Right-wing credulity.

[Arkady]

What is it about right-wingers that makes them fall for such obvious hoaxes? I've noticed this on Facebook where nearly all the plainly phony memes going around are ones that support the conservative worldview.

For a while, I analyzed this from a supply-side perspective. Basically, I thought that there were just more conservative memes being generated, multiplying the chance that some would go viral. I pictured a conservative think tank somewhere, where third-tier Koch flunkies were spending their days churning out hundreds of right-wing lies and doctored photos, while they put in their dues before becoming right-wing op-ed columnists. The idea was that through sheer volume some of those were inevitably going to catch fire in social media.

I'm starting to think that was a mistake though -- that it's really a demand-side issue, not a supply-side issue. I now believe it's just that the right-wing public is more susceptible to bias-affirming lies than the left-wing public is. Left-wing lies doubtless occur often, too, but they're like sparks falling on well-watered ground, whereas the right-wing public's mental landscape is nothing but bone-dry tinder.

This came up here again today, in the form of yet another right-wing transmission of a fabricated photo. One of our fellow posters shared this right-wing meme, supposedly showing Margaret Sanger giving a speech to the KKK:

As anyone with an IQ over about 70 can see, it's obviously doctored. The perspective is all screwed up -- Sanger would have to be a giant, and the arm of one of the KKK members would have to defy physics for it to work. Here's the real photo:

That's not a one-time bit of bumbling by the conservatives here, though. I've seen that same fake Sanger photo pop up here at least three times, with three different right-wingers, not one of whom noticed the obvious doctoring until it was pointed out.

Here's another good example:

One of our dumber right-wingers actually thought people had marched with a banner proclaiming Obama their Lord and Savior. The mind boggles at the sheer idiocy. Here's the actual photo:

The doctoring is incredibly amateurish -- the kind of thing I'd expect from a fourth-grader using an iPhone app designed for labeling selfies, not the work of a competent computer user. Even putting aside the errors of light, shadow, and perspective, and the hilarious improbability of the message, there's just the fact they cut off the guy's finger in a very obvious way.

Not to be outdone when it comes to astonishing gullibility, another of our dimmer conservatives posted this, thinking it was genuine NYT headline, supposedly showing their extreme pro-Obama bias:

I know, it's hilarious to think anyone could fall for such an obvious hoax. Think about it: this right winger actually believed that Obama would publicly acknowledge complicity with the New York Times, and that the NYT would turn that into a front-page headline. How is it even possible to live when you're that gullible? But even if you set aside the patent absurdity of the text in those headlines, the amateurishness of the hoax screams from every detail. If nothing else, check out the 81-degree November heat the doctored cover claims for NYC! Hehe. The poorly done type-face also should have tipped you off even if your B.S. detector wasn't good enough to pick up on the fact that six exclamation points in the space of three snippets of text isn't exactly the Grey Lady's style.

Here's the real cover for that day:

The doctored photo, above, is just an extremely poor Photoshop job using the top banner of the famous September 12 cover page after the 9/11 attack:

If what we were seeing was a "supply-side" problem, it would take the form of skillful lies -- convincing photos doctored by experienced graphics artists working for pay in the bowels of some right-wing think-tank. But this isn't about a supply of professionally assembled deceptions.... or, if it is, the professionals hold the conservative masses in utter contempt, because they can't be bothered to spend just a few extra minutes to come up with something that might conceivably fool a non-moron. Instead, it's a demand-side problem. It's an appetite, among conservatives, for bias-affirming lies, no matter how amateurishly crafted and patently absurd.

When you're making your pitch to an audience as stupid as the American conservative public, it doesn't matter if it's the first time you've ever used Photoshop. Your first time out of the gate, with only a few minutes effort and half your brain engaged, you can assemble something that will catch fire on the right, so long as it harmonizes with their prejudices.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

I think it all comes down to what former congressman Bob Inglis (R-SC) described as the conservative inferiority complex.

cons will do anything, say anything, believe anything in a desperate attempt to not be one-down from liberals. too bad for them that doesn't work.

 

[Colorforms]

What is it about right-wingers that makes them fall for such obvious hoaxes? I've noticed this on Facebook where nearly all the plainly phony memes going around are ones that support the conservative worldview.

