Dumb Questions Thread

[HenrySwanson]

I disagree. When leading leftwing politicians start amplifying obvious and easily unprovable falsehoods as a matter of policy, as right wing leaders have repeatedly done concerning the pandemic, election results, paedophile rings who meet in non-existent basements of pizza shops and Twitter supposedly censoring tweets pushing the Hunter Biden laptop conspiracy, perhaps then we can start talking equivalence.

The difference with the right is that the crazies are in power, or at the very least it appears that those elected to positions of power by them actively seek to court their craziness for political gain.

I think it's a quasi-religious mentality, hence the greater propensity to appeal to emotion.

"Leftwing" politics are more based in reason, and logic.

 

[Danoff]

Why is the right so driven to propagate obvious falsehoods? Is it just mental illness or is there more to it than that?

It's rooted in paranoia and anti-social tendencies. Conspiracies come from thinking everyone is awful and up to no good. It's not necessarily a result of being right wing, it's more like perpetuating conspiracies and being deeply right wing are both symptoms of maladaptive interpersonal relationships.

Just the right?

No.

I keep hearing the White House press secretary tell me how great the economy is, as groceries approach sometimes 50% higher prices than 2020, and retirement savings have lost 1/3 of their value. Evaporated. Gone.

You can make a case that the economy is doing well under inflation, and you can make the case that it is not. Regardless, I think this is not the kind of falsehood @TexRex is really getting at. A point which can be argued both ways is not the same as something completely made up like QAnon or Pizzagate or the idea that the 2020 election was somehow stolen.

I think it's a quasi-religious mentality, hence the greater propensity to appeal to emotion.

I'd see religion as yet another symptom actually.

"Leftwing" politics are more based in reason, and logic.

I'm not really convinced of this. "Think of the children" is not a rightwing concept. They aren't called "bleeding heart" liberals for absolutely no reason, it is rooted in truth. Leftwing politics are based not really in reason or logic but in empathy, social understanding, and a desire to help people. Most of that motive is independent of logic and reason. Likewise the rightwing propensity to isolate and control because everyone is evil is also not rooted in logic or reason.

Left and rightwing politics both come from how they feel about people. That being said, one of those seems to lend itself more to conspiracy theories.

When leftwingers do engage in conspiracy theories, it's almost always about "evil corporations" doing something nefarious or working together. I think the left has a better track record of their evil corporation conspiracies actually being factually proven to be real conspiracies rather than falsehoods. Meanwhile the right wingers seem to be completely blind (intentionally?) to real actual government conspiracies like under Nixon or Trump.

 

[HenrySwanson]

It's rooted in paranoia and anti-social tendencies. Conspiracies come from thinking everyone is awful and up to no good. It's not necessarily a result of being right wing, it's more like perpetuating conspiracies and being deeply right wing are both symptoms of maladaptive interpersonal relationships.

This makes sense. I don't think, in the majority of people it would be so pathological so as to be classed as a personality disorder but I can imagine there are traits exhibited by conservatives/right wingers that could constitute a "type/syndrome" that could be different from other groups. Indeed you can see quantifiable differences between the brains of conservatives and liberals (although it hasn't been proven to be causal), with the right amygdala bigger in conservatives - something that could predispose them to being more sensitive to fear.

Left and rightwing politics both come from how they feel about people.

I suspect there's a tribal thing going on as well with differences in how leftwingers and rightwingers group people, and treat them subsequently.

That being said, one of those seems to lend itself more to conspiracy theories.

 

[Danoff]

This makes sense. I don't think, in the majority of people it would be so pathological so as to be classed as a personality disorder but I can imagine there are traits exhibited by conservatives/right wingers that could constitute a "type/syndrome" that could be different from other groups.

Having had a lot of interaction with someone that clearly has a personality disorder (a disorder that is preventing them from seeking a diagnosis and treatment), I can definitely say that one can be conservative or right-wing without having something so deeply disturbed as rising to the level of a personality disorder.

