Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
A thread for Democrats Only
Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:03 PM
THGRRI
Friday, March 2, 2018 7:13 AM
SECOND
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Saturday, March 3, 2018 6:21 AM
Saturday, March 3, 2018 7:08 AM
Saturday, March 3, 2018 7:42 PM
JEWELSTAITEFAN
Quote:Originally posted by second: The Fed won’t be able to save us during the next recession The Federal Reserve won’t have the same influence in the next recession because there isn’t enough room to drop interest rates as much as has been required in the past. Historically, the Fed has had to drop rates by 5-6 percentage points during recessions; it cut rates by 6 points in 1990, 5.25 points in 2005, and 5.25 points — down all the way to zero — during the Great Recession of 2008. With rates forecast (by the Fed itself) to only go as high as 3.1% by 2020, there’s not much scope to stimulate the markets by cutting them significantly if another recession was around the corner. And many economists do expect a recession soon — as early as next year or 2020. When the next recession happens, it’s unlikely that reducing the short-term interest rate will be enough to stabilize demand, simply because rates will almost certainly not be high enough for a big enough rate reduction to give the economy the boost it will need. https://qz.com/1216187
Sunday, March 4, 2018 12:29 AM
6IXSTRINGJACK
Quote:Originally posted by second: The Fed won’t be able to save us during the next recession The Federal Reserve won’t have the same influence in the next recession because there isn’t enough room to drop interest rates as much as has been required in the past.
Quote:Historically, the Fed has had to drop rates by 5-6 percentage points during recessions; it cut rates by 6 points in 1990,
Quote:5.25 points in 2005,
Quote:and 5.25 points — down all the way to zero — during the Great Recession of 2008.
Quote:With rates forecast (by the Fed itself) to only go as high as 3.1% by 2020, there’s not much scope to stimulate the markets by cutting them significantly if another recession was around the corner. And many economists do expect a recession soon — as early as next year or 2020.
Quote:When the next recession happens, it’s unlikely that reducing the short-term interest rate will be enough to stabilize demand, simply because rates will almost certainly not be high enough for a big enough rate reduction to give the economy the boost it will need.
Sunday, March 4, 2018 12:40 AM
Sunday, March 4, 2018 7:28 AM
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: Sounds like you are admitting that Obamanomics screwed the economy big-time and long-term.
Sunday, March 4, 2018 2:58 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: Sounds like you are admitting that Obamanomics screwed the economy big-time and long-term.I see that 6ixStringJack has almost perfect understanding. In stark contrast, JewelStaiteFan understands nothing, nothing at all. All 3 of the following ways can be used simultaneously to end a recession, but typically the Federal government only uses a little bit of each. And that is why it is never very successful. There are 3 ways to get the American economy out of a recession: 1) The Federal Reserve lowers the short-term interest rate 5 to 6%. By law, the President cannot do it. If the interest rate is already less than 5%, even the Federal Reserve cannot do it, no matter what the law says. But every little bit helps a little. 2) Congress increases spending by 2% more than the previous month, for month after month, until the economy is out of recession. By law, the President cannot do it. If the tax rate has already been cut, as it was in January, Congress cannot do it, either, even if it wants to. And Congress doesn’t always want to when it is in the mood for nationwide austerity. 3) The President waits for the American economy to naturally heal itself and come out of a recession. This happened many times in the 19th Century. This is much slower than #1 and #2. If you don’t believe me, please look at the following list of recessions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States #3 will not heal the economy if the President blunders by starting a war in the Middle East (you’ve heard of the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War, right?). Or the President starts a trade war with the entire world. Obama used the #3 way as many previous Presidents have been forced to. Trump can use #3. But Trump better not make huge mistakes, as did Bush, or else the American economy will not come out of recession, if it should accidentally fall into one.
Sunday, March 4, 2018 4:46 PM
Sunday, March 4, 2018 8:41 PM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Obama's numbers are much better than Trumps. Add to that that after a year in office, Trump is taking steps that is going to hurt not only our economy, but our allies as well. Stay tuned...
