Why can’t liberals handle any form of disagreement?

Handwavey ad hom courtesy of someone overly impressed with their 110 IQ

Ah those smug, irrational liberals.

I'm honestly surprised Danny Kruger Syndrome STILL hasn't been mentioned.

>thread is about how liberals can't cope with dissenting opinion
>retards don't see the irony in bitching about how the views of liberals differ from their own
Dehumanizing and generalizing your (political) opponent is poor form and only done out of insecurity and mental weakness.
Maybe some liberal lashed out on you when you made a dumb point, does that mean he's dumb or rather that you're dumb? I know that most people here are self-described right-wingers but if there's one place on the internet where nearly everyone acts like your archetypical pseudo-intellectual fart-huffing liberal minus the political conviction it's Jow Forums.

Why? It applies all over the place. Just because its common and you call attention to the fact that its brought up all the time doesnt make it invalid

Youre like the redditfag that comes here are thinks "whataboutism" is a good way to avoid synthesizing contradictions

because leftist worldview is built on a stack of cards. if you question any card, the whole thing falls apart

Thats true.
Most people resort to name calling if they don't have any argument.

Unless you can provide empirical evidence of something you can't call it common just because it's fits your worldviews. Your post is quite ironic too since the obvious non-liberals just spout the same phrases to avoid any kind of reflection like .

As someone who got defined as a liberal by an online test ( political compass iirc ) I can totally say something like:
> Oh, I see. You are right, I'll adapt to the reality you are showing me.
I have done this several times.
The real problem comes when liberals are either really far left or really far right.
far left just want everything raining from above for them.
far right is kind of similar, just more individualistic, all for themselves.

Goes both ways

>reflection
What reflection is he avoiding retard? That entire chain is just subjective opinions.

>you cant call it common
Im saying bringing up dunning krueger is common
>just because it fits your worldview
It doesnt "fit" my worldview any more than men are stronger than women "fits" my worldview

>ironic
>same phrase
Retard

I'm right wing as I believe in academic meritocracy

but left wing with drugs policy, immigration n stuff

Defenses of contemporary progressivism consist of basically just a) an appeal to authority (the Academy, NGO's, think tanks), and b) ad hom denunciations of anyone who still dares to disagree after that appeal. Only an incel could disagree with something a university said (even though it's taken as given that universities of the past were constantly led astray from objectivity by their ideology). It's almost like Whig historiography and the notion that we've somehow achieved a convergence of technocracy and morality with progressivism are just convenient justifications for keeping the existing system which serves the ruling elite

>woooow libruuls can't take criticism
>also ur a retard if u disagree with meee

>>woooow libruuls can't take criticism
>>also ur a retard if u disagree with meee
Youre not disagreeing with me on anything substantial except our opinions of each others characters you stupid fuck. Oh and the fact that you think bringing up dunning krueger is invalid because its done alot

Phrenology was "empirical evidence" 100 years ago but we now recgonize it as "pseudoscience". Of course it's impossible that our current "empirical evidence" could be similarly "distorted by ideology" and it's definitely not the case that the Academy is as motivated by ideology as any other institution

Based

I'm not the same poster who brought up the Dunning Krueger effect my obese friend so I don't know what you're talking about.
Fair point yet I'd say our current ways of collecting and processing facts is more accurate than "some liberals pissed on my parade so I'll just generalize all liberals to the point I don't have to deal with the shortcomings of my own narrative"

Then why would you even reply to me when thats what i was taking issue with in the first place?

I thought that here you meant the statement in the OP and not the Danning-Krueger-Effect. My apologies for the confusion.

Liberals acting like children and constantly resorting to ad hom isn't a function of their ideology, but just a function of their being ascendant in the current power structure. When conservatives are in charge identical arguments are made of "oh you only disagree because you're a loser virgin, since the powerful people agree with my chosen intellectual institutions of [the Church, conservative intellectuals and think tanks, etc.]"

