There's no "conservative"

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > General Bullshit > There's no "conservative"

Sapper: Mar 8, 2003; Dinosaur Gum

gently caress the ROW posted:

the charity hate is pretty funny when its a literal fact that 70%+ of all "social spending" goes to some dweebus government worker and then through a chain of even more dweebus, cat owning social workers to the point where the poors or whatever are receiving pennies per dollar

That's a shocking statistic!

I mean, it's disingenuous as poo poo, and you'd have to be a complete loving moron not to understand that it's including things like Medicaid payouts to doctors, housing assistance, shelters, and pretty much everything except food stamps and social security checks in that 70%, and only direct cash payouts (Food stamps, social security checks, etc) in the 30%. And it's not like Medicaid has 6% overhead, lower than any insurance company in the country (and it would be much lower--1.4%--if they dropped the loving privatized bullshit like Part D and Advantage, which are nothing more than corporate welfare.)

But it's definitely shocking!

(bleh, seriousposting)

# ? Sep 29, 2015 19:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 19, 2024 17:02

fuck the ROW: Aug 29, 2008; by zen death robot

ah ye,s a reply from someone that watches msnbc probably *makes a large checkmark on my bucket list* just gotta drown myself in a frozen lake to finish this baby off

# ? Sep 29, 2015 20:20

vug: Jan 23, 2015; by Cowcaster

Hydrocodone posted:

It's not a thing. Liberalism is largely empathy, which is learned, and conservatism is just selfishness, which is natural. (So babies are all conservative, coincidentally.)

Liberal may as well be called political and conservative just not. Normal. Just not political.

No judgment on liberals or conservatives, by the way. But if you are conservative, go gently caress yourself.

none of this is correct

# ? Sep 29, 2015 20:35

CaptainSarcastic: Jul 6, 2013

TacticalUrbanHomo posted:

in america "liberal" is usually used to mean short for "liberal democrat whereas in the rest of the English-speaking world it usually is used to mean economic liberal, or more commonly these days, neo-liberal

these two things happen to be more or less opposites in most political climates, hth

There also seems to be something of deliberate action in order to keep the American public ignorant of these facts. Especially since the Nixon administration.

Neo-liberal economics has grown to be objectively toxic, yet it is being clung to with religious fervor.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 20:39

Nut to Butt: Apr 13, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

CaptainSarcastic posted:

There also seems to be something of deliberate action in order to keep the American public ignorant of these facts. Especially since the Nixon administration.

Neo-liberal economics has grown to be objectively toxic, yet it is being clung to with religious fervor.

lmbo @ this guy who thinks you have to do anything to keep the public ignorant. it all began with nixon, you see........

# ? Sep 29, 2015 20:45

TacticalUrbanHomo: Aug 17, 2011; by Lowtax

CaptainSarcastic posted:

There also seems to be something of deliberate action in order to keep the American public ignorant of these facts. Especially since the Nixon administration.

Neo-liberal economics has grown to be objectively toxic, yet it is being clung to with religious fervor.

"has grown to be" lol

# ? Sep 29, 2015 21:10

CaptainSarcastic: Jul 6, 2013

Drink Cheerwine posted:

lmbo @ this guy who thinks you have to do anything to keep the public ignorant. it all began with nixon, you see........

I said especially, nimrod.

TacticalUrbanHomo posted:

"has grown to be" lol

This is fair enough, though.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 21:17

Ork of Fiction: Jul 22, 2013

< Empathy is learned.)

# ? Sep 29, 2015 21:34

Nut to Butt: Apr 13, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

CaptainSarcastic posted:

I said especially, nimrod.

yeah, wage and price controls were just a scheme to confuse the american public.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 21:38

Ork of Fiction: Jul 22, 2013

Putting your money in a bank is conservative. Buying scratch off tickets is liberal.

Conservative just means risk averse, and it is the natural consequence of fear, specifically the fear of losing what you already have. People who are liberal tend to be liberal because they aren't afraid to risk what they have in order to possibly have something better.

In other words, you can tell how liberal someone is going to be, based on how insulated they are from their own failures.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 22:03

hawowanlawow: Jul 27, 2009

Ork of Fiction posted:

Putting your money in a bank is conservative. Buying scratch off tickets is liberal.