However, and I think this is an important point, there are personality disorders that would push essentially all of the people suffering under that disorder into conservatism, and I can see this clearly in the person I mentioned above. So the right side of the aisle may have way more than its fair share of mentally unstable and disturbed people. But I think it goes beyond personality disorders.

Consider, for example, an abusive father. What are his politics? Empathy? That's not necessarily a personality disorder so much as it is maladaptive traits such as poor anger management and insecurity. I'd wager that a LOT of conservatives are in need of some form of therapy. I'd guess that a big majority of abusive dads are conservative.

 

[UKMikey]

I suspect there's a tribal thing going on as well with differences in how leftwingers and rightwingers group people, and treat them subsequently.

I don't understand what this chart is measuring. What does "mean" mean in this case?

Unless they're saying that right wingers are more likely to be meanies (j/k).

 

[Danoff]

I don't understand what this chart is measuring. What does "mean" mean in this case?

A big negative score means you see outgroup people more favorably. A big positive score means you see ingroup people more favorably.

 

[TexRex]

It's rooted in paranoia and anti-social tendencies. Conspiracies come from thinking everyone is awful and up to no good. It's not necessarily a result of being right wing, it's more like perpetuating conspiracies and being deeply right wing are both symptoms of maladaptive interpersonal relationships.

No.

You can make a case that the economy is doing well under inflation, and you can make the case that it is not. Regardless, I think this is not the kind of falsehood @TexRex is really getting at. A point which can be argued both ways is not the same as something completely made up like QAnon or Pizzagate or the idea that the 2020 election was somehow stolen.

I think this cuts to the heart of it and I absolutely appreciate your input, but it's still really difficult to reconcile the truly inane falsehoods to which I'm referring and which seem much more prevalent on the right (I think we all know what's meant by it, but perhaps "right" isn't the best label, not least because, as @Roo pointed out, both mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans are squarely to the right even if one is to greater degree).

And you're absolutely correct that I'm not really talking about the self-congratulatory falsehoods perpetuated by White House representatives. Though they're subject to interpretation, I think it's fair to call them falsehoods, but they're not the same kind of unhinged, tribal falsehoods.

 

[wfooshee]

Nope. Those are literally the first four words of my question. More followed, of course, and your inclusion of an ellipsis is an acknowledgement of that fact.
Do you realize my question remains on the page as it was originally asked, unaltered, or are your cognitive faculties grievance-addled to such a degree that you're incapable of observing it in that unaltered state?

Correct. My observation is that the right is driven to greater frequency and degree (indicated in the original question by the adverb "so") than the left to perpetuate obvious falsehoods, not that the right does so exclusively.

Nope. You responded by deflecting.

Yep.

Inferred.

If my intent was to allege that only the right does so, I would have stated it explicitly. I'm very blunt.

Acknowledging that it hasn't been answered. Good. That's progress.

Again deflecting from the question that was asked.

A mere observation that doesn't answer even the question that you posed in an effort to deflect from the question that I asked.

You're bad at this.

All I can come up with as a response is that we speak a different language, and use different definitions for words.

Let's try these questions:

Why are American football linemen large?
Why are basketball players tall?
Why are gymnasts flexible?
Each one is expressly limited to the group being asked about. Any of these athletes can be any combination of large, tall, and flexible, but the question are clearly being asked about the particular type of athlete. In the same way, the question, "Why is the right so driven to propagate obvious falsehoods?" (quoting your full question since you seemed to take offense at my use of the ellipsis,) is obviously asking about... well, the right. Not any other group of people.

 

[Danoff]

All I can come up with as a response is that we speak a different language, and use different definitions for words.

Let's try these questions:

Why are American football linemen large?
Why are basketball players tall?
Why are gymnasts flexible?
Each one is expressly limited to the group being asked about. Any of these athletes can be any combination of large, tall, and flexible, but the question are clearly being asked about the particular type of athlete. In the same way, the question, "Why is the right so driven to propagate obvious falsehoods?" (quoting your full question since you seemed to take offense at my use of the ellipsis,) is obviously asking about... well, the right. Not any other group of people.

