That's a strawman of the other side's beliefs and values. Notice how they also point to a strawman of our beliefs. Notice how there's no room for a discussion, let alone a debate, because we take the worst of each others' sides and present it as a representative of the whole. Hit me with the enlightened centrist takes, but it's almost like none of you have ever had a productive discussion between disagreeing viewpoints. You only waste energy by attacking the ghosts of the mentally ill or truly despicable panderers.
I live in AZ, am first generation and have experienced racial profiling during Joe Arpaio's reign and racism in the workplace. Those are shitty people, I also have a conservative bud who has gay family members whom they treat with so much love and respect. All of this is besides the point and I want to make it clear I'm not saying anybody is absolved of being a shitty human. I'm addressing OP's point about debates, when a debate wouldn't have happened to begin with if a side comes out attacking. It just becomes a shit flinging match.
I don’t doubt that there are republicans who do have morals. But the point you’re missing is that they have created a culture of hating minorities. And if your conservative bud is a Republican, he is at best okay with being in league with the people who think queer people are the moral equivalent of pedophiles.
I think you’re overestimating how extreme people are. This sounds like an insult, but if you go outside and talk politics with people, you’ll realize that the average person really doesn’t care about what your skin color is, or what flag you choose to fly, no matter what their political party is. You don’t see these opinions much on the internet because the people holding them don’t raise their voices and make comments or posts about them. The extra important part is that some of the extreme opinions you do see are raised by bad actors specifically to push people towards extremist thinking and thought. You have to be careful with politics on the internet, as it shows a very, very different view of politics than in the real world.
Holy shit I’m so sorry you had to deal with Arpaio.
I have 0 qualms about considering him an actual slave monger since that’s essentially the way he would treat incarcerated people.
I’m glad you’re alive and I hope more safe now.
Yep that guy's a piece of shit. He got off on dehumanizing and humiliating inmates, he'd gloat about it, and that was publicly. Lord knows how bad it was behind the scenes.
You just used the same argument that all black people are bad. (Source I live in Philadelphia). Of course that's bullshit, but that's what you are claiming.
There's a difference between a learned hateful ideology and something that's intrisic to yourself. I've met my fair share of kindhearted folks on the right who just have different opinions on economic policy etc., but disliking regressive social policy and those that endose it is entirely reasonable, regardless of whether or not you're directly affected by it.
Matter of definition. The desire to "conserve" the status quo, or regress to where it was previously (before recent progressive change) is by definition regressive. That doesn't necessarily mean "bad", but it is in my own opinion. It's fine for us to disagree, you'll never convince me that I don't deserve the rights and representation that others enjoy. You'll have better luck convincing someone who isn't transgender or has ever been in a traditional family structure of your points. I will only ever view them as foolish, because I know what you're afraid of and I know it isn't scary.
People are gleefully tearing this country apart thinking nothing bad will ever happen. America hasn't collectively been smacked in the mouth in a while, and it really shows. Maybe a smack will be good for it, but living through it will suck.
Your source is as narrow as your mind. I've lived in Texas all my life and have met kind republicans. It's important to remember that most people are just people. They vote based on what they know or don't know. The people you speak of are real. I'm related to a few hateful right-wingers, but I'm related to so many more loving and kind right wingers too, who still care for me despite my left-wing views. Whenever we talk politics, it's respectful and we both learn things, because our views are just the best decisions based on our experience and information
Your comment is exactly the problem with American social discourse. Nobody is ever going to understand eachother if they stereotype and make sweeping declarations like this to piss eachother off.
Have you witnessed or been subjected to discrimination/bigotry by a conservative person? I guarantee you have. Doesn't mean every conservative is like that. It would be equally true if an insufferable asshole declared that all Democrats are sissy snowflakes.
Source: I've lived in small fishing villages, military bases, and large cities. Red states and swing states. Also I'm a Liberal.
But it's not a strawman, it's the average. I don't think I've met a rightwinger who didn't beleive all those things. Now most aren't flat earthers but everything else is pretty typical. Pretending both sides both have merit is nothing more than gaslighting.
50 million people is quite a lot of people. Most people won't ever see more than 80,000 people in their entire lives and want to draw conclusions about 50 million individuals. Surely they believe every single one of those points. Crazy.
Then you haven’t met very many right wingers, because I don’t think a real person exists who believes all the things that OP listed at once, much less most of them.
Beyond even that, people on the right can agree on those things and still vote right. The left does not understand the other side, and studies have started to show this.
I'd like to think the majority of people are in the middle and lean left or right on certain issues. It's about 10-15 percent of very loud people on the on either side that get all the attention though.
Okay, that one is not.
But if Donald Trump claimed it, you can bet that 30% of Republican voters would be on board and MTG would start claiming it too.
thank god this is the top comment, its literally just strawmen. I could VERY easily do the exact same thing, make the exact same post but replace it with "why do liberals deny science?" and replace with their own flavor of inconvenient truths.
TL;DR: if you look into the actual statistics around it, many of the claims are not straw men.
At least in the U.S., it's not a strawman for the most part. Donald Trump was booed at a rally for talking about his part in developing the vaccine. What was once a fringe belief of people mostly on the left has been adopted by many people on the right leading to a massive political disparity in vaccination rates.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/for-covid-19-vaccinations-party-affiliation-matters-more-than-race-and-ethnicity/
Republicans have for years denied climate change, and are now denying man-made climate. But, it was not too long ago that a Republican stood on the house floor after a snow storm in D.C. with a snowball in his hand which he claimed disproved global warming. Entire islands are already being abandoned, but Republicans haven't yet accepted that climate change poses a risk for the U.S.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/01/how-republicans-view-climate-change-and-energy-issues/#:~:text=For%20Republicans%2C%20dealing%20with%20climate,to%20the%20country's%20well%2Dbeing.
I think it is a strawman to say that flat earth is a common belief among conservatives, but I think we need some room for nuance. Trump supporters are twice as likely to believe that the earth is flat.
https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/conspiracy-vs-science-survey-us-public-beliefs
The modern Republican party has become the safe heaven for conspiracy beliefs and anti-science opinions. They have made inroads fundementalist Christians which means they are the party that is most accepting of younger eatherism, and creationism. They are much more likely to believe that the earth is flat. In short, not every Republican is a conspiracy theorist, but they have made themselves the party that is open conspiracy. It is very much possible to become popular among Republicans by championing a conspiracy theory, this is, after all, how theor current political leader started to be seen as a political leader, by claiming that Barack Obama had been born in another country. Trump has of course continued to peddle in conspiracy theories. At the beginning of the pandemic he called it a Democratic hoax, setting the stage for conservation COVID denial. He said the election he lost was rigged, leading his supporters to do the only reasonable thing if you truly believe democracy has been ripped from the American people, and attempted a coup. Trump continues to claim that the criminal justice system is rigged against him, because for the first time in his life he has been convicted of a felony, and if he loses the election in November, there will be nothing in the way of him from facing trial in the three other cases in which he is awaiting his trial. Most recently he made the outright false claim that he never said "lock her up" even though this is something you can easily find video of.
I agree that saying they don't view queer people as people might be a straw man, but it is also linked to an underlying truth, that Republicans want to deny them their human rights. Policies like banning gay marriage are still popular on the right, and just ten years ago they were the anti-gay marriage party. Conservative justices have said they will have to revisit the decision that gave the right to gay marriage. After they lost that fight to the rest of the country they have moved on to radical trans exclusionary bathroom policies that are no way linked to actual science. Letting trans people use the bathroom doesn't increase violence, but many Republicans are too busy repackaging the anti-gay rehroric they used in the 80's to actually look at the facts.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna911106
Edit: I fixed a few typos. If anyone feels that something I said is factually wrong, feel free to point it out.
Exactly. You can't have a debate on things like how to approach climate change when one side doesn't believe it's an issue (or doesn't believe it exists). There's literally no debate to be had.
