|
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 |
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.
Did you just put bolded in the same post??
On June 21 2023 16:42 Mikau 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. 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.
We agree on bolded disagree on italic.
On other posts in regards to idea presented by me what would I done if I could change education:
I never said parents would decide curriculum - they would have limited impact on Sex ed (by deciding which lessons they child would attend), as I acknowledge that this is contentious part.
Now after rereading my initial post I admit I could have worded it better.
First group of subjects while may have some controversial takes on them (most glaring history) I consider essential, as this are subjects allowing kids to figure what they are good at, what they like, and what would they like to pursue. This are also a subjects which parents can discus with their children if they believe there is something omitted for example.
So I guess my mistake was labeling 3rd group as "controversial" only and not "controversial and not essential"
Now this was my idea and while it faced criticism (which is good, I like criticism) I haven't seen any others put forward.
That may cause impression that progressive (I assume) part of the forum is determined to conserve (so to speak) status quo.
|
On June 21 2023 18:17 Razyda 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. Did you just put bolded in the same post?? Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 16:42 Mikau 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. 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. We agree on bolded disagree on italic. On other posts in regards to idea presented by me what would I done if I could change education: I never said parents would decide curriculum - they would have limited impact on Sex ed (by deciding which lessons they child would attend), as I acknowledge that this is contentious part. Now after rereading my initial post I admit I could have worded it better. First group of subjects while may have some controversial takes on them (most glaring history) I consider essential, as this are subjects allowing kids to figure what they are good at, what they like, and what would they like to pursue. This are also a subjects which parents can discus with their children if they believe there is something omitted for example. So I guess my mistake was labeling 3rd group as "controversial" only and not "controversial and not essential" Now this was my idea and while it faced criticism (which is good, I like criticism) I haven't seen any others put forward. That may cause impression that progressive (I assume) part of the forum is determined to conserve (so to speak) status quo.
Preserving the climate and preserving the culture are not the same thing. Maybe you just realized that not all conservatives agree with all other conservatives on what to preserve?
The point isn't to say that conservatism is worse than progressivism. I'm not arguing either way. The point is to demonstrate why, when compared to progressivisim, conservatism is inherently more anti-science.
|
On June 21 2023 18:22 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 18:17 Razyda wrote: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. Did you just put bolded in the same post?? On June 21 2023 16:42 Mikau 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. 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. We agree on bolded disagree on italic. On other posts in regards to idea presented by me what would I done if I could change education: I never said parents would decide curriculum - they would have limited impact on Sex ed (by deciding which lessons they child would attend), as I acknowledge that this is contentious part. Now after rereading my initial post I admit I could have worded it better. First group of subjects while may have some controversial takes on them (most glaring history) I consider essential, as this are subjects allowing kids to figure what they are good at, what they like, and what would they like to pursue. This are also a subjects which parents can discus with their children if they believe there is something omitted for example. So I guess my mistake was labeling 3rd group as "controversial" only and not "controversial and not essential" Now this was my idea and while it faced criticism (which is good, I like criticism) I haven't seen any others put forward. That may cause impression that progressive (I assume) part of the forum is determined to conserve (so to speak) status quo. Preserving the climate and preserving the culture are not the same thing. Maybe you just realized that not all conservatives agree with all other conservatives on what to preserve? The point isn't to say that conservatism is worse than progressivism. I'm not arguing either way. The point is to demonstrate why, when compared to progressivisim, conservatism is inherently more anti-science.
Seems we getting somewhere.
Bolded: Preserving the culture doesnt necessary translate into: "Conservatism, as opposed to progressivism, must by its very nature be anti-science."
Preserving the culture doesnt mean "prevent scientific progress".
|
On June 21 2023 17:00 Magic Powers wrote:
Conservatism, as opposed to progressivism, must by its very nature be anti-science. [...]
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.
While I don't think you are completely wrong I think your argument is too simplified and it has to do with your simplistic view of what conservatism/progressivism is. Any strong ideological conviction is going to run into trouble with science if science points to truths that contract that ideology (obviously). This is not limited to conservatives. If you're an orthodox Marxist you have to look away when it comes to a lot of economic "science" (if it can be called that) on the nature of work and value; if you're a radical constructivist, you're going to be skeptical about any science that points to fundamental biological differences between men and women. If you think about it it's not hard to find cases where progressives are anti-science.
|
Conservatives arent really conservative as a whole in the US anymore, if they ever were, so the name is a misnomer.
The unfortunate reality is a large subset of them are fascists. Its pointless to debate the term conservative.
|
Orthodoxy is just as anti-science as conservatism is. It strictly rejects the adoption of any information contrasting its principles and doctrines. I see very little difference between conservatism and orthodoxy.
|
On June 21 2023 19:30 Sadist wrote:
Conservatives arent really conservative as a whole in the US anymore, if they ever were, so the name is a misnomer.
The unfortunate reality is a large subset of them are fascists. Its pointless to debate the term conservative.
Bolded: This is pretty much the only fascists post in current discussion. Are you conservative then? Given your post in another topic:
People need to learn what Carbon Neutral means.
Unless there is a way to capture Carbon, there will be no gas stoves, or gas appliances, including furnaces, by 2050.
and considering unique insight into future:
One last question… who will we supposed to be heiling this time round?
|
On June 21 2023 20:06 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 19:30 Sadist wrote:
Conservatives arent really conservative as a whole in the US anymore, if they ever were, so the name is a misnomer.
The unfortunate reality is a large subset of them are fascists. Its pointless to debate the term conservative.
Bolded: This is pretty much the only fascists post in current discussion. Are you conservative then? Given your post in another topic: Show nested quote +
People need to learn what Carbon Neutral means.
Unless there is a way to capture Carbon, there will be no gas stoves, or gas appliances, including furnaces, by 2050.
and considering unique insight into future: One last question… who will we supposed to be heiling this time round?
Banning gas stoves is Fascist?
Do you understand what Carbon Neutral means and why we need to do it? We ban all sorts of things. There are building codes, laws, etc.
The "Conservatives" on TL just muck up the politics thread and the covid thread. Theres always a rotating group of you, its like you tag each in/out for a while. It would appear you are all a smurf of a single person or something.
|
Norway28811 Posts
BJ wasn't actually complaining about the banning of gas stoves, he was complaining about ridiculing republicans for claiming that democrats were going to do it followed by doing it. It's very possible that he's also opposed, but the issue wasn't the policy.
And I agree with that. I mean, I haven't followed to what degree democrats have denied wanting to do that and then doing that, but I think there is a real issue with people not truthfully communicating what going carbon neutral will entail, although I also understand the logic because honest communication might lose you the votes you need to go carbon neutral and that's an urgent matter, but I can't deny that it'll also have long term costs in terms of trust in politicians. I also see the relation between this and covid-related communication, where some politicians/spokespeople thought they could get even more desirable behavior through not being perfectly honest, and while yes, that might be true, and there is a real benefit through doing so, there's a long term danger in further eroding trust in institutions/politicians. I think it's fair to think about this and conclude that you prefer the short term gain, but not to claim there is no potential long term harm.
|
On June 21 2023 22:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
BJ wasn't actually complaining about the banning of gas stoves, he was complaining about ridiculing republicans for claiming that democrats were going to do it followed by doing it. It's very possible that he's also opposed, but the issue wasn't the policy.
And I agree with that. I mean, I haven't followed to what degree democrats have denied wanting to do that and then doing that, but I think there is a real issue with people not truthfully communicating what going carbon neutral will entail, although I also understand the logic because honest communication might lose you the votes you need to go carbon neutral and that's an urgent matter, but I can't deny that it'll also have long term costs in terms of trust in politicians. I also see the relation between this and covid-related communication, where some politicians/spokespeople thought they could get even more desirable behavior through not being perfectly honest, and while yes, that might be true, and there is a real benefit through doing so, there's a long term danger in further eroding trust in institutions/politicians. I think it's fair to think about this and conclude that you prefer the short term gain, but not to claim there is no potential long term harm.
Drone, agree with everything you just typed about eroding trust. Thats not BJs point though. He 100% wants to show those smug virtue signaling liberals how dumb they really are or how they are hypocrits. All the snarky takes and pot shots show the true intentions.
And you know what? Hes right. A lot of those people suck. But the fact of the matter is its really easy to sit on the sidelines and take potshots at people trying to fix things while never offering solutions to real problems yourself. Additionally, while I agree "if you know better you should do better" its never mentioned that one party/movement BY DESIGN erodes faith in Government and Institutions. Its literally been the US Republican calling card that all problems are caused by Govt. Govt sucks. They need to get out of our way. Etc.
Isnt it funny how the party who says elect me because government sucks has an incentive to make it suck more so they can further their message and get elected again? This has been going in the US for well over 50 years.
Maybe there needs to be a ceasefire of the snarky one liners, misconstrued statements, bad faith arguments on both sides of the discussion. But it takes two to Tango. If BJ would plainly say what he believes instead of beating around the bush it would help.
|
On June 21 2023 22:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
BJ wasn't actually complaining about the banning of gas stoves, he was complaining about ridiculing republicans for claiming that democrats were going to do it followed by doing it. It's very possible that he's also opposed, but the issue wasn't the policy.
This is false and BlackJack was wrong about it. He asserted that Democrats were going to "take away their gas stoves" (his exact quote), yet then acknowledged the reality of what's actually happening: phasing out future gas stoves for new buildings in a few states, over several years. That's very different and not just a point of semantics; it's particularly easy to see the difference when Republicans said things like "Obama is going to take away your guns" - meaning that your currently-owned guns are going to be removed from your house, against your will - as opposed to something like "Over the next 5 years, it might be the case that certain types of guns will no longer be sold in certain areas", which is an analogue to what's actually going to happen in New York with stoves (over the next 5 years, certain types of stoves will no longer be sold in new homes, literally for safety/health reasons). So yeah, BJ was wrong with the whole assertion that Democrats are being hypocritical when it comes to gas stoves, and he also posted about it in the wrong thread (he's been making several not-covid-related posts in the covid thread, bringing up issues like gas stoves / climate change, transphobia, law enforcement, and Black Lives Matter).
Edit: But have Democrats ever been wrong or hypocritical about anything? Sure, plenty of times, about a lot of different things. Democrats are far from perfect.
|
Norway28811 Posts
On June 21 2023 23:02 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 22:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
BJ wasn't actually complaining about the banning of gas stoves, he was complaining about ridiculing republicans for claiming that democrats were going to do it followed by doing it. It's very possible that he's also opposed, but the issue wasn't the policy.
And I agree with that. I mean, I haven't followed to what degree democrats have denied wanting to do that and then doing that, but I think there is a real issue with people not truthfully communicating what going carbon neutral will entail, although I also understand the logic because honest communication might lose you the votes you need to go carbon neutral and that's an urgent matter, but I can't deny that it'll also have long term costs in terms of trust in politicians. I also see the relation between this and covid-related communication, where some politicians/spokespeople thought they could get even more desirable behavior through not being perfectly honest, and while yes, that might be true, and there is a real benefit through doing so, there's a long term danger in further eroding trust in institutions/politicians. I think it's fair to think about this and conclude that you prefer the short term gain, but not to claim there is no potential long term harm. Drone, agree with everything you just typed about eroding trust. Thats not BJs point though. He 100% wants to show those smug virtue signaling liberals how dumb they really are or how they are hypocrits. All the snarky takes and pot shots show the true intentions. And you know what? Hes right. A lot of those people suck. But the fact of the matter is its really easy to sit on the sidelines and take potshots at people trying to fix things while never offering solutions to real problems yourself. Additionally, while I agree "if you know better you should do better" its never mentioned that one party/movement BY DESIGN erodes faith in Government and Institutions. Its literally been the US Republican calling card that all problems are caused by Govt. Govt sucks. They need to get out of our way. Etc. Isnt it funny how the party who says elect me because government sucks has an incentive to make it suck more so they can further their message and get elected again? This has been going in the US for well over 50 years. Maybe there needs to be a ceasefire of the snarky one liners, misconstrued statements, bad faith arguments on both sides of the discussion. But it takes two to Tango. If BJ would plainly say what he believes instead of beating around the bush it would help.
Honestly, he's doing both. He is snarky and sarcastic, but he has already elaborated his point on many occasions. I know what he is arguing because of posts he makes on this forum, not from some external communication.
|
Norway28811 Posts
On June 21 2023 23:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 22:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
BJ wasn't actually complaining about the banning of gas stoves, he was complaining about ridiculing republicans for claiming that democrats were going to do it followed by doing it. It's very possible that he's also opposed, but the issue wasn't the policy. This is false and BlackJack was wrong about it. He asserted that Democrats were going to "take away their gas stoves" (his exact quote), yet then acknowledged the reality of what's actually happening: phasing out future gas stoves for new buildings in a few states, over several years. That's very different and not just a point of semantics; it's particularly easy to see the difference when Republicans said things like "Obama is going to take away your guns" - meaning that your currently-owned guns are going to be removed from your house, against your will - as opposed to something like " Over the next 5 years, it might be the case that certain types of guns will no longer be sold in certain areas", which is an analogue to what's actually going to happen in New York with stoves (over the next 5 years, certain types of stoves will no longer be sold in new homes, literally for safety/health reasons). So yeah, BJ was wrong with the whole assertion that Democrats are being hypocritical when it comes to gas stoves, and he also posted about it in the wrong thread (he's been making several not-covid-related posts in the covid thread, bringing up issues like gas stoves / climate change, transphobia, law enforcement, and Black Lives Matter). Edit: But have Democrats ever been wrong or hypocritical about anything? Sure, plenty of times, about a lot of different things. Democrats are far from perfect.
That 'taking away your gas stoves' isn't an accurate description is a fair point.
|
@sadist "The "Conservatives" on TL just muck up the politics thread and the covid thread. Theres always a rotating group of you, its like you tag each in/out for a while. It would appear you are all a smurf of a single person or something.
"
This is the peak, The height of idiocy. You don't like Conservatives, You don't like their ideas. That's fine. But the real issue is, you don't like idea's that don't totally align with your own. You'd like this forum to only subsist of people who believe what you believe, Who are pro to the same arguments you are. What a joke 6000 posts in and you don't realize your talking in an open internet forum not your own head.
How didn't anyone of you reasonable liberals call this out? such trash. Garbage post that'd id report for lowering the IQ of everyone on this forum that has to read it if it was an option. Jfc.
|
On June 22 2023 00:18 Taelshin wrote:
@sadist "The "Conservatives" on TL just muck up the politics thread and the covid thread. Theres always a rotating group of you, its like you tag each in/out for a while. It would appear you are all a smurf of a single person or something.
"
This is the peak, The height of idiocy. You don't like Conservatives, You don't like their ideas. That's fine. But the real issue is, you don't like idea's that don't totally align with your own. You'd like this forum to only subsist of people who believe what you believe, Who are pro to the same arguments you are. What a joke 6000 posts in and you don't realize your talking in an open internet forum not your own head.
How didn't anyone of you reasonable liberals call this out? such trash. Garbage post that'd id report for lowering the IQ of everyone on this forum that has to read it if it was an option. Jfc.
There's an "other" option you can elaborate on when you report something. So it is an option. Is that part of their post part of high quality discussion? Probably not.
That said, your report would be based on the same garbage hot take that Conservatives like to try to drop every once in a while: that people on the left just want their echo chamber and can't handle disagreement. Nevermind the fact that we do engage with you (when you aren't being belligerent assholes, and even then some still try), we do try to hash things out, and we disagree with each other all the time. I don't know what thread you're reading. But if you could be bothered to not engage with people like they're dogs pissing on your rug, and not be an asshole, that would be a start towards getting some of that dialogue you claim to want.
|
On the topic of us politics RFK just gave a rousing speech not long after being on Joe Rogan's podcast.
+ Show Spoiler + I've sniped it to where his speech starts and its a good listen.
Gotta say I'm pretty pumped to see a democrat saying what he's saying god damn its refreshing. Interested in what you all think.
|
@Newsunshine (when you aren't being belligerent assholes, and even then some still try)
Ya your really oppressed here by the group of hard core right wingers. Give me a break. Pull your head out of your own butt and get on with life bud. People disagree, News flash.
|
On June 22 2023 00:36 Taelshin wrote:On the topic of us politics RFK just gave a rousing speech not long after being on Joe Rogan's podcast. + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/z59vaHQ3zPE?t=2712 I've sniped it to where his speech starts and its a good listen. Gotta say I'm pretty pumped to see a democrat saying what he's saying god damn its refreshing. Interested in what you all think.
Democrats would sooner burn down the nomination process than let him win it so he's basically got no chance. On the other hand he got a pretty positive response from Rogan listeners so he actually has the crossover appeal Biden's more conservative choices are supposed to be rationalized by.
If beating Trump/DeSantis (who are both beating Biden and Harris in the polls) is the most important thing, RFK Jr. might be Democrats best chance.
|
|
|
On June 22 2023 00:46 Taelshin wrote:
@Newsunshine (when you aren't being belligerent assholes, and even then some still try)
Ya your really oppressed here by the group of hard core right wingers. Give me a break. Pull your head out of your own butt and get on with life bud. People disagree, News flash.
People disagree, absolutely. That doesn't absolve you from also being an asshole just because I disagree with you. I disagree with Introvert almost 100% of the time, but he's usually not an asshole about it. I can be one too.
If being a dick is the point, then maybe have a re-think of what you're doing here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
