Who are the Nazis?

Non-rationality? What does that even mean?

 

"no such statistically significant effects exist for liberals"

Well assuming liberals = leftists, the influence is pervasive.

 

You're quoting a statement of fact. The Fox News Effect is a standout phenomenon. Now you could suggest that its somehow a learning effect, negating misinformation from a liberal mass media. The problem with that is that we don't see any significant persuasion effect from that liberal mass media.

 

Would you notice something that you've been surrounded by since birth?

 

So Fox News is doing a better job of persuading people than other news outlets? So what?

 

My father was a soldier at that time. Thank G-d there was no war.

I lived in USSR and USA. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages.

I was never a Russian and I will never become an American -- I am Jewish.

 

How do you rate PBS on the propaganda scale?

 

There is no need to answer a question based on a false claim. There is no "Fox News Effect" other than an excessively complex simulation run in an ideologically suspect study you -didn't link-, didn't summarize, didn't defend, and still haven't other than to talk about its presumably sterling application of analytical tools, which is irrelevant.

I wasted my time rereading the "study" earlier in the day. Arguendo that the claim is correct, the claim that "FNC affects voting patterns," it can only possibly be applied to those who do in fact watch Fox News. Maybe 2.5 million people at most watch Fox News attentively in other than public spaces that tend to run cable news channels. So you, and the study, are dishonest off the bat by making a broad causal claim about overall "voting patterns" based on an activity in which only a trivial percentage of the U.S. population engages.

The dishonesty compounds in that you and the study are forwarding a causal claim, not a mere correlation. Causal claims that omit controlling for alternate causality, in this case the economic, social, governmental policy and other factors that overwhelmingly influence voters, did so during the measured time period, are invalid on their face. I have repeated this in several ways and stand by my opinion, will not do so again.

I would say that I will "give you another chance," but that would make me appear a supercilious, pretentious asshat, so I will instead just stand on this and prior posts.

 

What I think is irrelevant. This is about empirical evidence. It's easy to adapt the approach to different news sources. We just need geographic variation in use.

 

That's not for me to say. Take my personal isues with BBC coverage. Can I trust my perceptions? My bias makes comment over bias a tad awkward. It's for that reason that scholarly evidence is needed. I know, for example, of studies (including by LSE) that confirms both bias and provision of misinformation by the BBC. Evidence based is key.

The purpose of the Fox News Effect is not to suggest all right wingers lack rationality. It is instead to advertise how evidence can be used to isolate trait more common from the right wing. Sanskrit was kind enough to advertise another trait discovered by research. Blanket rejection of evidence, all because of a perception that the results are unwanted, describes a starting point that rejects the importance of analytical thinking. One's original bias remains supreme. Any challenge to that bias creates dissonance and therefore the challenge is ignored.

 

Much of this confusion stems from the fact that the Nazis lied to the Left and sought to recruit Communists. He did make a distinction between Jewish Marxists and German Communists, who he used the Party's socialist propaganda to recruit them. We then see all these "social" policies such as profit sharing and paid vacations, etc. The Right Wingers of the Classical Liberal tradition scream, "ah you see they are Socialists and Left Wing!" But they don't know what Socialism is, Socialism is about Worker ownership of the means of production, the democratization of the work place. Nazis what they set up was a Capitalist state, which gave great services to one segment of the population by putting the economy on a near permanent war economy, stealing from minorities and opponents, plundering nations gobbled up, and of course the use of masses of slave labor all over Europe. Germany may have used the terms Worker and Socialist in their name, but these were changes made early in the movement to attract a wider base at the protests of Hitler concerning Socialism given his hatred of the Jewish Marxists. But was happy to recruit from the Communists and use them to siphon votes from the Social Democrats who he really hated. It was Imperialist by design, bent on building a vast racist land Empire, Capitalist ultimately as it protected private property rights of loyal Germans people, and German Capitalists and Industrialists did wonderfully for awhile under Hitler, because of their rearmament and commitment to investment and mass employment and pro business stance. The Nazi economic Capitalist system can best be described as a type of totalitarian Corporatist system with a near permanent war footing and oppression of minorities. There is nothing really Socialist about Nazism in the end analysis, it was all a lie and charade, Hitler redefined Socialism for his purposes, and the benefits people enjoyed were part of their racist belief of the superiority of the Aryan people. It was effectively investment in one part of the population by the government, fueled by the dogma that they can create the Super man. It is the ultimate right wing social hierarchy ideology because it seeks to eliminate all lessers completely and create a new Empire modeled in the Roman spirit to last a thousand years like they did. It is a very good thing they did not succeed.

