|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States41937 Posts
On June 21 2023 08:18 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 04:31 Djabanete wrote:
The most constructive way to criticize is to provide an alternative. Although it’s a lot to ask, especially of a lay person, I wonder if any of the people in this thread espousing the “school books have gone too far” point of view would like to describe what they think sex ed for 11-year-olds should look like, or point to curricula they think have merit.
So you don’t trust teachers to choose the right books to address certain delicate matters — well, what if you had a magic wand and could make things the way you wanted? What would you want taught and how? Its really simple: teach only things like languages, maths, history, physics, chemistry, biology, geography and so on. (this includes arts, practical skills, PE and whatever i forgot.) Sexual education as it seems big point of contest - parents should be presented with curriculum on lesson by lesson bases and be able to pick the lessons they want they kids to attend. Anything controversial (eg religion) should be gone and left for parents.
That’s absurd. Firstly, everything is controversial if you’re stupid enough. Secondly, parents don’t own their children, they aren’t entitled to an absolute veto on what their children learn. Their children deserve an education, failing to provide sex education is leaving them vulnerable to the first sexual predator they run into.
|
On June 21 2023 08:32 Djabanete wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 07:44 BlackJack wrote:On June 21 2023 04:31 Djabanete wrote:
The most constructive way to criticize is to provide an alternative. Although it’s a lot to ask, especially of a lay person, I wonder if any of the people in this thread espousing the “school books have gone too far” point of view would like to describe what they think sex ed for 11-year-olds should look like, or point to curricula they think have merit.
So you don’t trust teachers to choose the right books to address certain delicate matters — well, what if you had a magic wand and could make things the way you wanted? What would you want taught and how? I had sex Ed in Florida public schools every year from ages 10 to 17. Shouldn’t you be the one to point out what that curricula was lacking before putting sexually explicit books in the library? I have no idea what curriculum you had. I honestly do not know what you consider to be the default. I was homeschooled, and my parents gave me a sex ed book when I was early in my teens (11? 12?) that contained sexually explicit material. (It was not the first sexually explicit material I had encountered.) I don’t know how one would teach sex ed without including explicit material. I don’t know whether one could tell a young person that gay people and trans people exist (and are good people just like straight people and cis people) without transgressing the BlackJack values. You have spent enough time saying what you don’t like that I can try to extrapolate what you do like, but because I am genuinely curious in knowing what you consider to be good sex ed, I would sooner hear it from you then extrapolate. What is good sex ed according to BlackJack? @Razyda: OK, so the idea is that parents can opt their children out of anything controversial. Thanks for sharing. If you don’t mind my asking, what would constitute good sex ed in your opinion?@Introvert: OK, so the idea is to not blindly trust teachers to do a good job teaching sex ed (or anything else). If you don’t mind my asking, what would constitute a teacher doing a good job teaching sex Ed?
"controversial" is part of it, but also possibility to tailor it (in a limited way) for your child. Kids develop differently and ultimately all are different.
On June 21 2023 10:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 08:18 Razyda wrote:On June 21 2023 04:31 Djabanete wrote:
The most constructive way to criticize is to provide an alternative. Although it’s a lot to ask, especially of a lay person, I wonder if any of the people in this thread espousing the “school books have gone too far” point of view would like to describe what they think sex ed for 11-year-olds should look like, or point to curricula they think have merit.
So you don’t trust teachers to choose the right books to address certain delicate matters — well, what if you had a magic wand and could make things the way you wanted? What would you want taught and how? Its really simple: teach only things like languages, maths, history, physics, chemistry, biology, geography and so on. (this includes arts, practical skills, PE and whatever i forgot.) Sexual education as it seems big point of contest - parents should be presented with curriculum on lesson by lesson bases and be able to pick the lessons they want they kids to attend. Anything controversial (eg religion) should be gone and left for parents. That’s absurd. Firstly, everything is controversial if you’re stupid enough. Secondly, parents don’t own their children, they aren’t entitled to an absolute veto on what their children learn. Their children deserve an education, failing to provide sex education is leaving them vulnerable to the first sexual predator they run into.
Bolded: You seem to assume that vast majority of parents is stupid?
Italic: Own no, but they are surely more entitled to decide that than some random teacher in classroom, or a zombie in WH for that matter (whose parenting skills results we had doubtful pleasure to observe recently). More so they do have absolute veto - is called home schooling...
|
On June 21 2023 08:18 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 04:31 Djabanete wrote:
The most constructive way to criticize is to provide an alternative. Although it’s a lot to ask, especially of a lay person, I wonder if any of the people in this thread espousing the “school books have gone too far” point of view would like to describe what they think sex ed for 11-year-olds should look like, or point to curricula they think have merit.
So you don’t trust teachers to choose the right books to address certain delicate matters — well, what if you had a magic wand and could make things the way you wanted? What would you want taught and how? Its really simple: teach only things like languages, maths, history, physics, chemistry, biology, geography and so on. (this includes arts, practical skills, PE and whatever i forgot.) Sexual education as it seems big point of contest - parents should be presented with curriculum on lesson by lesson bases and be able to pick the lessons they want they kids to attend. Anything controversial (eg religion) should be gone and left for parents.
All of the bolded subjects contains material that are very controversial for a lot of americans. Should we cut them out as well?
|
United States41937 Posts
On June 21 2023 10:20 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 08:32 Djabanete wrote:On June 21 2023 07:44 BlackJack wrote:On June 21 2023 04:31 Djabanete wrote:
The most constructive way to criticize is to provide an alternative. Although it’s a lot to ask, especially of a lay person, I wonder if any of the people in this thread espousing the “school books have gone too far” point of view would like to describe what they think sex ed for 11-year-olds should look like, or point to curricula they think have merit.
So you don’t trust teachers to choose the right books to address certain delicate matters — well, what if you had a magic wand and could make things the way you wanted? What would you want taught and how? I had sex Ed in Florida public schools every year from ages 10 to 17. Shouldn’t you be the one to point out what that curricula was lacking before putting sexually explicit books in the library? I have no idea what curriculum you had. I honestly do not know what you consider to be the default. I was homeschooled, and my parents gave me a sex ed book when I was early in my teens (11? 12?) that contained sexually explicit material. (It was not the first sexually explicit material I had encountered.) I don’t know how one would teach sex ed without including explicit material. I don’t know whether one could tell a young person that gay people and trans people exist (and are good people just like straight people and cis people) without transgressing the BlackJack values. You have spent enough time saying what you don’t like that I can try to extrapolate what you do like, but because I am genuinely curious in knowing what you consider to be good sex ed, I would sooner hear it from you then extrapolate. What is good sex ed according to BlackJack? @Razyda: OK, so the idea is that parents can opt their children out of anything controversial. Thanks for sharing. If you don’t mind my asking, what would constitute good sex ed in your opinion?@Introvert: OK, so the idea is to not blindly trust teachers to do a good job teaching sex ed (or anything else). If you don’t mind my asking, what would constitute a teacher doing a good job teaching sex Ed? "controversial" is part of it, but also possibility to tailor it (in a limited way) for your child. Kids develop differently and ultimately all are different. Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 10:01 KwarK wrote:On June 21 2023 08:18 Razyda wrote:On June 21 2023 04:31 Djabanete wrote:
The most constructive way to criticize is to provide an alternative. Although it’s a lot to ask, especially of a lay person, I wonder if any of the people in this thread espousing the “school books have gone too far” point of view would like to describe what they think sex ed for 11-year-olds should look like, or point to curricula they think have merit.
So you don’t trust teachers to choose the right books to address certain delicate matters — well, what if you had a magic wand and could make things the way you wanted? What would you want taught and how? Its really simple: teach only things like languages, maths, history, physics, chemistry, biology, geography and so on. (this includes arts, practical skills, PE and whatever i forgot.) Sexual education as it seems big point of contest - parents should be presented with curriculum on lesson by lesson bases and be able to pick the lessons they want they kids to attend. Anything controversial (eg religion) should be gone and left for parents. That’s absurd. Firstly, everything is controversial if you’re stupid enough. Secondly, parents don’t own their children, they aren’t entitled to an absolute veto on what their children learn. Their children deserve an education, failing to provide sex education is leaving them vulnerable to the first sexual predator they run into. Bolded: You seem to assume that vast majority of parents is stupid? Italic: Own no, but they are surely more entitled to decide that than some random teacher in classroom, or a zombie in WH for that matter (whose parenting skills results we had doubtful pleasure to observe recently). More so they do have absolute veto - is called home schooling...
I disagree that parents are more qualified than the board of education to decide curricula. Also the vast majority of parents aren’t complaining about what is being taught. The subset that are complaining is disproportionately composed of idiots but that doesn’t mean all parents are idiots. Just the ones upset about evolution or yoga or heliocentrism.
