22 ms·

Misperceptions of the opponent fringe and miscalibration of political contempt

60 points by luu 4y ago

rossdavidh 4y ago
"In the 1960’s, only 5% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats reported that they would be “displeased” if their son or daughter chose to marry a political opponent (Iyengar et al., 2012). By 2010, these numbers had risen tenfold." When you combine that with twin, adoption, or half-sibling studies which all show that political orientation is partially inherited, it's like we're splitting into two different species. Hopefully things will get back on track long before that.
- lupire 4y ago
  In the 1960s, more parents opposed different race marriage, and different religion marriage, than different politics marriage. The difference now is that the "other species" now has a voice in 2-party politics, after previously being silenced. It wasn't better in the past when Democrats and Republicans worked together to oppress non-WASPs.
  - rossdavidh 4y ago
    Certainly it wasn't. I would like to think that there is not a 'conservation of intolerance' principle here, though, that requires some other kind of intolerance to go up in order for intolerance of race, religion, etc. to go down.
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  If you look at the last ~40 years of government policy in the USA, and focus on where the Republicans and Democrats are in alignment (neoliberal trade policy & outsourcing of manufacturing, steadily increasing military-industrial budgets, and no-strings-attached bailouts of Wall Street firms), then you get a picture of the country as a corporation where the politicians are essentially little more than corporate middle managers. The middle manager has a rather unusual job - keep the corporate board and the shareholders wealthy and happy, and keep the rank-and-file employees productive and happy. The former job is done more in private, the latter job is done more in public. (Note how certain politicians notoriously stated the need for having both public and private positions, which fits this model). Somewhere along the way, the middle managers had a bright idea: if we ensure the rank-and-file employees distrust and hate one another more than either us or the corporate board, we can keep this whole thing rolling along, even while we screw them over and enrich ourselves and the board! Genius. For a while, anyway.
- jrm4 4y ago
  Yeah, I was about to say, I want no parts of this track that you want to get back on. If my kids bring home white people they want to marry, I no longer have to worry about the repercussions.
  - rossdavidh 4y ago
    The 'track' I was referring to, was that it's ok for your kid to marry someone from another part of the political spectrum than yours.
    - jrm4 4y ago
      And what I am saying is that you can't separate these two things; the improvements in integration are at least partially the cause of this perceived "polarization." Back then, Democrats and Republicans alike could be comfortably racist; one might wonder if black folks even got to take the survey. But two things happened, one is the civil rights movement which made people less racist. (yay!) and the other is the radicalization of the Republican party. Today, Democrat/Republican is a much better proxy/predictor for -- well, let's be PC here and say, potential matches. It's not a bad predictor (and before someone says some nonsense comparing this to prejudice, political party is 100% a choice and nothing like racial discrimination.)
- logicchains 4y ago
  >When you combine that with twin, adoption, or half-sibling studies which all show that political orientation is partially inherited, it's like we're splitting into two different species. Hopefully things will get back on track long before that. Evolution is a very powerful force; ultimately the genes that make people incline towards having more children will become dominant. https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/republicans-have-more-children/ https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/republicans-have-mor... currently it looks like Republicans are winning the reproduction war.