Conservative just means risk averse, and it is the natural consequence of fear, specifically the fear of losing what you already have. People who are liberal tend to be liberal because they aren't afraid to risk what they have in order to possibly have something better.

In other words, you can tell how liberal someone is going to be, based on how insulated they are from their own failures.

Lol

# ? Sep 29, 2015 22:04

TacticalUrbanHomo: Aug 17, 2011; by Lowtax

Ork of Fiction posted:

Putting your money in a bank is conservative. Buying scratch off tickets is liberal.

Conservative just means risk averse, and it is the natural consequence of fear, specifically the fear of losing what you already have. People who are liberal tend to be liberal because they aren't afraid to risk what they have in order to possibly have something better.

In other words, you can tell how liberal someone is going to be, based on how insulated they are from their own failures.

good parody of the OP, imo

# ? Sep 29, 2015 22:15

hawowanlawow: Jul 27, 2009

Why would anyone want better opportunities and fair wages for anyone but themselves? Surely everyone is like me and just looking out for number one.

:goonsay:

# ? Sep 29, 2015 22:21

DirtyMick: Feb 1, 2014

Drink Cheerwine posted:

lmbo @ this guy who thinks you have to do anything to keep the public ignorant. it all began with nixon, you see........

I believe in the current American context the phrase would be "panem et circenses".

Case in point, my now older parents bitch about GMO's/Obama/Democrats/Republicans/etc... and spend their days watching bullshit reality shows and playing on their iPads.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 22:31

juggalo baby coffin: Dec 2, 2007; How would the dog wear goggles and even more than that, who makes the goggles?

if you're a conservative you're literally retarded. you probably got hit in the head and damaged that empathy part of the brain that all the sociopathic serial killers have damaged. except instead of directly killing people you do it through selfish and stupid government policy. basically conservatives are just more cowardly versions of jeffrey dahmer.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 23:28

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

no mercy for reactionaries imo

# ? Sep 30, 2015 00:23

Huge Lady Pleaser: Jun 17, 2005; hello how r u doing im just looking for ppl 2 chill wit relax go out n have funn if ur looking for da same thing hit me up; Nap Ghost

you guys have the most loaded definitions for conservative and liberal lol

like when the USSR was collapsing and becoming a "blended" economy don't you think the people advocating for that change were "liberal" despite desiring a change that you people view as "conservative?"

liberal/conservative isn't something you can define by which political, economic, or moral systems someone or something espouses or advocates

people are liberal whenever they see that a change benefits them directly, but they switch their tune very quickly when they believe it has a negative impact on them. (Like why rich people by and large don't advocate socialism and why poor people do).

# ? Sep 30, 2015 00:33

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

Huge Lady Pleaser posted:

you guys have the most loaded definitions for conservative and liberal lol

like when the USSR was collapsing and becoming a "blended" economy don't you think the people advocating for that change were "liberal" despite desiring a change that you people view as "conservative?"

liberal/conservative isn't something you can define by which political, economic, or moral systems someone or something espouses or advocates

people are liberal whenever they see that a change benefits them directly, but they switch their tune very quickly when they believe it has a negative impact on them. (Like why rich people by and large don't advocate socialism and why poor people do).

this understanding of the terms is different from the political science understanding. if liberal means change then hitler was a liberal. if its an economic philosophy then its advocating for bourgeois power and 'free trade' and if you are in america it can mean you are a social democrat (kinda) point is this is a stupid reading as well and you all suck at this

# ? Sep 30, 2015 00:43

hawowanlawow: Jul 27, 2009

Huge Lady Pleaser posted:

people are liberal whenever they see that a change benefits them directly, but they switch their tune very quickly when they believe it has a negative impact on them. (Like why rich people by and large don't advocate socialism and why poor people do).

lol it's funny how everyone just takes this dumb idea and runs with it as if it's fact

just because YOU can't imagine being OK with paying taxes when you're rich doesn't mean that everyone thinks that way. just look at JK Rowling, who doesn't avoid paying taxes because she was supported by the government before she wrote her books.

