Anonymous #1 14w

yeah I have a lot of questions about it lmao 1. what are the axes here. what are we measuring. 2. is it just self-identified democrats? bc a major thing on the left is non-establishment leftists don’t call themselves democrats

4

Anonymous #1 14w

found the study the graphic comes from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12665

4

Anonymous #2 14w

Seems super credible

1

Anonymous #1 14w

It’s more legit than I was expecting but I have trouble taking any study with data from paid survey participants seriously. bc there’s selection bias already in the pool of people who sign up for those survey websites

3

Anonymous #2 14w

It’s just so hard to believe when every other source on partisanship by race claims the opposite

1

Anonymous #1 14w

I might be misunderstanding, but the graphic isn’t about demographic diversity. It’s basically saying that there’s more ideological diversity on the right (or conversely, the left is more ideologically cohesive)

3

Anonymous #2 14w

Oh you are correct, my bad

3

Anonymous #2 14w

But especially with paid participation, how can you honestly make a true claim to that?

3

Anonymous #2 14w

You have to read the questions they used to measure ideological diversity they’re stupid.

4

Anonymous blue__wave 14w

Yeah I just kinda skimmed it bc it’s long and I have a job lmao but I got the impression it wasn’t Amazing but my OG assumption was the graphic was unsourced totally so

3

Anonymous #2 14w

yeah 396 people self-ID'd as D, R, or I, then rated these 8 items on an agree/disagree scale. Dems consistently agreed on the notion of minority protections, environmental regulation, etc. Meanwhile, one guy might've put "fuck gay people but a little more welfare sounds fine", another guy put the reverse, but both called themselves Republicans. Meaning Dem voters were ideologically non-diverse when it came to caring about diverse groups. it’s not what the original OP was suggesting lol.

2

Anonymous blue__wave 14w

yeah it is a little stupid. like me (a leftist) and a typical liberal both “strongly agree” with more environmental protection but they might want higher fines for oil companies, vs i want to nationalize and shut down the entire industry. this study doesn’t capture that diversity, it mainly shows Republicans can’t agree if climate change is even worth fighting lol

4

Anonymous #5 14w

It’s essentially the same thing if you knew any POCs

3

Anonymous OP 14w

Generally true, but I’m getting at true vs apparent cause here. Example: a doctor is good not because he drives a Ferrari, but because his patients are healthy. I believe that any system that aims for apparent cause over true cause is liable to abuse and gamification.

1

Anonymous #5 14w

A diversity of thought isn’t inherently good I think aiming for diverse physical features is fine in a diverse nation. In a hyperbolic case a Nazi may add a lot of diversity of thought but I don’t want them in my political movement bc their ideas are completely contradictory. It feels like the right wing right now isn’t ideological they just project whatever their ideology is onto Trump.

3

Anonymous #5 14w

A community that is not diverse in skin color harbors ideas that it isn’t normal to have different skin color, that’s what concerns me

1

Anonymous blue__wave 14w

Yeah the unifying ideology of the right rn is just “make libs upset” and of course there are a lot more ways to make people mad than to satisfy them. So inherently the tent will be big

1

Anonymous OP 14w

A community that is diverse in thought will both have ideas that it is and that it isn’t normal to have different skin color. There will be healthy discourse. Morality is an emergent property of discourse—all the moral advancements we made throughout history required discourse.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 14w

A country without diversity of thought will stagnate morally and materially. If there are no Nazis to condemn, with time, we will forget what Nazis (who fixated on physical traits) are and why we stand against them. With enough time, the oppressed in such a system are doomed to become the oppressors, because trauma is passed from one group of people to another—perpetuating a cycle.

1

Anonymous #5 14w

We’re not talking about a country we’re talking about people in a political party. I’m not advocating for fixating on physical traits. Idk what you mean about oppressed becoming the oppressors.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 14w

1. My opinion on this is the same with respect to political parties as well. The political party will become an echo chamber that’s unable to develop and evolve its ideology. 2. I was trying to explain how I believe any group that has been oppressed in the past (for example Jewish people by Nazis) might perpetrate what was done onto them if they were to become an echo chamber.

1

Anonymous #5 14w

Ig I agree I just don’t think more ideological diversity = good I think you need some level of shared values and understanding of how the world works. I agree with you I just think your being hyperbolic I don’t think you need an active Nazi group so we all know Nazis are bad I think that’s the cool thing about people is that we can record past events

2

Anonymous #5 14w

don’t overcomplicate this. diversity isn’t the end-all-be-all magic bullet in every situation, but if you lack diverse representation for a diverse population, it’s more likely some groups will be treated unfairly it’s fully possible to poorly protect a group you’re part of, or advocate for a group you’re not part of. but diversity improves the odds

2