666
submitted 7 months ago by Jaysyn@kbin.social to c/politics@lemmy.world

Justin Mohn, a 32-year-old Pennsylvania man, is in police custody after allegedly murdering and decapitating his father, claiming the latter was a "federal employee" and a "traitor." Before his arrest, Mohn posted a 14-minute video to YouTube in which he displayed his father's severed head, proclaiming: "This is the head of Mike Mohn, a federal

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

Although these results suggest a link between political attitudes and brain structure, it is important to note that the neural processes implicated are likely to reflect complex processes of the formation of political attitudes rather than a direct representation of political opinions per se. The conceptualizing and reasoning associated with the expression of political opinions is not necessarily limited to structures or functions of the regions we identified but will require the involvement of more widespread brain regions implicated in abstract thoughts and reasoning.

[-] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

Were you wanting to build some kind of argument or hypothesis with that segment, or did you just want to leave it to your reader to assume whatever it is you're thinking? Cuz the knee-jerk reaction your post evokes is that you're attempting to dismiss an entire study based on a disclaimer about brains being complicated... but such an attack to your critical thinking skills would ofc be a hasty and unfair conclusion considering you haven't contributed a single word of your own yet. So by all means, state your case.

[-] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

Least chill comment I've seen on lemmy lol I thought I was on reddit for a second... It's a quote from the study you posted not everyone online is trying to debate you.

[-] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

I'm a bit worked up. RL shit, not you - forgive my tone.

Meat of the last comment stands though: what's your point? I know it's a quote from the study, but that's how studies work: they provide supporting or detracting evidence to whatever it is they're evaluating. Even if that disclaimer wasn't there at all, it'd still be implied bc no one study proves or disproves anything, they just contribute to a broader pool of knowledge that eventually leans toward something being accepted as truth.

And right now that lean is toward conservatives being driven by fear and emotion.

[-] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Well I don't really have a point myself, the study has a point which is emphasizing that these neural processes measured aren't a direct representation of political opinions per se.

I guess my only relevant opinion aligns with what they are saying in better ways in the study, to which I would add that it gets dicey whenever people's thoughts/behaviors are reduced to something inherent about their biology. The authors of the study are putting in a good effort to avoid that reductive interpretation and explaining it very well. Biological indicators and many subsequent indicators are determined in complex ways by the conditions people are in and where they were born, etc.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

LOL he's been going on the attack around here. This concept has broken his brain and he's just lost it.

this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
666 points (100.0% liked)

politics

18904 readers
2809 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS