Support NeoGAF

[polyh3dron]

Reality has a liberal bias by current standards of liberal and conservative. I do think that things used to be slightly more balanced and the Republican side of debates on social issues was more then "because we hate things that are different!"

that's the whole point of the quote; to point out the idiocy of the vast majority of the positions held by conservatives/republicans.

 

[Onemic]

Maybe when we discovered that we caused a massive increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

but who's to say that it directly contributes greatly to global warming to the point that it's not a small reason, but the main reason global temperatures are rising? What makes the raised temperatures now any different than when they were going up and down 1000 years ago or 5000 years ago? Global temperatures are never stagnant.

 

[RustyNails]

Why the fuck was nib95 banned? What did he say in this thread that's ban-worthy?

As far as I can tell, he brought up Hitler in a non-Hitler thread.

 

[empty vessel]

I have a silly theory that there is a rejection based on "well, these people support abortion & gays therefore they are evil therefore everything they say is wrong"

I don't think it's silly at all, but I do think it is part and parcel of the authoritarian, hierarchical mind. The demonization/dehumanization makes the lines of authoritative control clear and helps to enforce them. You trust what we say, not what they say. In this way, the fact that they use facts becomes irrelevant, because they are always lying and not to be believed.

As far as I can tell, he brought up Hitler in a non-Hitler thread.

First time on the internet!

 

[Kai Dracon]

Science behind these specific claims aside, it does match up with some people I've known.

Example: 22 year old, bright guy, finished college, with degrees in chemistry, and get this: library science and information technology. He says he loves information. He's also from an extremely conservative, tea-party town, surrounded by hyper conservatives, most of whom are outright racist and old-southern mentality.

Result: he thinks Obama is a mooslum, believes every new theory Birthers come up with, disbelieves global warming and even the mere possibility that it COULD ever be possible, and repeats anything he hears from GOP pundits and media verbatim without a lick of critical thinking.

After talking with him a fair bit about his hang-ups, the only conclusion I could draw is that regardless of his education, exposure to a real science, working with scientists, etc... his homebred reality tunnel is just too narrow. In order for him to accept that most of what he's repeating is bullshit, he would have to accept that everyone he knows, trusts, and grew up around is deluded, ignorant, and believes things that are actually harmful to society.

Plus, he definitely has the "conservative" / neophobic mindset, where he is afraid of most of the world outside the normality he grew up with.

Against all that, education and knowledge have lost the battle, at least for now. Maybe some day he'll crack.

 

[state-of-the-art]

Godwin's law should be a bannable.

 

[Mengy]

But there's no proof of global warming though

Global warming is a fact. A scientific backed up by data FACT.


Now, the cause of said warming, and where is it going in the future, therein lies the true debate.

 

[nick nacc]

Republicans lost my vote when I was 21. Now I question everything in their theology since we have had nothing but tax cuts for decades now and it's not fucking trickling down. I hate talking about politics now since I live in right wing community and everyone is so stupid. It's a list cause.

 

[FlyingTeacup]

Republicans lost my vote when I was 21. Now I question everything in their theology since we have had nothing but tax cuts for decades now and it's not fucking trickling down. I hate talking about politics now since I live in right wing community and everyone is so stupid. It's a list cause.

great start to adulthood.

 

[nick nacc]

By the way I called it theology since they worship rich People. And refuse to call them rich. If I hear job creaters one more time I am goin to scream

 

[Kosmo]

Now, the cause of said warming, and where is it going in the future, therein lies the true debate.

Correct, and anyone with a rational mind should think a multi-trillion dollar trading scheme is something we should be leery of.

By the way I called it theology since they worship rich People. And refuse to call them rich. If I hear job creaters one more time I am goin to scream

What do you call people with lots of money who gainfully employ others?

 

[Shogmaster]

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

First reply always the best reply

 

[empty vessel]

What do you call people with lots of money who gainfully employ others?

