More evidence of asymmetric polarization

[fskimospy]

It's always interesting to see the rationalizations that people use to ignore troublesome information. I wonder if they are trying to fool other people or are trying to fool themselves.

 

[justoh]

And would saying the conservative cause is idiotic and hurtful be a favorable or unfavorable opinion of conservatives? ^_^

I would also argue that calling conservative causes hurtful instead of evil is merely one of semantics. Liberals don't tend to think it terms of good and evil and so will be less likely to use "evil" as a way to disparage someone they disagree with.

You would apparently (poorly) argue anything non-relevant to the question of which side is more distrustful of the other, which is more willing to resolve conflict, which is more likely to only associate with like-minded people, etc. All of the conservative commentators have actually demonstrated that they don't even understand what's being "discussed."

 

[manimal]

It's always interesting to see the rationalizations that people use to ignore troublesome information. I wonder if they are trying to fool other people or are trying to fool themselves.

Yes and yes. The real fools are the ones who believe that there are two sides to every single issue out there. Sometimes there is right and wrong.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's always interesting to see the rationalizations that people use to ignore troublesome information. I wonder if they are trying to fool other people or are trying to fool themselves.

The obviousness of the rationalization a implies they are there only to fool themselves.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Yes and yes. The real fools are the ones who believe that there are two sides to every single issue out there. Sometimes there is right and wrong.

Two sides?

 

[manimal]

Two sides?

Evolution and creationism etc.



One is real the other is isn't.

 

[Matt1970]

Ignoring it....partisan horse shit. The sooner people realize one party is no better than the other the sooner this country will improve.

This. More partisan bullshit. People coming in and agreeing with it doesn't make it any less bullshit.

 

[fskimospy]

This. More partisan bullshit. People coming in and agreeing with it doesn't make it any less bullshit.

You're saying that Pew is now a partisan organization?

 

[brandonb]

You're saying that Pew is now a partisan organization?

No, what he is saying is this: You found something on the web that allows you to cheerlead for your team, and you are posting it all over the net in support for your side.

Just like if the liberals tell you to "support tabby cats" you'd be posting that all over the web. If the liberals tell you to "support calico cats" you'd be posting that all over the web.

You will repost, and do whatever the agenda tells you to do. And you do.

Just read your OP... You aren't interested in discussion. Your entire point is to say how awesome your side is, and how awful the other side is. If anybody enters the thread that says anything different you will passive aggressive attack their position. Like you do in every one of your threads in any one of your topics.

It's quite humorous actually. You aren't fooling anybody. You are the trained puppet. Jumping when they say to jump. Ducking when they say to duck. There is no independent thought going through your mind.

You are a zombie, and you don't even know it.

So while we are at it. Why don't you mention something about yourself in which you don't follow the liberal/democratic party line? Do you support anything that would go against the liberal establishment?

I hope I don't hear crickets. I'm guessing you'll respond with "A gold mine of crazy right here!" Blah blah blah.

 

[Orignal Earl]

No, what he is saying is this: You found something on the web that allows you to cheerlead for your team, and you are posting it all over the net in support for your side.

Just like if the liberals tell you to "support tabby cats" you'd be posting that all over the web. If the liberals tell you to "support calico cats" you'd be posting that all over the web.

You will repost, and do whatever the agenda tells you to do. And you do.

Just read your OP... You aren't interested in discussion. Your entire point is to say how awesome your side is, and how awful the other side is. If anybody enters the thread that says anything different you will passive aggressive attack their position. Like you do in every one of your threads in any one of your topics.

It's quite humorous actually. You aren't fooling anybody. You are the trained puppet. Jumping when they say to jump. Ducking when they say to duck. There is no independent thought going through your mind.

You are a zombie, and you don't even know it.

So while we are at it. Why don't you mention something about yourself in which you don't follow the liberal/democratic party line? Do you support anything that would go against the liberal establishment?

I hope I don't hear crickets. I'm guessing you'll respond with "A gold mine of crazy right here!" Blah blah blah.

I think some of those peta chicks are wack, but your post is a gold mine of crazy right

 

[Moonbeam]

brandonb, what he found are facts that apply to conservatives and what you did was validate their factual nature via your humerous refutation of them, just as those facts predict will happen. But because you are blind to this, you actually believe your hilarious diatribe has some serious meaning.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Koolaid............Oh yeah!!!!!!!

 

[brandonb]

brandonb, what he found are facts that apply to conservatives and what you did was validate their factual nature via your humerous refutation of them, just as those facts predict will happen. But because you are blind to this, you actually believe your hilarious diatribe has some serious meaning.

Right on cue. That's awesome. Zombie's attack!

(Ps. I'm an independent/libertarian. I will admit I lean conservative, but in no way a neo con/republican.)

 

[nehalem256]

You would apparently (poorly) argue anything non-relevant to the question of which side is more distrustful of the other, which is more willing to resolve conflict, which is more likely to only associate with like-minded people, etc. All of the conservative commentators have actually demonstrated that they don't even understand what's being "discussed."

If you can't even work for a CEO who donated to a political cause you disagree with what does that say about only wanting to associate with like-minded people?

As for compromise. Look at same-sex marriage. Do you see leftists willing to compromise in the slightest? Because I don't. They even gleefully want to force private business owners to be involved in same-sex marriages.

 

[justoh]

If you can't even work for a CEO who donated to a political cause you disagree with what does that say about only wanting to associate with like-minded people?

