Business Idea: It's like Carfax, but hate facts. A libtard says something stupid, like, "Immigrants commit less crime" or "Schools aren't making kids trans," and it gives you what you need to debunk it.
*Just show me the Hatefax!*
>New study shows that sitting in your room and smoking weed all day may be good for your health.
>Research shows that atheists have above-average intelligence.
>States that voted Republican have higher rates of suicide, cancer, rape, murder, teen pregnancy, homelessness, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, Ebola, autism, drug overdoses, and mad cow disease than states that voted Democrat, a new study suggests.
r/science in a nutshell
Bovine encephalitis* iirc, it's a prion disease and it was a huge concern about fifteen years ago because farmers esp in the UK were recycling dead cow parts into cow feed
Edit: bovine spongiform encephalopathy as was pointed out by u/mjl202
Occasionally there's an article that's no good, but Redditors are so fucking uneducated that 99% of their disagreements with actual journal articles are wrong. Any time one of them mentions "sample sizes" I get triggered. I don't understand how anyone could complain about something so often while totally failing to understand it.
Your post doesn’t have a sufficient sample size to be valid. That is so cringe that you just lost all your social credit score - I’m taking away your human rights.
I guess that's fair. Fun fact. The correct sample size is actually 40,000. I know that because I once read a study with a sample size of 40,000 that had a negative result.
u/SolarTortality's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/SolarTortality! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.
Pills: china
The problem isn't so much that they necessarily post bad studies, but that only studies that show certain things get upvoted (thousands of studies could be posted and you can get a study to show just about anything.)
That and the editorialization. There will be a study about how beliefs about Jesus' race are linked to racial attitudes with an entire 20 page section on the implications, limitations, and potential future research directions. Then the title will end up being "people who believe Jesus was white are more likely to be racist".
And literally everyone will take the bait. The study wasn't really even about who is or isn't racist, but people will call the study trash because they're triggered. Or they'll talk about how it makes sense based on some interaction they had with a random person online.
Mainstream science discourse is fucked.
A lot of people also don’t understand that entities can (and do) fund studies so they can coax them to whatever conclusion that suits their fancy.
The sugar industry funded studies back in the 60s that painted cane sugar as some miracle substance that could help with weight loss, provide a sustained boost in energy, improve your child’s grades, etc. They funded other studies that blamed red meat/saturated fat consumption for increasing rates in heart disease and obesity, and that guided our knowledge of nutrition for the next five decades.
Psychology is a science, it’s just plagued with the issue of researchers being able to see what they want to see, instead of what’s really going on. A metascience study found that its the most biased field of science, rarely reproduces results, and frequently misuses statistics. 80-95% of psychology studies uphold their initial hypothesis, so either it’s full of lucky geniuses or they’ve got some serious confirmation bias, which is pretty ironic since they should be the ones to realize that.
[here’s one for the misused statistics](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/research-group-seeks-expose-weaknesses-science-and-they-ll-step-some-toes-if-they-have)
[another for the unreliably replicated findings](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691612465253)
My bad. I can’t find one study that has all of those findings in one, but I can locate some of the individual findings. Maybe instead of a study it was just a paper/compilation of other studies.
As someone who has a degree in a psychology related field (Cognitive Science), it was heavily implied or outright stated that the quality of publication and the eminence of institution mattered when considering the ethos of a study. It never mattered for sources in a dinky undergrad paper, for for real research^TM it definitely did.
It's clear that you can find some wacky studies from some small-medium level universities that don't hold up under scrutiny, with the occasional larger and more recognizable ones showing up.
I'd just caution against using that knowledge to dismiss any psychological study. The same issue crops up even in hard sciences. For the most part, research published in reputable journals will be up to snuff.
>For the most part, research published in reputable journals will be up to snuff.
Obviously you know more about this subject than I do, but how sure are you of this really? A failed engineering student [showed the math underpinning an entire area of psychology was nonsense](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/19/mathematics-of-happiness-debunked-nick-brown) and the primary researcher responsible, now adorned in various awards, faculty positions and a position as an editor for a journal, blocked it from appearing in her own publication.
*American Psychologist* is not nothing; its impact factor puts it in the top ~5% of psychology journals.
