Religion and delusion determine fake news belief

[Daemon Sophic]

Aside from the simple fact that Hillary was a horrible candidate, who has accomplished little, of any merit, in all her years in the political arena. ...and that she managed to blow what should have been a cakewalk because people were duped by fake nudes? The echo chamber is getting very tinny sounding.

What disturbs me, and I have seen this worded in different ways over the last eon, but the whole idea is predicated on the idea that intelligent voters chose Hillary and that if you did not choose Saint Hillary - there MUST be something wrong with you. This is almost the definition of "echo chamber analysis".

Personally, I think a far more interesting study would be to canvas the 42% of eligible voters on why they chose to sit this election out? Obviously, that mass of Americans was not moved enough to do their civic duty and the reasons for that might be quite compelling.

Just to push back a little against the idea of deluded masses falling for a malignant message I'll cite my own local media coverage during the last few months of the election. Here in Western Canada, the media was always hushed, hopeful, expectant and unbridled in their support of Saint Hillary. I don't think I ever heard a negative word about her even when covering her latest email obfuscations. Meanwhile, Trump was covered completely differently and was always with a belligerent edge to the reporting, if not outright contempt. These stories usually ended with the hosts saying how thankful they were that Trump had no chance of getting elected.

Sorry @YmirGF , but you’re simply wrong.
Probably you just don’t have an honest news source. But I’ll try again to help.
The press played right into Trump’s tiny hands. That is undeniable.
https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/
https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud

Also, the press (along with twitter and facebook - which I was startled to find, act as the primary “news” sources for a large minority, or even majority of US citizens ) was manipulated by Russian bots/programmers/propaganda. That’s also a given.
https://www.wired.com/story/did-russia-affect-the-2016-election-its-now-undeniable/


So. To your points.
Hillary was a capable politician, and as capable as many previously elected US presidents. Perhaps not our very best, but an overall hard-working, and yes “honest” politician (as far as that oxymoron goes). Opinions cleary vary, but keep in mind your internal bias.
Next.....It is already clear that the press (in the US - where it mattered to the American voters) was favoring the conman Trump, backed by false/misleading stories thrown into the fray by external actors. Your Canadian press may have had the presence of mind, like many sources outside the US borders, to have seen through the lies from the GOP, Russia, the US press, and the conman who won your heart & mind. And therefore, they honestly (and correctly) belittled the impending disaster that would be a Trump presidency.
Like global warming, and evolution; these research studies/analyses of the press give us a view of the facts.....the truth.....reality. Now; there are those who went into the voting booths armed with reality, and not 100% but in great majority, voted for Hillary. And there were those who went in, thinking that their fake news channels/sites/feeds were telling the the whole truth, who in larger percentages voted for Trump, right along with the vast majority of those who truly believed that 1. Obama is a Muslim, 2. Iraq had WMD in 2002, and 3. Global Warming as well as evolution are conspiracies mounted by a cabal of evil “scientists” around the globe (which may or may not be flat ). Never forget that this is the base that the “reasonable and more well informed, conservatives” proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with as they vote.

As to why only roughly 60% turned out to vote. I would point out that over the last century of tracking voter turn-out, 2016 with 58% is actually a rather good turnout.
I would personally bet that many Dems didn’t turn out because they foolishly thought that a sane vote (no, not a “saintly” vote) was in the bag. Again this was mostly due to poor investigative journalism (i.e. - underfunded journalism) which might have seen how many people were being led around by fake news. Unfortunately, most press sources (especially the good ones) tend to be loathe to call out bad reporting (go figure) .

 

[shunyadragon]

Given this seems to be more of a political post than that of an actually religious debate I have to question the other side of the coin. Is someone more likely to be misled by propaganda because of religious beliefs or just dogmatic beliefs in general pertaining to political affiliation? Given that what we consider to be the

"right" is more traditionally religious they base their views on religious stances. Would someone of the "left" side be lead by different wording in propaganda based upon their devotion to their current belief systems and their moralities? Therefore is it more of what they actually believe or their likelihood to follow what others have already predefined and they do not question themselves?

