Stop villainizing people whose political opinions differ from yours.

[Merneith]

@BobLibDem

You can be an asshole without supporting Donald Trump, but you can’t support Trump without being an asshole.

At any rate, you can’t expect to be taken seriously when you start whining about being called “deplorable”.

[BobLibDem]

@Merneith

At any rate, you can’t expect to be taken seriously when you start whining about being called “deplorable”.

I know it sounds harsh, but good heavens I really struggle to see how one can in good conscience support a man who so openly appeals to the worst instincts in humanity. If you’re a closet racist, Trump gives you permission to come out of the closet. If you secretly hate Muslims, Trump lets you come out in the open. If you think women should be barefoot and pregnant, you have a compatriot in Trump. It goes on and on.

[Pantastic]

@glowacks

Perhaps it’s because conservatives have been vilified so much for their fear of the unknown and the other that it’s come to be seen automatically as villainous by the population.

I have a friend who had to move because she feared for her life at the hands of conservatives after HB2 emboldened bigoted scum against her, that’s some bigoted villainy. In the appeals about ‘voter ID’ laws, it turns out conservatives in my state asked for information about what demographics used which voting method, then passed laws limiting or eliminating all voting methods that were primarily used by blacks, that’s some racist villainy. Conservatives think that 50% of my friends should be forced to act as a human incubator if they’re raped, that’s some horror movie level villainy. Also Donald Trump… seriously, just plain Donald Trump the ‘family values’ candidate who grabs women by the pussy.

If ‘conservatives’ would stop acting like villains, I wouldn’t consider them villainous. But when you openly engage in villainy, whining that people consider you a villain for attacking other people is just pathetic. This isn’t about ‘we disagreed about the football stadium bond vote’, this is ‘this person thinks it’s OK to grab women by the pussy, intimidate them into sex, force them to carry the baby resulting from that sex to term, while beating a trans person to death for being a danger to ‘wives and daughters’ in the bathroom, and making sure darkies don’t get to vote’.

Thomas Jefferson said “I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.” But he was a rich white guy; if the difference in politics was that the ‘friend’ wanted to own him as a slave and beat and rape him at will (one of the political/philosophical areas of dispute at the time), I doubt that he would be so casual about it.

[YogSothoth]

Sometimes, one side is right and the other is wrong.

I look forward to the day I don’t have to villainize people who thinks being gay is a lifestyle, or that restricting contraception reduces teenage births, or that religions should get a free pass to discriminate, or global warming is a hoax. But until they accept facts and science, I’ll continue to villainize them because that’s what they deserve

[Jonathan_Chance]

@BobLibDem

but you can’t support Trump without being an asshole.

I realize this is a strongly held belief during a contentious time. However, I’d really prefer not to see this sort of thing in Great Debates. If you must express yourself this way, please do so in the Pit.

No warning given. But ease up.

[BobLibDem]

@Jonathan_Chance

I realize this is a strongly held belief during a contentious time. However, I’d really prefer not to see this sort of thing in Great Debates. If you must express yourself this way, please do so in the Pit.

No warning given. But ease up.

You’re right, I apologize.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@YogSothoth

Sometimes, one side is right and the other is wrong.

I look forward to the day I don’t have to villainize people who thinks being gay is a lifestyle, or that restricting contraception reduces teenage births, or that religions should get a free pass to discriminate, or global warming is a hoax. But until they accept facts and science, I’ll continue to villainize them because that’s what they deserve

That also means to you accept being villanised for trying to silence opinions that are different from yours, or that you parents want to have a say in their OWN children’s health (includen sexual life), or forgetting that religons are privte institutions with their own rules and that “if you don’t like it, don’t do it”, or not realising that believing in global warming is one thing and accepting stupid proposals to tackle ir or wildly exagerate claims regarding it’s effect doensn’t make one a “denier”, or forgetting that general villanising of large segments of the population sometimes means you don’t quite get what they actually think.

Of course, “I rightfully villanise you, but you can’t cuz I’m right” is the traditional excuse for depriving people of their rights.

[Merneith]

1. Conservatives have been villanizing liberals for decades. They’ve called us traitors, junkies, idiots, deviants, and barbarians. Now that conservatives have chosen an actual cartoon villain as their representative, suddenly, they’re all delicate flowers who want us to use only the gentlest of language. Cry me a fucking river.