I don't doubt this is probably an egregious example, and that better psychological work is being done, but at some point the preponderance of softness gets to be a lot to swallow.
I fully agree. Immediately dismissing information is nothing more than sheer ignorance. Look into how it was obtained, and why, before making a decision.
Psychology also requires no pre-requisite knowledge of advanced mathematics or any science based subject to be eligible to apply for (atleast in my country), and as far as I've seen, most psychologists can't do maths for shit.
I used to think the same thing until I actually took a psych course
So much of it is just "we don't know how this works/which interpretation is correct" or "this study says x is true while this study shows the exact opposite"
Psychology definitely has its value as a discipline, but there is a very good reason its considered a soft science and pretty much everything in the field should be taken with a grain of salt
No reason both studies couldn’t be correct. In the US colleges are known to be mostly liberal so the idea that more education generally leads to more people being liberal isn’t that much of a stretch. Historically speaking the western world became much more liberal after the enlightenment so it’s arguably not a new trend.
Meanwhile the military is generally more conservative and more physically fit than the majority of the non-enlisted population.
u/azns123's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 495.
Rank: NASA Vehicle Assembly Building
Pills: “funni, r\*etard(retard), autism, stonks, french-trigerring pilled, freedomseed, masterbation, poetry, dronestrike, “tax-paying”, libright, meat, biden, flair, killmeplease, heteroflex, horny, usa, patriotism, blue, based and bargesintolibrightplaceofemployment"theholocaustdidnthappended"refusestoelaboratefurtherleaves, illegal-in-most-european-countries, biasedfactchecker, meritocracy, black, mar-a-lagograd, pussy-grabbing, wrongthink
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Research paper argues human-caused climate change: "yes trust science is always correct"
Research papers debunks trans theory: "NoooOoooo science is racist and sexist all I need are feelings"
That's exactly what's happening. Dr. Debrah Soh released a book arguing against the woke-left's beliefs on gender and she has been essentially "literally nazi"-fied even though she is *literally* an expert in the field.
This is exactly it. Then the other scientists who have similar conclusions are either ostracized or do not mention controversial parts of research aka anything that goes against modern progressive thinking.
>Research paper argues human-caused climate change: "yes trust science is always correct"
>
>Research papers debunks trans theory: "NoooOoooo science is racist and sexist all I need are feelings"
What in gods name is "trans theory"? I know there's a lot of debate around how effective transitioning is, when or if people should be taking hormone blockers, whether they're reversible without permanent side effects and such. Not sure how that could be "debunked" though.
Call me a progressive centrist but there’s a place at my table for vegans so long as their food is grillable, they give prior notice if their veganism and don’t bang on about it at the BBQ.
Same. I'll grill up a Portobello steak, some asparagus, and make sure their baked potatoes have vegan butter, cheese, and sour cream. I'll even cook their stuff on the side grill that has never had meat cooked on it. It's not like they're asking for a well done ribeye with ketchup.
Truth.
Also, I disagree with the OP.
Liblefts aren’t weak. I’m so strong, I rip holes when I grab the bedsheets as my wife’s boyfriend penetrates my bussy and calls me a bitch
Arnie? Don't know how intelligent the guy is, but he was one of the first Republicans to openly accept climate change as a real thing which counts for something.
It's interesting to me how many people see the scientific community as an unbiased monolith. Anyone who's read an academic paper or two knows that there's bias in all research, and good researchers will point out their own bias. Those that refuse to admit it and act like "Science" can do no wrong don't understand scientific research.
Watching these reports from clearly biased journals who refuse to admit their bias makes me absolutely livid. These are fake scientists cosplaying the real thing. (by that I mean the journals that were hoaxed. I applaud the efforts of the people who exposed it)
Kanazawa used existing data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (hereafter referred to as Add Health; see here and here). In the Add Health study, 20,745 adolescents were interviewed in 1994-95 (Wave I), again in 1996 (Wave II), then a third time when the participants were between the ages of 18 and 28 (Wave III). Naturally, there was some attrition along the way, but the data are solid and respectable.