This is to a limited extent true, it is obvious everyone has a degree of bias and may slant their view on news is true as the sky is Carolina blue on a clear day, but several issues come into play here:

(1) The extreme right represents a large percentage of the population of the USA, and it is relatively united on certain religious and political issues. It is between 30 and 50% depending on how you describe the extreme right. One measure I use is those that reject evolution and global warming, and it hits between 40 and 50 %. The represent a no negotiate position on social issues, based on a religious agenda.

(2) The extreme Left is small, highly divided, and at best represents 5 to 8% of the population, and are usually well educated. They accept the science, but take extreme no compromise positions on global warming and social issues. The 'fake news' that is the problem here is their selective use of news and information to justify an extreme social agenda. Absolutely no compromise is up front with their agenda. The extreme left does negotiate and vote with the Middle to a certain extent, because they are divided minority. The extreme left is predominantly not religious, and many are atheist and agnostic. Though some extreme left movements in Latin America in extreme liberation theology of the Roman Church.

(3) The Middle ground represents the predominantly better educated on the average than the right, and have moderate views on social issues. They predominantly have moderate religious views. The middle is prone to negotiate between extremes, and engage in problem solving, and critical thinking. Politically this ranges from John McCain in the Republican Party to Obama in the Democratic Party. I grew up in a moderate McCain like Republican family, and I am presently an independent, because there is no place for moderates in the Republican party

 

[Ponder This]

Zippo on constructive response. If you do not know the 'fake news,' and ah . . . the 'fake science,' floating in the tRump swamp you have been living in Plato's cave.

"Fake news is a type of yellow journalism or propaganda that consists of deliberate misinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional print and broadcast news media or online social media.[1][2] This false information is mainly distributed by social media, but is periodically circulated through mainstream media.[3] Fake news is written and published with the intent to mislead in order to damage an agency, entity, or person, and/or gain financially or politically,[4][5][6] often using sensationalist, dishonest, or outright fabricated headlines to increase readership, online sharing, and Internet click revenue. In the latter case, it is similar to sensational online "clickbait" headlines and relies on advertising revenue generated from this activity, regardless of the veracity of the published stories.[4]Intentionally misleading and deceptive fake news is different from obvious satire or parody, which is intended to amuse rather than mislead its audience."
- quoted from Wikipedia

As for 'fake science'... not peer reviewed yet... does that make it 'almost science'? I don't think we can call it 'fake science'.

I'm just skeptical that they really figured out what was mystifying them. They didn't understand Evangelical Christian support for the president. They were mystified by it and they think it's fully explained by an association of dogmatic and religious belief with delusion. Maybe the researchers were completely baffled by the religious idea of 'Let he who is without sin throw the first stone." So they think Evangelical Christians must be under some sort of delusion... but then, what is this delusion? Are the researchers saying that Evangelical Christians don't believe that Trump had extra-marital affairs and engaged in lewd conduct? I believe the word I'm looking for is 'bull-pucky'.

Now let's say I missed the point. Perhaps, the researchers are referring to some other 'fake news'. Then I think that it makes sense to ask what 'fake news' the researchers are talking about and not presume they are referring to whatever I personally happen to think is 'fake news'.

I mean, they could be right! They really could be! There could be an 'alternative explanation' for their conclusions! Maybe they really meant to talk about climate change and not extramarital affairs.... but then why would the Evangelical Christian community see climate change as fake news?​

 

[shunyadragon]

"Fake news is a type of yellow journalism or propaganda that consists of deliberate misinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional print and broadcast news media or online social media.[1][2] This false information is mainly distributed by social media, but is periodically circulated through mainstream media.[3] Fake news is written and published with the intent to mislead in order to damage an agency, entity, or person, and/or gain financially or politically,[4][5][6] often using sensationalist, dishonest, or outright fabricated headlines to increase readership, online sharing, and Internet click revenue. In the latter case, it is similar to sensational online "clickbait" headlines and relies on advertising revenue generated from this activity, regardless of the veracity of the published stories.[4]Intentionally misleading and deceptive fake news is different from obvious satire or parody, which is intended to amuse rather than mislead its audience."
- quoted from Wikipedia

As for 'fake science'... not peer reviewed yet... does that make it 'almost science'? I don't think we can call it 'fake science'.

I'm just skeptical that they really figured out what was mystifying them. They didn't understand Evangelical Christian support for the president. They were mystified by it and they think it's fully explained by an association of dogmatic and religious belief with delusion. Maybe the researchers were completely baffled by the religious idea of 'Let he who is without sin throw the first stone." So they think Evangelical Christians must be under some sort of delusion... but then, what is this delusion? Are the researchers saying that Evangelical Christians don't believe that Trump had extra-marital affairs and engaged in lewd conduct? I believe the word I'm looking for is 'bull-pucky'.

Now let's say I missed the point. Perhaps, the researchers are referring to some other 'fake news'. Then I think that it makes sense to ask what 'fake news' the researchers are talking about and not presume they are referring to whatever I personally happen to think is 'fake news'.

I mean, they could be right! They really could be! There could be an 'alternative explanation' for their conclusions! Maybe they really meant to talk about climate change and not extramarital affairs.... but then why would the Evangelical Christian community see climate change as fake news?​

As far as the main sources for fake news that tRump follows. They are: (1) Breitbart News Network (2) National Enquirer. (3) FOX News.

In this order of priority.

As for 'fake science'... not peer reviewed yet... does that make it 'almost science'? I don't think we can call it 'fake science'.

The fact that the research is not 'peer reviewed' yet is just an honest representation of the limits, and nothing to do with the topic of what is 'fake science."

Example of the merge of 'fake' news' with 'fake science' involves mostly global warming, but may involve evolution science. Breitbart News Network is a major outlet on 'fake news' dealing with the 'fake science.'

 

[YmirGF]

Sorry @YmirGF , but you’re simply wrong.
Probably you just don’t have an honest news source. But I’ll try again to help.
The press played right into Trump’s tiny hands. That is undeniable.
https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/
https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud

Also, the press (along with twitter and facebook - which I was startled to find, act as the primary “news” sources for a large minority, or even majority of US citizens ) was manipulated by Russian bots/programmers/propaganda. That’s also a given.
https://www.wired.com/story/did-russia-affect-the-2016-election-its-now-undeniable/


So. To your points.
Hillary was a capable politician, and as capable as many previously elected US presidents. Perhaps not our very best, but an overall hard-working, and yes “honest” politician (as far as that oxymoron goes). Opinions cleary vary, but keep in mind your internal bias.
Next.....It is already clear that the press (in the US - where it mattered to the American voters) was favoring the conman Trump, backed by false/misleading stories thrown into the fray by external actors. Your Canadian press may have had the presence of mind, like many sources outside the US borders, to have seen through the lies from the GOP, Russia, the US press, and the conman who won your heart & mind. And therefore, they honestly (and correctly) belittled the impending disaster that would be a Trump presidency.
Like global warming, and evolution; these research studies/analyses of the press give us a view of the facts.....the truth.....reality. Now; there are those who went into the voting booths armed with reality, and not 100% but in great majority, voted for Hillary. And there were those who went in, thinking that their fake news channels/sites/feeds were telling the the whole truth, who in larger percentages voted for Trump, right along with the vast majority of those who truly believed that 1. Obama is a Muslim, 2. Iraq had WMD in 2002, and 3. Global Warming as well as evolution are conspiracies mounted by a cabal of evil “scientists” around the globe (which may or may not be flat ). Never forget that this is the base that the “reasonable and more well informed, conservatives” proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with as they vote.

As to why only roughly 60% turned out to vote. I would point out that over the last century of tracking voter turn-out, 2016 with 58% is actually a rather good turnout.
I would personally bet that many Dems didn’t turn out because they foolishly thought that a sane vote (no, not a “saintly” vote) was in the bag. Again this was mostly due to poor investigative journalism (i.e. - underfunded journalism) which might have seen how many people were being led around by fake news. Unfortunately, most press sources (especially the good ones) tend to be loathe to call out bad reporting (go figure) .

That is actually a fairly good analysis, @Daemon Sophic

That said, I do see a certain bias in your own response.

For the record, this "reasonable and more well informed, conservative" does not and did not buy into any of your 3 examples. I will concede that you probably have a better grasp of what American media was saying, and that I was influenced by our confident, ebullient, Canadian press (and most Canadian's) deranged and misplaced preference for Saint Hillary. The thing about Hillary's accomplishments is derived from her 10 greatest accomplishments listed on her campaign website. It was as damning as it was informative. 2 of the citations were giving fricken speeches. LOL. There was virtually nothing - of any consequence - that her own campaign could point to. That is simply a fact.

 

[Ponder This]

As far as the main sources for fake news that tRump follows. They are: (1) Breitbart News Network (2) National Enquirer. (3) FOX News.

Interesting, so the research is a psychological musing on Trump himself (and the 'fake news' that he purportedly absorbs and presumably lacks the 'active open-minded thinking' and/or 'analytic thinking' to filter properly). That must be what is meant when they say 'emboldening presidents'. Now all they need is to get Trump through one of their 'battery of psychological questionnaires' and they'll have something substantive... Good Luck with that!

The fact that the research is not 'peer reviewed' yet is just an honest representation of the limits, and nothing to do with the topic of what is 'fake science."

Alrighty. I think we more or less agree. And the honest thing to do would be to acknowledge that limit and take this with a grain of salt.

Example of the merge of 'fake' news' with 'fake science' involves mostly global warming, but may involve evolution science. Breitbart News Network is a major outlet on 'fake news' dealing with the 'fake science.'

Ah, evolution science... that could be relevant. That's something that religious creationists could get worked up over... except... well,Trump isn't a creationist... is he? I guess we are back to square one: nothing has been fully explained. I guess they gave it the old college try, eh?

 

[shunyadragon]

Alrighty. I think we more or less agree. And the honest thing to do would be to acknowledge that limit and take this with a grain of salt.

I am a scientist, and understand the position and context of the paper. The scientists are from a reputable university. I take the paper in this context, and more than a 'grain of salt.'

Ah, evolution science... that could be relevant. That's something that religious creationists could get worked up over... except... well,Trump isn't a creationist... is he? I guess we are back to square one: nothing has been fully explained. I guess they gave it the old college try, eh?

Well, ah . . . tRump is a pragmatic materialist opportunist of questionable mental competence, who in reality does not have a moral nor religious anchor.

Almost all of his cabinet and Vice-President Pence are either evangelical Creationists or attend churches that has the dominant belief is openly opposed to evolution or endorses Intelligent Design, which indirectly rejects evolution. They also reject global warming based on 'fake news' and 'fake science,' tRump rewards those that support him and his materialist agenda regardless of religious belief, morals or political position. The evangelical Christians get most of the key positions, because they represent much of his core loyal support.

In his chameleon past he has been a Democrat, supported women's rights to choose concerning abortion, and other liberal causes.

 

[Ponder This]

Almost all of his cabinet and Vice-President Pence are either evangelical Creationists or attend churches that has the dominant belief is openly opposed to evolution or endorses Intelligent Design, which indirectly rejects evolution. They also reject global warming based on 'fake news' and 'fake science,' tRump rewards those that support him and his materialist agenda regardless of religious belief, morals or political position. The evangelical Christians get most of the key positions, because they represent much of his core loyal support.

I think that's a fair point. Creationists support him and are rewarded for supporting him even if he is not himself a creationist.