rolling explaining conservatism

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

taxes are theft; therefore, democrats are criminals

reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 02:58 (one year ago) Permalink

selfishness is too a virtue

reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 02:59 (one year ago) Permalink

Making people's lives better is not a function of the state. The state's job is to get out of the way so the market can make people's lives better*.

*or not

scattered, smothered, covered, diced and chunked (WilliamC), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 03:00 (one year ago) Permalink

wasn't it Jeremy Clarkson that said something once like "governments should build park benches and leave us alone"

waht, I am true black metal worrior (Neanderthal), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 03:03 (one year ago) Permalink

if your parents don't have enough money, nothing you do matters

reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 03:11 (one year ago) Permalink

job security is a necessary evil to coerce the talented

reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 03:29 (one year ago) Permalink

if you weren't forced to pay taxes, you could just afford things on your own like insurance and private police protection

waht, I am true black metal worrior (Neanderthal), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 03:31 (one year ago) Permalink

in my very amateurish opinion modern conservativism has two major planks:

1) denial of any link between capitalism and the undermining of traditional values.
2) strict and explicit separation of society into categories of, let's say, "elect" and "damned" (those deserving of privilege, security, etc. and those undeserving...white supremacy is obviously a huge part of this)

ryan, Tuesday, 7 March 2017 03:40 (one year ago) Permalink

All conservatism is the rationalization and preservation of privilege. The hatefulness and nastiness that seems to travel with it has always been there, but obviously people have had different expectations throughout history about what's uncouth and which are the parts you aren't supposed to say out loud.

Scalzi's essay is a tad goofy but I liked his nerdy explanation of privilege: "In the role playing game known as The Real World, “Straight White Male” is the lowest difficulty setting there is."

Any policies that increase egalitarianism in Western societies, by necessity, can be seen as mildly increasing the difficulty setting for Straight White Male. If you're not doing so great at The Real World, and you were already on the lowest difficulty setting, then something's clearly very wrong.

El Tomboto, Tuesday, 7 March 2017 03:42 (one year ago) Permalink

life is a golf course. climate change is a chinese hoax

reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 03:46 (one year ago) Permalink

life is a golf ball, I wanna drive it all night long

waht, I am true black metal worrior (Neanderthal), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 03:48 (one year ago) Permalink

russian=socialists are the worst ever evil in the world, except when republican president donald trump houses and praises them. government is the problem, as well

reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 03:54 (one year ago) Permalink

states' rights except when not

waht, I am true black metal worrior (Neanderthal), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 03:55 (one year ago) Permalink

I'd love to see Scalzi recite his essay to the corpse of a drug overdosed white person whose lost all realistic hope for his/her life. Americans don't know each other anymore.

larry appleton, Tuesday, 7 March 2017 03:56 (one year ago) Permalink

that is not in his individual self-interest. individual self-interest is all that matters

reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 04:02 (one year ago) Permalink

regulation gets in the way of businesses succeeding and makes capitalism not work. we shouldn't regulate wrongdoing out of existence - the market will react and put evildoing companies out of business. it's ok if 371 people die due to eating salmonella infected peanuts because AFTER those people die, people will boycott the brand!

We could have stopped those people from dying but that would have hurt Planters' sales and really when it boils down to it, aren't 371 lives worth it?

also the Holocaust never happened.

waht, I am true black metal worrior (Neanderthal), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 04:04 (one year ago) Permalink

People want the government to be run like a business, so that after a few years they can be surprised by a FOR LEASE sign on City Hall, and no idea what it might turn into next.

El Tomboto, Tuesday, 7 March 2017 04:17 (one year ago) Permalink

Maybe it will be a new coffee place, or a hair salon!

El Tomboto, Tuesday, 7 March 2017 04:17 (one year ago) Permalink

All white grievance is legitimate, especially hopelessness in the face of poverty

El Tomboto, Tuesday, 7 March 2017 04:20 (one year ago) Permalink

except for the four gospels, the judeo-christian bible is the literal word of god, bro

reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 04:24 (one year ago) Permalink

All white grievance is legitimate, especially hopelessness in the face of poverty

― El Tomboto, Tuesday, March 7, 2017 4:20 AM (eleven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Ignoring suffering because of classism and identity politics is part of why we're here. People like you have blood on your hands... POC die because of attitudes like yours, which, on the surface, tries to celebrate them. But it's not out of concern for the lives of POC, but for your own narcissism and privilege, which you then flip on others less fortunate than yourself.