For a while, I analyzed this from a supply-side perspective. Basically, I thought that there were just more conservative memes being generated, multiplying the chance that some would go viral. I pictured a conservative think tank somewhere, where third-tier Koch flunkies were spending their days churning out hundreds of right-wing lies and doctored photos, while they put in their dues before becoming right-wing op-ed columnists. The idea was that through sheer volume some of those were inevitably going to catch fire in social media.

I'm starting to think that was a mistake though -- that it's really a demand-side issue, not a supply-side issue. I now believe it's just that the right-wing public is more susceptible to bias-affirming lies than the left-wing public is. Left-wing lies doubtless occur often, too, but they're like sparks falling on well-watered ground, whereas the right-wing public's mental landscape is nothing but bone-dry tinder.

This came up here again today, in the form of yet another right-wing transmission of a fabricated photo. One of our fellow posters shared this right-wing meme, supposedly showing Margaret Sanger giving a speech to the KKK:

As anyone with an IQ over about 70 can see, it's obviously doctored. The perspective is all screwed up -- Sanger would have to be a giant, and the arm of one of the KKK members would have to defy physics for it to work. Here's the real photo:

That's not a one-time bit of bumbling by the conservatives here, though. I've seen that same fake Sanger photo pop up here at least three times, with three different right-wingers, not one of whom noticed the obvious doctoring until it was pointed out.

Here's another good example:

One of our dumber right-wingers actually thought people had marched with a banner proclaiming Obama their Lord and Savior. The mind boggles at the sheer idiocy. Here's the actual photo:

The doctoring is incredibly amateurish -- the kind of thing I'd expect from a fourth-grader using an iPhone app designed for labeling selfies, not the work of a competent computer user. Even putting aside the errors of light, shadow, and perspective, and the hilarious improbability of the message, there's just the fact they cut off the guy's finger in a very obvious way.

Not to be outdone when it comes to astonishing gullibility, another of our dimmer conservatives posted this, thinking it was genuine NYT headline, supposedly showing their extreme pro-Obama bias:

I know, it's hilarious to think anyone could fall for such an obvious hoax. Think about it: this right winger actually believed that Obama would publicly acknowledge complicity with the New York Times, and that the NYT would turn that into a front-page headline. How is it even possible to live when you're that gullible? But even if you set aside the patent absurdity of the text in those headlines, the amateurishness of the hoax screams from every detail. If nothing else, check out the 81-degree November heat the doctored cover claims for NYC! Hehe. The poorly done type-face also should have tipped you off even if your B.S. detector wasn't good enough to pick up on the fact that six exclamation points in the space of three snippets of text isn't exactly the Grey Lady's style.

Here's the real cover for that day:

The doctored photo, above, is just an extremely poor Photoshop job using the top banner of the famous September 12 cover page after the 9/11 attack:

If what we were seeing was a "supply-side" problem, it would take the form of skillful lies -- convincing photos doctored by experienced graphics artists working for pay in the bowels of some right-wing think-tank. But this isn't about a supply of professionally assembled deceptions.... or, if it is, the professionals hold the conservative masses in utter contempt, because they can't be bothered to spend just a few extra minutes to come up with something that might conceivably fool a non-moron. Instead, it's a demand-side problem. It's an appetite, among conservatives, for bias-affirming lies, no matter how amateurishly crafted and patently absurd.

When you're making your pitch to an audience as stupid as the American conservative public, it doesn't matter if it's the first time you've ever used Photoshop. Your first time out of the gate, with only a few minutes effort and half your brain engaged, you can assemble something that will catch fire on the right, so long as it harmonizes with their prejudices.

As someone who believes in anthropogenic global warming and esteem psychology, you have little room to judge others for believing hoaxes.

 

[Lukey]

It's what is commonly referred to as "satire." Now when Obama said "if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan," we all know now that he knew it was a lie. Yet it was the subject of REAL headlines in all the major press outlets.

What kind of "credulity" would you call that?

 

[Zam-Zam]

Conspiracy theories are for loonies, or so I am told:

Seems you can find gullible people on both sides of the political isle. Some would prefer you believe otherwise.......

How is that "truther" movement coming along?

 

[georgephillip]

What is it about right-wingers that makes them fall for such obvious hoaxes? I've noticed this on Facebook where nearly all the plainly phony memes going around are ones that support the conservative worldview.

Evolution?

 

[Arkady]

As someone who believes in anthropogenic global warming and esteem psychology, you have little room to judge others for believing hoaxes.

I have no particular esteem for psychology. However, like the majority of educated people and very nearly all the leading experts, I believe in anthropogenic global warming. In order to believe it a hoax, I'd have to be both extremely stupid and deeply paranoid, because I'd be embracing the idea that tens of thousands of experts from all around the world somehow coordinated a massive conspiracy to fabricate mountains of evidence over the course of many decades, without anyone spilling the beans. Obviously, only the most deeply disturbed people could think such a hoax could be organized and held together that broadly and for so long. It's real tin-foil-hat stuff, and that's never been my thing.

 

[Arkady]

It's what is commonly referred to as "satire." Now when Obama said "if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan," we all know now that he knew it was a lie. Yet it was the subject of REAL headlines in all the major press outlets.

What kind of "credulity" would you call that?

As you know, Obamacare did, in fact, allow people to keep their health plans. Now, if someone thought that this meant Obamacare included a provision that required private insurers to keep extending existing coverage to existing customers indefinitely, that would indeed have been extremely credulous. Do you know anyone who actually believed that? I've never met such a person.

 

[Arkady]

Conspiracy theories are for loonies, or so I am told

Really? Who, specifically, told you that? Conspiracies really happen. We have countless real-world examples. For example, remember the conspiracy when top people in the Reagan administration secretly armed our enemies in Iran in order to get money for an illegal program to arm terrorists in Central America? That conspiracy actually happened. Given the existence of many such examples, it would take a lunatic to dismiss them all. But, at the same time, that doesn't mean all conspiracies are plausible. Someone with a properly functioning BS detector can usually pretty reliably distinguish between a plausible conspiracy theory and an implausible one.

It's actually not that hard. You just have to put yourself in the mindset of the supposed conspirators. How would the prospects of the conspiracy look from their perspective, knowing what they knew at the time? What would they have hoped to get out of it? What were the penalties of detection? What were the chances of being detected? If the conspiracy would have looked inviting after asking those questions, it's at least plausible. If not, not.

For example, compare the genuine Iran/Contra conspiracy to the phony idea that AGW is the result of a conspiracy. From the perspective of the Iran/Contra conspirators, it looked like a good deal. The upside was that they could get around the law to accomplish illicit administration goals. The risks of detection would have looked pretty small, given the very small number of conspirators that had to be involved, and the fact that they had fairly closely united interests in keeping the conspiracy silent. And even if they were detected, there was no real risk because they knew they were acting at the president's behest and so they could expect a pardon before any of them saw any penalties for their criminal conduct. So, why not risk it? That's a plausible conspiracy. By comparison, picture the logistics of trying to get tens of thousands of scientists from dozens of countries working for thousands of different employers all secretly collaborating on a project to fake scientific data, often by way of public and peer reviewed journals (meaning a conspiracy of open fake corroboration and replication alongside the conspiracy to generate fake data), and picture the attempt to get those tens of thousands to cooperate over the course of decades without anyone exposing the conspiracy. And picture the consequences if detected -- the utter ruin of the careers of those involved, plus criminal repercussions for any who misappropriated public research funds for the purposes. You'd have to be truly insane to think that kind of conspiracy was plausible.

Seems you can find gullible people on both sides of the political isle

Presumably that's true. But the Clinton example -- correctly pointing out the existence of the right-wing conspiracy (see the writing of David Brock for an inside account of that) is obviously a poor example. But I can't blame you for reaching for a non-example to back your case, since that kind of credulity is so much rarer on the left that you'd have trouble turning up ready examples from our forum, like those doctored photos I shared.

 

[marvin martian]

What is it about right-wingers that makes them fall for such obvious hoaxes? I've noticed this on Facebook where nearly all the plainly phony memes going around are ones that support the conservative worldview.

For a while, I analyzed this from a supply-side perspective. Basically, I thought that there were just more conservative memes being generated, multiplying the chance that some would go viral. I pictured a conservative think tank somewhere, where third-tier Koch flunkies were spending their days churning out hundreds of right-wing lies and doctored photos, while they put in their dues before becoming right-wing op-ed columnists. The idea was that through sheer volume some of those were inevitably going to catch fire in social media.

I'm starting to think that was a mistake though -- that it's really a demand-side issue, not a supply-side issue. I now believe it's just that the right-wing public is more susceptible to bias-affirming lies than the left-wing public is. Left-wing lies doubtless occur often, too, but they're like sparks falling on well-watered ground, whereas the right-wing public's mental landscape is nothing but bone-dry tinder.

