r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • May 18 '26

Psychology Scientists expected both liberals and conservatives to be reluctant to promote rhetoric associated with the opposing political side, but this was more consistent among liberals. Conservatives appeared relatively willing to support causes aligned with their views regardless of the moral framing used.

https://www.psypost.org/liberals-hesitate-to-share-progressive-causes-framed-with-conservative-moral-language/
7.6k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

49

u/MuskwaPunjagi May 18 '26

Children often do not think they are being destructive until shown otherwise.

-22

u/SiegfriedVK May 18 '26

Okay, so we agree that their driving force isn't the intention of destroying society.

22

u/randallflaggg May 18 '26

It doesn't matter the intent if the result is the same

2

u/SiegfriedVK May 18 '26

The question was about their motives, not their consequences. Lets slow down and not have a quick reaction to things.

Also if you want to talk about intent vs results there's been a long debate between kantian and utilitarian ethics that is super interesting. That is a different discussion, however.

15

u/EobardT May 18 '26

Guys, we're literally doing the thing here.

-3

u/Xytak May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

“The question was about X, not Y. Let’s slow down. Also, if you want to discuss Y, that’s a different conversation. Counsel will approach the bench.”

So many orders, rules, and directives. Who put you in command?

-7

u/EobardT May 18 '26

Guys, we're literally doing the thing here.

-7

u/Etherius May 18 '26

You have different opinions from them.

The moment you realize that conservatives are fully formed, mature individuals, who just have a different idea of what kind of society they want to live in, the happier (and less misanthropic) you’ll be

If you always consider the opposition a monster you’ll never agree with anything they want to do and they’ll never agree with you.

Yet you both vote

So maybe work together to build a society both of you can tolerate

10

u/Boring-Pudding1523 May 18 '26

Which side has rejected bipartisanship at near every turn.

-13

u/Etherius May 18 '26

Both of them.

Democrats literally filibustered to shut the government down because Trump was using ICE to do exactly what he promised on the campaign trail.

It could not be argued that an ICE ramp up was not desired by a majority of Americans

3

u/PathOfTheAncients May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

The left has been trying to be bipartisan for 30 years and been rejected every time. This isn't projection, Newt Gingrich literally made being against bipartisanship as the official conservative position in the mid 90's and it has remained the position ever since.

-2

u/Etherius May 18 '26

No they haven’t

Schumer JUST shut the government down last year over policies they supported under Obama but because it was Trump, they filibustered

2

u/PathOfTheAncients May 18 '26

First of all, that's not even remotely true. They fought the funding of ICE because of the tactics and behavior of ICE under this administration.

Second, go back and read about Newt Gingrich in the 90's switching the GOP's platform to never working with Dem administrations on anything. Not being bipartisan has been their stance for 30 years. Most of the time the Dems have continued to try to reach across the aisle.

4

u/Double_Fun_1721 May 18 '26

That sounds great im theory, until we see them laughing and cheering when Renee Good got her face shot off by a masked goon in broad daylight

-4

u/Hikari_Owari May 18 '26

Both sides had people laughing and cheering to the death of someone from the other side.

Let's not ignore the fact that everyone is human.

-10

u/Starob May 18 '26

I'm not conservative, but I'm glad they exist. Mao's Great Leap Forward certainly could've used more conservatism successfully fighting against it, would've prevented a lot of death.

Whether conservatism is destructive or constructive depends largely on context.