Liberalism and conservatism is the same side of the same coin at this point. Is it any wonder why we are where we are?

larry appleton, Tuesday, 7 March 2017 04:36 (one year ago) Permalink

what would we do without you, larry

El Tomboto, Tuesday, 7 March 2017 04:37 (one year ago) Permalink

have you heard of this guy, jim goad? I think his books would grab you

El Tomboto, Tuesday, 7 March 2017 04:38 (one year ago) Permalink

Well, there was a reason I worked with an Obama appointee, you low-level bureaucratic waste. My ideas make sense and work, they're just not in vogue right now, because of snot wipes like you who want to sip glasses of wine while people suffer and die.

larry appleton, Tuesday, 7 March 2017 04:39 (one year ago) Permalink

The funniest part of your schtick is that everything I've posted to this thread is either me actually linking to and quoting John Scalzi and the rest is ripped off from Ta-Nehisi Coates - I haven't expressed a single original opinion worth lashing out at. But you man, you got the solutions that make sense, and work!

El Tomboto, Tuesday, 7 March 2017 04:42 (one year ago) Permalink

beef is when I see you
guaranteed to be in ICU

but you won't have healthcare

waht, I am true black metal worrior (Neanderthal), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 04:42 (one year ago) Permalink

All conservatism is the rationalization and preservation of privilege.

fucking otm. all hoarding and no empathy. fuck you, got mine. what's that, an oppressed category of people wants equal treatment? get the fuck off my lawn. if you need quotas, that just means you females/non-whites/whatever are simply terrible at what you do. let the free market do its job because the free market is faultless*.

* at preserving old-timey privilege

Autumn Almanac, Tuesday, 7 March 2017 04:45 (one year ago) Permalink

this is the angriest i've ever been this early in a thread

Autumn Almanac, Tuesday, 7 March 2017 04:46 (one year ago) Permalink

anger is an energy. it's cool to frack oklahoma into earthquake hell, because profit

reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 04:52 (one year ago) Permalink

the united states is a republic, not a democracy

reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 05:10 (one year ago) Permalink

That one I've honestly never been able to figure out. It's a non sequitur beyond the rest

El Tomboto, Tuesday, 7 March 2017 05:13 (one year ago) Permalink

Democrats fancy themselves civil rights pioneers but it was REPUBLICANS who freed the slaves we are just like that 19th century party

waht, I am true black metal worrior (Neanderthal), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 05:18 (one year ago) Permalink

as Martin Luther King famously said, people should be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character

example (crüt), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 05:19 (one year ago) Permalink

and MLK was a Republican after all!

waht, I am true black metal worrior (Neanderthal), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 05:21 (one year ago) Permalink

My ideas make sense and work, they're just not in vogue right now, because of snot wipes like you who want to sip glasses of wine while people suffer and die.

― larry appleton, Tuesday, 7 March 2017 04:39 (three hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Moonlight swine leap whiff off this one

The Perks of Being a Wall St R (darraghmac), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 08:25 (one year ago) Permalink

which ideology is against water fluoridation now?

sarahell, Tuesday, 7 March 2017 08:39 (one year ago) Permalink

fluoridation is how the govmint gives you gay mind control cancer, keep up

Sacked Italian Greyhound (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 08:53 (one year ago) Permalink

My ideas make sense and work, they're just not in vogue right now, because of snot wipes like you who want to sip glasses of wine while people suffer and die.

posts that effortlessly etc

Thank you for your service, wasteman (Bananaman Begins), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 09:43 (one year ago) Permalink

maybe start a thread for recommending a good wine to accompany people suffering and dying

barry snappleton (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 09:45 (one year ago) Permalink

Egoism is real, altruism is not. Hence, running a state by egoists’ rules - “like a business,” if you will - is the only sensible option. If the state then falls apart, it’s not because a democracy is inherently altruistic, but because the state is broken and needs to be abolished.