There aren't any such people, or very, very few of them. Most people are hired by corporate, i.e., government, entities.

Also, if we observe that wealth is created by labor, that makes people who work "wealth creators." And since a person's wealth that he accumulates through his status as owner (as opposed to any work) must necessarily be appropriated from somebody who worked to create it, we can call owners (i.e., people with lots f money who gainfully employ others) wealth thieves.

 

[nick nacc]

Correct, and anyone with a rational mind should think a multi-trillion dollar trading scheme is something we should be leery of.



What do you call people with lots of money who gainfully employ others?

Rich People.

I am sure there are examples of said people you state. Yet I am sure that raising taxes on them will not bankrupt them and in the process lower the deficit.

 

[Gaborn]

They're not. They're characterizing the liberals who change their views of nuclear power based on the evidence, despite it contradicting their knee-jerk opinions. They're contrasting that to Republicans who don't change their views from their knee-jerk positions when the facts contradict them.

I'm not making any judgement on whether this research is valid (my knee-jerk reaction is that it isn't) - just pointing out that you don't seem to understand the claims it's making.



Which is why he's contrasting two situations. You've described half of it. He's also, however, looking at support for Y. Mr W supports Y, because Y has been supported scientifically to the same extent as X. But you, belonging to an organisation that hates Y, refuse to accept Y and oppose it despite the evidence. Mr W is being given credit for supporting X (which he is not ideologically predisposed to) and Y (which he is) as opposed to your behaviour of supporting X (which meets your ideological biases) but not Y (because it doesn't).

Edit for clarity: So he's not comparing your position on X to Mr W's position on X. He's comparing your position on Y to Mr W's position on X.

I see what you're saying. But then that makes me wonder - are there issues where conservatives might largely oppose a particular position but then when a particular variable - such as education - is changed that they too would see this flip? It seems reasonable to me to assume that, since opposition to climate change is not a universal trait among Republicans or conservatives (just a dominant one) as with a variety of issues there would be specific questions that would make a Republican/conservative more or less likely to flip.

What this research then suggests to me is that for some reason liberals respond to education on average more strongly to science related issues - that is, that that is their trigger. I don't think that reflects as much on their character or their ideology per se though, I would guess (and it's purely a guess) that liberals are more apt on average to go into areas of hard science, thus they're more likely to be exposed to and influenced by data that suggests something contrary to their previous worldview.

To me a more interesting question is what triggers those conservatives that DO flip their positions from what might be considered a "mainstream" conservative position to one that is less so. What variable, when altered will make a conservative more likely to accept climate change? Or gay rights?

 

[Yoritomo]

Republican policy lost the fight when they engaged in science denial instead of actual policy discussion over the issue at hand. Just because Al Gore's claims about global warming are bullshit doesn't mean that climate change itself is bullshit. There are plenty of people who never saw past that.

I don't actually think that republican policy wonks are too stupid to understand the science of anthropogenic climate change, they just think their audience is too stupid so they fight it through denial rather than addressing it at the policy level.

At the same time, there are almost no democrats willing to fall on their sword to actually support initiatives that would produce real impact.

 

[KHarvey16]

but who's to say that it directly contributes greatly to global warming to the point that it's not a small reason, but the main reason global temperatures are rising? What makes the raised temperatures now any different than when they were going up and down 1000 years ago or 5000 years ago? Global temperatures are never stagnant.

It isn't about who is saying it, it's about what is saying it. And in this case the answer happens to be "all of the data.".

 

[Kosmo]

There aren't any such people, or very, very few of them. Most people are hired by corporate, i.e., government, entities.

Also, if we observe that wealth is created by labor, that makes people who work "wealth creators." And since a person's wealth that he accumulates through his status as owner (as opposed to any work) must necessarily be appropriated from somebody who worked to create it, we can call owners (i.e., people with lots f money who gainfully employ others) wealth thieves.

And away we go. Let's completely ignore that labor, in and of itself, is not necessarily a sustainable means to produce wealth. Sustainability often requires management, who you would not consider "wealth creators" even though, if they were not in place, the labor force would become quickly disorganized, inefficient, and collapse in on themselves.

 

[empty vessel]

And away we go. Let's completely ignore that labor, in and of itself, is not necessarily a sustainable means to produce wealth. Sustainability often requires management, who you would not consider "wealth creators" even though, if they were not in place, the labor force would become quickly disorganized, inefficient, and collapse in on themselves.

Management is labor. Try again, and read what I wrote carefully, particularly this part: "And since a person's wealth that he accumulates through his status as owner (as opposed to any work)..."

 

[Kosmo]

Management is labor. Try again, and read what I wrote carefully, particularly this part: "And since a person's wealth that he accumulates through his status as owner (as opposed to any work)..."

Owners provide capital - without which, laborers would not be afforded the opportunity to start working in a sustainable business.

 

[SolKane]

There aren't any such people, or very, very few of them. Most people are hired by corporate, i.e., government, entities.

Also, if we observe that wealth is created by labor, that makes people who work "wealth creators." And since a person's wealth that he accumulates through his status as owner (as opposed to any work) must necessarily be appropriated from somebody who worked to create it, we can call owners (i.e., people with lots f money who gainfully employ others) wealth thieves.

I think Kosmo was referring to the growing demand for butlers, court jesters and the much-coveted job of royal stool groom.

 

[empty vessel]

Owners provide capital - without which, laborers would not be afforded the opportunity to start working in a sustainable business.

Laborers provide work - without which, owners would not be afforded the opportunity to invest capital to appropriate wealth.

 

[pirata]

What type of church of was this?

Lutheran

 

[dave is ok]

What do you call people with lots of money who gainfully employ others?

Few and far between?

60% of jobs are created by small businesses. Another ~10% is government jobs.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Yes, but many of those small businesses thrive (or survive) based upon the business given to them from bigger businesses. It's a symbiotic relationship. Seems silly to seperate them.

 

[Flatline]

Owners provide capital - without which, laborers would not be afforded the opportunity to start working in a sustainable business.

Sure they would. There's a buttload of different economic systems where the owners aren't needed. There are zero economic systems though where labor isn't absolutely necessary.

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

Yes, but many of those small businesses thrive (or survive) based upon the business given to them from bigger businesses. It's a symbiotic relationship. Seems silly to seperate them.

QFT

 

[makingmusic476]

I would assume this is a matter of confirmation bias.

The more intelligent conservatives I know that remain conservative are quite adept at seeking out information from fringe scientists and the like that will support their viewpoint on issues like global warming.

The more intelligent conservatives I know/knew that don't mind gradually shedding incorrect, illogical, or ill supported beliefs (like myself and many of my friends throughout college) gradually become liberal (by American standards).

 

[Zzoram]

I just find the whole way we distribute wealth pretty ridiculously unfair.

Labor is generating almost all of the wealth, but management gets to keep almost all of the wealth. I'm not saying that everyone should get equal pay, but executive pay should be tied at a ratio with the lowest paid laborer in the corporation (maybe 15 to 1 maximium?). Everyone working in a corporation is partly responsible for the corporation's success, so they should share in the rewards to a more fair degree.

Also, the practice of paying executives insane bonuses when their company is doing worse is pretty stupid. Plenty of laborers get paid piece-work, if they make less they get paid less. Why do executives get paid more even if they manage the company into making less money?

 

[SouthernDragon]

May I request a link to the article?

 

[Learn2read]

What variable, when altered will make a conservative more likely to accept climate change? Or gay rights?

Obama says he's against them?

 

[t-ramp]

The more intelligent conservatives I know/knew that don't mind gradually shedding incorrect, illogical, or ill supported beliefs (like myself and many of my friends throughout college) gradually become liberal (by American standards).

I've found this to be happening to me lately. It's kind of interesting. Makes me wish the Democratic party was a bit more impressive on their own merits and not just compared to the GOP.

 

[Flatline]

May I request a link to the article?

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/15...ervatives_deny_science_--_and_reality/?page=1

 

[nick nacc]

Obama says he's against them?

At face value this post seems stupid. In reality it's not

 

[polyh3dron]

Obama says he's against them?

ding ding

 

[B!TCH]

I remember having a discussion along the lines of this topic with one of my more religious friends except that the discussion revolved around cloning or genetic engineering.

What I took away from that discussion is that religion is fundamentally opposed to science because most religions (the Abrahamic ones at least) place man above everything else in the universe - it's an important distinction especially if we are talking about the argument in favor of monotheistic religions versus polytheistic religions or animism - and you can argue that science consistently works to diminish the importance of man in the universe to that of just another "animal" (a good example of this is the theory of evolution).

Personally in regards to global warming specifically, I never understood why we needed proof that global warming exists. We already know for a fact that we would be better off if we used energy more efficiently because all our energy sources are finite. Isn't that enough of a reason to push green initiatives? It's not a question of life or death, it's a question of practicality.

 

[nick nacc]

Arguing about politics is so dumb, but it's more tolerable on the internet since less feelings get hurt and less relationships become twisted. I think it's because we have google to check shit before posting, and none of us are actually friends. But after the little spurts I have of caring about politics I sink into just watching the daily show and enjoying the show. Which will eventually make me mad again at the stupidity thus renewing the cycle of wasted time.

 

[prwxv3]

I remember having a discussion along the lines of this topic with one of my more religious friends except that the discussion revolved around cloning or genetic engineering.

What I took away from that discussion is that religion is fundamentally opposed to science because most religions (the Abrahamic ones at least) place man above everything else in the universe - it's an important distinction especially if we are talking about the argument in favor of monotheistic religions versus polytheistic religions or animism - and you can argue that science consistently works to diminish the importance of man in the universe to that of just another "animal" (a good example of this is the theory of evolution).

Personally in regards to global warming specifically, I never understood why we needed proof that global warming exists. We already know for a fact that we would be better off if we used energy more efficiently because all our energy sources are finite. Isn't that enough of a reason to push green initiatives? It's not a question of life or death, it's a question of practicality.

Yea we need to invest into green energy for the future. But we have to be smart about it. We cant have the government giving enormous amounts of money to companies just because they are researching/developing green tech. There needs to be research in the company to make sure they are stable and there needs to be watch dogs to make sure they fucking use the money for what it was intended for.

 

[nick nacc]

I remember having a discussion along the lines of this topic with one of my more religious friends except that the discussion revolved around cloning or genetic engineering.

What I took away from that discussion is that religion is fundamentally opposed to science because most religions (the Abrahamic ones at least) place man above everything else in the universe - it's an important distinction especially if we are talking about the argument in favor of monotheistic religions versus polytheistic religions or animism - and you can argue that science consistently works to diminish the importance of man in the universe to that of just another "animal" (a good example of this is the theory of evolution).

Personally in regards to global warming specifically, I never understood why we needed proof that global warming exists. We already know for a fact that we would be better off if we used energy more efficiently because all our energy sources are finite. Isn't that enough of a reason to push green initiatives? It's not a question of life or death, it's a question of practicality.

Great post bitch. I think all arguments on gw SHOULD END WITH THIS SENTIMENT. if the doubter then say anything else like its a waste of money or it's a political play them tell them to go fuck their own ignorant selves. You just exposed their true character. Also your point of monotheistic vs polytheistic religions was eye opening.


Also

 

[Dude Abides]

Correct, and anyone with a rational mind should think a multi-trillion dollar trading scheme is something we should be leery of.

Anyone with an undergraduate's understanding of economics would understand that cap and trade is a sensible way to internalize externalities. Since it's a market solution conservatives used to like it. Unfortunately Al Gore also endorsed it so they are now compelled to hate it.

 

[gblues]

It's hard to take an article seriously when it's titled "The Republican Brain" and doesn't actually have any neuroscience contained in it. Instead, it's all statistics and surveys. Social science, which barely qualifies as science to begin with.

That's not to say that the article itself is wrong or doesn't have any value, but how you say something is just as important as what you say.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Great post bitch. I think all arguments on gw SHOULD END WITH THIS SENTIMENT. if the doubter then say anything else like its a waste of money or it's a political play them tell them to go fuck their own ignorant selves. You just exposed their true character. Also your point of monotheistic vs polytheistic religions was eye opening.

All of those things (listed in that cartoon) are currently happening and are making remarkable progress (in the past 20-30 years). There's no need to tax or regulate Co2 emissions to funnel more money into it. I assume that's where the disconnect/argument happens with people.

 

[nick nacc]

It's hard to take an article seriously when it's titled "The Republican Brain" and doesn't actually have any neuroscience contained in it. Instead, it's all statistics and surveys. Social science, which barely qualifies as science to begin with.

That's not to say that the article itself is wrong or doesn't have any value, but how you say something is just as important as what you say.

I am applying for a masters in neuroscience now! But yeah I see what you mean. I think the title "the sheer ignorance of sanatorum and co. Astounds me" was already taken

 

[ezrarh]

Owners provide capital - without which, laborers would not be afforded the opportunity to start working in a sustainable business.

Tangentially related - owners will generally only provide capital for something that has demand or potential demand. Demand largely is derived from the majority who are laborers.

Also, the practice of paying executives insane bonuses when their company is doing worse is pretty stupid. Plenty of laborers get paid piece-work, if they make less they get paid less. Why do executives get paid more even if they manage the company into making less money?

Because they can thanks to the way we have our economic system set up. I don't agree with it but as long as it's legal, they're going to do it if they can.

 

[videogames]

I wonder when having blind faith in scientific reports you had no involvement in will be just as dangerous as following books about omniscient beings.

 

[zomaha]

I wonder when having blind faith in scientific reports you had no involvement in will be just as dangerous as following a book about an omniscient being.

Thankfully there will always be peer-review.

 

[Enron]

I think there is a mistake in using a single issue like climate change and wholly writing off or praising one political philosophy or the other. You could get a much different result on an issue like, for example nuclear power which liberals are much more likely than conservatives to oppose despite the science solidly supporting increasing usage.

Having a single issue litmus test like this is not only unfair, it is not conducive to rational discussion because it's so inflammatory.

This is neogaf, man. To 95% of the posters here, "Conservative" or "Republican" is boiled down to being racist, anti-abortion, denying global warming/evolution, and being Godbots.

 

[KHarvey16]

I wonder when having blind faith in scientific reports you had no involvement in will be just as dangerous as following books about omniscient beings.

No blind faith required. You can check their methods, examine their arithmetic and evaluate their results. Additional teams or universities or organizations can reproduce and expand on those findings. Sort of like how climatologists have been doing for decades now.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Enron: That's the GOP right now. Goldwater Republicans are what we call blue dog democrats

 

[empty vessel]

It's hard to take an article seriously when it's titled "The Republican Brain" and doesn't actually have any neuroscience contained in it. Instead, it's all statistics and surveys. Social science, which barely qualifies as science to begin with.

Social science is very much science. It draws conclusions from data. The data just (in this case) happen to be comprised of statements made by people. If you exclude social science as science, then you'll have to maintain that the study of people is largely out of the realm of science entirely. Even "hard" neuroscience frequently requires reliance on what people say for its data. This isn't to say that social science is as hard of a science as physics, or even neuroscience, but it is definitely science, and I find it to be one of the most enlightening sciences at that.

Tangentially related - owners will generally only provide capital for something that has demand or potential demand. Demand largely is derived from the majority who are laborers.

And when laborers are starved of money, either through income inequality or misguided "fiscal conservatism," demand dries up, investment slows, and economies shrink.