The editorial was hit-and-miss. I like the point that she's almost the 180 to Trump...anti-establishment, breaks rules, appeals to emotions. The idea that conservatives respond to fear more than others was kinda silly. In any case, it was interesting but didn't' really prove much of anything.
This stuff is very nuanced and we seem to be arguing "everyone that hates her is a bigot" vs. "It's all about policy and she'd be treated the same way if she were a 50-year-old white male." Neither of those black/white stances are true. Part of the truth is that most Americans hate liberals and she's the most liberal (or at least the most famously liberal) representative in the House. I have some conservative (Trump-hating) friends that probably don't like her because her fiscal ideas don't feel sustainable. Hell, I am not sold on her myself for that reason.
But if you really don't think that ethnicity, age, sex (and the future those things points to) is part of this, I don't know what to tell you. There's plenty that points to fear, not specifically of her, but of what she represents for the future. Yes, liberal and unapologetic. But also all these things we pretend not to care about are a part of the mix. And we've been given plenty of reason to believe this.
If you don't think some of today's populist movement is driven by white nationalism and fear that different types of people will be a) in power and b) the majority of our population, I don't know what to tell you. Does that mean everyone who's not a fan of this one legislator is a racist? No. But I do believe she represents a future that many people fear.
Black --- Gray Area --- White. The internet only really talks with two of these in mind.
no one is disputing that those sentiments exist: we all know they do. we are just disputing that every single criticism of female POC is based on that.
I don't believe that anyone has suggested that.
there are several posters here that suggest exactly that with every knee-jerk accusation of anyone that criticises a minority.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
The editorial was hit-and-miss. I like the point that she's almost the 180 to Trump...anti-establishment, breaks rules, appeals to emotions. The idea that conservatives respond to fear more than others was kinda silly. In any case, it was interesting but didn't' really prove much of anything.
This stuff is very nuanced and we seem to be arguing "everyone that hates her is a bigot" vs. "It's all about policy and she'd be treated the same way if she were a 50-year-old white male." Neither of those black/white stances are true. Part of the truth is that most Americans hate liberals and she's the most liberal (or at least the most famously liberal) representative in the House. I have some conservative (Trump-hating) friends that probably don't like her because her fiscal ideas don't feel sustainable. Hell, I am not sold on her myself for that reason.
But if you really don't think that ethnicity, age, sex (and the future those things points to) is part of this, I don't know what to tell you. There's plenty that points to fear, not specifically of her, but of what she represents for the future. Yes, liberal and unapologetic. But also all these things we pretend not to care about are a part of the mix. And we've been given plenty of reason to believe this.
If you don't think some of today's populist movement is driven by white nationalism and fear that different types of people will be a) in power and b) the majority of our population, I don't know what to tell you. Does that mean everyone who's not a fan of this one legislator is a racist? No. But I do believe she represents a future that many people fear.
Black --- Gray Area --- White. The internet only really talks with two of these in mind.
Actually, there’s a fair body of research regarding conservatives vs liberals on fear. I didn’t read the article posted and don’t have time right now, but this part at least isn’t off the cuff.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
The editorial was hit-and-miss. I like the point that she's almost the 180 to Trump...anti-establishment, breaks rules, appeals to emotions. The idea that conservatives respond to fear more than others was kinda silly. In any case, it was interesting but didn't' really prove much of anything.
This stuff is very nuanced and we seem to be arguing "everyone that hates her is a bigot" vs. "It's all about policy and she'd be treated the same way if she were a 50-year-old white male." Neither of those black/white stances are true. Part of the truth is that most Americans hate liberals and she's the most liberal (or at least the most famously liberal) representative in the House. I have some conservative (Trump-hating) friends that probably don't like her because her fiscal ideas don't feel sustainable. Hell, I am not sold on her myself for that reason.
But if you really don't think that ethnicity, age, sex (and the future those things points to) is part of this, I don't know what to tell you. There's plenty that points to fear, not specifically of her, but of what she represents for the future. Yes, liberal and unapologetic. But also all these things we pretend not to care about are a part of the mix. And we've been given plenty of reason to believe this.
If you don't think some of today's populist movement is driven by white nationalism and fear that different types of people will be a) in power and b) the majority of our population, I don't know what to tell you. Does that mean everyone who's not a fan of this one legislator is a racist? No. But I do believe she represents a future that many people fear.
Black --- Gray Area --- White. The internet only really talks with two of these in mind.
no one is disputing that those sentiments exist: we all know they do. we are just disputing that every single criticism of female POC is based on that.
I don't believe that anyone has suggested that.
there are several posters here that suggest exactly that with every knee-jerk accusation of anyone that criticises a minority.
I don't agree that that is what they're doing. I think you're just deciding that if they say it, they mean it applies all the time, every time, and nothing else does, ever. They're simply generalizing, and you're taking them literally. I personally give people more credit than that.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The editorial was hit-and-miss. I like the point that she's almost the 180 to Trump...anti-establishment, breaks rules, appeals to emotions. The idea that conservatives respond to fear more than others was kinda silly. In any case, it was interesting but didn't' really prove much of anything.
This stuff is very nuanced and we seem to be arguing "everyone that hates her is a bigot" vs. "It's all about policy and she'd be treated the same way if she were a 50-year-old white male." Neither of those black/white stances are true. Part of the truth is that most Americans hate liberals and she's the most liberal (or at least the most famously liberal) representative in the House. I have some conservative (Trump-hating) friends that probably don't like her because her fiscal ideas don't feel sustainable. Hell, I am not sold on her myself for that reason.
