Study Shows Some Political Beliefs Are Just Historical Accidents (arstechnica.com) 237
An anonymous reader shares a report: If you've spent much time thinking about the political divide in the United States, you've hopefully noted how bloody weird it is. Somehow, just about every topic that people want to argue about splits into two camps. If you visualize the vast array of topics you could have an opinion about as a switchboard full of toggles, it seems improbable that so many people in each camp should have nearly identical switchboards, but they do. This can even extend to factual issues, like science -- one camp typically does not accept that climate change is real and human-caused. How in the world do we end up with these opinion sets? And why does something like climate change start an inter-camp argument, while other things like the physics behind airplane design enjoy universal acceptance?
One obvious way to explain these opinions is to look for underlying principles that connect them. Maybe it's ideologically consistent to oppose both tax increases and extensive government oversight of pesticide products. But can you really draw a straight line from small-government philosophy to immigration attitudes? Or military funding? A new study by a Cornell team led by Michael Macy approaches these questions with inspiration from an experiment involving, of all things, downloading indie music. That study set up separate "worlds" in which participants checked out new music with the aid of information about which songs other people in their experimental world were choosing. It showed that the songs that were "hits" weren't always the same -- there was a significant role for chance, as a song that got trending early in the experiment had a leg up.
One obvious way to explain these opinions is to look for underlying principles that connect them. Maybe it's ideologically consistent to oppose both tax increases and extensive government oversight of pesticide products. But can you really draw a straight line from small-government philosophy to immigration attitudes? Or military funding? A new study by a Cornell team led by Michael Macy approaches these questions with inspiration from an experiment involving, of all things, downloading indie music. That study set up separate "worlds" in which participants checked out new music with the aid of information about which songs other people in their experimental world were choosing. It showed that the songs that were "hits" weren't always the same -- there was a significant role for chance, as a song that got trending early in the experiment had a leg up.
indie music (Score:3)
Unlike indie music, the government uses threat of force to make you pay for it.
Re: (Score:3)
Breaking news - Research team at major university finds that they are right and those who disagree with them are stupid
Re: (Score:2)
Re: indie music (Score:2, Insightful)
The thing about Climate Change or Global Warming that has always bothered me is the "consensus" argument. Scientists don't get to decide scientific fact by consensus. Otherwise Copernicus's heliocentric model would never have been accepted by the religious lot of the time.
I think humans are having an impact on earths climate, and I think many of the models showing searise and increasing storms are by and large accurate. But if someone sees the data differently, that doesn't make them a daemon, stupid, or so
Re: indie music (Score:4, Insightful)
Scientists don't get to decide scientific fact by consensus.
Yes, they do. For example, there is a consensus for the round Earth theory. There is a consensus for the global warming. Yet there are people who disagree with both.
Re: indie music (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: indie music (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: indie music (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: indie music (Score:2)
Re: indie music (Score:4, Informative)
Re: indie music (Score:2)
Re: indie music (Score:5, Informative)
Some people believe there is dark matter causing galaxies to spin faster. Some people believe there are other forces we have failed to take into account, and that dark matter doesn't actually exist. We don't call them "Dark Matter Denyers". We don't demonize them.
And for good reason. It's because "dark matter" is still a hypothesis with no clear evidence for what it is beyond its impacts. It's a placeholder. We know a lot of what dark matter can't be, but we haven't ruled out the physics being wrong. And nobody is saying that the observed effects don't exist.
This is different than climate change. There are a surprisingly large number of people denying that the data showing climate change exists. When we have a winter storm, climate change deniers point to it as evidence that climate change doesn't exist. It's been explained to them over and over that weather isn't climate, but they persist in using it to deny climate change. It would be as if some cabal of astronomers claimed that the differential spin of galaxies that we use "dark matter" as a placeholder to explain doesn't exist because they can see quasars there. That's illogical and doesn't make any sense, and it shows a clear lack of understanding or outright denial of what's being talked about.
This article is phrased as though climate change is scientific fact with all the maths worked out, like aero plane flight. It isn't. It's a "consensus" of scientists, which I'm sorry, isn't a bar for anything.
You seem like you honestly want to engage with this and that you're not an outright climate change denier, so I'll do what I can to help.
You are correct that consensus isn't a measuring stick. But when multiple different scientific fields all see changes which could be explained by climate change, and which could not really be explained by much else, Occam's razor is that it's climate change. Atmospheric CO2 is rising. We know from experiments that it's a greenhouse gas. 100+ years ago we knew exactly what the effect was and could calculate it. We know global average temperatures are going up. We know that the oceans are much warmer. We know that localized weather patterns which were stable for centuries have now shifted. We know that in the last 50 years a lot of species have started to migrate to habitats they have never before lived in. We know that a lot of species are dying out, when their populations have been around for thousands of years. We know that glaciers which have been stable for thousands of years are melting at a rate never before seen. We know that arctic sea ice is at its minimum point in thousands of years. And we know that humans put all of that CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere.
This isn't just a group of climate scientists sitting around drinking beers and agreeing. It's atmospheric science, oceanography, ecology, meteorology, geology, limnology, etc., etc. Everyone that studies earth systems is seeing this. And nobody has a better explanation. The deniers who actually are skeptics and actually dig into the science end up on the side of climate change. It's only those who deny and refuse to engage that can stay on the side of it not happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Pulpits (Score:4, Interesting)
It's no accident. Whether they religious or political, there are people that use one widely held believe to help push another. "Jeebus loves us" and "we hate gays" and "don't touch my guns" seem to have a high level of correlation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pulpits (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, my side is in the right and the other side is the one with the problems.
Never heard that one before.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A rather well-known Member of Congress just held a fundraiser for the legal fees of antifa protestors who were arrested for attacking people at the satirical "Straight Pride" parade event in Boston last week. She called the entire event a white-supremacist gathering.
https://twitter.com/AOC/status... [twitter.com]
Re:Pulpits (Score:5, Insightful)
Well you said well known but if you can name for me the individual(s) who threw the poor man off the building, I'll just assume it was some goal post moving since locating people who are xian and conservative asking for the death penalty for lgbt folks is rather common... SO....
- Grayson Fritts (Pastor and Detctive)
- Pastor Kevin Swanson (at Ted Cruz political rally)
- Steven Anderson/Faithful Word Baptist Church
- Paul Cameron/Family Research Institute
- Scott Lively/Abiding Truth Ministries
- American Vision (backs the death penalty for practicing homosexuals)
- Chalcedon Foundation (backs the death penalty for practicing homosexuals)
- Pastor Roger Jimenez/Verity Baptist Church
- Major Andrew Craibe/Salvation Army Official
That's just one parsed page of results. Your whole "my side is never wrong" shtick is old and tired. Enjoy.
Re: (Score:2)
(Note: I'm not conservative and don't really have a dog in this fight. I also generally disagree with LynwoodRooster, but...)
The request was for "well-known conservative author or leader". While "well-known" is clearly a subjective standard, none of the names you listed pass muster for me -- because I've objectively never heard of any of them, despite living in Red Country. I suspect you haven't either, except from whatever web page you scraped that list.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you missed the part about me stating I'm ignoring the "well-known" part since Rooster himself is unable to name the persons who threw the man off the building? The persons I listed might as well have been just as anonymous as the person(s) used in Rooster's example since you yourself admit you don't know them and at least meet the LOW LOW bar he originally set to prove that "people other than xian conservatives" hate the lgbt community. He gave an example, then moved the goal-posts. Now, my famil
Re: (Score:2)
Can you point me to a well known conservative author or leader who espouses death for gays (outside of Islamists, who like to throw gays off of high buildings)?
How about a sheriff: https://beta.washingtonpost.co... [washingtonpost.com] ? Or maybe Rep. Steve King: https://www.gaystarnews.com/ar... [gaystarnews.com] ?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Can you point me to a well known conservative author or leader who espouses death for gays
"I'll take hate groups for $100, Alex."