Wes Brodicus, Tuesday, 7 March 2017 10:50 (one year ago) Permalink

Right, the only motivating factor you can count on is that everyone wants to get rich. EVERYONE. We all like money right guys? Also, everyone cheats, come on.

El Tomboto, Tuesday, 7 March 2017 10:55 (one year ago) Permalink

who among us would not rather have the opportunity, however small, to live beyond the dreams of Croesus rather than to bumble along with our needs generally satisfied but no prospect of rubbing anybody else's nose in it?

barry snappleton (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 11:20 (one year ago) Permalink

tucking your shirt into your jeans is a timeless look

ogmor, Tuesday, 7 March 2017 11:29 (one year ago) Permalink

brb I'm off to find a conservative board with a thread explaining liberals and the staggering insights therein

The Perks of Being a Wall St R (darraghmac), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 11:46 (one year ago) Permalink

Bow-ties are a legitimate fashion choice

Thank you for your service, wasteman (Bananaman Begins), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 11:47 (one year ago) Permalink

MANY YEARS AGO PRINCE DARKNESS "GANNON" STOLE ONE OF THE TRIFORCE WITH POWER.

increasingly bonkers (rushomancy), Tuesday, 7 March 2017 13:05 (one year ago) Permalink

That does explain a lot. And the triforce of wisdom being in eight pieces is why the left is so hopeless.

El Tomboto, Tuesday, 7 March 2017 13:15 (one year ago) Permalink

lol @ larry appleton / Tombot guvmint dill-weed beef

have you guys ever considered that conservatism has ideological appeal to its adherents, rather than something dismissive like "the rationalization and preservation of privilege" (what about the millions of non-privileged people who are conservatives? don't say false consciousness!) or "individual self-interest is all that matters"?

flopson, Tuesday, 7 March 2017 13:38 (one year ago) Permalink

I considered, then dismissed it.

Frederik B, Tuesday, 7 March 2017 13:43 (one year ago) Permalink

Most problems can be pretty easily explained through racism and false consciousness.

Frederik B, Tuesday, 7 March 2017 13:45 (one year ago) Permalink

and to be fair, we've all read overcomplicated nonsense and thought c'mon now - the piece above with the 'confuting' paragraph. Or seen examples of perceived complexity that we know ('know'?) to be hot air

anvil, Monday, 29 October 2018 11:19 (one month ago) Permalink

Oh, most definitely. Speaking of which, one of the reasons Derrida remains a lingering target is because his writing very much relies on the idiomatic ressources of the French language. There's an inexorable logic to his method that tends to get muddled in English, doubly so when the translator is incompetent.

I don't think complexity for complexity's sake is desirable either. It's just that, most of the time, even the simplest formulation of a given problem happens to be quite complex (provided you wish to do justice to it).

But if you're right and some of us are simply unable to perceive any of this, like your cousin, then how are we to understand the divide? Through neurology, genetics?

pomenitul, Monday, 29 October 2018 11:27 (one month ago) Permalink

But if you're right and some of us are simply unable to perceive any of this, like your cousin, then how are we to understand the divide? Through neurology, genetics?

The underpinning of this is really psychology not politics, i think. Politics is just one place it manifests really clearly, but the same mental mechanisms are in action in non-political spaces too. I don't really have an answer! But that in itself is sort of a manifestation of the divide too! Any time you have an answer you've simplified something, moved from a number of possibilities to just one. Not having an answer just keeps things open (which is something that annoys people with this mindset, because they want to move to an answer as quickly as possible - and understandably so in many cases!)

I think complexity is also related to tangibility, and the conservative mindset is more conceptual than tangible, its not necessarily all that big on detail - get the big picture right and the details will sort themselves out with no work or thinking involved. This can also be why it can be quite hard to pin conservatives down beyond big picture stuff

anvil, Monday, 29 October 2018 11:35 (one month ago) Permalink

I agree overall, but it's somewhat less true in a country like France, which has its own brand of right-wing 'intellectuals', some of whom, like Eric Zemmour, have been penning best-sellers and occupying the TV spotlight for years. These types are very much intent on sophistically demonstrating the truth of their position through aggressive cherry-picking, as if to say 'we shall embrace your method then ruin it from within'. But their approach is anomalous, no doubt about it.