As for compromise. Look at same-sex marriage. Do you see leftists willing to compromise in the slightest? Because I don't. They even gleefully want to force private business owners to be involved in same-sex marriages.

There's a problem with pointing to specific, isolated examples because it's about how things are generally, looking at a lot of different factors, and it's also a relative assessment. So what you have to do in order to refute the findings are to find a problem with how they came to them, or to find another study finding the opposite or finding parity.

There's also a problem with pointing to a lack of compromise on issues such as denying certain groups of people rights, especially relating to who they are, fundamentally

 

[fskimospy]

No, what he is saying is this: You found something on the web that allows you to cheerlead for your team, and you are posting it all over the net in support for your side.

Just like if the liberals tell you to "support tabby cats" you'd be posting that all over the web. If the liberals tell you to "support calico cats" you'd be posting that all over the web.

You will repost, and do whatever the agenda tells you to do. And you do.

Just read your OP... You aren't interested in discussion. Your entire point is to say how awesome your side is, and how awful the other side is. If anybody enters the thread that says anything different you will passive aggressive attack their position. Like you do in every one of your threads in any one of your topics.

It's quite humorous actually. You aren't fooling anybody. You are the trained puppet. Jumping when they say to jump. Ducking when they say to duck. There is no independent thought going through your mind.

You are a zombie, and you don't even know it.

Like I said, it's impressive the rationalizations that people go through in order to discount inconvenient information. This is a massive scientific poll undertaken by one of the most respected, nonpartisan research institutions in the country. The fact that you respond to its findings with rage against me, offers more support for my OP than anything I would write.

So while we are at it. Why don't you mention something about yourself in which you don't follow the liberal/democratic party line? Do you support anything that would go against the liberal establishment?

I hope I don't hear crickets. I'm guessing you'll respond with "A gold mine of crazy right here!" Blah blah blah.

This is also interesting and a common refrain on here. When presented with inconvenient information the first step is to simply declare it to be wrong based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence, as nehalem has done, or if that doesn't work attempt to argue that the person telling you inconvenient information isn't doing so in good faith, as you're trying to do here.

I believe the second amendment confers an individual right to own a gun. I believe rent control is a bad idea. I believe what Obama is doing with the NSA violates the 4th amendment. I believe drone strikes against US citizens to be illegal. I think teacher tenure is a bad idea, etc, etc.

So instead of desperately trying to ignore this, why not actually stop and think about why you responded to this with rage and why conservatives might poll as hating their opponents so much more, and what relationship those two might have to one another?

 

[theeedude]

Teabaggers enjoy grievance. I know because my uncle is one. He is very well off, even more so since Obama became president, has multiple houses, lives in one of the richest neighborhoods in the US, drives a very nice car, travels around the world, basically has a great life on paper. Yet he goes to local Tea Party meetings where him and similarly situated rich people commiserate about how bad they have it under Obama. Every time I talk to him it sounds like the world is about to end because of Obama. And there is no point trying to talk him out of it, so we just don't talk about politics anymore.

 

[Jaskalas]

Look at the data the OP provided. Something as simple as political engagement drives partisanship. Now think about the average age difference between the two parties.

Starting to make sense?

 

[justoh]

Look at the data the OP provided. Something as simple as political engagement drives partisanship. Now think about the average age difference between the two parties.

Starting to make sense?

not sure what you mean, but you'd think they'd proof-read their graphs before publishing them. "so misguided that they threatens...."

 

[Jaskalas]

not sure what you mean, but you'd think they'd proof-read their graphs before publishing them. "so misguided that they threatens...."

That data was clear on one point, more engaged = more partisan.

Now consider well established demographic differences between the parties. Democrats are younger, more college age. I submit the obvious conclusion: that young people are, on average, less engaged. Democrat = younger = less engaged = less partisan.

Anyone wish to contest that?

 

[fskimospy]

That data was clear on one point, more engaged = more partisan.

Now consider well established demographic differences between the parties. Democrats are younger, more college age. I submit the obvious conclusion: that young people are, on average, less engaged.

Anyone wish to contest that?

And when accounting for engagement, conservatives were still more partisan. How do you account for this?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

My bet is the majority of voting Americans will not read an article on this study and it will have zero effect on politics. Therefore it's just yet another feel good study for the political cheerleaders.

Rah rah ree
Kick em in the knee
Rah rah rass
Kick the other team's ass

 

[Jaskalas]

And when accounting for engagement, conservatives were still more partisan. How do you account for this?

Ah yes... a pivot, dodge, and parry. You wish to ignore demographic age differences.

Notice the overall difference. 9 percentage points. Meaningful, but small. Now this is the latest data, correct? When President Obama is in office and the Republicans are railing against ACA. Things that'd make them excitable.

Perhaps it's the ideological stem. To conserve. To keep things the same. Not much compromise to be found there. Alternatively, there's a lot of room to decide how to change things. How to progress. Yet every step we take to progress is a step away from conserving. Even half steps favor your direction, your ultimate goals.

If you don't think half steps are meaningful, take the ACA for example. It's going to collapse the system and pave the way for another solution, your single payer solution. Marching off a cliff is no compromise after proposing that we jump.

 

[justoh]

That data was clear on one point, more engaged = more partisan.

Now consider well established demographic differences between the parties. Democrats are younger, more college age. I submit the obvious conclusion: that young people are, on average, less engaged. Democrat = younger = less engaged = less partisan.

Anyone wish to contest that?

Well, imagine nobody contested it. Then what? Try being coherent.

 

[justoh]

Wish someone would do a study on anandtech's conservatives. It's unbelievable.