This came up here again today, in the form of yet another right-wing transmission of a fabricated photo. One of our fellow posters shared this right-wing meme, supposedly showing Margaret Sanger giving a speech to the KKK:

As anyone with an IQ over about 70 can see, it's obviously doctored. The perspective is all screwed up -- Sanger would have to be a giant, and the arm of one of the KKK members would have to defy physics for it to work. Here's the real photo:

That's not a one-time bit of bumbling by the conservatives here, though. I've seen that same fake Sanger photo pop up here at least three times, with three different right-wingers, not one of whom noticed the obvious doctoring until it was pointed out.

Here's another good example:

One of our dumber right-wingers actually thought people had marched with a banner proclaiming Obama their Lord and Savior. The mind boggles at the sheer idiocy. Here's the actual photo:

The doctoring is incredibly amateurish -- the kind of thing I'd expect from a fourth-grader using an iPhone app designed for labeling selfies, not the work of a competent computer user. Even putting aside the errors of light, shadow, and perspective, and the hilarious improbability of the message, there's just the fact they cut off the guy's finger in a very obvious way.

Not to be outdone when it comes to astonishing gullibility, another of our dimmer conservatives posted this, thinking it was genuine NYT headline, supposedly showing their extreme pro-Obama bias:

I know, it's hilarious to think anyone could fall for such an obvious hoax. Think about it: this right winger actually believed that Obama would publicly acknowledge complicity with the New York Times, and that the NYT would turn that into a front-page headline. How is it even possible to live when you're that gullible? But even if you set aside the patent absurdity of the text in those headlines, the amateurishness of the hoax screams from every detail. If nothing else, check out the 81-degree November heat the doctored cover claims for NYC! Hehe. The poorly done type-face also should have tipped you off even if your B.S. detector wasn't good enough to pick up on the fact that six exclamation points in the space of three snippets of text isn't exactly the Grey Lady's style.

Here's the real cover for that day:

The doctored photo, above, is just an extremely poor Photoshop job using the top banner of the famous September 12 cover page after the 9/11 attack:

If what we were seeing was a "supply-side" problem, it would take the form of skillful lies -- convincing photos doctored by experienced graphics artists working for pay in the bowels of some right-wing think-tank. But this isn't about a supply of professionally assembled deceptions.... or, if it is, the professionals hold the conservative masses in utter contempt, because they can't be bothered to spend just a few extra minutes to come up with something that might conceivably fool a non-moron. Instead, it's a demand-side problem. It's an appetite, among conservatives, for bias-affirming lies, no matter how amateurishly crafted and patently absurd.

When you're making your pitch to an audience as stupid as the American conservative public, it doesn't matter if it's the first time you've ever used Photoshop. Your first time out of the gate, with only a few minutes effort and half your brain engaged, you can assemble something that will catch fire on the right, so long as it harmonizes with their prejudices.

Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President 2016.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Whatever Has Happened Elsewhere and Before Is Happening Here and Now

What's the difference between the Warmalarmie Eco-Eunuch cult and the Communist Party intelligentsia all getting together to rewrite history and news in the Soviet Union? Both rackets were driven originally by blind faith but ultimately by a desire for power over those whose freedom they feared.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

What is it about right-wingers that makes them fall for such obvious hoaxes? I've noticed this on Facebook where nearly all the plainly phony memes going around are ones that support the conservative worldview.

For a while, I analyzed this from a supply-side perspective. Basically, I thought that there were just more conservative memes being generated, multiplying the chance that some would go viral. I pictured a conservative think tank somewhere, where third-tier Koch flunkies were spending their days churning out hundreds of right-wing lies and doctored photos, while they put in their dues before becoming right-wing op-ed columnists. The idea was that through sheer volume some of those were inevitably going to catch fire in social media.

I'm starting to think that was a mistake though -- that it's really a demand-side issue, not a supply-side issue. I now believe it's just that the right-wing public is more susceptible to bias-affirming lies than the left-wing public is. Left-wing lies doubtless occur often, too, but they're like sparks falling on well-watered ground, whereas the right-wing public's mental landscape is nothing but bone-dry tinder.

This came up here again today, in the form of yet another right-wing transmission of a fabricated photo. One of our fellow posters shared this right-wing meme, supposedly showing Margaret Sanger giving a speech to the KKK:

As anyone with an IQ over about 70 can see, it's obviously doctored. The perspective is all screwed up -- Sanger would have to be a giant, and the arm of one of the KKK members would have to defy physics for it to work. Here's the real photo:

That's not a one-time bit of bumbling by the conservatives here, though. I've seen that same fake Sanger photo pop up here at least three times, with three different right-wingers, not one of whom noticed the obvious doctoring until it was pointed out.

