https://www.salon.com/2023/10/12/deprogramming-the-cult-is-it-too-late-to-humanize-those-worship-at-the-altar-of-maga/
Hillary Clinton says MAGA voters need to be saved from themselves. Experts on exactly what that might take
The biggest thing that I can see that needs to be done would be shutting down "news" organizations like FOX News, OAN, and Newsmax. Also, breaking up online movements like Q where blatant misinformation is spread as if it's proven truth.
Now, HOW you do that without massive first amendment violations, I don't know. You would also need to be careful how it's structured because that could easily be used to shut down anyone left of center should a Republicans take the presidency/control Congress.
Since that is over actual airwaves, reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would fix that very fast.
Would be unconstitutional. That's private property, not a limited public good, like radio spectrum.
You'd have to nationalize the US communications grid including private satellites. I'd actually not mind that if the US government didn't have such a terrible record on privacy invasion to start with.
You'd have to nationalize the US communications grid including private satellites
No you don't. Legislation to extend regulations to content doesn't require ownership of the equipment. The FCC doesn't own radio towers. It will absolutely require a constitutional amendment to clarify first amendment boundaries and protections, but we're already talking about pie in the sky as is.
Edit: On the aside, I'd rather deal with the "privacy war" than the wild west insanity that is fox news, OAN, et al.
Education and critical thinking skills. Which is why they want to defund public schools so all children can be indoctrinated in “Christian” private schools.
you do it with massive funding to public education for generations.
which is why massive first amendment violations are more likely
There's no need to shut them down:
"The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints. In 1987, the FCC abolished the fairness doctrine"
The problem, even if we reinstated this, is that this applied to broadcast only. This wouldn't apply to cable channels. Neither would it apply to Internet groups. Both of those would still be free to spout full blown lies and conspiracy theories dressed up as "news."
It would definitely need updating to include cable, things have changed a lot since 1987. As for the internet, I don't see how that could be enforced other than to classify sites as publishers and make them liable for the content they host.
The entire legal basis for it was the notion that the FCC was entitled to regulate the radio spectrum because it's a scarce resource. The FCC has no authority to regulate cable or the Internet.
The FCC has no authority to regulate cable or the Internet.
"The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government that regulates communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable across the United States. The FCC maintains jurisdiction over the areas of broadband access, fair competition, radio frequency use, media responsibility, public safety, and homeland security."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission
It's true that the FCC doesn't regulate internet content, that's why classifying sites as publishers would be useful. We would have the same legal tools that apply to newspapers.
Has their ability to regulate communication that doesn't involve any public resources ever been tested in court?
You could easily argue that things like ISPs require content-neutral regulations, but for regulating content there needs to be a pretty damn solid justification for why the First Amendment can't apply as written. For public airways the bandwidth is limited enough that allowing some speech necessarily comes at the expense of other speech, but that justification is very shaky for cable and satellite TV, and it completely falls apart for internet services. It would be comparable to the federal government trying to regulate the content of private correspondence through the postal service.
A lot of social media and sites with algorithms are problematic. They tend to steer people to content that's more and more radical in nature. You start out with innocuous stuff, but the more extreme the content, the bigger the reaction, and thus the algorithm will guide the user to more of that content. (Ryan George illustrated this perfectly: https://youtu.be/x1aZEz8BQiU?si=g3xw0tbDV-4vSyCH )
Stop mentioning Hillary. She’s old news. She’s as relevant to 2023 politics as hunter biden.
No kidding, I don't know why she feels the need to insert herself in this year's politics with this super divisive "cult deprogramming" language/narrative. Not that a lot of folks don't need to step down from the rhetoric of violence and demagoguery that's a big part of MAGA, they absolutely, do... but seriously, Hillary, you are such an unnecessary bull in the china shop on this right now. Like her or hate her, I think it's a pretty objective statement that bringing the temperature down and bringing people together just isn't something her presence and choice of language in this debate is going to accomplish.
