173
174

Reality is under no obligation to validate conservatism. (self.Negareddit)

ghoooooooooost が 投稿

http://imgur.com/6zqnfqc

Screenshotted from a reader letter to the New York Times.

全 41 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]FullClockworkOddessy 58 ポイント59 ポイント  (5子コメント)

But that doesn't stop conservatives from working their asses off to invalidate reality.

[–]ghoooooooooost[S] 38 ポイント39 ポイント  (4子コメント)

It really is all one big gaslighting campaign waged not just to dupe gullible people, but render people gullible in the first place. That way, the oligarchs outsource and franchise the work of gaslighting to the people. It's ironic how invested they are in making gullibility sustainable and making conservative voters into a renewable resource.

[–]Chrysalii 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Stupid has always been, and sadly will always be, our most plentiful resource.

[–]ghoooooooooost[S] 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The right is all about that resource extraction.

[–]SavageHuxleySEIZE THE MEMES OF PRODUCTION 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Too bad we can't use stupidity as an energy source. It's infinite and sustainable.

[–]GoodCatWarriorNameWill Embarass Self for Rarepuppers [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yeah, but it's also an extremely toxic pollutant.

[–]TheAlexBasso 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Being racist isn't your "opinion". It's just wrong. It's not "another viewpoint". It's just wrong. The line has to be drawn somewhere and I'm pretty sure racism is past that line.

[–]barakokula31 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (1子コメント)

But they're not racists, they're race realists. They base their opinions on science. The fact that this "science" has been considered inaccurate for almost a hundred years is meaningless.

[–]wightjilt 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They can point out all the phrenological distinguishers of mongoloidism, how dare you say that is fake. /s

[–]Waltzer_White 32 ポイント33 ポイント  (11子コメント)

i think there's a reason why conservatism and fundie religions go hand in hand... you need a LOT of faith and no evidence for both of those things.

[–]MuninTheRaven -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

/s ?

[–]Hawanja 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (5子コメント)

That's not sarcastic, it's true.

[–]MuninTheRaven 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I guess I was thrown off by the non-ironic use of "fundie."

But regardless, I disagree. "Conservatism," like "liberalism," is an umbrella term that encompasses many different veins of thought, and to imply that all of them lack any evidence whatsoever -- or even rely primarily on faith -- is as out of touch with reality as claiming that academia, rather than evidence, has a liberal bias.

The simple fact is that there are many things in the world that aren't reducible to black-and-white, cause-and-effect relationships. Areas where studies are inconclusive, or replicated with different results, or interpreted differently, or where studies can't even be properly tailored to rigorously, well, study.

Take economics, for example -- a controversial field filled with controversial findings. It's one where the standard, accepted model of labor states that increasing the minimum wage will harm the economy, and many studies have found that, in practice, just that occurs. Except there's also a significant number of dissenting economists (including 7 Nobel Prize winners), who pushed for an increase in minimum wage, citing research that shows that such an increase would benefit the economy.

So which is it? In the face of such conflicting studies, the safest thing to do would be to sit back and perform more studies, but politics and people demand an answer sooner rather than later -- which means sides must be taken, for better or for worse.

Don't try to discredit the other side simply because you disagree with them. You don't hold a monopoly on the truth.

[–]Waltzer_White 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I shouldn't have said the phrase 'no evidence' because in some republican ideas, especially economic ones, I guess there is some evidence to support their ideas.

I didn't realize fundie was wrong to say. I meant to distinguish people who think hurricanes are sent to kill the gays, versus people who are a lot less... intense... with their religion.

The fact is though that a lot more evidence and research points towards progressive ideas than conservative ideas. The idea of science itself is barely supported by conservatives these days, at least in North America. This is partly why climate change deniers in the government are Republican or Tea Party. They deny science. (The other part, if you ask me, is Capitalist greed and the apathy it breeds.)

[–]MuninTheRaven [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

"Fundie" just has a sort of stigma attached to it, because of /r/atheism. There's nothing inherently wrong with the term, but in most contexts its used in it's not being used to advance a coherent argument. I'm personally not a huge fan of the term which is why I mentioned it earlier.

I agree that liberal thinking tends to align itself more closely with scientific thinking, but I still wouldn't go so far as to say that conservatism and science are two mutually exclusive things. Part of the reason is that it's so difficult to distill the many faces of conservatism into one typical conservative voter.

Here's a really fascinating tool to play around with. Unfortunately there's not a ton of issues that have a lot of solid, particularly scientific evidence to back them up, so it's still not ideal for coming to a conclusion. Looking at the data for the conservative "party anchors" (the Business and Steadfast conservatives) is troubling -- only 22% and 26%, respectively, want to focus on alternative energy, and only 57% and 39% believe that humans evolved over time. /u/Hawanja also compiled a list of things that are false but still propounded by quite a few conservatives (although I don't have the time to look into the exact statistics). So it is unfortunately prevalent in conservatism -- and more specifically, the Republican party -- in America.

But I don't think that conservatism is, at its core, completely at odds with reality; note, for example, that the Young Outsiders -- who would account for about a third of conservatives in America -- accepted evolution and alternative energy in far greater numbers (68% and 71%, respectively).

Apologies if I'm being pedantic here, but being a conservative in America does not necessarily entail being a Republican -- Republicanism is simply one vein of conservative thought, which unfortunately has anti-science leanings.

I will say, though, that this was pretty illuminating for me -- I had never taken a hard look at the data available about voter beliefs in America and it is pretty troubling, haha.

