It’s a report about findings in a moral question. Don’t worry. Wow that made it sound even worse.
-Turned out the racial identities did indeed color peoples’ judgments — but it colored them differently depending on their political bent. –
-Yet liberals proved just as prejudiced here as conservatives were, but in reverse: While self-described conservatives more readily accepted the sacrifice of Tyrone than they did killing Chip, the liberals were easier about seeing Chip sacrificed than Tyrone.-
-We wanted to find a sample of more sort of, you know, real people. So we went in Orange County-
I have a problem with that but anyway
– we got people who are actually Republicans and actually Democrats, not wishy-washy college students. -The effect just got stronger. –
-If you’re wondering whether this is just because conservatives are racist—well, it may well be that conservatives are more racist. But it appears in these studies that the effect is driven [primarily] by liberals saying that they’re more likely to agree with pushing the white man and [more likely to] disagree with pushing the black man.-
-They offered some other scenarios too, about collateral damage in military situations, for instance, and found similar differences: Conservatives accepted collateral damage more easily if the dead were Iraqis than if they were Americans, while liberals accepted civilian deaths more readily if the dead were Americans rather than Iraqis.-
You know once you toss the nationality into it he’s right, it really is driven by the liberals
>Conservative preferences that the White/American.
>Liberal preferences everybody but those two.
Combined, you should probably adopt the “around never relax” philosophy near liberals.
“But for the non-american?”
Hold on I want to do that again
-liberals accepted civilian deaths more readily if the dead were Americans rather than Iraqis-
So yea, seven year old old study tells you what you already knew. They’re fine with you dying so they welcome “refugees” so they don’t.
There you go.