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    This same train of thought comes up when talking about environmental conservation. Namely: "If you're worried about the environment, you should have more kids because they'll also be environmentalists". It's so ridiculous on its face that I'm not sure why I'm typing out this reply, but if there was a simple straight line between genetics and ideology, why would positions like those opposed to the Republicans exist at all? Shouldn't they all have been bred out by now? And what about the fact that what it means to be a Republican and a Democrat change as well. There used to be a time when the Democrats were the pro-slavery party. So what ideological elements are inherited exactly? Is it the broad party affiliation? Is it beliefs about tax policy? Beliefs about gun rights[1]? Religion? [1] Incidentally, the left is becoming increasingly pro-second-ammendment: https://www.theirisnyc.com/post/american-gun-rights-activism-finds-a-new-home-the-far-left https://www.theirisnyc.com/post/american-gun-rights-activism... Edit: Oh yeah, and anecdotally plenty of kids raised by conservatives grow up to hate their parents' guts. Perhaps because of the authoritarian nature of some conservative households. As you might expect, this is especially true for LGBTQ kids.
  - watwut 4y ago
    If they did, they would had enough votes to win popular ballots. They don't, they need biased electoral system that guves more power to minority.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  The 1960s was in the middle of the long overlapping double political realignment between the New Deal and the mid-1990s, so the main ideological divides in the country did not line up with the divide between the major parties. This resulted in less partisan division, but no less political division, as the large scale political violence of, particularly, the 1950s and 1960s, makes pretty clear. All the hand-wringing over the fact that we’ve in the last couple decades returned to the normal state where salient ideological divisions actually map reasonably well to the main partisan division is...bizarre.
- gunfighthacksaw 4y ago
  > it's like we're splitting into two different species. Or nations. A lot of the turmoil in Eastern Europe since the 90s is related to certain nations considering themselves distinct, and other nations refusing to entertain it. The former group will fight for their liberty and the latter group will try to conquer and absorb them. Will the same happen in the US? I see the African Americans being their own unique North American nation with associated food, music and culture, but also being part of the dominant American national culture. Not many of them appear to want to be fully separate, black nationalist extremists aside. If heartland white Americans attempted to distinguish themselves as a separate nation, it would be civil war 2, but fuelled by nationalism as opposed to slavery, traditionalism and states rights.
- r00fus 4y ago
  I firmly believe there are more than 2 parties. France is a good example - reactionary extreme right, centrist/corporatist, and far left. Both the left and right hate the centrist, but also have widely divergent views on how to unseat the centrists. It's just that in the US, only 2 parties can work given the FPTP system that makes all 3rd parties spoilers.
giantg2 4y ago
Is this really anything new? I think most people who actually talk with their neighbors about various topics can see that most people aren't as extreme as their party is represented to be in the media. There are hundreds of millions of party members. Did anyone truly think that a member of either party supports every policy the party supports, or that there are different factions within the party that take opposing stances on specific issues? There's no way we're able to fully map 100M to 1 on an innumerable amount of topics/solutions.
- jqgatsby 4y ago
  >>Did anyone truly think that a member of either party supports every policy the party supports? I see you haven't met my in-laws.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Sorry, I shouldn't have used absolutist language. You're right, there are likely a small minority that agrees with everything that at least their faction of the party says.
- banannaise 4y ago
  (hopefully) relevant perspective from a transgender person: It is irrelevant to me that most people are not extremists. There are a lot of "non-extremist" people who consider me a loon because of my appearance and gender. Those people seem to get along perfectly fine with "moderates" who are more accepting of me... and that really doesn't help, because the typical result is that both of them will agree to treat me as an extremist. For existing.
  - twofornone 4y ago
  - a_shovel 4y ago
    Yeah, that's my position as well. People make fun of leftists for infighting and "cancel culture" and "eating their own", but the alternative seems to be allowing the worst parts of "your side" to keep and even expand their influence over the political landscape, and that seems to be what the right has done.