2. Some things - some things which are near and dear to conservative hearts - are just factually wrong.

Creationism is not science.
Abstinence only sex ed does not reduce teen pregnancy.
Global warming is for real.
Hillary Clinton is not a felon.
Barack Obama is not a Muslim.
The Mexican government is not sending us rapists and thieves.
Gay citizens should have the same human and civil rights as non-gay citizens.
Women are entitled to their own body autonomy.

Arguing with any of this is akin to arguing that chattel slavery is acceptable provided one has the proper receipts and licenses. Conservatives were wrong on slavery. They’re wrong on this other stuff, too. They don’t deserve any apology when it’s pointed out.

[GIGObuster]

@Aji_de_Gallina

That also means to you accept being villanised for trying to silence opinions that are different from yours, or that you parents want to have a say in their OWN children’s health (includen sexual life), or forgetting that religons are privte institutions with their own rules and that “if you don’t like it, don’t do it”, or not realising that believing in global warming is one thing and accepting stupid proposals to tackle ir or wildly exagerate claims regarding it’s effect doensn’t make one a “denier”, or forgetting that general villanising of large segments of the population sometimes means you don’t quite get what they actually think.

Of course, “I rightfully villanise you, but you can’t cuz I’m right” is the traditional excuse for depriving people of their rights.

The sad reality is that in virtually all the examples you give many on the right has used religion to justify their reasons for being ignorant or bigoted.

As the subject is about demonizing others, it is proper to point out how unmoral that is. And we should not forget that conservatives and reactionaries that have lots of power in American nations are the ones that do start and feed the demonization of others. Religions could be private institutions, but for sure they are being manipulated a lot by powerful interests that use them to repress others and to stop or delay progress.

Blast From the Past: States Using 'Religious Freedom' to Justify Segregation | HuffPost Voices?

First of all, while terms like “religious freedom” and “conscience” sound nice, what they’re really talking about is discrimination. The op-ed takes pains to never once mention gays and lesbians, but what kind of “religious freedom” could they possibly mean? They never give an example, but their meaning isn’t hard to deduce.

Just like Indiana, Lankford and Forbes’ home states (and two dozen more) just introduced bills that would allow businesses to refuse services to LGBTs by claiming “religious freedom.” Every homophobic politician in the country is jumping onto the “religious freedom” bandwagon with pockets full of “turn away the gays” bills that would restrict LGBT access to services, housing, jobs, and safety.

Sound familiar? You don’t have to look far in American history to find cases of discrimination being defended as “religious freedom.” Supporters of slavery, segregation, and interracial marriage bans all invoked Biblical defenses.

In 1946, Mississippi Governor Theodore Bilbo wrote, “[p]urity of race is a gift of God … And God, in his infinite wisdom, has so ordained it that when man destroys his racial purity, it can never be redeemed.”

One of Bilbo’s gubernatorial successors added that “the good Lord was the original segregationist.”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court went even further: “[t]he natural law which forbids [racial intermarriage] and that social amalgamation which leads to a corruption of races, is as clearly divine as that which imparted to [the races] different natures.”

Having a basis in a religious belief doesn’t automatically make a policy good. As a country, we’ve decided that whether or not a policy is religious, when it infringes on someone else’s freedom or causes them harm, it can’t be allowed. That’s why we have laws like The Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, and gender.

No matter how devoutly a business owner believes in segregation, he can’t refuse service to a customer or fire an employee on the basis of having an interracial marriage.

Of course, if you’re determined to discriminate, you still have one option: private clubs and religious organizations aren’t required to treat all people equally. You can opt-out of nondiscrimination by removing yourself from the obligations of the public sphere.

But that also means opting-out of some of the benefits of the public sphere.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/29/this-fascinating-chart-on-faith-and-climate-change-denial-has-been-reinforced-by-new-research/?utm_term=.45145d3e86aa

Because let’s face it — we already knew that conservative religiosity in the United States was closely tied to denying evolution. What wasn’t so obvious was why views of global warming, or the environment, would seem to so closely track views on where we humans (and the rest of all life on Earth) come from. Yet it seems they do:

…

The result, at the broadest level, was that Catholics and Protestants were generally less worried about climate change than those who are religiously unaffiliated (although Jews were more worried). Zooming in more closely, meanwhile, Arbuckle and Konisky found that it was evangelical Protestants who really stood out as being climate unconcerned. “Individuals that affiliate with an Evangelical Protestant church, all else equal, are less likely than both Mainline and Protestant churches to be worried about climate change,” they wrote.

