Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Total disregard of science from mainstream left and right when it suits them

13

Comments

  • #62
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »
    The people who accuse you of such are regressive leftists not liberals.

    You can't compare the two. It would be like equating your average conservative to a skinhead.

    They self-identify as liberals though, which is what makes them so irritating. As another thread pointed out in recent weeks, the word "liberal" has now become something of a joke or dirty word among not just the alt-right but among moderates and centrists as well, because it's now associated with radical fourth wave "feminism" (again, an inaccurate label but one these people choose to self-identify with) and all of the authoritarian policy positions that encompasses.

    It's kind of like how Irish Republicans largely had to redefine themselves as "nationalists" because the word "Republican" became inextricably intertwined with ambivalence or supportive of violence as a political tool. You couldn't (and still largely can't) identify as "Republican" without people assuming that means you're in favour of bombing pubs and all that sh!te, which is largely why so many people who support Irish Republican values reclassified themselves as Irish Nationalists.


  • #63
    Drumpot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »
    Yeah, but why do they use them to make Brawndo?

    Good question...

    Brought to you by Carl’s Junior


  • #64
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭professore


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Because then, people would have to admit that women bear some responsibility for how dating behaviors have developed. It's not as if men learn dating in a vacuum, although based on these kinds of pop-psychology ideas, it sometimes seems like we do. The reactions of women to approaches, the behavior of women in dating environments, the behavior of women in relationships, etc whether positive or negative is ignored in the face of casting all responsibility on to the "guys".

    Unfortunately most guys learn sooner or later that to have any success in the dating game, treating women with too much respect and courtesy (not all women, but a sizeable majority of them) is a surefire way to brand yourself unattractive to them. This is even true of really good looking guys, who women literally run away from after initially chasing them if they show any signs of being sensitive or caring too much about their feelings.

    There are numerous studies that point to this, for example, if you show men photos of the same woman smiling or not, they will rate the smiling one more attractive, whereas the opposite is true of women.

    I have often wondered if that is why some women are puzzled that men don't find the pushy arrogant in your face driven career woman as a romantic prospect because that's the kind of man they find attractive and project that back onto men?

    What's also interesting is that women generally don't talk to men about these things, or when they do, they say they want all those things they clearly don't when you look at the kind of guy they actually go for. It always fascinated me. Men (apart from male feminists) are generally honest about what they like in a woman.

    Anyway this is a bit off topic and quite unscientific but interesting nonetheless.


  • #65
    Taytoland
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,067 ✭✭✭Taytoland


    cruel_barber wrote: »
    Taytoland wrote: »
    News to me that the left rejects authoritarianism.

    indeed , the left are deeply authoritarian , they have to be , left wing ideology requires a massive amount of state control in order for  their ideals to have any chance of succeeding
    It's state control up to the point when you need to control your borders and then it's a free for all. See the nutter who won recently in one of the New York districts who is part of a group advocating for the destruction of prisons and borders. But would love to control your life in every other aspect.


  • #66
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Ipso wrote: »
    There is an anti science streak that pops up in liberalism in areas like vaccines and GMOs.

    I’d recommend this book, basically people will go ridiculous lengths to avoid admitting being wrong.
    https://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-but-Not/dp/0544574788/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1531234551&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=mistakes+were+made+but+not+by+me&dpPl=1&dpID=51%2Bu%2Ba69RoL&ref=plSrch

    I don't know if these aversions to science are tenets of liberalism but they're certainly common on the loony, hippy-dippy end of the spectrum. I'm not sure how widespread these types are outside of the internet but they're fairly uncommon in my own experience. I don't think their views are that mainstream.

    That said, I do know some people like this - the kinds of people who use the word "toxins". They're into "Eastern" stuff too so they're probably being peddled/suggested various quackery and anti-science FUD when they go online.

    Flouride seems to be a subject that unifies the crazies on the extreme left and extreme right, though. That subject really brings brings oddballs together.


    As an aside, people may be familiar with Alex Jones and Gwyneth Palthrow. One's a crazy right-wing conman and the other is a nutty actress who named her kid "Apple". Both of these gobshítes sell the same stuff to their marks except that it's branded a little differently.

    They both sell snake oil but the packaging and presentation is tailored differently depending on whether they're selling to hippies or gun nuts. I even remember an alt-right acquaintance on twitter who retweeted loads of infowars and prisonplanet stuff and spent a lot of time mocking libtards, as he described them, by accusing them of taking too much goop. Some people have a real problem with self awareness.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,442 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    I agree with pretty much everything you've said except the conflation of religion with science, which seems odd. The left's rejection of religion has nothing to do with science, it's about rejecting socially authoritarian cultural values which most religions (with the possible exception of Buddhism) tend to demand of their followers and society at large.

    Also, what has the Israel/Palestine conflict got to do with science? The reason it divides along left and right lines is fairly obvious, believing that territory can be "won" in war regardless of the consent of its residents is a very right wing belief, while the left rejects the idea that power and victory matter more than moral and ethical right and wrong. That's a fairly simple dichotomy to understand, but it's not exactly a scientific issue.

    After reading the OP's post I don't think he knows what science is.


  • #68
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    professore wrote: »
    I think you missed my clarification on that in post 35.

    Yeah, that didn’t really clarify things, tbh. You still talk about “science denial”.


  • #69
    Austria!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,437 ✭✭✭Austria!


    Very sick of seeing successive politicians ignore the empirical evidence from my area of research "palestines and israelis - good or bad?"


  • #70
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭professore


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    Yeah, that didn’t really clarify things, tbh. You still talk about “science denial”.

    ??? Never mentioned science denial ....


  • #71
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 12,694 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Austria! wrote: »
    Very sick of seeing successive politicians ignore the empirical evidence from my area of research "palestines and israelis - good or bad?.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWa3LyvFOdc


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Generally speaking, the left has historically been socially libertarian and economically authoritarian. The right has been the opposite - opposed, for instance, to "big government" when it comes to money, but not so much when it comes to telling people what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own homes.

    There's a huge political shift going on in recent years which has created political orphans on both sides. Those who grew up with the left of the 1990s and most of the 2000s, which was focused on social and civil freedom along with economic leftism are largely finding the left an increasingly hostile place due to its counter-intuitive embracing of culturally and socially authoritarian values. Where once the left was the home of free speech, sexual freedom, opposition to surveillance, opposition to censorship etc, large parts of it have now become the home of internet regulation, trigger warnings, sex-negativity through a massive over-expansion of definitions around harassment, and support for using surveillance and censorship to intimidate and shut down the right wing.

    That has created a large political "bloc" which identifies as economically left wing but also socially libertarian, like the left used to be - but currently, that bloc has no party or political identity to coalesce around.

    I suspect that things will settle in the coming years once this bloc gets organised and creates a new political movement with a deliberately separate and distinct identity from the currently mainstream "authoritarian liberals". But these things take time.

    Irish political parties don't have the same ideological differences that you get with 2-party systems like you get in the US or the UK.

    The two larger parties are fairly pragmatic and tend to just see which way the wind is blowing. It's hard to say whether these two parties here are centre-right or centre-left when they've made decisions over the years that could be associated with either the left or the right. If I had to describe them, I'd say they were fiscally socialist and socially conservative but there's clearly a shift away from the religious side these days.


    The thing with Irish politics though, is that the tribalism that you see in the US just doesn't exist. The party in charge tries to build a consensus because national TDs represent geographical areas where píssing off half of your voters will have you out on your ear. They'd rather be fixing the roads than shoving Rand or Marx down people's throats.


    There certainly is a shift to social liberalism in the country now though but I think that this is due to the Catholic church not really being representative of people's wishes more than some leftist awakening. The last two referendums were obviously a move typically associated with progressives but the opposition to them was predominantly from the church - the country has become less religious and our laws are just catching up with that.

    I don't think that things are as bad as people are claiming here at the moment. If you look at the career of Ivana Bacik, who I would consider to be fairly authoritarian, you can see that her views get rejected by the electorate. People know what she's about and want none of it (what Trinity and TV shows do is another matter). I don't think that there's any mainstream desire for any authoritarianism in this country, be it from the left or from the right.


  • #73
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    professore wrote: »
    ??? Never mentioned science denial ....

    You literally do. Post #35. See bolded. Don’t you know what you are posting?
    professore wrote: »
    I've edited the original post as follows due to feedback ...