breadbreadbread 4y ago
[flagged]
- bavell 4y ago
  I think you should have cooled off for a bit before posting this emotion-laden comment. I would suggest that the people you should be angry with are the ones behind the singular corporate uniparty which pits us against each other by creating false narratives and rhetoric that spread through our media ecosystem. > I'm kinda done with listening to the other side at this point. Don't let the propaganda win, always be willing to listen.
  - breadbreadbread 4y ago
    >I would suggest that the people you should be angry with are the ones behind the singular corporate uniparty which pits us against each other by creating false narratives and rhetoric that spread through our media ecosystem. Thats a two way street buddy. I can't listen to the other side if they are blabbering on about their own false narrative. This comment section is full of people who think that its the lefts fault and are absolutely incapable of looking at their own party. I don't know how to explain to you that I do not give a shit about Democrats or Liberal media or the "singular corporate uniparty", let it all burn and I will still be fighting for LGBT rights and there will still be people who think I shouldn't exist.
    - c22 4y ago
      There will always be people who think you shouldn't exist, that is true. But parent comment is suggesting that if you let it all burn down those people would likely turn out to be only a small minority, easily dismissed, rather than a unified bloc of 50% of brainwashed america.
      - breadbreadbread 4y ago
        I don't think the GOP is a unified bloc. I think it is beholden to a vocal minority without whom they wouldnt win elections because running on their last 20 years of policy alone hasnt worked. If we destroyed the current political parties and had everyone in government rerun as independents, that vocal minority would still find a political foothold.
ergonaught 4y ago
If it’s only the extremes of a group that want a thing, but supporting the group means that the extremes get what they want, there is precisely zero distinction. The group is extreme, on the ground, in reality.
- antifa 4y ago
  We didn't get Medicare For All, Green New Deal, Housing For All, $15 minimum wage, etc. under Biden, also we never got a federal law protecting abortion under Obama when he had a super majority. Hillary had more opposition to Sanders than to Trump. Manchin and Sinema regularly vote Republican on topics important to Democrat voters. So you could say it's the opposite for Democrats. This is called the Ratchet Effect.
arminiusreturns 4y ago
Keeping it relevant to the paper itself, there is something particularly powerful in amplifying if not creating this effect in the first place: sock-puppetry, known in the MICIMATT world (Military-Industrial-Counter-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think Tank complex) as "persona management" I saw this really take off around 2010 and tried to warn people. The issue is that the forces that actually control the major political parties need to divide the people, for never forget the thing the oligarchs fear the most is a united proliteriat, and have heavily invested in creating the illusion of a consesus or narrative view from one "side" or the other, reinforcing the division at play. Three letter grade psyops are at play on an unprecendented scale, and failing to understand that will leave anyone interested in this topic twirling at windmills.
- 99_00 4y ago
  Now that Trump is out of power mistrusting three letter agencies is back in fashion. When he was in power they were trusted and reliable.
  - arminiusreturns 4y ago
    Some of us dont blow with the political winds quite so easily.
    - 99_00 4y ago
      I believe you. Unfortunately targeting polarizing figures or unpopular minorities is an easy way for three letter agencies to ensure that that a large percentage of the American public happily and enthusiastically supports their evil.
  - tpoacher 4y ago
    No so much trusted as seemingly inactive I would say?
- r00fus 4y ago
  I wonder exactly how much of social media are sockpuppets. Also - perhaps massive disinterest is the goal.
anm89 4y ago
I've spent a lot of time thinking about this. I think a problem is that within certain bubbles, the extreme viewpoints are genuinely really ubiquotous but if you have certain other cultural preferences it can be hard to escape those other bubbles. I find just being around a certain group of people, namely young left urban college educated people who are counnterculture, the norms for that group are unbelievably far left. Like the nuances of Maosism vs Lenninism is a more common discussion than the budget of congress amongst this group (percieved to be a right wing issue). It's unbelievably extreme. And yet I never interact with the other side, let's say Mid west evangelicals, and rarely interact with the unengaged center even though those other two groups are combined an order of magnitude bigger. But based on non political preferences I spend a lot of my time around woke communists and end up having a strong distaste for them even though they are a small minority in the bigger picture. I think this same group has a very outsized influence in a large number of spheres. So I don't think it's unreasonable to worry about them even if they are a minority.
PaulHoule 4y ago
We had a talk where I work by Jamie Druckman who comes to similar conclusions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE78OLNY6JQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE78OLNY6JQ
incomingpain 4y ago
88 pages from 2021 involving Wilfred Laurier social sciences? You know what's more interesting, in the months since this study it has become much more clear what's really going down. NYTimes realized their echo chamber and practically ordered their journalists to exit their echo chambers. Which upon doing so they somewhat returned to better journalistic standards, NYTimes suddenly showed some excellent legitimacy. CNN is basically in complete collapse because they were too late. Can't see how they recover without some absolute hail mary. Rachel Maddow had a bit of a sabbatical and then got rebranded and is on air far less. MSNBC ratings not looking so hot lately. Meanwhile Fox is in dominant #1 position. There's objective measurements that the democrats moved far left creating the polarization. You have star trek discovery a ultra top secret missions best of the best crew... but every character is LGBT. Wtf are they trying to say? Even Trek fell into this same trap as those above. Has anyone checked out Star Trek Strange New Worlds episode 1 where they literally say second US civil war. The story was intentionally weak as hell to ensure everyone who watches it sees they are talking about the USA. The importance of getting those 2 parties talking together again. That working together for a better future is really the only way. Even Trek suddenly realized their own mistake. It makes for such an amazing first episode.
- breadbreadbread 4y ago
  [flagged]
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > NYTimes realized their echo chamber and practically ordered their journalists to exit their echo chambers. Which upon doing so they somewhat returned to better journalistic standards, NYTimes suddenly showed some excellent legitimacy. Details? I know they've gotten a few people who are outside the progressive orthodoxy and tend to poke holes in it to write opinion columns in the last few months.
- ssklash 4y ago
  > democrats moved far left I have to wonder if you know what far left means outside of the US. Because even the furthest left of the Democratic party is barely left-leaning in Europe and most other democracies.
renewiltord 4y ago
- giantg2 4y ago
  So you expect roughly 50% of people to hate you, and for you to hate about 50% of people? Seems a miserable way to look at it. The fact is that choices are limited. Things like ranked choice voting might start to change that. Maybe we could see other major parties at some point. The fact that we have only two main parties is a product of your (and most people's) sort of game theory mindset - that you have to oppose the other side even if your choice isn't great.
  - banannaise 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - peteradio 4y ago
      > a political party whose agenda includes literal genocide of transgender people That's pretty loaded, almost flaggable, but I think in this thread I'll ask what are you talking about?
      - bitwize 4y ago
        peteradio 4y ago
        I think you have extreme views, but I'm not going to assume all LGBTQ and allies hold the same.
        orangecat 4y ago
        This is exactly the sort of catastrophizing that the study is talking about. Yes, I'm sure you can find a few lunatics on the right who have said something like that. You can also find nutjobs on the left who want a literal Communist revolution. Neither is anywhere near the views of the vast majority of conservatives or liberals.

