660
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
660 points (96.7% liked)
politics
19097 readers
2503 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Because conservatives have hyperactive fear and disgust centers compared to liberals. They really do feel these emotions in a way that non-conservatives do not. I have concluded that it is a mental disorder to be conservative--it's always projected insecurity.
If hexbear was here, they'd tell you liberals are just as bad lol. I agree that to an extent, but in reality I do seem them to be much better. Crazies just so happen to line up with conservative ideals, which essentially just boils down to just bigotry at the end of the day.
The day my instance updated to support instance blocking in the user config my Lemmy experience improved significantly
Lemmy.world doesn't support blocking of instances and I can't read new without being spammed by lemmynsfw.
Have you had a poke through the user settings? This was like 2 major versions ago so that's extremely weird if you still can't instance block (I have to go to the blocks tab in settings, and below blocked users is blocked instances)
It also seems like a lot of it is surprisingly few people so just blocking a few key posters from Hexbear greatly reduced the hexbear nonsense in my feed and comments sections.
I'll have a look again, I know that this is in constant development. I migrated from another instance that had that enabled, hoping we get updated here soon enough.
You're generally correct as studies corroborated the feeling of disgust to be stronger on those on the right. But I wouldn't necessarily put that to every single conservatives. I met many conservatives who are still sane. The term RINO is a thing after all, and the only conservative party I agree with is the German CdU.
Yeah... I dunno if the "sane" Conservatives are actual Conservatives. Like, hear me out, I know people who totally understand me as a trans person are perfectly supportive and totally grock leftist talking points and even support fairly socialist economic theory ... But they still carry their identities as "Conservatives" because it's a brilliant bit of branding. For all purposes of actual ideology they are actually progressive, but that word "conservative" strokes the ego in a very particular way.
People think "conservative" as basically just meaning "Not prone to extremes" or "careful and measured" or maybe even "liking change to be slow and incremental" or "fiscally moderate" ... None of this actually describes modern Conservative party ideology but they definitely borrow off the synonyms for votes. Because everyone is primed to think of their veiw as carefully reasoned and non-volitile these "conservative at heart" types really don't realize that they are being tricked they just like the pretty label and are willing to let themselves be hoodwinked.
That's a damn good point. Also throw in 2A rights and I think you have the right mix. Someone who is genuinely "fiscally conservative" as in desiring a close the balanced budget, believes that 2A is just as important and deserving of defending as 1A and 4A (the main ones everyone knows), and who believes in plenty of legal immigration but thinks national borders are required to have a nation is basically in no man's land.
The Republican party pays lip service to those and other "Conservative" ideals, but by actions has abandoned them and are the furthest down the oligarch rabbit hole. The Democrats by action actually tend to do more of these traditionally Conservative things in modern times, but pay lip service to the opposite (gun control, open borders, etc) because many of the the actual far leftists remained more attached to the party instead of splintering off like the Sov Cits and various flavors of libertarians did from the conservative side.
Since we have a first past the post voting system and thus only 2 viable parties, those "conservative at heart" folks know they are getting grifted by the Republicans, but feel slightly more aligned with Republicans than with Democrats because they feel there is no actual place for them.
The "Liberal at heart" have a similar problem because the Old Guard corporatist Democrats are also in the Oligarch rabbit hole, just not as deep in many cases. That's why we get lip service about legalizing marijuana, decriminalization, debt relief, etc, but see very little actual or sustainable progress.
Very interested to see what happens whenever the government drops below an average age of 65. Maybe under millennial and Zoomer majorities we can get graduated voting methods and multiple viable parties.
Do you have a Background in Psychology or did you pull this Conlusion out of your Ass?
Fortunately for those of us who don't have a background in psychology: the folks who are experts tend to publish their findings!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/
So what do those parts do...
Anterior cingulate cortex: error detection, anticipation of tasks, attention, motivation, and modulation of emotional responses
Amygdala: formation and storage of memories associated with emotional events / emotional learning; fear conditioning.
...so, yeah conservatives are literally, physiologically hypersensitive to fear, and more prone to acting on emotion. WHO'DA THUNK?!?
I love a well sourced smackdown
Were you wanting to build some kind of argument or hypothesis with that segment, or did you just want to leave it to your reader to assume whatever it is you're thinking? Cuz the knee-jerk reaction your post evokes is that you're attempting to dismiss an entire study based on a disclaimer about brains being complicated... but such an attack to your critical thinking skills would ofc be a hasty and unfair conclusion considering you haven't contributed a single word of your own yet. So by all means, state your case.
Least chill comment I've seen on lemmy lol I thought I was on reddit for a second... It's a quote from the study you posted not everyone online is trying to debate you.
