The Red-Blue Happiness Gap

[Moonbeam]

"Liberals, her real claim to your point here I believe, are less able to engage in such defense mechanisms"

Did she though?

This is a part of the scientific research her premise is based on, that conservatives rationalize more than liberals do when ideas threaten their piece of mind. That is research data currently peer reviewed as valid.

 

[Homerboy]

The old saying "Ignorance is bliss" isn't entirely untrue
And if I've ever met a more ignorant collection of people, it's conservatives.

 

[Moonbeam]

Don't forget conservatives not only being too sensitive to learning about history, you can't even talk about non hetero relationships in Florida anymore.

Also the cult leader of conservatives, Trump, was so sensitive to any word of criticism. And his supporters loved this whiny bitch

How would you expect a Stockholm Syndrome victim to respond to folk claiming victimization.

 

[dank69]

This is a part of the scientific research her premise is based on, that conservatives rationalize more than liberals do when ideas threaten their piece of mind. That is research data currently peer reviewed as valid.

Is there peer-reviewed research showing that PTE is the same as "ideas threaten their piece of mind"?

 

[Moonbeam]

Is there peer-reviewed research showing that PTE is the same as "ideas threaten their piece of mind"?

Isn’t PTE just a fancy name for the other? I think it is. Therefore if A=B and B=C then A=C

 

[dank69]

Isn’t PTE just a fancy name for the other? I think it is. Therefore if A=B and B=C then A=C

I don't know if it is, that's why I'm asking for peer-review saying it is.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't know if it is, that's why I'm asking for peer-review saying it is.

I don't think a scientist would be interested in proving that anxiety created by contemplating potential traumatic events would be the same as saying that unpleasant thoughts that threaten ones ego are scientifically the same. I think that would just be different words for the same experience one would grasp from language fluency which makes me wonder if I understand what your real question is.

 

[dank69]

I don't think a scientist would be interested in proving that anxiety created by contemplating potential traumatic events would be the same as saying that unpleasant thoughts that threaten ones ego are scientifically the same. I think that would just be different words for the same experience one would grasp from language fluency which makes me wonder if I understand what your real question is.

There is a big difference between A=B and A is a kind of B. The source she cites was a study of 600+ poor Hawaiian kids. Everyone involved might take issue with you equating the challenges they faced throughout their lives with someone being proven wrong on the internet. Yes, I know you feel you died or whatever when facing the nothing but the fact you seem to think that's just as horrible as growing up without enough food is not a good look and you might want to reconsider your comparisons.

 

[Greenman]

I have no idea about the happy part, but liberals sure as hell seem to be angrier.

 

[dank69]

I have no idea about the happy part, but liberals sure as hell seem to be angrier.

Yup, remember when liberals attacked the capital? Tons of videos of liberals screaming at school boards and restaurant hostesses about mask mandates, too.

 

[fskimospy]

I have no idea about the happy part, but liberals sure as hell seem to be angrier.

Nah, negative partisanship is about the same and has been for a long time.

Partisanship and Political Animosity in 2016

The 2016 campaign is unfolding against a backdrop of intense partisan division and animosity. Partisans’ views of the opposing party are now more negative than at any point in nearly a quarter of a century.

www.pewresearch.org

There is of course a decent argument that liberals are more justified in this view though as well, you know, conservatives did just attempt a coup.

 

[HomerJS]

Additionally, in the first paragraph she argues conservatives are happy with the way things are. Except they aren't happy. They are raging enough to attack our government and to block traffic to protest mandates that have already been lifted. You know why? Because you can't stop change. The world changes exponentially every day, and they are fucking terrified of it.

They are so happy with the way things are they have to invent phony boogeymen to keep their base enraged. By phony, stuff like...

CRT in public schools
Sharia Law
The Caravan
Birtherism
Socialism where there is none.

Thanks for saving me from reading that drivel.

 

[woolfe9998]

I understand it perfectly now that you specifically give an example but would never categorize such an argument as a straw man or use that term in answer to it is so confronted. I would argue back that the need to close some schools would be based on rational applicable to those schools and not all schools in the US. I see the flaw in the logic, I don't name it as a particular kind of flaw. And I will forget it in five minutes. @fskimospy above gave me something to work with after using the term.

Mischaracterizing an opposing position is not an argument. It is a misstatement. It's actually kind of offensive. I rarely point out logical fallacies by name, but that particular one is an exception. There is no basis for discussion when the parties cannot agree on what is being argued by each.

I should also point out that there are broadly two categories of straw man. One born of confusion, i.e. unintentional, and the other dishonest. If someone mis-describes my argument, I first check to see if I made proper sense, and if I didn't, I restate and clarify. Most of the time, however, the argument was perfectly clear.

 

[woolfe9998]

I have no idea about the happy part, but liberals sure as hell seem to be angrier.

I could see you drawing that conclusion if ATP&N is your main exposure to other people's political views. Because this forum is predominantly left. If you try another area of social media that is predominantly right, you're going to see the same anger, if not more. Everyone is angry over politics these days.

 

[dank69]

Mischaracterizing an opposing position is not an argument. It is a misstatement. It's actually kind of offensive. I rarely point out logical fallacies by name, but that particular one is an exception. There is no basis for discussion when the parties cannot agree on what is being argued by each.

I should also point out that there are broadly two categories of straw man. One born of confusion, i.e. unintentional, and the other dishonest. If someone mis-describes my argument, I first check to see if I made proper sense, and if I didn't, I restate and clarify. Most of the time, however, the argument was perfectly clear.

Yeah, it's "kind of" offensive the first or second time it happens. After 25 years of arguing politics where it happens in 9 out of 10 posts, "kind of" goes out the fucking window.

 

[woolfe9998]

Yeah, it's "kind of" offensive the first or second time it happens. After 25 years of arguing politics where it happens in 9 out of 10 posts, "kind of" goes out the fucking window.

I think you meant to reply to post #38, not post #39. And yes, I agree. When someone shows a pattern of straw mannery, it gets to where there is no point in replying to their posts anymore, or even reading them.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is a big difference between A=B and A is a kind of B. The source she cites was a study of 600+ poor Hawaiian kids. Everyone involved might take issue with you equating the challenges they faced throughout their lives with someone being proven wrong on the internet. Yes, I know you feel you died or whatever when facing the nothing but the fact you seem to think that's just as horrible as growing up without enough food is not a good look and you might want to reconsider your comparisons.

Now I understand that you are questioning data used from a small sampling to theorize more broadly and also that one kind of definition of traumatic experience may not be as bad as another. I did not understand your objection until you fleshed it out. I am going to have to go back and reread what she uses the data for and see if anything makes sense to me about where you are coming from. I appreciate the wisdom of drawing conclusions from small data samples. I just can't remember at the moment what the conclusion she made from the data was and how she applied it more generally, and I have to get ready to drive to Sacramento.

 

[Moonbeam]

Mischaracterizing an opposing position is not an argument. It is a misstatement. It's actually kind of offensive. I rarely point out logical fallacies by name, but that particular one is an exception. There is no basis for discussion when the parties cannot agree on what is being argued by each.

I should also point out that there are broadly two categories of straw man. One born of confusion, i.e. unintentional, and the other dishonest. If someone mis-describes my argument, I first check to see if I made proper sense, and if I didn't, I restate and clarify. Most of the time, however, the argument was perfectly clear.

I am not interested in what people point out saying straw man. What I am interested in is how I can address their perspective. If they say I committed a straw man fallacy I did not do so because I can see it. I do not accept the statement that I did without examining the exact nature of the complaint. How people react to real straw men presuming mine included is also of no consequence for me. I do not care how people react because I do not consider their feelings. I came up against the limits of rage and found no one I could blame but myself. Not my fault that others have not figured that out. Instead, I do the very best I can to address their grievances. The whole basis of discussion for me is to make as clear as I can what I am saying so as to prevent any misunderstanding of that that is from getting in the way. Saying I'm making a straw man fallacy just cuts off the discussion, in my opinion, a way to dodge deeper understanding.