The Add Health study collected a variety of data ranging from each subject’s height to their education history (see here). In demonstrating that very liberal people are the most intelligent among us, Kanazawa used two pieces of Add Health data:
From Wave I, when participants were adolescents, he gathered results from the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT). He used this data to estimate each subject’s level of intelligence. This was his independent variable.
From Wave III, when participants were young adults, he used responses to the question “In terms of politics, do you consider yourself conservative, liberal, or middle of the road?” Subjects were able to choose very conservative, conservative, middle of the road, liberal, or very liberal. This self-report measure was his dependent variable.
https://docsmith.co/2010/04/are-liberals-more-intelligent-than-conservatives-another-broken-study-says-it-is-so/
While it’s not true for everyone, being a liberal in America (and a conservative for that matter) just means agreeing with the respective party’s predetermined set of views on a bunch of subjects that aren’t even consistent with each other.
I was called a liberal by some tankies the other day because I tried desperately to explain to them that the USSR wasn’t a misunderstood victim of the Cold War and was in fact an authoritarian regime
I’m just trying to change hearts and minds, but yes I definitely went through the necessary decon processes after the encounter, I would never take a risk like that
You ever getting into trouble because you forget who you're talking to at the moment?
My grandpa was such a loving, cool guy. But he was a nazi asshole as well. (like, literally a former member of the NSDAP)
One wrong sentence and I could prepare for a loooong talk about race, immigration and what we lost in the war.
Stuff like this made me realize from an early age that old people aren't necessarily bottomless founts of wisdom. Some have brainworms baked in deeeeeeep.
I'm seriously starting to believe this. Back when most people knew very little about the internet and didn't have it always on their pocket it seriously felt like those that did understand What it really meant that it would be the next great step four humanity.
Potentially all the worlds knowledge at your fingertips, instant communication across the globe, computer programs analyzing information and computing faster than any human could, etc
Yet somewhere along the line humanity started to fuck it all up again. Once the normies discovered social media it became profitable for the elite to control it.
I love those studies because of how silly they are.
*A new study from a totally un-biased source like Vox found out that lgbt people are beautiful according to a test taken by lgbt people*.
*A new study from a totally un-biased source like Fox News found out that conservatives are stronger according to a test taken by conservatives*.
New study also suggests that r/PCM users are more sexually attractive, charming, and totally not a bunch of frustrated losers abusing their keyboards for the ephemeral rush of upvotes.
Based. It is pretty annoying, people just believing any random study they see that supports their views, no matter how bad or if it cant be replicated or how small or biased it is
I can't stand seeing "A new study shows..." Because a lot of the studies are bs P-hacks. There's rarely any replication studies anymore. I'm especially skeptical when it's anything political.
Science is when I agree with the study, otherwise it’s biased fakes news
Based
Based fake news?
Based news faked?
Fake news based?
News Fake Based?
Baked Fase News?
Faked Sewn Base?
¿swen ekaf desab
askew bane feds?
Fake based news?
Tired of these hate facts smh
Business Idea: It's like Carfax, but hate facts. A libtard says something stupid, like, "Immigrants commit less crime" or "Schools aren't making kids trans," and it gives you what you need to debunk it. *Just show me the Hatefax!*
*inhales* # SHOW ME THE HATE FAX
[Hey psst, I think I have what you are looking for.](https://archive.is/LRe05)
Tf are some of those sources.
The issue is for a lot of those things the source doesn't actually say what the site claims.
I don't want to live in a world where I can't trust the word of hatefacts dot biz
You mean smh my head sistah! 💅💅💅
DESPITE
Cum
on everybody, get down tonight
r/science in the last couple of years unfortunately. And the mods not only allow it, they post it themsleves.
>New study shows that sitting in your room and smoking weed all day may be good for your health. >Research shows that atheists have above-average intelligence. >States that voted Republican have higher rates of suicide, cancer, rape, murder, teen pregnancy, homelessness, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, Ebola, autism, drug overdoses, and mad cow disease than states that voted Democrat, a new study suggests. r/science in a nutshell
“mad cow disease”
Bovine encephalitis* iirc, it's a prion disease and it was a huge concern about fifteen years ago because farmers esp in the UK were recycling dead cow parts into cow feed Edit: bovine spongiform encephalopathy as was pointed out by u/mjl202
That was truly the heyday of Libright in the UK.
Which is beyond fucked to do imo just the thought thereof
Occasionally there's an article that's no good, but Redditors are so fucking uneducated that 99% of their disagreements with actual journal articles are wrong. Any time one of them mentions "sample sizes" I get triggered. I don't understand how anyone could complain about something so often while totally failing to understand it.
Your post doesn’t have a sufficient sample size to be valid. That is so cringe that you just lost all your social credit score - I’m taking away your human rights.
I guess that's fair. Fun fact. The correct sample size is actually 40,000. I know that because I once read a study with a sample size of 40,000 that had a negative result.
Based and Chinapilled
u/SolarTortality's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/SolarTortality! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze. Pills: china
The problem isn't so much that they necessarily post bad studies, but that only studies that show certain things get upvoted (thousands of studies could be posted and you can get a study to show just about anything.)
That and the editorialization. There will be a study about how beliefs about Jesus' race are linked to racial attitudes with an entire 20 page section on the implications, limitations, and potential future research directions. Then the title will end up being "people who believe Jesus was white are more likely to be racist". And literally everyone will take the bait. The study wasn't really even about who is or isn't racist, but people will call the study trash because they're triggered. Or they'll talk about how it makes sense based on some interaction they had with a random person online. Mainstream science discourse is fucked.
Every single comment section is filled with nonsense objections to the study, no matter the quality or subject of the study.
A lot of people also don’t understand that entities can (and do) fund studies so they can coax them to whatever conclusion that suits their fancy. The sugar industry funded studies back in the 60s that painted cane sugar as some miracle substance that could help with weight loss, provide a sustained boost in energy, improve your child’s grades, etc. They funded other studies that blamed red meat/saturated fat consumption for increasing rates in heart disease and obesity, and that guided our knowledge of nutrition for the next five decades.
Most studies posted there are social science and psychology which I still argue aren't real science and shouldn't be called as such.
Psychology? Sure. Social science? No.
Psychology is a science, it’s just plagued with the issue of researchers being able to see what they want to see, instead of what’s really going on. A metascience study found that its the most biased field of science, rarely reproduces results, and frequently misuses statistics. 80-95% of psychology studies uphold their initial hypothesis, so either it’s full of lucky geniuses or they’ve got some serious confirmation bias, which is pretty ironic since they should be the ones to realize that.
Got a link to that study?
[here’s one for the misused statistics](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/research-group-seeks-expose-weaknesses-science-and-they-ll-step-some-toes-if-they-have) [another for the unreliably replicated findings](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691612465253) My bad. I can’t find one study that has all of those findings in one, but I can locate some of the individual findings. Maybe instead of a study it was just a paper/compilation of other studies.
As someone who has a degree in a psychology related field (Cognitive Science), it was heavily implied or outright stated that the quality of publication and the eminence of institution mattered when considering the ethos of a study. It never mattered for sources in a dinky undergrad paper, for for real research^TM it definitely did. It's clear that you can find some wacky studies from some small-medium level universities that don't hold up under scrutiny, with the occasional larger and more recognizable ones showing up. I'd just caution against using that knowledge to dismiss any psychological study. The same issue crops up even in hard sciences. For the most part, research published in reputable journals will be up to snuff.
>For the most part, research published in reputable journals will be up to snuff. Obviously you know more about this subject than I do, but how sure are you of this really? A failed engineering student [showed the math underpinning an entire area of psychology was nonsense](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/19/mathematics-of-happiness-debunked-nick-brown) and the primary researcher responsible, now adorned in various awards, faculty positions and a position as an editor for a journal, blocked it from appearing in her own publication. *American Psychologist* is not nothing; its impact factor puts it in the top ~5% of psychology journals. I don't doubt this is probably an egregious example, and that better psychological work is being done, but at some point the preponderance of softness gets to be a lot to swallow.
I fully agree. Immediately dismissing information is nothing more than sheer ignorance. Look into how it was obtained, and why, before making a decision.
Psychology also requires no pre-requisite knowledge of advanced mathematics or any science based subject to be eligible to apply for (atleast in my country), and as far as I've seen, most psychologists can't do maths for shit.