Wednesday, March 7, 2018 6:24 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Obama's numbers are much better than Trumps. Add to that that after a year in office, Trump is taking steps that is going to hurt not only our economy, but our allies as well. Stay tuned... What numbers? I don't buy stuff Trump says about this economy, but I'm unaware of any numbers where Obama was better. Citation needed.
Quote:The Regulatory Right-to-Know Act calls for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to submit to Congress each year “an accounting statement and associated report” including: (A) an estimate of the total annual costs and benefits (including quantifiable and nonquantifiable effects) of Federal rules and paperwork, to the extent feasible: (1) in the aggregate; (2) by agency and agency program; and (3) by major rule; (B) an analysis of impacts of Federal regulation on State, local, and tribal government, small business, wages, and economic growth; and (C) recommendations for reform. The estimated annual benefits of major Federal regulations reviewed by OMB from October 1, 2006, to September 30, 2016* for which agencies estimated and monetized both benefits and costs, are in the aggregate between $219 billion and $695 billion, while the estimated annual costs are in the aggregate between $59 billion and $88 billion, reported in 2001 dollars. In 2015 dollars, aggregate annual benefits are estimated to be between $287 and $911 billion and costs between $78 and $115 billion. These ranges reflect uncertainty in the benefits and costs of each rule at the time that it was evaluated. *We explain later in the Report that OMB chose a ten-year period for aggregation because pre-regulation estimates prepared for rules adopted more than ten years ago are of questionable relevance today.
Wednesday, March 7, 2018 6:31 AM
Wednesday, March 7, 2018 8:08 AM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Obama's numbers are much better than Trumps. Add to that that after a year in office, Trump is taking steps that is going to hurt not only our economy, but our allies as well. Stay tuned... What numbers? I don't buy stuff Trump says about this economy, but I'm unaware of any numbers where Obama was better. Citation needed.It took me awhile to find numbers. The Office of Management and Budget presented the numbers in dollars. The report was released late on a Friday, with Congress out of session. A cynical observer might conclude that the administration wanted the report to go unnoticed. Why might that be? It shows that the GOP is wrong about regulations as a general matter and wrong about Obama’s regulations specifically. Those regulations had benefits far in excess of their costs. OMB gathered data and analysis on “major” federal regulations (those with $100 million or more in economic impact) between 2006 and 2016, a period that includes all of Obama’s administration, stopping just short of Trump’s. The final tally, reported in 2001 dollars: Aggregate benefits: $219 to $695 billion Aggregate costs: $59 to $88 billion By even the most conservative estimate, the benefits of Obama’s regulations wildly outweighed the costs. According to OMB — and to the federal agencies upon whose data OMB mostly relied — the core of the Trumpian case against Obama regulations, arguably the organizing principle of Trump’s administration, is false. www.eenews.net/assets/2018/02/26/document_pm_01.pdf Quote:The Regulatory Right-to-Know Act calls for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to submit to Congress each year “an accounting statement and associated report” including: (A) an estimate of the total annual costs and benefits (including quantifiable and nonquantifiable effects) of Federal rules and paperwork, to the extent feasible: (1) in the aggregate; (2) by agency and agency program; and (3) by major rule; (B) an analysis of impacts of Federal regulation on State, local, and tribal government, small business, wages, and economic growth; and (C) recommendations for reform. The estimated annual benefits of major Federal regulations reviewed by OMB from October 1, 2006, to September 30, 2016* for which agencies estimated and monetized both benefits and costs, are in the aggregate between $219 billion and $695 billion, while the estimated annual costs are in the aggregate between $59 billion and $88 billion, reported in 2001 dollars. In 2015 dollars, aggregate annual benefits are estimated to be between $287 and $911 billion and costs between $78 and $115 billion. These ranges reflect uncertainty in the benefits and costs of each rule at the time that it was evaluated. *We explain later in the Report that OMB chose a ten-year period for aggregation because pre-regulation estimates prepared for rules adopted more than ten years ago are of questionable relevance today.
Wednesday, March 7, 2018 9:12 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: They're going to have to break this down into something meaningful. As it stands from what you quoted, these are relatively meaningless numbers. I was talking more along the lines of the economy and jobs and wages, which are no better in 2018 than they were during the whole of Obama's presidency overall. It's just a different group of people lying to us and telling us that they are is all.
