Red Mosquito

Strat wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:Is he going to continue to tweet when he's in office?

Yes

I have trouble believing he actually runs his twitter account

Bi_3 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

digster wrote:Cause when it's not done to 'your side', it's acceptable. You see the same thing in the arguments over the hacking. Republicans aren't pushing the issue by and large because it didn't happen to them. It's just how our brains work; our policies follow the party we belong to, rather than the other way around.

Maybe if you're anidiot human

FTFY. This behavior is pretty universal.

It is not "human" to blindly conform to your political party regardless of what they do

lol

House Republicans pull plan to gut independent ethics panel after Trump tweets

digster wrote:Cause when it's not done to 'your side', it's acceptable. You see the same thing in the arguments over the hacking. Republicans aren't pushing the issue by and large because it didn't happen to them. It's just how our brains work; our policies follow the party we belong to, rather than the other way around.

This simplifying the description of an effect reaches the point of misrepresenting it.

There is a minor change to empathy levels that correlates with defining a group as "others." However, most of the correlation is due to phenomena corresponding to that label. For example:

1. If we commit or try to commit an aggressive act towards someone, our opinion of them is more negatively affected than our opinion of ourselves. The effect is almost literally "I tried to hurt you so you must deserve it."

For example, people presented with a scenario involving a crime who were asked to make a "guilty/not guilty" decision involving the death penalty based on that evidence not only expressed greater confidence and certainty if they decided on a guilty vote, but when asked later actually remembered evidence proving guilt that had not been included in the scenario. Because they condemned somebody, they subconsciously invented evidence to confirm to themselves that they had done the right thing...that there was no chance they had decided incorrectly.

2. Using insults or personal attacks against somebody affects our opinion of them substantially more than if we argue against their ideas. For example, people who regularly insult a specific other person directly or aggressively show a virtual cratering of basic empathy when presented with scenarios involving that other person being physically or emotionally harmed, or even killed. Basically, if I say your ideas are stupid, my labeling you as "other" is not very consequential. If I attack you as a person, it is. Which is why it is terribly alarming when a president describes some people as "my enemies."

3. Both of these experiences affect how we interpret new information, specifically thanks to confirmation bias. If I am in a crowd chanting "lock her up" because I dislike a candidate so much, after chanting that I am far more likely to believe any piece of news I am exposed to supporting the idea that she should be locked up. Worse, after chanting it I am more likely to incorrectly "remember" having been exposed to condemning evidence in the past. If the Washington Post is continually reporting things that prevent my desire for confirmation, and a fake new site is constantly providing me with rewarding confirmation (there is literally a dopamine reward), it's not hard to convince me that the Washington Post is full of lies.

4. These phenomenon also exist when the sentiments described above are expressed by a perceived "leader" or character we partially identify ourselves by following. So it becomes a tornado of combined internal influences. The leader I supported and believe in says bad things about Jews, and now I am more likely to believe an increased number of bad things about Jews. Don't tell me that, though. I find the very idea that I am so easily affected insulting, because I am a smart and independent thinker. But it is true. And my negative thoughts about Jews are not necessarily the same negative things he is saying (which is why polling always proves so ineffective at capturing the effect). Meanwhile, his detractors are fighting back against his claims, so I find myself arguing with them (defending my "side") by insisting that Jews are a problem, but that maybe he just pointed in the wrong direction or overstated. So now, by presenting negative arguments against Jews, I am affecting my own ability to feel empathy for them and altering my understandings to fit the narrative…esentially, supporting my own ability to believe that I can be a good person while still saying these things.

This is exactly why true political discourse, even when it is filled with inaccuracies or bald lies, is so significantly less destructive than calling immigrants "rapists," openly attacking the media, and calling your opponents losers and whiners.

Apologies for any typos. I am on a shuttle headed to a meeting, and I can't really read what I'm typing or what autocorrect is up to.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

digster wrote:Cause when it's not done to 'your side', it's acceptable. You see the same thing in the arguments over the hacking. Republicans aren't pushing the issue by and large because it didn't happen to them. It's just how our brains work; our policies follow the party we belong to, rather than the other way around.

Maybe if you're anidiot human

FTFY. This behavior is pretty universal.

It is not "human" to blindly conform to your political party regardless of what they do

I'm afraid this is a semantics debate now, but the behavior you're describing is most certainly a part of the human psyche and examples of such are littered throughout history. The opposite is also true, to a different degree, but these are both traits of the human condition.

McParadigm wrote:

digster wrote:Cause when it's not done to 'your side', it's acceptable. You see the same thing in the arguments over the hacking. Republicans aren't pushing the issue by and large because it didn't happen to them. It's just how our brains work; our policies follow the party we belong to, rather than the other way around.

This simplifying the description of an effect reaches the point of misrepresenting it.

There is a minor change to empathy levels that correlates with defining a group as "others." However, most of the correlation is due to phenomena corresponding to that label. For example:

1. If we commit or try to commit an aggressive act towards someone, our opinion of them is more negatively affected than our opinion of ourselves. The effect is almost literally "I tried to hurt you so you must deserve it."

For example, people presented with a scenario involving a crime who were asked to make a "guilty/not guilty" decision involving the death penalty based on that evidence not only expressed greater confidence and certainty if they decided on a guilty vote, but when asked later actually remembered evidence proving guilt that had not been included in the scenario. Because they condemned somebody, they subconsciously invented evidence to confirm to themselves that they had done the right thing...that there was no chance they had decided incorrectly.

