• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why are there more liberals than right-wingers in political forums?

watsup

watsup

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
47,360
Reaction score
26,060
Location
Springfield MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
My theory is that it is, quite simply, because liberals are more intelligent as a group and are thus able to debate in a thoughtful manner, while the right-wingers don't know what to "think" until they get the latest talking points from the vast right-wing echo machine like Rush and Hannity and FOX and the local right-wing radio talk show, etc etc etc. And once they get past the talking points, they have nowhere to go because without the prompts of their mentors, they don't know how to proceed. .
It explains the difference between viewership and listenership of FOX as compared to MSNBC and right-wing radio hosts as compared to liberal radio hosts. The right-wing media has more viewership and listenership because their audience needs to be told what to "think", and since liberals can actually think for themselves, they don't need the constant reinforcement that the right-wingers do. Many right-wingers spend literally HOURS each day getting their talking points from their mentors. Liberals watch and listen to commentators such as Rachel Maddow, but primarily to gain information about the corruption and hate of the right rather than for talking points, per se.
And lots of right-wingers no doubt spend their "debate" time in right-wing forums where they can participate in the "amen corner" with others of similar views and don't have to actually try to defend the lies and hate that is so common among them. Liberals prefer a more open debate format.
In addition, in listening to Rush or watching FOX, the right-wingers are subject to fake "debates" where, for instance, Rush will debate with a liberal, or more often a right-winger posing as a liberal in order to make outlandish statements and blame them on liberals, but then when the phone hangs up, Rush will proceed to lambast the caller on a personal level and also give a final "answer" to the debate in question without the caller being able to reply.
Same on FOX. They often invite "liberals" to debate, but they then have at least two right-wingers and the host to gang up on him or her. Right-wingers see these sorts of debates and come here and think it is just that easy without realizing that the liberals here are actually able to stay with the topic instead of being disconnected or ganged up on, and they don't like that and don't know how to respond.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. What are yours?
 
If you're watching TV, you're not getting in-depth analysis.
 
Antiwar said:
If you're watching TV, you're not getting in-depth analysis.
Click to expand...

But right-wingers think that they are, and that's the whole point of FOX telling them that they are "real journalism" and "fair and balanced". They won't venture beyond their "amen corner" because goodness knows they might actually get truth and reality and it would shock them heartily.
 
watsup said:
But right-wingers think that they are, and that's the whole point of FOX telling them that they are "real journalism" and "fair and balanced". They won't venture beyond their "amen corner" because goodness knows they might actually get truth and reality and it would shock them heartily.
Click to expand...
watsup said:
... Liberals watch and listen to commentators such as Rachel Maddow, but primarily to gain information about the corruption and hate of the right rather than for talking points, per se.
Click to expand...
If YOU are watching TV, YOU are not getting in-depth analysis.
 
Last edited:
watsup said:
My theory is that it is, quite simply, because liberals are more intelligent as a group and are thus able to debate in a thoughtful manner, while the right-wingers don't know what to "think" until they get the latest talking points from the vast right-wing echo machine like Rush and Hannity and FOX and the local right-wing radio talk show, etc etc etc. And once they get past the talking points, they have nowhere to go because without the prompts of their mentors, they don't know how to proceed. .
It explains the difference between viewership and listenership of FOX as compared to MSNBC and right-wing radio hosts as compared to liberal radio hosts. The right-wing media has more viewership and listenership because their audience needs to be told what to "think", and since liberals can actually think for themselves, they don't need the constant reinforcement that the right-wingers do. Many right-wingers spend literally HOURS each day getting their talking points from their mentors. Liberals watch and listen to commentators such as Rachel Maddow, but primarily to gain information about the corruption and hate of the right rather than for talking points, per se.
And lots of right-wingers no doubt spend their "debate" time in right-wing forums where they can participate in the "amen corner" with others of similar views and don't have to actually try to defend the lies and hate that is so common among them. Liberals prefer a more open debate format.
In addition, in listening to Rush or watching FOX, the right-wingers are subject to fake "debates" where, for instance, Rush will debate with a liberal, or more often a right-winger posing as a liberal in order to make outlandish statements and blame them on liberals, but then when the phone hangs up, Rush will proceed to lambast the caller on a personal level and also give a final "answer" to the debate in question without the caller being able to reply.
Same on FOX. They often invite "liberals" to debate, but they then have at least two right-wingers and the host to gang up on him or her. Right-wingers see these sorts of debates and come here and think it is just that easy without realizing that the liberals here are actually able to stay with the topic instead of being disconnected or ganged up on, and they don't like that and don't know how to respond.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. What are yours?
Click to expand...


You seem very unbiased and nonpartisan.
 
watsup said:
My theory is that it is, quite simply, because liberals are more intelligent as a group and are thus able to debate in a thoughtful manner, while the right-wingers don't know what to "think" until they get the latest talking points from the vast right-wing echo machine like Rush and Hannity and FOX and the local right-wing radio talk show, etc etc etc. And once they get past the talking points, they have nowhere to go because without the prompts of their mentors, they don't know how to proceed. .
It explains the difference between viewership and listenership of FOX as compared to MSNBC and right-wing radio hosts as compared to liberal radio hosts. The right-wing media has more viewership and listenership because their audience needs to be told what to "think", and since liberals can actually think for themselves, they don't need the constant reinforcement that the right-wingers do. Many right-wingers spend literally HOURS each day getting their talking points from their mentors. Liberals watch and listen to commentators such as Rachel Maddow, but primarily to gain information about the corruption and hate of the right rather than for talking points, per se.
And lots of right-wingers no doubt spend their "debate" time in right-wing forums where they can participate in the "amen corner" with others of similar views and don't have to actually try to defend the lies and hate that is so common among them. Liberals prefer a more open debate format.
In addition, in listening to Rush or watching FOX, the right-wingers are subject to fake "debates" where, for instance, Rush will debate with a liberal, or more often a right-winger posing as a liberal in order to make outlandish statements and blame them on liberals, but then when the phone hangs up, Rush will proceed to lambast the caller on a personal level and also give a final "answer" to the debate in question without the caller being able to reply.
Same on FOX. They often invite "liberals" to debate, but they then have at least two right-wingers and the host to gang up on him or her. Right-wingers see these sorts of debates and come here and think it is just that easy without realizing that the liberals here are actually able to stay with the topic instead of being disconnected or ganged up on, and they don't like that and don't know how to respond.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. What are yours?
Click to expand...
In reality it is because many who claim to be liberal are actually leftist-authoritarian and they do everything possible to squelch dissent. your silly post is nothing more than lie filled talking points that has nothing to do with reality
 
watsup said:
But right-wingers think that they are, and that's the whole point of FOX telling them that they are "real journalism" and "fair and balanced". They won't venture beyond their "amen corner" because goodness knows they might actually get truth and reality and it would shock them heartily.
Click to expand...
More BS. the vast majority of the main stream media is left leaning. Journalism attracts left leaning types and urbanized masses are most susceptible to group think
 
TurtleDude said:
More BS. the vast majority of the main stream media is left leaning. Journalism attracts left leaning types and urbanized masses are most susceptible to group think
Click to expand...


Group think is a city thing? Left leaning cities in the US are going to be the most culturally diverse in the US, with a wide variety of religions, political and economic idea's.

The more conservative regions will not be culturally or ethnically diverse, with most people having the same religion and in general political ideals
 
Antiwar said:
If you're watching TV, you're not getting in-depth analysis.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty convinced cable news makes one stupider for having watched it... I just hate the format of most shows, and I absolutely despise any segment where you have a "liberal" and a "conservative" debating. It's WWE but for politics, and it's useless IMO, starts off with "BOTHSIDES!!" being just different opinions, both just as legitimate, as a given, and it rarely is. Here's flat earther Bob and scientist Sue to discuss - is the earth round!

So we do not watch cable news in this house except for breaking stories, like a natural disaster or something...
 
watsup said:
My theory is that it is, quite simply, because liberals are more intelligent as a group and are thus able to debate in a thoughtful manner, while the right-wingers don't know what to "think" until they get the latest talking points from the vast right-wing echo machine like Rush and Hannity and FOX and the local right-wing radio talk show, etc etc etc. And once they get past the talking points, they have nowhere to go because without the prompts of their mentors, they don't know how to proceed. .
It explains the difference between viewership and listenership of FOX as compared to MSNBC and right-wing radio hosts as compared to liberal radio hosts. The right-wing media has more viewership and listenership because their audience needs to be told what to "think", and since liberals can actually think for themselves, they don't need the constant reinforcement that the right-wingers do. Many right-wingers spend literally HOURS each day getting their talking points from their mentors. Liberals watch and listen to commentators such as Rachel Maddow, but primarily to gain information about the corruption and hate of the right rather than for talking points, per se.
And lots of right-wingers no doubt spend their "debate" time in right-wing forums where they can participate in the "amen corner" with others of similar views and don't have to actually try to defend the lies and hate that is so common among them. Liberals prefer a more open debate format.
In addition, in listening to Rush or watching FOX, the right-wingers are subject to fake "debates" where, for instance, Rush will debate with a liberal, or more often a right-winger posing as a liberal in order to make outlandish statements and blame them on liberals, but then when the phone hangs up, Rush will proceed to lambast the caller on a personal level and also give a final "answer" to the debate in question without the caller being able to reply.
Same on FOX. They often invite "liberals" to debate, but they then have at least two right-wingers and the host to gang up on him or her. Right-wingers see these sorts of debates and come here and think it is just that easy without realizing that the liberals here are actually able to stay with the topic instead of being disconnected or ganged up on, and they don't like that and don't know how to respond.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. What are yours?
Click to expand...
Because there are more liberals than right-wingers?
 
mrjurrs said:
Because there are more liberals than right-wingers?
Click to expand...
From my experience on this board, there's few liberals in the USA. Not none, but few.
That's a worrying thing.
 
TurtleDude said:
not in the USA but on this board, for sure
Click to expand...
I disagree. Liberal covers a huge swath of the Democratic Party, the majority party in the nation. Right wingers constitute a minority segment of the minority party.
 
mrjurrs said:
I disagree. Liberal covers a huge swath of the Democratic Party, the majority party in the nation. Right wingers constitute a minority segment of the minority party.
Click to expand...
The party that gained in the congress and won in 60+% of the state legislative races?
 
Grand Mal said:
From my experience on this board, there's few liberals in the USA. Not none, but few.
That's a worrying thing.
Click to expand...
Ouch. What is it you believe we're missing?
 
watsup said:
My theory is that it is, quite simply, because liberals are more intelligent as a group and are thus able to debate in a thoughtful manner, while the right-wingers don't know what to "think" until they get the latest talking points from the vast right-wing echo machine like Rush and Hannity and FOX and the local right-wing radio talk show, etc etc etc. And once they get past the talking points, they have nowhere to go because without the prompts of their mentors, they don't know how to proceed. .
It explains the difference between viewership and listenership of FOX as compared to MSNBC and right-wing radio hosts as compared to liberal radio hosts. The right-wing media has more viewership and listenership because their audience needs to be told what to "think", and since liberals can actually think for themselves, they don't need the constant reinforcement that the right-wingers do. Many right-wingers spend literally HOURS each day getting their talking points from their mentors. Liberals watch and listen to commentators such as Rachel Maddow, but primarily to gain information about the corruption and hate of the right rather than for talking points, per se.
And lots of right-wingers no doubt spend their "debate" time in right-wing forums where they can participate in the "amen corner" with others of similar views and don't have to actually try to defend the lies and hate that is so common among them. Liberals prefer a more open debate format.
In addition, in listening to Rush or watching FOX, the right-wingers are subject to fake "debates" where, for instance, Rush will debate with a liberal, or more often a right-winger posing as a liberal in order to make outlandish statements and blame them on liberals, but then when the phone hangs up, Rush will proceed to lambast the caller on a personal level and also give a final "answer" to the debate in question without the caller being able to reply.
Same on FOX. They often invite "liberals" to debate, but they then have at least two right-wingers and the host to gang up on him or her. Right-wingers see these sorts of debates and come here and think it is just that easy without realizing that the liberals here are actually able to stay with the topic instead of being disconnected or ganged up on, and they don't like that and don't know how to respond.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. What are yours?
Click to expand...
I think the left is just as powerfully swayed by the media they ingest and as prone to repeat the talking points of the day as the right wingers are. There are smart people on both sides that I respect for their thoughtfulness and thoroughness in working out their beliefs. I think you're unfairly--and inaccurately--stereotyping your political opposition.

Yeah, you're right there are a lot of right wing goombas rolling around political sites (and you don't know the half of it if this is the only place you hang out), but I see plenty of weird birds on the left, too. I live in a conservative area, my family is of (moderate) conservative stock, and although I'm more left leaning, I don't find rural people with conservative values to be unintellgent or lacking in humanity, even if they didn't go to college. They're people.

End of rant.
 
TurtleDude said:
In reality it is because many who claim to be liberal are actually leftist-authoritarian and they do everything possible to squelch dissent. your silly post is nothing more than lie filled talking points that has nothing to do with reality
Click to expand...

You say “leftist-authoritarian” but accuse.ME of the talking points. Such irony!
 
TurtleDude said:
More BS. the vast majority of the main stream media is left leaning. Journalism attracts left leaning types and urbanized masses are most susceptible to group think
Click to expand...

More irony. I’m sure it’s not the FOX watchers who are not susceptible to group think at all, right?
 
watsup said:
More irony. I’m sure it’s not the FOX watchers who are not susceptible to group think at all, right?
Click to expand...
those who buy into collectivist thought, are, by definition, more into group think than those who are independent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom