Conservatives "don't get it" - Discuss...

[Caliman73]

There have been a few threads and responses on DU lately which talk about misinformation from Conservative media. Much of the time it comes down to the poster saying that Conservatives (FOX, Newsmax, etc...) "don't get it", are ignorant, and other things implying that it is a matter of not knowing.

Certainly, the average conservative follower is likely to be ignorant of information, however myself and some other responders have recently been answering back that it is not that they don't know, it is that they don't care. The lies and disinformation are not out of ignorance, but deliberate because they count on the ignorance of their audience to push their propaganda.

So my question to the "don't know" crowd is, "Do you think that people like Tucker Carlson, Ingraham, Hannity, etc... are really ignorant, or are they telling lies?"

[dchill]

1. They're lying and they know better. All of them.

[Thomas Hurt]

2. Cognitive dissonance, fanaticism and the critical thinking skills of a grape.

[Caliman73]

12. That definitely defines the audience.

Do you think that it defines the leaders and talking heads?

[NewHendoLib]

3. Their approaches... The lying... Is a feature, not a bug.

[CrispyQ]

4. Bob Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians" distinguishes between authoritarian leaders vs the followers.

https://theauthoritarians.org

Carlson, Ingraham, Hannity work for the leader class. They will say anything for the money & likely don't believe a lot of the crap they spew. Their viewers on the other hand, are either ignorant or willfully ignorant & lap up "news" that confirms their worldview.

I never realized such a big segment of our population were morons.

[Whiskeytide]

13. That's Carlo M. Cipolla's first Universal Law ...

… of Human Stupidity:

Law 1: Always, and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.

https://www.campus.sg/five-universal-laws-of-human-stupidity/

[Caliman73]

15. Part of the reason we don't see it, is because it is disheartening.

My wife always tells me that I give "the people" too much credit.

It is difficult for me to accept, as you say, that "such a big segment of our population were morons".

I agree, but would say that we all tend to gravitate to information that agrees with our worldview. Part of the reason we all come to DU to talk and don't go to right wing websites. I do think that a big difference is that with sufficient evidence over time, we (liberals) can and do change our views, whereas our conservative counterparts have a much greater time accepting new information.

Authoritarian Leaders tend to have an agenda, which is usually self serving. They rely on the followers having a need for "order" and the desire for "simplicity". You hear that when Trump speaks, there is a simple problem and HE can fix it. Whereas we hear the complexity of problems and the need for a multifaceted approach to address problems.

[Jedi Guy]

5. Tucker, Ingraham, Hannity, et. al. are lying and well aware they're lying.

Their issue is a combination of dishonesty and apathy. They know they're lying and they don't care. They benefit from doing so. After all, each one of them is rich and powerful in some measure or another because of the falsehoods they knowingly tell. They care about the lies because the lies pay the bills, if that makes sense. If people stop believing the lies, the gravy train derails.

Their audience, on the other hand, is a combination of ignorance and apathy. Their ignorance makes them fall prey to the dishonesty, and they don't care. To some extent, they know full well they can find the truth elsewhere. But the truth is scary, inconvenient, and uncomfortable. The lies, though, are soothing and comforting. So they wrap themselves up in a warm, fluffy blanket of bullshit. How's that for a mental image?

TL;DR: The leaders know and don't care. The followers don't know and don't care. Apathy is absolutely the common thread, with an undercurrent of fear (loss of power in the former, loss of comfort in the latter).

[Caliman73]

16. Not so sure that the followers "don't care" as much as...

they are so desperate for a solution to their problems, that they are willing to follow, so long as the solution is not too hard, and "punishes" the bad people they are told, are responsible.

[Jedi Guy]

18. That's probably a fair component overall, so I wouldn't really disagree.

I meant "don't care" as in "are utterly apathetic to learning the truth." Apathy is easy, effort is hard. They're having comfortable fictions spoon-fed to them, whereas actually seeking out knowledge is difficult, at least in comparison. All they really need to do is turn to other sources of information, since it's not as if the knowledge is hidden.

