4 ms·

> 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 sentime

> 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.
- philosopher1234 5y ago
  The viewpoint you're responding to is the GOP strategy, not a viewpoint derived from facts. The strategy being, pretend both sides are equal and that any suggestion of difference in respect to valuing science or democracy is actually a bias. Pretending both sides are the same when their differences are plain as day is both foolish and damaging.
  - iszomer 5y ago
    > The viewpoint you're responding to is the GOP strategy, not a viewpoint derived from facts. I wondered about this too but wasn't aware this is a "GOP strategy". In contrast, I only responded because I'm still wrapping my head around a Michael Malice quote: "Conservatism is progressivism with speed limits."
    - philosopher1234 5y ago
      This is GOP strategy in practice, I’m not sure if there’s a party document anywhere that outlines it though.
  - boston_clone 5y ago
    I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say with your comment. I don't think I'm creating a false equivalence between the respective parties; their differences are certainly clear - one of those differences being a closed-ears approach to scientific evidence. Could you elaborate or clarify what you meant?
    - philosopher1234 5y ago
      I'm trying to support your comment, and my comment was meant to describe GP not you. I can see how its a bit misleading.
- iszomer 5y ago
  > Could you provide some sources to substantiate your viewpoint? I cannot as I'm only learning of this now and reflecting on what I've known from before. Trump directing "the EPA to remove statements about climate change" is largely irrelevant (to me personally) when there are active industries apart from politics that are striving for "greener" technologies. Take for example the transition from Toyota's hybrid vehicles to Tesla's or, solar array proliferation seen from Google Maps timeline.

_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.

philosopher1234 5y ago
The viewpoint you're responding to is the GOP strategy, not a viewpoint derived from facts. The strategy being, pretend both sides are equal and that any suggestion of difference in respect to valuing science or democracy is actually a bias. Pretending both sides are the same when their differences are plain as day is both foolish and damaging.
- iszomer 5y ago
  > The viewpoint you're responding to is the GOP strategy, not a viewpoint derived from facts. I wondered about this too but wasn't aware this is a "GOP strategy". In contrast, I only responded because I'm still wrapping my head around a Michael Malice quote: "Conservatism is progressivism with speed limits."
  - philosopher1234 5y ago
    This is GOP strategy in practice, I’m not sure if there’s a party document anywhere that outlines it though.
- boston_clone 5y ago
  I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say with your comment. I don't think I'm creating a false equivalence between the respective parties; their differences are certainly clear - one of those differences being a closed-ears approach to scientific evidence. Could you elaborate or clarify what you meant?
  - philosopher1234 5y ago
    I'm trying to support your comment, and my comment was meant to describe GP not you. I can see how its a bit misleading.
iszomer 5y ago
> Could you provide some sources to substantiate your viewpoint? I cannot as I'm only learning of this now and reflecting on what I've known from before. Trump directing "the EPA to remove statements about climate change" is largely irrelevant (to me personally) when there are active industries apart from politics that are striving for "greener" technologies. Take for example the transition from Toyota's hybrid vehicles to Tesla's or, solar array proliferation seen from Google Maps timeline.