pomenitul, Monday, 29 October 2018 11:42 (one month ago) Permalink

Yes, there's a definite difference between the US and Western Europe, at least - I also find it hard to know with some of the more popular conservative figures how much of it is grift - obviously there's a lot of money in it, particularly today

In some respects as an overall strategy, rather than an individuals psychological mindset, I think this approach has merits! One of the reasons I think 'left populism' could work in the US is because of clarity. Keep it simple, stick to a few aims and say ok lets do these, sell people on the idea and don't get sidetracked or bogged down. i feel like in cutlery draw you don't always have to use the spoon, use the knife, fork, and potato peeler too

anvil, Monday, 29 October 2018 11:53 (one month ago) Permalink

the irony is that there's a huge amount of complexity in the conservative mind, but it all goes to creating elaborate justifications for their untrue axiomatic beliefs. it's the conspiratorial mindset at work.

i'm at a loss for anything to do but wait for them to crash and burn.

dub pilates (rushomancy), Monday, 29 October 2018 12:20 (one month ago) Permalink

Cherrypicking ideologies without fully understanding or following them just so one has cover to be a raging asshole in real life.

Yerac, Monday, 29 October 2018 12:46 (one month ago) Permalink

anyway, my tendency is to view the basis of conservatism as a simple moral failing - the inability to recognize the Other as a moral equal to the self. this is a moral failing we all have to some degree or another. i personally consciously treat many conservatives (including all unrepentant Trump voters) as Other/anathema. i know liberals are very unfond of this, and i certainly recognize the trap inherent in that behavior. my take is that i am acting on the basis of their objective behavior, which is, i would argue, provably morally inferior. there's this very idealistic liberal belief that treating people with kindness will make them kinder, but i find in practice all they tend to do is feed such people's belief in their own superiority.

dub pilates (rushomancy), Monday, 29 October 2018 12:54 (one month ago) Permalink

i think conspiracy thinking and complexity are not the same thing: the former is almost always in the service of simplification, even when the process itself is insanely convoluted.

the Warnock of Clodhop Mountain (Noodle Vague), Monday, 29 October 2018 12:55 (one month ago) Permalink

It's much more difficult to understand the physical forces of the universe which caused your milkshake to fall off the counter than to shake your head and mumble 'fuckin' Soros' under your breath.

a butt, at which the shaft of ridicule is daily glanced (Old Lunch), Monday, 29 October 2018 12:59 (one month ago) Permalink

i think conspiracy thinking and complexity are not the same thing: the former is almost always in the service of simplification, even when the process itself is insanely convoluted.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was trying to say.

pomenitul, Monday, 29 October 2018 13:03 (one month ago) Permalink

In the end people think in terms of narratives and the democratic party was really hurt when they stopped being able to give people a good story—maybe because of a noble commitment to complexity a la Derrida; more likely because they didn’t have one after making their pact with neoliberalism, after which their project became muddled even to themselves. It put them in a weak position and, as the author of the Atlantic article wrote, left them open to charges of hypocrisy, which is why the right has delighted in “triggering” them ever since by needling their few remaining principles. It created a sick feedback loop into which the right wing came to define itself primarily in terms of attacking liberals. This is all that people like rush limbaugh do; they’re not out their advocating a good of their own. Trump’s only rhetorical mode is the attack and the type of attack he prefers is the kind that humiliates his opponents and targets the very pillars of how they try to present themselves. In my view, this is what is nihilistic about him. You can say what you want about “conservatism” but the energies animating the Trump movement are driven by this overriding negativity. It seems like they get pleasure out of it and there isn’t really a larger plan—except of course the behind the scenes agenda of helping corporate power, but I’m talking about Trumpism as a social phenomenon.

