The political bubble and how it affects your opinion

[GMDino]

(07-25-2019, 12:40 PM)Dill Wrote: Good. Now we have an example of information being distributed in different bubbles. If one of these CBS types was accurately reporting what was said at the hearing, and her audience was dismissing the false representation at Fox, or not even bothering to check that channel, that might be an example of "liberals" burying themselves more deeply in their bubble.

I mean Trump is a prime example of living in a bubble.  He was yelling at reporters that they were "fake news" when they asked him legitimate questions about what Mueller said during the hearings.  DJT tweeted or retweeted FOX shows/stories a dozen times this morning alone.

That his cult also believe him/it isn't surprising.  Just sad.

That's not "spin" or "bias".  That's a man and network that won't even discuss facts because it goes against Trump.

[Belsnickel]

(07-25-2019, 10:50 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As Dill is in full obfuscation/pontification mode I'll address this.  I completely agree on both counts.  The proliferation of non-standard news outlets has really allowed those so inclined to solely dwell within the bubble of their own beliefs.  Having no common ground allows for no compromise and certainly helps promote, or even causes the promotion of, seeing the other side as an enemy to be conquered instead of a person with differing views.

It's a double edged sword, though. What I have found with social media is that I can get more unfiltered and real journalism from the journalists themselves without any editor "interpretation" included. It's just all about being selective of who you follow.

I do agree that both sides are very guilty of the "otherizing" that has been going on for some time, now. I will just point out that this is a direct result of Newt Gingrich's tactics. I'm not trying to downgrade the blame the Democrats hold, because they went tit-for-tat right away, but this all can be traced back to a memo inspired by Gingrich's tactics that was sent out by GOPAC in 1990: https://web.archive.org/web/20130902053532/http://web.utk.edu/~glenn/GopacMemo.html

This is what really kicked off the war of words we see in Washington, today.

[GMDino]

(07-25-2019, 12:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: I mean Trump is a prime example of living in a bubble.  He was yelling at reporters that they were "fake news" when they asked him legitimate questions about what Mueller said during the hearings.  DJT tweeted or retweeted FOX shows/stories a dozen times this morning alone.

That his cult also believe him/it isn't surprising.  Just sad.

That's not "spin" or "bias".  That's a man and network that won't even discuss facts because it goes against Trump.

Trump is foaming at the mouth....pic.twitter.com/jVio1hiocw

— Hear Me Roar (@Stop_Trump20) July 25, 2019

 

[Dill]

(07-25-2019, 08:31 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: 6. Aaaaaand, there it is. The kool aid is in full effect at this point haha. What began as a relatively rational evaluation of the differences between Republicans and Democrats which had occasional partisan twists and turns has now gone fully out the window with this patented talking point of Democrats want to be Venezuela because they think medical care and education availability should not be restricted based on how much money you have in your bank account/at your disposal.

Politics are fun :)

Excellent example of bubble-think in the Quora quote. "young socialist lawyers are too young to remember when . . ." lol. I have seen a lot of these talking points before. "Socialist" many be replacing "the left" as the primary instrument for framing issues from a right wing perspective. 2020 will mean a choice between Trump and North Korea.

How many Dems who think the current rate of climate change is anthropogenic don't know that the earth's climate has changed before?  No one who was familiar with global warming arguments, or who had actual interaction with Democrats on the issue, would say such things. That suggests your poster is absorbing his "information" with great confidence in his sources and little interest in testing it. Still inside that bubble while posting on Quora.

This raises the question, as well, of whether, how and to what degree some bubbles are constructed, at least partially, by interests actually outside them.  Exxon knows what drives climate change, but has funded development of climate-skeptical arguments and politicians who will push them to roll back environmental regulation.
(A plug for the documentary The Great Hack is running on MSNBC as I type this. The film examines how differing newsfeeds construct differing "personalized" versions of reality. One of the directors suggests polarization may be intrinsic to facebook's business model. Divided consumers become the "commodity.")

A final random comment, the group behind the survey driving this thread is called "Heterodox Academy," and their stated goal is to re-establish political civility, academic free inquiry, and informed political dialogue, which they think in part requires the challenge of "orthodoxy" in thinking, the latter signalled by personal attack and shaming rather than rational argument.  I agree with some of their goals for cross-bubble dialogue, but this is a thoroughgoing liberal project which brings its own "orthodoxy."  Policing of public discourse will always be required, paradoxically, to secure the kind of "free inquiry" these folks hold as an ideal. Liberals have always had difficulty acknowledging this. I say better to admit that and argue why their orthodoxy is preferable to other orthodoxies.

[Dill]

(07-25-2019, 12:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's a double edged sword, though. What I have found with social media is that I can get more unfiltered and real journalism from the journalists themselves without any editor "interpretation" included. It's just all about being selective of who you follow.