I live with someone like this. We probably live in a time of some excess-driven narcissism epidemic or something. Plenty of people are not just unwilling but seemingly unable to have a decent and civil discussion. While I witness it more with leftists and liberals, I have seen it on the right as well. Too many people enter conversations on the premise that their opposition is wrong and therefore a malicious enemy. I was literally told by someone that absolutely no amount of evidence could change their mind about their retarded leftist position, and I thought, "well, I guess this conversation is done, then." It's a real shame when someone refuses to accept new and helpful information even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

>I've noticed a very curious pattern with liberals, that they cannot handle even a hint of not supporting their arguments. Say for example your typical liberal writes a long, boring tretease on how trucks contribute to global warming. If you were to make an innocent comment that doesn't even counter their argument but simply fails to blindly support it (e.g., "I saw a yellow truck once") this is enough to enrage the liberal and send them into a deranged attack where they scour your profile or comment history for ad hominem insults. It's as though the mere thought that adults with their own independent thought processes existing are a severe threat to the liberal mind.

Libtard.jpg

Attached: 1561441217853.png (866x900, 356K)

Yes

Attached: dead brain.jpg (550x543, 20K)

>That's leftists

Think you got the demographics wrong bro.

Please KYS

Read Industrial Society and its Consequences

Attached: YourPhoneSir.jpg (1024x1014, 75K)

I'm still not convinced that this state of mind doesn't go either way in equal proportions and that we aren't biased towards automatically disagreeing with what we're not agreeing with.
I've seen this on twitter way too many times where 99% of all people on either side dismissed even the most obvious facts before their eyes just because they fundamentally disagreed with those facts.
Once I've witnessed a conversation spanning 40 hours between a few people where one posted something about her child and another desperately wanted to enlighten others about his fantastical worldviews how danes are smarter than anglos because their brains are larger and how niggers can run faster, then he bitched and moaned when he got jumped by some people telling him to fuck off.

Based and Redpilled

They are mentally ill.
I had a debate with friends years ago, about some topic i forgot. But i remember explaining to them than medias such as the WaPo or NYT couldn't be trusted since they had an history of fake news. They laughed and ask me which ones ? I them reminded them of the lies about Iraq, Lybia, and other wars. They got mad and gave me the angry robot stare for long seconds. It was extremely creepy, and was one of the things that finally convinced me that i would be without them than with.
Now i have normie friends, they may be naive, but at least they speack and act as humans.
Liberals are humans in name only.

>hurr le durr big words
meanwhile your very premise is wrong and you're reverting to a black-white narrative where you're the smarty pants and anyone disagreeing with you only does so because they've been instructed by *le university professors* and they're doing it clumsily, by spewing insults.

As I said, it's a coping mechanism, because you can't counter regular arguments so you have to make up a logical fallacy (durr you only think that way because you're indoctrinated sheeple. hurrr stating verifiable facts and personal opinions on an issue is appeal to authority)

I suggest using the word: *serendipitously* next time. You're bound to win an argument or the moment S-bomb is dropped.

Of course this had to come from a fucking redneck of all people.

I find it ironic how you'd say that considering the same exact shit can apply to your own political ideology

Communism and Fascism come from the same ideology core - absolute control.

Kek, imagine debating on Jow Forums

What are your news sources?

Variety of reasons, OP. And you can't take just one study item and hold it up for examination. You'll need to see each individual one, of course, but then step back and look at them altogether as a mosaic of a picture to your question. To wit:

Liberals, Not Conservatives, Express More Psychoticism (uncooperative, hostile, troublesome, socially withdrawn, manipulative, and lack of feelings of inferiority)
reason.com/blog/2016/06/10/liberals-not-conservatives-express-more

Conservatives have more empathy than liberals
archive.is/xVsz2#selection-1659.3-1671.160

Having a liberal political ideology is “significantly associated” with criminal behavior
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886916310996

Higher IQ people tend to be center-right or center in their political beliefs
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2a57/218d6dc3d4626516a30af3d4a743b3a26ee4.pdf

Those who identify as "Strong Republicans" are smarter than those who identify as "Strong Democrats"
reason.com/archives/2014/06/13/are-conservatives-dumber-than-liberals

Physically weak men more likely to be socialists
dailywire.com/news/16850/study-weak-men-more-likely-be-socialists-amanda-prestigiacomo#exit-modal

Conservatives have more self-control than liberals
pnas.org/content/112/27/8250.abstract

Study Finds Democrats Least Tolerant of Opposing Views
pjmedia.com/trending/2017/04/28/study-finds-democrats-least-tolerant-of-opposing-views/

Liberals complain more and dispute complaint resolutions more than conservatives
academic.oup.com/jcr/article/44/3/477/2939534/Blue-and-Red-Voices-Effects-of-Political-Ideology

