Why scientists and academics overwhelmingly reject the GOP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've seen OP's issue in my own family. In the 80's, my family was middle of the road. My dad was a lifelong Republican and NRA member, my mom was a conservative pro-life Dem. Both have college science degrees -- my dad has a masters. They are both now solid D, in a so-called purple state, because they are just appalled at the Republican science denial and lies. They aren't buying into all the D rhetoric and wouldn't have the slightest clue what "intersectionality" or any of those right wing buzz words are --- but the actual D policies are pretty moderate, whereas the Rs are basically science-deniers who seem to rejoin in cruelty at this point.

I have a sibling who is a hard-core extreme conservative with a PhD in the hard sciences (worked for industry for decades)--he'll never vote D, but even he is disgusted by the current crop of R. He's the kind of R that is very pro-immigration because he thinks they are the only ones willing to do the low-paid work, so hates the Trumpian close the border and defund INS crap. I think he still votes R because it's reflexive for him, but he mocks the dumb R politicians openly.

I actually feel bad for the R party -- they're in a toxic relationship and can't quite figure out how to get out. I have a bunch of scientist relatives that are pro-gun and in favor of low taxes and moderate social policies -- they would totally be convinced to swing R if only the R's could get free of their current rock-hardplace of Trump and the evangelicals. It's going to be like that abused wife that looks up and suddenly realizes that she's lost all her real friends because of her abuser, and that she doesn't even really know who she is anymore. That's the GOP elephant at this point.

The Republicans are a far-right party of science deniers, conspiracy theorists and culture warriors.

Everyone else is pretty much Democrat by default.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We discovered during Covid that liberals really aren't about science. So much of the crap that was pushed on the populace had zero basis in actual science.

Let me guess you think "lockdowns" have zero basis in actual science.

Lockdowns impacted the shape of the curve but most likely did not substantially reduce overall COVID deaths. It did ruin the economy and screw up a generation of kids.

They knew what would happen to our economy and our children. They ain’t dumb. Or so they say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All decisions made by governments are "political decisions." But Republicans tend to ignore sound science and evidence-based policies.

NEWS FLASH:

Science DEMANDS debate, ONGOING debate.
It’s almost embarrassing how many Democrats
here don’t know that.

Didn’t they learn any science in school?
Or were their teachers obsessed gender propaganda?

You have no idea how science works.

Which science does not demand vigorous debate, according to you?

[Anonymous]

Well it depends what you mean by debate.

If by debate you mean presenting papers, peer review, careful research then I agree with you.

If by debate, you subscribe to the "debate me bro" philosophy of RFK Jr., Joe Rogan and Elon Musk, then I disagree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well it depends what you mean by debate.

If by debate you mean presenting papers, peer review, careful research then I agree with you.

If by debate, you subscribe to the "debate me bro" philosophy of RFK Jr., Joe Rogan and Elon Musk, then I disagree with you.

Excellent! We agree about that. Now, tell us which debate was allowed, and between whom exactly? We’d like to review it. We must have missed it. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well it depends what you mean by debate.

If by debate you mean presenting papers, peer review, careful research then I agree with you.

If by debate, you subscribe to the "debate me bro" philosophy of RFK Jr., Joe Rogan and Elon Musk, then I disagree with you.

Excellent! We agree about that. Now, tell us which debate was allowed, and between whom exactly? We’d like to review it. We must have missed it. Thank you.

I know you think you have a gotcha here, but I'm not sure any of us know what you think your gotcha is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well it depends what you mean by debate.

If by debate you mean presenting papers, peer review, careful research then I agree with you.

If by debate, you subscribe to the "debate me bro" philosophy of RFK Jr., Joe Rogan and Elon Musk, then I disagree with you.

Excellent! We agree about that. Now, tell us which debate was allowed, and between whom exactly? We’d like to review it. We must have missed it. Thank you.

I know you think you have a gotcha here, but I'm not sure any of us know what you think your gotcha is.