And not just that — the study goes further and singles out the role of biblical fundamentalism. “These findings suggest that individuals in religious traditions that are more prone to teach biblical literalism are less likely to express high degrees of concern about the environment,” the authors write.

**Much of the animus in what he calls the “conservative evangelical” community, Rodin suggests, is about viewing environmentalists negatively, as a sort of “other” who don’t share the same worldview and values. Thus, Rodin writes that he had been “conditioned” to think that “People who care about the environment are left-wing, socialist, former hippies who have no job and hate those who do” and that “People who care about the environment are atheists who worship nature, hate Christians and believe humans are intruders on the earth.”

Rodin says he used to believe such things, but was “slowly worn down by the unquestionable scientific evidence that became impossible to ignore” — and calls on his fellow conservative evangelicals to “stop being influenced by our cultural conditioning and start thinking as God’s people.”**

[Sam_Stone]

@Procrustus

While I can certainly respect a wide range of political views (on most subjects), there are appropriate times, when you love your country and your children, where you must take a stand against a dangerous and unqualified candidate (and many of his party who support him despite knowing better). I hesitate to Godwin this tread so early, but there are limits to the concept of respect for political differences.

Trump voters != all people whose opinions differ from yours.

Horrible, horrible candidates sometimes get support simply because of political tribalism, or because some people think that on balance they’ll still be better than the ‘monster’ the other party is running (whoever the ‘other’ party might be).

I can’t fathom voting for Trump. Every time he opens his mouth it makes me cringe. If i were American, I would either abstain or vote for Hillary in this election, because Trump is just that awful. But I am surprised by the number of conservatives who are voting for Trump, and not all of them are the alt-right nativists with racist agendas. Some of them are just good, decent people who have convinced themselves that the alternative will be worse. They are likely wrong about that, but that doesn’t make them racists or evil.

Democrats have supported some pretty unsavory characters themselves. Marion Barry was re-elected after serving time on a cocaine possession rap. Bill Clinton is still loved by the Democrats, and he banged an intern in the oval office, lied under oath in a trial over his alleged sexual assault of a woman and was impeached for it. He’s also been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women and lost a lawsuit against Paula Jones (or chose to settle with her - can’t remember). Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are both con men and race hustlers, yet have been widely embraced by Democrats. James Carville is a nasty man who said of one of Clinton’s accusers, “Hey, if you drag a $20 bill through a trailer park, there’s no telling what you might hook.” Robert Byrd, a respected Democrat senator, was not just a member of the KKK, but a high official. Democrats had no trouble with Obama’s close associations with former terrorists and a racist, conspiratorial, anti-American preacher.

It’s a human trait that we tend to look more harshly on the failings of the people in other tribes while we overlook the failures of people in our own, and I believe much of modern partisanship is just tribalism. Go talk to a Hutu and ask them about the characteristics of the Tutsi. Ask a Shia Muslim in the Middle East what the average Sunni is like - or vice versa.

The notion that half the country is somehow fundamentally different than the other half when it comes to intelligence or morals is just ridiculous. If you can’t imagine half of the people voting differently without assuming that they are more ignorant, evil, or stupid that the other half, perhaps you should consider learning a bit more about them - and not by reading dissections of them written by your fellow travelers.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Little_Nemo

I’m not going to villainize somebody over opinions on issues like trade relations or tax policies.

But if your political opinions are based on bigotry or a willful denial of the objective evidence then your opinions are wrong and I’m not going to pretend otherwise for the sake of civility.

Since you bring up “trade” as something you wouldn’t attack people for their opinion on, but would if they engage in “willful denial of the objective evidence” I’ll note that many economists believe that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are engaging in “willful denial of the objective evidence” when they claim that globalization doesn’t work “for most of us” is bad for the US and “only good for the big corporations”.