Trϵϵship, Monday, 29 October 2018 13:04 (one month ago) Permalink

Maybe it's because I've been studying him over the past few years, but this famous bit from Weber often comes to mind when I think about our political malaise:

Our age is characterized by rationalization and intellectualization, and above all, by the disenchantment of the world. Its resulting fate is that precisely the ultimate and most sublime values have withdrawn from public life. They have retreated either into the abstract realm of mystical life or into the fraternal feelings of personal relations between individuals. It is no accident that our greatest art is intimate rather than monumental. Nor is it a matter of chance that today it is only in the smallest groups, between individual human beings, pianissimo, that you find the pulsing beat that in bygone days heralded the prophetic spirit that swept through great communities like a firestorm and welded them together. If we attempt artificially to “invent” a sense of monumental art, this leads only to wretched monstrosities of the kind we have seen in the many artistic works of the last twenty years.
If we attempt to construct new religious movements without a new, authentic prophecy, this only gives rise to something equally monstrous in terms of inner experience, which can only have an ever more dire effect. And academic prophecies can only ever produce fanatical sects, but never a genuine community. To anyone who is unable to endure the fate of the age like a man we must say that he should return to the welcoming and merciful embrace of the old churches—simply, silently, and without any of the usual public bluster of the renegade.

ryan, Monday, 29 October 2018 15:57 (one month ago) Permalink

If we attempt artificially to “invent” a sense of monumental art, this leads only to wretched monstrosities of the kind we have seen in the many artistic works of the last twenty years.

what does he have in mind here?

ogmor, Monday, 29 October 2018 16:00 (one month ago) Permalink

I actually don't know!

ryan, Monday, 29 October 2018 16:02 (one month ago) Permalink

Symbolism and its precipitates, most likely, which were routinely dismissed as 'decadent'.

pomenitul, Monday, 29 October 2018 16:11 (one month ago) Permalink

This was all adequately addressed by Eric Hoffer in 1951. The mail bomber, the synagogue shooter, they all fit the characteristics of The True Believer. Quotes from the wiki synopsis:

The "New Poor" are the most likely source of converts for mass movements/for they recall their former wealth with resentment and blame others for their current misfortune.

A variety of what Hoffer terms "misfits" are also found in mass movements. Examples include "chronically bored", the physically disabled or perpetually ill, the talentless, and criminals or "sinners". In all cases, Hoffer argues, these people feel as if their individual lives are meaningless and worthless.

Hoffer argues that the relatively low number of mass movements in America at that time was attributable to a culture that blurred traditionally rigid boundaries between nationalist, racial and religious groups and allowed greater opportunities for individual accomplishment.

As the developing world benefited from the recovery after WWII and globalism, it meant Americans had to compete, so most Americans could no longer maintain the lifestyles their parents enjoyed. American living standards peaked around 1970 (not coincidentally with American oil production), so everyone of working age recognizes a decline.

However, being a "true believer" isn't conservatism. Conservatism, as I've noted upthread, is the innate predominance of a fearful/anxiety ridden cognitive core, centered on the reptilian amygdala. Neoliberals from the Wall St. and Silicon Valley nouveau riche aren't intrinsically conservative, though many are eager to take advantage of innate conservatives for financial gain. The steady conservatives are your neighbors that close their blinds/curtains even in safe neighborhoods, who were born fearful, and who vote for the reactionaries.

Once social progressives understand that anxiety and fear is central to Conservatism, we can reorient our messages to achieve progress. Will and Grace won over far more independents that "... get used to it" pride parades.

They Bunged Him in My Growler (Sanpaku), Wednesday, 31 October 2018 22:53 (one month ago) Permalink

"President Obama's regime annexed Crimea. Not Putin."

reggie (qualmsley), Wednesday, 7 November 2018 17:49 (one month ago) Permalink

krav #maga

i want donald duck to scream into my dick (bizarro gazzara), Friday, 9 November 2018 12:02 (one month ago) Permalink

xxp I tend to regard this kind of psychologizing with skepticism. It makes intuitive sense, but I don't think conservatives are on the whole more or less fearful/anxious than liberals or progressives. I've known plenty of folks on the right and the left who don't fit that dichotomy. I think that personal identification is a bigger determining factor in one's politics than psychology.

a film with a little more emotional balls (zchyrs), Friday, 9 November 2018 12:57 (one month ago) Permalink

personal identification isn't a psychological issue?

reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 9 November 2018 13:36 (one month ago) Permalink

I was just about to say… I'm wary of over-psychologization, especially when it brushes over the political, but this is not one such instance.

pomenitul, Friday, 9 November 2018 14:02 (one month ago) Permalink

It's less about the presence of fear/anxiety and more about the response to the fear/anxiety.