She shares the blame for Trump being elected. She campaigned shittily and she was a shitty candidate. The DNC conspiracy to prop her up as the chosen nominee is also to blame.
Those elements combined with Obama hate from Trumptards and the Russian propaganda all over social media produced the result we got.
She campaigned shittily and she was a shitty candidate.
That literally IS Russian propaganda.
No, it really isn't. She repeatedly made comments that upset me. Every time I listened to her speak it made me not want to vote. She refused to take any real stances on issues I cared about other than bland platitudes. Whatever the opposite of "get out the vote" is what she did.
It's not Russian propaganda that she was a terrible, unlikable candidate. I know myself and a half dozen people who voted for her and hated doing it.
What, anything short of just absolute love for her campaign and candidacy is propaganda?
She made some serious mistakes in her campaign, and even before that she was probably the most divisive Democrat in the country - she was a poor choice for that reason alone if nothing else. They were banking on people voting for her on a combination of "first female president" and "Trump is a buffoon". And if you don't think the DNC made moves to explicitly prop her up as a candidate regardless of the primary vote I'd point you to my state.
In my state, she got about 35% of the primary vote and Sanders got over half (Sanders even won in every single county, it's not like they won different parts of the state or something). A local attorney who ran as a protest candidate got a quarter as many primary votes as Hillary Clinton. So from the vote Sanders got 18 delegates and Clinton got 11. Which means she only got one more delegate from my state than Sanders did. Because superdelegates. Literally all the superdelegates for the state went to Clinton, and that was one more delegate than Sanders got for only having a bit more than half the vote.
Because of superdelegates, she would only ever need around 30% of the primary vote to win in any state. And superdelegates in several states pre-declaring they would vote for Clinton acted to depress the Sanders vote.
WHAT??? ARE YOU SAYING CROWNING HER THE VITCTOR BEFORE VOTING EVEN STARTED SUPPRESSED OPPOSITION TURN OUT????? Never, blasphemy you are a disgusting Bernie bro obviously. Must be sexist for not wanting the first female president. It was her turn.
In all seriousness I'd love to vote for a woman. Just give me one with some integrity and a real platform please. I would of gladly voted for Warren as white toast as she is. She at least has some real stances I agree with.
Probably because she's not planning on running so she can say what she really thinks without giving a fuck about whether it offends some people's delicate sensibilities?
Came in here to say basically this. The fact that they used Hilary as the image for this articles headline killed any credibility instantly. She is not relevant and hasn't been since she lost. There is zero positives to bringing her up. Unless you want an example of exactly how not to run a presidential campaign.
The thumbnail with her in it made sure I wasn't going to open the article. Her bullshit backroom campaign from the primaries through the election gave Trump the Oval Office.
Yes let's all continue ignoring the people who were warned us about the dangers of a Trump presidency.
Surely she doesn't know what she's talking about. Also she is not wrong.
But you know fake internet points on a reddit knock off matter more, apparently.
Literally everyone with half a fucking brain knew Trump would be terrible. The fact that she was so unlikable and ran such a bad campaign that people didn't bother to show up and vote for her tells you everything. She needs to shut the fuck up, and disappear.
The mere sight of her face makes me not want to vote Democrat. I never was one, and her attempts to shame me into voting for her only made me think about that more. The "big tent party" needs more than fear mongering to win elections. I don't really care for Joe Biden either, but I didn't feel ill voting for him. He didn't tell me I owed it to him, that I had to vote for him or I was deplorable. He at least said a few things that made me want to vote.
I’m not saying she’s wrong. I’m saying she’s irrelevant at this point. if for some reason you don’t like this social network, you should go back to Reddit
I have a hard time taking this article seriously. I don’t understand why it feels the need to tout HC so fiercely. I guess she was right about "deplorables" but everyone else was correct in pegging her as an out of touch elite. The DNC's inability to back candidates that can help working class people continually emboldens right-wing extremists. It’s not hard to see how the Dems' center-right stances open the door for far-right reactions. Yes, they are deplorables but HC is not one of the good guys.
Republicans are programmed due to their echo chambers. People who don't even follow the news have been shown to be more informed than Republicans who watch and listen to conservative media.
Just curious, do you think the programming due to echo chambers applies to Democrats as well?
I think it's pretty obvious one side is operating totally outside of reality where the other is not. Are democrats peddling stolen election lies and denying the existence of COVID?
I'm not saying anything negative Democrats or doing any comparison on idiologies. I feel like echo chambers keeping politics in their own little bubbles is bad for everyone. I just wanted your opinion on echo chambers being applicable to both sides. Don't know why I can't ask a question without getting down voted.
It's because the way you are posing questions is disingenuous. It's an article about issues with the Republican party and voter base and you turn around and go, "well, yeah, but there are two sides so Democrats must be the same right???" It's like you can't even discuss the topic at hand, you have to make it a "both sides" thing.
But sure, I'll bite. Do Democrats have huge numbers of talk radio stations, shitty news stations, and grifting facebook pages all pushing the same bullshit? Because Republicans do, and they all for some reason talk about the same shit in the same way. You can hem and haw about how MSNBC could be more "neutral," but it doesn't hold a candle to the ridiculousness of Fox News. And if it did, don't worry, we've still got OANN to talk about.
Democratic echo chambers amount to "we don't like you saying racial slurs in our forum," where Republican echo chambers amount to "don't you dare post that scientific study or countermand the will of the Great Leader." They aren't the same, no matter how desperate you are to equivocate.
I can see your point about my comment being disingenuous. You are correct I'm not staying on the topic of the article and I'm instead commenting on a comment instead. Again my question was meant to discuss echo chambers in general.
don’t you dare post that scientific study or countermand the will of the Great Leader
Post something about transgender athletes in women's sports, or how boarder protections are a positive. You'll get smashed to bits in the exact same way.
The echo chambers are there for both side and reasonable discussion of middle ground has been eliminated from American discourse.
Oooh, can I play?
Tribalism is the real problem and the echo chambers are where it's fostered. The inability to see a fact, event, or report clearly without blue-tinted glasses can stand in the way of progress.
Of course a segment of the right has some weird issues with accepting science as fact – or facts as facts. It wasn't long ago this fringe population was ignored and isolated while mainstream middle America politics existed (relatively) out in the open. The echo chamber everyone is living in right now is this - social media. This is not reality. This is not you and I sitting down and having a face-to-face chat about our lives and experiences and how we can agree and disagree on things regardless of who we've voted for.
Our extreme political polarization exists because of the internet. The internet is not where we're going to solve this problem. Just because we generally all agree that "the left" is right correct, arguing over facts and truths with people who's primary objective is to reject them is not going to foster progress. Arguing over what laws should exist in one state and not another and if the Constitution even allows for such laws is not going to be resolved in a Xweet. You may win the battle but the war will certainly carry on without you.
The "dem echo chamber" is made up of virtue signaling propaganda (as is MAGA). It's selling rally towels outside a football game and people are just there to have a good time cheering along for their team. The teams are dressed in red and blue but the QB is still rich and the D-Line is still poor.
I also feel like the left's use of social media to call out the stupidity and malice and atrocities of the right strengthens the right's defenses and their numbers. What in the past may have been a small story in a local paper now can become an international headline within minutes. I generally think this is a good thing but there's a lot of overly sensitive people who feel like the internet is reality and they can be susceptible to intimidation and bullying. As the echo bounces around the left's chamber, the right aren't getting weaker, they're getting stronger.
"Facts" aside, I see very little difference in the echo chambers and tribalism.
Which brings us to the right's issue with facts. To be brief, there was a study that showed brains of conservatives are actually a little different than those of liberals. Conservatives are more protective. They're afraid of change and threats to their families and communities. They have real not-invalid concerns. So, when presented with actual facts and science that attack their stance and weaken their protections, they're going to fight harder, even is that means using "fantasy" as their reality to "prove" you wrong.
