Why Are Conservatives More Susceptible to Believing Lies?

[Patooka]

You are so smug, but you can't hear the people reading your words laughing.

I know. There was Russia collusion, we just need more time, millions more spent, and three or four additional special prosecutors to find the truth. Otherwise, Rachael Maddow is a complete idiot.

Huh? The Russian investigation paid for itself just on asset forfeiture alone, What the fuck are you talking about?

 

[Worldtraveller]

You are so smug, but you can't hear the people reading your words laughing.

I know. There was Russia collusion, we just need more time, millions more spent, and three or four additional special prosecutors to find the truth. Otherwise, Rachael Maddow is a complete idiot.

Huh? The Russian investigation paid for itself just on asset forfeiture alone, What the fuck are you talking about?

There's a reason Trausti was second on my ignore list.

Was he around during the Bengahzi hearings and complaining about the time and money (way more) wasted on that? Consistency is important, ya know.

 

[ZiprHead]

An interplay between how all humans think and how conservatives tend to act might actually explain a lot about our current moment.

Heh, for three years conservatives belived in the Russia colusion hoax and Muslim travel ban. Stupid conservatives.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but...

The [Bipartisan] Senate Intelligence report details a troubling fact: in the three months leading up to Election Day, Russian-planted false information on Facebook outperformed real news.

From the report:

According to one November 2016 analysis, in the final three months leading up to Election Day, calculated by total number of shares, reactions, and comments, the top-performing intentionally false stories on Facebook actually outperformed the top news stories from the nineteen major news outlets. That analysis found that in terms of user engagement, the top two intentionally false election stories on Facebook included articles alleging Pope Francis' endorsement of Donald Trump for President (960,000 shares, reactions, and comments), and WikiLeaks' confirmation of Hillary Clinton's sale of weapons to ISIS (789,000 shares, reactions, and comments).
...
Craig Silverman, "This Analysis Shows How Viral Fake Election News Stories Outperformed Real News on Facebook," Buzzfeed, November 16, 2016, ("During these critical months of the campaign, 20 top-performing false election stories from hoax sites and hyper-partisan biogs generated 8,711,000 shares, reactions and comments on Facebook. ... Within the same time period, the 20 best performing election stories from 19 major news websites generated a total of 7,367,000 shares, reactions and comments on Facebook.")
...
A September 2017 Oxford Internet Institute study of Twitter users found that, "users got more misinformation; polarizing, and conspiratorial content than professionally produced news." According to the study, in the "swing state" of Michigan, professionally produced news was, by proportion, "consistently smaller than the amount of extremist, sensationalist, conspiratorial, masked commentary, fake news and other forms of junk news," and the ratio was most disproportionate the day before the 2016 U.S. election. A National Bureau of Economic Research paper from January 2017 assessed that intentionally false content accounted for 38 million shares on Facebook in the last 3 months leading up to the election, which translates into 760 million clicks-or "about three stories read per American adult."

In conducting a broader analysis of false information dissemination, in what was described as "the largest ever study of fake news," researchers at MIT tracked over 125,000 news stories on Twitter, which were shared by three million people over the course of 11 years. The research found that, "Falsehood diffused significantly farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than the truth in all categories of information, and the effects were more pronounced for false political news than for false news about terrorism, natural disasters, science, urban legends, or financial information." The study also determined that false news stories were 70 percent more likely to be retweeted than accurate news, and that true stories take about six times as long to reach 1,500 people on Twitter as false stories do. According to the lead researcher in the study, Soroush Vosoughi, "It seems pretty clear that false information outperforms true information."

In regard to the use of automated bots to spread the fake news:

These researchers also concluded that "bots [were] pervasively present and active in the online political discussion about the 2016 U.S. presidential election," adding that "the presence of social media bots can indeed negatively affect democratic political discussion rather than improving it."39 Arriving at a similar conclusion, an Oxford Internet Institute study-of 17 million tweets posted during the 2016 election found that bots "reached positions of measurable influence," and "did infiltrate the upper cores of influence and were thus jn a position to significantly influence digital communications during the 2016 U.S. election."

