RWs are not stupid; it's much worse than that

[Bryan_Ekers]

At the very least, can we agree that Conservapedia’s article on the Theory of Relativity is badly written? The first paragraph mentions contradictions and the victimization of people who disagree with it, but doesn’t even try to describe what the Theory of Relativity actually is.

As someone who likes both science and well-written English, I’m offended.

[Voyager]

@Sinaptics

Which is, of course, filled with milk.

Holy milk from holy cows.

[msmith537]

@BrainGlutton

No, the question is, "What is up with [not nessarily “wrong with”] conservatives that they don’t agree with facts and science?" See post #16. Those are errors. Do you seriously want to defend any of those errors as factual? (Please read each very carefully before you try. E.g., WRT “Economics,” which is always controversial, the RW belief does includes an indisputable error of fact to the effect that “most economists concur with this assessment”.)

Oh it’s not that I disagree with those facts, or really even the premise of the OP. What I disagree with is that there is something special or different about conservative’s brains that makes them believe stupid shit in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I think most people are guilty of that on some level, regardless of political affiliation.

[Bricker]

@BrainGlutton

No, the question is, "What is up with [not nessarily “wrong with”] conservatives that they don’t agree with facts and science?"

But you yourself experienced the rejection of nuclear power by environmentalist groups, who are certainly fairly described as leftists, even though this position is not grounded in facts and science. Yes, you yourself are not an example of the problem, since you acknowledged the facts and modified your opinion, but your post basically acknowledges this general trend.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

But you yourself experienced the rejection of nuclear power by environmentalist groups, who are certainly fairly described as leftists, even though this position is not grounded in facts and science. Yes, you yourself are not an example of the problem, since you acknowledged the facts and modified your opinion, but your post basically acknowledges this general trend.

Actually many dopers that are on the left have told you before, like me, we approve of nuclear power; what you need to be aware here is that unless America has turned leftist there is no way to explain the 70% or more opposition numbers that pop up when there are votes on new nuclear plants or nuclear dumps, clearly there are a lot of independent and conservatives that oppose nuclear power. (Surveys show that only a quarter or a third of Americans call themselves liberal)

So no, what we have here is our old non-partisan friend NIMBY.

[BrainGlutton]

In this discussion, of course, we need to be very clear on the distinction between facts, which are verifiable/falsifiable, and values, which are not.

It might help put that in perpsective to quote this passage from [url=]Vietnam: The Necessary War, by Michael Lind – Chapter 7, “Was the Vietnam War Unjust?”:

Arguments about the justice of the Vietnam War, like most debates about justice in foreign policy, exhibit the traits of a certain class of moral arguments identified by the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre – they can never be resolved, because the debates belong to incompatible moral traditions and reason from different moral premises. In his book After Virtue (1981), MacIntyre provides rival views of justice in war as the first of his example of “interminable” contemporary moral debates:

(a) A just war is one in which the good to be achieved outweighs the evils involved in waging the war and in which a clear distinction can be made between combatants – whose lives are at stake – and innocent noncombatants. But in a modern war calculation of future escalation is never reliable and no practically applicable distinctions between combatants and noncombatants can be made. Therefore no modern war can be a just war and we all ought now to be pacifists.

(b) If you wish for peace, prepare for war. The only way to achieve peace is to deter potential aggressors. Therefore you must build up your armaments and make it clear that going to war on any particular scale is not necessarily ruled out by your policies. An inescapable part of making this clear is being prepared both to fight limited wars and to go not only to, but beyond, the nuclear brink on certain types of occasion. Otherwise you will not avoid war and you will be defeated.

(c) Wars between Great Powers are purely destructive, but wars waged to liberate oppressed groups, especially in the Third World, are a necessary and therefore justified means for destroying the exploitative domination which stands between mankind and happiness.

For the sake of comprehensiveness, it is useful to add to MacIntyre’s list what might be called the “militarist” or “fascist” argument:

d) Social life, like biological life, consists of unceasing struggle for survival and domination. The most glorious human type is the warrior, and the only life worth living is one of armed combat against national or personal enemies. Peace is a contemptible state, tolerable only as an intermission in campaigns to conquer or avoid being conquered.

Adherents of these four views of morality in war have very little to say to one another, beyond stating their positions. “From our rival conclusions we can argue back to our rival premises,” MacIntyre observes, “but when we do arrive at our premises argument ceases and the invocation of one premise against another becomes a matter of pure assertion and counter-assertion. Hence perhaps the slightly shrill tone of so much moral debate.”

However, IMO, to be truly comprehensive, we should add a fifth, the “imperialist” or “piratical” argument:

(e) War is not necessarily desirable or glorious in and of itself. It is, however, a perfectly legitimate means for a nation or state to win territory, resources, power, or anything else that might serve its national interests. Independent sovereign states, even if internally ordered by laws and social and moral norms, exist in a perpetual state of nature in relation to one another, because “international law” is an oxymoronic and meaningless concept in the absence of any international government with the power to enforce it. A perpetual competition for power and wealth is therefore inevitable, and any nation too scrupulous to participate will fall prey to other states with less tender consciences. Now lie down on the floor and remain calm.

I venture to suggest that theory (e) has played a more important role in influencing the actual behavior of states and leaders throughout human history than the other four combined.

Well, be that as it may or may not, the point is that the problem above presented is not limited to foreign policy. Most political arguments, I think (not all by any means), can be reduced to values-based arguments if you deconstruct them enough. Abortion is a classic example. And we have to respect or at least accept that – the other guy’s values might be “stupid” in your eyes, but not stupid in the sense that science-denial is stupid; and, unless you are the most persuasive missionary in the world, there’s rarely any point in trying to change his mind about his basic values.

But there is still value in demanding arguers of all political stripes accept the facts; rejecting “my” reality and substituting your own should never be acceptable or tolerated.

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

Actually many dopers that are on the left have told you before, like me, we approve of nuclear power; what you need to be aware here is that unless America has turned leftist there is no way to explain the 70% or more opposition numbers that pop up when there are votes on new nuclear plants or nuclear dumps, clearly there are a lot of independent and conservatives that oppose nuclear power. (Surveys show that only a quarter or a third of Americans call themselves liberal)

So no, what we have here is our old non-partisan friend NIMBY.

That’s an interesting response.

When I point to similar poll numbers in support of voter ID requirements, I have been told the reason is misinformation and scare tactics propagated by the right.

Is that a possibility here?

[Belowjob2.0]

@New_Deal_Democrat

If those who disagree with books like “The Bell Curve” were confident in their arguments they would not try to supplement their arguments with threats against the careers of those who disagree with them.

NDD, like a lot of people, on the left and right, you missed the fundamental point of The Bell Curve. The fundamental point was class stratification based on assortative mating, where people with high levels of inherited ability only marry each other. This would lead inexorably to completely separate American societies where life among the non-elites gets worse and worse.

Murray had to write another bookto make his point clear. This one left out ethnic group differences as an unnecessary distraction, and focused exclusively on the social decline among working class whites in Philadelphia.
You’re kind of like a general being prepared to fight the last war, not the war that’s coming. It makes sense that you would be obsessed with this. The most drastic social changes that occurred in your lifetime are probably the most vivid in your mind. People avoid endorsing The Bell Curve because the science is shoddy, and because the ethnic angle is the least important part of the book.