It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Psychology of Progressive Hostility

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nickn3

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Murgatroid

We get it. Liberals are stupid and dumb and ugly and horrible and worthless and evil and crazy and dumb... whereas conservatives are smart and wise and beautiful and fantastic and, like, the best people ever!!!

I never even thought that. Just self absorbed.


I honestly would like to find a way for them to have what they want ... I'd just like to work out how they can have their cake without making me eat it too.

In other words, I wish their way didn't always have to default become *my* way or else it's not good enough.




posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: face23785
Yeah, it really is fascinating.

I've gained a much better understanding from her than the article.
But we're all people, she's just one side of the coin.

It makes me wonder what I'm blind to and if it's even possible to have the objectivity to know.


Notice that I along with several other "right wingers" in this thread (I'm a libertarian for the record, I disagree with the GOP on a number of issues) have acknowledged the type of behavior the author was talking about is seen on both sides. Neither the article nor I ever claimed or even hinted that it was exclusive to progressives.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I would like to find a way to help the right with their fear and anxiety issues. It must be horrible to live that way all the time.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Well I guess that answers what I'm blind to.
I didn't see that in the article at all.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

I would like to find a way to help the right with their fear and anxiety issues. It must be horrible to live that way all the time.


You don't think you're displaying any fear? You absolutely refuse to entertain new information that conflicts with your hastily formed and uninformed opinions. Take for example these three posts which pretty thoroughly dismantle your claim that I posted this strictly to attack the left or seek affirmation of my views. Yet you still continue to pretend that's why I posted it.

Are you afraid to admit you were wrong to one of us dumb right-wingers?



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

lol, are you being deliberately over the top in a way to prove that the article in the op is correct? like some sort of reverse psychology?



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

It’s okay. You have your views, I have mine. You don’t have to agree with me and I don’t have to agree with you. I think the article is derogatory to liberals/progressives. I wish you hadn’t posted it. But obviously, it’s your right to do so.

Peace.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: snarfbot
a reply to: kaylaluv

lol, are you being deliberately over the top in a way to prove that the article in the op is correct? like some sort of reverse psychology?


In what way is wanting to help the right “over the top”? Did you read the article I posted in this thread from Psychology Today? I’m genuinely concerned. I read it more closely, and I had no idea that was what people on the right were going through.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: face23785

It’s okay. You have your views, I have mine. You don’t have to agree with me and I don’t have to agree with you. I think the article is derogatory to liberals/progressives. I wish you hadn’t posted it. But obviously, it’s your right to do so.

Peace.


I certainly don't agree with you when I know for a fact you're wrong. I know why I did and didn't start this thread. You don't. You invented a reason, and despite my clear arguments to the contrary that you haven't even attempted to refute, you are clinging to it like a security blanket. Fear and anxiety indeed.

The article certainly is not kind to progressives. Where did I claim it was a puff piece? But you're wrong about the reason I posted it and you are forcing yourself to continue to believe a lie, displaying the exact kind of blind ignorance the author was talking about. The irony is so thick I could cut it with a knife.

Peace.
edit on 10 3 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

I would like to find a way to help the right with their fear and anxiety issues. It must be horrible to live that way all the time.


And there you go making assumptions.

I don't "fear" what you want. I just don't think it's the way *I* want to live.

You didn't see me making the assumption that the reason you don't want to live the way I want to live is because you're afraid of it, did you? No. Rather, I make the assumption you've thought it through and think it's actually the best way for *you* and I accept that to the point where I outright said that I wish I could find a way for you to have it.

The least you could do is extend me the same courtesy; that you can't do as much says more about you than me.
edit on 10-3-2018 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

its totally possible to present an argument without resorting to false pretext. i dont pretend to want to help the left when i present my arguments that oppose their positions. i dont have to.

neither do you. your position is that the article in the op is "derogatory to liberals/progressives" go ahead and talk about why you feel that way, instead of using dressed up ad hominems.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
I would like to find a way to help the right with their fear and anxiety issues. It must be horrible to live that way all the time.


I'm not sure it's really possible.
These sorts of things are probably set before people understand what voting is.
I dare say the left is similar.

When the motivation for conversation is to convince the other side they're wrong it's doomed to fail.
Maybe if we focused on using the other sides for personal gain it may be more successful.