The problem with these echo chambers and tribalism is that people are locking themselves in and forgoing real world conversations that involve vulnerability, humility, and negotiations. No one is interested in taking the time to give the other person a chance to step outside their echo chamber. All they want is to be right and to convince the other they're wrong.
Now, to be fair, I do not have an answer as to what to do about literal textbook definition fascists trying to take control of our government. If I were a more well educated about WWII, I might have an idea about what not to do.
People have called me out in the past for being an idealist and that I'm not considering the reality of the situation. I feel pretty strongly that the issue is people not stepping outside their echo chambers to take a look at the reality they actually have control over. I also feel very strongly that Ranked Choice Voting would quell the vast majority of the polarization found in politics and social issues.
All they want is to be right and to convince the other they're wrong.
Beyond convincing them they're wrong, it can seem they want the righteous vindication of a concession. They want their opposing interlocutor to proclaim the error of their ways and denounce their former position. It can lead to just beating down an opponent to the point they don't even reflect on the full discourse. Sometimes you need to make some solid points and leave it at that. When people are flat out denying facts they usually fall into one of two groups. The first group are the Fucker Carlsons and Bitch McConnells of the world. They know they're lying and pointing out facts won't matter. The other group is people who haven't employed much critical thinking to the "facts" the first group provides. Either they've fully committed to the lies and are lost causes, they haven't had the time to truly flesh out their positions, or they might categorically lack the mental faculties to use critical thinking.
For the former group, they are playing their role and won't change no matter how foolproof your argument. So putting out facts at the forefront can help to have that information available to contrast the propaganda should someone from the latter group see.
For the latter group, no one wants to be wrong. So being systematically shown to have been duped and lied to can cause some pretty typical defense mechanisms. Enter cognitive dissonance. So making a few points and trying to not be abrasive or confrontational can set them a little more at ease. You need to allow them some time to process. Trying to force some "win" can cause them to just dig in deeper to their preconceived notions. Then it's harder to pull them out.
It's not about "dem echo chambers" to me it's about echo chambers in general. The problems I think they cause are more devision, less ability to reflect on held beliefs, and make it difficult to have conversations or debates with those who old different beliefs. Again this is specific to echo chambers in general.
My brain has stopped functioning since this AM 🤣 but that’s fair re: “echo chambers in general” - just the “both sides” rhetoric and the specific questions about “dem echo chambers” had me wondering what specific problematic issues were stemming from that. I was gonna be specific but I can no longer find/follow the convo - Oy old age ig - thank for taking the time to answer.
You have fallen into one of the liberal echo chamber traps. I like to think these traps were born of genuinely good intent and have simply been overused. An issue that liberal echo chambers can have is bad faith actors trolling the various forums and social media. For example, an unabashedly "pro-life" conservative wading into the topic of abortion calling themselves "pro-choice". Then they start Just Asking Questions and ultimately reveal they think the choice should be to not have sex. And once someone is pregnant, they've made a choice and now must live with the consequences.
So liberals have these "traps" that started as somewhat of a defense mechanism. Rather than waste time attempting to truly flesh out a position with someone acting in bad faith, they will begin the process by sort of vetting the person. If you ask the "wrong questions" or provide the "wrong answers", you'll be effectively labeled a bad faith person. This will be evident initially by a flurry of downvotes on a few comments. Once the avalanche has started, it's hard to avoid. People will barely peruse your comments and follow the judgement that you are acting in bad faith.
It makes it impossible to play devil's advocate or really dig deep on topics that have tons of nuance and layers. Once a comment chain gets long enough maybe 1 or 2 other people will still follow it. If you've been judged earlier on, any valid points or questions you proffer will be ignored and/or downvoted.
FWIW I've come to describe myself as "horrifically liberal". Even given that, I have been downvoted to oblivion on topics where I didn't pass whatever purity test the first few viewers required.
Edit: as you can see, I've already been downvoted. Basically proving exactly what I said in my post.
It sure would be easier to counter that idea if the republicans’ leading contender for speaker of the house wasn’t someone who described himself as “David Duke without the baggage”. I guess technically the former grand wizard of the KKK wasn’t a literal nazi, but that doesn’t seem like a hair worth splitting.
I think anyone can be in an eco chamber regardless of your political beliefs. I think it is less likely for Democrats as their news isn't just a single channel that has been proven to not be news.
Right wing news is from the limited sources it is because those are the only sources that will align with their biases. Most other news sources align with center-left or farther left biases depending on the source. This is very much about the market - the largest population centers tend to lean left so there's a bigger market, it comes down to whether an outlet is trying to get a smaller slice of a much larger pie or a bigger slice of the smaller pie that right wing outlets share - it's a lot easier to get a big market share when there's less competition.
For an example of the sorts of biases you see - let's look at hate crimes against Asians resulting from COVID.
Left leaning sources would upsell that increase in hate crimes, but weirdly avoid using any specific examples or saying anything about who was perpetuating them other than some vague statements about "white supremacy" and blaming the increase on Trump calling COVID a Chinese virus. Well, until one day when all the talk about it started using one specific example of a white guy hate criming an Asian, but that was a couple months after they'd started talking about the topic.
Right leaning sources would ignore or avoid the topic until they couldn't get away with that any more. Then they focused on who was doing said hate crimes, because by the numbers it was mostly black-on-Asian hate crime, and blacks being criminals is aligned with their biases. This is the same reason why left leaning sources tried to avoid who was doing the hate crimes against Asians until they had a prominent example with a white perp - it's hard to sell black folks acting in the name of white supremacy, and blacks being criminals is not aligned with their biases.
The democratic party is a coalition party ranging from the neoliberals all the way to anarchists and everything in between. In general, the people that are nominated are controlled by the party establishment but the people that vote range from a variety of left biases. After all, the Democrats are the only decent conservative party left in this country.
The Democrat's establishment is what matters in these conversations, and yes they refuse to acknowledge that the root causes of climate change is late stage neoliberal capitalism.
The masses are more likely to believe the Earth is flat than read and comprehend theory.
They don't deny it but exaggerate how much they care in order to get that sweet, sweet social credit - much like conservatives and "traditional values". The ones that play this game the best are the ones that end up in power.
There is a definite difference in magnitude / severity but there is a similarity in partisan thinking.
Many on "the left" still believe Trump coordinated with Russia in his election for example. And that Russia was instrumental in that win.
And I keep seeing"the left" talking punishing people for protected speech, etc.
Pretending one side is "virtuous" and fighting the "pure evil" of the other side is an attribute of both sides.
Partisanship doesn't like nuance. As indicated by all the down votes I'm about to receive.
Many on "the left" still believe Trump coordinated with Russia in his election for example. And that Russia was instrumental in that win
Anyone who actually read the Mueller report knows this to be true
The report which concludes on page 173 that
Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.
?
That doesn't mean what you think it means.
You seem to think it means that the coordination or conspiracy didn't happen, but what it actually means is that Bill Barr prohibited the investigators from plainly stating the conclusion on the bullshit argument that it was Congress' job to connect the obvious dots themselves, which the Republicans in charge of it promptly refused to do.
Many on "the left" still believe Trump coordinated with Russia in his election for example. And that Russia was instrumental in that win.
2020:
The Senate Intelligence Committee has released the final report from its bipartisan investigation into Moscow's interference in the 2016 U.S. election.
The committee spent more than three years working on it, investigating Russia's interference, as you said, in the 2016 election. They reviewed more than a million documents, documents that were provided by U.S. spy agencies as well as documents that were provided by witnesses. They also interviewed witnesses - hundreds of them, including a lot of familiar names - Donald Trump Jr., former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort but also former Obama administration officials.
And all of that digging has gone into this report, and the committee concludes that Russia conducted a sophisticated and aggressive campaign to influence the U.S. election to help Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton and that folks on Team Trump were more than happy to accept help from the Russians. But what's really important about that conclusion is that it is a bipartisan one. It is endorsed by both Democrats and Republicans.
This report is, to a large extent, something that reaches the same conclusion that Mueller did on the question of Russia's interference. And the committee didn't draw a conclusion on whether the Trump campaign conspired or colluded with Russia. What the committee did instead was lay out the facts that they found and then kind of leave it to the reader to make up their own mind. Some committee Republicans, in an annex to the report, declared that there was no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded. Democratic members, in contrast, called Russia's actions and the Trump team's openness to them, quote, "one of the single most grave counterintelligence threats in modern American history."
(Emphasis mine)
It’s not that far-fetched at all to think that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia in 2016.
If you go by the results of this investigation, it’s equally as wrong to assert that they didn’t.
It’s not that far-fetched at all to think that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia in 2016.
Yet it's not what the investigation into that question concluded.
Manafort has literally openly admitted to it. It's also in the 2020 Senate report you didn't read
Many on "the left" still believe [things that are, in fact, actually true]
No shit, Sherlock! But how is that a problem?
The research doesn't indicate this. Everyone is prone to echo chambers, but left leaning folks tend to have more diversified news sources, which is the balance to negate echo chambers.
The left have more diversified news sources because the country has generally been left-leaning in recent generations. It wasn't "left" when ABC, CBS, NBC were the only news outlets; it was very much "middle-America".
Not until Fox News came along did conservatives have a real alternative outlet. Still, most news outlets are left / left-middle to represent most people. If there's five outlets with similar perspectives, a segment of the population will be divided among them. If there's only one or two conservative outlets, there isn't much diversity for conservatives to get their news from.
So, while I agree with you about diversified media, I'd argue the echo chamber is getting much stronger.
Ultimately, these news outlets report to their advertisers and corporate overlords. They control what news is being broadcast now that we have algorithms telling them what people want to watch. Back when the big three were all there were to report the news, they pretty much only had to report to the public trust and their own integrity. Today's media works in both directions at near-lightspeed.
Regardless of political ideology, is the general population choosing to watch news reports that inform them or that enforce their existing feelings? Are you the kind of person who's buying groceries because they're good for you and good for the environment or are you the kind of person who buys cheaper comfort food? Perhaps more importantly, who's telling you what's good for you and what's bad for you?
If only people knew the truth! The issue is: That’s not how information actually works. Despite what you are told, social media and the internet often increase the range of views to which people are exposed. Algorithms are less likely to create a echo chamber for you than living in a neighborhood surrounded by Republicans with limited media.
So what are echo chambers, really? They are epistemic bubbles, where other voices are not heard; in echo chambers, other voices are actively undermined. When they get contrary information that doesn't match their preconceived beliefs, they dismiss it. It confirms what they already believe—they’re wrong.
While privately owned social media companies can influence us, they’re hardly the only things that do. Our core ideologies and values are determined by everything from where we grew up to whom we love, to the actual impact of politics on our lives. Fixing Facebook wouldn’t solve the problem of many echo chambers—your family’s opinions, your friend’s bigoted talking points—even if it’s a good idea.
In a way, those who worry about echo chambers are too hopeful. Many voters really do want Trump, Brexit, and other things that liberals abhor. A lot of people do not care, deep down, about democracy. Better information might not be a panacea for that, even if it would slow down a conspiracy theory like QAnon.
That is the main difference of the two sides, Liberals get a multifaceted message with various perspectives and they latch onto those messages that most resonate with them. Conservatives on the other hand only get one perspective and thus rarely hear opposing views in context.
Which side you land on largely has to do with your personal environment.
That's a very well thought out response and I find myself really agreeing with you. It is frustrating that in order for me to ask the question the elicited a response that changed my perspective, my post automatically gets down voted by the community. That alone makes me not want to ask questions thus perpetuating the echo chambers in the community.
Fake internet points!
I've never been in favor of visual voting where it shows positive and negative.
It does. Their propaganda is that equality matters but they maintain status quo with minimal progress. They definitely prioritize corporate interests over gen pop.
Of course it does
The Internet has made people flock to places where people think like them.
Additionally, FaceBook, Google News, and many other sites intentionally show users material that it knows they will interact with to trigger dopamine releases. It's addictive by design.
Social media has far less influence than ones family, their local community, and their religion or lack there of.
I don't understand why the DNC (as in the actual organization, not Democrat voters) is so god damn obsessed with Hillary. It feels like they would crown her queen if they could. Makes me wonder if she has some dirt on key people in their organization or something.
I think it has something to do with Democrats still feeling "hurt" over the absurdity of the Clinton impeachment and other sham issues Republicans have with her, that they have some need to redeem her image. Letting her go feels like accepting a loss.
Are they obsessed, or is it just that she's not campaigning for anything and so she's ripe for the media junket?
I have a hard time taking this article seriously.
Not a surprise given it's from Salon. It's a shitrag. I haven't read this article but I've noticed a pattern based on other articles being posted around Lemmy. A third is rabble-rousing and pandering to the virtue signaling far left. Half is adjacent filler content. The rest is a valid meaningful point worthy of real discussion and has little to do with the headline.
Just noting the comment below about "Republicans are programmed due to their echo chambers"... Dude, if you believe that's a republican-only phenomenon, you have been programmed by the echo chamber you follow. I'd love a source for "people who don't follow the news have been shown to be more informed than republicans".
Speaking of "echo chambers", that full of shit comment is getting upvoted. You might find yourself currently inside the echo chamber.
As a liberal progressive, I'm worried that so many of us are falling prey to the tactics that have worked for conservative media for decades. I thought we were supposed to be more intelligent. It seems like tribalism really is all that matters - intellectualism be damned.
I'd love a source for "people who don't follow the news have been shown to be more informed than republicans".
There's definitely value in asking and not just googling. What you find on Google may not represent what the person making the claim is talking about. It's often best to let a person speak for themselves and place the onus where it belongs.
Back in the day, their grandparents happily filled public swimming pools with cement rather than accept allowing 'others' to have a good time.
Let the Trump cult be. They are a minority of a minority.
Focus on fielding quality candidates that are not Hillary-Clinton-esk and Maga will fade away. Focus on getting out the vote. Focus on issues that resonate with the center right to center left.
It's not that hard of a concept, but it it doesn't sell ad clicks. It doesn't drive engagement either. So we get to wring our hands and are subject to Salon articles for the next 13 months instead.
I'm not saying that you're wrong. But I am saying that history doesn't agree with your approach.
If you're in an enclosed space with a crazy person who's flailing around with a knife, " leave them alone and let's focus on ourselves" isn't going to mitigate the damage.
Popper's paradox of intolerance was written nearly a century ago. Your definition and his definition of tolerance are not the same.
In fact, if you actually read his works instead of a wikipedia article headline(lol), then you will find YOU are the one he was criticizing. Popper believed the intolerant were those who would rely on censorship rather than debate. Literally, tolerance of debate.
As you can imagine, I find the irony of your comment hilarious.
My definition? What is my definition of tolerance?
Nearly a century ago? You're a math genius, by your standards I'm turning 100 already.
The "open society" book was written with fascism as a background and as a reaction to it. But, of course - if only we had debated a bit more with fascists...
Go back to watching Peterson clips.
Triggered by the truth?
Yeah, it was written with fascists in mind. That's why it applies to your fascist rhetoric, rofl
Trying to get to the root of the ideology is almost impossible.
Asking why they have those opinions is futile they have no opinions past the surface layer.
In fact bringing up contradictory facts is an attack, its crazy.
Everyone deserves a chance at redemption for us to heal as a country we have to leave the door open for them to cone back in... its going to be very difficult if they are choosing willful ignorance.