# ? Sep 30, 2015 01:16

Hooded Reptile: Aug 31, 2015

Huge Lady Pleaser posted:

you guys have the most loaded definitions for conservative and liberal lol

like when the USSR was collapsing and becoming a "blended" economy don't you think the people advocating for that change were "liberal" despite desiring a change that you people view as "conservative?"

liberal/conservative isn't something you can define by which political, economic, or moral systems someone or something espouses or advocates

people are liberal whenever they see that a change benefits them directly, but they switch their tune very quickly when they believe it has a negative impact on them. (Like why rich people by and large don't advocate socialism and why poor people do).

http://blog.chron.com/thetexican/2014/04/when-boris-yeltsin-went-grocery-shopping-in-clear-lake/

Grocery stores killed the soviet union some say.

# ? Sep 30, 2015 01:19

Nut to Butt: Apr 13, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

see, ya got your limousine liberals, and then you got your linoleum liberals

# ? Sep 30, 2015 01:19

Nut to Butt: Apr 13, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

hitler was a vegetarian and a failed artist who hated jews and advocated a very particular brand of socialism. super liberal, imo

# ? Sep 30, 2015 01:30

juggalo baby coffin: Dec 2, 2007; How would the dog wear goggles and even more than that, who makes the goggles?

well you see conservatives are the rational ones, because in a rich society poor people want money, but when people get money they don't want to give it up. which means conservatives, the selfish ones, are the smart ones because rich people are smart and poor people are greedy and dumb.

# ? Sep 30, 2015 01:47

Nut to Butt: Apr 13, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

these threads always make me laugh:

"Haidt reports on the following experiment: after determining whether someone is liberal or conservative, he then has each person answer the standard battery of questions as if he were the opposite ideology. So, he would ask a liberal to answer the questions as if he were a �typical conservative� and vice-versa. What he finds is quite striking: 'The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who describe themselves as �very liberal.� The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives.' In other words, moderates and conservatives can understand the liberal worldview and liberals are unable to relate to the conservative worldview, especially when it comes to questions of care and fairness.

In short, Haidt�s research suggests that many liberals really do believe that conservatives are heartless bastards�or as a friend of mine once remarked, 'Conservatives think that liberals are good people with bad ideas, whereas liberals think conservatives are bad people'�and very liberal people think that especially strongly. Haidt suggests that there is some truth to this."

http://volokh.com/2014/01/17/jonathan-haidt-psychology-politics/

# ? Sep 30, 2015 02:06

afeelgoodpoop: Oct 14, 2014; by FactsAreUseless

Drink Cheerwine posted:

these threads always make me laugh:

"Haidt reports on the following experiment: after determining whether someone is liberal or conservative, he then has each person answer the standard battery of questions as if he were the opposite ideology. So, he would ask a liberal to answer the questions as if he were a �typical conservative� and vice-versa. What he finds is quite striking: 'The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who describe themselves as �very liberal.� The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives.' In other words, moderates and conservatives can understand the liberal worldview and liberals are unable to relate to the conservative worldview, especially when it comes to questions of care and fairness.

In short, Haidt�s research suggests that many liberals really do believe that conservatives are heartless bastards�or as a friend of mine once remarked, 'Conservatives think that liberals are good people with bad ideas, whereas liberals think conservatives are bad people'�and very liberal people think that especially strongly. Haidt suggests that there is some truth to this."

http://volokh.com/2014/01/17/jonathan-haidt-psychology-politics/

its called lacking a sense of personal responsibility.

# ? Sep 30, 2015 02:08

Huge Lady Pleaser: Jun 17, 2005; hello how r u doing im just looking for ppl 2 chill wit relax go out n have funn if ur looking for da same thing hit me up; Nap Ghost

radiatinglines posted:

lol it's funny how everyone just takes this dumb idea and runs with it as if it's fact

just because YOU can't imagine being OK with paying taxes when you're rich doesn't mean that everyone thinks that way. just look at JK Rowling, who doesn't avoid paying taxes because she was supported by the government before she wrote her books.

Lol i never said I couldn't imagine. And I also said "by and large" meaning the majority. Pointing out an outlying example doesn't prove me wrong. If you read between the lines I'm saying that, sometimes, poor people that become rich will suddenly be against wealth distribution

This is from the american perspective mind you. Because our system favors the rich, most people aren't going to choose to give away what they feel they've "earned." I'm not saying its right, just what people believe.

triple edit: What I was also trying to say was that if people don't believe there is a benefit in liberalization they won't support it. American conservatives are too short-sighted to see the long-term benefits, but as that handy chart on the previous page pointed out, they are more than willing to give to religious charity. Why? because they literally believe that god will favor them for doing so. because they're loving stupid.