"This extremist religious group is well known for their homophobia and protesting of military funerals."
"What is Westboro Baptist Church?"
"Correct."
And right there on their web page, which I don't want to give them the satisfaction of linking to, you can find: "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." - Romans 6:23
Yup, sounds pretty close to saying gays deserve death, if you ask me.
As for the conservative leade
Right? Wrong? wrong logical argument. (Score:2)
This assertion is not about whether a particular viewpoint is right or wrong, but whether there is any evident logical connection between the apparently independent assertions, and whether they are, in fact, statistically correlated.
To me it appears that both they are correlated and they are logically independent. This appears to mean that there is some non-obvious cause of the correlation. Historical happenstance is on argument that would fairly fit into the slot, as would suggestions about different dom
Re: (Score:2)
I've got many may gay friends who in their lives who have either been threatened or actually assaulted by those with conservative xian values. I mean, if we're going to offer opinions and personal experiences as points of data, I might as well throw mine in there too.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got many, many friends who are Christian and conservative. Never heard on espouse actual hate for gays. Conversely, it seems like acquaintances who are liberal who actually, viscerally hate Trump and believe it is 100% correct to use physical violence against conservatives. In fact, look no further than here at slashdot - outright violence against "right wing" positions is heralded and supported.
So "it seems like acquaintances" who are liberal believe it is 100% correct to use physical violence against conservatives?
Wow, quite the assumption there.
I guess we can take your word for it then.
"In fact"
What fact? Your anecdotal bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that is the opposite of reality, they're just initially reported that way.
https://thehill.com/opinion/cr... [thehill.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Might want to check your facts, nearly every domestic terrorism incident involving a mass-shooting is done by a right wing nutbag.
Speaking of nutbags, let's address your actions for a moment, since you're one of the many attempting to paint the actions of psychopaths with a political brush as if it really fucking matters. Attacking innocent civilians en masse with the intent to harm or kill is not a sane action by any means. It's not like we're going to turn to the next mass shooter, find out they're a left-wing nutbag, and say "oh, then their actions are perfectly acceptable."
Another fact to point out; you likely have no idea what
Re:Pulpits (Score:4, Interesting)
The thing is the nature of the system is that you have to fall into one camp or the other. Most people just end up picking their most important issue and siding with the group that mirrors their stance on that issue.
I don't have any problem with gay people. I have no issue with gay marriage. I do personally think trans people have a psychological disorder but that doesn't mean I "hate" them anymore than I'd "hate" people with OCD or bipolar disorder.
I'm personally strongly agnostic with atheist leanings and completely support separation of church and state.
I believe in man made climate change, though I don't necessarily think there's a whole lot we can do about it.
I don't have any problem with immigrants or other cultures. Heck I love visiting new places/countries.
I don't have a problem with our current system of healthcare, but I also don't really oppose single-payer either. Both systems can/could work. Similarly I don't have an issue with the current college system OR if we went to full state-supported schools. Either can work.
I am 100% pro-gun. My position is that any weapon that can be carried and entrusted by a single infantryman in the army can be entrusted to a civilian. That includes machine guns but not things like nukes (ie, because even within the military that power is never entrusted to a single person).
I totally believe and know that our country has plenty of racist people in it but in no way to I believe that the government is "systematically" racist. In general racism isn't dead but it's been DYING for a long time.
Because of the specific issues I care about I end up voting Republican, but I certainly don't agree with them on every topic. In general I personally wish we could figure out how to vote on laws ourselves, so that essentially we go to a true Democracy and not a Republic. If our elected officials existed solely to implement the policies directly voted on by the people I don't think the party system would mean much anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
>>My position is that any weapon that can be carried and entrusted by a single infantryman in the army can be entrusted to a civilian
So, you would limit access to M240 Bravo, it requires a two-man crew
Re: (Score:2)
Actually yes. Having thought about the issue a lot I'm fine restricting access to crew operated machine guns, but I'm fine with allowing select-fire infantry weapons.
Basically what type of weaponry does your average military "grunt" carry? That's my line on what I support civilian ownership of. Given that the second amendment was drafted to allow civilian retaliation/rebellion against the government if needed, the it stands to reason that the level of weaponry you're allowed would be at least that much.
Re: (Score:2)
Select fire? Would you still require a Class 3 license to own one?
Personally, I see little or no reason for 3-round burst or full auto, and I would shudder to think how these massacres would expand with a SAW in the hands of some jerk who does not value the lives of others.
FYI, the 2nd Amendment was drafted when there was no standing federal army and the entire country was beholden to militias for defense.
There are frankly no remaining Constitutional supports for the 2nd Amendment with the recognition of a
Re:Pulpits (Score:5, Informative)
Select fire? Would you still require a Class 3 license to own one?
No, I don't support the licensing of any constitutional rights.
FYI, the 2nd Amendment was drafted when there was no standing federal army and the entire country was beholden to militias for defense.
There are frankly no remaining Constitutional supports for the 2nd Amendment with the recognition of a federal Army.
Not true. The federal army was established in 1789. The Bill of Rights including the 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791.
The militia specified in the 2nd amendment serves two purposes: to bolster the ranks of the regular army in the event of foreign invasion, AND to fight against the regular army if necessarily if the government has turned tyrannical.
Re: (Score:2)
>>AND to fight against the regular army if necessarily if the government has turned tyrannical.
That has to be the funniest thing you have said all week
FYI, simple armor overcomes all of the weapons that you just said the militias could own. Every person who 'thinks' they are about to take on the US government is simply delusional and operating at the level of a child who thinks Dukes of Hazard is a driving lesson.
Re: (Score:2)
Only problem with armor is a lot of it is not on US soil, it's a very big country, and there just isn't enough armor to protect everything at once. Add to that the reality that with our infrastructure in the shape it is in a lot of the armor couldn't easily move from point A to point B due to bridge weight restrictions and things get tougher. Certainly not insurmountable from the point of view of the Army, but not as easy as you make it appear - airlift is always an option - but still - it's a really big co
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
You DO realize that the Interstate Freeway system is DESIGNED to move troops and equipment around the country... right?
Alas, I am left to wonder, where did all these dumbasses com from?
Re: (Score:2)
Very few levels of easily fieldable body armor do much against high powered rifle rounds. Once you get into .30-06 level ballistics only the highest level of armor will stop it and that is only rated to stop ONE ROUND. The US military was effectively beaten by simple infantry in Vietnam. At the end of the day though that's not the point. Not all revolutions are successful, but the 2nd amendment effectively states that the people maintain arms and the ability to try.
Nearly 1/3 of Hong Kong is marching in
Re: (Score:2)
Stop being dense, I am referring to tanks and armored personnel carriers
Re: (Score:2)
The point still stands. Those are not impervious from IED's, and the fact that you don't think such a revolution would be successful doesn't change the intent or legal force of the 2nd amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
I see that you are absolute in your beliefs and I am unlikely to change them, but it is really fun mocking you since you leave yourself wide open to numerous attack vectors, which you fail to recognize.
Re: (Score:2)
Other than that pesky Amendment to the Constitution, eh? If you can get 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate, in the same year, to propose an Amendment saying something to the general effect of "The Second is NULL and VOID, as of DATE", and it's gone.
Good luck with that.
Alternatively, you can get 2/3+ (34+) of the legislatures of the States to call for a Constitutional Convention, and do t
Re: (Score:2)
The British felt the same way at the outset of WWII. Nobody in the general population should own a gun. And they pretty much didn't. Then came Dunkirk when the British Army had to evacuate and left most arms behind. The NRA ended up helping to re-arm the British people to protect the homeland. Just because Hitler decided not to cross the channel doesn't mean there wasn't significant fear that he would. And yes, of course the US government helped massively - lend lease and all that. But the trouble with havi
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but reading other writings from the authors of the time simply doesn't support that assertion.