Wednesday, March 7, 2018 9:55 AM
JO753
rezident owtsidr
Quote:Originally posted by second:...the bottom 50% needs to take direct action against their slave-masters in the 1%. I suggest you steal their money than kill 'em...
Wednesday, March 7, 2018 10:35 AM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: They're going to have to break this down into something meaningful. As it stands from what you quoted, these are relatively meaningless numbers. I was talking more along the lines of the economy and jobs and wages, which are no better in 2018 than they were during the whole of Obama's presidency overall. It's just a different group of people lying to us and telling us that they are is all.Well, you could click on the link to get all the information that Congress gets from OMB. www.eenews.net/assets/2018/02/26/document_pm_01.pdf It is all about real benefits in dollars for real people. And the benefits only exist because of Obama's regulators enforced the regulations. Trump's regulators are NOT so good at enforcing regulations. (For just one example: www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/01/trumps-consumer-agency-announces-plan-to-let-predatory-lenders-off-the-hook/ ) The regulators and the regulations are something that a President has direct control over. The broader American economy is not really under the President's control, unlike regulations. (begin-rant) You probably have been told this before, but the President does NOT have direct control over the American economy. He CANNOT create new jobs, build factories, sell houses, etc. Credit for the economy growth or shrinkage is properly given to the several million people (let's call 'em the 1%, but that's not really an accurate description cause it is based on wealth rather than intentions of that group) who pretty much own the bottom 50% of the population. It's too bad that the lower 50% sold control of their lives to the 1%, but tough luck to them. (I could tell you stories about half the people I know throwing away their money and their lives, against my advice, then they say, "But what else could I do?" My answer is a politer variation on "Why the fuck did you do that, against all my advice and your own good sense?") It's the bottom 50% who sold themselves into near slavery, without ever understanding they didn't have to. And the President has no control, other than what is in the regulations, over what the 1% does to the bottom 50%. If the regulations don't exist or the President won't enforce them, the bottom 50% needs to take direct action against their slave-masters in the 1%. I suggest you steal their money than kill 'em, but it's all up to you because Trump won't help you and the Presidency (even when a Democrat is in the White House) isn't powerful enough to fix most of the difficulties created by the 1% to profitably harass and rule over the bottom 50%.(end-of-rant)
Quote:Edging ponderously around on his stool, Jeff reached to the wall, removed a small, shiny plaque from its hook and passed it across the counter. ‘You may keep it,’ he said. ‘And much good may it do you.’ Gleed examined it, turning it over and over between his fingers. It was nothing more than an oblong strip of substance resembling ivory. One side was polished and bare. The other bore three letters deeply engraved in bold style: F.—I.W. Glancing up at Baines, his features puzzled, he said, ‘You call this a weapon?’ ‘Certainly.’ ‘Then I don’t get it.’ He passed the plaque to Harrison. ‘Do you?’ ‘No.’ Harrison examined it with care. ‘What does this F.—I.W. mean?’ ‘Initial-slang,’ informed Baines. ‘Made correct by common usage. It has become a worldwide motto. You’ll see it all over the place if you haven’t noticed it already.’ ‘I have seen it here and there but attached no importance to it and thought nothing more about it. I remember now that it was inscribed in several places including Seth’s and the fire depot.’ ‘It was on the sides of that bus we couldn’t empty,’ put in Gleed. ‘It didn’t mean anything to me.’ It means plenty,’ said Jeff, ‘Freedom-I won’t!’ ‘That kills me,’ Gleed responded. ‘I’m stone dead already. I’ve dropped in my tracks.’ He watched Harrison thoughtfully pocketing the plaque. ‘A piece of abracadabra. What a weapon!’ ‘Ignorance is bliss,’ asserted Baines, strangely sure of himself. ‘Especially when you don’t know that what you’re playing with is the safety catch of something that goes bang.’ ‘All right ’challenged Gleed, taking him up on that. ‘Tell us how it works.’ ‘I won’t.’ Baines’ grin reappeared. He seemed to be highly satisfied about something. ‘That’s a fat lot of help.’ Gleed felt let down, especially over that momentary hoped-for reward. ‘You brag and boast about a one-way weapon, toss across a slip of stuff with three letters on it and then go dumb. Any folly will do for braggarts and any braggart can talk through the seat of his pants. How about backing up your talk?’ ‘I won’t,’ repeated Baines, his grin broader than ever. He gave the onlooking Harrison a fat, significant wink. It made something spark vividly within Harrison’s mind. His jaw dropped, he dragged the plaque from his pocket and stared at it as if seeing it for the first time. ‘Give it me back,’ requested Baines, watching him. Replacing it in his pocket, Harrison said very firmly. ‘I won’t.’ Baines chuckled.’ some people catch on quicker than others.’ Resenting that, Gleed held his hand out to Harrison. ‘Let me have another look at that thing.’ ‘I won’t,’ said Harrison, meeting him eye to eye. ‘Hey, don’t start being awkard with me. That’s not the way—’ Gleed’s protesting voice petered out. He stood there a moment, his optics slightly glassy, while his brain performed several loops. Then in hushed tones he said, ‘Good grief!’ ‘Precisely,’ approved Baines. ‘Grief and plenty of it. You were a bit slow on the uptake.’