    Something I've been mulling over recently. How the left and the right both totally disregard science when it suits them. Below I've outlined some of the ridiculous positions.

    Here in Ireland our media and culture is heavily left leaning so we get the typical left leaning science denial:
    • Men and women are identical in every way except when they aren't. Yet people are born gay. So being straight is a social construct while being gay isn't. Also toxic masculinity exists, and is socially constructed, but it must be the mothers and mainly female teachers of these toxic men that are training them to be toxic?
    • If men and women, ethnic and sex groups are not represented in certain prestigious careers in exact proportion to their incidence in the population, it must be discrimination, while less attractive occupations are ignored (bin collectors, mining etc), or occupations that are overwhelmingly women (medicine, psychology, nursing) or LGBT (media, acting), or all female boards of directors are seen as "victories for equality"
    • Global warming is real, but the obvious solution of nuclear power is seen as evil and dangerous, despite it being by far and away the safest, most reliable and cleanest form of energy we have that can ACTUALLY replace fossil fuels and not send us back to the 1500s.
    • Western men are sexist if they suggest a woman shouldn't wear a tight mini skirt and in your face boobs in the workplace while men have to conform to a rigid dress code in the office, yet Muslim men telling their women to cover their faces is somehow empowering.
    • Palestinians good, Israelis bad
    • Young men who stare at women a little too long who dress with their arse cheeks hanging out or barely any clothes with stuffed bras somehow have something wrong with them, but a man who walked around with his arse cheeks showing, or their package enhanced, would be stared at, ridiculed and/or arrested.
    • Religion has nothing whatsoever of value and is totally evil. Unless it's Islam.

    The right:
    • People choose to be gay because they are depraved perverts.
    • Global warming is a hoax. Continuing to drive the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere beyond levels seen 350000 years ago and on a long cycle will have no affect on the climate despite 98% of scientists saying otherwise.
    • The bible is literally true
    • Israelis good, Palestinians bad
    • ALL immigrants are evil and out to take your job. Unless they are cleaning your house or minding your kids for a pittance.
    • The Koran is full of terrible advice about stoning people and is therefore a book of war but the Old Testament, which preaches pretty much the same thing isn't.

    Mentioning you think anything off this list isn't true will get you attacked online. The media all follow one or the other narrative.


  • #74
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,442 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Ipso wrote: »
    There is an anti science streak that pops up in liberalism in areas like vaccines and GMOs.

    I’d recommend this book, basically people will go ridiculous lengths to avoid admitting being wrong.
    https://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-but-Not/dp/0544574788/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1531234551&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=mistakes+were+made+but+not+by+me&dpPl=1&dpID=51%2Bu%2Ba69RoL&ref=plSrch

    The thing about anti vaccers is that they tend to come in all flavours. I know a few people who are anti vaccinations and they're all ridiculously hippy people. They believe in homeopathy and crystals and sh1te like that. (and btw, they're not friends. just people I know. I'd go nuts with the urge to shout "IT'S SUGAR WATER" every-time they mentioned homeopathy.

    The thing is that they are fringe groups. And trying to apply labels like left wing to them is a bit silly. Sure they probably happen to support socially left causes like gay marriage but you couldn't look at left wing politics and see any relation between the two. It's not like you can plot a line between homeopathy and gay marriage.

    On the right wing though there is a bit of a link. But only for some, and only at the very fringes. They're the kind of people who believe in government conspiracies and chemtrails and gay frogs. They'll reject loads of stuff because they're just paranoid.

    The difference between these two groups is their social views (i.e. Equality, racism etc) even though they may both share very similar anti science views.


  • #75
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,442 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Toxic Masculinity is complete and utter BS. When it comes to men, the gender is at fault. When it comes to women, it comes down to the individual. Any negative behavior isn't considered by the male as an individual , but assigned to the whole as a gender culture.

    Toxic masculinity is a great example of how far we're moving away from gender equality.



    Because then, people would have to admit that women bear some responsibility for how dating behaviors have developed. It's not as if men learn dating in a vacuum, although based on these kinds of pop-psychology ideas, it sometimes seems like we do. The reactions of women to approaches, the behavior of women in dating environments, the behavior of women in relationships, etc whether positive or negative is ignored in the face of casting all responsibility on to the "guys".

    There have been many studies which show that men are less likely to get help when they need it. That's true. It's referred to as toxic because it's bad for men.

    And you're right about the dating behaviour. Many women would not approach a guy. There are many potential reasons for this. They never needed to. They expect a guy to do it. They're nervous. They're afraid of social stigma i.e. being called a slut. And yes these are bad. Women and men should both be able to approach each other. It shouldn't just be a guy thing. And if you believe this than you believe there are negative gender stereotypes.


  • #76
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭professore


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    You literally do. Post #35. See bolded. Don’t you know what you are posting?

    Look this isn't some PhD thesis. It's a few thoughts thrown together on AH. If you want to go round in circles nitpicking every word and phrase feel free, but I'm not interested. If you want to comment on the general opinions and ideas great.


  • #77
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭professore


    Grayson wrote: »
    There have been many studies which show that men are less likely to get help when they need it. That's true. It's referred to as toxic because it's bad for men.

    Why is this though? I'd hardly call it toxic. Stupid would be more appropriate.
    Grayson wrote: »
    And you're right about the dating behaviour. Many women would not approach a guy. There are many potential reasons for this. They never needed to. They expect a guy to do it. They're nervous. They're afraid of social stigma i.e. being called a slut. And yes these are bad. Women and men should both be able to approach each other. It shouldn't just be a guy thing. And if you believe this than you believe there are negative gender stereotypes.

    I think the main reason they don't approach is they want the guy to approach them. If they approach the guy it signals he is :

    a. Much higher value than them and the only hope they have of getting him is throwing themselves at him, as he isn't sufficiently interested to pursue them

    or

    b. He has such low esteem and self confidence he is afraid to ask them out which makes him instantly unattractive.

    I don't think the slut one holds water - unless she immediately starts giving him a blowjob or something. I agree they should be able to ask each other out equally - but I don't think it will happen for biological reasons.


  • #78
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    professore wrote: »
    Look this isn't some PhD thesis. It's a few thoughts thrown together on AH. If you want to go round in circles nitpicking every word and phrase feel free, but I'm not interested. If you want to comment on the general opinions and ideas great.

    You are the one who contended that there was scientific weight behind everything in your OP. It’s not nitpicking to question that.


  • #79
    Ipso
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    Grayson wrote: »
    The thing about anti vaccers is that they tend to come in all flavours. I know a few people who are anti vaccinations and they're all ridiculously hippy people. They believe in homeopathy and crystals and sh1te like that. (and btw, they're not friends. just people I know. I'd go nuts with the urge to shout "IT'S SUGAR WATER" every-time they mentioned homeopathy.

    The thing is that they are fringe groups. And trying to apply labels like left wing to them is a bit silly. Sure they probably happen to support socially left causes like gay marriage but you couldn't look at left wing politics and see any relation between the two. It's not like you can plot a line between homeopathy and gay marriage.

    On the right wing though there is a bit of a link. But only for some, and only at the very fringes. They're the kind of people who believe in government conspiracies and chemtrails and gay frogs. They'll reject loads of stuff because they're just paranoid.

    The difference between these two groups is their social views (i.e. Equality, racism etc) even though they may both share very similar anti science views.

    Like you say the opposition seems to come from a couple different areas. Liberals go for the whole hippy, natural and anti corporation angle. With more conservatives it can come from the narcissistic gubbmint is out to get me and don't tell me what to do.
    I bring up the liberal side as in the past a lot of liberal like to sneer at the uneducated oinks who don't believe in evolution and global warming but yet they will swallow anti science nonsense when it suits.


  • #80
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    professore wrote: »
    Unfortunately most guys learn sooner or later that to have any success in the dating game, treating women with too much respect and courtesy (not all women, but a sizeable majority of them) is a surefire way to brand yourself unattractive to them. This is even true of really good looking guys, who women literally run away from after initially chasing them if they show any signs of being sensitive or caring too much about their feelings.

    There are numerous studies that point to this, for example, if you show men photos of the same woman smiling or not, they will rate the smiling one more attractive, whereas the opposite is true of women.

    I have often wondered if that is why some women are puzzled that men don't find the pushy arrogant in your face driven career woman as a romantic prospect because that's the kind of man they find attractive and project that back onto men?