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” - Thomas Jefferson, 1787
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to
Re:Pulpits (Score:4, Informative)
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson 1787
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason 1788
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison 1788
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton 1788
"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton 1788
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story 1833
Re: (Score:2)
Stranger still is pushing a belief merely because it is the opposite of what another group says.
Seems that many of the same people who will revile the validity "It's true because it's what the bible says" happily cling to "It's true because it's the opposite of what the bible says".
Unfortunately, epistemology eventually catches up with you. "Not-X", where "X" is anything whatsoever, including religion, isn't something, it is nothing. You can't mentally integrate concepts with a negation as conceptual foun
Re: (Score:3)
Those are all conservative beliefs, no need for one to push another. In 1776, government was minimal, gays were invisible, and guns and god were necessary. Conservatism is largely about people who are content (even if they aren't "well off") wanting to preserving "the good old days". They cling to the "old ways" so strongly that it causes distress for those who don't fit in or who live in different environments (urban areas) where more flexibility is needed.
Progressives are generally not content (even if
Re: (Score:2)
Whether they religious or political, there are people that use one widely held believe to help push another. "Jeebus loves us" and "we hate gays" and "don't touch my guns" seem to have a high level of correlation.
They do, but the point of this article is to suggest that the reason why those beliefs correlate has little to do with anything inherent in those beliefs, and more to do with chance, historical trends, and the network effects of what basically amounts to peer pressure.
For instance, you brought up guns. Up until the '60s, gun rights were a noncontroversial topic in the US. While there were an exceedingly small set of people on the fringe, historical polls and legal discourse at the time make it clear that th
Re: (Score:2)
Sure buddy, read up on it, Lost Cause of the Confederacy [wikipedia.org], you may recognize yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a real cut-up, I see why you are too chicken shit to use your account name
State Rights is a term used to support the idea of the Confederacy (saving states from the mean old federal government) AND the fight against federally mandated Civil Rights in the 60's.
The fact that you are trying to twist it to blame people who you attack racially (yes, anti-marijuana laws were there largely to attack black people [cnn.com], AND immigration laws also attack people for racial reason), just shows what a stinking turd y
Re: (Score:2)
box of rocks != shit for brains
Re: (Score:3)
You are mixing the Southern Democratic party of the past with the current Progressive Dem party
The old Southern Dems got pissed off about the Civil Rights movement that eliminated legal segregation and fled to the Republican Party under Nixon and Reagan. The strategy was called The Southern Strategy [wikipedia.org]
The Progressive Dem party has been supporting legalization of medical and recreational cannabis. The reasons for cannabis criminalization were largely racist, [businessinsider.com] with Anslinger targeting Billie Holiday for singing s [politico.com]
Tribalism (Score:4, Insightful)
People choose a tribe and conform to the collective identity of that tribe. In this case, it's centered on two political platforms that are driven to oppose each other in everything except the elimination of any potential third platform by the structure of our voting systems.
Re: (Score:2)
"People like us do things like this" is a very powerful technique for building tribes and marketing.
Re:Tribalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Better explanation for it here... (Score:3)
Study has nothing to do with politics. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's not one "looking for something - anything - to justify their hatred and denigration of people they don't agree with." He's clearly a-OK with completely making it up. Looking would take actual work.
Don't be snarky about TFA if you don't RTFA (Score:3)
Did you even attempt to read the article? It is written about another study that was based on the music study. The article "brings politics into play" because it is an article about a political study.
For your reference, this is the study:Opinion cascades and the unpredictability of partisan polarization [sciencemag.org]
You can find it linked at the bottom of the article.
Re: (Score:2)
The actual study [sciencemag.org] (https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/8/eaax0754) indeed says that thing. The study that you linked was from the summary, and clearly disclosed in TFA as the inspiration for the actual study.
it always comes down to tribalism (Score:2)
humans are more tribal than we often admit to ourselves.
Religious congregations are often about finding a 'tribe' to belong to
Political parties are larger tribes
Humans adopt the group think of their tribe, so that they fit in and are accepted
Racism is tribal too. Defeating it is often about getting people to rethink about what tribe they belong to, ie American instead of "white american'
Immigration debates could be looked at as tribal. One side trying to protect their 'American' tribe. The other side try
Re: (Score:3)
Funny thing, Jesus's story about 'The Good Samaritan' is meant to demonstrate that tribalism is false and should not be used to judge others:
Jesus was blatantly against tribalism. He demonstrated this in words and in actions. From the parable of the Good Samaritan, to meeting the samaritan woman at the well, Jesus shocked the culture of his time by ignoring accepted tribal divisions. It is not the teachings of Jesus Christ or Christianity which is to blame for our behavior, Christianity is a victim of our t [redletterchristians.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That's an extremely accurate analysis of that parable. Jesus also had some interesting words to say about the leaders of the congregations in his time too. Just see how many times he praised the Pharisees for their righteous behavior.
In short, actually doing what Jesus asked is hard, and it seems to go against our very nature and being. Love your enemies. Forgive others. Judge not lest ye be judged. But it is the right thing to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Amen Brother
Re: (Score:3)
Nicely demonstrating that the problem was already known back then to smart people when they created this fantasy in an attempt to manipulate society into something better. But that "Christians" are routinely ignoring their creed is pretty much standard. I mean there is this absolute minimal kernel the religion designers put in, that has absolutely not room for misunderstandings and is clear, compact and impossible to miss and just requires 10 things. Yet "Christians" are killing, stealing, lying and many wi
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, but immigration debates are an example where "tribalism" is a valid/good thing. Our politicians should be looking out for the best interests of their own tribe (America), and unchecked essentially open borders with actual incentives (possible free health care, welfare checks for however many kids you can spit out) is in absolutely no way best for America.
Immigration that is orderly and allows people to easily come here who will add to our nation, on the other hand, is in our best interests.
Political Consistency (Score:4, Insightful)
But can you really draw a straight line from small-government philosophy to immigration attitudes? Or military funding?
Both Democrats and Republicans have a number of incongruous political beliefs. Democrats always rally for things "for the children" (see here [slashdot.org]), but have no problem allowing the children to be killed in the womb (or shortly thereafter [dailymail.co.uk]). Republicans are anti-abortion, but largely support the death penalty. Democrats say they want to ban "assault style weapons" while simultaneously proclaiming that Trump is literally Hitler (Do you really want to disarm the populace with a dictator in office?). Republicans claim to be small government, yet increase spending and expand government [geekwire.com] whenever they're in power. The only political party that is fairly consistent is the Libertarian Party. You can argue if they are right or not, but it's hard to say they aren't mostly consistent in their beliefs.
Re: (Score:3)
(or shortly thereafter [dailymail.co.uk]).
It's very easy to "draw contrasts" when you lie about a medical procedure that doesn't actually happen because it is already illegal, and then claim opposition to a dumb law "banning" it is the same as supporting the procedure.
Re:Political Consistency (Score:4, Insightful)
>Republicans are anti-abortion, but largely support the death penalty.
The State should protect the rights we have and protect those that cannot protect themselves such as an unborn infant.
The State can take away your rights through due process and there are crimes that will revoke your right to life.
What is incongruous?
Re: (Score:2)
Both Democrats and Republicans have a number of incongruous political beliefs.
If you believe that, you need to dig a little deeper. I highly recommend reading "Conflict of Visions" by Thomas Sowell. Yes, he's a conservative thinker, but he does a fair job[*] of presenting both sides and of painting a fairly believable picture of the visions that underlie the left and right perspectives. He thinks it boils down to a different set of beliefs about various aspects of human nature, including its malleability. Another good resource, a little more academic in perspective and from a more
You can't tell the difference between (Score:2)
an unborn child and a convicted cold blooded killer?
The death penalty is for when the 2nd Amendment fails to protect the innocent.
The government has the chance to right the wrong and protect society.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm on the extreme libertarian spectrum, but the previous comparison was rhetoric versus actions. Given that the LP has never held any power, I'm not sure it is a fair comparison. I have no doubt that if we magically elected a Libertarian Party congress and executive, you would quickly see those mostly consistent rhetorical positions fall apart as the representatives were quickly corrupted for personal gain and reelection.
That's entirely possible, but these positions can be found in the different party's platforms.
Climate change (Score:5, Insightful)
The rejecting of climate change is pretty easy to account for. A lot of people use climate change to push whatever their personal agenda is:
The climate is changing so we need to...
Instead of debating all the kooky non-sequitur solutions are being proposed in the name of climate change, it's easier to just throw the ball back in their court by questioning whether the climate is even changing at all. If debating an actual climate scientist, this might not work very well, but when confronted by people who know little about science and are just using it to lend urgency to their pet cause, this is effective at shutting down their rant about how we must do such-and-such in the name of global warming.
People do this sort of thing in other areas as well. For instance, when faced with someone proselytizing religion, an agnostic might not want to get into some long discussion about what concepts of the divine they are and are not open to considering, and instead just say they don't believe in God at all, even if their private views on spirituality happen to be more nuanced.
Sometimes people take a hard line position just to shut up people they don't want to deal with.
The polarization thing is out of control. (Score:4, Insightful)
When you realize the polarization itself is a tool to manipulate us it looses power over you as an individual. You are then forced to sit there and watch as nearly everyone you know falls for the polarization scam, blind to the next layers.....
Anti-vaxxers? (Score:2)
Somehow, just about every topic that people want to argue about splits into two camps. ...it seems improbable that so many people in each camp should have nearly identical switchboards, but they do
Except for vaccination, GMO, Medicare, and a host of other areas where people's opinions don't always line up with a political affiliation.
In fact, a study that shows how many areas where there isn't a two-sided division would be more interesting.
So people have no clue about things? (Score:2)
Fits. Apparently, to the average moron having an opinion is much more important than actually having a good reason for that opinion or even some understanding of the issue.
BS, none of the political beliefs that matter (Score:3)
Politics is a very carefully orchestrated game for anything above dog catcher. Your opinions aren't an accident. Someone has spent millions, often billions to put those ideas in your head.
Re: (Score:2)
Politics is a very carefully orchestrated game for anything above dog catcher. Your opinions aren't an accident. Someone has spent millions, often billions to put those ideas in your head.
Quite true.
Which is why I avoid "social media" like the plague it is.
One advantage of old age: political perspective (Score:2)
In my lifetime, I have seen certain issues totally switch sides on the political spectrum. When I was about six, there were these people who railed against "chemicals" that "they" were supposedly putting in our food and water. One particular talking point was hating any use of dental fluoride. In city after city, they campaigned to prevent fluoride from being added to municipal water supplies.
Of course you young whippersnappers know who I'm talking about. It was the envi-
No, They called themselves the John
There are two kinds of people (Score:4, Insightful)
Here are the two types of people (Score:2)
There are people who lump people into groups of two people and then there's everybody else.
I don't know who said it, but it's very true.
Re: (Score:2)
There are two kinds of people. Those who let others, friends, media, religions ( not just theocratic ), form their opinions for them, and those who keep their eyes open and check the facts, even if just sometimes. If you're in the first group you tend to either go with the consensus ( loudest group ) or against it. If you're in the second group, you're probably not being heard.
I'm pretty sure there are groups that want you to believe large swaths of the public are sheep (who do not form their own opinions). This makes it so much easier to discount them.
I am not intending to play devil's advocate here.
Study looks super fun (Score:2)
This honestly is a really interesting and engaging looking study. Looking at the data table they gave you can see how some statements seem to have a greater resistance to partisan bias/tribal signalling, (1 in particular seems to have broad base of support, 20 seems to be reliably conservative ) where as others seem to be thrown wildly to whatever side takes it up (4 and 15 are often the most polarizing questions even though who supports them changes)
I'd like to see more variations done, to tease out how t
Because (Score:2)
"And why does something like climate change start an inter-camp argument, while other things like the physics behind airplane design enjoy universal acceptance? "
Because most people don't understand airplane physics so if there ever is an ideological divide regarding airplane physics it will only involve a small set of experts while the public at large remains indifferent. And physics can have ideological divides. See Tesla vs. Edison ak AC vs. DC.