2. Using insults or personal attacks against somebody affects our opinion of them substantially more than if we argue against their ideas. For example, people who regularly insult a specific other person directly or aggressively show a virtual cratering of basic empathy when presented with scenarios involving that other person being physically or emotionally harmed, or even killed. Basically, if I say your ideas are stupid, my labeling you as "other" is not very consequential. If I attack you as a person, it is. Which is why it is terribly alarming when a president describes some people as "my enemies."

3. Both of these experiences affect how we interpret new information, specifically thanks to confirmation bias. If I am in a crowd chanting "lock her up" because I dislike a candidate so much, after chanting that I am far more likely to believe any piece of news I am exposed to supporting the idea that she should be locked up. Worse, after chanting it I am more likely to incorrectly "remember" having been exposed to condemning evidence in the past. If the Washington Post is continually reporting things that prevent my desire for confirmation, and a fake new site is constantly providing me with rewarding confirmation (there is literally a dopamine reward), it's not hard to convince me that the Washington Post is full of lies.

4. These phenomenon also exist when the sentiments described above are expressed by a perceived "leader" or character we partially identify ourselves by following. So it becomes a tornado of combined internal influences. The leader I supported and believe in says bad things about Jews, and now I am more likely to believe an increased number of bad things about Jews. Don't tell me that, though. I find the very idea that I am so easily affected insulting, because I am a smart and independent thinker. But it is true. And my negative thoughts about Jews are not necessarily the same negative things he is saying (which is why polling always proves so ineffective at capturing the effect). Meanwhile, his detractors are fighting back against his claims, so I find myself arguing with them (defending my "side") by insisting that Jews are a problem, but that maybe he just pointed in the wrong direction or overstated. So now, by presenting negative arguments against Jews, I am affecting my own ability to feel empathy for them and altering my understandings to fit the narrative…esentially, supporting my own ability to believe that I can be a good person while still saying these things.

This is exactly why true political discourse, even when it is filled with inaccuracies or bald lies, is so significantly less destructive than calling immigrants "rapists," openly attacking the media, and calling your opponents losers and whiners.

You know, you make great posts when you aren't retweeting.

Kaius wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

digster wrote:Cause when it's not done to 'your side', it's acceptable. You see the same thing in the arguments over the hacking. Republicans aren't pushing the issue by and large because it didn't happen to them. It's just how our brains work; our policies follow the party we belong to, rather than the other way around.

Maybe if you're anidiot human

FTFY. This behavior is pretty universal.

It is not "human" to blindly conform to your political party regardless of what they do

I'm afraid this is a semantics debate now, but the behavior you're describing is most certainly a part of the human psyche and examples of such are littered throughout history. The opposite is also true, to a different degree, but these are both traits of the human condition.

Yes, because many humans are idiots

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Kaius wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

digster wrote:Cause when it's not done to 'your side', it's acceptable. You see the same thing in the arguments over the hacking. Republicans aren't pushing the issue by and large because it didn't happen to them. It's just how our brains work; our policies follow the party we belong to, rather than the other way around.

Maybe if you're anidiot human

FTFY. This behavior is pretty universal.

It is not "human" to blindly conform to your political party regardless of what they do

I'm afraid this is a semantics debate now, but the behavior you're describing is most certainly a part of the human psyche and examples of such are littered throughout history. The opposite is also true, to a different degree, but these are both traits of the human condition.

Yes, because many humans are idiots

Yes

Kaius wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Kaius wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

digster wrote:Cause when it's not done to 'your side', it's acceptable. You see the same thing in the arguments over the hacking. Republicans aren't pushing the issue by and large because it didn't happen to them. It's just how our brains work; our policies follow the party we belong to, rather than the other way around.

Maybe if you're anidiot human

FTFY. This behavior is pretty universal.

It is not "human" to blindly conform to your political party regardless of what they do

I'm afraid this is a semantics debate now, but the behavior you're describing is most certainly a part of the human psyche and examples of such are littered throughout history. The opposite is also true, to a different degree, but these are both traits of the human condition.

Yes, because many humans are idiots

Yes

Green Habit wrote:Tribalism's a helluva drug.

Strat wrote:lol

House Republicans pull plan to gut independent ethics panel after Trump tweets

Jesus. None of these motherfuckers have any sort of spine at all, do they? They're all for it until Daddy Trump doesn't like it then they don't like it either. Pussies.

Donald Trump didn't even object to what they did in principle. He agreed with them that the office is "unfair" and criticized the optics of doing it right now (even though they have to do it now because now is when the rules are set for the new Congress, but I doubt he really understands that either).

Turns out it was a deluge of constituent outrage that made them reverse, and the media just gave Trump credit because fuck us all

tragabigzanda wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Turns out it was a deluge of constituent outrage that made them reverse, and the media just gave Trump credit because fuck us all

Source on this? Front page for Politico and WaPost are running the "Trump Did This" version of events.

New York Times:

But such resolve crumbled Tuesday morning, as thousands of phone calls flooded lawmakers’ offices and both conservative and liberal ethics groups issued statements condemning the vote. Some Republicans joined in, saying the measure sent the wrong message to the public. (Internet searches for the words “Who is my representative” surged after news of the plan broke Monday night and peaked Tuesday morning, according to Google.)

I give all credit to Lindsey Graham, who went on the radio this morning and said, “It’s the dumbest fricking thing I’ve ever heard."

where is my tax cut

oops, guess that was fake news.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... eae18a4d77

BurtReynolds wrote:oops, guess that was fake news.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... eae18a4d77

Rush to judgement =! intentionally falsifying.