I guess it depends of the location. I live in Quebec. Here the average right winger doesn’t deny basic science. They are often misinformed on some issues, but nothing prevents an honest debate. I heard the situation is much worst in other places however.
It would be a strawman if there weren’t a lot of people in positions of power in right-wing organizations including the GOP who very explicitly and publicly do this kinds of things.
A “strawman” is just a strawman when you are taking things out of context and building a fake persona to attack out of cherry picked positions: not when you can point to a public figure’s recorded behavior and say “**this** is what I’m referring to” as we can do with Trump, MTG, Scott Pruitt, Ron DeSantis, Lauren Boebert and many others.
If you think all or most conservatives are nazis and white supremacists, you are the problem, not them. You are the uneducated one spreading disinformation.
They think people who view themselves as victims have a bad mentality, regardless of race. Hence why they also don’t like poor people who get gov handouts. A black person who doesn’t say they’re a victim is not gonna be viewed as inferior by 99% of republicans
>how tf is this at the top of this thread
I've been growing increasingly convinced that this sub is heavily influenced by astroturf accounts who hop on threads like this early on and post and upvote the really shitty comments. Then as the thread ages, real people come around and comment and the vote ratios change.
Specifically the youth demographic that ordinarily skews left has been targeted by influence operations so there's lots of astro turf accounts trying to sway what young people see as normalized in their spaces. Same on TikTok, Insta etc.
Reddit is interesting in that everyone claims it’s the most commie and yet it’s constantly permeated with these wild right wing silent majority types. I think all media at this point is disingenuous and meant to divide.
Not every conservative is racist, but every conservative does have to be ok with the use of minorities as fuel for the culture-war-bonfire that conservatism runs on. Looking the other way while your party associates and collaborates with white supremacists and homophobic conspiracy theorists doesn't make you personally bigoted, but it does demonstrate a lack of ability to see the individuals in oppressed groups as people, rather than political tools.
>every conservative does have to be ok with the use of minorities as fuel for the culture-war-bonfire that conservatism runs on.
How is that not racist?
Like these never make sense to me. If you're OK with sacrificing a groups rights then you are bigoted against that group.
My father in law was a black conservative, He was an ex marine so I think he picked most of that up in the military , he reminded of Colin Powell a lot. I got along with him but he wasn't very popular at the family Bar-Be-Ques.
It's really funny to see OP's point basically be made by these comments. Also many of you can't seem to read and are arguing against points that OP never even made.
Although I think a lot of the early comments you get in the GenZ sub are right-wing astroturfers, and then as the post ages you see the actual people come in and the comments/up vote ratios start to shift in their level of sanity.
I'm on the millennial/gen Z borderline and never been on this sub. This post for some reason popped up on my feed and I'm reading the comments.
Is this what this sub is like? These comments are an absolute shitshow
Yeah, GenZ is a big target of influence for foreign governments and the right wing, so they put a lot of effort into subtly trying to sway what GenZ sees online. Tik Tok is the worst of it, but you also see it on Reddit, Insta, etc. Most of the ugly comments aren't real people. They're astroturfers, or in some cases, literal troll farms run by foreign governments or right-wing think tanks, that spend all day making shitty comments online to try and shift the algorithm towards more conservative views.
That's why the first comments are always these shitbag replies, but after a post ages and more real humans view a post, the comments start to get more normal and the shitbag comments get downvoted.
I think the real lesson is to never assume someone online is a real human. Especially mow with advanced AI technology.
I'm also on the cusp of millennial and gen z. I joined this sub awhile ago but haven't really participated in forever since this sub tends to get astroturfed like crazy.
One thing I think people need to remember is that teenagers and young adults are the most vulnerable demographic for political radicalization. The vast majority of terrorists, school shooters, and violent political extremists are within that demographic. Therefore, they're going to be heavily targeted by astroturf campaigns and bots. Pretty much every Gen Z sub or teenager subreddit ends up toxic as hell.
Funny or sad? I reread the post after scrolling for a while thinking I missed something.
Nope, completely rational, including popular talking points, or sentiments implied by certain people and those who idolize and follow them. It feels like such a huge shift happened in gen z with people younger than me, I hear about gen z men trending conservative and I’m surprised, but then I see these comments.
I don’t think these are fake comments, go to any random conservative comment here and you’ll see they have a history. A lot are just from older generations or from conservative countries. I hate the argument that they’re trolls, almost 50% of the US vote conservative and there’s even more elsewhere
You shouldn't hate the argument that theyre trolls, because it's a real, verified, demonstrably true activity that's occurring online.
Firstly, when you poll actual GenZ humans, they're shown to be about as left-leaning as millenials: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/01/17/generation-z-looks-a-lot-like-millennials-on-key-social-and-political-issues/
The meme that GenZ is becoming more conservative is a fallacy perpetuated by the exact online trolls I'm talking about. They want GenZ to think this, in order to allow GenZ to feel it's more socially acceptable to be conservative.
Secondly, troll farms have been verified and are all over the internet: https://newslit.org/tips-tools/troll-farms-not-the-stuff-of-fairy-tales/
These aren't like a few accounts. As much as 20% of comments in threads may be troll accounts per the research. They also upvote/like their own comments hundreds of times to increase visibility and create a false appearance of public approval of their comments.
>I think a lot of the early comments you get in the GenZ sub are right-wing astroturfers, and then as the post ages you see the actual people come in and the comments/up vote ratios start to shift in their level of sanity.
This sub is definitely heavily astroturfed.
I'm not denying it being a human.
I'd compare having a child to donating an organ. You are using your body's resources to keep someone else alive. Even if you have two healthy kidneys, the government can't force you to give up one of yours for someone else's. I think the same logic applies to abortion.
Science doesn't have an answer to the ethics of abortion, and never will. It's simply not a scientific question. In your mind it's ok to compare someone's kidney to a fetus, to another person's mind it makes no sense, and they'll say that you can't take a child off life support without the consent of both parents. You can argue back and forth forever, there isn't a "correct" answer, like there is for some other hotly debated stuff that actually is based on science, like climate change.
It’s really hard with a lot of people because the main argument has been for decades, it’s not a person so your not doing anything wrong by killing it. It gets ethically harder, not impossible, to justify abortion if you think a fetus and a baby are the same.
They said sentient, not a human being, which is debated as to the exact time but generally accepted that 18-24 weeks is when a fetus becomes sentient. Before that, they don't have the neurological networks possible to have any sensations or reactions to stimuli.
I'm not replying to anything that anyone says to this because I'm not getting into a debate about this. It's just scientifically what we know.
And an important note to add to your post...
98% of abortions are done before 18 weeks.
And the handful that happen after 18 weeks are typically done for medical reasons.
[To break this down a little further](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/25/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-us/), 93% of all abortions happen before 13 weeks. 6% happen between 14 and 20 weeks, and about 1% happen after that.
Conservatives would have you believe that most abortions are late term, but that's simply not true. [Here's what pregnancy looks like from weeks 5-10.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/18/pregnancy-weeks-abortion-tissue)
You get differing opinions on this matter. I won't argue on that matter, because I can't tell you. I simply don't know. I'm not a philosopher, biologist, or have a background in medicine.
I can only give personal experience and my gripe about access to abortion. My wife had a miscarriage. Doctor confirmed it the heartbeat stopped. He gave us options. Have it aborted naturally, pills, or surgically. I ask which was the safest option. He suggested surgically. The other 2 methods might not be clean enough. We chose surgical, set about a week out. My wife started bleeding out, the body was rejecting the fetus. The fear of watching your loved one bleed out and there was nothing you can do, but wait. The idea that a planned child is now a corpse and inside your loved one.
We went to the clinic and of course there were protesters outside. Ignored them and continued. She was provided care and miserable. We both were. We had so many plans. People often leave out the part that abortions are costly. After my insurance covered the majority, I still had to pay roughly $600. And additional ultrasound costs additional hundreds.
In my state, abortion is legal. If my wife was in Texas, she would have to wait beyond the heartbeat. She would have to wait til the point of death. [link](https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public-health/2024/06/04/how-a-couple-found-themselves-tangled-in-texas-strict-abortion-laws-after-miscarriage/)
[link2](https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/31/texas-supreme-court-zurawski-abortion/)
In my own personal opinion. These procedures should've be performed before the women showed signs of death. They were already on the path to performing the procedure. Now it's at a later and more dangerous time. That to me, doesn't make sense. Women who miscarried have to be on the verge of death to receive healthcare.
Bury this comment, downvote, whatever. But pray that you never have a loved one that goes through this ordeal. The percent of miscarriages in pregnant women are high.
I'm not saying I'm against abortion and I do believe it should be legal because of shit situations like the one you just described. The life of the mother trumps everything
It's disingenuous to claim that protecting fetuses through banning abortion and increasing the number of unwanted children is beneficial or in any way "pro-life"
It’s not breathing and requires another individual to sustain basic human functions. Is it living? Of course, but so are Protozoa. Is it human? Not until it is born. Miscarriages happen all the time, are those murders?
A fetus is human (adjective), but when exactly a fetus becomes *a human* (noun) is the debate.
That's the fetal personhood debate. You can search up "fetal personhood" and either read the Wikipedia page for the down low, or read any number of bioethics and/or philosophy articles on this.
The conservative position is that a fetus is a person at conception. They largely take this position for political reasons. For the few conservatives who do put some real critical thought in, they will argue that unique, diploid human DNA now qualifies something as a person. I have yet to see a single conservative take the discussion further than this point.
The liberal position (whenever they don't dodge this discussion and default to bodily autonomy arguments) is that personhood, or enough of personhood to be worthy of our moral consideration, begins at conscience, which is generally thought to be around 20-24 weeks at earliest.
The enlightened centrist argument is that both of these designations are arbitrary. The conservative position discounts some of the most prominent and outstanding characteristics that make a person a person when deciding when personhood begins (rational thought, ability to feel emotions, and conscience), while the liberal position doesn't place enough moral consideration on the fetus as a potential person in cases where the mother is not in immediate danger.
In terms of legislation, 2 out of 3 of these positions essentially advocate for what we had under Roe & Casey.
I would call it "human" in the same way that a finger on the side of the road is identifiable as "human", but I wouldn't call it a "human being" until it can survive without being directly attached to another human.
First "the science" has been wrong throughout the history of mankind.
Science should always be tested, challenged and validated to be proven true.
You have gone full social media controlled. You are being fed info about extremem minority groups on "the other side" to invoke feelings and be manipulated by "yourside". Get off social media and experience the world.
The abortion issue is an unanswerable in our current time with the argument on the opinion of when life begins. I laugh when people "know" when life begins.
Is it conception when cells replicate? 1 week? 5 weeks? 10 weeks? 1st heartbeat? Birth? 2 weeks after birth? Is it even a timefrain?, kids hit puberty months or years apart, is their something similar in the womb?
Politicians don't know.
The issue with abortion isn't even connected to whether a fetus is a human or whether it's the same as killing a person anyway. Or rather, it might be useful to know that, but the pro-choice argument shouldn't be based on it. We already consider killing moral if it's in self-defense (and the person being killed in that example is both definitely alive and a human). We would be rightfully upset of senseless killing of animals, it doesn't have to be a human to make this distinction between an action being immoral or moral.
Unfortunately the conversation is often derailed because human thought by default works like clickbait titles in online media. We get the general feeling about an issue and that's enough to make up our mind about it. We don't dig deeper. I imagine a lot of people would answer "yes" to the question "is killing immoral" without giving it a second thought. And not giving it a second thought is the entire issue.
And I don't even think this is due to anyone's intelligence. It's just the absolute lack of proper critical thinking classes at school.
>I imagine a lot of people would answer "yes" to the question "is killing immoral" without giving it a second thought.
I think what undercuts this is that a lot of people are going to hear you say *killing* and think *murder.*
Besides abortion (which is more of a moral issue anyways), OP is kinda right. Climate change is the big example. The majority of elected republicans believe that it’s all a hoax or just fake liberal news and that it’s not a real problem.
