What's more interesting, though, is what they think of their own side. Clearly, they think their side is less brainwashed than the opposite, but they still see them as not seeing the full picture. They agree with many of the slogans and catchphrases their side repeats, but they are under the impression that the majority of those they agree with repeat them without much thought. It's almost as if they seriously believe they understand the slogans to a deeper degree than the people who came up with them. The average individualist thinker will express it as some sort of brilliant insight that people are happiest when they work to make themselves happy, so long as reasonable controls are provided to keep them from predating on others to achieve this happiness. The average collectivist will speak to you with the same level of pride about how allowing people to predate on others to achieve happiness fosters an unhappy population, but one must be careful so as to not restrict people's freedom to make their own happiness. It's as if much of our discourse is contingent on the notion that almost everyone except the people having the conversation is just a philosophical zombie which has had no interaction whatsoever with anything opposing their own views. It's not an uncommon conversation in which someone will say something to the tune of "now, I understand [most basic, entry level argument made by opposing side, often a strawman], but what they don't seem to understand is [most basic, entry level rebuttal to said argument]" as if that's where the conversation ends. Then they'll take you deeper down the rabbit hole of their reasoning while seemingly oblivious to the prospect that the opposing side might have something just as solid to support their views with, if not moreso.
Right now, this may sound like an appeal to centrism. It's not. Centrists are among the worst offenders of this fallacy. Your average, self proclaimed, centrist will tell you how unique it is that they hold views from both sides. What's worse is they focus on the one issue they disagree with the side they most closely align with [often one which only a minority of that side holds anyway] as if that puts them right in the middle. I have personally met people who were consistently liberal on virtually every issue, yet claimed to be centrist because they think the "self esteem movement" is retarded. These people not only think political partisans on their own side are purely dogmatic in their support of every last thing their party platforms on, but also have a false sense of where, exactly, the center is. They suffer from a sort of false consensus, where they think any rational person would hold the majority of views they hold so it seems perfectly logical to them that the few issues they personally find contentious would be the only ones with which to define their stance by. When asked about these views which they don't consider, this archetype will respond with "not even all republicans think that, that's just something idiots tout because they haven't thought it through enough/are brainwashed" without a semblance of self awareness. If the center really were where these "centrists" thought it was, almost all liberals would be centrists.
The thing is, most people are quite moderate. Most people are capable of critical thinking. Most people are aware that the polar opposite of a bad thing isn't necessarily a good thing. Most people simply lean towards one side or another. Unfortunately, it seems most people aren't aware that these things apply to most everyone else. They also seem aware of people's tendency to disregard information they don't like while simultaneously doing the same just moments later.
In conclusion: you know the brainwashing has worked when you have them convinced everyone else is brainwashed.
Yes, because everyone who disagrees with you just repeats catchphrases without ever thinking about them, amirite?
Andrew Green
everyone's dumb but me RRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!
Dominic Green
no pretty sure you're a fucking moron, politics are completely scripted anyways you retard, the masses are retarded
Nathaniel Powell
It's anecdotal (just like your claim of most people being capable of critical thinking), but I've met exactly 5 people in my life that actually sat and thought about the problems that bothered them instead of simply virtue signalling and pretending that magically solved everything before resuming their daily rituals. I've met a shitload of people too.
Isaac Miller
Should be capitalized, -10
Benjamin Campbell
the reason this shit happens is because normalfags are obsessed with labelling and grouping. even the ones who claim to not take a side, group themselves together. just don't give a shit about grouping yourself to things and fitting in and just have opinions on shit
Jaxon Hernandez
That's the attitude I'm writing against. Most people aren't dumb. Unfortunately, it seems most people think most people are dumb. They think everyone BUT THEM sides with their political party like a sports fan sides with a team.
There certainly is a sort of script to it. Lots of people, likely including you, occasionally spend time mentally rehearsing what they would say if a certain argument were brought up. hat doesn't mean there wasn't a legitimate amount of thought and effort put into the script.
Caleb Thompson
left and right are meaningless anyway
John Myers
what if…
Sebastian Brooks
This is the mark of a moron. Someone who has a desire to say something, yet who has nothing of substance to say. Someone who thinks their interpretation of an idea is the definitive interpretation that everyone should intuitively support. Depends on who you're talking with. Generally, it's not a good idea to make any assumptions about a person's prior consumption of written works or meditation on ideas that would provide a basis for the way that their views were formulated. I imagine that most laypeople don't actually spend a great deal of time sifting through academic papers on the finer points of any given political and philosophical thought. Rather, people tend to employ a combination of rational thinking and consumption that occurs over a long period of time and that gradually allows them to come to conclusions about any given subject. That sounds like an unconscious denial, like an attempt to apply a new, and more comfortable, label to their beliefs, in order to possibly avoid being associated with a certain stereotype. Ultimately, this could be an attempt to drop political labels, along with their underpinning connotations, and work towards engaging ideas and lines of reasoning, without leaning on a series of suppositions that are lent by said labels. I would be inclined to believe that there are a group of people who seek to cast derision and tension among groups that believe in different ways of thought. If you're not talking about extremists, then you're talking about those who would sow discord and unrest, who don't necessarily care about the concerns of either side but who derive enjoyment from watching the morons on both side squirm about as their views are shattered or opposed. You're talking about trolls. Don't try and have honest discourse with trolls and "bigots" or people who are not inclined to even consider opposing viewpoints.
Political labels cannot adequately define a single individual's spectrum of beliefs, unless that individual is either totally detached from and unconcerned with the system of thought, or has not thoroughly formulated any meaningful conclusions and instead would rather regurgitate simple concepts that can then pigeonhole them into any given specific category. In short, labels are fucking useless.
Elijah Bell
It's easy to see it that way. That's how it often looks from the outside. The thing is, they're virtue signaling on things they have ALREADY put thought into and developed a conclusion on. They don't stop and think the moment the thing that bothers them comes up because they have already done so long ago. Albeit, these thoughts are highly influenced by the stimulus they have been provided throughout their life. Their parents, friends, and teachers threw the catchphrases and the basic mental framework at them, but they had a lot of time to think these ideas through before the subject re-emerged and they virtue signaled using the framework they developed.
Labeling and grouping are very useful. If where you side comes up, it's a lot easier to just say "im [whatever]" than "well,i think this about this thing, that about that thing, another thing about another thing, etc." Even if you aren't dogmatically inclined to any given position, there is one that fits you closer than anything else.
Dominic Murphy
That's the funny thing they're both mostly right. That's exactly why you need a healthy dose of leftism and rightism. Try nazism.
John Lewis
Works for me
Lucas Jenkins
Well these people do generally have a good deal of substance behind the catchphrases. The thing is they tend to assume others don't have the same level of substance. this is something that I, and many psychologists who have studied this behavior, consider to be a very common human tendency. I wouldn't call it "moronic," really. It's just that they have yet to be convinced a better framework exists. To an extent, it probably has more to do with pride tbh. It's a lot harder to admit "I have been wrong up until now" than it is to convince one's self that "everyone else is wrong" and then continue to be wrong indefinitely. Especially in a public situation where admitting one's mistakes will result in short term embarrassment. Social pressure is a very powerful force on a proud individual. You are exactly right. Though I would take care not to underestimate the influence one's predispositions has on their interpretation of the information they receive. That's exactly what they tell me. The thing is, though, that they often hold the same presuppositions as if they were a part of said label. It's as if they dropped the label, but kept fucking everything else. Labels can be a beautiful thing, regardless. They make a great shorthand. If you have beliefs which contradict your label, all you have to do is concede when/if the topic comes up. Well obviously extremists exist. But how they form is when you have them convinced the other side is so brainwashed, so mindless, so void of individual thought, and so self-evidently beyond redemption that to put them through misery is a form of justice. Whether we're talking about Islamists who think those who reject Allah's almighty, and quite obviously true, word are essentially evil incarnate; whether we're talking about Antifags who think anyone who doesn't follow the straight and narrow path of diversity and inclusiveness, due to their lack of education of course, are responsible for all the suffering of minority groups; whether we're talking about actual fascists who think liberals who worship their false god of equality, clearly because they were manipulated by the educational/media complex that wants to sow hedonism in the general populace, deserve the gas for perpetuating white genocide; radicalization is BORN from the notion that the average individual lacks the capacity to form their own opinion.
Alexander Nguyen
Why should I be nazi? I'm already controlled by a international super state run by a centralized bank.
Connor Parker
becouse that state doesn't work to further your race but to degrade it so the only living humans are masters and stupids.
Also, OP, what about lemmings?
Colton Jackson
They don't see the cliff until they are already being pushed off by those they were leading moments before.
Adam Rodriguez
No I was refering to the lemmings theory. That they follow the current authority and that porpaganda should be made for the potential radicals. Also, lemmings are around 90% of pupulation the rest being potrads.
Cooper Russell
I'm aware.
Jacob Hall
How does it affects OP's theory? It was based in that the major part of the populus forms their own opinion.
Refresh the thread faster
Jayden Lopez
Most people do form their own opinion utilizing the framework and information they have. Inevitably, there will be leaders who fit quite closely to the opinions that large groups of individuals share. Obviously, this doesn't mean they agree with the leader 100%, they'll still find things that they will agree with. But they follow the man who suits them best. Perhaps they get others to follow suit themselves. They follow the leader because he's the one actually accomplishing most of the shit they want done, even if that means having to deal with the shit they don't want which is coming from the same source. They might advocate against some of the shit they don't want, but they know the alternative was much worse for them. See: Holla Forums and Trump.
Parker Long
I wouldn't be so sure OP; 50% of the population has an IQ below 100. But you are right that the people have a tendency to see themselves as superior, even when it isn't warranted. Like how most of the girls in a group will think that they are the prettiest, or how most men would like to think that they're the toughest. We like to criticise other people but ignore our own flaws - take the log out of your own eye first.
Joseph Wright
That framework can be manipulated to sort of "brainwash" them into believing something.
Julian Thomas
People hold beliefs even if proven wrong, if they have them for long enough into adulthood. Only a massive change in life will get them to change.
You believe the map is right and you got lost, not that the map is wrong.
Nicholas Campbell
To drunk to worry about reading that shit. Id probably forget about it in a few hours anyway. Im gunna go to the webm thread. Maybe im making a point about the masses.
Noah Edwards
Hitler fought against the internationalists, so you kinda answered your own question. We do not have centralized banks. The banks we have are global banks, big difference.
Daniel Allen
Yes, some frameworks can lend themselves to false beliefs. Some frameworks are even wrong in themselves. My point is most people aren't just demagogues who blindly follow anyone. Most people have the ability to think for themselves and do so. This often means following a leader who you don't agree with 100% in order to get some of your goals accomplished.
Not if they're sufficiently proven wrong. Sure, they might brush off facts that contradict their views, but they reach for some pseudo-logical reason to do so.