[Sam_Stone]

@wolfpup

I’ll make an analogy with the infamous climate change debate. We have, on one hand, well-informed, qualified scientists who have studied the relevant science for a lifetime and based their findings on the research of other lifetimes before them, and concluded that we have a serious problem. And “on the other side” we have know-nothing gullible ignoramuses persuaded by fraudulent Internet sites surreptitiously funded by fossil fuel interests that the whole thing is a hoax.

Is the truth somewhere in the middle? Is it a combination of a little bit of a problem and a little bit of chicanery?

No, the truth is always where the facts are, and it’s absolutely unambiguous.

Really? It’s just a black-and-white issue, huh? No room for debate at all, even at the policy level.

I don’t want to get into this again, but the climate change debate is a whole lot more complex than the simple consensus of scientists about the basic chemistry of the atmosphere would suggest.

The majority of climate change ‘skeptics’ I know of fully accept the ‘97%’ consensus that the world is warming and that man is helping to cause it. Where they tend to be skeptical is more around the accuracy of climate models in predicting temperature rises over many decades, the cost of doing something about it vs the cost of adaptation, or even whether anything CAN be done in today’s global political climate.

These are all reasonable questions, and they reach far beyond basic climate science and into matters of engineering, economics, political science, ecology, sociology, complex systems theory, and other disciplines.

For example, no climate scientist can tell you whether imposing a unilateral carbon tax in one country will result in CO2 reductions, or if it will result in little more than an economic shift which causes high intensity manufacturing to move to countries which don’t have the carbon tax. No economist can tell you that either, because some of that decision-making has to be made in light of supply chains, engineering decisions, political factors, and much, much more.

On the left in general, these concerns have been swept away by positing the creation of a new ‘green economy’, where millions of jobs will be created and expertise developed that will translate into America becoming a new global ‘green’ superpower or some such rubbish. This is a variant of the ‘broken windows’ fallacy. There’s no scientific or economic basis for believing that transitioning to expensive renewable power will do anything other than increase the basic cost of energy and lower GDP growth. And so far, the places that have tried it have found it incredibly hard and very expensive indeed, while not doing much at all for their carbon footprints.

And while the right has more than its share of people who ignore the basic science and take extreme stands on climate change, so does the left. The catastrophists who are pushing the notion of 10 degree C temperature shifts or sea level rises measured in many meters are ignoring or distorting the science just as much as those who think the Earth isn’t warming at all. But I’ll bet you cut them a lot more slack, eh?

So yes, there are still reasonable debates to be had about what should actually be done about climate change. But anyone who doesn’t toe the exact party line on every aspect of the global warming political movement is tarred as a ‘denier’.

You don’t blindly aim for the middle. You assess the facts, fairly and objectively, and you go where the facts lead you. Any other path is fraught with peril.

And isn’t it convenient that for many people, the ‘facts’ always seem to lead them directly to the policies and people they already support. This happens on both the right and the left. But I don’t expect you to agree, because the left has adopted the notion that they are ‘reality based’ and everyone who disagrees with them is naive, or stupid, or an ignorant fool. This is how the ‘reality based community’ begins to look more and more like an echo chamber that rejects any information they don’t like to hear.

[Sam_Stone]

@Little_Nemo

I’m not going to villainize somebody over opinions on issues like trade relations or tax policies.

But if your political opinions are based on bigotry or a willful denial of the objective evidence then your opinions are wrong and I’m not going to pretend otherwise for the sake of civility.

The problem there is that the left tends to see bigotry everywhere - especially in anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Mitt Romney was tarred as a sexist, bigoted bully in the last election cycle. The left acted like he was a new robber baron intent on starving the poor while enriching Wall Street. He had binders full of women, don’t you know? What kind of monster keeps women in binders? Or thinks of women as just entries in a ledger? To the left, Mitt Romney wasn’t an honorable man who just had different views on the role of government, he was a white one-percenter who tortured dogs, beat up schoolchildren and wore magic underwear. So it was perfectly okay to demonize him and anyone who dared vote for him.

Looking back from four years distant, doesn’t that campaign strike you now as just a little extreme? Especially since the Republicans are now fielding a candidate who IS many of the things claimed about Romney? Do you see any difference between those two men?

