I can’t imagine why a side that is actively working to overthrow society in the pursuit of fascism through deceptive means gets more scrutiny than the one that is mostly trying to keep the status quo or maybe make some small incremental improvements.
Total mystery.
This is basically a “both sides” argument cloaked in psychology.
There is no need to research the political affiliation of the author because there is zero chance they aren’t a right wing tool.
The lefts ability to recognize their nonsense isn’t a bias so much as a toolset used in maintaining one’s sanity.
Reality has a liberal bias!
Sanity has a liberal bias.
I don’t know man. I’m pretty left, but I feel like I’m going insane with the shit over the last decade or so.
Of course it was done by someone at BYU and looks like the goal was to point out that people respond stronger to shitty fascists. Like the example was ‘love the guy who tried to overthrow the election’ got a stronger response from people who don’t want their government overthrown.
I pretty much ignore anything from BYU, but especially where psychology is involved. They shouldn’t even be accredited given how invested they were in conversion therapy.
Bias != Wrong
Yeeeah. At first I thought they meant “bias” as ignoring facts, but what they tested was for “indirect aggression” against people with opposing views.
If being indirectly aggressive against pedophiles is “biased,” then yeah. I can believe liberals are more biased.
It sucks to study psychology and see this shit surface with even a vague degree of credibility. I’m elated we have fair and balanced empirical articles now.
what is this comm about?
