Assumption A every politician is a liar.
Assumption B politicians are partisian and will say anything about the other side to win.
This is a core belief in the sticks.
Decades now of propaganda add:
Hollywood and liberal news outlets are politicians and partisian for the democrats.
So when they say anything about Republicans it’s a partisan lie with no basis in truth.
Trump said these things, and therefor was speaking the assumed truth. That means he can’t be a politician, so he is exempt from the previous things.
I mean it’s stupid, because the default assumption are a logical falacy but it is the thread I run into, and it’s so ingrained into the thought loop they really struggle to change it.
That makes a lot of sense. It also explains why the republicans do everything they can to obstruct anything that would improve people’s day-to-day lives if credit could possibly go to the democrats. This line of thinking is so heavily weighted to tangible results that such a situation would destroy republican support.
I also appreciate that this explanation shows a rational-ized take on how the world works. That’s a much more fair take than the “right-wingers must be irrational/crazy” that a lot of people are quick to toss around.
This is the sort of cynicism that Russia seeks to exploit. It’s sad.
I have noticed a few things about modern/MAGA brand right wing folks:
They have a great time hanging out with like minded folk, and feel at ease to speak their mind. They’re genuinely having fun.
There is a lot of “both sides” as described, which is really a form of intellectual laziness. Black and white thinking is the easiest and least cognitively expensive. Everyone can get on board and fully aligned with simple ideas.
They use the phrase “I believe” a lot. This I think is borrowed from church. Basically, belief is parallel to and as strong/meaningful as careful data-driven analysis.
Maybe this is incidental, but their circles of concern are fairly limited. If it isn’t happening to them or someone they are close with, it is of little concern.
Many will admit to not understanding something, to their credit.
Politics are genuinely sports to them. Rallies are spectacles similar to attending a college football game.
I think these voters just have trouble thinking in the abstract rather than in concrete terms. There is little attention paid to second-order effects of policy, particularly over longer periods of time.
There is just a distinct lack of empathy.
There is a fairly good proportion of conspiracists in the group.
Senility is overrepresented in the group.
Because of belief/loyalty as core principles, if something isn’t going well, an excuse can be made along the lines of “Trump is doing his best/is a good man facing headwinds”, or “things will get better soon”.
This is the one I want to see a study on. The idea that a social group that has both a cultural identity and is lacking in empathy compared to other groups, is just wild to me. I really want to know how we got here.
Kind of what I meant, yes. It opens questions like “does the group lack empathy for each other” and “is this a value that more resembles sociopathy or is it intense in/outgroup division?” Also, I’m wondering how far back this goes. Maybe we’re looking at attitudes and sentiment that go back to colonial days, possibly along bloodlines, where people that don’t think this way came along later and/or from other places?
They are also suspicious of long term of complex explanations and I believe this is because most systems that take advantage of this group (such as credit cards) have this same characteristic.
The narrow circle of concern makes things like climate change really hard to explain.
The logic is sound unfortunately.
Assumption A every politician is a liar. Assumption B politicians are partisian and will say anything about the other side to win.
This is a core belief in the sticks.
Decades now of propaganda add: Hollywood and liberal news outlets are politicians and partisian for the democrats.
So when they say anything about Republicans it’s a partisan lie with no basis in truth.
Trump said these things, and therefor was speaking the assumed truth. That means he can’t be a politician, so he is exempt from the previous things.
I mean it’s stupid, because the default assumption are a logical falacy but it is the thread I run into, and it’s so ingrained into the thought loop they really struggle to change it.
That makes a lot of sense. It also explains why the republicans do everything they can to obstruct anything that would improve people’s day-to-day lives if credit could possibly go to the democrats. This line of thinking is so heavily weighted to tangible results that such a situation would destroy republican support.
I also appreciate that this explanation shows a rational-ized take on how the world works. That’s a much more fair take than the “right-wingers must be irrational/crazy” that a lot of people are quick to toss around.
This is the sort of cynicism that Russia seeks to exploit. It’s sad.
I have noticed a few things about modern/MAGA brand right wing folks:
This is the one I want to see a study on. The idea that a social group that has both a cultural identity and is lacking in empathy compared to other groups, is just wild to me. I really want to know how we got here.
Yeah I see this as a paradox of sorts. An intense focus on outgroups without empathy for them.
Is that along the lines of what you meant? Maybe I am misinterpreting
Kind of what I meant, yes. It opens questions like “does the group lack empathy for each other” and “is this a value that more resembles sociopathy or is it intense in/outgroup division?” Also, I’m wondering how far back this goes. Maybe we’re looking at attitudes and sentiment that go back to colonial days, possibly along bloodlines, where people that don’t think this way came along later and/or from other places?
They are also suspicious of long term of complex explanations and I believe this is because most systems that take advantage of this group (such as credit cards) have this same characteristic.
The narrow circle of concern makes things like climate change really hard to explain.