If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Who's better at their gaydar, liberals or conservatives? Guess, go on, guess. You might be surprised   (motherjones.com) divider line 172
    More: Interesting, Journal of Personality, liberals  
•       •       •

4182 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Mar 2013 at 2:09 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



172 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-22 03:38:45 PM
DRTFA: takes one to know one?
 
2013-03-22 03:39:14 PM
Speaking as a conservative democrat, I was pretty good at telling when I was significantly more sexually active and it actually had some sort of impact on my lifestyle whether someone was a potential partner or not.  Now that I've cooled down considerably and become a square, my gaydar has kind of atrophied due to a severe paucity of farks given (pun accidental I swear).

Basically, my anecdotal theory is that right-wingers could probably tell better than I could because it makes them angry as opposed to my yawning indifference.  For me it's like being able to tell one brand of dirt bike from another at a glance: I don't care, why would I maintain that skillset?

//Still not sure why my female friends like the gay clubs so much, on a side note.  Drinks is drinks.  Maybe they feel less insulted when no one hits on them?  If I don't want to get picked up, I usually just go to a local bar where the patrons don't hit on each other in general, like  every non-college bar that's not obviously a dive.

edmo: Rav Tokomi: So basically when liberals stop thinking they become conservative?

Exhibit A: those wild college friends who marry and have kids and now tolerate nothing in the way of sex, drugs, alcohol, or rap videos.


All the people of my generation have kids that are, like, eight at most so I can't really tell whether they're clean for real or just until the wee buggers are past the "everything seen goes in the mouth" stage.  Actually kind of assuming it'll wear off, I don't typically drink with my parents but since I turned 16 or so they sort of quit making a big deal of keeping booze out of the house and wine and beer show up with meals and so on.

And in all fairness most rap videos do int damage to _me_ and I know what they're going for.
 
2013-03-22 03:39:39 PM
cdn-premiere.ladmedia.fr
 
2013-03-22 03:41:55 PM

Kazrath: the_dude_abides: namatad: this adjusting of views is exactly what we liberals claim is the difference between us and the gops. this adjusting views, or critical thinking is also why we turn away from religion and conservatism. we want re-evaluate the world and make changes and improvements. they dont want to think.

so you're saying that liberals are better critical thinkers than conservatives because you don't stereotype. and then you proceed to stereotype conservatives. brilliant.

No, the study basically found that if you cause liberals to do additional mental tasks above what a republican has to then they think at about the same level.  So in other words:  Republicans are as dumb normally as a liberally that is already thinking about something + what the Republican is thinking about.

Funny how a test about Gaydar proves previous assertions that Republicans on average are dumber than liberals.


this post might've made more sense if it were written by a liberal... if I'm reading it right. Which I cannot be sure that I am.
 
2013-03-22 03:43:32 PM
way off subject, but i need help.  Can someone pass me a link to the benghazi outrage image. 
the one that lists the numbers of people killed in past years and no one cared, but then benghazi is a scandal??

Thanks, carry on
 
2013-03-22 03:52:14 PM
The cons just pick out the gays by judging who they'd like to fark.

/projection
 
2013-03-22 03:57:05 PM

FirstNationalBastard: No, because they've turned 180 degrees and decided that everything they were doing and had no problems with before spitting out a dependent or two should now be banned for the safety of their crotch droppings... that doesn't make them responsible, it makes them shiatty parents who don't want to parent, and stupid.

/and what's so dumb about drinking, sex, and recreational drugs, especially in college?


nothing... i'm 28, i'm single, and i lead a pretty hedonistic lifestyle. but I have plenty of friends who got married and put the partying behind them for the sake of a stability family life. on one hand, yeah, it sucks because they don't have time for anything else. on the other hand, i admire their devotion and discipline and selflessness.

 
also, who the eff said anything about banning stuff???
 
2013-03-22 04:01:50 PM

the_dude_abides: FirstNationalBastard: No, because they've turned 180 degrees and decided that everything they were doing and had no problems with before spitting out a dependent or two should now be banned for the safety of their crotch droppings... that doesn't make them responsible, it makes them shiatty parents who don't want to parent, and stupid.

/and what's so dumb about drinking, sex, and recreational drugs, especially in college?

nothing... i'm 28, i'm single, and i lead a pretty hedonistic lifestyle. but I have plenty of friends who got married and put the partying behind them for the sake of a stability family life. on one hand, yeah, it sucks because they don't have time for anything else. on the other hand, i admire their devotion and discipline and selflessness.

 
also, who the eff said anything about banning stuff???