A bit cynical, but at least we would be looking for what people are good at rather than attacking what they are bad at.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You misunderstand me. Your political bias is driven by fear and anxiety. And for that, I am truly sorry.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


Ideologically speaking, I always try to stay on the side of more freedoms.

Period.

Sometimes that means I side with the left on issues, sometimes the right.


That's why I can never belong to any political party ever, because there is none that believe 100% with me.


But the funniest part about always being on the side of freedom? The people that disagree with me aren't.




posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: face23785


As for this thread, I think you took it completely the wrong way. The purpose is summed up at the end of my OP. If even one poster takes it to heart and learns to be more open-minded about the views of the other side, it's worth it. I can handle the vitriol and lame remarks about me doing the bidding of the PTB.


I’m going to have to call BS on your claim here. If you were really wanting to help people be more open-minded about the views of the other side, you would have posted a more neutral article, or you could have posted a 2nd article that was maybe not so complementary of the right, such as this one:

www.psychologytoday.com...

But you didn’t do that, did you? No, your goal here was clearly to bash the left - and frankly, I’m getting really weary of all the left/right battles. And, dammit, I wasn’t going to participate in this thread!


Of course, you can say we live with fear and anxiety, but have you ever considered that it may be because we know you guys are often psychotic?

I might be wary if I knew my ideological opponents were prone to the traits of psychotics too and busy trying to impose their will on me.


They tried to swap those results, but someone got honest about it in the end.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

You misunderstand me. Your political bias is driven by fear and anxiety. And for that, I am truly sorry.


I understand that it is easier, far easier to give over making decisions to some other entity like the government. It must recall the days of having parents when they did all that for you. No worries about housing, food, clothing, shelter, no worries about bills, too.

Mom and dad took care of all of it.

I agree that was much easier and you never worried about it or what it cost because someone else was taking care of it all for you. There was no fear or anxiety ... unless you were poor and those things weren't at all certain.

However, I grew up poor enough to recall some uncertainty, and I also recall not having the things I wanted all the time or when I wanted them. I recall not being able to provide the shoes or clothes I wanted or being able to make decisions for myself, and I resented that lack of freedom.

I grew up and becomes responsible as quickly as I could so I could take on those choices. And I know it means there are times when I will suffer some fear and uncertainty because I'm not always sure where the money will come from or when, but that's the flip side of having the freedom to decide for myself.

If I cede those choices to some other entity for the security of childhood, I lose my freedom, and that I am not willing to do because I like that independence and the chance to make my own choices. Fear and anxiety are not what I'm choosing so much as independence and they come as a side effect of that state.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: face23785


As for this thread, I think you took it completely the wrong way. The purpose is summed up at the end of my OP. If even one poster takes it to heart and learns to be more open-minded about the views of the other side, it's worth it. I can handle the vitriol and lame remarks about me doing the bidding of the PTB.


I’m going to have to call BS on your claim here. If you were really wanting to help people be more open-minded about the views of the other side, you would have posted a more neutral article, or you could have posted a 2nd article that was maybe not so complementary of the right, such as this one:

www.psychologytoday.com...

But you didn’t do that, did you? No, your goal here was clearly to bash the left - and frankly, I’m getting really weary of all the left/right battles. And, dammit, I wasn’t going to participate in this thread!


Of course, you can say we live with fear and anxiety, but have you ever considered that it may be because we know you guys are often psychotic?



I think it’s just life in general. It’s a big bad world out there, isn’t it!



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: face23785


As for this thread, I think you took it completely the wrong way. The purpose is summed up at the end of my OP. If even one poster takes it to heart and learns to be more open-minded about the views of the other side, it's worth it. I can handle the vitriol and lame remarks about me doing the bidding of the PTB.


I’m going to have to call BS on your claim here. If you were really wanting to help people be more open-minded about the views of the other side, you would have posted a more neutral article, or you could have posted a 2nd article that was maybe not so complementary of the right, such as this one:

www.psychologytoday.com...

But you didn’t do that, did you? No, your goal here was clearly to bash the left - and frankly, I’m getting really weary of all the left/right battles. And, dammit, I wasn’t going to participate in this thread!


