> > I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but people really hate to be wrong.
> That's right, but then they shouldn't support decisions politicians make that
> are wrong. They should oppose them from the start, then they would save
> themselves from having egg on their face later. They can still support the
> politician they want, but support them for their good causes, not the bad ones.
> How can they be wrong in that case? If they accuse the politician they support
> of making a bad decision, that doesn't make the person wrong, it makes the
> politician wrong and the person more right, if anything.
> > Combine that with the almost infinite capacity for humans to rationalize their
> > decisions (good or bad), and you'll get people sticking to their most blinkered
> > decisions, even if they lead to oblivion.
> Yeah, but then they're still wrong, they're just not admitting it... I guess
> the difference doesn't matter to them?
It appears you didn't quite catch what I meant (which wouldn't surprise me, since I didn't quite write what I wanted to say). Even admitting that their politician of choice might make some bad decisions from time to time would be tantamount to admitting that they're wrong (which, we've already established, people hate to be). As long as they don't have to go back on their decision, then they're not wrong to their own minds. Whether or not they're wrong for real is immaterial to them. If this means they have to support the bad decisions they make, then so be it. With shit being as polarized as it seems to be today, I think people would rather walk off a cliff than admit the other side (who eat babies and fuck chickens) might, in some minute way, be right about something.
Of course, being a semi-anonymous persona behind a keyboard and monitor might have something to do with people acting the way they do, too (not that I would know *cough*).
> How shallow. Everyone knows the emperor has no clothes.
You're trying to apply rational thought processes to the irrational. My advice is to not.