    What's also interesting is that women generally don't talk to men about these things, or when they do, they say they want all those things they clearly don't when you look at the kind of guy they actually go for. It always fascinated me. Men (apart from male feminists) are generally honest about what they like in a woman.

    Anyway this is a bit off topic and quite unscientific but interesting nonetheless.

    Okay, bring out the research that says you should treat women with less respect as it will make you more attractive. You're emphasising science. Prove it. Studies on smiles doesn't prove it btw while it may have some influence, you're gonna need to prove the broader statement. Seems distinctly like you're making a conclusion because you've intuited it. Scientifically speaking that is inaccurate and unreliable.


  • #81
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 16,208 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Grayson wrote: »
    There have been many studies which show that men are less likely to get help when they need it. That's true. It's referred to as toxic because it's bad for men.

    The word "Toxic" is hardly appropriate for such behaviors though, and it's definitely not something which should be assigned to the whole Gender. There are probably as many men who take care of themselves as those who don't.

    And lets be honest here, Toxic Masculinity has been used in recent years to describe far more serious and extreme types of behavior, than men not getting help for themselves.
    And you're right about the dating behaviour. Many women would not approach a guy. There are many potential reasons for this. They never needed to. They expect a guy to do it. They're nervous. They're afraid of social stigma i.e. being called a slut. And yes these are bad. Women and men should both be able to approach each other. It shouldn't just be a guy thing. And if you believe this than you believe there are negative gender stereotypes.

    There are many excuses for it. But even if we take away the element of women not initiating dating... society still ignores the contribution of females to how men learn dating habits. From the first girl that a guy asks out when he's 15 to that girl he meets in a nightclub at 20, the women themselves, and their reactions to his "attempt" will influence the way that he behaves around women in the future.

    We all learn from the women in our lives. I certainly did. I learned anger and bitterness as a teenager from nasty girls, and I learned appreciation from the girls who accepted me, or even refused me in a nicer manner. And yet, the attitude is that a male behaves the way he does, separate to his experiences with women.

    A little bit of acknowledgment to the influence of women in a males development wouldn't go astray... for the negative as well as for just the positives.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭professore


    batgoat wrote: »
    Okay, bring out the research that says you should treat women with less respect as it will make you more attractive. You're emphasising science. Prove it. Studies on smiles doesn't prove it btw while it may have some influence, you're gonna need to prove the broader statement. Seems distinctly like you're making a conclusion because you've intuited it. Scientifically speaking that is inaccurate and unreliable.

    I literally said it was unscientific and just an opinion from personal experience.


  • #83
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭professore


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    The word "Toxic" is hardly appropriate for such behaviors though, and it's definitely not something which should be assigned to the whole Gender. There are probably as many men who take care of themselves as those who don't.

    And lets be honest here, Toxic Masculinity has been used in recent years to describe far more serious and extreme types of behavior, than men not getting help for themselves.



    There are many excuses for it. But even if we take away the element of women not initiating dating... society still ignores the contribution of females to how men learn dating habits. From the first girl that a guy asks out when he's 15 to that girl he meets in a nightclub at 20, the women themselves, and their reactions to his "attempt" will influence the way that he behaves around women in the future.

    We all learn from the women in our lives. I certainly did. I learned anger and bitterness as a teenager from nasty girls, and I learned appreciation from the girls who accepted me, or even refused me in a nicer manner. And yet, the attitude is that a male behaves the way he does, separate to his experiences with women.

    A little bit of acknowledgment to the influence of women in a males development wouldn't go astray... for the negative as well as for just the positives.

    I mean this is common sense. If you fail with 10 women by trying the nice approach and you see another guy succeeding with them being an asshole, then you are going to try being an asshole.

    The opposite is also true, if the assholes get rejected and the respectful guys don't then the assholes will try to be more respectful. Thing is, the assholes almost never got rejected, they got chased after.

    Eventually you work out that there are just as many asshole women as men, your hormones just blind you to it, so then you just have to find the decent women.


  • #84
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,593 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Ipso wrote: »
    There is an anti science streak that pops up in liberalism in areas like vaccines and GMOs.

