Policy being driven by science, risk tolerance (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    UncleTrvlingJim

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 8, 2018
    Messages
    1,309
    Reaction score
    3,107
    Location
    Virginia
    Offline
    So, I've noticed what seems to be a correlation between conservative and liberals and their willingness to adhere to scientific experts. It appeared to me (totally anecdotal with no actual survey), that conservatives were much more willing to downplay the threat of COVID-19 early on than liberals were despite the vast majority of experts on epidemiology and pandemics making claims to take this seriously very early (mid-February). I'm obviously drawing a correlation between this and global warming, where liberals seem much more willing to accept scientific consensus and their recommendations than conservatives are.

    Is that accurate, or am I misreading?

    Would it be more accurate that conservatives require a much higher threshold of proof? It always seems to me that the threshold is it has to already be happening (and thus too late to prevent) before they're willing to accept anything. Or are they more risk tolerant?
     
    i would say that 'conservatism' has had a back and forth between science & philosophy since the moral majority took over the party

    this happened before with liberals and civil/equal rights, when socio/economic science did not really support a push for progressive policies - at least in the short term

    but as i've argued a few times, Rs no longer even has a philosophy it follows - it is almost entirely an 'anti-lib' position. aside from the 2nd amendment, there doesn't seem to be a stated positions that Rs are FOR - every position they hold requires a restriction on another entities rights or self-identity
     
    So, I've noticed what seems to be a correlation between conservative and liberals and their willingness to adhere to scientific experts. It appeared to me (totally anecdotal with no actual survey), that conservatives were much more willing to downplay the threat of COVID-19 early on than liberals were despite the vast majority of experts on epidemiology and pandemics making claims to take this seriously very early (mid-February). I'm obviously drawing a correlation between this and global warming, where liberals seem much more willing to accept scientific consensus and their recommendations than conservatives are.

    Is that accurate, or am I misreading?

    Would it be more accurate that conservatives require a much higher threshold of proof? It always seems to me that the threshold is it has to already be happening (and thus too late to prevent) before they're willing to accept anything. Or are they more risk tolerant?

    Whether you agree or disagree, we have a perception that:

    1. The majority of the media can not be trusted in general;

    2. The media loves to find fault in Trump, to the point they would overplay a crisis if it met that end; and,

    3. The media loves to go into crisis mode because it is good for ratings and it is cheap to produce programming around (think hurricane coverage).

    I am glad that my Lord and Saviour Tucker Carlson was waaaaay ahead of the field on this. I suspect he was ahead of the other networks. He brought the story credibility to conservatives who trust him with all our heart and soul.
     
    Whether you agree or disagree, we have a perception that:

    1. The majority of the media can not be trusted in general;

    2. The media loves to find fault in Trump, to the point they would overplay a crisis if it met that end; and,

    3. The media loves to go into crisis mode because it is good for ratings and it is cheap to produce programming around (think hurricane coverage).

    I am glad that my Lord and Saviour Tucker Carlson was waaaaay ahead of the field on this. I suspect he was ahead of the other networks. He brought the story credibility to conservatives who trust him with all our heart and soul.
    what field does Tucker Carlson work in?
     
    Would it be more accurate that conservatives require a much higher threshold of proof? It always seems to me that the threshold is it has to already be happening (and thus too late to prevent) before they're willing to accept anything. Or are they more risk tolerant?

    A great deal of conservatives are more likely to believe that an invisible sky man whose half-human son died 2,000 years ago will save them better than any 'science' can. That would seem to be opposite to your theory that they "require a much higher threshold of proof" because they've been taught to ignore "proof" and focus instead on "faith."

    Non-religious conservatives generally just don't care about anyone outside of themselves and those immediately around them. If me and my immediate family and close friends are fine, nothing needs to change. "It's just the flu, I'm not old and I'm not going to die so I should be able to eat in a restaurant." "I'll be dead by 2050 so why should I be inconvenienced by climate change?" They generally don't believe that people working together as a society can improve anything (hence the complete revulsion to anything they can call "socialism"). They elect leaders destined to fail and when they fail say "yep, told you government can't work!!!!"
     
    Whether you agree or disagree, we have a perception that:

    1. The majority of the media can not be trusted in general;

    2. The media loves to find fault in Trump, to the point they would overplay a crisis if it met that end; and,

    3. The media loves to go into crisis mode because it is good for ratings and it is cheap to produce programming around (think hurricane coverage).

    I am glad that my Lord and Saviour Tucker Carlson was waaaaay ahead of the field on this. I suspect he was ahead of the other networks. He brought the story credibility to conservatives who trust him with all our heart and soul.