But if you really don't think that ethnicity, age, sex (and the future those things points to) is part of this, I don't know what to tell you. There's plenty that points to fear, not specifically of her, but of what she represents for the future. Yes, liberal and unapologetic. But also all these things we pretend not to care about are a part of the mix. And we've been given plenty of reason to believe this.
If you don't think some of today's populist movement is driven by white nationalism and fear that different types of people will be a) in power and b) the majority of our population, I don't know what to tell you. Does that mean everyone who's not a fan of this one legislator is a racist? No. But I do believe she represents a future that many people fear.
Black --- Gray Area --- White. The internet only really talks with two of these in mind.
no one is disputing that those sentiments exist: we all know they do. we are just disputing that every single criticism of female POC is based on that.
I don't believe that anyone has suggested that.
there are several posters here that suggest exactly that with every knee-jerk accusation of anyone that criticises a minority.
I don't agree that that is what they're doing. I think you're just deciding that if they say it, they mean it applies all the time, every time, and nothing else does, ever. They're simply generalizing, and you're taking them literally. I personally give people more credit than that.
nope. I htink I know when someone calls me a woman hater that isn't a generalzation, lol. no credit deserved when it is a direct accusation of my character based on a critique of any kind on a minority. I'm talking specific incidents/targeted labels. not generalizations.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
The editorial was hit-and-miss. I like the point that she's almost the 180 to Trump...anti-establishment, breaks rules, appeals to emotions. The idea that conservatives respond to fear more than others was kinda silly. In any case, it was interesting but didn't' really prove much of anything.
This stuff is very nuanced and we seem to be arguing "everyone that hates her is a bigot" vs. "It's all about policy and she'd be treated the same way if she were a 50-year-old white male." Neither of those black/white stances are true. Part of the truth is that most Americans hate liberals and she's the most liberal (or at least the most famously liberal) representative in the House. I have some conservative (Trump-hating) friends that probably don't like her because her fiscal ideas don't feel sustainable. Hell, I am not sold on her myself for that reason.
But if you really don't think that ethnicity, age, sex (and the future those things points to) is part of this, I don't know what to tell you. There's plenty that points to fear, not specifically of her, but of what she represents for the future. Yes, liberal and unapologetic. But also all these things we pretend not to care about are a part of the mix. And we've been given plenty of reason to believe this.
If you don't think some of today's populist movement is driven by white nationalism and fear that different types of people will be a) in power and b) the majority of our population, I don't know what to tell you. Does that mean everyone who's not a fan of this one legislator is a racist? No. But I do believe she represents a future that many people fear.
Black --- Gray Area --- White. The internet only really talks with two of these in mind.
no one is disputing that those sentiments exist: we all know they do. we are just disputing that every single criticism of female POC is based on that.
I don't believe that anyone has suggested that.
there are several posters here that suggest exactly that with every knee-jerk accusation of anyone that criticises a minority.
I don't agree that that is what they're doing. I think you're just deciding that if they say it, they mean it applies all the time, every time, and nothing else does, ever. They're simply generalizing, and you're taking them literally. I personally give people more credit than that.
nope. I htink I know when someone calls me a woman hater that isn't a generalzation, lol. no credit deserved when it is a direct accusation of my character based on a critique of any kind on a minority. I'm talking specific incidents/targeted labels. not generalizations.
If I know who you're talking about, and I think I do, I still disagree with you. I think sometimes emotions get the best of people and things can get said, but I don't think anyone actually thinks what you're saying... I would have thought you knew that too.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The editorial was hit-and-miss. I like the point that she's almost the 180 to Trump...anti-establishment, breaks rules, appeals to emotions. The idea that conservatives respond to fear more than others was kinda silly. In any case, it was interesting but didn't' really prove much of anything.
This stuff is very nuanced and we seem to be arguing "everyone that hates her is a bigot" vs. "It's all about policy and she'd be treated the same way if she were a 50-year-old white male." Neither of those black/white stances are true. Part of the truth is that most Americans hate liberals and she's the most liberal (or at least the most famously liberal) representative in the House. I have some conservative (Trump-hating) friends that probably don't like her because her fiscal ideas don't feel sustainable. Hell, I am not sold on her myself for that reason.
But if you really don't think that ethnicity, age, sex (and the future those things points to) is part of this, I don't know what to tell you. There's plenty that points to fear, not specifically of her, but of what she represents for the future. Yes, liberal and unapologetic. But also all these things we pretend not to care about are a part of the mix. And we've been given plenty of reason to believe this.
If you don't think some of today's populist movement is driven by white nationalism and fear that different types of people will be a) in power and b) the majority of our population, I don't know what to tell you. Does that mean everyone who's not a fan of this one legislator is a racist? No. But I do believe she represents a future that many people fear.
Black --- Gray Area --- White. The internet only really talks with two of these in mind.
no one is disputing that those sentiments exist: we all know they do. we are just disputing that every single criticism of female POC is based on that.
I don't believe that anyone has suggested that.
there are several posters here that suggest exactly that with every knee-jerk accusation of anyone that criticises a minority.
I don't agree that that is what they're doing. I think you're just deciding that if they say it, they mean it applies all the time, every time, and nothing else does, ever. They're simply generalizing, and you're taking them literally. I personally give people more credit than that.
nope. I htink I know when someone calls me a woman hater that isn't a generalzation, lol. no credit deserved when it is a direct accusation of my character based on a critique of any kind on a minority. I'm talking specific incidents/targeted labels. not generalizations.