60 points by luu 4y ago

"In the 1960’s, only 5% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats reported that they would be “displeased” if their son or daughter chose to marry a political opponent (Iyengar et al., 2012). By 2010, these numbers had risen tenfold." When you combine that with twin, adoption, or half-sibling studies which all show that political orientation is partially inherited, it's like we're splitting into two different species. Hopefully things will get back on track long before that.

lupire 4y ago
In the 1960s, more parents opposed different race marriage, and different religion marriage, than different politics marriage. The difference now is that the "other species" now has a voice in 2-party politics, after previously being silenced. It wasn't better in the past when Democrats and Republicans worked together to oppress non-WASPs.
- rossdavidh 4y ago
  Certainly it wasn't. I would like to think that there is not a 'conservation of intolerance' principle here, though, that requires some other kind of intolerance to go up in order for intolerance of race, religion, etc. to go down.
photochemsyn 4y ago
If you look at the last ~40 years of government policy in the USA, and focus on where the Republicans and Democrats are in alignment (neoliberal trade policy & outsourcing of manufacturing, steadily increasing military-industrial budgets, and no-strings-attached bailouts of Wall Street firms), then you get a picture of the country as a corporation where the politicians are essentially little more than corporate middle managers. The middle manager has a rather unusual job - keep the corporate board and the shareholders wealthy and happy, and keep the rank-and-file employees productive and happy. The former job is done more in private, the latter job is done more in public. (Note how certain politicians notoriously stated the need for having both public and private positions, which fits this model). Somewhere along the way, the middle managers had a bright idea: if we ensure the rank-and-file employees distrust and hate one another more than either us or the corporate board, we can keep this whole thing rolling along, even while we screw them over and enrich ourselves and the board! Genius. For a while, anyway.
jrm4 4y ago
Yeah, I was about to say, I want no parts of this track that you want to get back on. If my kids bring home white people they want to marry, I no longer have to worry about the repercussions.
- rossdavidh 4y ago
  The 'track' I was referring to, was that it's ok for your kid to marry someone from another part of the political spectrum than yours.
  - jrm4 4y ago
    And what I am saying is that you can't separate these two things; the improvements in integration are at least partially the cause of this perceived "polarization." Back then, Democrats and Republicans alike could be comfortably racist; one might wonder if black folks even got to take the survey. But two things happened, one is the civil rights movement which made people less racist. (yay!) and the other is the radicalization of the Republican party. Today, Democrat/Republican is a much better proxy/predictor for -- well, let's be PC here and say, potential matches. It's not a bad predictor (and before someone says some nonsense comparing this to prejudice, political party is 100% a choice and nothing like racial discrimination.)
logicchains 4y ago
>When you combine that with twin, adoption, or half-sibling studies which all show that political orientation is partially inherited, it's like we're splitting into two different species. Hopefully things will get back on track long before that. Evolution is a very powerful force; ultimately the genes that make people incline towards having more children will become dominant. https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/republicans-have-more-children/ https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/republicans-have-mor... currently it looks like Republicans are winning the reproduction war.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  This same train of thought comes up when talking about environmental conservation. Namely: "If you're worried about the environment, you should have more kids because they'll also be environmentalists". It's so ridiculous on its face that I'm not sure why I'm typing out this reply, but if there was a simple straight line between genetics and ideology, why would positions like those opposed to the Republicans exist at all? Shouldn't they all have been bred out by now? And what about the fact that what it means to be a Republican and a Democrat change as well. There used to be a time when the Democrats were the pro-slavery party. So what ideological elements are inherited exactly? Is it the broad party affiliation? Is it beliefs about tax policy? Beliefs about gun rights[1]? Religion? [1] Incidentally, the left is becoming increasingly pro-second-ammendment: https://www.theirisnyc.com/post/american-gun-rights-activism-finds-a-new-home-the-far-left https://www.theirisnyc.com/post/american-gun-rights-activism... Edit: Oh yeah, and anecdotally plenty of kids raised by conservatives grow up to hate their parents' guts. Perhaps because of the authoritarian nature of some conservative households. As you might expect, this is especially true for LGBTQ kids.
- watwut 4y ago
  If they did, they would had enough votes to win popular ballots. They don't, they need biased electoral system that guves more power to minority.
dragonwriter 4y ago
The 1960s was in the middle of the long overlapping double political realignment between the New Deal and the mid-1990s, so the main ideological divides in the country did not line up with the divide between the major parties. This resulted in less partisan division, but no less political division, as the large scale political violence of, particularly, the 1950s and 1960s, makes pretty clear. All the hand-wringing over the fact that we’ve in the last couple decades returned to the normal state where salient ideological divisions actually map reasonably well to the main partisan division is...bizarre.
gunfighthacksaw 4y ago
> it's like we're splitting into two different species. Or nations. A lot of the turmoil in Eastern Europe since the 90s is related to certain nations considering themselves distinct, and other nations refusing to entertain it. The former group will fight for their liberty and the latter group will try to conquer and absorb them. Will the same happen in the US? I see the African Americans being their own unique North American nation with associated food, music and culture, but also being part of the dominant American national culture. Not many of them appear to want to be fully separate, black nationalist extremists aside. If heartland white Americans attempted to distinguish themselves as a separate nation, it would be civil war 2, but fuelled by nationalism as opposed to slavery, traditionalism and states rights.
r00fus 4y ago
I firmly believe there are more than 2 parties. France is a good example - reactionary extreme right, centrist/corporatist, and far left. Both the left and right hate the centrist, but also have widely divergent views on how to unseat the centrists. It's just that in the US, only 2 parties can work given the FPTP system that makes all 3rd parties spoilers.

giantg2 4y ago

Is this really anything new? I think most people who actually talk with their neighbors about various topics can see that most people aren't as extreme as their party is represented to be in the media. There are hundreds of millions of party members. Did anyone truly think that a member of either party supports every policy the party supports, or that there are different factions within the party that take opposing stances on specific issues? There's no way we're able to fully map 100M to 1 on an innumerable amount of topics/solutions.

jqgatsby 4y ago
>>Did anyone truly think that a member of either party supports every policy the party supports? I see you haven't met my in-laws.
- giantg2 4y ago
  Sorry, I shouldn't have used absolutist language. You're right, there are likely a small minority that agrees with everything that at least their faction of the party says.
banannaise 4y ago
(hopefully) relevant perspective from a transgender person: It is irrelevant to me that most people are not extremists. There are a lot of "non-extremist" people who consider me a loon because of my appearance and gender. Those people seem to get along perfectly fine with "moderates" who are more accepting of me... and that really doesn't help, because the typical result is that both of them will agree to treat me as an extremist. For existing.
- twofornone 4y ago
- a_shovel 4y ago
  Yeah, that's my position as well. People make fun of leftists for infighting and "cancel culture" and "eating their own", but the alternative seems to be allowing the worst parts of "your side" to keep and even expand their influence over the political landscape, and that seems to be what the right has done.

breadbreadbread 4y ago

[flagged]

bavell 4y ago
I think you should have cooled off for a bit before posting this emotion-laden comment. I would suggest that the people you should be angry with are the ones behind the singular corporate uniparty which pits us against each other by creating false narratives and rhetoric that spread through our media ecosystem. > I'm kinda done with listening to the other side at this point. Don't let the propaganda win, always be willing to listen.
- breadbreadbread 4y ago
  >I would suggest that the people you should be angry with are the ones behind the singular corporate uniparty which pits us against each other by creating false narratives and rhetoric that spread through our media ecosystem. Thats a two way street buddy. I can't listen to the other side if they are blabbering on about their own false narrative. This comment section is full of people who think that its the lefts fault and are absolutely incapable of looking at their own party. I don't know how to explain to you that I do not give a shit about Democrats or Liberal media or the "singular corporate uniparty", let it all burn and I will still be fighting for LGBT rights and there will still be people who think I shouldn't exist.
  - c22 4y ago
    There will always be people who think you shouldn't exist, that is true. But parent comment is suggesting that if you let it all burn down those people would likely turn out to be only a small minority, easily dismissed, rather than a unified bloc of 50% of brainwashed america.
    - breadbreadbread 4y ago
      I don't think the GOP is a unified bloc. I think it is beholden to a vocal minority without whom they wouldnt win elections because running on their last 20 years of policy alone hasnt worked. If we destroyed the current political parties and had everyone in government rerun as independents, that vocal minority would still find a political foothold.

ergonaught 4y ago

If it’s only the extremes of a group that want a thing, but supporting the group means that the extremes get what they want, there is precisely zero distinction. The group is extreme, on the ground, in reality.

antifa 4y ago
We didn't get Medicare For All, Green New Deal, Housing For All, $15 minimum wage, etc. under Biden, also we never got a federal law protecting abortion under Obama when he had a super majority. Hillary had more opposition to Sanders than to Trump. Manchin and Sinema regularly vote Republican on topics important to Democrat voters. So you could say it's the opposite for Democrats. This is called the Ratchet Effect.

arminiusreturns 4y ago

Keeping it relevant to the paper itself, there is something particularly powerful in amplifying if not creating this effect in the first place: sock-puppetry, known in the MICIMATT world (Military-Industrial-Counter-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think Tank complex) as "persona management" I saw this really take off around 2010 and tried to warn people. The issue is that the forces that actually control the major political parties need to divide the people, for never forget the thing the oligarchs fear the most is a united proliteriat, and have heavily invested in creating the illusion of a consesus or narrative view from one "side" or the other, reinforcing the division at play. Three letter grade psyops are at play on an unprecendented scale, and failing to understand that will leave anyone interested in this topic twirling at windmills.