Ay, there's the rub.  Whence come one's standards of selection? Above I mention the new documentary, The Great Hack, which addresses the power of Facebook to create and shape political division in the US. I also think of the role that Facebook played in the Russian interference in the last election, counting on a special type of "unfiltered" news, AKA "Fake news."

(07-25-2019, 12:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I do agree that both sides are very guilty of the "otherizing" that has been going on for some time, now. I will just point out that this is a direct result of Newt Gingrich's tactics. I'm not trying to downgrade the blame the Democrats hold, because they went tit-for-tat right away, but this all can be traced back to a memo inspired by Gingrich's tactics that was sent out by GOPAC in 1990: https://web.archive.org/web/20130902053532/http://web.utk.edu/~glenn/GopacMemo.html

This is what really kicked off the war of words we see in Washington, today.

Yes, I mention this memo above. No one doubts "both sides" do it to a degree.

But I do not see anything like equal magnitude.  The Gingrich memo was to set the tone for Republicans as a group. There is really nothing like that on the Dem side, even if an occasional Dem goes off on personal attack. the GOPAC memo was a conscious effort to change party discourse as whole, and that of sympathetic journalists as well. And it did become the new norm for an expanding segment of that party.

Further, "liberals" seem, nevertheless, much more ready to say "we all do it" and "we all need to do better," including themselves in charges of bad behavior and striving to reach out to and understand the other side. I can think of at least three books written by liberals in the last three years striving to speak to and listen to "the other side" (including one written by the author of the Guardian article). I cannot think of a single such book representing the other side, reaching out to understand or "listen to" the liberals.

Liberals may feel they are becoming "extreme" if they even seek to describe this situation accurately, for fear of appearances or fear that such description would only worsen the divide.

[GMDino]

(07-25-2019, 11:54 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Thank you, this has nothing to do with the tread as presented.  Maybe you could explain why you thought it did?

It is the bubble.

And your bou Trump lives in it.  

Or are we not talking about bubbles anymore?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-25-2019, 04:53 PM)GMDino Wrote: It is the bubble.

No, it's one news organization.  You're displaying a very poor grasp of what the article in OP was trying to convey.

Quote:And your bou Trump lives in it.  

I'm not sure why you and your friend persist in labeling people Trump supporters who have directly stated they are not.  Is it an attempt to label people and thus minimize or dismiss their opinion?  Regardless it's patently dishonest and rather underhanded of you.

Quote:Or are we not talking about bubbles anymore?

We sure are.  Perhaps you can try and explain why your post was relevant again and maybe make a cogent point in doing so?

[GMDino]

(07-25-2019, 07:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it's one news organization.  You're displaying a very poor grasp of what the article in OP was trying to convey.

Where do you think the info in your bubble comes from?

(07-25-2019, 07:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not sure why you and your friend persist in labeling people Trump supporters who have directly stated they are not.  Is it an attempt to label people and thus minimize or dismiss their opinion?  Regardless it's patently dishonest and rather underhanded of you.

No. it's not labeling...it's pointing out that people defend and support Trump at all turns.  Well with the occasional "tsk tsk" when he says something they *might* think is unnecessary. Even then, after second thought, he might just be being a genius! But are you suggesting that saying someone supports Trump or defends trump is a bad thing? It doesn't minimize their opinion it just shows where it is coming from.

(07-25-2019, 07:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We sure are.  Perhaps you can try and explain why your post was relevant again and maybe make a cogent point in doing so?

Sure, I'm giving an example of how information within your bubble is presented to maintain your reliance on the bubble.

That was easy, surprised you had to ask.

[Dill]

(07-25-2019, 07:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it's one news organization.  You're displaying a very poor grasp of what the article in OP was trying to convey.

Forget about directly addressing that patently dishonest, underhanded, dismissive labeler Dino.

Instead of just SAYING his "grasp is very poor," YOU tell us what the article was trying to covey,
or better yet, what the method and goal of the More in Common survey.
Reading it for ourselves won't tell us what you think you know about it.

The result will help folks judge which of you is making cogent points.   Time to step up.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-25-2019, 07:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: Where do you think the info in your bubble comes from?

I've literally answered this double digit times around here, but here you go.  On a daily basis I usually read; Huffington Post, Breitbart, The Guardian, PBS Newshour, Fox News, BBC News, The LA Times and the Wall Street Journal.

Quote:No. it's not labeling...it's pointing out that people defend and support Trump at all turns. 

Semantics.  Even if this truthfully the case you're still mislabeling people the way you use it and forgive me for thinking that's being done intentionally.

Quote:Well with the occasional "tsk tsk" when he says something they *might* think is unnecessary.  Even then, after second thought, he might just be being a genius!    But are you suggesting that saying someone supports Trump or defends trump is a bad thing? It doesn't minimize their opinion it just shows where it is coming from.