[Merneith]

@Sam_Stone

The notion that half the country is somehow fundamentally different than the other half when it comes to intelligence or morals is just ridiculous.

1. It’s not half the country. It’s closer to a third.

2. The problem for your argument is that when we look at the real world examples - conservatives have picked the factually and scientifically wrong side of every argument for decades now.

Global Warming
Trickle-down economics
Gay Marriage
Trans bathrooms
Abortion
Sex ed
Obama’s presidency
Benghazi
stonewalling Merrick Garland
School busing
banking deregulation
the Iraq War
Birth control
tax cuts for millionaires
Mexican Wall (lol)
Supporting Donald Trump
Affirmative action

You name it - Republican conservatives have been consistently wrong about it for thirty years, and usually they’ll tell you upfront that they make their decisions for faith-based reasons, not science or established facts.

Now they’re supporting and voting for an actual neo-nazi villain. If you ask them why, they give you some bullshit about how Hillary Clinton is a felon because of some bullshit email stuff and how it’s a huge conspiracy that she has duped congress and the FBI - anything but admit that they’re wrong and there’s no case there.

Conservatives are demonstrably doing stupid things for stupid reasons. Whatever percentage of the population they represent (a shrinking one, thankfully,) they do not deserve credit for their good brains or good morals.

I don’t care about labels like “evil” but the actual damage that conservatives are causing because of their irrational, ascientific, beliefs is entirely - dare I say it - deplorable.

If you can’t imagine half of the people voting differently without assuming that they are more ignorant, evil, or stupid that the other half, perhaps you should consider learning a bit more about them - and not by reading dissections of them written by your fellow travelers.

The key point is - who are they voting for? That makes a difference when they start demanding my respect.

Donald Trump is garbage. He is an actual white nationalist and a fascist. It is not acceptable to support an actual nazi. Period. End of discussion. Conservatives who support this nazi garbage do not get to lecture me about how I need to be more understanding.

[Sam_Stone]

@madmonk28

So, I’m supposed to be nice to a political movement that promotes violence

Yeah, those people advocating and inciting riots at Trump rallies are pretty horrible. Especially since some of them appear to be in the Clinton campaign machine.

Or maybe you were talking about Black Lives Matter, and the incendiary rhetoric that has caused several police officers to be gunned down? Or maybe you meant the left-wing professor who called for some ‘muscle’ in the crowd to come forward and physically assault a reporter? Or maybe you are talking about the people who defended the New Black Panthers standing outside the doors of a polling station with clubs in their hands?

Or maybe a multi-millionaire football player who wears socks depicting police officers as pigs?

Go add up all the acts of political violence that have occurred in the U.S. in the last 30 or 40 years, and see how much of it comes from the right vs the left. You’ll find some from both, and you’ll find people on both sides advocating for it and inciting it.

and has not said if they are are going to respect the outcome of the democratic process? How’s that supposed to work?

You mean Al Gore and Al Franken? Or were you talking about the people who said that George Bush was “selected, not elected”? Or maybe you are talking about Hillary, Obama, and large swaths of the left who wanted the electoral college disbanded after Bush won because they felt that the EC tainted the election and prevented the ‘true’ winner from taking office?

[Merneith]

@Sam_Stone

The problem there is that the left tends to see bigotry everywhere - especially in anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Mitt Romney was tarred as a sexist, bigoted bully in the last election cycle. The left acted like he was a new robber baron intent on starving the poor while enriching Wall Street. He had binders full of women, don’t you know? What kind of monster keeps women in binders? Or thinks of women as just entries in a ledger? To the left, Mitt Romney wasn’t an honorable man who just had different views on the role of government, he was a white one-percenter who tortured dogs, beat up schoolchildren and wore magic underwear. So it was perfectly okay to demonize him and anyone who dared vote for him.

Looking back from four years distant, doesn’t that campaign strike you now as just a little extreme? Especially since the Republicans are now fielding a candidate who IS many of the things claimed about Romney? Do you see any difference between those two men?

1. There are factual reasons for accusing Romney of being a dog-abuser. There are factual problems with Romney’s ignorant worldview as he explained it in his 47% speech. There are factual reasons for despising his attitudes towards women. There are factual reasons for pointing out the irrationalities of his faith-based choices. There are in fact, factual reasons for disputing your characterization of Romney as “honorable”, given his willingness to abandon or adopt any position for the voters.

Pointing out these factual reasons is not “demonizing” him. It is certainly not extreme.

2. Demonizing Donald Trump and the conservatives that support him is valid, in and of itself, because of who Donald is. Even if we except your argument that Romney was demonized unfairly - that wouldn’t mean that Donald is being demonized unfairly.

3. You actually haven’t demonstrated that the level of criticism aimed at Romney is anywhere close to the level aimed Donald. I see a difference in the two men, but I also see a difference in the way that the two men and their supporters are being treated.

[Sam_Stone]

@Merneith

1. It’s not half the country. It’s closer to a third.

2. The problem for your argument is that when we look at the real world examples - conservatives have picked the factually and scientifically wrong side of every argument for decades now.

Global Warming
Trickle-down economics
Gay Marriage
Trans bathrooms
Abortion
Sex ed
Obama’s presidency
Benghazi
stonewalling Merrick Garland
School busing
banking deregulation
the Iraq War
Birth control
tax cuts for millionaires
Mexican Wall (lol)
Supporting Donald Trump
Affirmative action

That you think these are all factual, scientific questions and not matters of belief, values, or different worldviews is very telling. It seems that for the modern left, “science” is little more than a trump card to be played on any issue. Scientists may agree with you about school busing or tax cuts for millionaires, but that’s because scientists are generally liberal, and not because science itself has anything to say about such issues.

But go ahead and keep convincing yourself that your beliefs are ‘scientific’ and therefore beyond debate or introspection. I’m sure that will help you be a more informed voter and a better citizen.

[Merneith]

@Sam_Stone

Yeah, those people advocating and inciting riots at Trump rallies are pretty horrible. Especially since some of them appear to be in the Clinton campaign machine.

Or maybe you were talking about Black Lives Matter, and the incendiary rhetoric that has caused several police officers to be gunned down? Or maybe you meant the left-wing professor who called for some ‘muscle’ in the crowd to come forward and physically assault a reporter? Or maybe you are talking about the people who defended the New Black Panthers standing outside the doors of a polling station with clubs in their hands?

Or maybe a multi-millionaire football player who wears socks depicting police officers as pigs?

Go add up all the acts of political violence that have occurred in the U.S. in the last 30 or 40 years, and see how much of it comes from the right vs the left. You’ll find some from both, and you’ll find people on both sides advocating for it and inciting it.

See - it’s this false equivalency that keeps me from respecting the conservative position that we shouldn’t demonize our opponents. You have no trouble pointing fingers at liberals. It’s just that you want to be protected from having to look at your own bullshit. You can’t admit that the conservative presidential candidate has encouraged violence at his rallies, applauding his supporters who attack others and offering to pay their legal bills. Instead you try to deflect and whine about how the left is so violent and scary.

You want to see political violence from the right? Try theSouthern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatchlist.

You want to talk about actual violence promoted by actual Presidential candidates? It’s only one candidate, the conservative Republican candidate, Donald J. Trump.

You mean Al Gore and Al Franken? Or were you talking about the people who said that George Bush was “selected, not elected”? Or maybe you are talking about Hillary, Obama, and large swaths of the left who wanted the electoral college disbanded after Bush won because they felt that the EC tainted the election and prevented the ‘true’ winner from taking office?

You mean Al Gore, who took the vote results naming George Bush the winner? Or Al Franken who went through the approved legal means to decide a close election? Or a bunch of people who debated the usefulness of the Electoral College - but who all behaved in a perfectly normal and legal manner and conceded that George Bush was the president and then spent the next eight years going about their business without even suggesting to their supporters that perhaps the second amendment people could solve the problem?

See - it’s not just that conservatives always play the false equivalency card, it’s that the “equivalencies” are so stupidly easy to debunk.

[elbows]

So ‘science’ is rigged against the right because scientists vote democratic? It couldn’t be that scientists vote democratic because they acknowledge the reality of science instead of non sensically calling science you don’t like a ‘political view’?

[Merneith]

@Sam_Stone

Scientists may agree with you about school busing or tax cuts for millionaires, but that’s because scientists are generally liberal, and not because science itself has anything to say about such issues.

Lol