In testimony to the Committee, social media researcher John Kelly suggested that automated accounts focused on fringe political positions are far more active than the voices of actual people holding politically centrist views: "In our estimate, today the automated accounts at the far left and far right extremes of the American political spectrum produce as many as 25 to 30 times the number of messages per day on average as genuine political accounts across the mainstream." In other words, "the extremes are screaming while the majority whispers."
...
Use of Automated Accounts and Bots. The use of automated accounts on social media has allowed social media users to artificially amplify and increase the spread, or "virulence," of online content. Russia-backed operatives,exploited this automated accounts feature and worked to develop and refine their own bot capabilities for spreading disinformation faster and further across the social media landscape. In January 2018, Twitter disclosed its security personnel assess that over 50,000 automated accounts linked to Russia were tweeting election-related content during the U.S. presidential campaign.

Russian actors are prolific users of automated accounts and bots. Phil Howard, citing the findings of a study dpne by the Oxford Internet Institute, concluded that Russian Twitter networks "are almost completely bounded by highly automated accounts, with a high degree of overall automation." His study assessed that "some 45 percent of Twitter activity in Russia is managed by highly automated accounts," and that Ukraine remains "the frontline of experimentation in computational propaganda with active campaigns of engagement" between Russian and Ukrainian botnets. 70 Early automation was fairly primitive and easier to detect and
disrupt, but malicious bot activity has continued to grow in sophistication.

And in regard to trolls, well, let's just say we all here could have written this one:

Kremlin-backed entities have spent years professionalizing a cadre of paid trolls, investing in large-scale, industrialized "troll farms,'' in order to obscure Moscow's hand and advance the aims of Russia's information operations both domestically and abroad.
...
In 2015, NATO's Strategic Communications Center of Excellence commissioned research on the use of trolling in hybrid warfare, publishing its conclusions in the spring of 2016. The study, which was largely focused on discussions surrounding the Ukraine-Russia conflict, outlined a variety of influence techniques employed by trolls online, including the aggressive use of offensive slurs and attacks; utilization of irony and sarcasm; peddling conspiracy theories; employing profile pictures of young, attractive men and women; diverting discourse to other problems; posting misleading information on information sources like Wikipedia; emphasizing social divisions; and presenting indigestible amounts of data without sources or verification.

Perfectly describes the usual suspects around here.

Of additional and important note from the findings of the report (emphasis mine):

The Committee found that the IRA's lnformation warfare campaign was broad in scope and entailed objectives beyond the result of the 2016 presidential election. Further, the Committee's analysis of the IRA's activities on social media supports the key judgments of the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections," that "Russia's, goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton,· and harm her electability and potential presidency."5 However, where the Intelligence Community assessed that the Russian government "aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him," the Committee found that IRA social media activity was overtly and almost invariably supportive of then-candidate Trump, and to the detriment of Secretary Clinton's campaign.

That last bit means they not only found that Russia interfered, but that their efforts were successful. That's what "and to the detriment" means. It's not just figurative commentary.

On a side note, this is exactly what I kept pointing out as it began:

The Committee found that paid advertisements were not key to the IRA's activity, and moreover, are not alone an accurate measure of the IRA's operational scope, scale, objectives, despite this aspect of social media being a focus of early press reporting and public awareness.

It was the clandestine "organic" tactics that were effective--the ones where you can't tell where it came from or who is behind it, shared by your friends and family (so you believe them even more so than you would if it came with a "this message approved by Candidate X" stamp on it)--and remain so today.

 

[Half-Life]

What about leftists who claim to hate death cults and then say things like, "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE FORM CLIMATE CHANGE!" Seems pretty death cult to me.

What about leftists who say, "We can't trust political ads paid for by Republicans! It's biased!" But an ad that comes out that was paid for by Bernie Sanders is praised instead of, "He paid for it! We can't trust it!"

 

[laughing dog]

What about leftists who claim to hate death cults and then say things like, "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE FORM CLIMATE CHANGE!" Seems pretty death cult to me.

What about leftists who say, "We can't trust political ads paid for by Republicans! It's biased!" But an ad that comes out that was paid for by Bernie Sanders is praised instead of, "He paid for it! We can't trust it!"

Thank you for providing real life examples of a conservative believing two lies.

Is it possible for you to perform some self-reflection and then explain why you believe both of those falsehoods?

 

[Half-Life]

What about leftists who claim to hate death cults and then say things like, "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE FORM CLIMATE CHANGE!" Seems pretty death cult to me.