I'm a bit worked up. RL shit, not you - forgive my tone.
Meat of the last comment stands though: what's your point? I know it's a quote from the study, but that's how studies work: they provide supporting or detracting evidence to whatever it is they're evaluating. Even if that disclaimer wasn't there at all, it'd still be implied bc no one study proves or disproves anything, they just contribute to a broader pool of knowledge that eventually leans toward something being accepted as truth.
And right now that lean is toward conservatives being driven by fear and emotion.
Well I don't really have a point myself, the study has a point which is emphasizing that these neural processes measured aren't a direct representation of political opinions per se.
I guess my only relevant opinion aligns with what they are saying in better ways in the study, to which I would add that it gets dicey whenever people's thoughts/behaviors are reduced to something inherent about their biology. The authors of the study are putting in a good effort to avoid that reductive interpretation and explaining it very well. Biological indicators and many subsequent indicators are determined in complex ways by the conditions people are in and where they were born, etc.
LOL he's been going on the attack around here. This concept has broken his brain and he's just lost it.
I don't have a background in psychology either, but the prefix hyper- in medical contexts usually means something is abnormally and dangerously excessive in size, amount, etc. Yet from your quote there's no reason to conclude the on-average increased amydagla is necessarily abnormally increased. It isn't, it's just bigger, it's not automatically pathological.
'hyper' doesn't have a qualifier in scale; it's just an increase. Your arm muscles will hypertrophy after a single pushup... not by a significant amount, but by a higher than zero amount.
My understanding of the amygdala situation is that it follows basically the same model: conservatives aren't born with a massive amygdala that leaves them extra susceptible to fear and emotion; they do fear work-outs throughout their life by over-consuming shit like Fox News telling us the scary immigrants are here to out-breed us, or some preecher explaining how Jesus won't let you into heaven if he sees you masturbating.... over time they become the fear/emotional equivalent to a body builder; but when you start to look at the other parts of their brain, you might find they didn't just skip leg day; but that the very concept of leg day is something they find offensive and actively oppose.
You don't have to have a background in psychology to read studies. It has been a topic increasingly researched lately, and the first part of their post is demonstrated by evidence in the studies.
The conclusion about it being a mental illness is up for debate. It might be seen more as part of the human spectrum, like being gay or trans.
The first part was actual results of studies. The second part was me being editorial.
It's a good thing that I was able to read articles that professional psychologists wrote on the subject. But go ahead, be angry.
Then how about
And yes, I am angry. Angry about all these self-proclaimed Experts these days who think they know everything and know more than Experts who studied this Subject for years.
All those People who are Climatechange Experts but couldn't even really tell you, what the Ozone-Layer exactly is.
Or all those People who proclaim a Genocide in Gaza, but couldn't even tell you where or how a Genocide is defined.
If you're not qualified, you're allowed to just not say anything and not spew disinformation.
This is common knowledge. Your ignorance is not my responsibility. You could easily have looked it up yourself but decided to project your ignorance on us instead.
Your anger is yours, it has nothing to do with reality. It is something you should deal with through therapy, not by going on tirades against random people on Lemmy simply because you don't have the experience and education to understand the things that they are talking about. We do not deserve to suffer your insecurity.
Every single example you gave has a great deal of evidence behind it. You do not like that, and this causes you pain. This is all about you.
Also references to Mao are probably not going to help you here.
I don't even know where to start
You made an imaginary picture of me based off of two comments. Then you used that nonexistent, imaginary version of me to make up your opinon and write this Comment in which you call me "ignorant", "insecure", "inexperienced", "uneducated", and just all-round talk me down.
So do you now understand why i didn't believe you?
Your Comment here is nothing more that baseless Slander and i have no Reason to assume you did any more "Research" for your previous Comment than you did for this one.
As such i do not see the Point in continuing this Conversation with you and will stop here.
This is so tedious that I am going to go ahead and block you. Take your fake outrage and go somewhere else.
There are a number of studies about the psychology of conservatives
This is a legit question, albeit unfortunately phrased with fear with disgust.
I've fucking had it with unqualified people talking about stuff they don't know anything about. If you don't know anything about a Topic, you're allowed to not say anything without spewing misinformation.
I mean, there's a Reason i don't give my Opinion on Climatechange. Because i know that i am not qualified to talk about it. I know from personal experience how much university teaches you and how much you miss if you didn't study that Subject, so i'm not giving my Opinion on a topic i didn't study. And i expect others to do the same.
Removed, rule 3:
"Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!"
Hey, "technically correct" is how the fascists win, but who wants to change the world, amirite? 🤣🤘🏼