 

Nearly all of the right wing memes and insults are clear projections. Rather funny to watch.

 

This is the crux of it. There's also evidence of how capitalism was maintained. We just got a version where corporatism running amok (akin to the military industrial complex perhaps). Take, for example, the notion of state control in Nazi Germany. Buchheim and Scherner (2007, The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry, Journal of Economic History, Vol 66, pp 390-416) note:

"Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment profiles. Even regarding war-related projects, freedom of contract was generally respected; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency".

There is no clear means to understand economic outcome in fascism as there are no guiding economic principles. There are only core features, such as the theory of the elites, which are rejected as 'stuff and nonsense' by the left.

 

I don't watch FOX nor BBC

I am one of the over 320 million here that does not care what the Democrats say bad about FOX, not a factor. I get tired of being accused I watch FOX

 

It doesn't matter. Personal decision and/or bias isn't really the issue. It's the use of evidence. Why do you think right wingers are less likely to adopt an evidence based perspective?

 

I don't believe that.

 

I do not believe one can ascribe to an alleged class such a blanket belief as to claim the class called right winger has a preponderance view about evidence.

Take the prevailing view by the Democrats today. Trump is guilty.
But guilty of what?

Guilty as proven or guilty as the media asserts?

Guilty that he and the Russians cooked up some magic plot?

No, if any group has shown a willingness to accuse with no evidence, constantly telling us they are waiting for the evidence from Mueller yet sound off that Trump is guilty ... no, I do not accept the right has a particular way to see things despite the evidence.

 

There's irony in your reply, given the reaction of right winger to my use of evidence...

You never heard "it's an academic conspiracy" from your comrades?

 

What's really ironic is the above from a poster whose initial post to this thread is the most absurd thing posted to it so far, a laughable, infantile conspiracy theory without any evidence whatsoever accompanying.

Is fascism "on the march?" Lulz. Do you think conflating Trump's "bargaining-treaty nationalism" with "militaristic-annexation nationalism" of the past fools anyone? It doesn't. But I suppose other U.S. historical "nationalistic" movements like Teddy's extremely progressive domestic policy "New Nationalism" that was continued by Wilson should be branded as "fascistic" too? How bout FDR's and JFK's nationalism? Fascists all I suppose. What a joke.

There is no "fascism on the march" anywhere in the world today, and most certainly none in the U.S.

 

Think of some term not called "winger."

I vote the republican party ticket. We vary widely in views of some things, hold narrow views on things like liberty. For instance it is we standing up for the 2nd amendment.

 

Let's make sure that is repeated.

Antifa is equal to fascism in particular ways. But not in all ways. But it truly promotes violence. Trump is not doing that.

 

Of course there is variation. We're not talking 'they're all fascist' after all. But its all relative, isnt it? Relative to the left, the right is more homogeneous. That's one reason why psychological analysis can find the same traits across multiple relatively small experiment.

 

As mentioned before, those attacking the anti fascists are simply innocent of Popperian paradox of tolerance.

 

The group labeling needs to stop, especially the absurd "Nazi/fascist/racist" strand of it. IMO that's the whole point of this backlash thread. I haven't heard many people labeling the entire Democratic Party as ANTIFA, and the "Jobs not Mobs" really didn't take off. I believe that average Americans of both Parties find the group labeling offensive.

But some of the LW can't resist it, it's like taking a rotten roadkill carcass away from a dog, they go right back and dig it out of the trash, keep chewing on it as if they are engaged in any kind of meaningful political activity other than lazy slander.

Rawrnomnom "authoritarian!" rawrnomnom "fascist!" rawrnomnom "racist!" rawrnomnom "NAZI!" rawrnomnom "irrational!" rawrnomnom "less educated!" rawrnomnom "white nationalist alt right" rawrnomnom "misogynist!" etc.

 

Define your -abstract, pretentious jargon-, offer your own -reasoning- as to its -relevance- and -accuracy- in accompaniment, or have your posts to this thread look even more ridiculous.