Liberals three times more biased than conservatives when evaluating ideologically opposite individuals, study finds

submitted by RedditButt from (psypost.org)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]UncleWillard56 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Social Media posts as a standard? Really? And to Liberals, anyone who isn't 110% on their ticket is a nazi so most of the world?

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Social Media posts as a standard?

Maybe not.

But in that case the claim "Liberals three times more biased than conservatives when evaluating ideologically opposite individuals" is bullshit anyway.

And to Liberals, anyone who isn't 110% on their ticket is a nazi so most of the world?

No. Just that in the US at the moment there are a lot of conservatives who think that the government should legislate what can happen inside a woman's body, and that if you try to overthrow the American democracy by an insurrection or by setting up fake electors instead of the real ones, then you should be above the law.

And most people don't want the country dragged into a dictatorship.

[–]UncleWillard56 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Social Media is absolutely left leaning. We're here because of that fact.

And yes, after 2016, the divisiveness in this country amped up to 11. "RED or BLUE! You must choose." I was always left of center until then. Woke up one day and found myself at the very least right of center, which, according to most lefties (or at least the ones who hadn't been called out), was "right wing." I've rarely had a conversation since with any friends or family who drank the blue kool-aid, that didn't end with them basically calling me a Nazi. It's a stereotype for a reason. In contrast, I've yet to be called a libtard by a Trump supporter, even though I didn't vote for him and likely won't this election either.

From my perspective, it wasn't Conservatives who won RvW, it was Democrats who lost it. They are supposedly the party of women, yet they have failed to codify RvW for 30 years. Even when they had a supermajority and even with a black, woman VP who was a fucking lawyer herself. Nothing. They failed. I disagree with overturning of RvW (which is really about medical privacy and less about abortion), but I also disagree with women who think it should be on-demand or joke about it like it's nothing. It's a last resort and they could easily take it out of the hands of the state by using sensible birth control (or getting on the fast-track for a male, oral solution for birth control).

Nobody wants a dictatorship, but nobody wants this ride or die partisanship either. I'm sick of the two-party system period, and I can't tell who fights that more, red or blue, but we need a third option.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

"Social Media is absolutely left leaning."

What's the evidence of that?

We're here because of that fact.

Aren't we an extreme right wing fringe, that supports the invasion of Ukraine, denies the existence of intersex people, and finds validation in the use of racial slurs?

And yes, after 2016, the divisiveness in this country amped up to 11. "RED or BLUE! You must choose."

Yeah. But while red had had a couple of presidents elected on a minority of votes, and that had slanted the supreme court right of the will of the people, it's not the side of politics that increased the division. It's the extreme practises. Terrorism. Insurgency. Nepotism. Corruption of Justice.

I was always left of center until then.

Which democratic presidents did you vote for?

When RBG was elected to the supreme court she was right in the centre. When she died she was the last one holding the left from the federalist society weirdos. America hasn't just edged slightly to the right.

From my perspective, it wasn't Conservatives who won RvW, it was Democrats who lost it.

The federalist society's corruption of the supreme court was the democrats losing it?

Should they have been running a similar attack on the justice system from the left?

[–]UncleWillard56 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

  • Pretty much all outside a few platforms (Reddit for sure, again, that's why I'm here, Twitter (before X), Instagram, SnapChat, Tumbler). I only use this, YouTube, and occasionally Reddit (mostly for porn). Most of them that will ban you for even suggesting anything against "the narrative."
  • Speak for yourself
  • Dems/Reps - two sides of the same coin. The division is cultural and more driven by the left's insistence that everything is driven by demographics that only represent what we are not who we are (race, gender, sex, orientation, sometimes religion)
  • Clinton, Obama - I did not vote in the last election because I don't see either option as good for the country and I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
  • I think that's leftist bullshit. It assumes that all Justices vote politics and ignore the law, the career they've chosen and served in for the majority of their adult lives. I just don't see people in with us/against us terms. It's nihilistic and stupid
  • The supreme court has never been corrupt, imo. I don't consider people I disagree with to be corrupt by default
  • "They" and by that I mean all of Congress, should be representing their constituents and doing their jobs. Instead, the two-party system and the Cultural Marxism alive and well in this country have reduced us to Go RED or Go BLUE! Into arguing over scraps based on things we didn't achieve and can't control. That's not a Left or Right issue, per se, it's all of them, but I see more fascism on the left than I've ever seen on the right in my lifetime.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Most of them that will ban you for even suggesting anything against "the narrative."