    I’d recommend this book, basically people will go ridiculous lengths to avoid admitting being wrong.
    https://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-but-Not/dp/0544574788/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1531234551&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=mistakes+were+made+but+not+by+me&dpPl=1&dpID=51%2Bu%2Ba69RoL&ref=plSrch

    Looks interesting. Is it by journalists (shudder) or scientists/psychologists?


  • #85
    The Crowman
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 991 ✭✭✭The Crowman


    professore wrote: »
    See post 35 for the edited version which is more correct.

    Something I've been mulling over recently. How the left and the right both totally disregard science when it suits them. Below I've outlined some of the ridiculous positions.

    Here in Ireland our media and culture is heavily left leaning so we get the typical left leaning science denial:
    • Gender is a social construct - men and women are identical in every way except when they aren't. Yet people are born gay. So being straight is a social construct while being gay isn't. Also toxic masculinity exists, and is socially constructed, but it must be the mothers and mainly female teachers of these toxic men that are training them to be toxic?
    • If men and women, ethnic and gender groups are not represented in certain prestigious careers in exact proportion to their incidence in the population, it must be discrimination, while less attractive occupations are ignored (bin collectors, mining etc), or occupations that are overwhelmingly women (medicine, psychology, nursing) or LGBT (media, acting), or all female boards of directors are seen as "victories for equality"
    • Global warming is real, but the obvious solution of nuclear power is seen as evil and dangerous, despite it being by far and away the safest, most reliable and cleanest form of energy we have that can ACTUALLY replace fossil fuels and not send us back to the 1500s.
    • Western men are sexist if they suggest a woman shouldn't wear a tight mini skirt and in your face boobs in the workplace while men have to conform to a rigid dress code in the office, yet Muslim men telling their women to cover their faces is somehow empowering.
    • Palestinians good, Israelis bad
    • Young men who stare at women a little too long who dress with their arse cheeks hanging out or barely any clothes with stuffed bras somehow have something wrong with them, but a man who walked around with his arse cheeks showing, or their package enhanced, would be stared at, ridiculed and/or arrested.
    • Religion has nothing whatsoever of value and is totally evil. Unless it's Islam.

    The right:
    • People choose to be gay because they are depraved perverts.
    • Global warming is a hoax. Continuing to drive the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere beyond levels seen 350000 years ago and on a long cycle will have no affect on the climate despite 98% of scientists saying otherwise.
    • The bible is literally true
    • Israelis good, Palestinians bad
    • ALL immigrants are evil and out to take your job. Unless they are cleaning your house or minding your kids for a pittance.
    • The Koran is full of terrible advice about stoning people and is therefore a book of war but the Old Testament, which preaches pretty much the same thing isn't.

    Mentioning you think anything off this list isn't true will get you attacked online. The media all follow one or the other narrative.

    Several of these have nothing to do with science.


  • #86
    Ipso
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Looks interesting. Is it by journalists (shudder) or scientists/psychologists?

    By psychologists. It's very interesting, especially about cognitive dissonance and self justification.


  • #87
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    The Crowman wrote: »
    Several of these have nothing to do with science.


    Op has completely abandoned his science complaint and it's now "logic".


  • #88
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    Op has completely abandoned his science complaint and it's now "logic".

    But still mentions “science denial” in the second, amended post. :pac:


  • #89
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    It is not the 1980's any more. The world has moved on as is our understanding. You complain about others ignorance of science and then decide to ignore science you dont agree with.

    There was no science to the distinction between gender and sex. It’s not taught in biology.

    It’s just, as was pointed out, a feminist* ideology.

    (Its also fairly contradictory with regards to trans for instance but we’ve already had a thread on that).

    * not all feminist theory either but the most common in Anglo countries.


  • #90
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    professore wrote: »
    I literally said it was unscientific and just an opinion from personal experience.

    So you complain about the term toxic masculinity then admit you intentionally treat women badly in hopes of getting a ride? Have you ever considered that you may overrate your psychological expertise?


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 16,208 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    batgoat wrote: »
    So you complain about the term toxic masculinity then admit you intentionally treat women badly in hopes of getting a ride? Have you ever considered that you may overrate your psychological expertise?

    Except he didn't speak about himself doing so, but explained how he saw men (you) learning to be a certain way.

    And TBF it was me complaining about toxic masculinity. I hate that term.


Advertisement
Advertisement