 

[dank69]

I am not interested in what people point out saying straw man. What I am interested in is how I can address their perspective. If they say I committed a straw man fallacy I did not do so because I can see it. I do not accept the statement that I did without examining the exact nature of the complaint. How people react to real straw men presuming mine included is also of no consequence for me. I do not care how people react because I do not consider their feelings. I came up against the limits of rage and found no one I could blame but myself. Not my fault that others have not figured that out. Instead, I do the very best I can to address their grievances. The whole basis of discussion for me is to make as clear as I can what I am saying so as to prevent any misunderstanding of that that is from getting in the way. Saying I'm making a straw man fallacy just cuts off the discussion, in my opinion, a way to dodge deeper understanding.

So what you're saying is, you don't want to learn anything?

 

[Moonbeam]

So what you're saying is, you don't want to learn anything?

No, what I am saying is that the emotional attack on what I express designed label and box me up as a wielded of straw men won’t have that effect. I care less what they think. However anyone willing to explain there objections I will try to meet more than half way. I am, in other words willing to learn from those willing to explain their objection just as you have. Still, however, do not have time to study your point carefully.

 

[dank69]

No, what I am saying is that the emotional attack on what I express designed label and box me up as a wielded of straw men won’t have that effect. I care less what they think. However anyone willing to explain there objections I will try to meet more than half way. I am, in other words willing to learn from those willing to explain their objection just as you have. Still, however, do not have time to study your point carefully.

So what you're saying is you want us to do the work for you?

 

[Moonbeam]

So what you're saying is you want us to do the work for you?

Seems like what I am saying is that anything I say won't be understood by some because the foundation for that understanding is absent or there is resistance to hearing, and thus, whatever it is that I offer in clarification will meet the same fate, a new misunderstanding formulated in the words followed these, "So you are saying........." It know this is tempting and I am sure I have been guilty of the same in the past and likely tomorrow as well. The idea, of course, is to put words in someone whose explanation you want to dismiss by putting words you know are ridiculous in their mouth. This is what you are doing right?

I think what I said is that I don't use the term straw man when I want to question the validity of what they say. I say exactly what my objection is. I do that so the other person can be clear. I do the work for them because I want to meet people more than half way. I don't insist anybody do anything, but if they want a clarification they need to tell me what it is they want clarified. Since you are making your objections known to me I keep trying to explain what I see. For me saying straw man is like saying that's stupid. I know what stupid is. Calling someone stupid won't make the bright in any way I can see. Explaining what you think is wrong with their logic might have an effect. Got to drive now. Laters

 

[Greenman]

I could see you drawing that conclusion if ATP&N is your main exposure to other people's political views. Because this forum is predominantly left. If you try another area of social media that is predominantly right, you're going to see the same anger, if not more. Everyone is angry over politics these days.

I actually visit three different forums. Of the other two, one is as far right as P&N is left, and I've never once seen a heated exchange there. The third one is a pretty random mix that stay's calm until an extremist comes along, then it gets ugly.

 

[dank69]

... The idea, of course, is to put words in someone whose explanation you want to dismiss by putting words you know are ridiculous in their mouth. This is what you are doing right?

...

Gosh, that's a mouthful. We should coin a concise term to summarize that behavior. Something infinitely more specific than just "stupid."

 

[Greenman]

Nah, negative partisanship is about the same and has been for a long time.

Partisanship and Political Animosity in 2016

The 2016 campaign is unfolding against a backdrop of intense partisan division and animosity. Partisans’ views of the opposing party are now more negative than at any point in nearly a quarter of a century.

www.pewresearch.org

There is of course a decent argument that liberals are more justified in this view though as well, you know, conservatives did just attempt a coup.

They should have hired a professional. As I've said many times, my Scout troop could have pulled of a far better operation. The six P's apply to just about everything.