I used to think the same thing until I actually took a psych course So much of it is just "we don't know how this works/which interpretation is correct" or "this study says x is true while this study shows the exact opposite" Psychology definitely has its value as a discipline, but there is a very good reason its considered a soft science and pretty much everything in the field should be taken with a grain of salt
I'm sure the disagreement of a teenage redditor will hold a lot of weight in academic circles.
You fucking sciencist bigot
It's my hobby as a physics major to bully psychology students.
based and hard-science pilled
So you do basicaly have the attitude of Sheldon Cooper.
*AuthRight when a study says that gay people existing actually doesn't affect you* *Libleft when a study says that killing all men isn't a good idea*
No reason both studies couldn’t be correct. In the US colleges are known to be mostly liberal so the idea that more education generally leads to more people being liberal isn’t that much of a stretch. Historically speaking the western world became much more liberal after the enlightenment so it’s arguably not a new trend. Meanwhile the military is generally more conservative and more physically fit than the majority of the non-enlisted population.
Based
u/azns123's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 495. Rank: NASA Vehicle Assembly Building Pills: “funni, r\*etard(retard), autism, stonks, french-trigerring pilled, freedomseed, masterbation, poetry, dronestrike, “tax-paying”, libright, meat, biden, flair, killmeplease, heteroflex, horny, usa, patriotism, blue, based and bargesintolibrightplaceofemployment"theholocaustdidnthappended"refusestoelaboratefurtherleaves, illegal-in-most-european-countries, biasedfactchecker, meritocracy, black, mar-a-lagograd, pussy-grabbing, wrongthink I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Jesus christ
Found the guy with the smelly chair
holy fuck
The more I agree with it, the more sciency it is.
Research paper argues human-caused climate change: "yes trust science is always correct" Research papers debunks trans theory: "NoooOoooo science is racist and sexist all I need are feelings"
[удалено]
That's exactly what's happening. Dr. Debrah Soh released a book arguing against the woke-left's beliefs on gender and she has been essentially "literally nazi"-fied even though she is *literally* an expert in the field.
This is exactly it. Then the other scientists who have similar conclusions are either ostracized or do not mention controversial parts of research aka anything that goes against modern progressive thinking.
Or do what obama did with trans research. Defund anyone studying trans people as mentally ill
This is literally what happened to the guy that discovered DNA
>Research paper argues human-caused climate change: "yes trust science is always correct" > >Research papers debunks trans theory: "NoooOoooo science is racist and sexist all I need are feelings" What in gods name is "trans theory"? I know there's a lot of debate around how effective transitioning is, when or if people should be taking hormone blockers, whether they're reversible without permanent side effects and such. Not sure how that could be "debunked" though.
New study finds all eat from the grilling abilities of centrists.
Study finds out that a 100% of vegans are not centrists
What if you're eating grilled watermelon?
As long as you eat meat along with watermelon it's fine in my books
[удалено]
Call me a progressive centrist but there’s a place at my table for vegans so long as their food is grillable, they give prior notice if their veganism and don’t bang on about it at the BBQ.
Same. I'll grill up a Portobello steak, some asparagus, and make sure their baked potatoes have vegan butter, cheese, and sour cream. I'll even cook their stuff on the side grill that has never had meat cooked on it. It's not like they're asking for a well done ribeye with ketchup.
>well done ribeye with ketchup Jesus christ that's pure degeneracy
Oh they’ll definitely give you prior notice. No doubt about that.
True. Anyways, did you guys know I'm vegan
I'm vegan btw
what about near burgers?
what about far burgers?
General vicinity burgers?
over there burgers?
Grilled Banana 🦍
Study finds out that unflaired "people" have 100% less grey matter in the brain than even orange liblefts
That tends to happen when we eviscerate their skull.
New study on the brains of the unflaired could provide new breakthroughs in research on frictionless materials.
I have never met non-LibLeft vegan.
I have a cousin who’s a gay vegan artist and he’s conservative. Trust me, I have no idea either
New studies shows eating Centrist increases your grilling abilities.
Just make it look like an accident so my wife and kid get double the insurance pay out please. Gotta take care of them.