Pew study: Liberals more likely to unfriend or block someone over politics
mediaite.com/online/pew-study-liberals-more-likely-to-unfriend-or-block-someone-over-politics/

Attached: emotions not facts.jpg (593x650, 70K)

It used to be a thing

Now we just screech shill and kike because were retarded schizo boomerfags and cringey zoomer subhumans

Conservatives have a broader moral sense than liberals
washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/26/righteous-mind-author-haidt-conservatives-have-bro/

Conservatives have moral concerns that liberals do not recognize as moral concerns
theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/studies-conservatives-are-from-mars-liberals-are-from-venus/252416/

Conservatives are less likely than liberals to compromise their morals
scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/

Conservatives are better than liberals at recognizing potential threats
nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/02/are-conservatives-more-scared-of-stuff-than-liberals.html

Conservatives are happier than liberals
psych.nyu.edu/jost/Napier & Jost (2008) Why are conservatives happier than libe.pdf

Conservatives have better self-esteem than liberals
johnchambersslu.weebly.com/uploads/2/4/8/5/24852857/schlenkeretal_jrp_2012.pdf

Having low self-esteem causes people to be more liberal
gsb.stanford.edu/sites/gsb/files/publication-pdf/Belmi Neale Mirror Mirror OBHDP.pdf

Liberals are more likely than conservatives to exaggerate the differences between them
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0050092

Conservatives Report Greater Meaning in Life Than Liberals
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550618768241

Peer-reviewed sociological data that show liberals are generally more selfish, more focused on money, less hardworking, less emotionally satisfied, less honest, and even less knowledgeable about politics than their conservative counterparts
spectator.org/43277_kinder-and-gentler/

Conservatives understand liberals better than liberals understand conservatives
theindependentwhig.com/haidt-passages/haidt/conservatives-understand-liberals-better-than-liberals-understand-conservatives/

Attached: Apr Darmouth survey Dems least tolerant.jpg (555x535, 77K)

Higher IQ people tend to hold center or center-right political views; lower IQ people hold political views at either end of the spectrum
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2a57/218d6dc3d4626516a30af3d4a743b3a26ee4.pdf

Authoritative studies show that conservatives are better informed, more knowledgeable, and better educated than liberals
Makers and Takers: Why conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic and envious, whine less...and even hug their children more than liberals, by Peter Schweizer

Study: Students who called themselves “very liberal” or “radical” tended to have a “narcissistic pathology” that exhibited itself in “grandiosity, envy…and a sense of entitlement.” Not surprisingly, these students were not only the most power-oriented but also the most pot-oriented
Also from Makers and Takers by Schweizer

Attached: Haidt Survey NYT.jpg (480x476, 57K)

can't with faggots like you around, what do you think the sticky is there for, cocksucker?

As usual, very few or no posts will be made after this dump of peer-reviewed research articles. Because this thread was started by a shill or glownigger, and so they don't want this thread bumped so that more people see it. Watch how it now slides into oblivion.

Thanks for the reply user

Attached: my sides.png (395x339, 215K)

Attached: 26V-hjKAJxK4bQOKrjeKmljxYcXLffBkfGmkCNwA8vI.png (1200x1620, 135K)

nature of the left
principals and aspects of socialism and communism require obedience not critical thought

They dont care about logic only moral virtue seeking.

Attached: 1554927428242.png (657x539, 110K)

>refined cultural intellectual

Attached: RefinedCulturalIntellectualLiberal.jpg (1856x1392, 414K)

there is very reason to debate the appropriately named dump since it's a collection of carefully curated articles that corroborate one's viewpoint, while disregarding any non-conforming articles, studies, etc.

proof: I picked one of articles at random: spectator.org/43277_kinder-and-gentler/

>Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less…and Even Hug Their Children More Than Liberals
by Peter Schweizer

>Peter Franz Schweizer (born November 24, 1964) is an American investigative journalist, novelist, author, and political consultant. He is the president of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) and senior editor-at-large of far-right media organization Breitbart News.

>Schweizer wrote Clinton Cash, a 2015 book discussing donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities and Bill and Hillary Clinton's income after they left the White House in 2001.

In other words an article lambasting liberals as takers, selfish, etc. was written by a right wing activist/writer, an editor at Breitbart no less. Without arguing the merit of his musings, it's fair to say that *the dump* likely consists of politically colored studies designed for right wing consumption. It's the equivalent of posting Salon or HuffPo studies, polls, etc.