Wednesday, March 7, 2018 1:38 PM
Quote:Out near the edge of the Milky Way was a matriarchy bossed by blonde Amazons, and a world of self-styled wizards, and a Pentecostal planet, and a globe where semi-sentient vegetables cultivated themselves in obedience to human masters. All these scattered across many light-years of space but readily accessible by Blieder-drive.
Wednesday, March 7, 2018 9:10 PM
Wednesday, March 7, 2018 9:22 PM
Wednesday, March 7, 2018 10:22 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: 6ix, I have lost the urge to read science fiction because I got old and cranky. Now even my dreams are solidly non-fictional. Everything I do and think about is one solid fact after another stacked up to make a cathedral. Maybe it's not odd that I like the Rick and Morty cartoons. Rick is so bitter and disillusioned at the Universe and he is out there kicking the Universe in the balls, reshaping reality to something he doesn't dislike intensely. He can actually bring down Galactic Empires. Same as Rick, I don't like Galactic Empires: www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php Quote:Out near the edge of the Milky Way was a matriarchy bossed by blonde Amazons, and a world of self-styled wizards, and a Pentecostal planet, and a globe where semi-sentient vegetables cultivated themselves in obedience to human masters. All these scattered across many light-years of space but readily accessible by Blieder-drive.
Thursday, March 8, 2018 2:37 PM
Thursday, March 8, 2018 3:01 PM
Thursday, March 8, 2018 5:31 PM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: The man lives in his own world second. Facts to Trump are like facts to some here. Existing only in a reality other than theirs.
Thursday, March 8, 2018 5:44 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: The man lives in his own world second. Facts to Trump are like facts to some here. Existing only in a reality other than theirs. Trump thinks his wealth is earned. MIT created a model of how wealth is distributed and it suggests Trump is mistaken. The article begins like this: The conventional answer is that we live in a meritocracy in which people are rewarded for their talent, intelligence, effort, and so on. Over time, many people think, this translates into the wealth distribution that we observe, although a healthy dose of luck can play a role. But there is a problem with this idea: while wealth distribution follows a power law, the distribution of human skills generally follows a normal distribution that is symmetric about an average value. For example, intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, follows this pattern. Average IQ is 100, but nobody has an IQ of 1,000 or 10,000. The same is true of effort, as measured by hours worked. Some people work more hours than average and some work less, but nobody works a billion times more hours than anybody else. And yet when it comes to the rewards for this work, some people do have billions of times more wealth than other people. What’s more, numerous studies have shown that the wealthiest people are generally not the most talented by other measures. How did Trump get rich? Read MIT Technology Review to find out: www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/
Thursday, March 8, 2018 5:48 PM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Before Regan and Kennedy tax rates were over 80% for the rich. I always thought that was unfair. Now though not so much. The rich control the wealth distribution in this country, and in doing so put most of it into their own.
Friday, March 9, 2018 6:07 AM
Friday, March 9, 2018 6:28 AM
Friday, March 9, 2018 7:30 AM
Quote:Originally posted by second: 180.8 million people are represented by the 49 senators who caucus with the Democrats. 141.7 million people are represented by the 51 senators who caucus with the Republicans.