But yeah, ultimately a combination of apathy and confirmation bias.

[Caliman73]

20. There I totally agree.

They do appear to be apathetic to hearing information that does not confirm their ideas. I think it is built into the messaging. There is a lot of "We tell you the truth that NO ONE else does". They feel special for getting a unique message that the rest of us "sheep" don't get. Just like cult-like messaging.

There is also definitely a lack of empathy within the Conservative mindset. It seems only to extend to immediate family, and even that is conditional. That helps to blind them from the suffering going on because of Conservative and Capitalist policies with demean people in search of profit.

[Jedi Guy]

25. Well, if we're being entirely fair here...

Confirmation bias is a human frailty independent of ideology and always has been. Everyone likes receiving information they already agree with and/or that squares with their existing worldview. It's just how we're wired as a species, and the talking heads on the right (and their masters) are shrewd enough to know that, and to exploit it mercilessly.

Combined with the presentation of "we're the only ones giving you the real scoop, and you're too savvy to fall for the other side's lies" it's a very potent combination. That's precisely why Trump went immediately to "what you're seeing and hearing, that's not what's happening." Comfortable fictions dressed up in an aura of exclusivity and shoved down their throats 24/7, and it worked.

As for empathy... yes and no, I guess? I've known a lot of conservatives who are the "give someone the shirt off their back" type of people, such as my parents. They volunteer, they donate to charities, they're active in their church and wider communities. On a micro level, they have empathy for the people they can directly see and interact with.

On a macro level, though, things become different. Like that old saying goes, "One death is a tragedy, one million deaths is a statistic." Once we've risen from people that can be directly seen and spoken to and reached the level of larger groups, this is where empathy among conservatives starts to break down. It stops being "that person" and starts being "those people," if that makes sense. It's easier to overlook the suffering of large groups of people because they're not staring you in the face. I know, it sounds paradoxical.

This is just what I've observed among friends and family members who are conservative, so it's anecdotal and by no means any kind of scientific evaluation. But as an example, my parents will buy food for a homeless person who's panhandling outside the grocery store damn near every time... but they voted for Trump twice, and he couldn't give a shit if the homeless starved in the streets in droves. So empathy on the micro level, but willing to enable wildly reversed policies on the macro level.

[Caliman73]

26. Sounds about right.

It is an interesting phenomena to limit your scope to what you can directly see.

If you see people homeless and panhandling in your own town, what makes you think that other people in other towns aren't homeless and panhandling, and supporting programs to mitigate that?

I acknowledge that when blanket statements are made, you are inevitably going to be inaccurate. I agree that Conservatives as a whole, do not lack empathy. Your description fits my experience as well. The level of connectedness drops off past a certain point.

It isn't paradoxical really, it is, as you say about connecting to an issue. Also, it is related to how people in need are portrayed in certain media as "lazy" and just out for a handout.

[Jedi Guy]

27. Yeah, it's a cocktail of different factors. I honestly don't know how to get past it with them.

Any reasonable person can see homeless people in their community and extrapolate from there. They know intellectually that there are homeless people elsewhere, but it doesn't move the needle emotionally in the same way. Like you said, after a certain point it just drops off.

And then it's a self-perpetuating cycle. That attitude births the tropes of "moochers, lazy takers, welfare queens" and then the tropes keep the empathy from expanding beyond that point. Because "those people" are bad and gaming the system. But Homeless Harry outside the Safeway? He's an okay guy who caught some bad breaks. He's not like "those people."

And are there people who are gaming the system? Yes, of course there are, because in any system there are people gaming it. That's how humans are. But conservative media finds those .01% or less who are doing so and then blows them up until that's how all the people on "the dole" are.

It really is a vicious little ecosystem, and I just don't know how to break them out of it. It can be done on an individual level with time and patience, but on a grander scale, that ecosystem is just really overpowering.

[brush]

6. They're fully vaccinated and boosted, know the truth...

but are lying their asses off so republicans take over Congress in the mid-terms and the WH in '24. They don't care if some of their viewers die as long as they get power in DC back.

Murdock himself, owner of FOX, the NY Post and Wall Street Journal, it came out yesterday that he was one of the first to get vaccinated a year ago. Yet he's letting Carlson and the rest of his on-air hosts lie night after night about masks, vaxxes and Biden.

[Diamond_Dog]

7. I heard this somewhere ...

A Republican says, “That will never happen to me, so I don’t care.”
A Democrat says, “That should never happen to anyone, and I do care.”

Right wingers know that racism, injustice, economic hardship, and bigotry exists. It just doesn’t enter their little world, so they don’t give a shit. They only care about themselves.

[GoodRaisin]

8. There are no "don't know" "conservatives" on Fox, Newsmax, etc.

Every single one of them are actors, who are highly compensated liars, to deliver propaganda to people who have been conditioned to hate democrats and will believe any lie they hear over these lying networks.

[Vinca]

9. It's as simple as spreading hatred and lies for big bucks. They apparently value money over all

and that's it in a nutshell. It's been like that for decades, ever since hate radio took hold. They know the truth, they just choose not to peddle it. Truth doesn't sell.

[Skittles]

10. I think they get it.........

they just know what works on the Cult

[czarjak]

11. Hearing what you want to hear is key.

[TlalocW]

14. My thoughts - with multiple examples

Is that a lot of lawmakers don't think through the consequences of what they're doing - about how it can bite them on the ass later on because they're either concentrating on trying to own the libs, or they're trying to protect Christianity, but they have to couch it in terms of religion, and they can't consider the possibility that other religions exist.

Biggest example is republicans trying to own the dems by insisting that congress and staff sign up for ACA healthcare exchanges instead of using their normal federal health care. They thought democrats would balk at that, and they could say, "See? Even democrats know how bad Obamacare is," but dems said, "Great idea!" and voted for it, and it passed, and just like that, congressional staff now had access to healthcare plans that covered abortion.

Before marriage equality was ruled on, it was a state-by-state battle, and a state senator in Oklahoma decided the best way to stop teh gayz from marrying was to pass a law that said only clergy could marry people thinking - like I said - only of Christianity. I'm sure the Unitarians and other more liberal churches and religious groups would have happily married gay people. I think one of his fellow lawmakers made him realize that he would be responsible for gay marriage coming to Oklahoma, and it was shelved.

Oklahoma again - the whole 10 Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds. After all the kerfuffle with someone running it over, the Satanists and other religious groups wanting to put Baphomet or Hindu monkey gods on the grounds as well, it was moved to private property. Republicans then got a measure put on the next election's ballot about repealing the part of the Oklahoma Constitution that doesn't allow state funds to be used to promote religion. It was voted down.

And one more Oklahoma thing (I used to live in Tulsa). This was a minor one. There's a guy in Tulsa who has been fighting for years to be allowed to install - with his own money - something that showed the Biblical account of creation because there's something that shows how evolution works. He argued that the zoo already allowed religious messages because there was a Native American quote on nature inscribed on the fountain, and an image of Ganesha along with other elephant symbols near the pachyderm pits. The city council finally gave him permission... and then rescinded it after they were flooded with calls from religious groups wanting to be able to put up their own creation myths. I personally called in and told them I had recently switched over to being a Mayan, and I would be demanding my rights to put up an installation about how the gods sprinkled fields of corn with their blood, and that's how humans were made.

TlalocW

[Caliman73]

19. Lawmakers...

While the threshold for wealth for people wanting to run for Congress continues to go up, we can be assured that the level of expertise has not. The House, especially has been said to be meant to be comprised of the average citizen representing fellow citizens of their district.

This means that we get the Lauren Boeberts and Marjorie Taylor Greenes of the world. While I am not going to kid myself into nostalgia, thinking that "the good ole days" were so much better, I think that we are seeing the effects 30+ years of a right wing media ecosystem. Before, to get a straight up right wing "celebrating ignorance" point of view, you really had to go looking for it. Now, it comes to your fingertips. I watch YouTube videos that are markedly more left leaning, more so than the Democratic Party plank, but inevitable, I start to get right wing videos on my feed. I have to clear everything out to make them go away for awhile. If you want to immerse yourself in a completely detached "information system", you can go in and live your whole life not hearing what the vast majority of people hear that makes up the shared reality.

