Study: Liberals are intolerant, want everyone to die, on facebook

[Kulindahr]

Did you ever think that perhaps the conservatives stick to their own circles and have fewer reasons to block or unfriend another member because of religious affiliation?

That's highly likely.

I want to point out that the article called this a survey. Generally, surveys have no scientific validity, because they depend just on those who decide to respond.

 

[Kulindahr]

Sort of agree with that. Conservatives accept friends those that tend to have their own viewpoints, so less chance of blocking them right off the bat. Liberals tend to friend more people, so it's just a matter of odds that they would de-friend more people...

RG

Yes. And there's another reason the survey is meaningless: they didn't look at any related variables. If, for example, the average liberal there has 80 friends and the average 'conservative' has 20, the results of the survey would mean that liberals typically unfriend fewer friends per capita -- that if you're the friend of a liberal, you're more likely to stay a friend than if you're the friend of a 'conservative'. OTOH, if the typical liberal has 30 friends and the average 'conservative' has 20, then the figures mean that liberals are slightly more likely to boot a friend.

Beyond that, they need to ask how likely the two groups are to accept new friends, what it takes to unfriend someone, and other things.

 

[Kulindahr]

In response to some silliness, I'd like to point out that by the examples in this thread, liberals and libertarians are more likely to ask about the particulars of a survey and to employ reason in assessing it, while 'conservatives' blindly accept information from a site that is highly suspect if only for the language employed in the title of the article. I wonder if "want everyone to die" was on the survey, or if it was concocted (and repeated) due to bigotry?

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

Did you ever think that perhaps the conservatives stick to their own circles and have fewer reasons to block or unfriend another member because of religious affiliation?

I have a number of conservative friends and I tend to agree with this. In most real life cases, the conservatives I know have very few friends outside of their own affiliation and I have the distinction of being one of their few friends on the other side.

What's the point of blocking someone anyway? What's so horrible you can't see it? I have never blocked anyone (though I have been tempted with that crazy dude who only posts on here in a faux Jamaican dialect) because I want to know what the opposition is saying.

 

[rareboy]

Wait!



16% of Liberals?

FUCK!

You're on Facebook?

You haven't even "friended" me, much less hid posts from me!





But yet a Pew poll comes along with a 3 to 5% margin of error and you round up for the way the poll "should go."



Nope.

liberals are 2x s likely to have friends who they didn't realize that their friends were assholes until their friends started posting picture of fuzzy puppies, and guilting them into changing their status for an hour acknowledging that they lost someone to cancer, or some quote from Rush Limbaugh that they liked because they just bought another once of gold for $1,200 dollars.

Come on! Let's face it!

If only 16% did those things, they're far more patient than I am.

It just forces me to remember why some of those people are IN MY PAST in NOT in my present.



Only that some of us are trying to wrap our heads around the fact that the Oxford English Dictionary recently listed "unfriended" as a word.

http://wonkette.com/466897/study-liberals-all-so-intolerant-want-everyone-to-die-on-facebook

I like to envision it as similar to defenestration.

 

[chance1]

This is not unreasonable.

I'll add that liberals probably have less tolerance for hypocrisy, bigotry, and economics that will increase poverty, so they sensibly block people spouting such idiocy.

But then it seems to me, from what I know of facebook, that the whole place lends itself to manipulative, deceptive, irrational leanings, and anyone conservative or liberal will not only block people but think about bailing -- let the reactionaries have the place.

Come on Kuli - stick with what you KNOW

FB has > 900 MILLION active monthly users

In the U.S. the avg. person spends 7 hours a month on it

it's ENORMOUS - GIGANTIC - HUGE

you describe it like it's something niche

EVERYONE is on FB

 

[Centexfarmer]

I like to envision it as similar to defenestration.

I have 246 friends that I've allowed access to my Facebook account.

I don't "friend" every request that comes my way.

Out of the 246 "friends" on my page, I've actually met face to face and know 236 of those individuals.

I love and respect everyone.

Those people make up my past going back to grade school, friends that I made while serving in the U.S. Coast Guard, a couple of teachers and mentors in life, ex-lovers and a few ex-boyfriends. People that I have partied and bonded with, people that I've worked as both a political and neighborhood activist with.

Some of my friends include politicians, those who have served, and are still representing a constituency.

Some of them own newspapers, some are active artists, entertainers, and musicians.

Those members of my family that want to stay connected with me are included there as well.

Some of my FB friends are people that I've connected with through others.

There is at least a dozen + members of JUB that I've actually met in person, who are also my friends on FB, including current and former Moderators.

The only people who get "unfriended" from my FB account are individuals who's account either isn't very active, or I came to the realization that there is a reason why the person is in my "past" and no longer relevant to my "present."

The best part? When they don't even notice (or care) that they're no longer in my network.

I'll add that liberals probably have less tolerance for hypocrisy, bigotry, and economics that will increase poverty, so they sensibly block people spouting such idiocy.

