I mostly agree with that (esp. since I think negative partisanship is an artifact globing over a bunch of well-sorted group identities). And the angle I always see is just: how can we smash together groups in a way that benefits us, however it's defined.
-
-
-
And ideological rationalizations filtered by those group interests works well in doing so, especially for the "policy elites."
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I'm more interested in measuring the obviousness of "think tanks are just partisan rationalizers." I've been disappointed in a few since 2015 thinking, "they'll stand up to this!" then watching the flaccid response. But why would they -- they're donors love it.
-
On social media, everyone from blue-checks to bots clearly use biased filtering. Everyone knows it, too. Like, it's part of the environment. So does mass media. So does everyone. But think tanks have branded well enough that the perception is more "they're ideologues."
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Hrm. When I worked at one, I did drink A LOT of Maker's Mark...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That's almost exactly what I think they are: computers for finding simultaneous solutions to both concerns. If you took out the group interests, they would allocate attention *very* differently. And given group sorting into parties, partisanship is extremely predictive.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.