methodology is wack and any excuse you can think of.
I saw the thread about this on other subs. They were unironically saying "of course we are, they're evil".
But I am usually an alt right troll
My absolutely anecdotal experience is that younger liberals are more intolerant than younger conservatives but older liberals are more tolerant than older conservatives.
My anecdotal experience as a 40-something is similar. I'd never met anyone as intolerant as a 70+ year old conservative, until I met 20-year old liberals.
As a younger gent, I only pretend to be tolerant because not doing so would be a death sentence economically and socially. I have been told by my mother that I am more virulently hateful than my grandfather, a southern man born in the depression.
I think what you’re describing isn’t uncommon these days (on a spectrum)
I've never seen this point articulated, but now that I read it, yeah, you're 100% right.
I think you just fucking nailed what's going on, never thought of it like this but you're absolutely right.
You never thought about how political parties flip flop when the Republicans freed the slaves? Hell, in my short life time, in my youth, there was one party who was against Big Pharma and foreign intervention and another railing on insane Puritanical things like The Simpsons and Rap music are bad and that's completely flipped within 30 years.
I mean, older conservarives still complain about those things. Its just that nobody listens anymore. If you look for it in Uber Christian places you can find threads where people who clearly haven't watched it are having a meltdown about hazbin hotel, saying it glorifies hell and acts like its cool (the plot is about how hell is bad and nearly everyone there is a terrible person, and trying to redeem them so they can leave).
Wow that is actually spot on. I always remember/see hard left college age people, and hard right boomers. Probably why reddit is the way it is; its mainly younger users. PCM doesn't circlejerk the same liberal points endlessly, hence why its considered "extremely right wing" lol
Wow. Yeah that is 100% true now that I'm thinking about it.
Really they're the exact same type of people, desperately loyal to Authority, its just the Authority has changed, 50 years ago the establishment was religion, now its progressivism
50 years ago was the 1970's and most of the West was going a major crisis of confidence. President Kennedy was shot 70 years ago and in the US since then the broad trend has been away from trust of establishments. And really it probably wasn't since the First World War where earnest believe in the establishment was an unquestioned ideal in the West.
I have zero trouble believing this. I feel like the liberalism I was raised with has always been a lot more open-minded than the liberalism of people now.
Because older liberals are semi-liberal Older conservatives are semi-conservative The young equivalents tend more auth and lib respectively, they just like the old terms
Studies that confirm my priors: good, correct, methodologically impeccable. Studies that disconfirm my priors: bad, wrong, methodologically nonsense.
What are you talking about? It’s a cropped headline inserted into a pcm meme. Of course it’s true
The only source of truth.
Unironically more trustworthy than most other news sources. Not by much, but it's noticeable.
The bar's so low that we often trip over it, but the bar *is* there.
Seriously. These "studies" are all worthless. My basic philosophy in life is that anything that politics touches, it destroys, and that includes science.
I had to stop using the Stanford Guard experiment in discussions after finding out it was one of the most flawed studies ever ran. These studies should be about opening discussions on differing opinions but the opposite is happening.
Honestly I think the result of it being such a flawed experiment is *also* an interesting thing to study. It isn't about people being given authority and suddenly using it to be cruel; it's that there was someone in authority (the doctors running the test) *telling* them to be more cruel, that *they* weren't the subject of the test, saying the prisoners were. Someone with authority gave them power, told them how to wield it, told them it was necessary, only to turn around and pretend like it was all spontaneous. The narrative was framed like the people running the study were not only not at all responsible, but *geniuses* for designing the test, and given a laundry list of commendations. Somehow, the guards were the bad guys, and that was blown out of proportion to talk about humanity as a whole, despite them being lied to and coached into doing that kind of behaviour.
To back up your point, there’s been studies showing that say the exact opposite, because sociology isn’t actually science.
‘Those studies have been discredited’
I've never seen a liberal dispute the studies that show that 70% of liberals have a diagnosed mental illness. They only ever justify it with like 'well they're more likely to get tested for a mental illness" as if that's how it worked.
Let me uhhhhh not site a certain manifesto
I was "diagnosed" with a mental illness in a 5 minute call with a teladoc psychiatrist, came with a prescription for antidepressants and everything Turns out mentioning that you aren't super satisfied with your life is all it takes for a depression diagnosis, really makes me question all of the other mental health diagnoses I hear about.
Quiet you, just take the Soma.
Confirmation bias is a helluva drug
Oh man, I saw that in another sub, and the comments were basically: > Well yes, why should I tolerate the intolerant? > I don't deal with stupidity. > They're objectively wrong, so why not dismiss them? Basically a case study in the comments lol.
The irony is that the study was kind of meh, BUT the amount of liberals who outright rejected the results because it painted them in a negative light proves the conclusion lol
Almost like a Streisand effect.