Yeah some of those folks get boring rather quickly.

But depending on their security settings, a good percentage of my friends can't see some of the stuff that they post.

I personally like them, and every now again publicly call them out on their shit.

And even though we can agree to disagree, we both recognize and because we know each other personally, can come to some form of agreement.

Despite our "liberal" or "conservative" differences, we both feel that it's better that we stay connected, than to let certain issues drive us apart.

Which I guess, based upon the wonkette article that chance1 linked to create this thread makes me a moderate.

 

[chance1]

^ TMI ......... again

you should find a couch to lay on shouldn't you ?

 

[GhostMost]

In the spirit of the NEW CE+P ...........

Why are Liberals so intolerant ???

The Pew Research Center did a study and found that Libs are far less tolerant of opposing views than the average American

16% of liberals have blocked, unfriended or hid someone who posts something they disagree with on a social networking site

compared to 8% of conservatives

that's 2x as much

so liberals are 2x s likely as conservatives and more than 2x as likely as moderates to rather than engage in civil discourse or debate, they turn them OFF

I thought this piece was especially timely - don't you agree ?

never mind


http://wonkette.com/466897/study-liberals-all-so-intolerant-want-everyone-to-die-on-facebook

hahah I thought this was funny, not because of my siding on the spectrum just because you posted this .

 

[Centexfarmer]

^ TMI ......... again

you should find a couch to lay on shouldn't you ?

Yes, and I'm going to go and lay on it right now.

 

[chance1]

^^ hehehe

i'm on mine right now - have a visitor coming in an hour or so to watch some of the heats/celtics

 

[Kulindahr]

EVERYONE is on FB

 

[chance1]

^ you need to get out and meet real people - then you'd know

i think the 900+ million would get your attention

did you know they just had an IPO ?

Zuckerberg ???

Timelines ???

get with it

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah, and all the suckers who bought are losing money.

 

[bankside]

Yes. You need to go out and meet real people in the real world. That way you'll know how to interact with them as chance1 does on Facebook. You know, real-world style!

 

[T-Rexx]

This is not a "study" at all.

I don't know what it is. Statistically speaking, it is absolutely worthless.

Virtually NONE of the results are presented with acceptable statistical parameters. At no point are the standard errors presented and no where is it claimed that the "results" are even statistically significant (!!!!!). The sample size is rather small (apparently 2,253 "adults"). The study is weighted toward young people ("For the landline sample, interviewers asked to speak with the youngest adult male or female currently at home based on a random rotation. If no male/female was available, interviewers asked to speak with the youngest adult of the other gender."). Cell phone users were offered compensation for completing the survey, but landline users were not.

Because the statistical data is not presented, we are obligated to assume that NONE OF THE CONCLUSIONS ARE VALID. Let me restate that. AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL FROM THE DATA PRESENTED, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THE "CONCLUSIONS" ARE VALID. None of them.

This is nothing but worthless garbage. If there is some difference in the behavior between liberals and conservatives on social networking sites, this "survey" does NOT demonstrate it.

Methinks someone put a fair amount of money into carrying out a phone survey and got nothing to show for it because of rather gross incompetence. He then needed to spin his stupidity as a contribution to the knowledge base. It is not.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes. You need to go out and meet real people in the real world. That way you'll know how to interact with them as chance1 does on Facebook. You know, real-world style!

In haikus?

Insulting everyone?

 

[T-Rexx]

This is not "lying with statistics," BTW, because the statistics aren't even presented for our inspection.

It's just lying, period.

 

[chance1]

Yes. You need to go out and meet real people in the real world. That way you'll know how to interact with them as chance1 does on Facebook. You know, real-world style!

so you think facebook is "niche" too ?

LOL

 

[chance1]

This is not a "study" at all.

I don't know what it is. Statistically speaking, it is absolutely worthless.

Virtually NONE of the results are presented with acceptable statistical parameters. At no point are the standard errors presented and no where is it claimed that the "results" are even statistically significant (!!!!!). The sample size is rather small (apparently 2,253 "adults"). The study is weighted toward young people ("For the landline sample, interviewers asked to speak with the youngest adult male or female currently at home based on a random rotation. If no male/female was available, interviewers asked to speak with the youngest adult of the other gender."). Cell phone users were offered compensation for completing the survey, but landline users were not.

Because the statistical data is not presented, we are obligated to assume that NONE OF THE CONCLUSIONS ARE VALID. Let me restate that. AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL FROM THE DATA PRESENTED, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THE "CONCLUSIONS" ARE VALID. None of them.

This is nothing but worthless garbage. If there is some difference in the behavior between liberals and conservatives on social networking sites, this "survey" does NOT demonstrate it.

Methinks someone put a fair amount of money into carrying out a phone survey and got nothing to show for it because of rather gross incompetence. He then needed to spin his stupidity as a contribution to the knowledge base. It is not.

using bolded text and some caps is not that compelling an argument

please continue

and how dare u insult the Wonkette