Because I questioned whether you would want your daughters to be treated, spoken of or considered in the way that was being discussed (honestly I can’t remember the context and the specifics of the debate)? But I do remember you accusing me of thinking that you were unfit parent or abusive or something as a result of my response to you. If you’d like to link to the thread/section, I’d be happy to reopen the conversation.
The editorial was hit-and-miss. I like the point that she's almost the 180 to Trump...anti-establishment, breaks rules, appeals to emotions. The idea that conservatives respond to fear more than others was kinda silly. In any case, it was interesting but didn't' really prove much of anything.
This stuff is very nuanced and we seem to be arguing "everyone that hates her is a bigot" vs. "It's all about policy and she'd be treated the same way if she were a 50-year-old white male." Neither of those black/white stances are true. Part of the truth is that most Americans hate liberals and she's the most liberal (or at least the most famously liberal) representative in the House. I have some conservative (Trump-hating) friends that probably don't like her because her fiscal ideas don't feel sustainable. Hell, I am not sold on her myself for that reason.
But if you really don't think that ethnicity, age, sex (and the future those things points to) is part of this, I don't know what to tell you. There's plenty that points to fear, not specifically of her, but of what she represents for the future. Yes, liberal and unapologetic. But also all these things we pretend not to care about are a part of the mix. And we've been given plenty of reason to believe this.
If you don't think some of today's populist movement is driven by white nationalism and fear that different types of people will be a) in power and b) the majority of our population, I don't know what to tell you. Does that mean everyone who's not a fan of this one legislator is a racist? No. But I do believe she represents a future that many people fear.
Black --- Gray Area --- White. The internet only really talks with two of these in mind.
no one is disputing that those sentiments exist: we all know they do. we are just disputing that every single criticism of female POC is based on that.
But that's a part of my point: you're interpreting the "other side" as saying "every single criticism," thus sucking the nuance out of it and appearing to be saying that race/sex/age is not a factor.
And I believe it is a factor. How much? I don't know that. I don't even know how one would quantify that. I think it's significant, but I don't really know any more than any of you.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Fear and Anxiety Drive Conservatives' Political Attitudes
Can brain differences explain conservatives' fear-driven political stances?
Peer-reviewed research shows that conservatives are more sensitive to threat. While this threat-bias can distort reality, fuel irrational fears, and make one more vulnerable to fear-mongering politicians, it could also promote hypervigilance, perhaps making one better prepared to handle an immediate threat.
1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative
In a 2012 study, liberal and conservative participants were shown collages of both negative and positive images on a computer screen while their eye movements were recorded. While liberals were quicker to look at pleasant images, like a happy child or a cute bunny rabbit, conservatives tended to behave oppositely. They’d first inspect threatening and disturbing pictures—things like car wrecks, spiders on faces, and open wounds crawling with maggots—and would also tend to dwell on them for longer. This is what psychologists call a “negativity bias”. If you think about it, this makes a lot of sense. When attention is biased toward the negative, the result is an overly threat-conscious appraisal of one’s surroundings. Essentially, to many conservatives the world looks like a much scarier place. This would seem to explain why so many major conservative viewpoints tend to be rooted in irrational fears—like fear of the president, immigrants, Muslims, vaccinations, etc.
2. Conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threat
A 2008 study published in the journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological response to startling noises and graphic images. This adds to a growing body of research that indicates a hypersensitivity to threat—a hallmark of anxiety. But why exactly would those that scare more easily tend to support conservative views? One social psychologist from the University of Central Arkansas, Paul Nail, has a pretty interesting answer: “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.” This could explain the two parties’ different stances on gun control. It only makes sense that those who startle more easily are also the ones that believe they need to own a gun.
3. Conservatives fear new experiences
A 2008 study catalogued items found in the bedrooms of college students and saw that while liberals owned more books and travel-related items, conservatives had more things that kept order in their lives, like calendars and cleaning supplies. This tells us that liberals more often seek adventure and novel experiences. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to prefer a more ordered, disciplined lifestyle. This could help explain why they are so resistant to change and progressive policies.
4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear
Using MRI, scientists from University College London have found that students who identify themselves as conservatives have a larger amygdala than self-described liberals. This brain structure is involved in emotion processing, and is especially reactive to fearful stimuli. It is possible that an oversized amygdala could create a heightened sensitivity that may cause one to habitually overreact to anything that appears to be a potential threat, whether it actually is one or not. This disproportionate fear response could explain how, for example, Bush’s administration was able to gather wide public support amongst conservatives for invading Iraq. They knew if they said the phrase “weapons of mass destruction” enough times that it wouldn’t matter whether they really existed or not.
Now we see that empirical evidence tells us that conservatives and liberals don’t just have different outlooks and opinions. They also have different brains. This means that our choice of political affiliation and overall worldview may not really be all that much of a choice. Still, we must work to understand these psychological and biological distinctions so that we can ultimately use this knowledge to work better together and find middle ground. Such information may also make us less vulnerable to those who want to exploit these dispositions for their own selfish agendas, using tactics like fear mongering.
Furthermore, knowing why someone is the way they are helps us to be more tolerant and patient with one another. But we must also be honest about the situation. When important choices are being made based on gut instinct rather than logical reasoning, it is everyone’s responsibility to point this out so that it doesn’t result in catastrophe. And in a time when there actually are real threats present, like Ebola and ISIS, it is essential that we keep the paranoia at bay and a calm collectedness when making decisions.
Fear and Anxiety Drive Conservatives' Political Attitudes
Can brain differences explain conservatives' fear-driven political stances?