You seem to be at odds with yourself.

Just the right? I keep hearing the White House press secretary tell me how great the economy is, as groceries approach sometimes 50% higher prices than 2020, and retirement savings have lost 1/3 of their value. Evaporated. Gone.

Personally, I feel the same thing as your sig line, but applied to liberalism.

The analogy to your "just the right?" comment would be to say "Only basketball players are tall? I keep hearing about how tall volleyball players are. Personally I feel that volleyball players are tall as well".

 

[TexRex]

All I can come up with as a response is that we speak a different language, and use different definitions for words.

Let's try these questions:

Why are American football linemen large?
Why are basketball players tall?
Why are gymnasts flexible?
Each one is expressly limited to the group being asked about. Any of these athletes can be any combination of large, tall, and flexible, but the question are clearly being asked about the particular type of athlete. In the same way, the question, "Why is the right so driven to propagate obvious falsehoods?" (quoting your full question since you seemed to take offense at my use of the ellipsis,) is obviously asking about... well, the right. Not any other group of people.

Holy moly. The intent was clarified both explicitly and in the context of subsequent discussion on the subject, and yet you've chosen to disregard that wholesale because...reasons.

 

[wfooshee]

I never said that only basketball players are tall, or even implied that only basketball players are tall. My sole point was that when you name a group of people in a question, then that question is about that group of people. There's nothing at odds about that. The named group limits the context of the question, while having nothing to do with other groups for which the attribute might apply. Yes, height is an advantage for a volleyball player. I didn't ask about volleyball players, I asked about basketball players. Stating the context of the question does not preclude the attribute from anyone else, it just limits the context of the question, in the same way that, "Why is the right..." does not limit the attribute of perpetuating obvious falsehood to the right, but it does limit the question to the right.

TexRex states that the question wasn't limited to "Just the right," the way I took it, but it is, simply by asking about the right. I've reached a point where I don't even care about the question any more, I simply don't see how stating a context when asking a question doesn't limit that particular question to that particular context. TexRex tried to make the question inclusive and comparative by stating that the word "so" makes it a comparative, but "so inclined" is not a comparative, and does not mean the same thing as "so much more inclined than [some other group,]" which would have been a comparative and inclusive of another named group.

The question named "the right" so the question was about "the right." That's all I'm trying to say.

 

[Famine]

I never said that only basketball players are tall, or even implied that only basketball players are tall. My sole point was that when you name a group of people in a question, then that question is about that group of people. There's nothing at odds about that. The named group limits the context of the question, while having nothing to do with other groups for which the attribute might apply. Yes, height is an advantage for a volleyball player. I didn't ask about volleyball players, I asked about basketball players. Stating the context of the question does not preclude the attribute from anyone else, it just limits the context of the question, in the same way that, "Why is the right..." does not limit the attribute of perpetuating obvious falsehood to the right, but it does limit the question to the right.

TexRex states that the question wasn't limited to "Just the right," the way I took it, but it is, simply by asking about the right. I've reached a point where I don't even care about the question any more, I simply don't see how stating a context when asking a question doesn't limit that particular question to that particular context. TexRex tried to make the question inclusive and comparative by stating that the word "so" makes it a comparative, but "so inclined" is not a comparative, and does not mean the same thing as "so much more inclined than [some other group,]" which would have been a comparative and inclusive of another named group.

The question named "the right" so the question was about "the right." That's all I'm trying to say.

Asking why dogs spend ten minutes picking a spot in which to unload does not preclude the fact that cats also do it. You're using the following fallacy:

A does X
B is not A
Therefore B does not do X

 

[HenrySwanson]

Having had a lot of interaction with someone that clearly has a personality disorder (a disorder that is preventing them from seeking a diagnosis and treatment), I can definitely say that one can be conservative or right-wing without having something so deeply disturbed as rising to the level of a personality disorder.