[–]Hawanja 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well I disagree with you. The reality is that people who believe in wackjob religions overwhelmingly tend to also believe in far right political ideologies and ideas, for multiple reasons, one of those being such ideologies and ideas DO rely on faith to an extent because many of them have very little evidence of being effective (or even happening) in the real world.

For example:
* Abstinence leads to lower rates of teenage pregnancy
* Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
* Iraq was responsible for 9-11
* Right-wing terrorism is not a problem
* George Bush was responsible for the Arab spring
* Giving taxbreaks to rich people will trickle down through the economy
* Cutting taxes for corporations increases tax revenue
* Regulations are barriers to entry, and businesses don't need them because fear of losing their reputations will be enough to keep them from exploiting people or polluting
* Minorities become dependent on social programs
* "Blue" states are crime-ridden, poverty-stricken cesspools while "Red" states are crime-free and prosperous
* Black people cause all the crime in the country
* Illegal immigrants steal people's jobs
* Illegal immigrants vote
* Illegal immigrants pay no taxes
* Illegal immigrants commit crime at higher rates than non-immigrants
* Democrats turn a blind eye to illegal immigration so that said illegal immigrants will vote for democrat politicians
* Outlawing drugs is an effective deterrent towards drug use
* There is no systemic racism, in our police forces or otherwise
* Marijuana is a gateway drug
* Prison time is an effective deterrent (or treatment) for drug addicts
* The founding fathers didn't believe in a separation of church and state
* The primary purpose of the second amendment is so that the people can revolt against the government
* America has the best healthcare system in the world (you heard this one alot in the fight to institute Obamacare. Now all of the sudden it sucks)
* Building a border wall will curtail illegal immigration
* The media is liberal - (which is really funny seeing how the most successful network for the past 20 years has been Fox News)
* Obama is an terrorist fist-jabbing illegitimate son of a commie who was born in Kenya and is a secret plant of the Muslim brotherhood even though he goes to a christian church run by a preacher who screams "God Damn America."
* Donald Trump won the popular vote
* Three million illegal aliens voted for Donald Trump in California, because apparently it's legal there
* Hillary Clinton and John Podesta run a child sex slave ring out of a D.C. pizza shop, and not only rape children but eat them afterwards as part of a satanic Illuminati ritual
* Hillary Clinton is lying about her health, and will keel over dead any day now.
* Donald Trump will not use the office of president to personally enrich himself, so the laws should be changed so that he doesn't have to divest himself from his businesses
* Human activity has no impact on global warming
* Republicans are fiscally conservative, and Democrats are responsible for our out of control debt and deficit spending

All of these things are demonstrably untrue, yet a great number of conservatives believe them anyway. Why? Are they just uninformed? Are they mentally challenged? Or could it be that they believe these things - things that five minutes of research can show otherwise - because, like their religion, it's an article of faith, that they want to believe these untrue things because it fits their worldview? I think that is very, very plausible.

Don't try to discredit the other side simply because you disagree with them. You don't hold a monopoly on the truth.

That is exactly the kind of thinking which is ruining this country. What ends up happening is that conservatives don't like the actual truth, so they manufacture their own. That shit needs to be opposed at all times.

[–]MuninTheRaven [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

While I don't agree that all of the examples you listed are "demonstrably untrue," you're right that an unfortunately large amount of people believe them (I don't have time to look into the exact statistics) in the face of evidence to the contrary. And, after giving it some thought, I'd actually agree that the prevalence of religious faithful in American conservatism could play a role in that.

But it doesn't require mental gymnastics to be a conservative, which is what I was trying to say in the first place -- there is evidence to support many of conservatism's tenets. And while the spread of misinformation is a black mark on its record, conservatism doesn't inherently spit in the face of science and reality.

That is exactly the kind of thinking which is ruining this country. What ends up happening is that conservatives don't like the actual truth, so they manufacture their own. That shit needs to be opposed at all times.

I disagree. I may clash with conservatives over the issue of, say, same-sex marriage, but that doesn't mean they're fundies with no grasp on reality. I may hold it to be a self-evident truth that people should be able to marry whatever gender they choose, but there's as much strict evidence to support that as there is to the contrary.

[–]DevilfishJack -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

It is really hard to take you seriously when you use such an obviously antagonistic term. Fundamentalists, just like every group, are not monolithic and language like this is not useful.

[–]Waltzer_White [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

If you want to say that "fundie" is a slur, then I don't know how to respond to that.

Fundamentalist is a term that means people who think the Bible is the literal truth. Word for word truth. What did I say is wrong? You need a gigantic leap of faith to think a book that includes miracles and arks full of two of every animal is literally true.

[–]DevilfishJack [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Their chosen term is fundamentalist. If you can dignify what they want to identify as, then it is hard to believe you want to have a discussion.

[–]GoodCatWarriorNameWill Embarass Self for Rarepuppers [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Sorry, I'm not interested in respecting a group of people who believe that it was at one point a great idea to sell your daughter to her rapist.

[–]wightjilt 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Remember though, academia would by no means be considered far leftists either. More than anything else, academia's liberal bias in American is an indictment of how batshit our conservatives are.

[–]JuxtapositionTherapy 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Truth has a liberal bias."

[–]RamboManfist -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (17子コメント)

Not to sound like an edgy "the answer is always in the middle" type of person but let's not pretend that Sanders/Ellison are operating anywhere near reality either. Even Stiglitz, who's by far the most left wing mainstream economist was a Hillary adviser and Krugman strongly supported Hillary over Bernie as well.