Also Biden had two sons (and a daughter). One of them was a decorated soldier who went on to be a lawyer, a politician, and died of cancer. The other had a traumatic brain injury as an infant in the car accident that killed his mother and little sister and went on to have substance abuse issues. Not as damning as people think, especially given how common substance abuse is in America. A father standing by his troubled son, the last surviving one of his three kids, in a family beset by tragedy really doesn’t bother me.
|
|
|
On June 21 2023 10:36 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 08:18 Razyda wrote:On June 21 2023 04:31 Djabanete wrote:
The most constructive way to criticize is to provide an alternative. Although it’s a lot to ask, especially of a lay person, I wonder if any of the people in this thread espousing the “school books have gone too far” point of view would like to describe what they think sex ed for 11-year-olds should look like, or point to curricula they think have merit.
So you don’t trust teachers to choose the right books to address certain delicate matters — well, what if you had a magic wand and could make things the way you wanted? What would you want taught and how? Its really simple: teach only things like languages, maths, history, physics, chemistry, biology, geography and so on. (this includes arts, practical skills, PE and whatever i forgot.) Sexual education as it seems big point of contest - parents should be presented with curriculum on lesson by lesson bases and be able to pick the lessons they want they kids to attend. Anything controversial (eg religion) should be gone and left for parents. All of the bolded subjects contains material that are very controversial for a lot of americans. Should we cut them out as well?
As Kwark hints at, simply asserting that the Earth revolved around the sun was enough to put a religious target on your back at one point. On the basis that some of our religious friends here in the US seem to have problems with most of the things being taught in schools, we really should just throw it all out. You wouldn't want our schools to anything but a safe space for people who are afraid to learn something.
But yeah, no seriously, teachers are the ones that are qualified to teach, because they trained to do it and it's their job. It's your prerogative to home school your child instead, but there are reasons why most parents don't do it. "Some random teacher" is still your kid's teacher, the fact that you didn't care enough to get to know them and they're still a rando to you is your problem.
|
I don't think the demonisation of academia is the main reason that academia is devoid of right wing voices.
I think it's simply that most of academia is very left wing compared to the country, and so if you try to do research from a right wing perspective, you will be shunned and attacked by many of your colleagues and generally not have a good time.
Considering academia is already underpaid compared to the commercial world, why would someone willingly subject themselves to ridicule just to earn less?
|
United States24565 Posts
What does doing research from a right wing perspective even mean? That sounds like the opposite of the scientific method.
|
On June 21 2023 11:39 gobbledydook wrote:
I don't think the demonisation of academia is the main reason that academia is devoid of right wing voices.
I think it's simply that most of academia is very left wing compared to the country, and so if you try to do research from a right wing perspective, you will be shunned and attacked by many of your colleagues and generally not have a good time.
Considering academia is already underpaid compared to the commercial world, why would someone willingly subject themselves to ridicule just to earn less?
Academia doesn't skew to the left for funsies. It skews to the left because people on the right skew away from or against it. If you could get a group of right-leaning people to acknowledge the mechanism by which carbon dioxide retains atmospheric heat, or that vaccines aren't disease juice filled with Bill Gates microchips, we wouldn't have a problem, but you can't so we do.
|
On June 21 2023 08:18 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 04:31 Djabanete wrote:
The most constructive way to criticize is to provide an alternative. Although it’s a lot to ask, especially of a lay person, I wonder if any of the people in this thread espousing the “school books have gone too far” point of view would like to describe what they think sex ed for 11-year-olds should look like, or point to curricula they think have merit.
So you don’t trust teachers to choose the right books to address certain delicate matters — well, what if you had a magic wand and could make things the way you wanted? What would you want taught and how? Its really simple: teach only things like languages, maths, history, physics, chemistry, biology, geography and so on. (this includes arts, practical skills, PE and whatever i forgot.) Sexual education as it seems big point of contest - parents should be presented with curriculum on lesson by lesson bases and be able to pick the lessons they want they kids to attend. Anything controversial (eg religion) should be gone and left for parents.
Absolutely every single one of those subjects on your list of "uncontroversial" subjects has well-known "controversies", in the eyes of conservatives and religious people. For example: English class has banned books, biology has evolution, physics has the big bang, Spanish class has people speaking Spanish, etc.
vast majority of parents is stupid?
Stupid is not the best word for this situation, but the average parent (regardless of their political affiliation) is not going to know more about any subject in school than a person who devotes their life to studying and teaching that subject:
The average parent does not know more math than a math teacher.
The average parent does not know more history than a history teacher.
The average parent does not know more science than a science teacher.
And so on.
A very small number of parents might know as much about specific topics as a specific teacher, if the parent's profession is in a similar field, but it's still very rare. Also, to broaden the scope of this:
The average parent does not know more about education than an educator.
The average parent does not know more about medicine than a medical professional.
The average parent does not know more about the law than a lawyer.
The average parent does not know more about fixing cars than a mechanic.
And so on.
I'm a math teacher. I know way more about math and math education than the average parents of my students, just as how those parents know more about their own careers than I do. They might be more invested in what I do, than I am in what they do, since I teach their kids, but that doesn't mean they necessarily understand what I'm teaching or how best to teach it.
|
On June 21 2023 11:54 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 11:39 gobbledydook wrote:
I don't think the demonisation of academia is the main reason that academia is devoid of right wing voices.
I think it's simply that most of academia is very left wing compared to the country, and so if you try to do research from a right wing perspective, you will be shunned and attacked by many of your colleagues and generally not have a good time.
Considering academia is already underpaid compared to the commercial world, why would someone willingly subject themselves to ridicule just to earn less? Academia doesn't skew to the left for funsies. It skews to the left because people on the right skew away from or against it. If you could get a group of right-leaning people to acknowledge the mechanism by which carbon dioxide retains atmospheric heat, or that vaccines aren't disease juice filled with Bill Gates microchips, we wouldn't have a problem, but you can't so we do.
I guess that is where we disagree fundamentally. I think it is a self reinforcing loop, you think it is because right wing thought is unscientific.
How about this - crazy thought is unscientific, and there are a lot of people on the right who are batshit crazy.
That doesn't make all right wing ideas unscientific.
|
United States41937 Posts
On June 21 2023 12:17 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 11:54 NewSunshine wrote:On June 21 2023 11:39 gobbledydook wrote:
I don't think the demonisation of academia is the main reason that academia is devoid of right wing voices.
I think it's simply that most of academia is very left wing compared to the country, and so if you try to do research from a right wing perspective, you will be shunned and attacked by many of your colleagues and generally not have a good time.
Considering academia is already underpaid compared to the commercial world, why would someone willingly subject themselves to ridicule just to earn less? Academia doesn't skew to the left for funsies. It skews to the left because people on the right skew away from or against it. If you could get a group of right-leaning people to acknowledge the mechanism by which carbon dioxide retains atmospheric heat, or that vaccines aren't disease juice filled with Bill Gates microchips, we wouldn't have a problem, but you can't so we do. I guess that is where we disagree fundamentally. I think it is a self reinforcing loop, you think it is because right wing thought is unscientific. How about this - crazy thought is unscientific, and there are a lot of people on the right who are batshit crazy. That doesn't make all right wing ideas unscientific.
The fact that they’re unscientific is what makes them unscientific. It’s just more common to hold unscientific beliefs among right wingers. But the problem was never that the beliefs were right wing.
|
On June 21 2023 12:17 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 11:54 NewSunshine wrote:On June 21 2023 11:39 gobbledydook wrote:
I don't think the demonisation of academia is the main reason that academia is devoid of right wing voices.
I think it's simply that most of academia is very left wing compared to the country, and so if you try to do research from a right wing perspective, you will be shunned and attacked by many of your colleagues and generally not have a good time.
Considering academia is already underpaid compared to the commercial world, why would someone willingly subject themselves to ridicule just to earn less? Academia doesn't skew to the left for funsies. It skews to the left because people on the right skew away from or against it. If you could get a group of right-leaning people to acknowledge the mechanism by which carbon dioxide retains atmospheric heat, or that vaccines aren't disease juice filled with Bill Gates microchips, we wouldn't have a problem, but you can't so we do. I guess that is where we disagree fundamentally. I think it is a self reinforcing loop, you think it is because right wing thought is unscientific. How about this - crazy thought is unscientific, and there are a lot of people on the right who are batshit crazy. That doesn't make all right wing ideas unscientific.
Back when being 'left wing' got you burned at a stake, academia was still very left wing (compared to the population at large, anyway). Throughout human history, in every time period and every culture, well educated people were 'left wing' by its modern definition, no matter how unpopular or persecuted the said left was.
Unless you're trying to say that the lefties have occupied education back in the days of Hellenism and since then maintained a stranglehold on academia, pushing out any honest right-winger out of their circle of privilege, your opinion simply isn't supported by evidence.
|
On June 21 2023 15:46 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 12:17 gobbledydook wrote:On June 21 2023 11:54 NewSunshine wrote:On June 21 2023 11:39 gobbledydook wrote:
I don't think the demonisation of academia is the main reason that academia is devoid of right wing voices.
I think it's simply that most of academia is very left wing compared to the country, and so if you try to do research from a right wing perspective, you will be shunned and attacked by many of your colleagues and generally not have a good time.
Considering academia is already underpaid compared to the commercial world, why would someone willingly subject themselves to ridicule just to earn less? Academia doesn't skew to the left for funsies. It skews to the left because people on the right skew away from or against it. If you could get a group of right-leaning people to acknowledge the mechanism by which carbon dioxide retains atmospheric heat, or that vaccines aren't disease juice filled with Bill Gates microchips, we wouldn't have a problem, but you can't so we do. I guess that is where we disagree fundamentally. I think it is a self reinforcing loop, you think it is because right wing thought is unscientific. How about this - crazy thought is unscientific, and there are a lot of people on the right who are batshit crazy. That doesn't make all right wing ideas unscientific. Back when being 'left wing' got you burned at a stake, academia was still very left wing (compared to the population at large, anyway). Throughout human history, in every time period and every culture, well educated people were 'left wing' by its modern definition, no matter how unpopular or persecuted the said left was. Unless you're trying to say that the lefties have occupied education back in the days of Hellenism and since then maintained a stranglehold on academia, pushing out any honest right-winger out of their circle of privilege, your opinion simply isn't supported by evidence.
That's just a really weird take unless you want to say that science by its very definition is *progressive*. And progressive is the opposite of conservative. But that's just the very nature of discovery and invention. If you want everything to stay the same, you are unlikely to be motivated to try to puzzle out new stuff or attempt to use the new stuff in an innovative way: that would change things!
However, being progressive is only linked to fiscal left policies, because the political right adopts conservative and unscientific views across the board.
There is no need at all to reject climate change but still want the government to be as small as possible. Academia is a bastion of old white men with power. It should be easy for conservative politics to thrive there, but they adopt idiotic policies that are just so obviously unscientific that those specific old white me reject it.
|
On June 21 2023 12:17 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 11:54 NewSunshine wrote:On June 21 2023 11:39 gobbledydook wrote:
I don't think the demonisation of academia is the main reason that academia is devoid of right wing voices.
I think it's simply that most of academia is very left wing compared to the country, and so if you try to do research from a right wing perspective, you will be shunned and attacked by many of your colleagues and generally not have a good time.
Considering academia is already underpaid compared to the commercial world, why would someone willingly subject themselves to ridicule just to earn less? Academia doesn't skew to the left for funsies. It skews to the left because people on the right skew away from or against it. If you could get a group of right-leaning people to acknowledge the mechanism by which carbon dioxide retains atmospheric heat, or that vaccines aren't disease juice filled with Bill Gates microchips, we wouldn't have a problem, but you can't so we do. I guess that is where we disagree fundamentally. I think it is a self reinforcing loop, you think it is because right wing thought is unscientific. How about this - crazy thought is unscientific, and there are a lot of people on the right who are batshit crazy. That doesn't make all right wing ideas unscientific.
Rightwing or leftwing in science doesn't make sense in the context of applying the scientific method. The idea is that you propose a hypothesis based on how something works, design an experiment to test it, then reject or accept the hypothesis. The only way political leaning creeps into this is if you design a biased experiment, but that would just make you a shitty scientist.
|
On June 21 2023 08:18 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 04:31 Djabanete wrote:
The most constructive way to criticize is to provide an alternative. Although it’s a lot to ask, especially of a lay person, I wonder if any of the people in this thread espousing the “school books have gone too far” point of view would like to describe what they think sex ed for 11-year-olds should look like, or point to curricula they think have merit.
So you don’t trust teachers to choose the right books to address certain delicate matters — well, what if you had a magic wand and could make things the way you wanted? What would you want taught and how? Its really simple: teach only things like languages, maths, history, physics, chemistry, biology, geography and so on. (this includes arts, practical skills, PE and whatever i forgot.) Sexual education as it seems big point of contest - parents should be presented with curriculum on lesson by lesson bases and be able to pick the lessons they want they kids to attend. Anything controversial (eg religion) should be gone and left for parents.
I'm glad we agree that subjects like language, math and biology aren't controversial, so conservatives can finally stop policing how they're taught.
|
Conservatism, as opposed to progressivism, must by its very nature be anti-science. That doesn't mean every single thing conservatives believe is anti-science, or that every single thing progressives believe is pro-science. The trend however is very strong.
Why does conservatism have to be anti-science? Because to be conservative is to preserve, not to seek change. The more conservative a person is, the more they preserve. Conservatives preserve everything: law, cultural norms, language, nature, food, etc. Whichever thing it is we're talking about, it must be preserved. Conservatism is the defense of the status quo.
If you want to learn about climate change (it's even in the word) you have to be open to the idea that the climate is in fact changing. The conclusion to that finding would be that something must be done to stop it and ideally to reverse the trend, otherwise the changes that the planet undergoes will be to the detriment of humankind (as proven by the research).
In contrast, the conservative point of view is that our way of life must be preserved, and so any changes made to our way of life is detrimental to the conservative cause. That means that the most conservative people of them all must reject climate change, because to accept it would put two contradicting views in their minds.
This is the nature of conservatism as it pertains to science. It is inherently anti-science and therefore it is by and large anti-science in real life.
Not all conservatives are literally always against science, but the trend is strong.
|
On June 21 2023 17:00 Magic Powers wrote:
Conservatism, as opposed to progressivism, must by its very nature be anti-science. That doesn't mean every single thing conservatives believe is anti-science, or that every single thing progressives believe is pro-science. The trend however is very strong.
Why does conservatism have to be anti-science? Because to be conservative is to preserve, not to seek change. The more conservative a person is, the more they preserve. Conservatives preserve everything: law, cultural norms, language, nature, food, etc. Whichever thing it is we're talking about, it must be preserved. Conservatism is the defense of the status quo.
If you want to learn about climate change (it's even in the word) you have to be open to the idea that the climate is in fact changing. The conclusion to that finding would be that something must be done to stop it and ideally to reverse the trend, otherwise the changes that the planet undergoes will be to the detriment of humankind (as proven by the research).
In contrast, the conservative point of view is that our way of life must be preserved, and so any changes made to our way of life is detrimental to the conservative cause. That means that the most conservative people of them all must reject climate change, because to accept it would put two contradicting views in their minds.
This is the nature of conservatism as it pertains to science. It is inherently anti-science and therefore it is by and large anti-science in real life.
Not all conservatives are literally always against science, but the trend is strong.
Wouldn't that mean progressives are almost entirely to blame for climate change as conservatives would have wanted to preserve our horse and buggy way of life and progressives wanted to forge ahead with fossil-fuel burning machines?
|
I think that's just the wrong framing. Conservatism is mainly focussed on conserving power by any means possible.
|
On June 21 2023 17:15 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 17:00 Magic Powers wrote:
Conservatism, as opposed to progressivism, must by its very nature be anti-science. That doesn't mean every single thing conservatives believe is anti-science, or that every single thing progressives believe is pro-science. The trend however is very strong.
Why does conservatism have to be anti-science? Because to be conservative is to preserve, not to seek change. The more conservative a person is, the more they preserve. Conservatives preserve everything: law, cultural norms, language, nature, food, etc. Whichever thing it is we're talking about, it must be preserved. Conservatism is the defense of the status quo.
If you want to learn about climate change (it's even in the word) you have to be open to the idea that the climate is in fact changing. The conclusion to that finding would be that something must be done to stop it and ideally to reverse the trend, otherwise the changes that the planet undergoes will be to the detriment of humankind (as proven by the research).
In contrast, the conservative point of view is that our way of life must be preserved, and so any changes made to our way of life is detrimental to the conservative cause. That means that the most conservative people of them all must reject climate change, because to accept it would put two contradicting views in their minds.
This is the nature of conservatism as it pertains to science. It is inherently anti-science and therefore it is by and large anti-science in real life.
Not all conservatives are literally always against science, but the trend is strong. Wouldn't that mean progressives are almost entirely to blame for climate change as conservatives would have wanted to preserve our horse and buggy way of life and progressives wanted to forge ahead with fossil-fuel burning machines?
When a generation adopts a tradition, that tradition becomes the de facto status quo. Due to the flow of generations, traditions can change over time. The new generations - if they are conservative - will then protect them just as much as the previous generations used to do with their own traditions.
In that sense climate change can be blamed on progress (not on progressives per se, because many conservatives also had a hand in it). What this tells us is that the conservative mindset isn't necessarily bad, it's only anti-progress. Not all progress is good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
