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.

 

Why are most chain emails Right Wing in nature???

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


I think that is a very possible explaination...I experience this myself with my grandmother


But that still leaves the question of who originates them??? Is it the right wing, knowing their elderly base are trusting and will eat it up without checking? Or is it the left wing, knowing the right wing elderly base will eat it up and spread it around...which will make the right wing look uninformed?

I think that is a big risk for the left-wing to take...sense so many people actually end up believing it. But it would also be a risk for the right wing too...knowing that eventually it will be found out to be false information. I wonder if most are done for just for jokes...and then they get out of hand.


And also...why do people use them on ATS as sources or topics of threads? I don't want to insult anyone...but could it be the more elderly crowd here too? But if they can find ATS...they should be able to google an email to check it out.

I think in some cases, people just WANT to believe what they are reading is true...and don't want to look it up because they know it might discredit it.




posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by damwel
 


I've invited them to show me proof that snopes is left leaning and that everything they debunk isn't true.

But...no takers yet...they will just say they don't trust snopes...but offer no proof as to why.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I just came across this article and thought it fit in nicely with your thread.

Obama Rumors: Presidency Spurs Renaissance




After eight years in the White House (with Snopes.com around all that time), George W. Bush has been the subject of 47 internet rumors. After less than two years in office, Barack Obama has been the subject of 87, or nearly twice as many. Even more telling is the relative accuracy of those stories. For Bush, 20 rumors, or 43%, are true. Only 17, or 36%, are false. The remainder are of mixed veracity (4), undetermined (4), or unclassifiable (2). In contrast, for Obama only 8 of the 87 rumors, or 9%, are true, and a whopping 59, or 68%, are whoppers. There are 17 of mixed veracity and 3 undetermined.


To the faithful though, it won't make a difference....Huffington Post is the reference article and it is about snopes afterall






[edit on 26-4-2010 by Connector]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 


WOW...I'm floored. I'm really hoping I don't get smacked with a plagarism violation...honestly that is the first I've seen that article. I did all my counts by hand (by eye?)...my wife even asked me what I was doing


It is very very odd that I wrote that post so close to that original article...that is some odd stuff. That original (not huffington post, but the Salon) article came out on Friday...my post on Sunday...Huffington on Monday.

I really think sometimes there is a collective consciousness thing going on...this isn't the first time I have had synchronicities like this.

Hmmm...wondering if I should link that article in the OP...think I'm gonn

ETA: Ok...I guess I can't edit the OP...hmmm.

ETA2:
I also have to add something I think is pretty funny...I said in my OP that this is a very very quick analysis (really took me all of 15 minutes to create the whole post)...and in the huffington article it says this


Bell dug deep into the archives to do a comparative analysis of the rumor-mongering of the still-young Obama presidency and the two terms of his predecessor.


LOL...maybe I should become a reporter if that is all it takes.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by OutKast Searcher]

[edit on 26-4-2010 by OutKast Searcher]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
It's just dirty propaganda tricks, and the right seems to favor an end justifies the means thinking. Not that leftists are above dirty tricks, but many of my right wing friends and co workers are more knee jerk in their thinking. If an e mail is about patriotism or religion, they believe it.
On a related note, I offer my thread on propaganda on ATS.

ATS as a tool for Propaganda

I have a close friend who just repeats every anti Obama e mail,
even if she knows it's not true!
Her rationale is that Obama is just BAD.
Makes zero sense to me!


[edit on 26-4-2010 by OldDragger]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aceofclubs
mabey because the right wing gets attacked so much many take out frustrations in a way you can`t scream rasist in there face, just a guess


To some degree I have to agree with Ace here..

The anonymity of the interent is the new "hood"

Not to say that many of the emails aren't agenda motivated as well...

not all of them are a play on "fear the non-white man in office" ....but many of them can be summed up that way.

Really...if by a twist of genetics he was born with his mothers skin tone would anyone be screaming he was the anti-christ from Kenya?



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 


I think you have a good point there too. I also know people who are right leaning that even after you show them a piece of information is false...they attack me for trying to say they are misinformed. Or they will tell me that it probably still is true...that my source is just left wing propaganda. Or some, like you said and mostly with Obama, flat out say that they don't care if it isn't true...Obama must be stopped and if they have to use lies they will.

It is really puzzling on how to deal with it.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 



Really...if by a twist of genetics he was born with his mothers skin tone would anyone be screaming he was the anti-christ from Kenya


You know you are going to be accused of playing the race card...right?

And that is another thing I don't get...I heard a lot of talk from a lot of people...mostly privately not in the media...that during the election they flat out said that America just isn't ready for a black president. So we know that SOME anti-Obama sentiment is because he is black.

But now that he is president...I don't hear that much anymore...now it is all about him being "socialist". That has become a code word no matter what people say.

But then WE get accused for playing the race card...I don't get it.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Honesty in debate should trump all other BS.

Playing the race card happens in two ways..not just one.

(1) Accussing someone elses argument of being racially motivated in hopes that the sensitive nature of race discussions will shame or silence the person making the argument.

(2) Accusing an opponent during a debate of "playing the race card" in hopes of dismissing and muting any questions relating to your not so subtle motivations.

Niether should be used. Race issues and issues with race should be openly and honestly discussed. If the accusation is without merit it will collapse of it's own volition absent the whole "oooh he said RACE CARD" bit.

When smear emails are full of very easilly disproven lies and then folks willfully choose to ignore the facts presented to them contradicting those lies, any rational mind will wonder about motivation.

Motivation can be found in the substance of those emails...
Political and Racial (Fear) and most often a combination of the two.

I am not going to choose to not state my opinion out of FEAR that someone will accuse me of playing the race card. That is just dumb and frankly often the hope of those that toss the accusation out there.

If I was motivated by fear I'd have gone GOP years ago.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join