Ham Beats All Meat! (Old Lunch), Friday, 9 November 2018 14:04 (one month ago) Permalink

Good point, reggie. I think "personality" is maybe closer to what I mean than "psychology." The personal identification thing is psychological for sure, but sociology seems like the bigger factor. I think people are more likely to share the political views of whoever they regard as their peers, regardless of whether they have the typical personality of someone who holds those views.

a film with a little more emotional balls (zchyrs), Friday, 9 November 2018 14:05 (one month ago) Permalink

The main reason I think this I have to admit is anecdotal and personal; my father, who is genuinely kind-hearted and gentle, invariably votes R because for whatever reason that is where he has put his identification. He's been drinking the conservative media Kool Aid for a long, long time. If you didn't know how he voted, you would never guess it in a million years from his personality (well, maybe a little--he can also be a bit of a crank). The contradiction is something I've been grappling with for years, but especially since 2016.

a film with a little more emotional balls (zchyrs), Friday, 9 November 2018 14:14 (one month ago) Permalink

zchyrs, i think this is a struggle a lot of us have had to face. people who we have never known as anything but kind and loving supporting people who are openly monstrous.

in a way i do feel fortunate that i'm not the one being tested most strongly here. when i was younger i dabbled in voting based on my personal beliefs, likes, dislikes, based on the candidate rather than the party. partly it was out of genuine belief that all of us had a common national interest that transcended party (i no longer believe this), but partly it was an unhealthy need to prove myself as an Independent Thinker.

electoral politics on a national scale has no room for Indepdendent Thought. I vote to support my tribe, in fact i moved across the country so i could be in a state where my tribe was strong. i feel a moral imperative to support them, even when they run a candidate i don't like or who has policies i don't agree with.

ultimately i don't actually believe in democracy. i still vote, though, because the people of my tribe need my help.

dub pilates (rushomancy), Friday, 9 November 2018 15:20 (one month ago) Permalink

Goes the opposite way too. I've probably been socially shunned because I look like a narc, I've voted Dem since 1992.

They Bunged Him in My Growler (Sanpaku), Friday, 9 November 2018 23:49 (one month ago) Permalink

bro holder was way more corrupt than whitaker is. death tax!

reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 16 November 2018 02:22 (four weeks ago) Permalink

i liked this comment from politico’s quillette puff piece

pic.twitter.com/h5KfGJxsbX

— maura 🎙 johnston (@maura) November 16, 2018

maura, Friday, 16 November 2018 14:24 (four weeks ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

avenatti bad! mega MAGA 2020!!

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/02/michael-avenatti-crash-burn-1037151

reggie (qualmsley), Sunday, 2 December 2018 20:16 (one week ago) Permalink

I know the bar was finally lowered to the extent that we decided to just snap it off and pitch it in the trash but I'm still all like 'wut' re: anyone having ever taken Avenatti seriously as a presidential candidate.

all lite up and very romatic (Old Lunch), Sunday, 2 December 2018 23:00 (one week ago) Permalink

his main constituency were people with bad vision who thought it was #pasta and who loved pasta so, so much

Karl Malone, Sunday, 2 December 2018 23:03 (one week ago) Permalink

“A t the time, Hudson Institute’s president and chief executive, Ken Weinstein, told Fancy Bear in a Wall Street Journal op-ed to ‘get stuffed.’”

maura, Thursday, 6 December 2018 16:19 (one week ago) Permalink

michael flynn was a deep state double-agent all along. lock him up! free paul manafort! MAGA!!

reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 7 December 2018 16:51 (one week ago) Permalink

good nancy jo sales piece on conservative women at unc

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/11/conservative-college-women-university-of-north-carolina-republicans

maura, Sunday, 9 December 2018 17:21 (five days ago) Permalink

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/12/08/what-psychology-experiments-tell-you-about-why-people-deny-facts

Basically: tribalism. And being exposed to different viewpoints literally hurts.

I did flinch at the part about how banning handguns doesn't decrease violence. Yes, it fucking does.

pomenitul, Wednesday, 12 December 2018 12:03 (two days ago) Permalink

i'd rather not give the economist a click, based on what evidence did they say this?

