What if due to their isolation and the lack of diversity in rural areas actually leads to outcomes where certain parts of our country have more racist beliefs than people who grew up surrounded by people of all different colors and religions? Why do we have to keep ignoring studies and evidence in order to ascribe values to conservatives they never demonstrate? What if this isn't a both sides issue, and one side is definitely more wrong? Hint, the side marching with Neo Nazis chanting "The Jews Will Not Replace Us" is the side which is wrong here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/06/racia...
Data is not the reason you are in a bubble. Data is your excuse. Your view doesn’t gravitate toward data. You gravitate toward data that supports your view. When you find it, I’m rather convinced you’re not particularly critical about it. You seem to be trying to use that data as a club rather than as a tool to fix problems.
Imagine being a conservative who doesn't hold any of those views being told they are essentially a Neo Nazi; or a liberal who is compared with the most violent so-called member of Antifa. My dad is conservative, but doesn't believe any of the things your family members believe, even the bit about welfare queens. This is ironic, because my mother (divorced from my father) used every trick in the book to get money from the government and did it quite well. She did it because she realized it meant she didn't have to work. She claims (to this day) that she did it because she wanted to be home for me and my siblings, but let's just say all four of us will tell you that's a laugh. She was absolutely a welfare queen. Despite that, and although I can certainly find numbers somewhere to back up such a claim, I do not believe this is the case for a meaningful number of welfare recipients. (I do, however, recognize that such people exist.)
(FWIW, my mom—no longer able to claim a lot of the welfare stuff due in large part to her children all becoming adults—hit me up for money. I cut her a check to bail her out of her immediate problems and give her a little runway. I made the 'one-time-thing' part very clear. I also made it conditional on her getting a job. She's just... a much happier person now and is more-or-less supporting herself just fine.)
This is the core of how these bubbles formed:
1. Group all people who disagree with certain ways of thinking in one group. (These ways of thinking need not be at all related.)
2. Assign all people in that group the qualities of the worst elements in that group.
The non-monsters in each group are alienated from each other. They can't ever convince each other of their way of thinking or find a reasonable compromise because each group is convinced they already know what every individual in the other group thinks. It is impossible to disclaim the monsters in your group because you didn't make the group, the other guys made the group. This thinking isn't even completely wrong, since being in a bubble means you're expected to think a certain way.
It's not an effective means of change. It's really quite dehumanizing to everyone involved. It concentrates power at the expense of individuals and allows a handful of people to determine what is proper discourse. This framing colors not only every view, but also every interaction individuals between these bubbles have with each other.
Membership in a such a bubble is obvious from the outside. There are frequent accusations that you belong in the other bubble. There are extreme statements that aren't born out by experience or facts. There are house of cards based sometimes on solid foundations. There are witch hunts for any type of heresy to figure out who to exclude next. The wagons get circle at even a whiff of conflict. Any thought it doesn't recognize as belonging to it immediately gets the label "that other bubble." It honestly must be both exciting and exhausting to be in one.
Popping that bubble I think is an ethical mandate, but it's one that I think people need to do for themselves. Even though the bubble I mostly agree with is right about the problems, and mostly right about solutions, it's not right about everything. It's frequently wrong about people outside itself (myself included) and it's also very very wrong in its approach.
As I said in the beginning, I can't convince you you're in a bubble. I know that. It's something that everyone has to consider for themselves.
Edit: Removed duplicated paragraph.
* Conservatives are mostly from rural areas
* Rural areas are 90% white
* In group / out group dynamics are determined largely by upbringing
* Rural white folk have far less opportunity to have PoC in their in-groups
* Out-group vs in-group is a major factor in discrimination and bias
I spent the first 18 years of my life surrounded by other white Christians and had a completely different experience. It's still not hard for me to accept that happens. What's hard for me to accept is the complete lack of nuance in your reasoning. There's really no room left for discussion after you're through painting a picture, but that picture does not jibe with reality. That's aside from the siege mentality that isn't supported even by the picture but goes along with it.
> From my "outside" perspective, you're obviously stuck in a bubble in which people must go out of their way to pretend both sides of every issue are equally valid.
"Both sides." "Valid." You're framing the argument in terms of your bubble. It's not true, by the way, that I think every argument is equally valid. There's plenty enough bullshit in the world.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281664414_The_Relat...
> Numerous studies suggest that political conservatism significantly correlates with modern racist attitudes. The current findings are consistent with previous studies.
I think the idea that there only exists a single spectrum sorted into sides is itself a sort of meta echo chamber shared by people in echo chambers even as they disagree about everything else. In modern politics, even the idea that the opposed party holds opposite views (versus just opposed) is a meta echo chamber idea. In many left/right topics, the disagreement isn't 'pro/anti', but often more fundamental.
Some examples: While conservatives might be anti-abortion, liberals aren't pro abortion, they're pro-choice and that's not just a rhetorical device. While liberals are anti-racism and see conservatives as pro-racism, a conservative rejects the idea out of hand because of a difference in definitions. A third, more nuanced view might even see the average conservative as non-racist (as opposed to anti-racist) which many would still argue is not enough, but it's not 'the opposite' at all.
I don't think recommendations need to necessarily go to the extremes, but I don't think 'a shade to the left' is enough either, because without understanding the fundamental differences, you have a you-can't-get-there-from-here problem.