I'm suggesting that applying inaccurate labels to people is both dishonest and wrong.  Which I believe I conveyed in the post you just responded to.

Quote:Sure, I'm giving an example of how information within your bubble is presented to maintain your reliance on the bubble.

Whose bubble is that?  Mine?  If so I must, again, point out your in accurate and dishonest characterizations.  If you meant someone else then you should choose your words better so as to accurately reflect your intent.

Quote:That was easy, surprised you had to ask.

The why is adequately explained above.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-25-2019, 12:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: I mean Trump is a prime example of living in a bubble.  He was yelling at reporters that they were "fake news" when they asked him legitimate questions about what Mueller said during the hearings. 

I couldn't hear their questions, but it seemed to me that Trump was correct [for a change].  They kept trying to ask him questions and make statements that appeared - based on Trump's reaction - to have completely ignored the correction Mueller made to his testimony (the second time he's made that same basic correction, by the way).
I watched a lot of the testimony.  This reaction was, for a change, entirely justifiable from Trump and not indicative, in this case, of living in a bubble.  Those reporters were trying to spin-up a narrative because the hearing was a flop, and Trump shut that down.

[GMDino]

(07-25-2019, 10:49 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I couldn't hear their questions, but it seemed to me that Trump was correct [for a change].  They kept trying to ask him questions and make statements that appeared - based on Trump's reaction - to have completely ignored the correction Mueller made to his testimony (the second time he's made that same basic correction, by the way).
I watched a lot of the testimony.  This reaction was, for a change, entirely justifiable from Trump and not indicative, in this case, of living in a bubble.  Those reporters were trying to spin-up a narrative because the hearing was a flop, and Trump shut that down.

The video I posted was where Mueller said a president could be charged after leaving office.

He denied that it was ever said and the yelled at the reporter that they were fake news.

I'm not sure what you watched.

[GMDino]

(07-25-2019, 08:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've literally answered this double digit times around here, but here you go.  On a daily basis I usually read; Huffington Post, Breitbart, The Guardian, PBS Newshour, Fox News, BBC News, The LA Times and the Wall Street Journal.




Semantics.  Even if this truthfully the case you're still mislabeling people the way you use it and forgive me for thinking that's being done intentionally.



I'm suggesting that applying inaccurate labels to people is both dishonest and wrong.  Which I believe I conveyed in the post you just responded to.




Whose bubble is that?  Mine?  If so I must, again, point out your in accurate and dishonest characterizations.  If you meant someone else then you should choose your words better so as to accurately reflect your intent.


The why is adequately explained above.

Universal "you" and "your"...you can sit your (personal) ego aside.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-26-2019, 09:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: Universal "you" and "your"...you can sit your (personal) ego aside.

Yes, how could I think "you" applied to me in a reply to my post (really missing that eye rolling emoji right now).


As stated before, actually say what you mean and this kind of thing can be easily avoided.  Maybe take ten seconds away from deciding what large obnoxious gif you'll use for your next sig?

[GMDino]

(07-26-2019, 09:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, how could I think "you" applied to me in a reply to my post (really missing that eye rolling emoji right now).


As stated before, actually say what you mean and this kind of thing can be easily avoided.  Maybe take ten seconds away from deciding what large obnoxious gif you'll use for your next sig?

Again, not everything is about you (personally).  In a discussion of the political bubbles I used the universal you as we were talking about others I assume and not you (personal) and me.

Occasionally over the years I have had to explain that difference and apparently this is another one of those times.

I'll be clearer for the people in the back next time.

Not sure what your (personal) preference for sig size has to do with the discussion though.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-26-2019, 10:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'll be clearer for the people in the back next time.

Or you could be clearer for everyone.  Just sayin.

Quote:Not sure what your (personal) preference for sig size has to do with the discussion though.  

Not a thing.

[Dill]

(07-26-2019, 09:28 AM)GMDino Wrote: The video I posted was where Mueller said a president could be charged after leaving office.

He denied that it was ever said and the yelled at the reporter that they were fake news.

I'm not sure what you watched.

"Complete and total exoneration." "NO OBSTRUCTION."

THAT'S what I heard Mueller say.  LOL  Reporters trying to spin it otherwise.

[Dill]

More fodder for discussion.  The point of this article has already been made on this thread, but maybe it will have more thunder coming from "experts."


Sorry, But Republicans and Democrats Do Not Misunderstand Each Other: A study saying they do exhibits a common problem with polls https://arcdigital.media/sorry-but-republicans-and-democrats-do-not-misunderstand-each-other-3c43e6f6498f

America is deeply divided, but maybe a lot is driven by misunderstanding. A new study from More in Common shows a large “Perception Gap,” with Democrats caricaturing Republicans, Republicans caricaturing Democrats, and both adamantly opposing those caricatures rather than real people.

Sounds promising, doesn’t it? Mutual misunderstanding is a problem we can address with better communication and education. The Perception Gap study received enthusiastic coverage from people who lament political polarization, including an Atlantic article by public opinion researcher Yascha Mounk.

But that’s not what More in Common’s evidence shows. And their error — which Mounk and others made as well — highlights a larger problem with public opinion research.

Polls have little value if what they’re asking isn’t clear. ...

The question of racism is more complicated. Republicans often use the word “racism” to mean overt behavior, such as shouting racial slurs, or enforcing Jim Crow laws. Democrats, by contrast, often mean something more expansive, ingrained, institutional — gaps in educational or occupational attainment, variations in interactions with police, subtleties of language.

Republicans and Democrats might not even be talking about the same people. A big 2017 study by PRRI found that 27 percent of Republicans believe blacks face “a lot of discrimination” compared to 43 percent who said whites do. By contrast, 87 percent of Democrats said blacks face a lot of discrimination, while only 19 percent said whites do.

Given these differences, asking “does racism still exist in America?” as a yes/no question tells us little about the parties.


Indeed.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-26-2019, 01:39 PM)Dill Wrote: More fodder for discussion.  The point of this article has already been made on this thread, but maybe it will have more thunder coming from "experts."

Who are these "experts"?  Inquiring minds want to know.


Sorry, But Republicans and Democrats Do Not Misunderstand Each Other: A study saying they do exhibits a common problem with polls https://arcdigital.media/sorry-but-republicans-and-democrats-do-not-misunderstand-each-other-3c43e6f6498f[/quote]

I've literally never heard of this site.  I wonder if they have an ideological leaning that may color the conclusions reached in the article you posted?

Quote:America is deeply divided, but maybe a lot is driven by misunderstanding. A new study from More in Common shows a large “Perception Gap,” with Democrats caricaturing Republicans, Republicans caricaturing Democrats, and both adamantly opposing those caricatures rather than real people.

Sounds promising, doesn’t it? Mutual misunderstanding is a problem we can address with better communication and education. The Perception Gap study received enthusiastic coverage from people who lament political polarization, including an Atlantic article by public opinion researcher Yascha Mounk.

But that’s not what More in Common’s evidence shows. And their error — which Mounk and others made as well — highlights a larger problem with public opinion research.

Polls have little value if what they’re asking isn’t clear. ...

The question of racism is more complicated. Republicans often use the word “racism” to mean overt behavior, such as shouting racial slurs, or enforcing Jim Crow laws. Democrats, by contrast, often mean something more expansive, ingrained, institutional — gaps in educational or occupational attainment, variations in interactions with police, subtleties of language.

Republicans and Democrats might not even be talking about the same people. A big 2017 study by PRRI found that 27 percent of Republicans believe blacks face “a lot of discrimination” compared to 43 percent who said whites do. By contrast, 87 percent of Democrats said blacks face a lot of discrimination, while only 19 percent said whites do.

Given these differences, asking “does racism still exist in America?” as a yes/no question tells us little about the parties.

Is racism not racism?  The race of the person being subjected to it is not a predicator for it being a problem or not.  You have displayed, on several occasions and aversion to admitting white people can be subjected to, or the victims of racism.  Perhaps your own views, or bubble as it where, are affecting your acceptance of this article?

Quote:Indeed.

Indeed.  I will admit that the author has a point about the ambiguity of some of the questions asked.  His suppositions on what Republican or Democratic voters tend to think rather lesson the impact of his argument.

[Dill]

(07-26-2019, 01:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Who are these "experts"?  Inquiring minds want to know.

I've literally never heard of this site.  I wonder if they have an ideological leaning that may color the conclusions reached in the article you posted?


Is racism not racism?  The race of the person being subjected to it is not a predicator for it being a problem or not.  You have displayed, on several occasions and aversion to admitting white people can be subjected to, or the victims of racism.  Perhaps your own views, or bubble as it where, are affecting your acceptance of this article?

The author is a political scientist.

Remember my approach is to study the argument first. That's where one should be looking for "ideological leaning," not prejudging from sources, heard of or not.

It doesn't look like you are following the author's argument, which regards not "racism" in itself in some abstract sense, or whether white people can actually be discriminated against, but how various groups might respond to a question about "whether racism exists" with very different perceptions of who is discriminated against. So answers to a general question like "Is racism still a problem?" cannot sort out whether different group's perceptions of each other's perceptions are accurate or inaccurate. In any bubble affirming standards of scientific polling, that would be the case regardless of politics.

If my "views" on whites as victims of racism affect my acceptance of this article, then that should be demonstrable. Not simply expressed as a guess or a hope. That's how it works in my bubble, at least.