There was no debate allowed.
Therefore, it wasn’t science at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well it depends what you mean by debate.

If by debate you mean presenting papers, peer review, careful research then I agree with you.

If by debate, you subscribe to the "debate me bro" philosophy of RFK Jr., Joe Rogan and Elon Musk, then I disagree with you.

Excellent! We agree about that. Now, tell us which debate was allowed, and between whom exactly? We’d like to review it. We must have missed it. Thank you.

Uh, can you take that to a COVID thread? This isn't about the many screwups in COVID public policy or CRT. This is a general discussion on why scientists and academics overwhelmingly reject the GOP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well it depends what you mean by debate.

If by debate you mean presenting papers, peer review, careful research then I agree with you.

If by debate, you subscribe to the "debate me bro" philosophy of RFK Jr., Joe Rogan and Elon Musk, then I disagree with you.

Excellent! We agree about that. Now, tell us which debate was allowed, and between whom exactly? We’d like to review it. We must have missed it. Thank you.

Uh, can you take that to a COVID thread? This isn't about the many screwups in COVID public policy or CRT. This is a general discussion on why scientists and academics overwhelmingly reject the GOP.

There was no debate allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've seen OP's issue in my own family. In the 80's, my family was middle of the road. My dad was a lifelong Republican and NRA member, my mom was a conservative pro-life Dem. Both have college science degrees -- my dad has a masters. They are both now solid D, in a so-called purple state, because they are just appalled at the Republican science denial and lies. They aren't buying into all the D rhetoric and wouldn't have the slightest clue what "intersectionality" or any of those right wing buzz words are --- but the actual D policies are pretty moderate, whereas the Rs are basically science-deniers who seem to rejoin in cruelty at this point.

I have a sibling who is a hard-core extreme conservative with a PhD in the hard sciences (worked for industry for decades)--he'll never vote D, but even he is disgusted by the current crop of R. He's the kind of R that is very pro-immigration because he thinks they are the only ones willing to do the low-paid work, so hates the Trumpian close the border and defund INS crap. I think he still votes R because it's reflexive for him, but he mocks the dumb R politicians openly.

I actually feel bad for the R party -- they're in a toxic relationship and can't quite figure out how to get out. I have a bunch of scientist relatives that are pro-gun and in favor of low taxes and moderate social policies -- they would totally be convinced to swing R if only the R's could get free of their current rock-hardplace of Trump and the evangelicals. It's going to be like that abused wife that looks up and suddenly realizes that she's lost all her real friends because of her abuser, and that she doesn't even really know who she is anymore. That's the GOP elephant at this point.

So all you have is a bunch of personal anecdotes that don't apply to anyone else? Wasn't one of your liberal friends just lecturing us that anecdotes =/= data? God, you people are such hypocrites it's (almost) funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was no debate allowed.

Right. They "just" imposed lockdowns.

[Anonymous]

The Pew Forum in 2009 found that only 9% of scientists identified as political conservatives. I doubt it's changed much since.

[Anonymous]

Can anyone imagine Slate publishing something like this today?

https://slate.com/technology/2010/12/most-scientists-in-this-country-are-democrats-that-s-a-problem.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think this is an appropriate place to post this piece.....

Where did you ever get the idea that David Brooks speaks out for the marginalized class?

He isn't really speaking out for the marginalized.
He is, however, calling out the liberals for their elitist attitudes and snobbish ways.

All on full display in this thread. And, quite a few other threads on this site.

Why does he say this in his tweet, then?:
"We in the educated class are always publicly speaking out for the marginalized"

Is he a liar?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well it depends what you mean by debate.

If by debate you mean presenting papers, peer review, careful research then I agree with you.

If by debate, you subscribe to the "debate me bro" philosophy of RFK Jr., Joe Rogan and Elon Musk, then I disagree with you.

Excellent! We agree about that. Now, tell us which debate was allowed, and between whom exactly? We’d like to review it. We must have missed it. Thank you.

Do you keep up with scientific journals? Which ones do you read that you are not seeing what has been published?