Huge Lady Pleaser fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Sep 30, 2015

# ? Sep 30, 2015 02:09

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

Forgall posted:

Conservatives (not the rich ones, but the base) are not selfish. They know on some level that conservative policies are going to gently caress them too. But they accept it because their desire to harm other people overrides their self-preservation. That's something different from selfishness.

It's probably more like a perceived "prisoner's dilemma".

The conservative base sees a possible opportunity to get themselves forward at the expense of others. They know that there's an alternative, working together, but they don't trust everyone else ("welfare queens", etc.) enough to do so.

# ? Sep 30, 2015 02:13

Hobohemian: Sep 30, 2005; by XyloJW

Drink Cheerwine posted:

these threads always make me laugh:

"Haidt reports on the following experiment: after determining whether someone is liberal or conservative, he then has each person answer the standard battery of questions as if he were the opposite ideology. So, he would ask a liberal to answer the questions as if he were a �typical conservative� and vice-versa. What he finds is quite striking: 'The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who describe themselves as �very liberal.� The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives.' In other words, moderates and conservatives can understand the liberal worldview and liberals are unable to relate to the conservative worldview, especially when it comes to questions of care and fairness.

In short, Haidt�s research suggests that many liberals really do believe that conservatives are heartless bastards�or as a friend of mine once remarked, 'Conservatives think that liberals are good people with bad ideas, whereas liberals think conservatives are bad people'�and very liberal people think that especially strongly. Haidt suggests that there is some truth to this."

http://volokh.com/2014/01/17/jonathan-haidt-psychology-politics/

People who quote social science studies always make me laugh: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716

quote:

We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. There is no single standard for evaluating replication success. Here, we evaluated reproducibility using significance and P values, effect sizes, subjective assessments of replication teams, and meta-analysis of effect sizes. The mean effect size (r) of the replication effects (Mr = 0.197, SD = 0.257) was half the magnitude of the mean effect size of the original effects (Mr = 0.403, SD = 0.188), representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had significant results (P < .05). Thirty-six percent of replications had significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.

...collectively these results offer a clear conclusion: A large portion of replications produced weaker evidence for the original findings despite using materials provided by the original authors, review in advance for methodological fidelity, and high statistical power to detect the original effect sizes. Moreover, correlational evidence is consistent with the conclusion that variation in the strength of initial evidence (such as original P value) was more predictive of replication success than variation in the characteristics of the teams conducting the research (such as experience and expertise). The latter factors certainly can influence replication success, but they did not appear to do so here.

Reproducibility is not well understood because the incentives for individual scientists prioritize novelty over replication. Innovation is the engine of discovery and is vital for a productive, effective scientific enterprise. However, innovative ideas become old news fast. Journal reviewers and editors may dismiss a new test of a published idea as unoriginal. The claim that �we already know this� belies the uncertainty of scientific evidence. Innovation points out paths that are possible; replication points out paths that are likely; progress relies on both. Replication can increase certainty when findings are reproduced and promote innovation when they are not. This project provides accumulating evidence for many findings in psychological research and suggests that there is still more work to do to verify whether we know what we think we know.

# ? Sep 30, 2015 02:18

Ork of Fiction: Jul 22, 2013

TacticalUrbanHomo posted:

good parody of the OP, imo

radiatinglines posted:

Why would anyone want better opportunities and fair wages for anyone but themselves? Surely everyone is like me and just looking out for number one.

If it was worse for you to live in a society with better wages and equanimity, then your argument would make sense.
How is wanting to live in a more stable, happier society not looking out for your own interests?
Also, what does that have to do with what I said in any way?

TEAYCHES posted:

this understanding of the terms is different from the political science understanding. if liberal means change then hitler was a liberal. if its an economic philosophy then its advocating for bourgeois power and 'free trade' and if you are in america it can mean you are a social democrat (kinda) point is this is a stupid reading as well and you all suck at this

If the risk of inaction is greater than the risk of action, then action fits the conservative philosophy. Conservative doesn't mean change or stasis. It's just a philosophy of risk.

The social conservative wants to maintain the traditional way of life because it has a proven record of stability and effectiveness. Amish are a prime example.
However, as humanity is approaching a crisis, the risk of inaction is becoming far greater than the risk of action. So things that once were the domain of liberals will be adopted more and more by people with a conservative mindset. You'll see.

# ? Sep 30, 2015 02:21

Top City Homo: Oct 15, 2014; Ramrod XTreme

"[E]verything that lives, does so under the categorical condition
of decisively interfering in the life of someone else....
The worse it is for those who are so ignorant of the natural and
social law of human solidarity that they deem possible or even
desirable the absolute independence of individuals in regard to one
another. To will it is to will the disappearance of society.... All men,
even the most intelligent and strongest are at every instant of their
lives the producers and the product. Freedom itself, the freedom of
every man, is the ever-renewed effect of the great mass of physical.
intellectual, and moral influences to which this man is subjected by
the people surrounding him and the environment in which he was
born and in which he passed his whole life.

To wish to escape this influence in the name of some . . . self-
sufficient and absolutely egoistical freedom. is to aim toward non-
being.

To do away with this reciprocal influence is tantamount to
death. And in demanding the freedom of the masses we do not intend
to do away with natural influences to which man is subjected by
individuals and groups. All we want is to do away with is factitious.
legitimized influences. to do away with the privileges in exerting
influence."

Even the most wretched individual of our present society could not exist and develop without the cumulative social efforts of countless generations. Thus the individual, his freedom and reason, are the products of society, and not vice versa: society is not the product of individuals comprising it; and the higher, the more fully the individual is developed, the greater his freedom � and the more he is the product of society, the more does he receive from society and the greater his debt to it.

The materialistic, realistic, and collectivist conception of freedom, as opposed to the idealistic, is this: Man becomes conscious of himself and his humanity only in society and only by the collective action of the whole society. He frees himself from the yoke of external nature only by collective and social labor, which alone can transform the earth into an abode favorable to the development of humanity. Without such material emancipation the intellectual and moral emancipation of the individual is impossible. He can emancipate himself from the yoke of his own nature, i.e. subordinate his instincts and the movements of his body to the conscious direction of his mind, the development of which is fostered only by education and training. But education and training are preeminently and exclusively social � hence the isolated individual cannot possibly become conscious of his freedom.
To be free � means to be acknowledged and treated as such by all his fellowmen. The liberty of every individual is only the reflection of his own humanity, or his human right through the conscience of all free men, his brothers and his equals.
I can feel free only in the presence of and in relationship with other men. In the presence of an inferior species of animal I am neither free nor a man, because this animal is incapable of conceiving and consequently recognizing my humanity. I am not myself free or human until or unless I recognize the freedom and humanity of all my fellowmen.
Only in respecting their human character do I respect my own. ...
I am truly free only when all human beings, men and women, are equally free. The freedom of other men, far from negating or limiting my freedom, is, on the contrary, its necessary premise and confirmation.

# ? Sep 30, 2015 02:23

Huge Lady Pleaser: Jun 17, 2005; hello how r u doing im just looking for ppl 2 chill wit relax go out n have funn if ur looking for da same thing hit me up; Nap Ghost

Hooded Reptile posted:

http://blog.chron.com/thetexican/2014/04/when-boris-yeltsin-went-grocery-shopping-in-clear-lake/

Grocery stores killed the soviet union some say.

I went to that Randall's all the time growing up and now i'm communist

fake edit: I really did.

# ? Sep 30, 2015 02:27

Immortan: Jun 6, 2015; by Shine

Conservatives are their own worst enemy. People today are typically much more prone to reacting negatively to another's political views on lifestyles than social class. As in, the social conservative agenda is single-handedly diminishing the republican party's PR reach with younger generations. I think it was John Kasich who said he was worried about the party's future with millennials after the first republican debate due to regressive rhetoric on social policy uttered by religious blowhards such as Huckabee. These people are still bitching about Roe v. Wade/abortion. They're still bitching about gay marriage. They're still bitching about Planned Parenthood. They're still bitching about Obama's place of birth. They still think there is a War on Christmas. They're dinosaurs. The republicans have won the popular vote in a Presidential Election only once in the past 25 years. Point being: they're hosed.