That was what I got out of the original comment about tolerating nothing in the way of drugs, sex, or rap videos after having kids. Because honestly, how many times do you see people with interesting pasts become the champions of banning video games or freaking out over sexually charged dialogue on TV or something stupid like that once they become parents?

Yeah, it is wise for people to caution their kids against doing stupid stuff. But more than a few seem to forget that they were young once, too, and take it too far and want to get rid of everything they used to enjoy, "for teh childrun".
 
2013-03-22 04:03:35 PM
Could it be that liberals don't usually need gaydar to identify gays because gays aren't afraid to be gay around them?
 
2013-03-22 04:03:39 PM

the_dude_abides: skozlaw: It's not a stereotype if it really is broadly true.

worst. rationalization. ever.

Multiple studies now have concluded that conservative thinking is dominated by low effort, fear, low IQ and now stereotyping.

ah yes, here comes the pseudo-science. 100 years ago it was phrenology and eugenics, now it's liberals ratfarking the scientific method for their own retarded political gains.


Feel free to post some evidence to support any of what you just claimed.
 
2013-03-22 04:05:27 PM

CPennypacker: Could it be that liberals don't usually need gaydar to identify gays because gays aren't afraid to be gay around them?


Exactly how does one "be gay" around someone else?

Do they, like, fellate a banana in your kitchen? Suggestively eat clams?
 
2013-03-22 04:08:05 PM

FirstNationalBastard: CPennypacker: Could it be that liberals don't usually need gaydar to identify gays because gays aren't afraid to be gay around them?

Exactly how does one "be gay" around someone else?

Do they, like, fellate a banana in your kitchen? Suggestively eat clams?


Cucumbers
 
2013-03-22 04:09:46 PM

CPennypacker: FirstNationalBastard: CPennypacker: Could it be that liberals don't usually need gaydar to identify gays because gays aren't afraid to be gay around them?

Exactly how does one "be gay" around someone else?

Do they, like, fellate a banana in your kitchen? Suggestively eat clams?

Cucumbers


I went to a gay New Years party once and actually had one guy ask the host out loud what all the breeders were doing there. It was fun to be righteously indignant for once ;)
 
2013-03-22 04:19:44 PM

skozlaw: the_dude_abides: so you're saying that liberals are better critical thinkers than conservatives because you don't stereotype. and then you proceed to stereotype conservatives. brilliant.

It's not a stereotype if it really is broadly true. Multiple studies now have concluded that conservative thinking is dominated by low effort, fear, low IQ and now stereotyping.

The evidence increasingly suggests that conservatism, social conservatism in particular, may simply be the result of inferior brain structure.


An accurate analogy here would be someone assuming a 60 year-old male in a suit is a conservative. Once you know they're conservative, you can make some safe assumptions, just like it's safe to assume a gay man prefers penis over vagina. The preference of penis over vagina isn't a "stereotype," of homosexuality, it is a defining trait.
 
2013-03-22 04:24:21 PM
Hell I'm gay and my gaydar is sometimes wrong. Some people just don't come off as gay, and some that do happen to be straight.
 
2013-03-22 04:24:57 PM

victrin: Hell I'm gay and my gaydar is sometimes wrong. Some people just don't come off as gay, and some that do happen to be straight.


How queer.
 
2013-03-22 04:25:48 PM

victrin: Hell I'm gay and my gaydar is sometimes wrong. Some people just don't come off as gay, and some that do happen to be straight.


or maybe your gaydar is 100% accurate and they just pretend to be not gay cuz you ugly? :)
 
2013-03-22 04:26:59 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Homophobic Men Most Aroused by Gay Male Porn


The gay male porn I've seen mostly just made me think, "Ouch!" But I'm of the opinion (probably because I'm old) that porn is permanently broken.
 
2013-03-22 04:35:14 PM

mrshowrules: vernonFL: skullkrusher: based on pictures alone? That's pretty hard.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 185x273]

It depends on the picture.

That is hilarious because when I was a kid all the toughest kids loved Judas Priest and wore the band's T-shirts.  They were considered very badass.  If you said the guys in that band were gay they would think you were on drugs and you would probably get a beating for suggesting it.  Donny Osmond, Rod Steward and Rene Simard (Quebec) were considered to be homosexual even though (I believe) are actually straight.

I remember thinking George Michael was straight.  That is how farked up my gaydar was.


Rod Stewart actually was gay at one time.  My understanding, though, is that he turned hetero after experiencing the pain of having his stomach pumped for an extended period of time.

Same exact thing happened to Donny Osmond, now that I think about it.
 
2013-03-22 04:42:48 PM

Noam Chimpsky: There is a certain look about the samers. Most of the Obama administration and the people he promoted are queer. Just sayin. But that is part of the reason he was pretending to be against the samer weddings for the first few years. When you are all about homo, like Obama, you need some policy to disguise the fact.


Even though I realize you are a troll, you are still a detestable slug. Find something to do with your life, you pimple-assed basement dweller.
 
2013-03-22 04:50:09 PM
Wow, they proved that conservatives were prejudice shiatbirds. Good use of grant money there.
 
2013-03-22 04:51:02 PM
webpages.charter.net
 
2013-03-22 04:55:30 PM
skozlaw: Feel free to post some evidence to support any of what you just claimed.

uhh, none of those studies you posted were peer reviewed. hell, only the first url links to the study (and only the abstract, the full text is not available), the other two link to op-ed pieces on political sites. hell, even the guys who conducted the study say the results were inconclusive and should not be taken literally. and yet here you are, spinning it for political purposes. that is exactly what I mean by pseudo-science, dirty little hacks like you making inferences that aren't there. sorry, nice try. seriously, did you even read the text of the links you posted??? lol
 
2013-03-22 04:59:06 PM
vernonFL: skullkrusher: based on pictures alone? That's pretty hard.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 185x273]

It depends on the picture.


So you think only gays(like Mr Halford) are hell bent for leather? you sound more sexually repressed and clueless than the fundiest of fundies.
 
2013-03-22 05:18:23 PM

the_dude_abides: uhh, none of those studies you posted were peer reviewed. hell, only the first url links to the study (and only the abstract, the full text is not available)


Abstract only is common for peer-reviewed scientific studies. If it wasn't peer reviewed, how was it published.

You're doing the typical social-conservative "I don't want it to be true, so I will pretend it's not! It's the liberals conspiring against us" mental short-cut.

Here's a more comprehensive study on right-wing authoritarianism:
 
2013-03-22 05:18:59 PM
 
2013-03-22 05:19:31 PM
My gaydar is pretty terrible. Or more precisely, my gaydar for picking out women is pretty terrible, which kind of sucks because I'd rather not be single forever.
 
2013-03-22 05:41:37 PM
I would guess liberals, since conservatives can't tell the difference between a gay man and an undercover cop in the next bathroom stall over.
 
2013-03-22 05:43:08 PM
I for one don't care what your sexual orientation is.  Furthermore, whether they be gay or straight, people who go on and on about their sexual orientation--there seem to be more and more of them these days--bore me to distraction.
 
2013-03-22 05:45:54 PM
impaler: You're doing the typical social-conservative "I don't want it to be true, so I will pretend it's not! It's the liberals conspiring against us" mental short-cut.

i'll ask you the same thing i asked skozlaw: did you read the links he posted? did you think it's definitive proof of the points he was trying to make? and do you believe that either side has facts and science on their side as a matter of course?

btw i'll check out the link you sent, sounds interesting.
 
2013-03-22 05:47:16 PM

the_dude_abides: namatad: this adjusting of views is exactly what we liberals claim is the difference between us and the gops. this adjusting views, or critical thinking is also why we turn away from religion and conservatism. we want re-evaluate the world and make changes and improvements. they dont want to think.

so you're saying that liberals are better critical thinkers than conservatives because you don't stereotype. and then you proceed to stereotype conservatives. brilliant.


http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/04/does-your-brain-bleed- re d-white-.html

Conservatives don't think the same way as liberals do though. They just don't. They have larger amygdalas and are more fear based in their judgments of the world, (more an observation of my own family than any real science there) which lends towards the general thing that was said. Conservatives don't think, they react. The stress of constantly living in fear like they do must be nearly disabling. I pity them, at least a little bit. Their reaction based system may hinder them from properly analyzing a situation because their brains are busy translating things into fear and disgust. This thinking somewhat goes to explain at least to me why conservatives don't seem to like "outsiders."

Conservatives react to perceived threats, liberals seem more inclined towards trying to understand the motivations of an action that's been taken. Liberals have larger anterior cingulate cortex which is responsible for emotional responses and processing cognitively demanding information. Liberals may well become emotional when reacting to something, but they're not as scared.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7895011
 
2013-03-22 05:49:17 PM

tirob: I for one don't care what your sexual orientation is.


That's Rapism!
 
2013-03-22 06:07:43 PM
How about "Who gives a fark?"
 
2013-03-22 06:08:28 PM
Which is to say about the orientation of the person you're talking to, not over which group can deduce it better.
 
2013-03-22 06:08:53 PM

ohokyeah: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/04/does-your-brain-bleed- re d-white-.html


sample size is 90 students... yeah, i'm sure it was totally representative of the political spectrum in our country
 
2013-03-22 06:14:40 PM

FirstNationalBastard: the_dude_abides: FirstNationalBastard: edmo: Rav Tokomi: So basically when liberals stop thinking they become conservative?

Exhibit A: those wild college friends who marry and have kids and now tolerate nothing in the way of sex, drugs, alcohol, or rap videos.

Parenthood makes people stupid. It's true.

really? that's your take? that when they were in college and drinking and having sex and doing drugs they were smart? and now that they're trying to act responsibly because they have a family, they're stupid?

No, because they've turned 180 degrees and decided that everything they were doing and had no problems with before spitting out a dependent or two should now be banned for the safety of their crotch droppings... that doesn't make them responsible, it makes them shiatty parents who don't want to parent, and stupid.

/and what's so dumb about drinking, sex, and recreational drugs, especially in college?


If you're a singer, drinking is dumb, other than that, fornication and dabbling with mind altering substances is what life needs more of.
 
2013-03-22 06:37:53 PM

FirstNationalBastard: CPennypacker: Could it be that liberals don't usually need gaydar to identify gays because gays aren't afraid to be gay around them?

Exactly how does one "be gay" around someone else?

Do they, like, fellate a banana in your kitchen? Suggestively eat clams?


Duh.  They wear speedos and sing show tunes.
 
2013-03-22 06:44:55 PM

the_dude_abides: uhh, none of those studies you posted were peer reviewed. hell, only the first url links to the study (and only the abstract, the full text is not available), the other two link to op-ed pieces on political sites. hell, even the guys who conducted the study say the results were inconclusive and should not be taken literally. and yet here you are, spinning it for political purposes. that is exactly what I mean by pseudo-science, dirty little hacks like you making inferences that aren't there. sorry, nice try. seriously, did you even read the text of the links you posted??? lol


Instead of even attempting to refute anything presented to you, you've gone off on a hysterical tangent attacking the studies because of the sites that were reporting on them, claiming they're psuedo-science (even though you claim at the same time that you can't even read them) and that people citing them are "dirty little hacks" involved in some left-wing conspiracy to discredit conservatives using methodology akin to phrenology and eugenics.
 

Way to disprove the idea that conservatism is based on lazy, irrational, reactionary thinking...
 
2013-03-22 06:49:47 PM

skozlaw: the_dude_abides: uhh, none of those studies you posted were peer reviewed. hell, only the first url links to the study (and only the abstract, the full text is not available), the other two link to op-ed pieces on political sites. hell, even the guys who conducted the study say the results were inconclusive and should not be taken literally. and yet here you are, spinning it for political purposes. that is exactly what I mean by pseudo-science, dirty little hacks like you making inferences that aren't there. sorry, nice try. seriously, did you even read the text of the links you posted??? lol

Instead of even attempting to refute anything presented to you, you've gone off on a hysterical tangent attacking the studies because of the sites that were reporting on them, claiming they're psuedo-science (even though you claim at the same time that you can't even read them) and that people citing them are "dirty little hacks" involved in some left-wing conspiracy to discredit conservatives using methodology akin to phrenology and eugenics.

Way to disprove the idea that conservatism is based on lazy, irrational, reactionary thinking...


Bears repeating.
 
2013-03-22 06:52:24 PM

the_dude_abides: and do you believe that either side has facts and science on their side as a matter of course?


Depends how you define "sides." If it's Republicans vs Non-Republicans, then 'yes.' One side has facts and science as a matter of course.

Republicans have turned into a cult, and a good part of being a member of that cult is actively denying reality.
 
2013-03-22 07:00:44 PM
no, actually I did refute what you said, maybe you missed it so let me do it again:

- study 1: no link to text, all I have is the abstract which says they got people drunk and asked them conservative questions. is there something i'm missing? lol
- study 2: direct quote from article -- "(The study) was commissioned as a light-hearted experiment by actor Colin Firth as part of his turn guest editing BBC Radio's Today program but has now developed into a serious effort to discover whether we are programmed with a particular political view. ...'I took this on as a fairly frivolous exercise: I just decided to find out what was biologically wrong with people who don't agree with me and see what scientists had to say about it and they actually came up with something.'"
- study 3: direct quote from article -- "Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said. 'There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals,' Hodson said. Nosek gave another example to illustrate the dangers of taking the findings too literally. 'We can say definitively men are taller than women on average," he said. "But you can't say if you take a random man and you take a random woman that the man is going to be taller. There's plenty of overlap.' Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world."

so again I ask: do you think that's solid proof of your argument that republicans are stupider than democrats? are they reaching beyond their grasp to spin some kind of political point? did you even read them?
 
2013-03-22 07:01:44 PM

impaler: Depends how you define "sides." If it's Republicans vs Non-Republicans, then 'yes.' One side has facts and science as a matter of course.


citation needed
 
2013-03-22 07:05:22 PM

the_dude_abides: impaler: Depends how you define "sides." If it's Republicans vs Non-Republicans, then 'yes.' One side has facts and science as a matter of course.

citation needed


Cite me a Republican position backed by facts and science.
 
2013-03-22 07:09:32 PM

impaler: Cite me a Republican position backed by facts and science.


you should read more carefully, i never said one side has facts and science and the other does not. you're the one saying that. i believe the burden of proof falls on you.
 
2013-03-22 07:21:34 PM

the_dude_abides: -snip-


1: I don't know what to tell you, they're journals. That's how journals work. If you really care that much, you're free to access them for a fee if you don't have access through an institution. But they're all available.

2. Who commissioned the study is irrelevant. Unless you're suggesting you have some reason to believe Mr. Firth influenced it unduly in some way.

3. I never said all conservatives are stupid. In fact, I never said anybody was stupid. I said the evidence suggests conservatives have a lower IQ, are more fearful, and seek easy answers that don't require complex thinking.

You're still not responding with any refutation. You just continue to whine about the sites they're posted on. If these are so self-evidently wrong why can't you present a review of any of them saying as much? If they're so obviously discreditable it should be fairly easy to find someone who discredited them. Scientists love to tear other scientists a new one for sloppy work, after all.
 
2013-03-22 07:24:58 PM

the_dude_abides: so again I ask: do you think that's solid proof of your argument that republicans are stupider than democrats? are they reaching beyond their grasp to spin some kind of political point? did you even read them?


Oh, and as for this, I think they're evidence of what I'd already begun to suspect. That conservatives in this country increasingly lack reasoning and critical thinking skills and rely heavily on fear-based, reactionary decision making while attempting to avoid difficult, in-depth thought about complex topics. You, in fact, have so far only further confirmed my beliefs on that matter.
 
2013-03-22 07:27:23 PM
Finally a study shows conservatives are good at something and they're still not happy.
 
2013-03-22 07:29:43 PM
skozlaw: I never said all conservatives are stupid. In fact, I never said anybody was stupid.

i direct you to...

skozlaw: The evidence increasingly suggests that conservatism, social conservatism in particular, may simply be the result of inferior brain structure.

aaaaaaaand cue the word games... cmon, explain to me how you didn't mean stupid when you said  "inferior brain structure" lol
 
2013-03-22 07:36:06 PM

skozlaw: Oh, and as for this, I think they're evidence of what I'd already begun to suspect. That conservatives in this country increasingly lack reasoning and critical thinking skills and rely heavily on fear-based, reactionary decision making while attempting to avoid difficult, in-depth thought about complex topics. You, in fact, have so far only further confirmed my beliefs on that matter.


there it is, the "you're so stupid you just proved my point" defense... i love it

skozlaw, i'm glad you've taken time off from pretending to read scientific journals to demonstrate your intellect
 
2013-03-22 08:03:21 PM

the_dude_abides: impaler: Cite me a Republican position backed by facts and science.

you should read more carefully, i never said one side has facts and science and the other does not. you're the one saying that. i believe the burden of proof falls on you.


I'm saying it's Republicans vs Non-Republicans, and the Republicans don't have facts and science on their side. This isn't a provable statement, it's a disprovable one.

The provable statement would be "Republicans have facts and science on their side." I certainly can not prove that statement.

If you want to continue to obtuse: Link
 
Displayed 50 of 172 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report