However, only one side prioritizes loyalty over even the people where the other side encourages introspection and talk about what impacts that loyalty.
The words “loyal” and “disloyal” don’t appear in the actual study—that framing seems to be the article editorializing. It makes it sound like the issue is social relationships instead of policy differences.
In one experiment, the participants were asked to consider moderate policies that allowed abortions in the first trimester of a pregnancy. Both pro-life and pro-choice participants viewed the moderate policies as supporting the opposing side.
Uhhh…
Yeah
Limiting abortion to the first trimester is insane.
It only sounds rational if you think an alarm goes off in a woman’s brain the second impregnation happens.
And especially now:
In another experiment conducted five days before the 2024 presidential election, the participants were asked to consider the beliefs of a hypothetical individual who equally supported both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. The participants also were asked if they considered voting for one candidate over the other to be a moral issue and if they would feel threats to themselves, someone they know, or for society at large if the candidate from the opposing party was elected.
People that weren’t concerned for the safety of others are/were empirically wrong.
They should have had more concerns, but they didn’t.
The article tries to shame people for not tolerating moderates in the face of open fascism, but the author is so out of touch with reality they don’t understand that wasn’t the right move.
Obviously fascists won’t consider moderates on their side.
And obviously the people against fascism will view fascist collaberators as the same as fascists.
Just more sanewashing
What the fuck even is a moderate?
When some people see any disagreement, they just assume a compromise is the best option.
While they may not be aware it’s a reason, a very large amount of them do it for attention.
It’s a “pick me” thing, they know if they claim to see both sides, most of the time both sides will try to recruit them.
They may not even understand that the two groups don’t give a fuck about them, and are just finessing them. They just know people are paying attention to them, and that makes them feel important.
The way to break thru that thinking, is open ended questions. Don’t give them a binary, or even sliding rating of agreement.
Ask them out right what they support, and 99 out of 100 they’ll give the same answers as progressives. It’s not till a fascist shows up that they start blindly supporting moderation.
If it was AOC vs Bernie, they’d all claim to have lifelong positions between the two.
It doesn’t matter what the two choices are, some people just always pick “both”
In related news sky may be perceived as blue
And besides the fact that they’re a bunch of smug lying assholes who stab marginalized folks in the back and call it pragmatism, they’ve only gotten worse at winning elections since 2016
e; meanwhile, this morning NPR is pushing some fucking horseshit from some Ivy League assholes arguing that Dems won’t win back working class voters until they distance themselves from “social justice warriors” - https://www.npr.org/2026/07/29/nx-s1-5905696/2026-midterm-elections-democrats-working-class (arc)
These fuckers constantly poke holes in the liferaft then say we have to throw our weakest swimmers over the side