# ? Sep 30, 2015 02:37

Hooded Reptile: Aug 31, 2015

Immortan posted:

Conservatives are their own worst enemy. People today are typically much more prone to reacting negatively to another's political views on lifestyles than social class. As in, the social conservative agenda is single-handedly diminishing the republican party's PR reach with younger generations. I think it was John Kasich who said he was worried about the party's future with millennials after the first republican debate due to regressive rhetoric on social policy uttered by religious blowhards such as Huckabee. These people are still bitching about Roe v. Wade/abortion. They're still bitching about gay marriage. They're still bitching about Planned Parenthood. They're still bitching about Obama's place of birth. They still think there is a War on Christmas. They're dinosaurs. The republicans have won the popular vote in a Presidential Election only once in the past 25 years. Point being: they're hosed.

Yeah, the republican party is nothing but self hating old rich men who care more about making money in wars, and profiting, than actually doing anything. They claim to be on the side of the people, but another government shutdown is looming.

The republican party used to be good, but that was at least a hundred years ago.

# ? Sep 30, 2015 02:41

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

this thread? yea its bad

# ? Sep 30, 2015 02:42

Immortan: Jun 6, 2015; by Shine

TEAYCHES posted:

this thread? yea its bad

Log Cabin Republican spotted. :smugbert:

# ? Sep 30, 2015 02:47

Nut to Butt: Apr 13, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

Hobohemian posted:

People who quote social science studies always make me laugh: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716

they werent testing causality.

i know a lot of people of various political stripes, and in my personal experience it is very rare to come across a liberal who can accurately ape a conservative mindset. i saw frederik de boer do a pretty good job once, but i cant find it.

you dont have to believe me, information filtering and all that, but i recommend haidt's book to anyone with an interest. http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion-ebook/dp/B0052FF7YM

# ? Sep 30, 2015 02:56

TacticalUrbanHomo: Aug 17, 2011; by Lowtax

DirtyMick posted:

I believe in the current American context the phrase would be "panem et circenses".

Case in point, my now older parents bitch about GMO's/Obama/Democrats/Republicans/etc... and spend their days watching bullshit reality shows and playing on their iPads.

but the government ain't even doing that, people are just doing it to themselves

# ? Sep 30, 2015 03:09

TacticalUrbanHomo: Aug 17, 2011; by Lowtax

Drink Cheerwine posted:

these threads always make me laugh:

"Haidt reports on the following experiment: after determining whether someone is liberal or conservative, he then has each person answer the standard battery of questions as if he were the opposite ideology. So, he would ask a liberal to answer the questions as if he were a �typical conservative� and vice-versa. What he finds is quite striking: 'The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who describe themselves as �very liberal.� The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives.' In other words, moderates and conservatives can understand the liberal worldview and liberals are unable to relate to the conservative worldview, especially when it comes to questions of care and fairness.

In short, Haidt�s research suggests that many liberals really do believe that conservatives are heartless bastards�or as a friend of mine once remarked, 'Conservatives think that liberals are good people with bad ideas, whereas liberals think conservatives are bad people'�and very liberal people think that especially strongly. Haidt suggests that there is some truth to this."

http://volokh.com/2014/01/17/jonathan-haidt-psychology-politics/

isn't a plausible explanation for this that most conservatives and liberals are okay people, but conservatives are all just incredibly stupid?

a person of average or above average intelligence has a hard time imagining what it's like to just be cripplingly stupid, so someone easily roped into voting against their own interests with amazing regularity must just seem like an rear end in a top hat. conversely conservatives are really really dumb, and really really dumb people always think they're smarter than people who are smarter than them, so they think the liberals' problem is just "bad ideas".

# ? Sep 30, 2015 03:12

TacticalUrbanHomo: Aug 17, 2011; by Lowtax

Drink Cheerwine posted:

hitler was a vegetarian and a failed artist who hated jews and advocated a very particular brand of socialism. super liberal, imo

if voting liberal will turn america into the fourth reich then I'm going to volunteer for bernie sanders's campaign

jk I'm going to antagonise republican organising efforts through orchestrated political violence and physical sabotage. that's more effective.

# ? Sep 30, 2015 03:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 19, 2024 17:02

Hooded Reptile: Aug 31, 2015

most republicans have wide stances anyways

# ? Sep 30, 2015 03:18

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > General Bullshit > There's no "conservative"

«‹›5 »