Peer-reviewed research shows that conservatives are more sensitive to threat. While this threat-bias can distort reality, fuel irrational fears, and make one more vulnerable to fear-mongering politicians, it could also promote hypervigilance, perhaps making one better prepared to handle an immediate threat.
1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative
In a 2012 study, liberal and conservative participants were shown collages of both negative and positive images on a computer screen while their eye movements were recorded. While liberals were quicker to look at pleasant images, like a happy child or a cute bunny rabbit, conservatives tended to behave oppositely. They’d first inspect threatening and disturbing pictures—things like car wrecks, spiders on faces, and open wounds crawling with maggots—and would also tend to dwell on them for longer. This is what psychologists call a “negativity bias”. If you think about it, this makes a lot of sense. When attention is biased toward the negative, the result is an overly threat-conscious appraisal of one’s surroundings. Essentially, to many conservatives the world looks like a much scarier place. This would seem to explain why so many major conservative viewpoints tend to be rooted in irrational fears—like fear of the president, immigrants, Muslims, vaccinations, etc.
2. Conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threat
A 2008 study published in the journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological response to startling noises and graphic images. This adds to a growing body of research that indicates a hypersensitivity to threat—a hallmark of anxiety. But why exactly would those that scare more easily tend to support conservative views? One social psychologist from the University of Central Arkansas, Paul Nail, has a pretty interesting answer: “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.” This could explain the two parties’ different stances on gun control. It only makes sense that those who startle more easily are also the ones that believe they need to own a gun.
3. Conservatives fear new experiences
A 2008 study catalogued items found in the bedrooms of college students and saw that while liberals owned more books and travel-related items, conservatives had more things that kept order in their lives, like calendars and cleaning supplies. This tells us that liberals more often seek adventure and novel experiences. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to prefer a more ordered, disciplined lifestyle. This could help explain why they are so resistant to change and progressive policies.
4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear
Using MRI, scientists from University College London have found that students who identify themselves as conservatives have a larger amygdala than self-described liberals. This brain structure is involved in emotion processing, and is especially reactive to fearful stimuli. It is possible that an oversized amygdala could create a heightened sensitivity that may cause one to habitually overreact to anything that appears to be a potential threat, whether it actually is one or not. This disproportionate fear response could explain how, for example, Bush’s administration was able to gather wide public support amongst conservatives for invading Iraq. They knew if they said the phrase “weapons of mass destruction” enough times that it wouldn’t matter whether they really existed or not.
Now we see that empirical evidence tells us that conservatives and liberals don’t just have different outlooks and opinions. They also have different brains. This means that our choice of political affiliation and overall worldview may not really be all that much of a choice. Still, we must work to understand these psychological and biological distinctions so that we can ultimately use this knowledge to work better together and find middle ground. Such information may also make us less vulnerable to those who want to exploit these dispositions for their own selfish agendas, using tactics like fear mongering.
Furthermore, knowing why someone is the way they are helps us to be more tolerant and patient with one another. But we must also be honest about the situation. When important choices are being made based on gut instinct rather than logical reasoning, it is everyone’s responsibility to point this out so that it doesn’t result in catastrophe. And in a time when there actually are real threats present, like Ebola and ISIS, it is essential that we keep the paranoia at bay and a calm collectedness when making decisions.
Fear and Anxiety Drive Conservatives' Political Attitudes
Can brain differences explain conservatives' fear-driven political stances?
Peer-reviewed research shows that conservatives are more sensitive to threat. While this threat-bias can distort reality, fuel irrational fears, and make one more vulnerable to fear-mongering politicians, it could also promote hypervigilance, perhaps making one better prepared to handle an immediate threat.
1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative
In a 2012 study, liberal and conservative participants were shown collages of both negative and positive images on a computer screen while their eye movements were recorded. While liberals were quicker to look at pleasant images, like a happy child or a cute bunny rabbit, conservatives tended to behave oppositely. They’d first inspect threatening and disturbing pictures—things like car wrecks, spiders on faces, and open wounds crawling with maggots—and would also tend to dwell on them for longer. This is what psychologists call a “negativity bias”. If you think about it, this makes a lot of sense. When attention is biased toward the negative, the result is an overly threat-conscious appraisal of one’s surroundings. Essentially, to many conservatives the world looks like a much scarier place. This would seem to explain why so many major conservative viewpoints tend to be rooted in irrational fears—like fear of the president, immigrants, Muslims, vaccinations, etc.
2. Conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threat
A 2008 study published in the journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological response to startling noises and graphic images. This adds to a growing body of research that indicates a hypersensitivity to threat—a hallmark of anxiety. But why exactly would those that scare more easily tend to support conservative views? One social psychologist from the University of Central Arkansas, Paul Nail, has a pretty interesting answer: “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.” This could explain the two parties’ different stances on gun control. It only makes sense that those who startle more easily are also the ones that believe they need to own a gun.
3. Conservatives fear new experiences
A 2008 study catalogued items found in the bedrooms of college students and saw that while liberals owned more books and travel-related items, conservatives had more things that kept order in their lives, like calendars and cleaning supplies. This tells us that liberals more often seek adventure and novel experiences. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to prefer a more ordered, disciplined lifestyle. This could help explain why they are so resistant to change and progressive policies.