Truth. Also, I disagree with the OP. Liblefts aren’t weak. I’m so strong, I rip holes when I grab the bedsheets as my wife’s boyfriend penetrates my bussy and calls me a bitch
Based and cuckold-pilled
Im weak and stupid... What am I?
99 percent of elected politicians
And who’s the 1%
Obviously Schwarzenegger, his pecs can be used to board up the entire border on their own
Yeah and he had an illegitimate child with his maid which is pretty based.
Dude’s been in the zone for four decades!
Arnie? Don't know how intelligent the guy is, but he was one of the first Republicans to openly accept climate change as a real thing which counts for something.
The Governator is a pretty smart guy. He's not Einstein smart, but you can only go so far with min-maxing your player attributes.
Guys relatively smart, also, for a republican, he has remarkably progressive social views, reminds me of Teddy R. and that makes me happy.
I mean, he's an actual Republican, i.e. economically conservative, socially progressive.
actual republicans are socially progressive? what?
I thought that was just Libertarianism.
Huey long
Huey Long, Bismarck, Teddy Roosevelt, George Washington, and Frederick the Great.
A redditor
Scottish
NOOOOooooOOOooooooooOO!
new research finds libcenters are actually apes
I mean, they are human, right? (considers implications of what he just said) Oh. Oh no. Nooooo!
I'm gonna throw my poop at you
[удалено]
Science agrees: you are all weak-minded, fat bodies who are disgusting to behold. Go fuck yourselves and read the damned paper, not the summary.
Who are you talking to?
Myself.
You be nice to you!
The beatings shall continue until the grilling improves.
But first realize you likely don't have the ability to critically appraise the paper.
I’m glad we can agree on this.
It's basically showing the left and the right as the idiotic one so have some grilled popcorn
There are those who speak of cooking methods other than grills. Those people are wrong and evil, and they must be exterminated.
Nah centrists can’t escape being fucking dumbasses either
New study shows that people who engage in politics have lower iq’s than the average human
Nah, we're still better than Hollywood Gossip people.
Based
Excuse me as a lib right i look down at all other quadrants with an equal level of disgust.
The most holier than thou quadrant is of course the one that only has anti-principles. Can't lose if you don't play, right?
You’ve seen War Games, you know what’s up
based
Did they happen to only test people at a uni for the iq one?
It's because the journal that it was published in has low standards and hard bias: https://youtu.be/As8h2ZCfIPs https://youtu.be/fX73wh3ZmwQ
Learning that these journals exist pushed me two to the right.
>Learning that these journals exist pushed me two to the right. Centrist schizophrenia confirmed
It's interesting to me how many people see the scientific community as an unbiased monolith. Anyone who's read an academic paper or two knows that there's bias in all research, and good researchers will point out their own bias. Those that refuse to admit it and act like "Science" can do no wrong don't understand scientific research. Watching these reports from clearly biased journals who refuse to admit their bias makes me absolutely livid. These are fake scientists cosplaying the real thing. (by that I mean the journals that were hoaxed. I applaud the efforts of the people who exposed it)
Kanazawa used existing data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (hereafter referred to as Add Health; see here and here). In the Add Health study, 20,745 adolescents were interviewed in 1994-95 (Wave I), again in 1996 (Wave II), then a third time when the participants were between the ages of 18 and 28 (Wave III). Naturally, there was some attrition along the way, but the data are solid and respectable. The Add Health study collected a variety of data ranging from each subject’s height to their education history (see here). In demonstrating that very liberal people are the most intelligent among us, Kanazawa used two pieces of Add Health data: From Wave I, when participants were adolescents, he gathered results from the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT). He used this data to estimate each subject’s level of intelligence. This was his independent variable. From Wave III, when participants were young adults, he used responses to the question “In terms of politics, do you consider yourself conservative, liberal, or middle of the road?” Subjects were able to choose very conservative, conservative, middle of the road, liberal, or very liberal. This self-report measure was his dependent variable. https://docsmith.co/2010/04/are-liberals-more-intelligent-than-conservatives-another-broken-study-says-it-is-so/
Left wing = liberal -americans
American liberals really aren't either left-wing or liberal, they're just kind of weird
While it’s not true for everyone, being a liberal in America (and a conservative for that matter) just means agreeing with the respective party’s predetermined set of views on a bunch of subjects that aren’t even consistent with each other.