However, and I think this is an important point, there are personality disorders that would push essentially all of the people suffering under that disorder into conservatism, and I can see this clearly in the person I mentioned above. So the right side of the aisle may have way more than its fair share of mentally unstable and disturbed people. But I think it goes beyond personality disorders.

Consider, for example, an abusive father. What are his politics? Empathy? That's not necessarily a personality disorder so much as it is maladaptive traits such as poor anger management and insecurity. I'd wager that a LOT of conservatives are in need of some form of therapy. I'd guess that a big majority of abusive dads are conservative.

Such disorders would be at the more extreme end of the spectrum, and I think your example may fall into the new category of a personality difficulty. I don't have much experience of this since it wasn't a thing when I was at uni but I can absolutely see how these traits could constitute something that isn't technically an illness or disorder (which is exactly what the new ICD-11 - a system for categorising medical information - is classing it as not). Could that include right wingers/conservatives too? Conversing with some, and looking back on my own political views I'd definitely say yes, and I see many similarities in interactions I've had with people diagnosed (and hospitalised) with psychiatric illnesses - the most striking being with those suffering from delusions. What's intriguing is the difference I can see with those people and right wingers, and that is there is a greater possibility for insight into their own "condition" with the patients (some of whom have been sectioned) than right wingers. Whereas the patients may acknowledge that their belief that MI5 and the CIA is after them is due to impairment in their thinking, challenging people on Twitter/forums/whatever with confronting their own beliefs invariably ends up in them denying they could possibly be wrong and a retaliation.

I used the words "type/syndrome" when describing this constellation of symptoms since I didn't want to jump to medicalising it, and my experience in psychology is limited to AS-level and very little background reading so I recognise there may be a more appropriate term. But there does seem to be something that is recognisable, and can be categorised. Just looking at Twitter profiles/timelines is indicative of that.

As for why there is an increased amount of weird falsehoods on the right, it may be that this is what feeds the person's mind, and validates their thinking. @UKMikey's post of a tweet in the other thread also made me think of something else. The right wing nowadays is quite aligned with fascism, and looking at Umberto Eco's 14 features of fascism you can see why quite blatant/explosive untruths would be continuously promulgated in the group.

I never said that only basketball players are tall, or even implied that only basketball players are tall. My sole point was that when you name a group of people in a question, then that question is about that group of people. There's nothing at odds about that. The named group limits the context of the question, while having nothing to do with other groups for which the attribute might apply. Yes, height is an advantage for a volleyball player. I didn't ask about volleyball players, I asked about basketball players. Stating the context of the question does not preclude the attribute from anyone else, it just limits the context of the question, in the same way that, "Why is the right..." does not limit the attribute of perpetuating obvious falsehood to the right, but it does limit the question to the right.

TexRex states that the question wasn't limited to "Just the right," the way I took it, but it is, simply by asking about the right. I've reached a point where I don't even care about the question any more, I simply don't see how stating a context when asking a question doesn't limit that particular question to that particular context. TexRex tried to make the question inclusive and comparative by stating that the word "so" makes it a comparative, but "so inclined" is not a comparative, and does not mean the same thing as "so much more inclined than [some other group,]" which would have been a comparative and inclusive of another named group.

The question named "the right" so the question was about "the right." That's all I'm trying to say.

I don't think there's anything stopping you from talking about the left in response to the question, and it could be useful for the discussion.

 

[UKMikey]

As for why there is an increased amount of weird falsehoods on the right, it may be that this is what feeds the person's mind, and validates their thinking. @UKMikey's post of a tweet in the other thread also made me think of something else. The right wing nowadays is quite aligned with fascism, and looking at Umberto Eco's 14 features of fascism you can see why quite blatant/explosive untruths would be continuously promulgated in the group.

I post a lot of tweets in multiple threads. For further clarification, can you remember what it was about?

 

[HenrySwanson]

I post a lot of tweets in multiple threads. For further clarification, can you remember what it was about?