Friday, March 9, 2018 7:40 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: Quote:Originally posted by second: 180.8 million people are represented by the 49 senators who caucus with the Democrats. 141.7 million people are represented by the 51 senators who caucus with the Republicans. What's you're point? 60-70+ million of those people are too young to vote for anybody. More than half of the rest didn't even vote. A small but not trivial percentage of them don't even have a legal right to be here so their opinions don't even matter. Those numbers are virtually meaningless.
Friday, March 9, 2018 7:50 AM
Friday, March 9, 2018 7:55 AM
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: wow. That series of flawed arguments is so unfounded as to be boggy. Good example of dreaming up evidence or rationalization after forming the conclusion.
Friday, March 9, 2018 2:30 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: Quote:Originally posted by second: 180.8 million people are represented by the 49 senators who caucus with the Democrats. 141.7 million people are represented by the 51 senators who caucus with the Republicans. What's you're point? 60-70+ million of those people are too young to vote for anybody. More than half of the rest didn't even vote. A small but not trivial percentage of them don't even have a legal right to be here so their opinions don't even matter. Those numbers are virtually meaningless. Do Right, Be Right. :)
Friday, March 9, 2018 2:35 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: wow. That series of flawed arguments is so unfounded as to be boggy. Good example of dreaming up evidence or rationalization after forming the conclusion.Wow yourself, JewelStaiteFan. You didn't read the paper, did you? But you couldn't stop yourself from giving an opinion, could you?
Friday, March 9, 2018 2:40 PM
Friday, March 9, 2018 2:41 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: I know what you're doing and I'm not playing along. You're bitching about the Electoral College again without saying that you are. I agree that the model is outdated, but I am strongly against scrapping it completely and going to a popular vote. What are our options here?
Saturday, March 10, 2018 8:04 AM
Saturday, March 10, 2018 8:16 AM
Quote:Originally posted by second: On Friday, Trump pardoned a former Navy sailor who served a year in prison for taking sensitive pictures of the reactor inside a nuclear submarine. During his presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly invoked the sailor, Kristian Saucier, saying Saucier did “nothing” compared to Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, so Clinton should also be in prison. www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-09/trump-pardons-sailor-who-invoked-clinton-defense-in-trial I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to view this as a warning shot at the Justice Dept.: “You won’t prosecute my political enemies? Fine, then I’ll whimsically undo the legitimate convictions you win.” Trump pardoned a guy convicted of mishandling classified info to also make a petulant statement about the “unfairness” of not charging Hillary Clinton. Every time you think Trump can’t do something more petty and juvenile, he does something more petty and juvenile. It was Fox News telling Trump to give the pardon. A lawyer hired to advocate for Saucier’s pardon said that Fox News played a key role in getting the case on Trump’s radar, again. www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-pardon-kristian-saucier_us_5aa2e103e4b07047bec662d1
Saturday, March 10, 2018 8:33 AM
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: Good call. That sailor didn't even broadcast the Treason on Live TV, in Prime Time, like Hilliary did.
Saturday, March 10, 2018 11:33 AM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: wow. That series of flawed arguments is so unfounded as to be boggy. Good example of dreaming up evidence or rationalization after forming the conclusion.Wow yourself, JewelStaiteFan. You didn't read the paper, did you? But you couldn't stop yourself from giving an opinion, could you? Exactly right again second. Jack is another one who does this, and not the only one either. To Jacks credit, he at least admits it.
Saturday, March 10, 2018 11:56 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: No shame at all in admitting that I don't read propaganda. Do Right, Be Right. :)
Saturday, March 10, 2018 12:05 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: No shame at all in admitting that I don't read propaganda. Do Right, Be Right. :)Although you say you are not a Republican, all Republicans in Texas say they don't read propaganda written by Democrats. If you did read, that would have been solid proof that you are definitely not a Republican. Then your assertions that you are an "Independent" would be more believable. Essentially, 6ixStringJack, you are wearing a tee shirt that says "Independent" on the front, while the back of the shirt, the part everyone but you can see, says "Republican". Maybe you should put your shirt on backwards? It won't look any stupider than you look now. The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
Saturday, March 10, 2018 2:19 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: I hardly read anything that JSF or Rappy or anybody else posts here either Second.
