4 ms·

> "flat earthers", blatant racists, and charlatans air time (excuse the hyperbole, hopefully the point was understood). The point was understood, but different

> "flat earthers", blatant racists, and charlatans air time (excuse the hyperbole, hopefully the point was understood). The point was understood, but differently than you intended. These terms seem to be used to reference the folks that would claim to hold the conservative viewpoint, but the terms themselves only further evidence the misunderstood viewpoint non-conservatives may have of conservatives, and that misunderstanding may have been furthered by what is discussed in the article.

lintiness 10y ago
it's a lot easier exaggerating, belittling, and dismissing the "other" than it is challenging one's own positions.
- popmystack 10y ago
  Much like the majority of posts in your comment history?
throwit992 10y ago
To piggyback on this, one of the things Jonathan Haidt has shown in his work on ideological bias is that liberals are unable to accurately understand the conservative worldview, while both conservative and moderates are able to accurately explain liberal positions. Here's an explanation of the study: >One other point that I find really interesting and important about Haidt’s work is his findings on the ability of different groups to empathize across these ideological divides. So in his book (p. 287) 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. From: http://volokh.com/2014/01/17/jonathan-haidt-psychology-politics/ http://volokh.com/2014/01/17/jonathan-haidt-psychology-polit...
- protomyth 10y ago
  Part of that might be that conservatives and moderates hear the liberal opinion expressed in so many out outlets that it is fairly easy to give an accurate answer where liberals hear what liberal outlets think conservatives think which is sensationalized to gain eyeballs. I was taught to be able to argue the other sides opinion as well because then you truly understand what you believe.
  - pyoung 10y ago
    Or it could be due to the fact that the current conservative movement relies on deception to push it's agenda, which makes it difficult for the average lay person to even understand what they stand for. Tax cuts marketed as economic stimulus, attacks on regulations and consumer/environmental protections marketed as 'making government more efficient', racial oppression disguised as drug/crime laws, universal health care spun as death panels, etc...
    - lintiness 10y ago
      case in point.
    - MustardTiger 10y ago
      >Or it could be due to the fact that the current conservative movement relies on deception to push it's agenda, which makes it difficult for the average lay person to even understand what they stand for. Then why do only liberals have a problem understanding it? Why are moderates and conservatives able to understand without difficulty? Are they not "lay person"s?
    - protomyth 10y ago
      Its nice to see throwit992 point proven in such close proximity to the comment. Your spin doesn't reflect the beliefs of any conservative I have met. We aren't twirling mustaches here.
      - pyoung 10y ago
popmystack 10y ago
I don't think it's a case of me misunderstanding, I could have easily provided other examples of view points that are largely not covered or ignored because they do not hold merit. Not that this really adds negates what you said, but I used to be a conservative (and not in the vein of the caricature I was employing), it'd be hard for me to misunderstand a position I once held some years ago. There comes a time where experience and evidence will just not go your way, no matter how many what-ifs and "if you would just listen"'s you throw at opposing parties. You cannot add credibility to your position based on unknowns and chance. Making sure there is an artificial level playing ground between two sides is pointless. I don't believe this is a case of people stifling view points, but rather the view point in question just not holding any merit. Equating that to censorship is silly. Furthermore utilizing questionable sources to further a point isn't going to help your view point either.

lintiness 10y ago

it's a lot easier exaggerating, belittling, and dismissing the "other" than it is challenging one's own positions.

popmystack 10y ago
Much like the majority of posts in your comment history?

throwit992 10y ago

To piggyback on this, one of the things Jonathan Haidt has shown in his work on ideological bias is that liberals are unable to accurately understand the conservative worldview, while both conservative and moderates are able to accurately explain liberal positions. Here's an explanation of the study: >One other point that I find really interesting and important about Haidt’s work is his findings on the ability of different groups to empathize across these ideological divides. So in his book (p. 287) 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. From: http://volokh.com/2014/01/17/jonathan-haidt-psychology-politics/ http://volokh.com/2014/01/17/jonathan-haidt-psychology-polit...

protomyth 10y ago
Part of that might be that conservatives and moderates hear the liberal opinion expressed in so many out outlets that it is fairly easy to give an accurate answer where liberals hear what liberal outlets think conservatives think which is sensationalized to gain eyeballs. I was taught to be able to argue the other sides opinion as well because then you truly understand what you believe.
- pyoung 10y ago
  Or it could be due to the fact that the current conservative movement relies on deception to push it's agenda, which makes it difficult for the average lay person to even understand what they stand for. Tax cuts marketed as economic stimulus, attacks on regulations and consumer/environmental protections marketed as 'making government more efficient', racial oppression disguised as drug/crime laws, universal health care spun as death panels, etc...
  - lintiness 10y ago
    case in point.
  - MustardTiger 10y ago
    >Or it could be due to the fact that the current conservative movement relies on deception to push it's agenda, which makes it difficult for the average lay person to even understand what they stand for. Then why do only liberals have a problem understanding it? Why are moderates and conservatives able to understand without difficulty? Are they not "lay person"s?
  - protomyth 10y ago
    Its nice to see throwit992 point proven in such close proximity to the comment. Your spin doesn't reflect the beliefs of any conservative I have met. We aren't twirling mustaches here.
    - pyoung 10y ago

popmystack 10y ago

I don't think it's a case of me misunderstanding, I could have easily provided other examples of view points that are largely not covered or ignored because they do not hold merit. Not that this really adds negates what you said, but I used to be a conservative (and not in the vein of the caricature I was employing), it'd be hard for me to misunderstand a position I once held some years ago. There comes a time where experience and evidence will just not go your way, no matter how many what-ifs and "if you would just listen"'s you throw at opposing parties. You cannot add credibility to your position based on unknowns and chance. Making sure there is an artificial level playing ground between two sides is pointless. I don't believe this is a case of people stifling view points, but rather the view point in question just not holding any merit. Equating that to censorship is silly. Furthermore utilizing questionable sources to further a point isn't going to help your view point either.