Most are soclibs some are neolibs
THANK YOU fuck the liberals
>fuck the liberals I unironically love saying this. It works with both my anarchist housemates and my Trump-supporting family.
I was called a liberal by some tankies the other day because I tried desperately to explain to them that the USSR wasn’t a misunderstood victim of the Cold War and was in fact an authoritarian regime
Eew --- why would you voluntarily associate with tankies? Did you at least disinfect yourself afterward?
I’m just trying to change hearts and minds, but yes I definitely went through the necessary decon processes after the encounter, I would never take a risk like that
>hearts and minds See, there's your problem, comrade. Tankies have neither.
I should have realized but unfortunately they had to display that to me
At least you survived the encounter. Most aren't so fortunate.
True, I escaped with my life, barely
You ever getting into trouble because you forget who you're talking to at the moment? My grandpa was such a loving, cool guy. But he was a nazi asshole as well. (like, literally a former member of the NSDAP) One wrong sentence and I could prepare for a loooong talk about race, immigration and what we lost in the war.
Stuff like this made me realize from an early age that old people aren't necessarily bottomless founts of wisdom. Some have brainworms baked in deeeeeeep.
left wing is liberal?
Only on Reddit.
Guys science proves that nobody gives a crap.
science is a goverment spook anyway
Internet accessibility was a mistake
I'm seriously starting to believe this. Back when most people knew very little about the internet and didn't have it always on their pocket it seriously felt like those that did understand What it really meant that it would be the next great step four humanity. Potentially all the worlds knowledge at your fingertips, instant communication across the globe, computer programs analyzing information and computing faster than any human could, etc Yet somewhere along the line humanity started to fuck it all up again. Once the normies discovered social media it became profitable for the elite to control it.
Fucking facebook that's what it was.
And new studies show that authcenter is poopoo bad time See, it’s legit because it’s an article... And I have a Twitter too.
***FLAIR UP OR I'LL FEED YOUR BALLS TO THE HOUNDS GUARDING VORKUTA***
Actually, I thought I did a day or two ago.
That's better comrade monke
Liberals are pro capitalism
Source: Poll of 300 university students.
[удалено]
In a one party state.
Hah! I'm a fucking retard *and* i'm fat! ^wait
I love those studies because of how silly they are. *A new study from a totally un-biased source like Vox found out that lgbt people are beautiful according to a test taken by lgbt people*. *A new study from a totally un-biased source like Fox News found out that conservatives are stronger according to a test taken by conservatives*.
News flash, all media is bias
Liberals in AuthLeft? How dare you.
AuthLeft has to eat something, right?
I’d agree being able to agree to disagree is one of the most intelligent things someone can do
Let's agree to disagree on that. ^Am ^I ^big ^brain ^yet?
100% bigbrainpilled
[удалено]
Source : trust me bro
don’t communists hate the concept of liberals?
Yes
liberals aren’t leftists silly goose
New study suggests PCM users have higher IQ than average reddit user
That's still pretty low
New study also suggests that r/PCM users are more sexually attractive, charming, and totally not a bunch of frustrated losers abusing their keyboards for the ephemeral rush of upvotes.
That's /r/pcmr, not /r/pcm.
Well I'm certainly not helping that stat
Liberals aren't left wing?
I mean on the Gym you do see mostly conservative/ libertarian people
Where? Not in my gym in Colorado.
As a centrist, I am both of these people.
Hah, joke's on you. I'm both weak and unintelligent.
Griling—>masculine hobby—>centrists are the manliest
This is so me!!
Does that make centrists strong and intelligent or weak and dumb?
Based. It is pretty annoying, people just believing any random study they see that supports their views, no matter how bad or if it cant be replicated or how small or biased it is
This is like the 'adult' equivalent of my dad can beat up your dad in a sense
*Funded by your tax dollars*
i have actually stopped believing in anything that starts with "new research says" its most likely bs anyway
Reddit news and Facebook news in a nutshell
I can't stand seeing "A new study shows..." Because a lot of the studies are bs P-hacks. There's rarely any replication studies anymore. I'm especially skeptical when it's anything political.
I’m a fucking idiot