What about leftists who say, "We can't trust political ads paid for by Republicans! It's biased!" But an ad that comes out that was paid for by Bernie Sanders is praised instead of, "He paid for it! We can't trust it!"

Thank you for providing real life examples of a conservative believing two lies.

Is it possible for you to perform some self-reflection and then explain why you believe both of those falsehoods?

"Republicans are evil because they make ads paid for by donors and script the whole thing themselves!"

Then Bernie does the same exact thing and not a peep from leftists. I suppose it's OK for donors to give money to leftists, but when donors give money to Republicans, it's evil and corrupt.

 

[laughing dog]

What about leftists who claim to hate death cults and then say things like, "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE FORM CLIMATE CHANGE!" Seems pretty death cult to me.

What about leftists who say, "We can't trust political ads paid for by Republicans! It's biased!" But an ad that comes out that was paid for by Bernie Sanders is praised instead of, "He paid for it! We can't trust it!"

Thank you for providing real life examples of a conservative believing two lies.

Is it possible for you to perform some self-reflection and then explain why you believe both of those falsehoods?

"Republicans are evil because they make ads paid for by donors and script the whole thing themselves!"

Then Bernie does the same exact thing and not a peep from leftists. I suppose it's OK for donors to give money to leftists, but when donors give money to Republicans, it's evil and corrupt.

c There was no need to expand on those falsehoods.

I asked "Is it possible for you to perform some self-reflection and then explain why you believe both of those falsehoods?". Your responses is a tacit acknowledgement that you are either unwilling or incapable of such self-reflection.

 

[PyramidHead]

What about leftists who claim to hate death cults and then say things like, "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE FORM CLIMATE CHANGE!" Seems pretty death cult to me.

So hypothetically, if you were about to die from eating something poisonous, you would call me a hypocrite for pointing that out unless I was also okay with death cults?

What about leftists who say, "We can't trust political ads paid for by Republicans! It's biased!" But an ad that comes out that was paid for by Bernie Sanders is praised instead of, "He paid for it! We can't trust it!"

That's different. It's not because paying for ads is bad, it's because Republicans are soulless ghouls and Bernie Sanders is awesome and trustworthy. Get your facts straight, friendo

EDIT: Also Bernie doesn't take money from corporate donors or pedophile island getaway airlines

 

[Half-Life]

"Republicans are evil because they make ads paid for by donors and script the whole thing themselves!"

Then Bernie does the same exact thing and not a peep from leftists. I suppose it's OK for donors to give money to leftists, but when donors give money to Republicans, it's evil and corrupt.

c There was no need to expand on those falsehoods.

I asked "Is it possible for you to perform some self-reflection and then explain why you believe both of those falsehoods?". Your responses is a tacit acknowledgement that you are either unwilling or incapable of such self-reflection.

They aren't falsehoods. Have you seen the debate with Cenk and Ben Shapiro at Politicon a few years ago? Cenk was saying, "Money needs to get out of politics! Big donors need to be stopped!" Ben Shapiro said, "That goes for your business, "The Young Turks", too? You were given 4 million dollars to start it." Cenk was speechless and stammering.

 

[PyramidHead]

"Republicans are evil because they make ads paid for by donors and script the whole thing themselves!"

Then Bernie does the same exact thing and not a peep from leftists. I suppose it's OK for donors to give money to leftists, but when donors give money to Republicans, it's evil and corrupt.

c There was no need to expand on those falsehoods.

I asked "Is it possible for you to perform some self-reflection and then explain why you believe both of those falsehoods?". Your responses is a tacit acknowledgement that you are either unwilling or incapable of such self-reflection.

They aren't falsehoods. Have you seen the debate with Cenk and Ben Shapiro at Politicon a few years ago? Cenk was saying, "Money needs to get out of politics! Big donors need to be stopped!" Ben Shapiro said, "That goes for your business, "The Young Turks", too? You were given 4 million dollars to start it." Cenk was speechless and stammering.

Thank you for agreeing with socialists that businesses should all be publicly funded, not paid for by big donors

 

[Half-Life]

They aren't falsehoods. Have you seen the debate with Cenk and Ben Shapiro at Politicon a few years ago? Cenk was saying, "Money needs to get out of politics! Big donors need to be stopped!" Ben Shapiro said, "That goes for your business, "The Young Turks", too? You were given 4 million dollars to start it." Cenk was speechless and stammering.

