this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
281 points (93.8% liked)

politics

19090 readers
5225 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
281
To beat Trump, we need to know why Americans keep voting for him. Psychologists may have the answer (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
150 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

US culture is an incubator of ‘extrinsic values’. Nobody embodies them like the Republican frontrunner

Many explanations are proposed for the continued rise of Donald Trump, and the steadfastness of his support, even as the outrages and criminal charges pile up. Some of these explanations are powerful. But there is one I have seen mentioned nowhere, which could, I believe, be the most important: Trump is king of the extrinsics.

Some psychologists believe our values tend to cluster around certain poles, described as “intrinsic” and “extrinsic”. People with a strong set of intrinsic values are inclined towards empathy, intimacy and self-acceptance. They tend to be open to challenge and change, interested in universal rights and equality, and protective of other people and the living world.

People at the extrinsic end of the spectrum are more attracted to prestige, status, image, fame, power and wealth. They are strongly motivated by the prospect of individual reward and praise. They are more likely to objectify and exploit other people, to behave rudely and aggressively and to dismiss social and environmental impacts. They have little interest in cooperation or community. People with a strong set of extrinsic values are more likely to suffer from frustration, dissatisfaction, stress, anxiety, anger and compulsive behaviour.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PRUSSIA_x86@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Except that's not the case at all. Reality isn't that simple and if you believe it is then you need to get out of your bubble and start listening to your left-wing allies in Trump country when they tell you what is going on.

[–] Patches@sh.itjust.works 7 points 9 months ago

Wow since when did Cracked start writing the truth.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

This article is absolute gold. It's the same I try to tell people here in Germany with the AFD voters. The article nails it....

It will never stop when we keep going at it by trying to change people by telling them constantly how bad and stupid they supposedly are.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

He paints a caricature of the left (apologies, I think his euphemism is city folk) from the very start that's equally as unhelpful, so you'll pardon me if I doubt the author's objectivity despite his attempt to tell us he's been in "both" environments.

The whole article is "folks in the country have or think they have good reason to hate you." It lambasts the "city" side for its stereotypes of trump voters and misconceptions about rural lifestyle, while entirely forgiving trump voters for theirs.

Then he stereotypes and maligns the reader who doesn't feel inclined to go along:

Already some of you have gotten angry, feeling this gut-level revulsion at any attempt to excuse or even understand these people. After all, they're hardly people, right? Aren't they just a mass of ignorant, rageful, crude, cursing, spitting subhumans?

Can't it just be that I'd prefer an article that explains one "side" without excusing one side and leveling fresh accusations at the other? Did the author write a companion piece someplace to explain to Trump voters why "city folks" find Trump (and Trumpism) repugnant? Is racism and bigotry something we just get to cutely handwave away as the author does? (He's not the only one with experience in both sorts of environments.) Should we be expected to?

May as well tag @PRUSSIA_x86@lemmy.world since they linked the article.

Edit: Euphamism/Euphemism - I blame that it was about 3AM. 😁

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You feel people should not be forgiven to vote for right wing / conservative / etc. parties. What exactly does that mean to not "forgive" them? What is the consequence you wish to see from that?

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

You feel people should not be forgiven to vote for right wing / conservative / etc. parties.

Can you quote the part where I've said such a thing?

Edit: You not only mischaracterized my comment, you ignored every single point I made about the article in order to do so.