Random Politics & Religion #21

That's a pretty common tactic for Progressives. They need their congregation to support them unconditionally and in order for that to happen they need to dehumanize and "otherfy" the opposition. Problem is that "the enemy" isn't evil or deplorable, the solution is to make ***up and generate evilness, give it lots of media attention, while blaming it on "the other team". Shits worked for years so they keep on doing it, without realizing that voters have wized up and will call them out on that ***.

"We're not a party of crazy psycho Nazi crusaders who need to validate our existence by oppressing someone in the name of a great cause", as they they go around oppressing people in the name of their great cause.

We call that the "Fonewear Effect"

The party of tolerance is t very tolerant at all.

The Simpsons are crazy liberals too and that saddens me...

Russia...hacking...intelligence...Trump...bad...liberals...feels good man !

Really... I have to admit, ever since I started posting on here, I've been following political news more. Across the pond and over here, I love it!
Not only when I read my newspapers in the morning but also on news websites. Who would have thought ffxiah would enrich my life?
I'm about to have my periods and get emotional about pretty much anything atm

FFXIAH the best news website you didn't know was a news website !

We call that the *** effect.

When so much *** is posted, you got to read up on it to see if it's true.

But only news you agree with!

Now now there.

I highly doubt that too few people will read articles from sources they generally don't agree with (CNN/MSN/Huff Post for conservatives, Breitbart/Fox for liberals, although liberals are more prone to being in their own echo chambers by the look of some of the posters here).

Nah I'm not like that, atleast I like to think I'm not. When someone proves me wrong I have no problem changing my point of view.

You're wrong!

Danish cookies are great!

This happened to me when I hit 30:

I know my life hit a new low cause yesterday I spent like 30 minutes listening to the Supreme Court hearing and was entertained by it...

I dont bake Danish cookies. I demand almonds in all cookies gdmi! My cookies are superior!

Danish cookies > all.

Even the shitty Oreos out there.

I don't even know what a Danish cookie is...

Like this...

I will see your danish cookies and raise with rugelach.

They are the cookies that come in the sewing and junk cans.

I'll see your rugelach and raise you danish cookies. Cause, danish cookies > all.

I usually open CNN, MSNBC, FOXNEWS, BBC and so forth just to see what they each are talking about, then cross reference it with various other smaller sites. What I'm looking for is vague ambiguous wording, or undefined wording that attempts to manipulate the viewers emotions. That lets me know where the *** is and where the writer is deliberately misleading their audience to effect a political outcome. Peel off all that *** and emotional manipulation until I get to the basic "what is actually happening, what evidence actually exists, what was actually said and what was the context surrounding all of this". Then I form an opinion around that, this opinion is subject to change providing sufficient concrete rational information can be obtained to justify it. The additional information must match or exceed the original information used to create the opinion / belief. Finally I'm extremely suspicious of anyone attempting to use emotional manipulation, that is a huge *** red flag that someone is spreading *** and snake oil.

This is simply too much effort for most people, including the posters on here and instead they just accept whatever media entity they agree with tells them to accept.

But they must change your point of view while only using sources and media opinions that you already agree with. Otherwise your own internal cognitive dissonance will engage and result in the central ego defending itself by outright rejecting the validity of any argument presented regardless of how rational it is.

It's ok, this is how people are. The human mind works on emotional and not rational thought. We make decisions in our subconscious emotional center, and then afterward the rational mind validates those decisions with *reasons*. The single worst way to attempt to "win" someone to your side of an argument is to use logic and present rational evidence, it guarantees their mind will fight you tooth and nail. Instead you need to convince their subconscious that it's socially acceptable and advantageous for them to agree with *whatever* your discussing, then the subconscious will lower it's defenses and you have a greater chance of it accepting that foreign idea as it's own. The language the subconscious speaks is emotional and manipulating that language is key to inserting your own idea's into other people and having them accept it as theirs.

The key to convincing people about something is to first get them to agree with you emotionally before proposing the new idea. Then use vague reasons that are superficially acceptable to justify the idea that you've already got them to accept.

The only defense is a developed ability to detect emotional manipulation and that only happens after lots of study and practice at emotionally manipulating others. And even then it's not guaranteed as the subconscious is constantly attempting to gain mastery over the rational mind.

I know it will be hard for you guys to believe but I actually took a Constitutional law class in college and got an A. Now I'm not saying that makes me an expert but I have experience with the Constitution...