Here's another good example:

One of our dumber right-wingers actually thought people had marched with a banner proclaiming Obama their Lord and Savior. The mind boggles at the sheer idiocy. Here's the actual photo:

The doctoring is incredibly amateurish -- the kind of thing I'd expect from a fourth-grader using an iPhone app designed for labeling selfies, not the work of a competent computer user. Even putting aside the errors of light, shadow, and perspective, and the hilarious improbability of the message, there's just the fact they cut off the guy's finger in a very obvious way.

Not to be outdone when it comes to astonishing gullibility, another of our dimmer conservatives posted this, thinking it was genuine NYT headline, supposedly showing their extreme pro-Obama bias:

I know, it's hilarious to think anyone could fall for such an obvious hoax. Think about it: this right winger actually believed that Obama would publicly acknowledge complicity with the New York Times, and that the NYT would turn that into a front-page headline. How is it even possible to live when you're that gullible? But even if you set aside the patent absurdity of the text in those headlines, the amateurishness of the hoax screams from every detail. If nothing else, check out the 81-degree November heat the doctored cover claims for NYC! Hehe. The poorly done type-face also should have tipped you off even if your B.S. detector wasn't good enough to pick up on the fact that six exclamation points in the space of three snippets of text isn't exactly the Grey Lady's style.

Here's the real cover for that day:

The doctored photo, above, is just an extremely poor Photoshop job using the top banner of the famous September 12 cover page after the 9/11 attack:

If what we were seeing was a "supply-side" problem, it would take the form of skillful lies -- convincing photos doctored by experienced graphics artists working for pay in the bowels of some right-wing think-tank. But this isn't about a supply of professionally assembled deceptions.... or, if it is, the professionals hold the conservative masses in utter contempt, because they can't be bothered to spend just a few extra minutes to come up with something that might conceivably fool a non-moron. Instead, it's a demand-side problem. It's an appetite, among conservatives, for bias-affirming lies, no matter how amateurishly crafted and patently absurd.

When you're making your pitch to an audience as stupid as the American conservative public, it doesn't matter if it's the first time you've ever used Photoshop. Your first time out of the gate, with only a few minutes effort and half your brain engaged, you can assemble something that will catch fire on the right, so long as it harmonizes with their prejudices.

So you found single examples of infinitely minute pockets of a group and demand that all must answer for them?

Do 0% of Democrats use photoshop?

There are plenty of photoshopped scams out there, far more well-known than what you pointed out.

You're really reaching here. Go talk to some nice people in the American Public.. stop gathering your sense of the population via social media comment sections.

 

[Arkady]

So you found single examples of infinitely minute pockets of a group and demand that all must answer for them?

Do 0% of Democrats use photoshop?

There are plenty of photoshopped scams out there, far more well-known than what you pointed out.

You're really reaching here. Go talk to some nice people in the American Public.. stop gathering your sense of the population via social media comment sections.

I haven't seen any lefties on this forum falling for obvious photoshopped hoaxes, have you? I've seen in multiple times from right-wingers, including as seen on tv, Drumcollie, and Barbella. Hell, Drumcollie even reposted an obvious doctored photo AFTER I'd shown her the real photo and pointed out the amateurish forgery work. Have you ever seen something similar from the lefties here? I haven't.

 

[Lukey]

I haven't seen any lefties on this forum falling for obvious photoshopped hoaxes, have you? I've seen in multiple times from right-wingers, including as seen on tv, Drumcollie, and Barbella. Hell, Drumcollie even reposted an obvious doctored photo AFTER I'd shown her the real photo and pointed out the amateurish forgery work. Have you ever seen something similar from the lefties here? I haven't.

Yet when the professional press uses photography tricks to make Hillary's rallies look well attended, and also minimize the the amount of her frailty we see, that's just "good journalism" to you...

 

[Arkady]

Yet when the professional press uses photography tricks to make Hillary's rallies look well attended, and also minimize the the amount of her frailty we see, that's just "good journalism" to you...

