5 ms·

In my opinion, the main crux is this: there are moneyed interests who are motivated to generate mistrust and otherization based on political parties. In the USA

In my opinion, the main crux is this: there are moneyed interests who are motivated to generate mistrust and otherization based on political parties. In the USA, Fox News has a strong incentive to inspire hatred and fear of Democratic policy, and MSNBC has a strong incentive to inspire hatred of the GOP. The same is true for Twitter, FB, NYT, WSJ, WaPo, literally any media outlet. Hatred, fear, outrage, worry, anxiety: they all drive viewers to advertisements. One major example, these media groups facilitated making a huge rift on climate change belief. The fossil fuel industry saw in the GOP, and some moderate Dems like Manchin, an opportunity to create doubt and slow the transition off their fossil fuel products. Now, the GOP has leaned into anti-scientist, anti-elitist sentiment, fed by Fox News and others. They're not totally anti-science, they still use abortion science, ivermectin science, and all the wonders of modern life...but they ARE anti-scientist, anti-elitist, anti-university. And Why? We're hating each other so media companies can make a few measly cents.

philosopher1234 5y ago
We do not live in a society with two equal sides. The GOP has made destroying democracy/hating "the media" core to their platform, as opposed to centering their platform on some sort of policy goal. Do democrats hate the GOP? Sure, but their coalition is not nearly as structurally oriented around this fact.
- mgamache 5y ago
  The 2020 DNC platform was Orange Man Bad.
  - philosopher1234 5y ago
    Anti-democracy is bad.
  - saalweachter 5y ago
    https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/ https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/
iszomer 5y ago
> Now, the GOP has leaned into anti-scientist, anti-elitist sentiments, fed by Fox News and others.. I wouldn't fault them for your view of their broad sentiments on this trend but I think if you went back over the last twenty years, these sentiments were more often aligned for the left-wing. "The real conversation has to be about what solutions we're in favor of." -- Dan Crenshaw, on the Daily Show https://youtu.be/HWsS7N8KmYY?t=1141 https://youtu.be/HWsS7N8KmYY?t=1141
- _lb7x 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - Rastonbury 5y ago
    Anecdotally, it seems to have gotten worse, I know STEM grads who I'd never think of being anti-science announcing they are "vaccine hesitant". We speak about it behind their backs but really no one even tries to discuss this with them.
    - iszomer 5y ago
      I know this is a false equivalence argument but one might frame vaccine hesitancy as simply people unwilling to be mandated to inject anything into their bodies. Can you imagine if the government sought to mandate heroine injection as the only standard way of pain relief? That's what I think most average people think about when they are "vaccine hesitant".
- boston_clone 5y ago
  The last twenty years gives us a few administrations from which we can asses policy making decisions: Bush; Obama; Trump; and now Biden. Of those four, I don't think it's possible to make a good-faith argument that Obama and Biden administrations have been more anti-science than either Bush's or Trump's. A single sound bite from Dan Crenshaw talking about shifting the focus of conversation towards solutions doesn't refute the fact that Trump had directed the EPA to remove statements about climate change from their website, withdrew our participation from the Paris Accords, and made public statements drenched in falsehoods about how climate change is a hoax. Similarly, Bush rejecting the Kyoto Protocol and allowing Exxon to have an active role in making climate change policy goes completely against your assertions. Could you provide some sources to substantiate your viewpoint? I'd love to know if I'm just being overly biased here, or if we've fallen prey to disinformation campaigns.
Clubber 5y ago
It's also good for the people in power. It's a pretty straight forward divide and conquer strategy. The US public want probably 80% of the same thing (economic), but we won't get it because we bicker about the 20% (cultural/wedge).
gunapologist99 5y ago
I appreciate that you drew a distinction, because being anti-science and anti-scientist are not the same thing at all. The current way that science, i.e., research, is being funded has very little to do with the Scientific Method and seems very broken. That seems to be the GOP stance; that huge funds are flowing from big corporate interests into universities. It seems quite simple to purchase nearly whatever research you like.
- kaba0 5y ago
  The US is not the only country though. And while some small bad research may get bought, these are usually easy to spot by experts in the field, or even by simply looking at the methodology which may be bad even from a statistical point of view.
  - gunapologist99 5y ago
    I didn't say it was. Studies are funded by corporations globally.

philosopher1234 5y ago

We do not live in a society with two equal sides. The GOP has made destroying democracy/hating "the media" core to their platform, as opposed to centering their platform on some sort of policy goal. Do democrats hate the GOP? Sure, but their coalition is not nearly as structurally oriented around this fact.

mgamache 5y ago
The 2020 DNC platform was Orange Man Bad.
- philosopher1234 5y ago
  Anti-democracy is bad.
- saalweachter 5y ago
  https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/ https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/

iszomer 5y ago

> Now, the GOP has leaned into anti-scientist, anti-elitist sentiments, fed by Fox News and others.. I wouldn't fault them for your view of their broad sentiments on this trend but I think if you went back over the last twenty years, these sentiments were more often aligned for the left-wing. "The real conversation has to be about what solutions we're in favor of." -- Dan Crenshaw, on the Daily Show https://youtu.be/HWsS7N8KmYY?t=1141 https://youtu.be/HWsS7N8KmYY?t=1141

_lb7x 5y ago
[flagged]
- Rastonbury 5y ago
  Anecdotally, it seems to have gotten worse, I know STEM grads who I'd never think of being anti-science announcing they are "vaccine hesitant". We speak about it behind their backs but really no one even tries to discuss this with them.
  - iszomer 5y ago
    I know this is a false equivalence argument but one might frame vaccine hesitancy as simply people unwilling to be mandated to inject anything into their bodies. Can you imagine if the government sought to mandate heroine injection as the only standard way of pain relief? That's what I think most average people think about when they are "vaccine hesitant".
boston_clone 5y ago
The last twenty years gives us a few administrations from which we can asses policy making decisions: Bush; Obama; Trump; and now Biden. Of those four, I don't think it's possible to make a good-faith argument that Obama and Biden administrations have been more anti-science than either Bush's or Trump's. A single sound bite from Dan Crenshaw talking about shifting the focus of conversation towards solutions doesn't refute the fact that Trump had directed the EPA to remove statements about climate change from their website, withdrew our participation from the Paris Accords, and made public statements drenched in falsehoods about how climate change is a hoax. Similarly, Bush rejecting the Kyoto Protocol and allowing Exxon to have an active role in making climate change policy goes completely against your assertions. Could you provide some sources to substantiate your viewpoint? I'd love to know if I'm just being overly biased here, or if we've fallen prey to disinformation campaigns.

Clubber 5y ago

It's also good for the people in power. It's a pretty straight forward divide and conquer strategy. The US public want probably 80% of the same thing (economic), but we won't get it because we bicker about the 20% (cultural/wedge).

gunapologist99 5y ago

I appreciate that you drew a distinction, because being anti-science and anti-scientist are not the same thing at all. The current way that science, i.e., research, is being funded has very little to do with the Scientific Method and seems very broken. That seems to be the GOP stance; that huge funds are flowing from big corporate interests into universities. It seems quite simple to purchase nearly whatever research you like.

kaba0 5y ago
The US is not the only country though. And while some small bad research may get bought, these are usually easy to spot by experts in the field, or even by simply looking at the methodology which may be bad even from a statistical point of view.
- gunapologist99 5y ago
  I didn't say it was. Studies are funded by corporations globally.