politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This whole thing reeks of pseudo-science in order to reach a pre-determined conclusion...
It's open access, so name the part of the article you didn't read a single word of before commenting that you take umbrage with.
You would be wrong, I read the article. I didn't read the complete research article (my guess is neither did you). I would like to point out that this is an article written by two candidates in Marketing. Please stop and pause here and read that again, emphasis on marketing. Now why would two doctorates in marketing be used for "republicans repeat propaganda and democrats don't"-article...
I won't write the answer, because you should be able to figure this one out for yourself.
"Republicans repeat propaganda and democrats don't" isn't even the conclusion of this paper, which you'd know if you had actually looked at it. In fact, we already knew that republicans spread more disinfo than democrats, it's been demonstrated in multiple studies that are cited in this paper.
This particular study's interest is about what triggers it : "Our research enhances our understanding of when and why conservatives tend to spread more misinformation than liberals. We find that an ideological asymmetry emerges when politically polarized situations trigger conservatives’ desire for ingroup dominance. Acting on that salient desire, conservatives spread ingroup-skewed political misinformation, which is of uncertain accuracy, but not definitively false. In less polarized situations, conservatives’ desire to achieve ingroup dominance is tempered, along with their misinformation conveyance."
This is literally the headline of the Article "Republicans Respond to Political Polarization by Spreading Misinformation, Democrats Don't".
I don't even like republicans (nor do I like democrats) but articles like this are just so blatantly biased, I don't understand that people believe it. Do you really believe that D or R determines how good someone is to spot misinformation and also determines how likely it is for that person to share it.. Come on. People are too similar, we have more in common than we like to admit. I'm just at likely to be suckered by marketing, as are you, as is a republican.
Source: your ass.
You have the correlation backwards. Being a Republican doesn't make you bad at critical thinking, but being bad at critical thinking really makes you susceptible to Republican propaganda.
My point, completely glossed over, is that this open article was written by two doctorates in marketing, which is sketchy and should trigger your spidey sense.. Or you could slightly shrug, continue your day and don't challenge your preconceived notions.
It makes a kind of sense. Marketing is basically Applied Psychology. Who better to study the grifters and the mechanisms by which they grift?
Yes, I 100% do. If R or D was arbitrarily assigned to everyone at birth, then no it wouldn't make sense, but this isn't a double-blind control study. Roughly 2/3 of those who never attended college--which for many reasons (reading comprehension, exposure to new ideas, exposure to media literacy training) probably correlates pretty strongly with ability to spot misinformation--voted R in the last election. 2/3 of those with advanced degrees--the other end of that spectrum--voted D.