    So, generally I agree that the media is sensationalist and there is a lot to be desired when it comes to science reporting, but in all cases it's pretty easy to find the actual raw data.

    And to be clear, I don't think we need to just whole-heartedly do whatever experts tell us without questioning. But it generally seems to me to be advisable to take what they are saying pretty seriously.

    I don't think this used to be the case. One of the things that drove me from the Republican party was a stronger anti-science bent and a turn towards populism. There used to be more of a stronger environmental movement in the Republican party for example -- different solutions presented, but general agreement on the basic facts. That seems to have changed.
     
    So, generally I agree that the media is sensationalist and there is a lot to be desired when it comes to science reporting, but in all cases it's pretty easy to find the actual raw data.

    And to be clear, I don't think we need to just whole-heartedly do whatever experts tell us without questioning. But it generally seems to me to be advisable to take what they are saying pretty seriously.

    I don't think this used to be the case. One of the things that drove me from the Republican party was a stronger anti-science bent and a turn towards populism. There used to be more of a stronger environmental movement in the Republican party for example -- different solutions presented, but general agreement on the basic facts. That seems to have changed.

    The way the climate change issue has been politicized has not helped. Example, the Green New Deal. If people don't want it to be seen as a power grad, stick to the issue and don't throw in side issues such as addressing the "gender pay gap," which in itself is a highly debatable issue.
     
    ETkjskWU4AEuWIK.jpeg.jpg


    Sorry for the add on graphics, but there is a point there.
     
    The way the climate change issue has been politicized has not helped. Example, the Green New Deal. If people don't want it to be seen as a power grad, stick to the issue and don't throw in side issues such as addressing the "gender pay gap," which in itself is a highly debatable issue.

    I think the resistance to climate change is actually driving people to adopt more extreme stances.

    But that's also besides the point. Allowing other people to define your stance should not be desirable.
     
    I hate to have to point this out, but it was the Democratic party that brought us a candidate who declared in a debate on national television that he would ensure that transgender women had access to free abortions. And the audience applauded with approval.

    Kind of hard to make the case that the Democratic party is the party of science in light of such.
     
    I hate to have to point this out, but it was the Democratic party that brought us a candidate who declared in a debate on national television that he would ensure that transgender women had access to free abortions. And the audience applauded with approval.

    Kind of hard to make the case that the Democratic party is the party of science in light of such.

    Ummm... that's a pretty poor example there. It's pretty easy to see that Castro just misspoke in that instance. You could accuse him of pandering, but it would be hard to make the case that he believes that a trans-woman would ever need an abortion.
     
    Ummm... that's a pretty poor example there. It's pretty easy to see that Castro just misspoke in that instance. You could accuse him of pandering, but it would be hard to make the case that he believes that a trans-woman would ever need an abortion.

    You would think, but the audience lapped it up.

    Why did he even need to say that in the first place? If you are going to have free abortions, what difference would it make if it was a transgender man (assuming that is what he actually meant) seeking treatment?

    I think the bigger issue is that it is not really clear he misspoke. That's how crazy people have become. It's not doing anyone any good - perhaps especially the people who are actually dealing with those issues.
     
    You would think, but the audience lapped it up.

    Why did he even need to say that in the first place? If you are going to have free abortions, what difference would it make if it was a transgender man (assuming that is what he actually meant) seeking treatment?

    I think the bigger issue is that it is not really clear he misspoke. That's how crazy people have become. It's not doing anyone any good - perhaps especially the people who are actually dealing with those issues.

    So, I watched that clip afterwards, and I think it seemed clear that everyone deserves medical care. It seemed more like a pandering moment to me, to show that he was in favor of providing medical services to transgender and non-binary people, and that's how the audience took it.
     
    So, I watched that clip afterwards, and I think it seemed clear that everyone deserves medical care. It seemed more like a pandering moment to me, to show that he was in favor of providing medical services to transgender and non-binary people, and that's how the audience took it.

    I hope we don't have to struggle through whether we have seen some equally odd science denying behavior, such as people throwing fits because someone made cupcakes with vagina shaped icing on top for national women's day because ---- not all women have vaginas. Same with the pink hats.

    And the outcry was so loud that the targets of the fury had to apologize.
     
    I hate to have to point this out, but it was the Democratic party that brought us a candidate who declared in a debate on national television that he would ensure that transgender women had access to free abortions. And the audience applauded with approval.

    Kind of hard to make the case that the Democratic party is the party of science in light of such.
    So when the Saints are up by 50 on the Falcons and the 3rd string qb ad backup center have a bad exchange and the ball rolls through the end zone for a safety- you think that means the Saints lost the game?
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom