News May 31, 2014 at 9:33 am

Comments

1
Bowe Bergdahl, a U.S. Army sergeant who has been held by the Taliban in Afghanistan for five years, is being released. Great news for his family.
2
Seems like a good weekend for Slog to do nothing but discuss Bilderberg. Oops, just got a memo from Paul Constant, we're all encouraged to discuss Arsenio Hall the rest of the weekend.
3
I can't believe there are still 5 billion people who haven't seen it.
4
@3 "I can't believe there are still 5 billion people who haven't seen it."

I'm convinced that it's only a couple thousand people who have viewed it a million times each.
5
Seattle is one of the safest big cities in the US. I have no idea why our cops are so afraid. Perhaps many of them are in the wrong profession.
6

They are scared for their lives

It’s a scary thing to go alone

Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds
Are people born conservative?


Maybe police work isn't the best career choice for wingnuts. It's scaaaaaaary to have to respect people's rights.
7
Morality is for poor and stupid people. It keeps them in line and makes it easier to pick their pockets.
8
@3&4 I have actually not yet watched it, although I lived in Korea for 1.5 years.
9
Who is Arsenio Hall? Never watched, don't care.
10
@7: Huh? What news item are you referring to? Thanks.
11
@7: But then you couldn't call the rich and smart people picking the pockets of poor and stupid people as being immoral.
12
Silly Bilderberg article. There is nothing "chilling" or "secretive" about a private party of deal making capitalists and free-market loving politicians. In fact, it's quite healthy for the world.
14
We're causing a mass extinction event and the world is moving toward totalitarianism. Have a happy future. (It's now a crime to read in Thailand) I'm glad I'll be gone.
15
None, or hardly any, of that s***-shaming was going on among the sororities or dorms when I was in college. It's a newer phenomena.
16
@14: I think you stretched it a bit. Reading in public is now an act of resistance.
17
@6: That study seems to not have any link as to how they determined which students were conservatives and which were liberals. It would have be a questionnaire I suppose. You couldn't trust control groups of those who simply identified themselves as liberal or conservative, as what is liberal/conservative is inherently subjective and malleable.Nor does the study go into the size of one's amygdala as people's political and economic views change.

In short, junk science.
18
@17. Whatever. Every four years we have a "study" and get the same results.

2nd amendment rights, voter fraud, homeland security, welfare queens, Willie Horton etc. all driven by fear, not facts.

Conservatives want freedom for themselves but not for the rest if us, cause they're scared little people orchestrated by greedy puppeteers.

19
@17

If only it were just one study. I'm sure our cadre of rightwingnut cops would agree that sociology and criminology in general are "junk science", to use the Fox News term that means "science".

Living every day in irrational fear certainly explains why you would shoot a guy with a little knife 20 feet away. And promise you'd do it again.

I wish Seattle could articulate more clearly that we don't want you guys as cops. Take it somewhere else.
22
Slut, civil rights and privacy shaming, a hat trick of moral objectivism in action. Nothing like codified hypocrisy I say.

@17 google "scholar conservative brain vs liberal brain study" for studies with citings, there's quite a few. and that 'affordable', let alone any access to fMRI's is the primary reason for lack of depth of time, but the Scholar search looks like it's a shrinking concern... Considering the birth of the modern republican party is built off the voters that fled the democratic party because treating all people fairly was just too much, Rove's 51% strategy for Bush's terms, to Fox and private money rebranding those voters into the Tea Party... it's not a big leap that type of voters personal viewpoint would leave a footprint with brain pliability.
23
@21 That it took republicans to bring in the Supreme Court that codified corporations are people, you can take guns anywhere, money has more rights than voters, imposing the supermajority subjectively to pass laws in the senate, for a few.

Arguing that two parties, three branches of government, and the supporting bureaucracy twisted like kudzu, around then current issues, over the uses and abuses, and through the years, decades, centuries... well it reads as a bit simplistic, hyperbolic and the binary thinking of false equivalency. Just sayin.

Might I suggest mixing in other determiner words, such as 'some', 'few', 'many', 'most' in your posts? Like, "Party A sucks at this stuff, and Party B sucks more at that stuff", or "You can bribe/buy/lobby this party as a whole block, where with the other you can break up the set and just get the some for a majority on this kind of bill". Unless coming across as a bit unhinged is your thing, then that's cool too, Dood.
24
@18, 19, 22: In the first place, I don't understand the premise of trying to gather enough evidence of correlation to equate political thought with biology. At the most it is only interesting.
I'm sure that a study will come along that liberals have a greater affinity for impressionist paintings and conservatives have more of an affinity for abstract and super-realism. I'd feel sorry for the disclaimers that Jen Graves would have to write in her gallery reviews.

What if a future White House determined that all amygdalas of all fetuses should be aborted if outside the specifications for the current party in power in order to keep a majority in Congress?
Please be careful what you wish for.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.