So I've been reading this and the underlying studies they cite. Big surprise: the studies don't say what that articles claims. The studies find the test results more or less the way the way the article reports them, but the studies draw the opposite conclusion of the article. From the 2012 study (my emphasis):


Demonstrating that those on the right not only respond more strongly to aversive images but also devote more attention to aversive images suggests a different and perhaps less value-charged interpretation of those holding right-of-centre political orientations. It appears individuals on the political right are not so much ‘fearful’ and ‘vulnerable’ as attuned and attentive to the aversive in life. This responsiveness and attentiveness, in turn, is consistent with the fact that right-of-centre policy positions are often designed to protect society from out-group threats (e.g. by supporting increased defence spending and opposing immigration) and in-group norm violators (e.g. by supporting traditional values and stern penalties for criminal behaviour). Rather than using colourful adjectives, perhaps, the proper approach is simply to state that the aversive in life appears to be more physiologically and cognitively tangible to some people and they tend to gravitate to the political right.


Not that those on the right are fearful and vulnerable. Those on the right find aversive stimuli more phsyiologically and cognitively tangible, in other words they can handle unpleasant thoughts and imagery just fine. In contrast, those with left-leaning views tended to not handle aversive stimuli very well and immediately tried to pretend it wasn't there and focus on something positive. What do you do when you feel anxious or fearful? Most people try to focus on something positive. If anything this study shows that what the article claims is true about conservatives is actually true of progressives.

I find most interesting this statement from the article:


“Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living. The fact is we don’t live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.”


Seems to me this could be perceived a little different. "Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living. The fact is we don't live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. So if I acknowledge those unpleasant realities and prepare for them, I will be able to survive them more easily if they occur."

That tends to be a perfectly reasonable and realistic approach to life. An alternative may be to just pretend the world is a utopia and not prepare for anything until all hell breaks loose and then you're left screaming for the government to come and save you.

And given the following statement by the authors of the study, I think they'd be disappointed to see that your source article chose to use their study to push a false narrative about conservatives. :


Be this as it may, the central message of these findings is not that one political orientation is somehow superior to the other but rather that, in light of the connection between location on the political spectrum and physio-cognitive differences, those on the political right and those on the political left may simply experience the world differently.



ETA: I'm trying to get at the 2008 study but you appear to have to have a login to get it. I don't feel like jumping through that many hoops to get at it when in all likelihood it was misrepresented as well.
edit on 10 3 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: introvert
Sometimes telling people the truth and telling them that the facts show they are wrong is perceived as being hostile, or being an asshole.

That is not my burden to bear. That is on the person that lacks the desire or ability to receive another person's words without becoming emotional or defensive.

People on both sides can be both the hostile asshole and on the emotional defense. So it would appear that this piece is written to be confirmation bias for those that do not like meanie asshole "Progressives".


It would appear that this comment is written without having read the article, or having completely missed the point.


I read it and responded accordingly.

It seems to be a piece that relies on logical fallacies, confirmation bias and emotions.

You may want to read up on the source you are using and the tactics they employ.

theoutline.com...



Everything you disagree with is a "logical fallacy".


A logical fallacy exists with or without me agreeing or disagreeing with it.



It sounds more like you took the piece personally and are reacting emotionally. That's okay. There may be a few open-minded people who will read it and learn something. It obviously wasn't meant for you.


Funny, considering that in another post you said this:



You don't know me well enough to infer my motives. And frankly, that's a subtle way of attacking me personally, the kind of thing you're claiming you're against. So not only are you here participating, you're not practicing what you preach. Well done


Damn. If that isn't proof of your own hypocrisy, I don't know what is.



To further respond to this, it's funny you posted a piece from The Outline, which isn't exactly know for being a down-the-middle website.


I did not say it was. I was providing a counter to your source. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. If you were truly interested in letting people make up their own mid, you would have presented an argument for both sides. But you did not so to make such a claim is dishonest.



The Outline is in the same territory as CNN. But no, you're not just a leftist offended by the piece and proving the author's point. Of course you can find plenty of articles complaining Media Bias isn't apolitcal or neutral. I mean, what is? It is run by humans with their own political biases, so their opinion isn't untainted either. But you wouldn't argue with their ratings for Fox or Breitbart.


Does that somehow justify your use of a crap source and hypocrisy?

I think you have proven that people on the Right, and people such as yourself, have the same tendency to lash-out at people instead of engaging specifics.

By your own actions, you prove that your source is disingenuous and the same could be found on the other side of the equation.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   
what exactly from the article is logically false?

its not as though it was a scientific journal like what was shared by kayla, which was demonstrably false regardless of the rigors of the scientific method.

its just a blog basically, with some anecdotal information, the reader encouraged to take from it what they will.
edit on 10-3-2018 by snarfbot because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join