4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear
Using MRI, scientists from University College London have found that students who identify themselves as conservatives have a larger amygdala than self-described liberals. This brain structure is involved in emotion processing, and is especially reactive to fearful stimuli. It is possible that an oversized amygdala could create a heightened sensitivity that may cause one to habitually overreact to anything that appears to be a potential threat, whether it actually is one or not. This disproportionate fear response could explain how, for example, Bush’s administration was able to gather wide public support amongst conservatives for invading Iraq. They knew if they said the phrase “weapons of mass destruction” enough times that it wouldn’t matter whether they really existed or not.
Now we see that empirical evidence tells us that conservatives and liberals don’t just have different outlooks and opinions. They also have different brains. This means that our choice of political affiliation and overall worldview may not really be all that much of a choice. Still, we must work to understand these psychological and biological distinctions so that we can ultimately use this knowledge to work better together and find middle ground. Such information may also make us less vulnerable to those who want to exploit these dispositions for their own selfish agendas, using tactics like fear mongering.
Furthermore, knowing why someone is the way they are helps us to be more tolerant and patient with one another. But we must also be honest about the situation. When important choices are being made based on gut instinct rather than logical reasoning, it is everyone’s responsibility to point this out so that it doesn’t result in catastrophe. And in a time when there actually are real threats present, like Ebola and ISIS, it is essential that we keep the paranoia at bay and a calm collectedness when making decisions.
I still don't understand why anyone is calling the photos an attack pon her by the republicans or conservatives. From what I could tell, The Guardian falsely accused TDC of posting the photos. I could find nothing to suggest they ever posted it, they just reported that FAKE photos had been posted online. And as I pointed out earlier, how is this any different that just about every female out there under 40? Its something that unfortunately happens, it doesn't represent one group or the other, its usually one creepy dude trying to make a few bucks. This has happened to many women, including Sarah Palin if I remember. But I don't remember anyone saying Sarah must be a strong leader and is just scary to the left as a result of it though.
no, the left saw how big of an imbecile sarah palin was. she was not a threat at all. if anything, she helped obama win. i know republican family members that voted for obama because mccain was old and they could not stomach palin as president. they wanted to "take their chances with one term obama rather than risk 7 or 8 with palin". ah the old days, haha...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
A nice fine item missing from that terrific first article is...all that crap about fear etc...the research is about social conservative and states that it doesn’t apply to fiscal conservatives. But again - just go ahead a make it a 2 team sport and try to villify the entire other team.
I disagree. I know this has been a often-repeated talking point in this thread: that these old, white men are scared of a feisty, Latino woman but I don't think that's the case. I think she just fits the description of someone that the Republicans find to be an easy target. And no, it's not "strong, minority woman." It's "inexperienced millennial socialist." I actually think the Republicans likes that she's possibly the "future" of the Democratic Party. It's easier to go against her than it is to go against slick, career politicians like the Clintons or Obama.
i disagree. the dinosaurs in the gop are dying out. they are stuck in the past.they keep pushing trickle down economics, which failed 30 years ago. they keep playing this antiimmigrant shtick when they fail to realize that whites are on the fast track to being the minority. they condescend to the young, when the young are the future. GOP policies have never, ever worked. especially when you compare them to more left leaning countries. at some point, the young are gonna say "the old way has never worked. why can't we try it our way?"
fascism is here now. it is going to be the left and the young that are going to prevail over it.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
A nice fine item missing from that terrific first article is...all that crap about fear etc...the research is about social conservative and states that it doesn’t apply to fiscal conservatives. But again - just go ahead a make it a 2 team sport and try to villify the entire other team.
A nice fine item missing from that terrific first article is...all that crap about fear etc...the research is about social conservative and states that it doesn’t apply to fiscal conservatives. But again - just go ahead a make it a 2 team sport and try to villify the entire other team.
Social vs Fisc conservatives:
Super funny. And you couldn’t even come up with it yourself.
A nice fine item missing from that terrific first article is...all that crap about fear etc...the research is about social conservative and states that it doesn’t apply to fiscal conservatives. But again - just go ahead a make it a 2 team sport and try to villify the entire other team.
Social vs Fisc conservatives:
Super funny. And you couldn’t even come up with it yourself.
A nice fine item missing from that terrific first article is...all that crap about fear etc...the research is about social conservative and states that it doesn’t apply to fiscal conservatives. But again - just go ahead a make it a 2 team sport and try to villify the entire other team.
Or maybe this is what Fiscal conservatism looks like:
A nice fine item missing from that terrific first article is...all that crap about fear etc...the research is about social conservative and states that it doesn’t apply to fiscal conservatives. But again - just go ahead a make it a 2 team sport and try to villify the entire other team.
Or maybe this is what Fiscal conservatism looks like:
All I can see is a white box.
Which may actually be an accurate representation .
Don’t think outside the box!
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
A nice fine item missing from that terrific first article is...all that crap about fear etc...the research is about social conservative and states that it doesn’t apply to fiscal conservatives. But again - just go ahead a make it a 2 team sport and try to villify the entire other team.
Ayup. All that fear? You mean like caravans and invasions? Like crises? Or should I pronounce christuseas? Or maybe like Bernie Kosar going deep only to have Ernest Byner drop the ball?
The editorial was hit-and-miss. I like the point that she's almost the 180 to Trump...anti-establishment, breaks rules, appeals to emotions. The idea that conservatives respond to fear more than others was kinda silly. In any case, it was interesting but didn't' really prove much of anything.
This stuff is very nuanced and we seem to be arguing "everyone that hates her is a bigot" vs. "It's all about policy and she'd be treated the same way if she were a 50-year-old white male." Neither of those black/white stances are true. Part of the truth is that most Americans hate liberals and she's the most liberal (or at least the most famously liberal) representative in the House. I have some conservative (Trump-hating) friends that probably don't like her because her fiscal ideas don't feel sustainable. Hell, I am not sold on her myself for that reason.
