It takes a very selective reading of the facts to claim conservatives are any more anti science than liberals, in the US. Whatever hot button issue there is, there will be people who deny whatever the scientific consensus is if it doesn't suit their beliefs. The question is, who would you rather have running things? The guy that thought humans were riding dinosaurs 5000 years ago, or the guy who thinks paying 40 million people not to work is going to boost the economy?
The diversity/inclusivity stuff has gone totally bonkers. It's racist now to want to not judge people by their skin color and instead use merit. I don't see how liberals can abide this.. some don't but most are just scared of being yelled at by a twitter mob.
And human rights--with respect to voting one side wants more verification of eligibility and one side does not, no one holds the view that some people shouldnt be allowed to vote. And conservatives think abortion is a human rights issue too, just for the baby (or fetus or clump of cells or whatever you want to call it). We can play word games all we want about it but there is a real moral question here about what constitutes a human.
The voting rights point is interesting. My understanding is that one side wants more verification of eligibility, but the other side is worried that if the approach to verification is too onerous that voter turnout will decrease.
There's seemingly a parallel to the gun control discussion, where again one side wants more verification of eligibility, but the other side is worried that the verification--if applied over-zealously--will be too restrictive.
The two sides are swapped on the two issues, but each time they disagree not necessarily because their fundamental opinions are different, but because they do not trust the other side to be reasonable.
Neither side is really arguing in good faith - they both just want more votes for their party.
I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with voter ID laws. Many democracies in Europe have them. In America they might be unnecessary overkill, but if they increase faith in the electoral process, that's awesome.
The actual issue is that we don't have federal ID cards, and there are a ton of citizens without any form of government-issued photo ID at all. If you're very poor, the idea of paying for a driver's license might seem ridiculous because you have neither a car nor a bank account.
Any good-faith proposal to enforce voter IDs would have to pair it with making IDs simple and free to get for every registered voter, otherwise it can be justly criticized as antidemocratic.
As far as I know state IDs are free. Well at least here they are anyway. They aren't drivers licenses though, you definitely can't drive with one.
You did have to go wait at the DMV, that was before Covid. I would hope they would've modernized the process now.
Is "verification of eligibility" really what the gun-control people want? Aren't they trying to argue that even people who can 100% prove that their record is squeaky-clean still shouldn't be allowed to own guns?
Any of your four opinions is enough to get you fired if espoused publicly at any FAANG today.
The guy that thought humans were riding dinosaurs 5000 years ago, or the guy who thinks paying 40 million people not to work is going to boost the economy?
I'll say that the number of people who truly believe that first opinion is vanishingly small and I'm not awfully worried about it impacting their current policy making.
Comments
It takes a very selective reading of the facts to claim conservatives are any more anti science than liberals, in the US. Whatever hot button issue there is, there will be people who deny whatever the scientific consensus is if it doesn't suit their beliefs. The question is, who would you rather have running things? The guy that thought humans were riding dinosaurs 5000 years ago, or the guy who thinks paying 40 million people not to work is going to boost the economy?
The diversity/inclusivity stuff has gone totally bonkers. It's racist now to want to not judge people by their skin color and instead use merit. I don't see how liberals can abide this.. some don't but most are just scared of being yelled at by a twitter mob.
And human rights--with respect to voting one side wants more verification of eligibility and one side does not, no one holds the view that some people shouldnt be allowed to vote. And conservatives think abortion is a human rights issue too, just for the baby (or fetus or clump of cells or whatever you want to call it). We can play word games all we want about it but there is a real moral question here about what constitutes a human.
The voting rights point is interesting. My understanding is that one side wants more verification of eligibility, but the other side is worried that if the approach to verification is too onerous that voter turnout will decrease.
There's seemingly a parallel to the gun control discussion, where again one side wants more verification of eligibility, but the other side is worried that the verification--if applied over-zealously--will be too restrictive.
The two sides are swapped on the two issues, but each time they disagree not necessarily because their fundamental opinions are different, but because they do not trust the other side to be reasonable.
Neither side is really arguing in good faith - they both just want more votes for their party.
I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with voter ID laws. Many democracies in Europe have them. In America they might be unnecessary overkill, but if they increase faith in the electoral process, that's awesome.
The actual issue is that we don't have federal ID cards, and there are a ton of citizens without any form of government-issued photo ID at all. If you're very poor, the idea of paying for a driver's license might seem ridiculous because you have neither a car nor a bank account.
Any good-faith proposal to enforce voter IDs would have to pair it with making IDs simple and free to get for every registered voter, otherwise it can be justly criticized as antidemocratic.
As far as I know state IDs are free. Well at least here they are anyway. They aren't drivers licenses though, you definitely can't drive with one. You did have to go wait at the DMV, that was before Covid. I would hope they would've modernized the process now.
Is "verification of eligibility" really what the gun-control people want? Aren't they trying to argue that even people who can 100% prove that their record is squeaky-clean still shouldn't be allowed to own guns?
Well it’s because historically in the US, voting laws have been used to make sure the “wrong sorts” of people didn’t get a chance to vote.
Any of your four opinions is enough to get you fired if espoused publicly at any FAANG today.
I'll say that the number of people who truly believe that first opinion is vanishingly small and I'm not awfully worried about it impacting their current policy making.
Your opinion on abortion is spot-on.