161–170 of 251 posts
Ethos: appeal to authority
Pathos: appeal to emotion
Logos: appeal to logic
I found the post's added description of more recent psychological studies interesting though.
> In the 1950s, at the height of McCarthyism, 13.4 percent of Americans reported that “felt less free to speak their mind than they used to.” In 1987, the figure had reached 20 percent. By 2019, 40 percent of Americans reported that they did not feel free to speak their minds. This isn’t a partisan issue, either. Gibson and Sutherland report that, “The percentage of Democrats who are worried about speaking their mind…
I'm not sure that it's scary. After all, casual racism and sexism used to be a lot more common in the past. Now people are called out and criticized on those. Is that bad? The other factor is the rise of internet social media, which didn't exist back then. When people spoke their mind, it wasn't broadcast publicly to the whole world, so there was less fear of backlash.
Isn't it scary or least worrying that 40 percent of Americans reported that they did not feel free to speak their minds? Or are you implying they belong to the group who participated in casual racism and sexism that used to be a lot more common in the past and now people (majority of the other 60%) are calling them out and criticize them on those hence concluding not scary and perhaps good?
I find it scary too.
> It might seem intuitive to believe that people with less education are more manipulable. But research suggests this may not be true. > High-status people are more preoccupied with how others view them. Which means that educated and/or affluent people may be especially prone to peripheral, as opposed to central, methods of persuasion. There is a hidden assumtion in the above part. Did you spot it? It is that educate…
Everyone believes their ideology is based on reason and not determined by their sociotope. My sociotope just happens to be the most reasonable one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure that it's scary. After all, casual racism and sexism used to be a lot more common in the past. Now people are called out and criticized on those. Is that bad? The other factor is the rise of internet social media, which didn't exist back then. When people spoke their mind, it wasn't broadcast publicly to the whole world, so there was less fear of backlash.
>I'm not sure that it's scary. After all, casual racism and sexism used to be a lot more common in the past. Now people are called out and criticized on those. Is that bad? Isn't it scary or least worrying that 40 percent of Americans reported that they did not feel free to speak their minds? Or are you implying they belong to the group who participated in casual racism and sexism that used to be a lot more common in…
Some of them do, yes.
However, "The other factor is the rise of internet social media, which didn't exist back then." In the past, there was no such thing as being afraid of speaking your mind on social media. You were typically speaking your mind in private, among friends and family. This very conversation that we're having now would have never occurred in 1957, or even 1987.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Just like sexuality, racisism and sexism are part of what it means to be human. They are all natural instincts. Suppressing them is leading to the same sort of dysfunction that sexual suppression lead to in the Victorian age. That said, in the same way it's not healthy for society to be full of sexual deviants, it's also not healthy for it to be full of flaming racists. Moderation in all things, but nothing wron…
> Moderation in all things, but nothing wrong with a little here and there. Would you say the same about rape, violence, and murder? Those seem like "natural instincts". Nothing wrong with a little here and there? I would dispute that racism and sexism are "just like" sexuality, and I would also dispute that all "natural instincts", you might call them animal instincts, ought to be accepted and encouraged. One of the…
As far as racism, it may not propagate the species but surely it helps propagate those genetically closer to oneself. Isn’t in-group preference pretty common? Don’t need to be EO Wilson or Richard Dawkins to see why.
> In the 1950s, at the height of McCarthyism, 13.4 percent of Americans reported that “felt less free to speak their mind than they used to.” In 1987, the figure had reached 20 percent. By 2019, 40 percent of Americans reported that they did not feel free to speak their minds. This isn’t a partisan issue, either. Gibson and Sutherland report that, “The percentage of Democrats who are worried about speaking their mind…
I'm not sure that it's scary. After all, casual racism and sexism used to be a lot more common in the past. Now people are called out and criticized on those. Is that bad? The other factor is the rise of internet social media, which didn't exist back then. When people spoke their mind, it wasn't broadcast publicly to the whole world, so there was less fear of backlash.
Saying that phrase, went from forbidden, to controversial, to "you're not allowed to disagree," to "you're not allowed to agree" so rapidly.
Someone who actually holds it as a principle has had enemies on all sides at various times. Many of those who find the phrase offensive are not offended because it clashes with their principles, but because it strikes at the status / tribe signal positions they've adopted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone believes their ideology is based on reason and not determined by their sociotope. My sociotope just happens to be the most reasonable one.
Everyone? Plenty of people don't practice ideological thinking in the first place.
I was nodding a lot reading this piece, but something did seem incongruous. The author claims "peripheral route" opinions are becoming more common because of information overload and the need to be parsimonious when forming opinions. He also claims that peripheral route opinions are more weakly held than central route opinions. How does that account for increasing ideological polarization, when you would expect peopl…
I dont agree its "ideological"; instead it is "tribal".
Ideology: "My body my choice" == vaccination and abortion should be individual decisions. "Free speech is good" == people can protest for and against racial separation or elimination, regardless of the race in question.
As the tribes we see society dividing into stand on both sides of those two examples, and many others, I can't say I see "ideology" as the dividing factor.