Do you know someone who thinks the Democrats committed voter fraud?

Start your own discussion on any subject
User avatar
United States of America Vegeta
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:15 pm

Do you know someone who thinks the Democrats committed voter fraud?

Post by Vegeta » Mon Nov 09, 2020 6:49 pm

If you do, then make sure you call them a lying dog faced pony soldier and deck 'em in the jaw for ol' 46. We're not putting up with that malarkey.

User avatar
Italy RightWingConspirator
Posts: 1052
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 8:02 pm
Location: Rome
Mood:

Re: Do you know someone who thinks the Democrats committed voter fraud?

Post by RightWingConspirator » Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:05 pm

It's a guaranteed fact that it took place in some areas, as always. Democraps are children and will do anything they can do to win, cheating is not an issue for them because their pea brains are convinced everything is life or death. But it probably wouldn't change the overall election results when and if any of it was uncovered.. Trump lost to a nitwit who was carried by the media like Obanana. There's only so much that one old self absorbed, hair-hat wearing, orange clown orangutan President can do against those forces. Especially under the corona circumstances.
President & CEO of RWC Industries
Supplier of premium industrial grade fartmasks.
Fartmasker LLC

User avatar
United States of America Factman
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2018 3:00 am
Location: Finding the truth
Mood:
Contact:

Re: Do you know someone who thinks the Democrats committed voter fraud?

Post by Factman » Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:41 am

I understand the anxiety.

Conspiracy theories, are an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small, powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy.

Conspiracy theories increase in prevalence in periods of widespread anxiety, uncertainty, or hardship, as during wars and economic depressions and in the aftermath of natural disasters like tsunamis, earthquakes, and pandemics. This fact is evidenced by the profusion of conspiracy theories that emerged in the wake of the September 11 attacks in 2001 and by the more than 2,000 volumes on U.S. Pres. John F. Kennedy’s assassination. This suggests that conspiratorial thinking is driven by a strong human desire to make sense of social forces that are self-relevant, important, and threatening.

The content of conspiracy theories is emotionally laden and its alleged discovery can be gratifying. The evidentiary standards for corroborating conspiracy theories is typically weak, and they are usually resistant to falsification. The survivability of conspiracy theories may be aided by psychological biases and by distrust of official sources.

Exposure to media that endorse conspiracies increases belief. There is evidence that viewing the Oliver Stone movie JFK (1991) increased belief in a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy and decreased belief in the official account that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. A further outcome was that, compared with people who were about to view the movie, those who had seen it expressed less interest in political participation. It may be that distrust of those in power predicts and is caused by belief in government conspiracies.

American historian Richard Hofstadter explored the emergence of conspiracy theorizing by proposing a consensus view of democracy. Competing groups would represent the interests of individuals, but they would do so within a political system that everyone agreed would frame the bounds of conflict. For Hofstadter, those who felt unable to channel their political interests into representative groups would become alienated from this system. These individuals would not accept the statements of opposition parties as representing a fair disagreement; rather, differences in views would be regarded with deep suspicion. Such alienated people would develop a paranoid fear of conspiracy, thus making them vulnerable to charismatic rather than practical and rational leadership. This would undermine democracy and lead to totalitarian rule.

In The Paranoid Style in American Politics (1965), Hofstadter proposed that this is not an individual pathology but instead originates in social conflict that raises fears and anxieties, which leads to status struggles between opposed groups. The resulting conspiracy theorizing derives from a collective sense of threat to one’s group, culture, way of life, and so on. Extremists at either end of the political spectrum could be expected to develop a paranoid style. On the right, McCarthyism promoted paranoid notions of communist infiltration of American institutions; on the left is the belief that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were an “inside job” perpetrated by a cabal of government and corporate interests. Hofstadter’s approach is notable because it places the root of conspiracies in intergroup processes, which means that his theory can account for the ebb and flow of conspiracy theories over time.

Australian philosopher Steve Clarke proposed that conspiratorial thinking is maintained by the fundamental attribution error, which states that people overestimate the importance of dispositions—such as individual motivations or personality traits—while underestimating the importance of situational factors—such as random chance and social norms—in explaining the behaviour of others. Clarke observed that this error is typical of conspiratorial thinking. People maintain adherence to their conspiratorial beliefs because to dispense with the conspiracy would be to discount human motives in events. Clarke further suggested that the ultimate reason people make the fundamental attribution error is because they have evolved to do so. Humans evolved in tightly knit groups where understanding the motives of others was critical for the detection of malevolent intentions. The cost of making an error in identifying others’ insidious motives was small relative to the cost of not identifying such motives. Clarke proposed that people are psychologically attuned to discount situational factors over dispositional factors in explaining others’ behaviour.
Just the facts.

User avatar
Belgium OldPyjama
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2018 2:22 pm
Mood:

Re: Do you know someone who thinks the Democrats committed voter fraud?

Post by OldPyjama » Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:56 am

Factman wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:41 am
I understand the anxiety.

Conspiracy theories, are an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small, powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy.

Conspiracy theories increase in prevalence in periods of widespread anxiety, uncertainty, or hardship, as during wars and economic depressions and in the aftermath of natural disasters like tsunamis, earthquakes, and pandemics. This fact is evidenced by the profusion of conspiracy theories that emerged in the wake of the September 11 attacks in 2001 and by the more than 2,000 volumes on U.S. Pres. John F. Kennedy’s assassination. This suggests that conspiratorial thinking is driven by a strong human desire to make sense of social forces that are self-relevant, important, and threatening.

The content of conspiracy theories is emotionally laden and its alleged discovery can be gratifying. The evidentiary standards for corroborating conspiracy theories is typically weak, and they are usually resistant to falsification. The survivability of conspiracy theories may be aided by psychological biases and by distrust of official sources.

Exposure to media that endorse conspiracies increases belief. There is evidence that viewing the Oliver Stone movie JFK (1991) increased belief in a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy and decreased belief in the official account that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. A further outcome was that, compared with people who were about to view the movie, those who had seen it expressed less interest in political participation. It may be that distrust of those in power predicts and is caused by belief in government conspiracies.

American historian Richard Hofstadter explored the emergence of conspiracy theorizing by proposing a consensus view of democracy. Competing groups would represent the interests of individuals, but they would do so within a political system that everyone agreed would frame the bounds of conflict. For Hofstadter, those who felt unable to channel their political interests into representative groups would become alienated from this system. These individuals would not accept the statements of opposition parties as representing a fair disagreement; rather, differences in views would be regarded with deep suspicion. Such alienated people would develop a paranoid fear of conspiracy, thus making them vulnerable to charismatic rather than practical and rational leadership. This would undermine democracy and lead to totalitarian rule.

In The Paranoid Style in American Politics (1965), Hofstadter proposed that this is not an individual pathology but instead originates in social conflict that raises fears and anxieties, which leads to status struggles between opposed groups. The resulting conspiracy theorizing derives from a collective sense of threat to one’s group, culture, way of life, and so on. Extremists at either end of the political spectrum could be expected to develop a paranoid style. On the right, McCarthyism promoted paranoid notions of communist infiltration of American institutions; on the left is the belief that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were an “inside job” perpetrated by a cabal of government and corporate interests. Hofstadter’s approach is notable because it places the root of conspiracies in intergroup processes, which means that his theory can account for the ebb and flow of conspiracy theories over time.

Australian philosopher Steve Clarke proposed that conspiratorial thinking is maintained by the fundamental attribution error, which states that people overestimate the importance of dispositions—such as individual motivations or personality traits—while underestimating the importance of situational factors—such as random chance and social norms—in explaining the behaviour of others. Clarke observed that this error is typical of conspiratorial thinking. People maintain adherence to their conspiratorial beliefs because to dispense with the conspiracy would be to discount human motives in events. Clarke further suggested that the ultimate reason people make the fundamental attribution error is because they have evolved to do so. Humans evolved in tightly knit groups where understanding the motives of others was critical for the detection of malevolent intentions. The cost of making an error in identifying others’ insidious motives was small relative to the cost of not identifying such motives. Clarke proposed that people are psychologically attuned to discount situational factors over dispositional factors in explaining others’ behaviour.
You are a fag.
Image

User avatar
Guest

Re: Do you know someone who thinks the Democrats committed voter fraud?

Post by Guest » Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:37 am

^ No YOU are the fag

User avatar
Guest

Re: Do you know someone who thinks the Democrats committed voter fraud?

Post by Guest » Tue Nov 10, 2020 9:22 am

shit not this fact faggot again


User avatar
United States of America Vegeta
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:15 pm

Re: Do you know someone who thinks the Democrats committed voter fraud?

Post by Vegeta » Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:28 pm

Factman wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:41 am
I understand the anxiety.

Conspiracy theories, are an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small, powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy.

Conspiracy theories increase in prevalence in periods of widespread anxiety, uncertainty, or hardship, as during wars and economic depressions and in the aftermath of natural disasters like tsunamis, earthquakes, and pandemics. This fact is evidenced by the profusion of conspiracy theories that emerged in the wake of the September 11 attacks in 2001 and by the more than 2,000 volumes on U.S. Pres. John F. Kennedy’s assassination. This suggests that conspiratorial thinking is driven by a strong human desire to make sense of social forces that are self-relevant, important, and threatening.

The content of conspiracy theories is emotionally laden and its alleged discovery can be gratifying. The evidentiary standards for corroborating conspiracy theories is typically weak, and they are usually resistant to falsification. The survivability of conspiracy theories may be aided by psychological biases and by distrust of official sources.

Exposure to media that endorse conspiracies increases belief. There is evidence that viewing the Oliver Stone movie JFK (1991) increased belief in a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy and decreased belief in the official account that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. A further outcome was that, compared with people who were about to view the movie, those who had seen it expressed less interest in political participation. It may be that distrust of those in power predicts and is caused by belief in government conspiracies.

American historian Richard Hofstadter explored the emergence of conspiracy theorizing by proposing a consensus view of democracy. Competing groups would represent the interests of individuals, but they would do so within a political system that everyone agreed would frame the bounds of conflict. For Hofstadter, those who felt unable to channel their political interests into representative groups would become alienated from this system. These individuals would not accept the statements of opposition parties as representing a fair disagreement; rather, differences in views would be regarded with deep suspicion. Such alienated people would develop a paranoid fear of conspiracy, thus making them vulnerable to charismatic rather than practical and rational leadership. This would undermine democracy and lead to totalitarian rule.

In The Paranoid Style in American Politics (1965), Hofstadter proposed that this is not an individual pathology but instead originates in social conflict that raises fears and anxieties, which leads to status struggles between opposed groups. The resulting conspiracy theorizing derives from a collective sense of threat to one’s group, culture, way of life, and so on. Extremists at either end of the political spectrum could be expected to develop a paranoid style. On the right, McCarthyism promoted paranoid notions of communist infiltration of American institutions; on the left is the belief that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were an “inside job” perpetrated by a cabal of government and corporate interests. Hofstadter’s approach is notable because it places the root of conspiracies in intergroup processes, which means that his theory can account for the ebb and flow of conspiracy theories over time.

Australian philosopher Steve Clarke proposed that conspiratorial thinking is maintained by the fundamental attribution error, which states that people overestimate the importance of dispositions—such as individual motivations or personality traits—while underestimating the importance of situational factors—such as random chance and social norms—in explaining the behaviour of others. Clarke observed that this error is typical of conspiratorial thinking. People maintain adherence to their conspiratorial beliefs because to dispense with the conspiracy would be to discount human motives in events. Clarke further suggested that the ultimate reason people make the fundamental attribution error is because they have evolved to do so. Humans evolved in tightly knit groups where understanding the motives of others was critical for the detection of malevolent intentions. The cost of making an error in identifying others’ insidious motives was small relative to the cost of not identifying such motives. Clarke proposed that people are psychologically attuned to discount situational factors over dispositional factors in explaining others’ behaviour.
Everyone knows that after the CIA finished their MK-ULTRA project, all the governments in the world agreed to never do anything shady again, especially without letting people know. Except when Bush lied about chemical weapons in Iraq. And when Russia hacked the 2016 election.


User avatar
United States of America Vegeta
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:15 pm

Re: Do you know someone who thinks the Democrats committed voter fraud?

Post by Vegeta » Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:28 pm

Guest wrote:
Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:20 pm
hurr durr I post Twitter screenshot
That's some boomer tier cringe.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 13 guests