Thank you for agreeing with socialists that businesses should all be publicly funded, not paid for by big donors

Cenk didn't agree! Because when it came to HIS business, oh now that's DIFFERENT.

LOL!

 

[laughing dog]

"Republicans are evil because they make ads paid for by donors and script the whole thing themselves!"

Then Bernie does the same exact thing and not a peep from leftists. I suppose it's OK for donors to give money to leftists, but when donors give money to Republicans, it's evil and corrupt.

c There was no need to expand on those falsehoods.

I asked "Is it possible for you to perform some self-reflection and then explain why you believe both of those falsehoods?". Your responses is a tacit acknowledgement that you are either unwilling or incapable of such self-reflection.

They aren't falsehoods. Have you seen the debate with Cenk and Ben Shapiro at Politicon a few years ago? Cenk was saying, "Money needs to get out of politics! Big donors need to be stopped!" Ben Shapiro said, "That goes for your business, "The Young Turks", too? You were given 4 million dollars to start it." Cenk was speechless and stammering.

That babble indicates you are incapable of such self-relection, because it has no logical connection to your original claim.

 

[Gun Nut]

"Republicans are evil because they make ads paid for by donors and script the whole thing themselves!"

Then Bernie does the same exact thing and not a peep from leftists. I suppose it's OK for donors to give money to leftists, but when donors give money to Republicans, it's evil and corrupt.

c There was no need to expand on those falsehoods.

I asked "Is it possible for you to perform some self-reflection and then explain why you believe both of those falsehoods?". Your responses is a tacit acknowledgement that you are either unwilling or incapable of such self-reflection.

They aren't falsehoods. Have you seen the debate with Cenk and Ben Shapiro at Politicon a few years ago? Cenk was saying, "Money needs to get out of politics! Big donors need to be stopped!" Ben Shapiro said, "That goes for your business, "The Young Turks", too? You were given 4 million dollars to start it." Cenk was speechless and stammering.

They are falsehoods. Have you seen the episode of M*A*S*H 30 years ago where Corporal Klinger tried to get out of the Army by dressing up as a lady? Checkmate.

 

[Half-Life]

So wait, you guys don't think that it's very ironic that a man who was given $4 million to start his own political show on youtube is complaining about big donors in politics and how money needs to stay out of politics?

In America, people are allowed to donate whatever the hell they damn well please.

 

[lpetrich]

In America, people are allowed to donate whatever the hell they damn well please.

Including George Soros?

 

[Patooka]

In America, people are allowed to donate whatever the hell they damn well please.

Including George Soros?

And the KKK and ISIS. Half-life is cool with people sponsoring terrorism, apparently.

 

[PyramidHead]

They aren't falsehoods. Have you seen the debate with Cenk and Ben Shapiro at Politicon a few years ago? Cenk was saying, "Money needs to get out of politics! Big donors need to be stopped!" Ben Shapiro said, "That goes for your business, "The Young Turks", too? You were given 4 million dollars to start it." Cenk was speechless and stammering.

Thank you for agreeing with socialists that businesses should all be publicly funded, not paid for by big donors

Cenk didn't agree! Because when it came to HIS business, oh now that's DIFFERENT.

LOL!

Why do you think a private business is the same thing as a campaign for public office?

 

[scombrid]

To whom does NaturalNews market? Infowars? Who is constantly attacking debunkers and skeptics as being 'liberal' for debunking conspiracy theories and urban legends?

 

[Jarhyn]

They aren't falsehoods. Have you seen the debate with Cenk and Ben Shapiro at Politicon a few years ago? Cenk was saying, "Money needs to get out of politics! Big donors need to be stopped!" Ben Shapiro said, "That goes for your business, "The Young Turks", too? You were given 4 million dollars to start it." Cenk was speechless and stammering.

Thank you for agreeing with socialists that businesses should all be publicly funded, not paid for by big donors

Personally, I think businesses should be initiated as for-profit investment, and then as that investment is returned with interest as a function of business, the return of that investment clears the stake, and cedes that stake to the workers of that business, including the 'investment' of workers who leave the company. Thus eventually, workers come to own their profits as initial investment takes its cut of productivity.

There is a place in the natural.order of things for non-public ownership of stuff that the public-at-large doesn't have a direct interaction with. Many things stand to be controlled (owned) by the people who operate, use, or live in those resources presently.