I’m not sure of your basis on that assumption. Just in speculation:
-Religion is an inherently irrational pursuit.
-The United States reports a significant majority of its population is religious.
IME = In My Experience.
Yeah… so? Would it matter if instead of “assumption”, I’d said “estimation” or “guess”? Is there a difference?
It’s of no importance.
Of course, it is important to not to check the cites, it is part of a balanced echo chamber. 
Remember, the original point from Deeg was that the liberals and Democrats are just stuck being against nuclear power. As I reported there is a good number that do, but there is also a good number of Democrats in leadership positions that are doing a difference. Republicans still have troubles with NIMBY. The good news is that even with incidents like Fukishima support for nuclear energy is increasing.
http://www.nei.org/News-Media/newsreleases/New-Poll-Shows-Americans’-Support-for-Nuclear-Ener
That bit of associating nuclear energy with clean air is indeed a change observed mostly in the territory of the left side of the isle; because as pointed out many times before, most Republicans are getting confused by their echo chambers and it even affects the Republican leadership that does think that there is no AGW problem. The result are what we see, continuing attempts at gutting the EPA and even refusing to consider nuclear power when it is a part of a concerted effort to control our emissions.
You cannot be serious.
Also:
MSNBC is great at fact checking and reasonable discourse. It is a tonic, and a palate cleanser. (I flip through all the channels)
So Obama gives a red state support on enlarging their NP plant. Has he pushed for any plants on his own? Has he done anything to make it easier to build NP plants? If he has I haven’t heard about it (but I’ll concede that I didn’t know about his support of the Georgia plants; if you have additional info I’ll be glad to hear it.) Thanks for the cite.
I don’t know how you can say this. Bush supported Yucca Mountain. Obama, meanwhile, made it one of his 2008 campaign promises to shut it down, which he did. In that same campaign John McCain had a goal of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. Isn’t that a huge discrepancy in favor of McCain?
What has Obama done to help replace the Yucca Mountain project he cancelled?
You do know that lots of liberals are religious, right?
Sorry but I’m from Arizona, I looked at the situation and what I remember is that McCain did indeed complain about what was done with Yucca Mountain, and I do remember he and others looking to make then something like that in Arizona, we are still waiting. And locally we could use more nuclear plants but somehow even if this place is full of Republicans not much is done about new nuclear reactors.
And that single-payer health care is outside it now.
I always wondered why people bother to go to those online places where 99% agree with their views. Most be so boring - but perhaps it’s part of being of the Safe Space Generation I’m too dated to understand. But then the SDMB is often fairly much like a echo chamber, In politics (Stupid Republican idea of the day is five times as long as Stupid Liberal idea of the day), and especially in religion. What the heck moves people to create new threads here on issues of a religious nature and expect to get the POV of the other side?
The Tennessee Valley Authority is currently building two new nuclear plants. Both were originally proposed before Obama entered office, but had stalled. The projects have been restarted during his administration. I don’t know exactly how much direct authority Washington has over the TVA though.
The Spirit.
Don’t discount the possibility that that is simply a function of more/better material to work with.
Aaand the echo just got a bit louder.
So all someone has to do is raise the issue that there might be more merit to one side or the other, and you rush to declare that “see! echo chamber! proof!” which is exactly demonstrating the sort of bias I’ve been talking about.
Rune raised the issue of religion, that this place is an echo chamber on religion. Is that because the moderators here ban all of these high quality religious arguments? That we shout people down in a massive spam of groupthink? Or because going to a skeptical, intelligent place and telling everyone how your invisible sky dude is super real is something easy to tear down?
What about conspiracy theorists? Any time someone posts about 9/11 or a moon hoax conspiracy, they get refuted here with lots of good arguments and data, and then they slink off never to be seen again. Is this place just an anti-conspiracy theory echo chamber, or is it possible that thinking that the moon landing was a hoax is simply a poor idea, and it doesn’t survive here on its merits?
Not all ideas are equally meritorious. But that’s the assumption you’re working under. You dismiss the possibility that one side of a political spectrum is more true and factually accurate on a given issue, and so conclude that if opinion is not split down the middle, not only is there bias, but it’s an echo chamber free of dissent at all.
