491–500 of 564 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Attacks against researchers are always anti-science. that's blatantly untrue. If a researcher is malicious, attacking their person is not anti-science.
I don't think this is true. If a scientist follows the methodology correctly, they are not malicious. And if they are not following the scientific method, then they are not scientists. The trick is to figure out which self-proclaimed scientists, aren't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear what you're saying, but since there is such a zero chance this results in the journalist going to prison - I'm not entirely sure it has any effect - honestly if I was trying to become well-known as a journalist, I'd very much want to be in this spotlight - I'd be trying to find another mess up on Missouri's part to become part of this story. It very possibly has the opposite effect (the "Streisand effect"). Th…
Are you familiar with Slapp Suits? These actions absolutely have a chilling effect. People just don't want to go through *the hassell* of having to go and fight in court, show up in court, watch their name get strewn through the mud in news articles, and so on.
The only 100% proof-positive result is that we all now know who Gov Parsons is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All three of those labels can easily be applied to both major parties, just with different examples. Conservatives tend to not speak up because the hyperbolic vitriol has gotten out of hand.
they could easily find a social circle and likely a workplace too where their views are accepted or even celebrated. why don't they?
OTOH, tech conservatives tend to be more libertarian than socially conservative, so (massive generalization here) tend to prefer to work at work and do politics elsewhere.
"Celebrating" political positions is such a foreign concept to me that I dont even know where to begin with that. Left or right, I would probably avoid it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that democrats are also fostering anti-science anti-intellectualism. Which side is worse is a matter of opinion. Personally I think they are both dangerous and won’t identify myself with either party as a result. The result is that there is no point in leveling this accusation as part of a debate about something substantive, unless you just want to derail the conversation into a meaningless partisan ba…
We're still doing the "they're two sides of the same coin" thing in 2021, eh?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that democrats are also fostering anti-science anti-intellectualism. Which side is worse is a matter of opinion. Personally I think they are both dangerous and won’t identify myself with either party as a result. The result is that there is no point in leveling this accusation as part of a debate about something substantive, unless you just want to derail the conversation into a meaningless partisan ba…
Refusing to hold people accountable enables the rule breakers. You have to decide which party is actually telling more damaging lies, taking more damaging actions, or doing more good, and act accordingly. Because some person who votes for Democrats somewhere said vaccines turn people into alligators doesn't balance out the strong majority of the Republican Party who deny anthropogenic climate change, or at least oppo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that democrats are also fostering anti-science anti-intellectualism. Which side is worse is a matter of opinion. Personally I think they are both dangerous and won’t identify myself with either party as a result. The result is that there is no point in leveling this accusation as part of a debate about something substantive, unless you just want to derail the conversation into a meaningless partisan ba…
> Which side is worse is a matter of opinion. What perspectives do you see coming from the Democrat side that have the same mortality rate as vaccine refusal? (Or are there indicators you give equal/greater significance than mortality?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is completely false. I personally know lifelong Republican voters who abandoned the party in 2016. They didn’t just leave the party, they voted D.
that's an anecdote. there's lots, but there are not enough such anecdotes to change national election results.
In Virginia, more people voted for Biden in 2020 than Clinton in 2016, and for Trump in 2020 than Trump in 2016. Clearly higher turnout mattered, but whether the individual votes were switch-voters, new voters, voters who sat out 2016 showing up in 2020, voters who sat out in 2016 (but had a past history of voting one way) showing up for the other party's candidate in 2020 is much harder to assert.
I'll risk making this a partisan issue and say the anti-intellectual and anti-science bent seems increasingly prevalent among Republicans like Mike Parson and their constituencies. One of the most shocking statistics I've seen recently is the Pew poll which shows that in the space of 2 years Republican attitudes about higher education saw a 20-point swing such that that most Republican voters now believe college is n…
High level of debt makes people more risk-averse to changing jobs, starting a business, or even having children. I believe that the greedy bloated system of higher education is responsible for many personal tragedies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Refusing to hold people accountable enables the rule breakers. You have to decide which party is actually telling more damaging lies, taking more damaging actions, or doing more good, and act accordingly. Because some person who votes for Democrats somewhere said vaccines turn people into alligators doesn't balance out the strong majority of the Republican Party who deny anthropogenic climate change, or at least oppo…
Or, you could just not base your thinking on choosing a side which is ‘the lesser of two evils’ to be your savior, and recognize that the behaviors are a problem rather than the team.
I am assuming you have to vote or abstain from voting. Then your choice is whether you are trying to achieve changes in the world or achieve a certain self image. If you are trying to achieve changes in the world, and the decision is close, you throw your weight behind the better side. If you are trying to achieve a certain self image, you vote for your ideal candidate whatever is at stake and whatever the balance between the two candidates that have an actual chance of gaining power. Or you abstain and remain unsullied by whatever evil taints each candidate.