99_00 4y ago
Now that Trump is out of power mistrusting three letter agencies is back in fashion. When he was in power they were trusted and reliable.
- arminiusreturns 4y ago
  Some of us dont blow with the political winds quite so easily.
  - 99_00 4y ago
    I believe you. Unfortunately targeting polarizing figures or unpopular minorities is an easy way for three letter agencies to ensure that that a large percentage of the American public happily and enthusiastically supports their evil.
- tpoacher 4y ago
  No so much trusted as seemingly inactive I would say?
r00fus 4y ago
I wonder exactly how much of social media are sockpuppets. Also - perhaps massive disinterest is the goal.

anm89 4y ago

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this. I think a problem is that within certain bubbles, the extreme viewpoints are genuinely really ubiquotous but if you have certain other cultural preferences it can be hard to escape those other bubbles. I find just being around a certain group of people, namely young left urban college educated people who are counnterculture, the norms for that group are unbelievably far left. Like the nuances of Maosism vs Lenninism is a more common discussion than the budget of congress amongst this group (percieved to be a right wing issue). It's unbelievably extreme. And yet I never interact with the other side, let's say Mid west evangelicals, and rarely interact with the unengaged center even though those other two groups are combined an order of magnitude bigger. But based on non political preferences I spend a lot of my time around woke communists and end up having a strong distaste for them even though they are a small minority in the bigger picture. I think this same group has a very outsized influence in a large number of spheres. So I don't think it's unreasonable to worry about them even if they are a minority.

PaulHoule 4y ago

We had a talk where I work by Jamie Druckman who comes to similar conclusions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE78OLNY6JQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE78OLNY6JQ

incomingpain 4y ago

88 pages from 2021 involving Wilfred Laurier social sciences? You know what's more interesting, in the months since this study it has become much more clear what's really going down. NYTimes realized their echo chamber and practically ordered their journalists to exit their echo chambers. Which upon doing so they somewhat returned to better journalistic standards, NYTimes suddenly showed some excellent legitimacy. CNN is basically in complete collapse because they were too late. Can't see how they recover without some absolute hail mary. Rachel Maddow had a bit of a sabbatical and then got rebranded and is on air far less. MSNBC ratings not looking so hot lately. Meanwhile Fox is in dominant #1 position. There's objective measurements that the democrats moved far left creating the polarization. You have star trek discovery a ultra top secret missions best of the best crew... but every character is LGBT. Wtf are they trying to say? Even Trek fell into this same trap as those above. Has anyone checked out Star Trek Strange New Worlds episode 1 where they literally say second US civil war. The story was intentionally weak as hell to ensure everyone who watches it sees they are talking about the USA. The importance of getting those 2 parties talking together again. That working together for a better future is really the only way. Even Trek suddenly realized their own mistake. It makes for such an amazing first episode.

breadbreadbread 4y ago
[flagged]
tablespoon 4y ago
> NYTimes realized their echo chamber and practically ordered their journalists to exit their echo chambers. Which upon doing so they somewhat returned to better journalistic standards, NYTimes suddenly showed some excellent legitimacy. Details? I know they've gotten a few people who are outside the progressive orthodoxy and tend to poke holes in it to write opinion columns in the last few months.
ssklash 4y ago
> democrats moved far left I have to wonder if you know what far left means outside of the US. Because even the furthest left of the Democratic party is barely left-leaning in Europe and most other democracies.

renewiltord 4y ago

giantg2 4y ago
So you expect roughly 50% of people to hate you, and for you to hate about 50% of people? Seems a miserable way to look at it. The fact is that choices are limited. Things like ranked choice voting might start to change that. Maybe we could see other major parties at some point. The fact that we have only two main parties is a product of your (and most people's) sort of game theory mindset - that you have to oppose the other side even if your choice isn't great.
- banannaise 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - peteradio 4y ago
    > a political party whose agenda includes literal genocide of transgender people That's pretty loaded, almost flaggable, but I think in this thread I'll ask what are you talking about?
    - bitwize 4y ago
      - peteradio 4y ago
        I think you have extreme views, but I'm not going to assume all LGBTQ and allies hold the same.
      - orangecat 4y ago
        This is exactly the sort of catastrophizing that the study is talking about. Yes, I'm sure you can find a few lunatics on the right who have said something like that. You can also find nutjobs on the left who want a literal Communist revolution. Neither is anywhere near the views of the vast majority of conservatives or liberals.