On the flip side I’d say all you’ve done is get a small group (the SDMB is a relatively small group) of like-minded people, pooled some anecdotes, and declared that your small group is smarter, less ignorant, and less biased than everybody else. Just like every other small group of like-minded people. If you can point to some independent studies that liberals are indeed less biased overall than conservatives I’d be interested in seeing it.
I’ve never said all ideas are equally meritorious; we can’t have a reasonable discussion unless you understand that. I believe that, on the grand scale, liberals and conservatives are no more or less biased than the other; both sides fall trap to echo chambers. As I’ve said in this thread, conservative recalcitrance on AGW is wrong. I also disagree with their views on SSM but that in no way proves that conservatives are more biased or have a louder echo chamber.
I used to be a frequent poster on a board that skewed heavily libertarian/conservative. They believed that liberals were ignorant weenies who didn’t understand economics or psychology and they had plenty of (true) anecdotes that “proved” it. They were just as wrong.
But on a conservative message board, conservatives would be naturally searching for examples of liberal folly. They would have a long “Liberal idiocy” thread and a short “Conservative idiocy” thread.
It seems to me that your 2nd sentence basically contradicts your first…or at least makes a distinction that is basically irrelevant to Senor Beef’s point. (Okay, you don’t think all individual ideas are equally meritorious but you do think that overall neither liberals nor conservatives are any closer to having meritorious ideas.)
So, we are back at the same point we were before: Why are you so sure that the truth lies almost exactly in the middle, rather than considerably closer to one side than the other? And, in fact, are you talking about the middle between liberals and conservatives in the U.S. or liberals and conservatives in other Western countries, since the middle would be quite different for these different populations?
However, I don’t see why this is inherently a “liberal” message board. Message boards that are specifically dedicated to a given ideology would certainly tend to be biased toward that ideology. So, for example, you’d expect the Free Republic to be conservative and the Daily Kos to be liberal. However, the Straight Dope didn’t start with any inherent ideological bias but rather dedicated to fighting ignorance by appealing to fact, reason, cites to support your facts, etc. So, perhaps it is the facts and rationality that tend to have a “liberal bias”?
I don’t see a contradiction at all. Take the two points I bought up in this thread:
- Conservatives ignore science and are against AGW.
- Liberals ignore science and are against nuclear power and GMOs.
In both those situations one side is (IMO) clearly wrong and discreditable. However in toto it seems that both sides ignore science when it doesn’t fit their outlook and neither one is better than the other. Can we declare one side better than the other? IMO no.
I think your question could be turned the other way: when Senorbeef says that liberals are better than conservatives does he mean US liberals? Western? What’s the basis for dividing a population into “conservative” and “liberal” and then declaring one side is better/smarter/less biased? That alone seems to muddy the distinction enough that it’s difficult to compare the two sides and judge one better than the other.
My opinion (and experience) is that it’s impossible to divide a large population into two roughly equal sizes based on something as nebulous as conservative/liberal and then declare one side overall better (which is also somewhat nebulous) than the other. To me such a declaration is an extraordinary claim and requires the requisite evidence.
On the other hand the SD (originally, at least) was largely associated with alternative newspapers. Wouldn’t that have skewed the original demographic of the SDMB? Once it’s identity was established I’d wouldn’t be surprised if it kept that overall tone through the years. The SDMB appears to skew older than the general population; it seems to appeal to a particular demographic. Could that be a liberal-leaning demographic?
Pretty scary stuff here. I think this is a pretty common experience. Guy retires, has some time, stumbles on Limbaugh. Starts to listen, starts to believe. Then, like a gateway drug, Limbaugh listener starts to listen to other Hate Radio hosts and starts watching Fox. Soon ALL of his information comes through the right wing media. Then he starts to yell at family members who don’t toe the right wing extremist line. He starts going to right wing Facebook pages and shares their lies on his timeline.
Limbaugh isn’t the only gateway drug, it could be Levine or Savage or Fox. But once you start taking the drug, you have to start taking all the drug.