With gerrymandering and metrics, people can choose their voters and so they get more an more extreme like Boebert, Greene, Roy, Biggs, etc...

[I_UndergroundPanther]

17. Narcissistic,dont care. For most republicans

They are so much like each other.

[Sympthsical]

21. Limited sources leads to limited information for everyone

What people don't seem to grasp much of the time is that the Right and the Left do not read the same places. They don't gain information from anywhere close to some neutral central source. It gets curated into little bubbles where only the things that are pleasant and agree with certain held narratives are allowed.

Not reading the same people on Twitter, not watching the same YouTube videos, not reading the same magazines and newspapers, not watching the same cable news.

I read all over - both sides - on a fairly regular basis. There are days where the two sides are not discussing the same major stories at all. Not even close. What is making headlines on right-wing sites wouldn't even make the first page of DU GD.

They're completely separate information worlds.

Do you know how sometimes here you encounter resistance to a publication? For example, the other day I posted a source for a claim I was making. The NYT. And it wasn't some complicated thing. It was just a basic bit of reporting. The reply was, paraphrasing, "Like anyone should trust the New York Times, rawr!" Ok, so the NYT is out even for a basic, easily verified fact.

What's in? Twitter mostly. And a Twitter that is highly filtered and curated. People don't often follow people they hate who sometimes make good points. It's all the people like us and agreeing with us all the time.

I think we're all familiar with what kinds of information sources and Twitter accounts land here. Now think about how the right-wing does it. Your Town Halls and Breitbarts and Daily Callers. On youtube they've their Tim Pools or Steven Crowder types. Pop culture, you end up at some place like Clownfish.

It's an entire information ecosphere that most people on our side would never travel to, if they've even heard of half of it.

When the more prominent members of the Right are talking, they're not talking to you or me. They're not highlighting anything we probably read or watched. They're talking to the people who are on the same news sites, watching the same youtube channels, and reading the same Twitter accounts.

It might as well be a newscast from a completely foreign country.

[Caliman73]

22. I can understand interpreting information from different perspectives.

When you go into the world of Tim Pool, Crowder, Rubin, Peterson, etc... you are not dealing with a different perspective. You are dealing with distortion of information to fit a world view. It is not "limiting information" to avoid those sources. There have always been differing perspectives in media. What we have now is a mainstream media, that is typically corporate and mainly tries to stay to the standards of journalism, though there is always bias. We have a tiny left wing media, that is basically disregarded, except for the small amount of readership. Then we have the right wing media that appears coordinated and which pumps out propaganda with little regards for facts.

I take social media with a grain of salt. Certain people who have a reputation for being more accurate, I will look at, but those who breathlessly report things that seem to align with a liberal perspective but are short on facts, I discard.

All information is biased. From media, to education, to science. There is bias. You cannot escape it, and that is okay, as long as you are honest about the bias. The problem with right wing media is that it presents blatantly false information as if it is just another perspective on the facts, when it rarely is.

[Sympthsical]

24. I honestly couldn't get into it without risking a hide

I'll just say, misinformation is rampant everywhere as is bias. I don't even know what the standards of journalism are anymore, since it's all devolved mostly into infotainment.

That's why I always try to dig into things of interest myself. I want to know as much true, objective information as I can.

That is . . . not a universal behavior pretty much anywhere.

Whether a medium decides to report on something has as much to do to shape narrative, opinion, and biased perception as how it reports on something. If a person has no idea something's happened, they can't have an opinion about it or have their view of the world altered by it.

And that is what creates a lot of disconnects in many different spheres.

Limited information.

[Crunchy Frog]

23. The professional propagandists know EXACTLY what they're doing.

Don't they have some 1/6 texts from Hannity that very much contradict his public persona?