Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Links: political psychology, gay marrage

The more educated Republicans/conservatives are, the more they reject science.
True of liberals? Apparently not: they start out with an anti-nuclear bias, but more education on the subject lessens their worries, moving them closer to the scientific consensus, rather than further away, as with conservatives and global warming.

Medicalization of anti-authoritarianism.

Jeb Bush: "I used to be a conservative" http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73242.html

gay marriage passes Maryland's Democratic legislature, referendum likely
Initiative in Maine likely, to overcome the anti-marriage referendum three years ago
(No links, just heads up.)

Santorum more scary than you thought:

See the comment count unavailable DW comments at http://mindstalk.dreamwidth.org/308098.html#comments



( 39 comments — Leave a comment )
Feb. 24th, 2012 11:27 pm (UTC)
Maybe the more educated Republicans have more invested in oil and beachfront property.
Feb. 25th, 2012 12:04 am (UTC)
If you define your own politics as "science" (e.g. the unscientific trash about so-called anthropogenic climate change - used to be anthropogenic global warming till they noticed there was no warming), then of course your political opponent is against "science". Every monster and murderer in the twentieth century from King Leopold to the Khmer Rouge was scientific in that sense.

"Medicalization of anti-authoritarianism"?? And how about the frequently repeated medicalization of the so-called authoritarian personality, and the equally frequent claim that conservatives have lower IQs? Do you even begin to realize just how foully hypocritical this shit is?

And Rick Santorum speaks like a Catholic to a Catholic audience. Gee whiz. Of course if your idea of Catholic is whatever it is that Nancy Pelosi or Maureen O'Dowd hold between their ears, that may be a surprise.

I am finding "progressive" talking points more and more stupid and insulting.
Feb. 25th, 2012 12:26 am (UTC)
It's still AGW, and there's still warming. There's been a movement to call it "climate change" because it's not predicted that there'll be warming everywhere, at every time -- current changes cooling Europe, jet stream changes meaning snowier winters -- but the base phenomenon is global warming. Pump greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, get more greenhouse effect.

And the global warming deniers overlap heavily with Creationists and the people who denied tobacco-cancer connections.

As for just talking to a Catholic audience:

And those technologies actually save fetuses with anomalies, allowing pregnant women to have healthy babies because their pregnancies were monitored. One case in point is the daughter of writer Sarah Fister Gale, whose rH blood disease was discovered while she was still in the womb, by the use of amniocentesis, which Santorum claims, "does, in fact, result more often than not in this country in abortions." He added, "That is a fact."

Actually, it's not. Here's Gale, writing at Salon:

Disagreeing on values is not license to get the facts wrong.

"I am finding "progressive" talking points more and more stupid and insulting."

Unlike the conservative talking points that call me treasonous, stupid, evil, anti-Semitic, destructive of civilization...?

We're still the ones with support for universal health care and opposition to the death penalty.
Feb. 25th, 2012 12:48 am (UTC)
Except for unborn babies, and disabled ones in particular. And you have shown that that is what matters to you, by using universal health care as a battering ram to impose abortion even on the Catholic Church. And if you never heard before that scans are routinely used to destroy babies with disabilities, and that eugenic abortion is commonplace, where the Hell have you been these last fifty years?

As for AGW, you can repeat that the science is settled all you like: it's not any more settled than that old progressive bugbear, eugenics. When even Britain's Independent, the stronghold of the bien-pensant bourgeois progressives, publishes articles like this: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/02/22/is-catastrophic-global-warming-like-the-millenium-bug-a-mistake/ , then I warmly suggest you stop assuming that what you want to believe is therefore ipso facto true.

As for the rest...if the shoe fits, wear it.
Feb. 25th, 2012 01:15 am (UTC)
Impose abortion on the Catholic Church? The current fracas is about birth control for employees.

And yes, scans can be used to decide on abortion. They can also be used to save lives. He wants to ban the scans.

As for that link, hoo-ee. For one thing, it's a blog post, and about one lone scientist. For another, I thought the Guardian was the progressive stronghold; the Independent seems to lean classical liberal. For yet another, what's reported in the blog post is crap science:

He said our natural body temperature varies by eight tenths of a degree.

He showed a Boston newspaper weather graphic for a day – it had the actual temperature against a background of the highest and lowest recorded temperature for that day. The difference was as much as 60 degrees F.

So, because the temperature changes a lot in one location in one day, we shouldn't care about changes in the global long-term average?

When you double CO2 there’s a two per cent change in the “radiation budget”. Yet two billion years ago, the sun was 20 to 30 per cent dimmer – and the planet’s temperature was about the same.

Actually the Earth seems to have been a snowball for a while around that time. But before that, you know what else was different? Lots more carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere (with the snowball being caused by biogenic oxygen reacting with the methane). Less light + stronger greenhouse effect = approximately same temperature.

And one further element of the consensus: there’s been no increase in temperature for 15 years.

That claim seems to be just false. Or a deceitful misrepresetation of 1998 being the warmest single year, while the 2000s the warmest decade.

Despite having been quoted denying that he had been paid to do any research for oil or gas interests, it was later revealed that he had not only received $2,500 a day for frequent "consulting" services rendered to oil and gas interests for him to officially deny anthropogenic global warming, but that his much publicized report on the subject, "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC. [55]


How do you know that you're not the one assuming what you want to believe is true, not the one engaging in rampant confirmation bias?
Feb. 25th, 2012 04:48 pm (UTC)
1. Bullshit. Among the products forced on Church bodies by this scum of a law there are abortifacients. If you don't know that, you ought to pay more attention to what your side is doing (or perhaps everything is justified in the sacred cause of forcing abortion on mankind?). It is the Administration that is trying to draw attention from that and to the issue of contraception, in the hope that, one, people might not notice, two, that they might think that this is an issue for Catholics alone, and, three, that it might serve Obama's long-term goal of causing a split in the Catholic Church and eliminating it as a political factor (since the Obamaites are apparently convinced that 96% of Catholic women use contraception, and so they must hope that the Bishops' teaching might be rejected by the flock). In fact, they have failed in all three goals. First, the Church has noticed the small matter of the prescription abortifacients (and it knows well enough that if once this much is given the enemy, they will use it to grab everything else). Second, other religious bodies haven't been fooled, and both Orthodox and Southern Baptists have come out swinging on the side of the Catholic position. Third, even if it were true - and it fucking well is not - there is a wide difference between sinning and refusing to accept that what one does is a sin, and I am willing to bet that the large majority even of those Catholic women who do in fact endanger their health by using the Pill will not put up with President Obama trying to force their Church. As a matter of fact, far from creating a break, the infamous Obama proposals have brought nearly every major Catholic dissenter to stand by the Bishops.

2 - Shows how much you know. The Guardian is timid, moderate, has claims to be a newspaper of record, and has been known to do some excellent journalism. But when one wants to hear the voice of British bourgeois progressivism in its natural state, raw and bloody, one goes to the Independent. It is the newspaper that employs the notorious Robert Fisk, the only journalist in history whose name has become a verb, and the infamous Johann Hari, the only journalist who has become a scandal in himself (and given the level of British journalism, that really is an achievement). To find an article against AGW in it is rather more surprising than to find it in, say, the Greenpeace newsletter.

3 - I don't rely on what this gentleman says to be sure that AGW, and especially its apocalyptic corollaries, are so much bullshit. I only mentioned him to show that it is only in the fortress of your skull that AGW is unchallenged. If you want the reason, it is to do with the fact that in the second century AD the Romans grew grapes in Northamptonshire, where they won't grow even now. What was releasing CO2 then - the leather of the legionnaires' shoes? Anyone who believes in this crap is ignorant of history, or, even worse, ignores it. I am a historian and I judge according to what I know.
(no subject) - mindstalk - Feb. 25th, 2012 07:21 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - fpb - Feb. 25th, 2012 08:15 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - mindstalk - Feb. 25th, 2012 08:58 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - fpb - Feb. 26th, 2012 10:27 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - mindstalk - Feb. 27th, 2012 01:03 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - fpb - Feb. 27th, 2012 07:10 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - mindstalk - Feb. 28th, 2012 04:02 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - mindstalk - Feb. 25th, 2012 08:12 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - fpb - Feb. 25th, 2012 08:16 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - w_wylfing - Feb. 25th, 2012 08:43 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - fpb - Feb. 27th, 2012 07:19 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - mindstalk - Feb. 28th, 2012 03:58 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - fpb - Feb. 28th, 2012 04:03 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - mindstalk - Feb. 28th, 2012 04:12 am (UTC) - Expand
Feb. 25th, 2012 09:48 pm (UTC)
BTW, I'm still curious what the "Muslim propaganda" in my last India post was.
Feb. 26th, 2012 10:21 am (UTC)
The Muslim conquest was a catastrophe for Incia, or better a succession of catastrophes. Each new wave of conquerors caused deaths in the hundreds of thousands if not the millions, destroyed ancient temples and libraries, and drove untold numbers of Hindus into slavery. What is more, the Muslims despised the Hindus as ignorant idolaters, and did everything in their power to suppress their religion and culture Anyone who tries to make out that British rule was comparable if not worse has been smoking something nasty. From the beginning the British treated local culture with respect (look up Sir William Joyce) and invested in the country, rather than merely taxing what existed. No, sir, all empires are not the same.
Feb. 26th, 2012 10:24 am (UTC)
William JONES, not William JOYCE. Welsh origin, not Irish. A good judge and an upright man instead of a Fascist traitor. But that is what happens when you rely on memory.
Feb. 27th, 2012 12:52 am (UTC)
Getting conquered is never a bundle of laughs, though that doesn't have much to do with the religion. As for ignoring them as idolaters, that's simplistic to the point of inaccuracy; consider the ecumenism of Akbar, for example, and I think another that I've forgotten. Sufism. Sanskrit books were translated into Arabic from the 8th century.

As for the British, while it's true in the beginning interactions had a lot of respect (along with the imperialism and looting), as I said, in the 1800s that was replaced with, well, regarding them as ignorant idolaters. Jones sure, but you can't forget MacCaulay, in 1833:

"I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature is, indeed, fully admitted by those members of the Committee who support the Oriental plan of education."

And the British choked off India's economic growth for a couple centuries, and caused or exacerbated lots of famines.
(no subject) - fpb - Feb. 27th, 2012 07:23 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - mindstalk - Feb. 28th, 2012 03:46 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - fpb - Feb. 28th, 2012 03:59 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - mindstalk - Feb. 28th, 2012 04:06 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - fpb - Feb. 28th, 2012 04:29 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - mindstalk - Feb. 28th, 2012 04:44 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - fpb - Feb. 28th, 2012 04:51 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - mindstalk - Feb. 28th, 2012 04:17 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - fpb - Feb. 28th, 2012 04:21 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - mindstalk - Feb. 28th, 2012 04:39 am (UTC) - Expand
Feb. 25th, 2012 04:52 am (UTC)
On global warming, Republicans are less trustworthy about the problem, Democrats are less trustworthy about the solution set. If you combine the better halves of both sides, you get something close to reasonable.
Feb. 25th, 2012 05:10 am (UTC)
"Democrats are less trustworthy about the solution set"

I assume you mean nuclear power?

OTOH, carbon taxes, mass transit...
Feb. 25th, 2012 06:59 am (UTC)
Democrats are prone to claiming that their support for policies with large social effects and negligible impact on global warming is justified by global warming, while systematically ignoring policies that are more efficiently targeted at the potential problems.

Developed world emissions restriction policies, to the extent they are pursued at all, need to systematically be tied to progress in China and India to have much global value. And as much as I like mass transit (I currently don't own a car), there's no denying that an awfully large fraction of proposed mass transit projects in the US don't have a good shot of justifying their cost. Meanwhile, nuclear power is one example of a relatively neglected policy; other examples are support for geoengineering research, and rational cost/benefit analysis of moderate warming.

I can accept a bit of this irrationality as a necessary evil to slow down the "drill baby drill" nutcases who want to leave our descendants with next to nothing. But if global warming really is a serious problem, emissions reduction alone is unlikely to be a sufficiently powerful approach to dealing with it, and my patience is running out with Democrats who refuse to support the development of more powerful approaches.
Feb. 27th, 2012 02:09 pm (UTC)
fpb is a known troll-- I'm surprised you've attracted his attention!
Feb. 28th, 2012 04:03 am (UTC)
Interactions over in johncwright LJ space. And he always struck me as too sincere to be a troll as I define it. Very culturally conservative Catholic, yes. I'm surprised he's so anti-AGW ideas, though.
( 39 comments — Leave a comment )


Damien Sullivan

Latest Month

August 2019


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner