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
Wait what? I can't tell if you're serious, but if so, I'd love to see research on the first part of your comment. If you were joking please feel free to ignore me.
No, just experience.
"Normal" people lie and bend morals so naturally that they don't see it. The discourse in their social bubble is more important than reality for them. They can say and believe absolutely contradictory things, which just have to be accepted as true by their social environment.
How can there be any research on this? It's literally normal. It's how political agitation works.
About autistic people not doing this - autistic people take discourses even more radically, but that kinda helps, because you have to check yourself for your perceptions to work with the real world at all. Also due to the effort needed to switch between various discourses, which happens naturally for normals, autistic people notice the fact that they switch.
Normals don't need that and thus can live all their life in common dreams.
I think I could find something more scientific to read on these things, but why would I really, it's obvious.
One of my favorite pass times is asking ChatGPT my hypotheses with prompts to search the web for academic sources (the free version is limited, but it works for a good few prompts over a few hours and let's you know when the cool down period is over).
Any time we make claims, it's very likely at this stage of human technology that there's research on it you can access and hone ideas around. Anecdotes can be really powerful in driving our interests and pursuit of knowledge, but I think we should always check in and be aware we're biased, fallible, sometimes hypocritical creatures.
I'm not sure if you are reinforcing the request for a source or agreeing with me, ha-ha.
I'll try. But my own experience with using those chatbots to find sources is not satisfactory, but then I was trying to find sources on very specific things.
I was reinforcing the request. I did a couple general prompts with your claim and think there's some research to support it, though it's not much; and, as with anything, there's nuance.