Thanks for proving my point. Good job, yet another brainlet librul screeching ad hominems taken out.

At least for me as a non-native speaker, reading those studies (not the biased articles apparently summarizing them) takes time and more often than not I find little to no relation between the study and the articles you've posted outside of quotes taken out of context or parts while parts of the study even contradict the general idea of the article.
As such your info dump is just that, a collection of random websites posing as peer-reviewed research articles which just take bits out of actual peer reviewed studies.
I highly doubt that you did anything to actually aggregate all those articles, you just copied them from another thread, reddit or facebook.

>In other words an article lambasting liberals as takers, selfish, etc. was written by a right wing activist/writer, an editor at Breitbart no less. Without arguing the merit of his musings, it's fair to say that *the dump* likely consists of politically colored studies designed for right wing consumption. It's the equivalent of posting Salon or HuffPo studies, polls, etc.

1. Memeflag posting, so most on here would mock you or ignore you immediately. I won't, because I don't stoop to the Alinsky tactics employed by The Left.

2. You're using a standard Alinsky tactic: mocking. And it won't work, because it's a bankrupt tactic, and it's illogical.

The articles I posted come from peer-reviewed scientific journals, and if you cannot recognize that, it's not my problem. Your problem, rather, is with the research findings and how all of them together paint a picture of the modern American Left as a mob of hysterical, hateful, harmful people.

Attached: Liberals more psychotic.jpg (501x357, 62K)

1. Most of the URLs I posted go directly to the research article, so you can read what you like there. Your laziness in reading and/or reading comprehension reflects on you, not the research. And I'm being kind here by not calling you a HURR DURR or an enormous faggot, or even telling you to fuck off.

2. News articles summarize research articles all the time. Every day. That's what news is about. Summarizing things. Summarizing events, summarizing new reports, summarizing new research findings. What don't you understand about this? If there is a news article summarizing a research article, then go to the news article and I can guarantee you that you will find a link to the research article there. If you're too lazy or dumb to see or know this, again, not my problem, you have an information gap.

3. There's nothing "random" about my data dump. It is a collection of research articles about liberal vs conservative thinking, actions, etc.

4. That a center or center-right or even right news organization takes a bit of information and publishes it, and then you make an evaluation that that then makes that bit of information invalid is illogical. Take the pic at hand here from Brietbart. Howard Dean makes a dopey statement, a news organization picks it up and gives it a headline, and ... so what? It's just one more bit of information for you to gain a clearer picture of the American Left.

Attached: Howard Dean Iran is not a Muslim Country.jpg (583x547, 54K)

Reason.com is the website of a magazine Reason published by the Reason Foundation and "Hit & Run" is a blog on that website. That blog is by no means a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
I have explained that I'm not lazy but the structure in which information is presented is misleading and unnerving. Someone writing a simple blog about actual scientific studies does not have the scientific merit of the study it refers to, especially not if its written with political bias, the exact same political bias OP is talking about.
I don't know what else to tell you if you can't separate an actual political study from a political writer that is paid to write for a magazine.

Liberals respond based on their emotions not logic

a fucking leaf

aw, classic liberal projection

I can, I was on the debate team in college.

Have some quick reading material of an interesting experience

Attached: Harvard_Tard.jpg (1322x2891, 602K)

>Your problem, rather, is with the research findings and how all of them together paint a picture of the modern American Left as a mob of hysterical, hateful, harmful people.
but the research is obviously written by people *with a bone to pick* which is immediately suspect when it comes to sociological research.

It's no different than posting average HuffPo article claiming that conservatives have tiny peepees or what have you. The only difference is I won't be making a collection of Salon articles written by purple haired *professors* portraying conservatives as banjo playing hicks.

Again and again, you're falling for the same black-white narrative. Posting articles by self professed transhumanist libertarians, Breitbart editors, etc., is no different than posts like or I have to go now. Maybe I'll get back to you if this thread stays up later. Bye.

Like legitimately, ask me to debate with you.

>That blog is by no means a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
You stupid nigger, his first reason.com links directly quotes a peer-reviewed scientific journal [ ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809096/ ], you'd know this if you bothered actually reading it

You sound like every other shitlib I run into. They immediately reject any information that doesn't fit their bias and then declare victory. It's a baffling amount of closed-mindedness.

