Why are Wingnuts attracted to words that provoke a disgusted reaction ?

[gotsnowgotslush]

Subconscious and unconscious states of mind are revealed through likes and dislikes, and obsessions.

Is the race to the bottom, a contest among the Wingnuts, to prove who can be the most disgusting, and the most offensive ?

Why are the Wingnuts taking pride, in a race to the bottom ?

 

[PoppingTom]

"This man knows that he's wrong, that's why he's crying like a baby" (Hanussen)

 

[1sickbastard]

Subconscious and unconscious states of mind are revealed through likes and dislikes, and obsessions.

Is the race to the bottom, a contest among the Wingnuts, to prove who can be the most disgusting, and the most offensive ?

Why are the Wingnuts taking pride, in a race to the bottom ?

A hypothesis I've seen bandied about; Conservatives understand the power of appeal to emotion, particularly religiously motivated conservative Christians.
An appeal to emotions lends itself easily to rhetorical oratory (or in modern times, to people on TV talking loudly & passionately), requires little effort on the part of the intended audience and is very resistant to reason or facts. I've seen some psych studies which note that once an idea is attached with a strong emotional bias (like fear) in a mind, alternative ideas, even ones which a far better supported with objective evidence, are more easily disregarded.

I don't know if I completely buy into it, but the idea has the sheen of plausibility.

 

[RobDownSouth]

A hypothesis I've seen bandied about; Conservatives understand the power of appeal to emotion, particularly religiously motivated conservative Christians.
An appeal to emotions lends itself easily to rhetorical oratory (or in modern times, to people on TV talking loudly & passionately), requires little effort on the part of the intended audience and is very resistant to reason or facts. I've seen some psych studies which note that once an idea is attached with a strong emotional bias (like fear) in a mind, alternative ideas, even ones which a far better supported with objective evidence, are more easily disregarded.

I don't know if I completely buy into it, but the idea has the sheen of plausibility.

Oh I completely buy into that notion. They convinced themselves that their "beliefs" are an acceptable counterargument to "facts".

We see that here on a daily basis.

 

[cowslinger64]

I think it's also a perfect way for pussy asses like bizzydummy and jbj to hide behind their monitors and say the disgusting crap they'd never have the balls to say to anyone.

 

[1sickbastard]

Oh I completely buy into that notion. They convinced themselves that their "beliefs" are an acceptable counterargument to "facts".

We see that here on a daily basis.

That's your option.
Myself, I haven't done enough research into extant studies, either for or against the notion, to try and defend it.

Like I said, it seems plausible, and that's as far as I'll go with it

 

[1sickbastard]

I think it's also a perfect way for pussy asses like bizzydummy and jbj to hide behind their monitors and say the disgusting crap they'd never have the balls to say to anyone.

I kinda get the sense that JBJ is much the same way in real life as he is online.

BB, NEM, SS, et al are likely poorly constructed trolls. People who generally display the intellectual depth they portray on these boards are rarely the sort of people for whom written discourse, of any sort, holds any long term fascination.

I have a hypothesis they are actually employees of Right-Wing media outlets, floating test balloons to see what gets the most play. Still tryin' to figure a way to test that.

 

[CandiCame]

A hypothesis I've seen bandied about; Conservatives understand the power of appeal to emotion, particularly religiously motivated conservative Christians.
An appeal to emotions lends itself easily to rhetorical oratory (or in modern times, to people on TV talking loudly & passionately), requires little effort on the part of the intended audience and is very resistant to reason or facts. I've seen some psych studies which note that once an idea is attached with a strong emotional bias (like fear) in a mind, alternative ideas, even ones which a far better supported with objective evidence, are more easily disregarded.

I don't know if I completely buy into it, but the idea has the sheen of plausibility.

Yeah, that's been more or less proven by evolutionary psychologists. Those fears can even be inherited, even when there's no basis, because if you get them in there before the human imprint period is over (around the age of 3) or the primate imprint period for whatever period, they're in there.

Researchers took a group of chimps and taught them to fear bananas by offering bananas, then shocking the shit out them. They took the shocks away, then took the other food away, the the chimps still wouldn't go for the nanners, even in times of starvation. This went on for three generations, mimicking the feast/famine cycles, and by the third generation, the last chimp who had ever been shocked died. That meant that there were now no chimps alive who had any reason whatsoever to fear the bananas. For all they knew, the elderly were full of shit with their tales of shocky bananas. So finally, during one of the starvation cycles, one of the younger chimps went for it. It wasn't shocked. The other chimps jumped him and beat the living shit out of him until he died. Literally killed him.

We went over that experiment when I was in school years ago but I bet I can find it on google. Let me check.

But yeah, that's how that shit happens. Once a stimuli is stored in the amygdala rather than the hypocampus, it's no longer prey to logic. It's why learned helplessness exists. You have food, but you'd rather starve than get the food, because you think it might shock you. These weren't fatal shocked. You will starve to death, you won't die from the shock. Self-preservation instinct should kick in and tell you to fight past the pain to get the nanner. But because the banannas were now intrinsically linked to the wrong part of the brain, it couldn't override it with logic or even primal instincts.

Edit: This isn't the same one but it's similar enough that you can get the idea from reading and understand it. Unfortunately, you have to have a subscription to get to the abstract or the actual study, but it's explained pretty well in just the article. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201203/what-monkeys-can-teach-us-about-human-behavior-facts-fiction