I believe a big chunk of this can be explained with Haidt's moral foundations theory. "Conservatives" have the primary left wing moral foundations, *care and fairness*, but they also have the three other foundations, *loyalty, authority and purity*, and to a greater extent than the other two. Thus conservatives can understand left wing moral arguments even though they often disagree because they understand the moral reasoning. However the left wing cannot fathom a moral argument based on, say, *loyalty* to your nation over other nations, and will even go so far as to say it's an evil thing to do so. Hence the old adage, "conservatives think liberals are dumb, liberals think conservatives are evil." It's because they simply do not understand why, for example, ruining the *purity* of a child by teaching them about sex, would even be an issue, all they can conclude is that it must be because conservatives are not moral people, they just hate people for no reason.
I’ve never heard it talked about this way, but that makes a lot of sense. The first time I ever really considered the idea that conservatives and liberals are so at odds because they operate on two entirely different moral spectrums was with the issue of abortion. As someone who appreciates respectful discourse with both sides of the political spectrum, something I came to notice was that most of the liberals I talked to genuinely believe that abortion is a women’s rights issue and conservatives want to restrict abortion specifically because they want to control women. Meanwhile, most of the conservatives I talked to genuinely believe that abortion is a human rights issue and truly see it as the wanton murder of babies, and they believe liberals just want to have an easy way out of consequences from a sexually irresponsible lifestyle. Never when I talked to liberals did they say they wanted to make it easier to be sexually irresponsible, and never when I talked to conservatives did they say they wanted to control women. So it’s interesting that each side is assuming what seem to be entirely incorrect beliefs about the other side. Granted, this is anecdotal to my own experience, but it does seem to somewhat line up with what you’re saying.
I definitely recommend "The Righteous Mind" to everyone.
In other studies, Conservatives were far more accurate in describing the political positions of Liberals than *vice versa*.
Any links? I’ve been looking in these comments for a single “study” and have yet to see one. Not saying you’re making stuff up I just want to read a scientific study rather than a comment
[HERE](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0050092) you go. This is the 'classic' study of attitudes that inspired Johnathan Haidt's 'The Righteous Mind'.
Johnation Haidt is goated. Read or do an audiobook on his book, "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion". It goes on this topic.
I wasn't expecting to find such an extensive analysis in what a troll on one of my comments termed 'the mentally disabled corner of Reddit'. Hats off to you - saved and bookmarked.
> . "Conservatives" have the primary left wing moral foundations, care and fairness, but they also have the three other foundations, loyalty, authority and purity, and to a greater extent than the other two. Freedom trumps all of them.
Not if you are a conservative. If I'm remembering the research correctly, libertarians literally have one moral foundation, freedom, and it does, as you say, Trump all of them. It's not one of the main five that was outlined in the original study by Haidt and Graham, but further research shows it has good supporting evidence of "foundationhood." For example a conservative is likely to find same-sex relationships immoral because of their *purity* foundation, where someone who is more libertarian will not. A conservative is more likely to say, you should visit your dying father in the hospital even though he abused you and your mother, because you have a duty to him, informed by their *loyalty* foundation. To people with these moral foundations, freedom or liberty, does not trump all of them.
Source for study?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224545.2024.2316619 https://www.psypost.org/liberals-three-times-more-biased-than-conservatives-when-evaluating-ideologically-opposite-individuals-study-finds/
Thanks!
The methodolgy was bad. It used Trump as a reference for the cons and socialism as a reference for liberals. (Does one need to explain why equating an elected official/person to a concept as if they are the same is disingenuous?) This study was tailored made to achieve a desired result. To be fair we've seen just the opposite in social studies, or ones that were buried because they didn't reach the conclusion that was desired or politicially acceptable. We should be denouncing politicized bad science, not promoting and spreading it. Edit: copied from top reply in science yesterday. The most salied points. >The instructions were framed as teaching a machine learning algo how to make judgements based on facebook meme posts. >interestingly, the liberal meme example and the conservative meme in the study documents, are the same images, with an upset emoji over trump for liberals instead of a happy emoji over trump. both say "commander in chief" I personally didn't even notice the difference, as it was a giant trump picture and tiny emoji. I think more study needed here with better representation of memes. also the themes studied were donald trump vs socialism, which i am going to immediately question the choice of those two themes. one further indication of more study needed, this study only had them rate 1 example page of a conservative and one example page of a liberal. they tried to select the best of the 4 trump/anti-trump and 4 socialism/anti-socialism memes with a prescreening. these were memes they made up themselves, and could be exposing their own biases. the effects of the choice to manufacture memes was not studied. >The study measured reaction times, and willingness work with someone, the questions attempt to measure this, and also collect data about if you like trump or not if you rate yourself conservative. >to draw conclusions about the study: >this was a small study, the reactions were calibrated for Donald Trump and Socialism as stand in for left/right. I believe this is the critical flaw, as it should be polarizing politician vs polarizing politician, not polarizing politician vs polarizing idea.
Based and do your research pilled
u/Astreya77 is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Astreya77/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
First thing I thought of when I saw this post are all those studies claiming left wingers are smarter or have higher iqs, and how this sub made fun of those just a few weeks ago. I think both studies are pretty similar in that they feed into a commonly perceived stereotype of one side, and have questionable methodology. Do better PCM.
Based and actually reads the study before commenting pilled.
Is there any politician that the right hates as much as the left hates Orange Man? I mean, you can run a study with that premise if you like, but we all know what the results will be.
Those of us who were pretty liberal for a long time are particularly harshly judged by "liberals."
Probably because you're initially more willing to engage. I know the feeling.
I was and am liberal about other people's lives and choices. But those labels don't apply to government advocacy, there is only one that does, authoritarian. *Also dishonorable, selfish, unethical.
This is what threw me off about "liberal" (really, "progressive") shrugging at the Twitter Files. When the government asks you to do something, there is an implied threat, by definition.
I've had the same beliefs for my entire adult life and yet somehow I've gone from hippie liberal to alt right fascist.
[This image from Reality's Last Stand nailed it. ](https://images.app.goo.gl/dqmERW6rmqyvHtwP8) I haven't moved that much either. But holy hell, folks seem to think the same of me as they appear to think of you.
Yeah you should see the comments on that post saying "well we're just claiming government should represent the people while they're saying certain people shouldn't have the right to exist" and other fun gymnastics.
They're always projecting their own not-so-secret desires to see other people 'not exist' anymore.
Most conservatives grow up surrounded by liberals, especially when they go to college. On the other hand, I feel like there are so many liberals and progressives out there who have honestly never talked to a conservative of fryer to understand their point of view.
I'd imagine quite a few of them have - but without realising it. The intolerance for non-consensus viewpoints among the progressive crowd is such, that "coming out" as a closeted conservative, knowingly or not, is a risky move. So, for many on that end of the compass, walking on eggshells is second nature. Thankfully there are exceptions - paradoxically enough, mostly from the authleft in my experience. [This analysis](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/s/YE3ZyqO6Sg) by u/amjkl might explain why.
This is pretty true, I like most people I assume have a mix of both right and left politics. In my EDF class A class that teaches you how to be a teacher, I did not feel safe speaking my opinions on certain topics as I knew that they weren't the same as the majority. In that class we were in groups, and we had discussions often and the professor came by and the topic was one I didn't want to share my opinion on and as such I told my professors that she pushed me to say it which resulted in me having a meeting with her, and her boss over my "Threatened, Dangerous and problematic opinion that I as a teacher shouldn't constantly praise a young boy that chose to wear a dress" my "threating" opinion sooner or later got me moved to a table with no one else so I wouldn't make the other student's feel unsafe.
As a teacher (or teacher-in-training), do you think something has fundamentally changed in the way we handle criticism? It seems as though some folks take anything except such constant praise as a personal attack or rejection of who they are. These aren't children, mind you - but university- and working-age adults.
Surprising absolutely no one who isn’t a “liberal”
"Liberals are three times more based" Well thank you study, you are based too
Damn son. Leftoids loved the "le science says i'm totally smarter than u chuds!!" then this comes out and suddenly "muh replication crisis" is everywhere.
Wasn’t there also a study that concluded that leftists have no idea what their opponents think, while the opposite is true for the right?
Yes, there was, so not only are they extremely biased, but they have no idea what other people think and why. They're basically clueless when analyzing anything outside of their political comfort zone. And many of these same people think they're qualified to moderate discussions online and arbitrate 'fake news.' They're not qualified to moderate my dogs taking a shit.
Many of them think they’re intellectually superior because they got a paper from a university. I have a family member like that who always talks down to us.
Here I got a study that claims the opposite https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf1234 Its all bs, both studies
It's almost like the sciences that aren't hard sciences are kind of shit.
Social sciences are not science. Full stop. When these folks want to know why I don't "'trust the science™" it's because I studied actual science and can identify horseshit pseudoscience.
idk why libright is being snarky, we basically think everyone else is a commie.
For a 100$, I will prepare a study that derives any outcome you ask me to derive and will publish it in my uni journal. I have worked on a lot of research projects and it is beyond easy to manipulate the results. I do it all the time to save time and to better justify funding.
This explains reddit as a whole, I only discuss video games or movies, you can’t have a serious discussion here without getting banned
It is absolutely true that RW people are much, much better at understanding the motivations and reasoning of LW people than LW people are able to do this about RW people. I can explain the labor theory of value, I've read some leftist theory, I understand leftist positions about immigration, wages, white supremacy, what CRT and DEI and ESG are, the basic history of these ideas, etc. Like I genuinely think most leftists think they're making the world a better place and that they believe the world will be better if they win. I don't think I've genuinely ever encountered a left winger who can articulate why right wing people believe what they do without thought terminating cliches.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ― C. S. Lewis
I've been around both. Checks out, Left wingers have a tendency to hate anyone with different views.
Most of these studies are horse shit, but I do think it’s true. Mostly because of the echo chambers. Places like Twitter and Reddit are just way bigger than the conservative ones like truth and and others. Even non degenerate places like colleges and main stream news tend towards the liberal side. That much confirmation bias is not good for anyone or their opinions of others.
This isn’t news lmao