How long were you crying and shaking from OP's post before you were able to type that out?

Arguing with a liberal is a waste of time. The only two options are to let them walk over you or to walk over them. Anything else is a waste of time that delays the inevitable.

>>Your problem, rather, is with the research findings and how all of them together paint a picture of the modern American Left as a mob of hysterical, hateful, harmful people.
>but the research is obviously written by people *with a bone to pick* which is immediately suspect when it comes to sociological research.
Let me guess: You didn't actually visit any one of the science journals I posted, you immediately don't agree with the research conclusions, so -- in your mind -- that must mean that the researcher is biased. Your personal blindspot is simply astounding.

>It's no different than posting average HuffPo article claiming that conservatives have tiny peepees or what have you. The only difference is I won't be making a collection of Salon articles written by purple haired *professors* portraying conservatives as banjo playing hicks.
Wrong. Here you're conflating issues. This is akin to the Operation Mockingbird Media rejecting the term "illegal alien" and instead using a wiggle word like "undocumented worker" or something like that. The AP changed this wording several years ago to conflate two terms -- "illegal alien" and "immigrant" -- to confuse the argument about immigration. In your case, you claim a peer-reviewed research article is "no different" than an "average HuffPo article". If you really, sincerely believe this, then there is no help for you. However, I don't believe you really believe this; I think you're a paid shill, and you want to abandon this thread argument because you know you've lost. Because you're not used to someone facing and defeating your claims.

Attached: Democrat women most likely to block or unfriend.jpg (717x438, 38K)

>but the research is obviously written by people *with a bone to pick* which is immediately suspect when it comes to sociological research.

90-95% of social science Master's and Ph.D's are registered Democrats and vastly more liberal on Likert scales. Overall, something like 85% of all college-level academics are liberal. Who exactly do you think writes all the studies and accepts which ones get published. You can check the demographics yourself as they have been openly surveyed.

>Again and again, you're falling for the same black-white narrative.
You people really appear to be insane. But you cannot see it, can you?

>Posting articles by self professed transhumanist libertarians, Breitbart editors, etc., is no different than posts like or
wut

>I have to go now. Maybe I'll get back to you if this thread stays up later. Bye.
I have work to do, too. Come back if you like.

Attached: 1024x1024.jpg (1024x767, 71K)

More like self-professed Marxists, user.
Source: econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.html

Attached: marxism in academ.jpg (388x224, 13K)

You can't even access multiple of the studies, and if I search the opposite I'll find a left leaning view of this. There's a reason that you shouldn't look for information to prove your claim, but to disprove it.

:)

I downloaded the original paper. This actually looks like a really good resource. Thank you. I'm just glad I'm in health care since it isn't nearly as lopsided. That said it is still frustrating. I was always interested in psych and mental health as a field, but I don't think I could ever justify supporting or recommending someone cutting off their genitals or being given Rx estrogens/androgens for psych disorders even if it was "standard-of-care".

>Higher IQ people tend to hold center or center-right political views; lower IQ people hold political views at either end of the spectrum
>pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2a57/218d6dc3d4626516a30af3d4a743b3a26ee4.pdf
I decided to check the first one. Let's change the description to right wingers having the lowest IQ besides people entirely unaffiliated with politics

Attached: lowIQ.png (432x137, 60K)

Figured I'd add a nice table for you in my wheelhouse since you were posting good content. It does have a source link at the bottom and an article about it in the New York Times.
nytimes.com/2016/10/07/upshot/your-surgeon-is-probably-a-republican-your-psychiatrist-probably-a-democrat.html

What honestly scares me is that psych has been taken over, and in my own state, our Surgeon General is a transgender woman (actual man) pushing this on all schools and institutions. Anyone who disagrees is persona non grata. The APA is 90% liberal, and these are the people who will get to decide who is a "threat in having a gun" if red flag laws occur.

Attached: PhysicianSurveyGraph.png (655x713, 44K)

You talk, but I see no source materials to the contrary. All I see are meme flags. Post here whatever claims you like about conservatives vs. liberals. It's absolutely on topic.

Interdasting, user, and thanks for posting. Surgeons are the cowboy mavericks of physicians, and most are (still) men, so that number is not surprising.

What the original poster said about "Higher IQ people tend to hold center or center-right political views; lower IQ people hold political views at either end of the spectrum." was exactly in-line with his statement. Here is a chart from your own link.

Attached: PoliticalIQMean.png (659x207, 11K)

That’s why even if they could or would accept logic, they are duplicitous and any attempt at compromise is just to do their complete takeover incrementally.

Attached: B6DA5F2C-5E8F-4265-ACE2-B58604F26F4D.png (800x767, 863K)

> 56%

So moderates have the highest IQ and then right wingers have the lowest. That seems like a more honest way to describe it according to the data

Libshits simply have a problem with everything that is working.

The classical liberal died with that crippled commie FDR. It's been commies in sheep's clothing ever since.

F R A G I L E
R
A
G
I
L
E

BTFO

Also the study is done on fucking Brazillian's. How is their right, left, center-left/right differentiated from USA politics?

AND Centre-right is nearly all liberal/democrat/Social democrats

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Brazil

Checked
Liberals follow a cult. Try to argue with any fanatic and you'll see the same reaction.

>Say for example your typical liberal writes a long, boring tretease on how trucks contribute to global warming. If you were to make an innocent comment that doesn't even counter their argument but simply fails to blindly support it (e.g., "I saw a yellow truck once") this is enough to enrage the liberal

so someone is taking their time to explain shit to you, then you make a meme comment and you wonder why they get mad? It's because they assumed you were intelligent enough to reason with, and you prove you're just another dumbfuck. Thats annoying.

They’ve been stuck in an echo chamber for too long. It’s not really their fault. There is an agenda in place to reaffirm the value system they were taught. It’s the same people pushing this agenda, that are contributing massive donations to universities, media, politics, and wherever they find influence. This is exacerbated by algorithms when they spend time online and more recently, deliberate attempts to create a bigger echo chamber by shutting down any opposition or criticism. Algorithms will keep these people in small bubbles for targeted ads, so it won’t go away anytime soon. They’re basically just imitating what is around them (their bubble).

>liberals, that they cannot handle even a hint of not supporting their arguments ?

liberals = baby boomers

Got it now ?

My family acts similarly.
They are all overweight hyperliberal females living at the heart of this commie bullshit.

You could provide them a fully sourced presentation on the Jews & their control of western super powers.

Same goes for race & IQ, FBI table 43, or accomplishments of the white man.

They'd walk away, say you have no proof, call you an evil nazi and stuff their face with twinkies while browsing Facebook.

In a similar vein, they are all very overweight, they claim losing weight is hard.

>be me
>losing weight is easy just reduce caloric intake
>lose 10 lbs.
>see? Now you try.
>"no user it doesn't work like that, you just have good genetics"
> we are fucking related
>look now I'll gain 10lbs back on command
>gain 10lbs
>"see user your genetics arent that great after all you already gained the weight back."

Dont give a fuck now, keep lifting, reading, getting stronger & better, these fat fucks will die of heart attacks or diversity.

Pic unrelated.

Attached: 1551363364463.jpg (650x1024, 200K)

>In the majority of studies, the causal ordering between personality traits and political attitudes was assumed, but has yet to be empirically evaluated.
Quiting passages of a scientific study or anither journal doesn't mean the medium I'm posting it in also becomes peer reviewed or even scientific.
Jesus Christ you're a faggot, at least I know you'll never procreate.

They're fucking stupid. They don't know why they believe what they do, and the answer is actually because of social acceptability. When you challenge them to any sort of discourse, it rings as a challenge to their entire way of life, but also makes them feel stupid, as they realize they cannot even begin to formulate an actual logical defense for their views. Finally, the liberal, especially white liberal, has a very weak ego, and is intimidated by conviction.

Progressivism really IS their religion.
They all praise the mighty god Diversity
They have the original sin Privilege
Its based on faith "Listen and Believe"
They have their anti-christ hitler and his reincarnation Muh Drumpf

Of we where 200 years ago, they would be the religious zelots trying to burn every one as a witch.

I wouldn't call it a religion, they operate much more like a cult.
Diversity isn't the God.
Government is ( it gives and takes but ultimately loves its people), sometimes we can even see the cult of personality in the West right now.
The original sin may be the Priviledge but I'm not sure if that's it.
It is absolutely based on faith.
Their Anti-Christ embodied is Trump but the Antichrist is much less defined.
Their "Revelation" is the climate change, overpopulation or whatever they believe now, will cause the end of the world.