Oops, I am lazy:

The Political Cartoon/Image/Meme Thread

AI poetry.

www.gtplanet.net

 

[wfooshee]

Asking why dogs spend ten minutes picking a spot in which to unload does not preclude the fact that cats also do it. You're using the following fallacy:

A does X
B is not A
Therefore B does not do X

I never said it precluded it. All I said was that to me, when the question states a context, then the question is limited to that context, which is why I arrived at "Just the right?" in the first place. There's no fallacy at all.
I think we've beaten this to death, and apparently everyone speaks a different version of English than I do, but asking about a group's behavior is in no way inclusive of, or comparative to, other groups, but I seem to be the only one who thinks so.
If I ask why dogs spend ten minutes looking for the perfect spot, what is there in the question that remotely implies that I even care whether cats, bears, or hyenas do the same thing? Someone pointing out that cats and bears do it too, is exactly equivalent to my original response of, "Just the right?" I can't go back later with my dog question and then say, "Well, I didn't mean just dogs," because I did. I asked about dogs.

 

[Famine]

I never said it precluded it. All I said was that to me, when the question states a context, then the question is limited to that context, which is why I arrived at "Just the right?" in the first place. There's no fallacy at all.
I think we've beaten this to death, and apparently everyone speaks a different version of English than I do, but asking about a group's behavior is in no way inclusive of, or comparative to, other groups, but I seem to be the only one who thinks so.
If I ask why dogs spend ten minutes looking for the perfect spot, what is there in the question that remotely implies that I even care whether cats, bears, or hyenas do the same thing? Someone pointing out that cats and bears do it too, is exactly equivalent to my original response of, "Just the right?" I can't go back later with my dog question and then say, "Well, I didn't mean just dogs," because I did. I asked about dogs.

Your entire premise behind "Just the right?" is "B is not A, therefore B does not do X". This is literally the point other people have been explaining to you.

 

[UKMikey]

His answer to "why does the right believe in obvious falsehoods" is "the left does it too" but he has yet to provide any concrete examples of obvious falsehoods the left believe or push. "We're making your economy better" isn't an obvious falsehood.

 

[Danoff]

His answer to "why does the right believe in obvious falsehoods" is "the left does it too"

...and that's exactly the deflection everyone has been trying to point out to him.

 

[UKMikey]

...and that's exactly the deflection everyone has been trying to point out to him.

I think the other part of my post which you didn't quote should perhaps also be addressed though.

 

[Danoff]

I think the other part of my post which you didn't quote should perhaps also be addressed though.

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at. Are you just wanting @wfooshee to post some left-wing conspiracies to prove that they exist? They do. How about the idea that the US invaded Iraq for oil? This next one is a little less obviously left-wing, but what about the idea that the government created AIDS to attack black people? Given the demographics of white supremacists and black people I'm going with left-wing on that one. There are many, but they're generally less widely held (although I think that Iraqi oil one is probably popular among the people on this site).

I'm wondering if you're looking for many conspiracies as pervasive as the birther conspiracy, the 2020 election theft conspiracy, QAnon, PizzaGate, the Sandyhook conspiracy, or the idea that the Clintons murdered people. I'll agree that the biggest most wide-spread conspiracies are dominated on the right-wing.

 

[UKMikey]

The question was " Why does the right propagate obvious falsehoods?" not "do left-wing conspiracies exist?"

If we take the left to mean Democrats, I don't remember any elected officials pushing the theory that the US invaded Iraq to prop up their oil interests or that the levees were bombed during Katrina.

When leading leftwing politicians start amplifying obvious and easily unprovable falsehoods as a matter of policy, as right wing leaders have repeatedly done concerning the pandemic, election results, paedophile rings who meet in non-existent basements of pizza shops and Twitter supposedly censoring tweets pushing the Hunter Biden laptop conspiracy, perhaps then we can start talking equivalence.

The difference with the right is that the crazies are in power, or at the very least it appears that those elected to positions of power by them actively seek to court their craziness for political gain.

In addition, I'd say right wing CTs like "vaccines are bad" and "Trump won" are actively harmful to health and democracy respectively, which makes their adoption by GOP leadership even worse.

 

[Danoff]

The question was " Why does the right propagate obvious falsehoods?" not "do left-wing conspiracies exist"?

If we take the left to mean Democrats, I don't remember any elected officials pushing the theory that the US invaded Iraq to prop up their oil interests or that the levees were bombed during Katrina.

I'm still unclear on what you're looking for then. You're looking for a conspiracy pushed by an elected official? That wasn't part of the original question, but I suppose if that's what you're looking for there might be a reason that it's interesting. It knocks out some of my rightwing examples, but not all of them.

 

[UKMikey]

I'm still unclear on what you're looking for then. You're looking for a conspiracy pushed by an elected official? That wasn't part of the original question, but I suppose if that's what you're looking for there might be a reason that it's interesting. It knocks out some of my rightwing examples, but not all of them.

I was trying to concentrate on the "propagate" part of the question. Prosecuting Fauci, for example, or repeatedly attempting to impeach Biden over the supposed contents of his son's laptop.

 

[ScottPuss20]

Why is the right so driven to propagate obvious falsehoods? Is it just mental illness or is there more to it than that?

I think it's because they're anti and don't want to be told anything. They want to be "free" from any and all lecturing, even if it saves their lives. They're too busy living in denial to understand the ramifications of their own actions. They conveniently ignore the facts and the experts who have done the research (Fauci is a good example) because they think they know better.

 

[TexRex]

I think it's because they're anti and don't want to be told anything. They want to be "free" from any and all lecturing, even if it saves their lives. They're too busy living in denial to understand the ramifications of their own actions. They conveniently ignore the facts and the experts who have done the research (Fauci is a good example) because they think they know better.

I think a lot of that is tribalism and doesn't really explain the apparent propensity to push blatant, inane falsehoods that don't hold up to even the gentlest of scrutiny.

 

[ScottPuss20]

I think a lot of that is tribalism and doesn't really explain the apparent propensity to push blatant, inane falsehoods that don't hold up to even the gentlest of scrutiny.

Well I think it does.

 

[TexRex]

Why is the conservative bitchfit over drag shows?

This time, yes, just conservative. Only. Solely. Exclusively. Explicitly. Because the opposition to them is a conservative one (which certainly isn't to say it's reserved, indeed it's frequently not), even if those opposed don't value conservative principles like limited government and individualism. It's socially conservative, akin to Iran's morality police enforcing the law that requires women to wear headscarves in public.

Even when it comes to children attending said drag shows, conservatives can't indicate specific legitimate harm to justify outrage. It's all nebulous (I'd suggest even deliberately so) "sexualization."

 

[HenrySwanson]

How did the reproductive organs of species develop over time - i.e. what was the evolutionary mechanism?

One of the arguments for intelligent design is the incredible complexity of things such as the eye, and how improbable it is for it to have evolved without a designer. I can reconcile that it is possible for these things to have developed without some "higher input", but one thing that puzzles me is how reproductive organs developed differently for the 2 sexes, and what could have driven this in nature. How could two organ systems that are different, yet complimentary to each other have arisen?

 

[TheCracker]

Why is the conservative bitchfit over drag shows?

This time, yes, just conservative. Only. Solely. Exclusively. Explicitly. Because the opposition to them is a conservative one (which certainly isn't to say it's reserved, indeed it's frequently not), even if those opposed don't value conservative principles like limited government and individualism. It's socially conservative, akin to Iran's morality police enforcing the law that requires women to wear headscarves in public.

Even when it comes to children attending said drag shows, conservatives can't indicate specific legitimate harm to justify outrage. It's all nebulous (I'd suggest even deliberately so) "sexualization."

It almost certainly stems from puritanical religious influence that likes to bundle together homosexuality, cross dressing, transgenderism and pedophilia as pretty much one and the same, or at least gateways from one to the others - which as we all know, have little to actually do with one another and stem from completely different mind sets. Evangelicals have been firmly behind Trump-era republicanism and i guess these issues gaining traction in right wing media more recently is their kick-back for giving that support.