21st savagery fox (m bison), Wednesday, 12 December 2018 12:22 (two days ago) Permalink

They quote several studies, including Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber's The Enigma of Reason. The gist of it is that reason purportedly evolved to 'help us justify our beliefs and actions to others … and evaluate the justifications and arguments that others address to us.' Belonging trumps all else.

pomenitul, Wednesday, 12 December 2018 12:32 (two days ago) Permalink

oh no i meant the handgun thing

21st savagery fox (m bison), Wednesday, 12 December 2018 12:38 (two days ago) Permalink

Oh sorry, they refer to a 2013 study by Dan Kahan, who

asked 1,110 people a question about how effective a skin cream was in reducing a rash. The question required some simple mathematics to solve. Unsurprisingly, the most numerate were most likely to solve the problem correctly [the skin cream worsens the rash]. Then Mr Kahan gave the group the question in a politicised form, asking how effective banning handguns was in reducing crime (the underlying mathematics was the same). This time, the most numerate people did not necessarily get the right answer. Rather, Republicans who were good at maths were more likely to conclude that banning guns was ineffective, whereas Democrats said the opposite.

Here's a longer article about the study: https://grist.org/politics/science-confirms-politics-wrecks-your-ability-to-do-math/

pomenitul, Wednesday, 12 December 2018 12:48 (two days ago) Permalink

incoming strong take alert

The Stigma Against My Conservative Politics Is Worse Than The Stigma Of Being Gay

But just as I did not choose to be gay, I did not choose to be conservative. My political evolution happened over time as I came to realize that I valued truth and reason over narrative and emotion. I became an outspoken voice on the right because I felt I had no other choice than to speak up and shout the truth, despite overwhelming pressure from the media.

The left has become empowered to actively stamp out our voices. Not just that, but they feel fully justified in doing so. But just as I realized at 16 with my sexuality, I embrace today with my political worldview: I can no more deny what I know to be objective truth than I could deny my feelings about my own sexuality then.

fans annoyed as emily atack screams over nick knowles' kumquat (bizarro gazzara), Wednesday, 12 December 2018 14:29 (two days ago) Permalink

lolz

pomenitul, Wednesday, 12 December 2018 14:36 (two days ago) Permalink

I'm very curious to hear what he calls 'truth and reason'. His entire piece consists of generalizations.

pomenitul, Wednesday, 12 December 2018 14:37 (two days ago) Permalink

a conservative with shoddy reasoning???????

maura, Wednesday, 12 December 2018 15:30 (two days ago) Permalink

I guess it's probably true that sociopathy isn't really a choice.

We don't like hearing stories of a melted thermos. (Old Lunch), Wednesday, 12 December 2018 15:37 (two days ago) Permalink

Then Mr Kahan gave the group the question in a politicised form, asking how effective banning handguns was in reducing crime (the underlying mathematics was the same)

Yes, but were the mathematics embedded in the question capture the real world relationship between handguns and crime? Or were the data synthesized to ensure that the only isolatable difference between the handgun question and the face cream question was that the subjects of the study had preconceived ideas about handguns, but not about an imaginary face cream?

Because Kahan's point was not about handguns and crime, but about people's ability to apply strict logic to a problem where a heuristic answer has already been arrived at and internalized as true.

A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 12 December 2018 17:32 (two days ago) Permalink

Good point. The numbers were probably fictive throughout, come to think of it. So my initial reaction only goes to show that he was right.

pomenitul, Wednesday, 12 December 2018 17:35 (two days ago) Permalink

remember, until you can prove that mr. trump was told that russia hacked the DNC and mr. trump replied, "thank you; I will get you sanctions relief in exchange," none of this counts as real criminal activity. that Russia did hack the DNC and the president did pursue sanctions relief and there were dozens of laws broken fragrantly by the campaign and then lied about for two years doesn't make a difference because that's totally normal except to sore loser self-righteous liberals who hate small business owners and america on the hunt for witches. arrest obama first because he didn't stop it if it bothers you so much

reggie (qualmsley), Wednesday, 12 December 2018 22:26 (two days ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.