The broad overview study, however, showed this assumption to be false:
“Contrary to a longstanding view in psychology that political conservatives are particularly prone to defensiveness and cognitive rigidity, our meta-analysis found that when partisan bias was aggregated across studies, topics, and methodological details, both liberals and conservatives were biased in favor of stimuli that confirmed their political beliefs, and to a virtually identical degree.”
But while researchers found that both groups are equally biased, they also found that certain subjects can ignite that bias more readily. Conservatives, for example, are more prone to be “biased in response to gun control arguments.” Liberals, on the other hand, are “biased toward arguments about affirmative action.”
The researchers went on to say that their study:
“[S]uggests… that partisan bias is a bipartisan problem, and that we may simply recognize bias in others better than we see it in ourselves…. This same myopia toward our own side’s biases may also help explain why a field dominated by liberal researchers has been so much more focused on the biased perceptions of the political right than the political left.”
As such a study makes perfectly clear, we’re all biased. The question is, what are we going to do with that knowledge?
“There’s a reason why we haven’t had a woman president–that we as a society still grapple with what it means to see powerful women,” Obama said during a speech on Saturday evening. “And it still troubles us in a lot of ways, unfairly, and that expresses itself in all sorts of ways.”
Obama also resumed his attack on conservative media, blaming them for polarizing American political society.
If all you’re doing is watching Fox News, and listening to Rush Limbaugh, and reading some of the blogs that are churning out a lot of misinformation on a regular basis, then it’s very hard for you to think that you’re going to vote for somebody who you’ve been told is taking the country in the wrong direction.
He’s doing exactly what he’s done the entire time he’s been in office. You aren’t allowed to disagree with him, because if you do, there is something terribly wrong with you and you must be put down. You should be ashamed of yourself for not falling in lock step and nodding at everything he says. You will be rewarded with free stuff for blindly following. If you don’t blindly follow, you will be publicly shamed.
Basically, you aren’t a robot and he doesn’t like that.
This quote highlights something I’ve been saying for a long time. Liberals whine and cry about the fact that the Republican/Conservative side isn’t black enough. Yet when a black man or woman stands up and speaks about Conservative values, they shout them down with racial slurs, most of which I am willing to bet they don’t even know the meaning or origins of, but they heard folks like the above douche canoe use it. They take these folks and publicly rip them apart. And, my favorite, they taunt them for not being able to think for themselves because they aren’t thinking the way the liberals tell them to.
So what we are left with are folks who actually can think for themselves, but are thinking something different than they have been directed to, and they are afraid to come out and say as much, because they know what is coming. And they just want to believe what they believe and live their lives. God forbid. The “party of tolerance” can’t have people getting out of the boxes they constructed for them and doing something other than what they are told. And somehow this isn’t being construed as being “held down.”
And Bill Maher… his only reason for living is to be shocking. He has nothing to offer the world but shock value. He’s a shock jock, plain and simple, and Howard Stern does it so much better, dear.
A number of conservatives who spent the last few decades telling Americans they should support the Republican Party — despite it fielding unconservative candidates — have suddenly decided that ideological purity matters.
For instance, columnist George Will on Friday announced his departure from the Republican Party — during an appearance at a Federalist Society luncheon no less. Will joins a number of self-proclaimed conservatives who have abandoned the GOP ship since it became clear that Trump would likely be the party’s nominee.
“I joined it because I was a conservative, and I leave it for the same reason: I’m a conservative,” said Will, who signed up in 1964 after being inspired by Sen. Barry Goldwater.
“The long and the short of it is, as Ronald Reagan said when he changed his registration, ‘I did not leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left me,’” he said.
Will’s reasoning echoes that of many in the NeverTrump camp, who claim that the GOP’s selection of Trump as a candidate represents some profound and innovative betrayal of conservatism.
- He wasn’t the chosen one. Jeb Bush was the chosen one, and he failed miserably. The reason the Democrats aren’t in such disarray right now is because their chosen one was selected, even if it was done so via super delegates that didn’t really represent the people voting.
- I am not willing to defend any political candidate or party this strongly. I’m sorry, but there isn’t a politician out there who gives a crap about you, and it gets even worse when you take it to the party level. I don’t care who it is, name someone, even third party. You can bet your sweet ass they don’t care about you as much as you think they do. And they sure aren’t going to fight for you as hard as you are fighting for them (especially the party!).
- The terms “conservative” and “liberal” are suddenly like those little scene cliques in high school. When you got laughed at by the metal heads or the hip hop kids for not being “scene” enough. Suddenly, you aren’t conservative enough or liberal enough. Screw it. Be you, and vote for whoever matches you the closest. Just remember, no one running for office is going to match you exactly. Not possible.
Generally, if you are a quiet and passive sort of citizen with no political deviations and no thoughts outside of what is considered “mainstream,” then you are probably considered a non-threat to the establishment. If, however, you promote an ideal that is opposed to the establishment agenda and display a potential to actually act to fight for that ideal, then you will eventually be labeled an extremist.
So who sets the standard for extremism in America today? The responsibility of enforcement has been undertaken by the Department of Homeland Security. But, the actual profiling of extremism and the engineering behind the farcical talking points that the DHS often uses and spreads to local law enforcement agencies is the work of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The SPLC’s profiling guidelines on extremism and terrorism often end up in DHS and fusion center reports that are usually not meant for the eyes of the public. A more well-known example would be the exposure of the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) Report back in 2009 which listed Ron Paul supporters as being potential terrorists. The SPLC lamented that the MIAC report should not have been abandoned after the uproar from conservatives, but instead, should have been pursued.
The SPLC lists “active anti-government groups” on their website with a nicely made but meaningless graph which would have you believe that such groups have exploded in number since 2008. How the SPLC designates groups as “anti-government” is entirely dependent on their own baseless opinions rather than any discernible practical method. They could easily make their graph say anything they want it to say and pretend there is some kind of science to it.
Hilariously, the SPLC lists my own website, Alt-Market, as an “anti-government group” under Pennsylvania, the state I lived in when Alt-Market was first established. Apparently, they consider a website a “group,” and I suppose I should be flattered that my individual efforts have been effective enough to constitute a group-sized threat in their minds.
I am also not “anti-government.” I am anti-corrupt government, but the SPLC does not seem to care at all about this kind of distinction.
I can say that Alt-Market is certainly not a group. I do promote the formation of private barter groups as well as mutual aid and community security groups, but these groups are in no way under the control of Alt-Market. If the SPLC considers me, all by my lonesome, as an anti-government group, then I question the validity of their list. If they had some confusion as to what Alt-Market was, all they had to do was ask me, but they never have.
I addressed the SPLC directly and outlined the corruption inherent in their institution years ago in my article ‘A Message To The SPLC From A Montana “Extremist.”’ To summarize, the SPLC’s goal is to promote Cultural Marxism while incessantly demonizing the opposing belief system — true conservatism. They do this through the use of an old propaganda ploy called ‘false association.’
If you examine the SPLC’s list of people they consider prominent extremists in the U.S., you will find a mixture of liberty movement proponents with their photos pasted right next to white supremacists and Klu Klux Klan members. This is not an accident. The strategy is to associate liberty activists with racists in the minds of the SPLC’s gullible readership without risking lawsuit by defamation.
For example, the SPLC has never (as far as I know) directly labeled liberty voices like Stewart Rhodes or Chuck Baldwin as “racists” or supremacists. However, they will work very hard in various media including their magazine ‘Intelligence Report’ (equating “intelligence” with the SPLC is a laughable premise) to influence the public to attach ideas of liberty to racial supremacy as if they are part of the same ideological movement.
Now frankly, I do not care if an individual or group “hates” another individual or group. As long as they do not harm anyone, invade their privacy or impede their constitutional rights, then it is none of my business. This does not mean I agree with them, but they have a right to believe whatever they want to believe.
The SPLC, along with the “extreme left,” does not think they have a right to believe what they want to believe, and this is where problems start to emerge. The movement to criminalize “hate speech” may be a paper tiger, it may not. According to some polls, 41 percent of Americans and over half of Democrats support the criminalization of hate speech.
Again, if such speech is criminalized, then who gets to determine the definition of what hate speech is? Yes, most likely it will be social justice think-tanks like the SPLC.
That which constitutes “hate speech” and that which constitutes “extremism” is invariably conservative in nature… according to the SPLC and the DHS. Though you will see far more race-hate related speech from groups like Black Lives Matter, you will probably never see them listed on the SPLC’s website.
Conservative opposition to illegal immigration, to the medieval tyranny of Islamic sharia law, to government enforcement of transgender ideology on private property, along with conservative support of 2nd Amendment rights of firearms ownership and 1st Amendments rights in the face of “hate speech” legislation have all been categorized as extremism or racism by the SPLC. This is not simply a battle of ideas with no tangible consequences outside of the academic. The poison of cultural Marxism championed by the SPLC is leaching into everyday life.
No. We aren’t. Because even if the social media company has stacked the deck against information from conservatives, it still remains a valuable tool in reaching readers who actively engage our website on a regular basis.
The main point here is that knowledge is power. I know that is a highly overused phrase — but bear with me.
Now that you’re aware of what Facebook is potentially up to, you can ignore what the social media company tells you is “trending” at the moment and focus your attention on spreading conservative news to your friends and family who also use the social media site. If enough conservatives do so, it’ll become tougher and tougher for the company’s leadership to pretend that it isn’t attempting to silence what is an extremely popular pro-liberty, small government message.
And even though the company’s antics may be disappointing, the situation should also be a little bit comforting. If a company as big, wealthy and as powerful as Facebook feels the need to chill the messages coming from the conservative community, it must mean that the community is larger and more powerful than anyone on the other side wants you to believe.
What that means is that this is an opportunity, not a setback.
There is no question that Facebook’s unprecedented power over the distribution of news is increasingly disturbing. According to a recent study of major news publishers, Facebook now accounts for over 40% of all traffic that comes to news sites. Facebook is now pushing news organizations to publish directly onto its platform by prioritizing traffic to those outlets who agree to its terms. And news organizations are regularly forced to spend large sums of money to reach Facebook users who already have ‘liked’ a news organization page to actually see its content in their news feeds.
Facebook has the ability to cripple a news organization with one click or a single change to its algorithm. When they launched their instant articles feature a few years ago, news organizations saw a firehose of traffic, and then just as quickly, Facebook cut the service off, reducing that traffic to close to zero. Recently, they demonstrated their power by inexplicably deleting a page owned by a popular celebrity news site that had over four millions “likes”, decimating its readership in almost an instant (Facebook later claimed it was because of copyright violations).
If Facebook so chooses, it could do the same to any news organization, and this has serious implications for the future of news in an era when the industry is already in decline. It’s a situation that news organizations have to grapple with and the public should be fully conscious of.
At the same time, Facebook is private company, and as such they have the same robust rights under the first amendment as news organizations and other content distribution networks. They can publish what they want and when they want without government intervention.
Republicans on the Senate commerce committee, led by Senator John Thune, were apparently so stung by Facebook’s alleged anti-conservative bias, they wrote an accusatory letter to Facebook on Tuesday saying: “Facebook must answer these serious allegations and hold those responsible to account if there has been political bias in the dissemination of trending news … Any attempt by a neutral and inclusive social media platform to censor or manipulate political discussion is an abuse of trust and inconsistent with the values of an open internet.”
Apparently Thune has no concept of the first amendment’s declaration that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”. Imagine if Congress opened an investigation into the Guardian’s editorial choices for what they did and didn’t publish on their front page, or questioned the New York Times about what it said in its daily Page One meeting. The precedent set would be incredibly dangerous.
In other news, mewe.com is a great Facebook alternative.