But if you really don't think that ethnicity, age, sex (and the future those things points to) is part of this, I don't know what to tell you. There's plenty that points to fear, not specifically of her, but of what she represents for the future. Yes, liberal and unapologetic. But also all these things we pretend not to care about are a part of the mix. And we've been given plenty of reason to believe this.
If you don't think some of today's populist movement is driven by white nationalism and fear that different types of people will be a) in power and b) the majority of our population, I don't know what to tell you. Does that mean everyone who's not a fan of this one legislator is a racist? No. But I do believe she represents a future that many people fear.
Black --- Gray Area --- White. The internet only really talks with two of these in mind.
no one is disputing that those sentiments exist: we all know they do. we are just disputing that every single criticism of female POC is based on that.
I don't believe that anyone has suggested that.
there are several posters here that suggest exactly that with every knee-jerk accusation of anyone that criticises a minority.
I don't agree that that is what they're doing. I think you're just deciding that if they say it, they mean it applies all the time, every time, and nothing else does, ever. They're simply generalizing, and you're taking them literally. I personally give people more credit than that.
nope. I htink I know when someone calls me a woman hater that isn't a generalzation, lol. no credit deserved when it is a direct accusation of my character based on a critique of any kind on a minority. I'm talking specific incidents/targeted labels. not generalizations.
If I know who you're talking about, and I think I do, I still disagree with you. I think sometimes emotions get the best of people and things can get said, but I don't think anyone actually thinks what you're saying... I would have thought you knew that too.
there's been more than one incident. not just the one you are referring to, and not just one poster. not everyone else's reactions to things is "too emotional" or "overly sensitive" as you have suggested in the past.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
The editorial was hit-and-miss. I like the point that she's almost the 180 to Trump...anti-establishment, breaks rules, appeals to emotions. The idea that conservatives respond to fear more than others was kinda silly. In any case, it was interesting but didn't' really prove much of anything.
This stuff is very nuanced and we seem to be arguing "everyone that hates her is a bigot" vs. "It's all about policy and she'd be treated the same way if she were a 50-year-old white male." Neither of those black/white stances are true. Part of the truth is that most Americans hate liberals and she's the most liberal (or at least the most famously liberal) representative in the House. I have some conservative (Trump-hating) friends that probably don't like her because her fiscal ideas don't feel sustainable. Hell, I am not sold on her myself for that reason.
But if you really don't think that ethnicity, age, sex (and the future those things points to) is part of this, I don't know what to tell you. There's plenty that points to fear, not specifically of her, but of what she represents for the future. Yes, liberal and unapologetic. But also all these things we pretend not to care about are a part of the mix. And we've been given plenty of reason to believe this.
If you don't think some of today's populist movement is driven by white nationalism and fear that different types of people will be a) in power and b) the majority of our population, I don't know what to tell you. Does that mean everyone who's not a fan of this one legislator is a racist? No. But I do believe she represents a future that many people fear.
Black --- Gray Area --- White. The internet only really talks with two of these in mind.
no one is disputing that those sentiments exist: we all know they do. we are just disputing that every single criticism of female POC is based on that.
I don't believe that anyone has suggested that.
there are several posters here that suggest exactly that with every knee-jerk accusation of anyone that criticises a minority.
I don't agree that that is what they're doing. I think you're just deciding that if they say it, they mean it applies all the time, every time, and nothing else does, ever. They're simply generalizing, and you're taking them literally. I personally give people more credit than that.
nope. I htink I know when someone calls me a woman hater that isn't a generalzation, lol. no credit deserved when it is a direct accusation of my character based on a critique of any kind on a minority. I'm talking specific incidents/targeted labels. not generalizations.
Because I questioned whether you would want your daughters to be treated, spoken of or considered in the way that was being discussed (honestly I can’t remember the context and the specifics of the debate)? But I do remember you accusing me of thinking that you were unfit parent or abusive or something as a result of my response to you. If you’d like to link to the thread/section, I’d be happy to reopen the conversation.
it's not always about you. I don't form opinions on things like this based on one interaction with one poster.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
The editorial was hit-and-miss. I like the point that she's almost the 180 to Trump...anti-establishment, breaks rules, appeals to emotions. The idea that conservatives respond to fear more than others was kinda silly. In any case, it was interesting but didn't' really prove much of anything.
This stuff is very nuanced and we seem to be arguing "everyone that hates her is a bigot" vs. "It's all about policy and she'd be treated the same way if she were a 50-year-old white male." Neither of those black/white stances are true. Part of the truth is that most Americans hate liberals and she's the most liberal (or at least the most famously liberal) representative in the House. I have some conservative (Trump-hating) friends that probably don't like her because her fiscal ideas don't feel sustainable. Hell, I am not sold on her myself for that reason.
But if you really don't think that ethnicity, age, sex (and the future those things points to) is part of this, I don't know what to tell you. There's plenty that points to fear, not specifically of her, but of what she represents for the future. Yes, liberal and unapologetic. But also all these things we pretend not to care about are a part of the mix. And we've been given plenty of reason to believe this.
If you don't think some of today's populist movement is driven by white nationalism and fear that different types of people will be a) in power and b) the majority of our population, I don't know what to tell you. Does that mean everyone who's not a fan of this one legislator is a racist? No. But I do believe she represents a future that many people fear.
Black --- Gray Area --- White. The internet only really talks with two of these in mind.
no one is disputing that those sentiments exist: we all know they do. we are just disputing that every single criticism of female POC is based on that.
I don't believe that anyone has suggested that.
there are several posters here that suggest exactly that with every knee-jerk accusation of anyone that criticises a minority.
I don't agree that that is what they're doing. I think you're just deciding that if they say it, they mean it applies all the time, every time, and nothing else does, ever. They're simply generalizing, and you're taking them literally. I personally give people more credit than that.
nope. I htink I know when someone calls me a woman hater that isn't a generalzation, lol. no credit deserved when it is a direct accusation of my character based on a critique of any kind on a minority. I'm talking specific incidents/targeted labels. not generalizations.
Because I questioned whether you would want your daughters to be treated, spoken of or considered in the way that was being discussed (honestly I can’t remember the context and the specifics of the debate)? But I do remember you accusing me of thinking that you were unfit parent or abusive or something as a result of my response to you. If you’d like to link to the thread/section, I’d be happy to reopen the conversation.
it's not always about you. I don't form opinions on things like this based on one interaction with one poster.
I never said it “was about me.” You really do like to project, don’t you?
The editorial was hit-and-miss. I like the point that she's almost the 180 to Trump...anti-establishment, breaks rules, appeals to emotions. The idea that conservatives respond to fear more than others was kinda silly. In any case, it was interesting but didn't' really prove much of anything.
This stuff is very nuanced and we seem to be arguing "everyone that hates her is a bigot" vs. "It's all about policy and she'd be treated the same way if she were a 50-year-old white male." Neither of those black/white stances are true. Part of the truth is that most Americans hate liberals and she's the most liberal (or at least the most famously liberal) representative in the House. I have some conservative (Trump-hating) friends that probably don't like her because her fiscal ideas don't feel sustainable. Hell, I am not sold on her myself for that reason.
But if you really don't think that ethnicity, age, sex (and the future those things points to) is part of this, I don't know what to tell you. There's plenty that points to fear, not specifically of her, but of what she represents for the future. Yes, liberal and unapologetic. But also all these things we pretend not to care about are a part of the mix. And we've been given plenty of reason to believe this.
If you don't think some of today's populist movement is driven by white nationalism and fear that different types of people will be a) in power and b) the majority of our population, I don't know what to tell you. Does that mean everyone who's not a fan of this one legislator is a racist? No. But I do believe she represents a future that many people fear.
Black --- Gray Area --- White. The internet only really talks with two of these in mind.
no one is disputing that those sentiments exist: we all know they do. we are just disputing that every single criticism of female POC is based on that.
I don't believe that anyone has suggested that.
there are several posters here that suggest exactly that with every knee-jerk accusation of anyone that criticises a minority.
I don't agree that that is what they're doing. I think you're just deciding that if they say it, they mean it applies all the time, every time, and nothing else does, ever. They're simply generalizing, and you're taking them literally. I personally give people more credit than that.
nope. I htink I know when someone calls me a woman hater that isn't a generalzation, lol. no credit deserved when it is a direct accusation of my character based on a critique of any kind on a minority. I'm talking specific incidents/targeted labels. not generalizations.
Because I questioned whether you would want your daughters to be treated, spoken of or considered in the way that was being discussed (honestly I can’t remember the context and the specifics of the debate)? But I do remember you accusing me of thinking that you were unfit parent or abusive or something as a result of my response to you. If you’d like to link to the thread/section, I’d be happy to reopen the conversation.
it's not always about you. I don't form opinions on things like this based on one interaction with one poster.
I never said it “was about me.” You really do like to project, don’t you?
you assumed that I was referring to that one discussion and that one discussion only. that's observation, not projection.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I agree here. Yes she has made a splash and yes, she uses social media effectively, but she has been outflanked by Pelosi twice. She needs to be more strategic if she wants to make a difference. But that takes time and experience, ironically.
I agree here. Yes she has made a splash and yes, she uses social media effectively, but she has been outflanked by Pelosi twice. She needs to be more strategic if she wants to make a difference. But that takes time and experience, ironically.
I don't think she should be blamed for getting airtime and attention.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I agree here. Yes she has made a splash and yes, she uses social media effectively, but she has been outflanked by Pelosi twice. She needs to be more strategic if she wants to make a difference. But that takes time and experience, ironically.
I don't think she should be blamed for getting airtime and attention.
See at first, I thought she was trying to be just a normal freshman, like Spanberger (my local freshman) and that people were targeting here because she was Hispanic, young, Democratic-Socialist. None of those things bother me. But she has tried to make her own splash by storming Pelosi's office for a sit in, fighting the Paygo rules, and trying to create a new committee for her Green Deal with draconian 'purity' rules. Pelosi easily won these battles. AOC wanted this airtime with the gambits and they failed.
I agree here. Yes she has made a splash and yes, she uses social media effectively, but she has been outflanked by Pelosi twice. She needs to be more strategic if she wants to make a difference. But that takes time and experience, ironically.
I don't think she should be blamed for getting airtime and attention.
See at first, I thought she was trying to be just a normal freshman, like Spanberger (my local freshman) and that people were targeting here because she was Hispanic, young, Democratic-Socialist. None of those things bother me. But she has tried to make her own splash by storming Pelosi's office for a sit in, fighting the Paygo rules, and trying to create a new committee for her Green Deal with draconian 'purity' rules. Pelosi easily won these battles. AOC wanted this airtime with the gambits and they failed.
tried to make her own splash? or tried to deliver on promises she made to her constituents?
I agree here. Yes she has made a splash and yes, she uses social media effectively, but she has been outflanked by Pelosi twice. She needs to be more strategic if she wants to make a difference. But that takes time and experience, ironically.
I don't think she should be blamed for getting airtime and attention.
See at first, I thought she was trying to be just a normal freshman, like Spanberger (my local freshman) and that people were targeting here because she was Hispanic, young, Democratic-Socialist. None of those things bother me. But she has tried to make her own splash by storming Pelosi's office for a sit in, fighting the Paygo rules, and trying to create a new committee for her Green Deal with draconian 'purity' rules. Pelosi easily won these battles. AOC wanted this airtime with the gambits and they failed.
tried to make her own splash? or tried to deliver on promises she made to her constituents?
Your ability to deliver on promises hinges on your ability to understand how congress works (both explicitly and implicitly), your ability to influence your peers on both sides of the aisle, how maneuver your sponsored bills through committees, how to sit in the right committees, etc. They don't involve challenging the Speaker on multiple fronts during your first week of office. Whatever one thinks of Pelosi, she is tough as nails, as Trump is discovering. She rivals O'Neill and Rayburn as the most effective speaker of last 100 years.
Comments
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
But that's a part of my point: you're interpreting the "other side" as saying "every single criticism," thus sucking the nuance out of it and appearing to be saying that race/sex/age is not a factor.
And I believe it is a factor. How much? I don't know that. I don't even know how one would quantify that. I think it's significant, but I don't really know any more than any of you.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Fear and Anxiety Drive Conservatives' Political Attitudes
Can brain differences explain conservatives' fear-driven political stances?
Peer-reviewed research shows that conservatives are more sensitive to threat. While this threat-bias can distort reality, fuel irrational fears, and make one more vulnerable to fear-mongering politicians, it could also promote hypervigilance, perhaps making one better prepared to handle an immediate threat.
1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative
In a 2012 study, liberal and conservative participants were shown collages of both negative and positive images on a computer screen while their eye movements were recorded. While liberals were quicker to look at pleasant images, like a happy child or a cute bunny rabbit, conservatives tended to behave oppositely. They’d first inspect threatening and disturbing pictures—things like car wrecks, spiders on faces, and open wounds crawling with maggots—and would also tend to dwell on them for longer. This is what psychologists call a “negativity bias”. If you think about it, this makes a lot of sense. When attention is biased toward the negative, the result is an overly threat-conscious appraisal of one’s surroundings. Essentially, to many conservatives the world looks like a much scarier place. This would seem to explain why so many major conservative viewpoints tend to be rooted in irrational fears—like fear of the president, immigrants, Muslims, vaccinations, etc.
2. Conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threat
A 2008 study published in the journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological response to startling noises and graphic images. This adds to a growing body of research that indicates a hypersensitivity to threat—a hallmark of anxiety. But why exactly would those that scare more easily tend to support conservative views? One social psychologist from the University of Central Arkansas, Paul Nail, has a pretty interesting answer: “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.” This could explain the two parties’ different stances on gun control. It only makes sense that those who startle more easily are also the ones that believe they need to own a gun.
3. Conservatives fear new experiences
A 2008 study catalogued items found in the bedrooms of college students and saw that while liberals owned more books and travel-related items, conservatives had more things that kept order in their lives, like calendars and cleaning supplies. This tells us that liberals more often seek adventure and novel experiences. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to prefer a more ordered, disciplined lifestyle. This could help explain why they are so resistant to change and progressive policies.
4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear
Using MRI, scientists from University College London have found that students who identify themselves as conservatives have a larger amygdala than self-described liberals. This brain structure is involved in emotion processing, and is especially reactive to fearful stimuli. It is possible that an oversized amygdala could create a heightened sensitivity that may cause one to habitually overreact to anything that appears to be a potential threat, whether it actually is one or not. This disproportionate fear response could explain how, for example, Bush’s administration was able to gather wide public support amongst conservatives for invading Iraq. They knew if they said the phrase “weapons of mass destruction” enough times that it wouldn’t matter whether they really existed or not.
Now we see that empirical evidence tells us that conservatives and liberals don’t just have different outlooks and opinions. They also have different brains. This means that our choice of political affiliation and overall worldview may not really be all that much of a choice. Still, we must work to understand these psychological and biological distinctions so that we can ultimately use this knowledge to work better together and find middle ground. Such information may also make us less vulnerable to those who want to exploit these dispositions for their own selfish agendas, using tactics like fear mongering.
Furthermore, knowing why someone is the way they are helps us to be more tolerant and patient with one another. But we must also be honest about the situation. When important choices are being made based on gut instinct rather than logical reasoning, it is everyone’s responsibility to point this out so that it doesn’t result in catastrophe. And in a time when there actually are real threats present, like Ebola and ISIS, it is essential that we keep the paranoia at bay and a calm collectedness when making decisions.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Like every other accusation lobbed at the 'leftists'?
I'm shocked
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
the dinosaurs in the gop are dying out. they are stuck in the past.they keep pushing trickle down economics, which failed 30 years ago. they keep playing this antiimmigrant shtick when they fail to realize that whites are on the fast track to being the minority. they condescend to the young, when the young are the future. GOP policies have never, ever worked. especially when you compare them to more left leaning countries. at some point, the young are gonna say "the old way has never worked. why can't we try it our way?"
fascism is here now. it is going to be the left and the young that are going to prevail over it.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
That better?
Which may actually be an accurate representation
Don’t think outside the box!
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
-EV 8/14/93
or
tried to deliver on promises she made to her constituents?