Support NeoGAF

[EGM1966]

Here is what puzzles me. I know there are a lot of people even here on neogaf that are quietly supporting of trump. Sometimes they show this side in other topics where they feel they can argue the other side, without getting banned or shouted at.

But they don't show up in this kind of topic.

How can a trump supporter here handle the cognitive dissonance of only selectively standing up for him? If there is one thing he shows with his appointments is his contempt for climate science or at least his near zero care for it. It's a core value. One of the few he actually has, other than claiming to be good at deals.

How do you quietly support the guy but you won't try to argue that the atmosphere can in fact deal with digging up and burning the rest of the fossil fuels?

Is it because you don't care? You really only care about your paper wealth for next 4 years?

Is it because science wasn't a subject you really were interested in at school and you suspect most scientists are politically motivated so untrustworthy?

Do You think trump will change his mind and sack his appointees and hire better ones?

Can't think of a fourth reason.

I am struggling to understand the quiet supporter of trump who isn't a rally going, guns and bible type. Those guys I get. I don't get the smarter other half, some of them are here.

To be fair a lot of people don't think about long term (as in truly long term beyond their own lives) and only focus on immediate concerns. It's not isolated to Trump and happens everywhere (most recently in U.K. With Brexit).

I increasingly question whether I believe democratic process is the right way to go if we want to ensure species survival and long term good decision making as a result.

Time to finally give the scientists a go actually running things supported by top level program managers I think.

 

[Epsilon-delta]

Some Trump supporters have shown up in these kinds of topics. IIRC, they usually say that Trump and his people don't really mean the crazy shit they say, they just say whatever pops into their head to get attention and appeal to their base. But they'll act "normal" when in power.

Of course, that doesn't explain why the same Trump supporters think that Trump and co. are only being truthful when they talk about the things the Trump supporter in question cares about.

Which logically makes no sense.

 

[LegendofJoe]

My drinking has increased exponentially since November 9th. At this rate, my liver should fail by January 20th.

Same here, I realized I was using alcohol to treat my Trump depression. The guy is a dangerous asshole, but I'll be damned if I let the guy endanger my health as well. So I've cut back on reading the news and browsing Facebook. It's going to be a long 4 years, so I plan on pacing myself. I'll save the alcohol for when truly despicable things happen (hello ACA repeal and replace with shit).

 

[Sunster]

How come it's only American Christians who believe in creationism and that earth is ~6000 years old? I never hear about that nonsense anywhere else besides from them.

I have. Other countries just don't announce it like we do. Like in the Philippines a good portion of the population believes in creationism. But it's not really something that's talked about, let alone announced by the president elect. It's just a private belief.

 

[Empyrean Heaven]

5,500-year history of our planet—human history, I should say.

 

[SenorArdilla]

Didn't you know? Human history only started after people started writing about it. Anything older is called prehistory.

 

[exmachina64]

Didn't you know? Human history only started after people started writing about it. Anything older is called prehistory.

If he is a YEC, he's referring to most or all of the history of the Earth because he can't separate that from biblical human history.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Which logically makes no sense.

Makes it difficult to take defense of Trump support seriously.

Either you don't really think Trump and the GOP will do anything they claim, so like why did you vote for that. Or you do think they mean what they say, in which case you're willing to throw everyone else under the bus to get what you want.

 

[dantevsninjas]

 

[Cepheus]

I don't even know where to start on this. Madness...

 

[GifGafIsTheBestGaf]

those scientists and researchers doing massive back ups dont look that "tinfoil hat"-y anymore huh

 

[Slurpy2k20]

There was an overwhelming science that the Earth was flat, and there was an overwhelming science that we were the center of the world, 100%, you know, we get a lot of things wrong in the scientific community—you and I both know that,

Sorry, but when the fuck did this happen? Can someone point me to the research papers? Does this fuckwad not realize that SCIENCE is what proved that shit WRONG?

 

[Aureon]

There was an "overwhelming" agreement that the earth was flat because you were ostracised by the church and state if you said otherwise. Fucking idiots.

Actually an historical false. Actual 'scientific' people didn't think the earth was flat at any point in recorded history, going back as least as the Greeks.

 

[DevilDog]

Sorry, but when the fuck did this happen? Can someone point me to the research papers? Does this fuckwad not realize that SCIENCE is what proved that shit WRONG?

Yes, but until they proved them wrong is was considered correct, so what we should do, is reject anything that scientists say that doesn't align with our personal beliefs, or pockets.

 

[thelatestmodel]

“I know that the current president thinks that human beings are affecting the climate—there are scientists who think that’s not happening,”

So cite your sources, you fucking plum. Man this stuff frustrates me.

 

[AndyD]

Actually an historical false. Actual 'scientific' people didn't think the earth was flat at any point in recorded history, going back as least as the Greeks.

Indeed. Let's not forget that science before a certain point in time was essentially religion. Actual scientists who dissented were sometimes burned at the stake.

 

[TheOMan]

To be fair a lot of people don't think about long term (as in truly long term beyond their own lives) and only focus on immediate concerns. It's not isolated to Trump and happens everywhere (most recently in U.K. With Brexit).

I increasingly question whether I believe democratic process is the right way to go if we want to ensure species survival and long term good decision making as a result.

Time to finally give the scientists a go actually running things supported by top level program managers I think.

You're probably not wrong - but there would probably have to be a decent sized war to get there.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

Actually an historical false. Actual 'scientific' people didn't think the earth was flat at any point in recorded history, going back as least as the Greeks.

As multiple people have pointed out, yep, I was wrong. I was thinking of the mistaken belief in Earth being the centre of the universe rather than flat. But unlike a politician, I can admit when I'm wrong, and it's not something I would deny ever being, nor double down on.

 

[gabbo]

So cite your sources, you fucking plum. Man this stuff frustrates me.

To him, and people who believe in what he's peddling, just claiming there are scientists who don't believe in human-made climate change is enough evidence/proof for it to a) be real, b) be considered as a source.
Other people will point to this and say "how about all those scientists in the news lately who don't believe Obama/You?"

 

[leroidys]

Here is what puzzles me. I know there are a lot of people even here on neogaf that are quietly supporting of trump. Sometimes they show this side in other topics where they feel they can argue the other side, without getting banned or shouted at.

But they don't show up in this kind of topic.

How can a trump supporter here handle the cognitive dissonance of only selectively standing up for him? If there is one thing he shows with his appointments is his contempt for climate science or at least his near zero care for it. It's a core value. One of the few he actually has, other than claiming to be good at deals.

How do you quietly support the guy but you won't try to argue that the atmosphere can in fact deal with digging up and burning the rest of the fossil fuels?

Is it because you don't care? You really only care about your paper wealth for next 4 years?

Is it because science wasn't a subject you really were interested in at school and you suspect most scientists are politically motivated so untrustworthy?

Do You think trump will change his mind and sack his appointees and hire better ones?

Can't think of a fourth reason.

I am struggling to understand the quiet supporter of trump who isn't a rally going, guns and bible type. Those guys I get. I don't get the smarter other half, some of them are here.

I think they equate winning with being right, and it stops there. Anytime the "libtards" are upset, they know that they're on the right track.

 

[Imperfected]

I think they equate winning with being right, and it stops there. Anytime the "libtards" are upset, they know that they're on the right track.

More or less. The Left needs to get it through their skulls that the Right are not engaged in a debate over the correct way to run a country. They're engaged in a culture war. Democrats are increasingly showing up ready to play poker at a destruction derby.

 

[Peltz]

Lol. This is amazing.

 

[KHarvey16]

A Law is just a historical term, which is basically a synonym for a theory. The reason the word theory is used now, is because we know that many of them will turn out to be slightly inaccurate. The reason Newton's Laws are still called laws is, as said, for historical reasons. Technically they should be called Newton's Theories, as it turned out, they were inaccurate.

Now we have the Theory of General Relativity which is a lot more accurate than Newton's "Laws", however, they may be shown to be innacurate in the same way Newton's Theories were.

It's also worth pointing out though, that this doesn't make the theories worthless. Newton's Laws are still used on a regular basis, as they are far simpler than GR and provide a good approximation for them on the scales we encounter on a regular basis. It's not like that as soon as Einstein wrote down his theory, that all the bridges and buildings built under Newton's principles spontaneously collapsed. The reason they lasted so long without question, is that they were proven to work again, and again, under many different circumstances.

That's not true at all really. A theory is an over-arching explanation and laws are descriptions or observations about specific phenomena. Newton's laws of motion don't explain any underlying causes and just describe motion. Same with the laws of thermodynamics. These will never be replaced by theories because they are different things entirely.