As you know, press coverage of large events routinely zooms into the stage in a way that doesn't show the empty seats. That happens regardless of the partisan politics of it. You'll seldom see mainstream coverage of a Trump event with empty seats showing, even though amateur photos often confirm their existence:

Obviously, that's very different from actually doctoring a photo, like those that took in this forum's more credulous right-wingers.

 

[as seen on tv]

what is it about left wingers that makes them go into denial when - over and over again - when fake street interviews corner gullible college student and other self proclaimed progressives into demopnstrating their apalling ignorance?

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/03/col...call_about_the_state_of_our_education_system/

http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politi...y-shocking-answers-political-questions-video/

http://gulfelitemag.com/politically-challenged-college-students-show-whats-wrong-america/

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I haven't seen any lefties on this forum falling for obvious photoshopped hoaxes, have you? I've seen in multiple times from right-wingers, including as seen on tv, Drumcollie, and Barbella. Hell, Drumcollie even reposted an obvious doctored photo AFTER I'd shown her the real photo and pointed out the amateurish forgery work. Have you ever seen something similar from the lefties here? I haven't.

I haven't paid attention. If your beef is with PJ people, have at it. But you didn't signify that, you laid your claims upon the entire "right wing".

And, I haven't seen a solid overall Conservative movement rally around any of your examples, or any other photoshopped forgery, in the mainstream.

I think your claims are a bit too grand for what you meant.

 

[Arkady]

I haven't paid attention. If your beef is with PJ people, have at it. But you didn't signify that, you laid your claims upon the entire "right wing".

Fair enough.

I think there's a reason that we see such absurd behavior exclusively from the wingnuts on this site, and it's not because we have an uncommonly good selection of lefties and an uncommonly bad collection of wingnuts. It's simply because each group is more or less representative of their wider type. Sure, the Internet being a very big place, there are bound to be some isolated examples of lefties falling for hoax photos, if you go hunting for them. But the point is it's common enough on the right that you don't have to go hunting. I see it pop up frequently in my Facebook feed and right here on this forum.

What I'm focused most on here isn't even that the right-wingers fell for hoax photos. If they were good hoaxes, that's the kind of things even a decent person might do. We're all susceptible to confirmation bias, and so if some trickster put some real effort into faking us out, any one of us could fall victim to it. But just look at those photos! How could ANY sane person have fallen for them. It's almost like the trickster was actually trying to make the right-wingers look stupid, by intentionally doing such a crappy job with the hoax that you'd have to be brain-damaged not to spot it.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Fair enough.

I think there's a reason that we see such absurd behavior exclusively from the wingnuts on this site, and it's not because we have an uncommonly good selection of lefties and an uncommonly bad collection of wingnuts. It's simply because each group is more or less representative of their wider type. Sure, the Internet being a very big place, there are bound to be some isolated examples of lefties falling for hoax photos, if you go hunting for them. But the point is it's common enough on the right that you don't have to go hunting. I see it pop up frequently in my Facebook feed and right here on this forum.

What I'm focused most on here isn't even that the right-wingers fell for hoax photos. If they were good hoaxes, that's the kind of things even a decent person might do. We're all susceptible to confirmation bias, and so if some trickster put some real effort into faking us out, any one of us could fall victim to it. But just look at those photos! How could ANY sane person have fallen for them. It's almost like the trickster was actually trying to make the right-wingers look stupid, by intentionally doing such a crappy job with the hoax that you'd have to be brain-damaged not to spot it.

Hoaxes are abound that both Conservatives and Liberals fall for.

A lot of liberals fell for the "share for safety" NRA drive-by that was completely false. The fabricated story was that for every gun bought, a person in a high urban area would recieve a gun for their safety.

http://therightscoop.com/gullible-liberals-fall-for-stupid-and-obvious-nra-hoax/

And then there was the hoax of a study that claimed there was proof that Fox viewers were mentally deficient. It was admitted that it was a hoax, yet, it was a big hit in the Liberal community.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...fall-hoax-study-claiming-fox-news-viewers-are

If you want to just paint with a broad brush stroke and hold all accountable, It says something about "you guys" that you could be so gullible and fall for such obvious hoaxes.

However, I don't prefer that method, as it's clearly dishonest, and a logical fallacy. That never appears to stop you.

 

[Arkady]

Hoaxes are abound that both Conservatives and Liberals fall for.

A lot of liberals fell for the "share for safety" NRA drive-by that was completely false. The fabricated story was that for every gun bought, a person in a high urban area would recieve a gun for their safety.

I never even heard of that. Was there anyone here who fell for it?