Who spreads misinformation? A pair of researchers says it's not liberals in general and it's not conservatives in general. It's a very specific subset of conservatives:
Using statistical analysis, we found that the only reliable explanation was a general desire for chaos — that is, a motivation to disregard, disrupt, and take down existing social and political institutions as a means of asserting the dominance and superiority of one’s own group. Participants indicated their appetite for chaos by using a scale to express how much they agreed with statements like, “I think society should be burned to the ground.” For LCCs, we concluded, sharing false information is a vehicle for propagating chaos.
An LCC is a "low-conscientiousness conservative," and they were 2.5 times more likely to share misinformation than anyone else:
So there you have it: the problem is nihilistic reactionaries. Let's go get 'em.
A century-plus ago we’d have likely called them anarchists.
And 40 years ago establishment conservatives thought they could control them, now all they can do is hold this tiger by the tail.
Somehow reminds me of the conservatives in the Weimar Republic who thought they could control Hitler and the Nazis. Yes I am making a comparison.
Godwin has public stated he completely understands with this crew, so I think you're good.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/godwins-law-creator-supports-calling-racist-demonstrators-nazis_n_59919eb5e4b0909642986356
Yes, I don't see how anyone who wants to burn everything to the ground can be called a conservative.
I never knew christian nihilism was possible till these chuckleheads.
From Lincoln's Cooper Union speech:
Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.
This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed Constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the Court have decided the question for you in a sort of way. The Court have substantially said, it is your Constitutional right to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided Court, by a bare majority of the Judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact - the statement in the opinion that "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution."
It makes me say, "Wow." I'd vote for that guy.
I'll still reserve some blame for the boring local Chamber of Commerce conservatives who exploit these LCCs and who are happy to ride the wave of agitation as a lazy GOTV tool.
Yeah, the study didn't address those who standby the let mis-information run amok without any push back.
Pingback: Misinformation is mostly spread by chaotic evil conservatives | Later On
Imagine the ego it takes to assume that, after everything's been burned to the ground, society will be remade to their liking.
It's not ego, it's blind disregard. They think everything will be burned flat and they'll still be living their normal life while everyone else's life is destroyed, and they'll revel in the schadenfreude.
Big Garden District after Hurricane Katrina energy.
"Low conscientiousness"? I'd call it "No conscience."
The Politico piece investigated "personality traits". They apparently did not differentiate people on whether or not they are racist or excessively religious. Are these not personality traits? The racist and religious people are apparently the ones who buy into the craziest right-wing propaganda - or are they?
If your study does not include all the factors which might affect behavior it will probably get wrong answers. Is being a "high-conscientiousness conservative" supposed to be something inherent, maybe genetic, or is it something that is induced by indoctrination in racism or the primacy of religion - or something else? The piece does not tell us what goes into the making of high-conscientiousness conservatives.
As a rhetorical angle, Reactionaries is perhaps useful. American Lefties keep making a fundamental error of not seeing opportunities disaggregate their opposition and play into the extreme Right rhetorical gambit by adopting Conservative to apply to Reactionary.
It's rather similar to allowing the extremest Evangelical Protestants to coop Christian to mean them by default.
For the love of God, people, please follow @exposingclay on Twitter. For all your KKKlay Travis & Kukk Sexton revelations.
That being said, while each is malevolent, neither is really a conservative in the modern sense. Sexton is a failed Patrick Bateman cosplayer while Travis just wants it to be 1985 again, when RILMURICANS like Howell Heflin, Ernest Hollings, & Zell Miller were the mainstream of Democrat politics.
OT: Should the US allow Ukraine to purchase nuclear weapons from a third party?
OT2: Will US credibility on treaties and security guarantees disappear if we allow Russia to invade Ukraine?
What I want to know is if Russia wanted to invade Ukraine, why didn’t they do it when Trump was President? He couldn’t have cared less.
Trump wouldn't have cared, but the Republican Party would. It's less clear how Democrats with Biden at the helm would react, however. After pulling out of Afghanistan, he can't just go back onto a war footing -- I think that's Putin's view.
The Republican Party thought Trump was their puppet and they pulled the strings. Events have shown the truth to be that it is Trump that has control of the strings and the Republicans bow to his will.
I don’t think there was ever any world where the USA was going to commit ground troops to Ukraine. All we ever had was the threat of “sanctions”. If Putin invades Ukraine I suppose Europe will be pretty upset and move to strengthen NATO. Biden supports NATO and Trump didn’t.
I still don’t get it, but with all the saber rattling going on I’m not sure Putin can back down. So perhaps you are right about Putin’s way of thinking. So then, my question is to what extent can Ukraine defend itself? Can Putin just roll in with few of any casualties or will Ukraine fight? And to what extent can they fight?
The US has provided about $2B in total assistance since 2015, I think, and more recently, $125M in lethal weapons last year. Not sure how much more Ukraine is buying from other countries, but they're getting weapons including lethal drones from other NATO members.
And of course, they will get significant intelligence help. NATO will surely provide real-time intelligence on troop and equipment movement if they're not already doing so.
This could very well be like Afghanistan in the 70s. No US troops involved in fighting, but a shitload of support with arms and intelligence, making life hell for Russia, particularly in the winter. Stop me if you've read about invading a country in the middle of winter.
Re OT 1, as I always understood it, having nuclear weapons is a threat to your own country because it might cause a preemptive strike. To be a nuclear power you need to have 2nd strike capability to dissuade a preemptive attack. If Ukraine sought to purchase it would be inviting an attack and Putin could claim a “just cause”.
If Putin intends to invade, there's nothing holding him back, not sanctions, not anything. The threat of a Ukraine (and other neighboring countries) having access to nuclear weapons, however, creates some leverage to negotiate. EG, peace and continued NPT = 200 mile no troops or equipment zone for Russia.
"...the problem is nihilistic reactionaries..."
Always has been.
OT3: You should take a look at the Omicron waves in the early wave states -- they've all hit peak. NJ, DC, NYC, HI, MD all have downward epi curves. By the time the wave is over, almost everyone in the US will have at least partial immunity. That will hopefully ensure that the next waves to follow will be weaker even if more transmissible or deadlier.
Numbers are still very high and hospitalizations still going up--so keep masking up!
When omicron broke out, I doubted there was anyone left who wasn't vaccinated or infected, save perhaps some kids. Yet there still was a huge vulnerable population, and the un-vaccinated are filling up the hospitals.
An orc is an orc, and the best orcs are cleaved. Find Orcrist.
"Low-conscientiousness Conservatives"
How many different words for "asshole" do we really need?
There is, I suspect, a "none dare call it treason" aspect to all this, namely who defines "misinformation"?
When I call attention to a police shooting in some random town, am I being a conscientious citizen trying to make the state better? Or am I deliberately spreading something that is factually true but so detached from context (the exact sequence of events, how many police shootings happen in the US now compared to the past, ...) that it might as well be misinformation?
OR
When I blame most of the problems of minorities in the US on slavery, is that misinformation or a reasonable analysis of the situation?
These are not trivial points, and, given the way this study is being presented, I don't have much confidence that they were addressed honestly.
It's easy to claim "the other guys spread all the misinformation" when you're willing to classify their every controversial statement as misinformation, vs your controversial statements are "clearly true to anyone who's not a racist fascist homophobic misogynist".
The "low conscientiousness" part of the study is interesting, and I suspect it held just as true when the bombs (verbal and otherwise) were being thrown by Weathermen and suchlike; the "conservative" part I think is, rather more, tribalism.