Also, the participants in an airplane physics discussion usu
There is much variation in politics (Score:2)
The "hot button issues" are indeed connected. But boiling it down to small/big government is also incorrect. When you boil it down to government styles, there are 4 groups. You have leftist - they are basically all about big governments and government involvement in all aspects of life, you have progressives, they are about small government with large amounts of regulation. On the right you have libertarians, small government, little government control and conservatives, large local governments with little
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change denialism.. (Score:2)
Climate change denialism seems to trace its roots back to a combination of the religious right (Gawd gave us this planet, we can do what we like) and how much they hate hippies (which I understand). It's a weird sort of contrarianism. I'm pretty right wing on various topics, but the climate change denialism shit is a huge issue I have with Republicans, it's so absolutely absurd.
By all means I agree we shouldn't panic and crush our standard of living immediately, but we should have started a planned, slow, s
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change denialism seems to trace its roots back to a combination of the religious right (Gawd gave us this planet, we can do what we like) and how much they hate hippies (which I understand).
You're missing the critical component.
Money.
Pure greed is the real motive.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like nonsense (Score:2)
But can you really draw a straight line from small-government philosophy to immigration attitudes?
Ah... yes? The most basic function of government is to keep the "outsiders" from getting inside. It's related peoples pulling together to defend themselves and provide for their common good. This is the reason the first such examples of towns and city states had walls. "Small government" by default has to accept that immigration constraints are real because if you toss that out you're tossing out the notion of a nation or extended family of people all together. So there is no "government". There is a
Of course you can...if you understand them (Score:2)
...but of course why not just demonize one side instead?
"can you really draw a straight line from small-government philosophy to immigration attitudes"
Small government philosophy is grounded in the basis of self reliance and a revulsion at freeloaders. Attitudes about illegal immigration* have everything to do with not wanting people to come here and get free rides, line-jumping all the people doing it the LEGAL way in the process. Oh, and probably justifying expanded federal government aid programs to he
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it has nothing to do with the music being "good"
I hope you're not suggesting there's no such thing as good/bad music, and just that "taste" doesn't care.
Well, since memes are the modern "social" currency I guess that means we're going to have an entire 40-percent-of-a-generation of people who've never heard of a Category 5 hurricane no matter how many times they've heard of it.
Re: (Score:2)
then we would take them seriously.
Nah, you wouldn't.
Your argument is that you deny the scientific consensus because you don't like what non-scientists say to you. This demonstrates you really don't give a shit about that consensus, you're searching for a reason to reject it. Lying about "the world is gonna end!!" claims further demonstrates this.
But hey, you get to feel self-righteous, and you're gonna be dead before it gets really bad, so what do you care?
And many of the proposals to actually seriously deal with the problem as opposed to push political agendas are things like nuclear energy
Nuclear energy is not a serious way to deal with climate change.
Nuclear power plant
Re: (Score:2)
You're making the OP's point. You're pretty much claiming the world is going to end in 20 years, making nuclear not viable. This same kind of "we have no time! we must do it now!" logic was used by scientists in the 80s and New York still isn't underwater: https://dailycaller.co [dailycaller.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And many of the proposals to actually seriously deal with the problem as opposed to push political agendas are things like...
Pushing political agendas in the name of saving the Earth is the big problem. Wealth transfer as an excuse to push socialism, eliminate fossil fuels because Republicans get money from the oil industry, etc. force people opposed to socialism and left leaning politics to push back against the global warming hype.
Re: (Score:2)
On what basis did you decide that it is meaningless? It sounds like a reasonable study to me, and a fairly cheap one.
OTOH, just from the summary it doesn't sound as if their study really supports their conclusion. The "historical happenstance" is *one* plausible explanation. In a somewhat similar earlier study I heard it suggested that it was a difference in dominant brain networks. Which is another plausible explanation. And it could certainly be some combination of the two, with some groups of people