Saturday, March 10, 2018 2:28 PM
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: I hardly read anything that JSF or Rappy or anybody else posts here either Second. So then, why should anybody reply to you?
Saturday, March 10, 2018 6:46 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: No shame at all in admitting that I don't read propaganda. Do Right, Be Right. :)Although you say you are not a Republican, all Republicans in Texas say they don't read propaganda written by Democrats. If you did read, that would have been solid proof that you are definitely not a Republican. Then your assertions that you are an "Independent" would be more believable. Essentially, 6ixStringJack, you are wearing a tee shirt that says "Independent" on the front, while the back of the shirt, the part everyone but you can see, says "Republican". Maybe you should put your shirt on backwards? It won't look any stupider than you look now.
Sunday, March 11, 2018 8:03 AM
Sunday, March 11, 2018 8:09 AM
Sunday, March 11, 2018 3:47 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: I have discovered the secret childhood trauma that creates conservatives! It involves FEAR! At Yale, we conducted an experiment to turn conservatives into liberals. We were successful! By John Bargh, November 22, 2017 at 5:00 AM https://goo.gl/mmUr8W Keeping ourselves and our loved ones safe from harm is perhaps our strongest human motivation, deeply embedded in our very DNA. It is so deep and important that it influences much of what we think and do, maybe more than we might expect. For example, over a decade now of research in political psychology consistently shows that how physically threatened or fearful a person feels is a key factor — although clearly not the only one — in whether he or she holds conservative or liberal attitudes. Conservatives, it turns out, react more strongly to physical threat than liberals do. In fact, their greater concern with physical safety seems to be determined early in life: In one University of California study, the more fear a 4-year-old showed in a laboratory situation, the more conservative his or her political attitudes were found to be 20 years later. Brain imaging studies have even shown that the fear center of the brain, the amygdala, is actually larger in conservatives than in liberals. And many other laboratory studies have found that when adult liberals experienced physical threat, their political and social attitudes became more conservative (temporarily, of course). But no one had ever turned conservatives into liberals. Until we did. In a new study to appear in a forthcoming issue of the European Journal of Social Psychology, my colleagues Jaime Napier, Julie Huang and Andy Vonasch and I asked 300 U.S. residents in an online survey their opinions on several contemporary issues such as gay rights, abortion, feminism and immigration, as well as social change in general. The group was two-thirds female, about three-quarters white, with an average age of 35. Thirty-percent of the participants self-identified as Republican, and the rest as Democrat. In fact, anti-immigration attitudes are also linked directly to the underlying basic drive for physical safety. For centuries, arch-conservative leaders have often referred to scapegoated minority groups as “germs” or “bacteria” that seek to invade and destroy their country from within. “Immigrants are like viruses” is a powerful metaphor, because in comparing immigrants entering a country to germs entering a human body, it speaks directly to our powerful innate motivation to avoid contamination and disease. Until very recently in human history, not only did we not have antibiotics, we did not even know how infections occurred or diseases transmitted, and cuts and open wounds were quite dangerous. (In the American Civil War, for example, 60 out of every 1,000 soldiers died not by bullets or bayonets, but by infections.) Therefore, we reasoned, making people feel safer about a dangerous flu virus should serve to calm their fears about immigrants — and making them feel more threatened by the flu virus should cause them to be more against immigration than they were before. In a 2011 study, my colleagues and I showed just that. First, we reminded our nationwide sample of liberals and conservatives about the threat of the flu virus (during the H1N1 epidemic), and then measured their attitudes toward immigration. Afterward we simply asked them if they’d already gotten their flu shot or not. It turned out that those who had not gotten a flu shot (feeling threatened) expressed more negative attitudes toward immigration, while those who had received the vaccination (feeling safe) had more positive attitudes about immigration. John Bargh is a professor of social psychology at Yale University and the author of “Before You Know It: The Unconscious Reasons We Do What We Do”
Sunday, March 11, 2018 4:05 PM
Tuesday, March 13, 2018 4:54 AM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL