The 2020 Election trump v. Biden

[olofscience 420]

5 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I had a few people I respect show me that there are two sides, no matter how unpleasant it is to give the other side credit, there is still credit due, if you look hard enough for it.

It sounds good and noble in theory, but unfortunately I don't think there really isn't any underlying reason why it should be the case.

It's like people who assume things are zero-sum games when they're not. For example, I've been told by many people that the stock market is a zero-sum game (because for every person who loses, one wins). But for that to be true, the sum of the wins and the losses should equal zero! Then the stock market would never move.

Many games are positive-sum, many games are negative-sum. That "there are always two sides" does have a lot of examples, but no fundamental principle behind it.

[jakee 1,254]

19 minutes ago, olofscience said:

I think I'm starting to understand your so-called "logic" now.

If you think people are taking far-left positions here, you then take a far-right position to provide overall "balance" so that the mean taken over all posters is centric, more or less. What's bizarre though is why you would call yourself centrist.

And also that he insists he is the only one doing that, and it couldn't possibly be the case that anyone else posts that way.

He knows he's a centrist who sees the whole picture even though he posts almost exclusively in support of right wing propaganda, but he also knows that everyone who posts remotely to the left of centre is definitely a biased leftist who can't see anything beyond that. 

[airdvr 197]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

...he also knows that everyone who posts remotely to the left of centre is definitely a biased leftist who can't see anything beyond that. 

There's some weight to that statement.  The thing that bothers me about the left is the same thing that bothers me about religious zealots.  There is not even the most remote possibility (in their minds) that they might be wrong.

[jakee 1,254]

3 minutes ago, airdvr said:

There's some weight to that statement.  The thing that bothers me about the left is the same thing that bothers me about religious zealots.  There is not even the most remote possibility (in their minds) that they might be wrong.

If you think that the entirety of the left behaves in the same way as the zealous portion of the religious, you are simply revealing the degree of your own right wing zealotry.

[airdvr 197]

Just now, jakee said:

If you think that the entirety of the left behaves in the same way as the zealous portion of the religious, you are simply revealing the degree of your own right wing zealotry.

I guess you'll have to point out those occasions when the left posters here admitted they were wrong or might be wrong.

[wmw999 2,116]

5 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I guess you'll have to point out those occasions when the left posters here admitted they were wrong or might be wrong.

I can provide examples from myself admitting I was wrong, or at least grateful for more information. I know you no longer think COVID is a hoax, and I know turtlespeed has changed on a couple of things, and I think Bigun has on climate science (although he might have always felt that way). 
One thing to consider is that when one sides with science, it’s generally easier to be right in the first place. 
Wendy P. 

[airdvr 197]

.5 out of 4.  Not bad.  I only gave you .5 because you are probably the voice of reason here more than not.  I don't think myself, turtle, or Bigun could be use as examples of the left posters here.

[billvon 2,384]

18 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I guess you'll have to point out those occasions when the left posters here admitted they were wrong or might be wrong.

I initially thought that SARS-CoV-2 couldn't spread through aerosols, or at least that that was not a major source of transmission.  Turns out I was wrong.

 

[gowlerk 1,903]

39 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I guess you'll have to point out those occasions when the left posters here admitted they were wrong or might be wrong.

I thought that there was no way America would choose Trump as potus. Apparently I was wrong. I also thought there was no way America would choose Obama, also wrong.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

I thought that there was no way America would choose Trump as potus. Apparently I was wrong. I also thought there was no way America would choose Obama, also wrong.

Hi Ken,

I'm one for two on your list.

The one I lost was a BIG loss.

Jerry Baumchen

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

I guess you'll have to point out those occasions when the left posters here admitted they were wrong or might be wrong.

There are many, but it's a trawl through the search feature I have absolutely no inclination to waste any time on just to answer your inane question.

Again, if you think either the entirety of the leftist posters here or 'the left' as a whole hits that standard of zealotry you are only showing the degree of right wing zealotry that you possess.

[gowlerk 1,903]

5 minutes ago, jakee said:

you are only showing the degree of right wing zealotry that you possess.

A hallmark of the right is their feeling if they don't resist the changes they will be washed away. They are fearful and fear is easily the most emotionally powerful motivator. It also triggers anger, another hallmark.

Edited July 7, 2020 by gowlerk

[SkyDekker 1,121]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

.5 out of 4.  Not bad.  I only gave you .5 because you are probably the voice of reason here more than not.  I don't think myself, turtle, or Bigun could be use as examples of the left posters here.

I am wrong more than I am right.

[Coreece 189]

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

I thought that there was no way America would choose Trump as potus. Apparently I was wrong. I also thought there was no way America would choose Obama, also wrong.

And that's why this whole thing is so tragic.  When just a quarter of the country really agrees on something, they can achieve remarkable feats - imagine what we could accomplish if we all agreed.

. . .and I know that's easy to say, but I think if we all worked more toward general agreement rather than bitter contention while still finding balance and holding true to our own principles, then it's possible.

 

(Jeeze, I don't know where that came from - it's so idealistic I almost threw-up in my mouth a little, but I can't deny it's truth.)

[wmw999 2,116]

5 hours ago, airdvr said:

.5 out of 4.  Not bad.  I only gave you .5 because you are probably the voice of reason here more than not.  I don't think myself, turtle, or Bigun could be use as examples of the left posters here.

I wasn’t trying to hold you guys up as examples of liberalism. I was just being honest about providing an example to try for. 
I do stand by my comment that agreeing with science increases the chance of being right in the first place. 
Wendy P. 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

19 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I do stand by my comment that agreeing with science increases the chance of being right in the first place. 

This.

There is no doubt the current right leaning part of America is very anti-science. In stead of allowing for the exception to prove the rule, they are jumping on any possible deviation as proof that all scientists are wrong and part of the Deep State.....

[Coreece 189]

52 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

There is no doubt the current right leaning part of America is very anti-science.

I've learned that when people feel the need to say there is no doubt, there usual is.

 

Love the Science, Hate the Scientists: Conservative Identity Protects Belief in Science and Undermines Trust in Scientists

"By leveraging research on the performativity of conservative identity, we argue that conservative scientific institutions have manufactured a scientific cultural repertoire that enables participation in this highly valued epistemological space while undermining scientific authority perceived as politically biased."

 

The influence of political ideology on trust in science

"our results confirm the expectations of the Anti-Reflexivity Thesis. Conservatives report less trust in impact scientists but greater trust in production scientists than their liberal counterparts. We argue that further work that increases the accuracy and depth of our understanding of the relationship between political ideology and views about science is likely crucial for addressing the politicized science-based issues of our age."

 

 

And as an aside, I'm not sure if it's really distrust of the actual scientists.  I can't remember how many times I've read some biased msm article that cites some study/peer reviewed journal to support their entire premise, and then when I read the actual study/article, all they really did was cherry pick a sentence or two out of context that really didn't convey what the study was actually addressing.

 

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Coreece

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Bit of a semantics argument. Sure we believe in science, we just think scientists are full of shit.

[Coreece 189]

11 minutes ago, Coreece said:

The influence of political ideology on trust in science

"our results confirm the expectations of the Anti-Reflexivity Thesis. Conservatives report less trust in impact scientists but greater trust in production scientists than their liberal counterparts. We argue that further work that increases the accuracy and depth of our understanding of the relationship between political ideology and views about science is likely crucial for addressing the politicized science-based issues of our age."

I just found those with a quick search and still need to to read them in depth, but this one also supports the idea I posted awhile back that the worst thing for green tech is to market as green tech, especially if you're trying to sell it to conservatives.  Just market it as some new cool tech that's going to make your life easier or whatever. Simple.

[Coreece 189]

4 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Bit of a semantics argument. Sure we believe in science, we just think scientists are full of shit.

It doesn't agree with your premise so you just quickly dismiss it?

Now who's being anti science?

Edited July 7, 2020 by Coreece

[SkyDekker 1,121]

3 minutes ago, Coreece said:

It doesn't agree with your premise so you just quickly dismiss it?

Now who's being anti science?

I will restate my opinion. The right leaning population understands science exists, but think scientists are full of shit.

[yoink 321]

11 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

The Lincoln Project scores another home run.

Whispers

That’s put together very well by someone who understands Trump. 
 

I REALLY hope he watches it.

[billvon 2,384]

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

Iove the Science, Hate the Scientists: Conservative Identity Protects Belief in Science and Undermines Trust in Scientists

"By leveraging research on the performativity of conservative identity, we argue that conservative scientific institutions have manufactured a scientific cultural repertoire that enables participation in this highly valued epistemological space while undermining scientific authority perceived as politically biased.

If that were true, you'd see conservative accepting the science of evolution, plate tectonics, abiogenesis, climate change and stem cell research at about the same percentages as liberals.  That, of course, is not the case.

Fun fact - a while back they did a study where they tried to assess how much of a danger Zika was perceived to be.  When they tested conservatives they found, on average, a moderate sense of risk.  If they were first presented with an article linking Zika to illegal immigration, the percentage of conservatives who thought it was a serious risk more than doubled.  If they were first presented with an article linking Zika to climate change, the percentage declined by almost 50%.

[Phil1111 908]

10 hours ago, billvon said:

If that were true, you'd see conservative accepting the science of evolution, plate tectonics, abiogenesis, climate change and stem cell research at about the same percentages as liberals.  That, of course, is not the case.

Fun fact - a while back they did a study where they tried to assess how much of a danger Zika was perceived to be.  When they tested conservatives they found, on average, a moderate sense of risk.  If they were first presented with an article linking Zika to illegal immigration, the percentage of conservatives who thought it was a serious risk more than doubled.  If they were first presented with an article linking Zika to climate change, the percentage declined by almost 50%.

The NYT has a good story delving into psychology, genetics and any other factors that may play into political polarization. IMO the psychology of a person is the first place to start in dealing with someone. Putin can certainly tell you that. Its labeled as an opinion piece but makes use of extensive social studies that it references.

How Could Human Nature Have Become This Politicized?

 

[Coreece 189]

10 hours ago, billvon said:

If that were true, you'd see conservative accepting the science of evolution, plate tectonics, abiogenesis, climate change and stem cell research at about the same percentages as liberals.

My objection was to dekker's opinion that the right leaning population was anti-science, not that liberals are more receptive to several subsets of science.  And there are plenty of liberal anti-vaxers and those into homeopathy - doesn't mean liberals are anti-science.

And aside from climate change and stem cell research, how would a typical person's receptiveness to the other three areas really matter to society as a whole?  And of the conservative/liberals that are receptive, how many are just blindly following without ever studying or truly understanding it?  How many couldn't understand it even if they tried?

One of the issues imo is that science is ever changing and modifying itself the more we learn, so of course there is going to be opposition to long term policy especially if it's in stark opposition to one's social/political/economic ideology.