I think that you're confusing anything against "the narrative" with hate speech.

The division is cultural and more driven by the left's insistence that everything is driven by demographics that only represent what we are not who we are

That sounds very straw-mannish. How would the left state that?

Clinton, Obama

Clinton was a dick, it turns out. Pardoning his friends at the end of his presidency opened the door for Trump's selling all those pardons for $2M each.

What were some of the things that made prefer Obama to Romney?

Would you agree that Romney is significantly left of Trump?

It assumes that all Justices vote politics and ignore the law

The federalist society certainly has an agenda. There's some cases where they follow the law, but they're anti-woman, anti-intersex, anti-gay, and anti-separation of church and state, only in the case of Christianity.

The supreme court has never been corrupt, imo.

If the gifts that Clarence Thomas has taken from the federalist society aren't corrupt, why did he neglect to declare them?

You don't need to hide behaviour that's not reproachable.

Paragon Of Virtue Clarence Thomas Has Been Given Half Million In Value Off The Record And It Totally Hasn't Impacted His Judging. Not One Bit. Nope..

I worry about the money that went into the alleged rapist Kavanagh's bank account about the time he was fingered for the supreme court too.

And Barret has almost no experience as a justice.

Barrett has spent virtually all of her professional life in academia. Until President Trump nominated her to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, she had never been a judge, never worked in the government as a prosecutor, defense lawyer, solicitor general, or attorney general, or served as counsel to any legislative body—the usual professional channels that Supreme Court nominees tend to hail from.

[–]UncleWillard56 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

  • So the narrative is good and anything that criticizes that narrative is "hate speech?" That sounds a lot like fascism to me.
  • I disagree. The left (more far left who have the loudest whining) has been subsumed by identity politics. Everything is about race, sex/gender, orientation, and their enemy is everyone who is not in their prized demographics. Ironic that people who preach "anti-racism" are far more racist than anyone in the center or slightly right.
  • Both Clintons btw, though HRC didn't make it. I don't like either of them, but they were the lesser of two evils. I can't stand HRC and I don't think she would have been any more effective than Biden, but at least she had government experience. I envisioned an HRC presidency as a diluted version of her husband's or Obama's. Still, and like Obama, it would have been a great signal of progress to have had a woman president, even if it had to be her. Romney is creepy, and by and large, I'm independent and left leaning (until the great purge of 2016), mostly because I do believe in Universal Healthcare (the only feather in Romney's cap I can think of), and if not free, super cheap education - both left of center ideals. No, I don't think Romney is significantly left of Trump because Trump isn't left or right, he's just a populist windbag.
  • I don't buy that any of these people are dyed in the wool Federalists. I think they're people with incredibly successful legal careers who are at the top of their fields. I may be too optimistic, but I believe these people prize the law/Constitution over all things, but of course, influenced by their own personal beliefs as well.
  • I don't know enough about Clarence Thomas to speak on that, but there's another example of identity politics before it was called that. They picked him because he's black. I'm sure there were better candidates, even black ones, but they went with him. Conservatives can eat that one, but it's seasoned with leftist identity bullshit. I agree that SCOTUS needs reform. I don't agree at all that judges are appointed. There has to be a better way and a better institution to pick judges or even a career path devoid of politics (as much as that thing can be done).

Just to put it out there, great conversation. And worth noting that not all spaces (e.g., reddit) would have allowed for it without some sort of brigading or banning. Maybe in earlier days, but my last few years I saw no good conversations. That is valuable to me.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So the narrative is good and anything that criticizes that narrative is "hate speech?"

Not at all.

But you can certainly argue for hidden variable theories like Bohmian mechanics, despite it being fringe.

But we know that acknowledgement improves the suicidal ideation of transgender people, so speculating (without any academic expertise) that they don't exist is less likely to get a pass.

You can even argue against climate science, even though the greenhouse effect isn't questionable.

I don't know enough about Clarence Thomas to speak on that

Are you not concerned about the reporting of bribes to the supreme Court?

Analysis: U.S. Supreme Court justices take gifts — then raise the bar for bribery prosecutions

I don't buy that any of these people are dyed in the wool Federalists

They're members of the federalist society, and have been selected for that reason.

I think they're people with incredibly successful legal careers who are at the top of their fields

It should matter what field. Barrett has almost no experience practicing law whatsoever.

And she's not the top of academia either.