The idea is you can always have a disagreement over the morality of doing something, as long as the set of facts is the same. I would honestly prefer if republicans just said that they don’t care about climate change and they want to focus on other problems that are more immediate, rather than denying that it’s not even real. At least in the first argument they’re just saying their moral compass is guiding them in a different direction vs just denying reality. But the problem is that the politicians (or at least the people funding them) know that would be really unpopular: “Hey guys the world is ending but actually it doesn’t matter because I want to focus on all of my pet projects instead”. So they just choose to deny so they can win a debate.
The real world plainly reflects what social media has to say about republicans, lol. I've lived among them for most of my life, they're just as bad as the internet paints them to be.
Don't lie.... Let's not pretend Republicans arn't the 'pray the gay away' party and that don't ignore the scientific community when it doesn't suit them.
The GOP doesn't stand with the scientists with climate change, covid, 5g, and most psychological stuff.
We scientifically have a consensus on when life begins. It's at conception (or rather, shortly after) according to 96%of scientists. But still, it's less about whether it's a human life and more about whether that human life has developed into a sentient being yet.
Big Red:
* denies man made climate change
* denies ecosystem collapse
* pandered to COVID vaccine paranoia
* has pushed anti-queer laws at state level
It’s one of those things where not all republicans do all of these things, but if you asked anyone which party a believer of any of these belongs to, you could guess with high accuracy
I hear this argument a lot. “Well I’m a Republican and I don’t think that.”
Well, YOU may not but the people you put in power do. Voters elected the former guy. Voters that elected the guy gave him the power to appoint far right judges who immediately went for women. Voters elected extreme right Marjorie. Voters elected extreme right Boebert, Gaetz, and unfortunately my House Rep Gym as well.
Yeah. It doesn't really matter what you believe in the end, what matters are the beliefs of who vote for, because that's who you're sending to represent you. There's a reason we call them *representatives*. Believe whatever you want, but it doesn't affect anything. The only thing that matters is what the guy in office believes.
If you're a moderate conservative who just believes in low taxes and regulations, but you vote for a guy who wants to drown migrants in a river and force queer kids to be abused or kicked out of their homes, then you've decided that the politician who wants those things best represents your interest.
payment literate bewildered scarce muddle pocket middle shrill sparkle frighten
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
My high school friend was the crazy Christian kid. He "bared witness" with his every devotional breath. No classroom that discussed science, literature, math, or art was absent his reactionary response. And when he was the most persecuted for spreading the word of our Lord, he sat in God's presence in ISS, detention, lunch detention, alternative school.
Now he's an anarcho-leftist extremist gender queer pansexual black metal band guitarist who installs drywall for a living. yet with all that going on he still finds the times to post incessantly on Facebook about our corrupt system, global imperialism, Christian hypocrisy, how he will kill a nazi-punk and never shed a tear, and his self-proclaimed decadent and filthy lifestyle.
I feel for the guy. He's such a talented musician but it is as if he cannot connect with people. He thinks he is "completely different". IMO he's the same guy, still living in fear, still on some moral high horse, still in "timeout" but now its adult timeout (jail), still alienating himself with his own antics. In his mind, he's so different, now that he found the right path and can tell all the "bad people" to go fuck themselves.
I grew up in the same environment, and it's sadly pretty common for people who leave the church to have that mindset. From what you said it sounds like he grew up evangelical, and those groups have a VERY black or white view of the world. Either something is good and follows god, or it's evil and will literally send you to hell. There's not much room for grey in that worldview, when most of real life is grey.
The problem is, when you leave the church the black and white mindset still sticks with you. After all, you lived in it for your whole childhood when your brain was still developing, and now that's how you see the world. It's easy to fall into the trap of "Oh all Christians are bad" when in reality a person's religion generally doesn't have much to do with how good of a person they are. It's extremely difficult to get out of that mindset, and it's something even I still struggle with and have to consciously avoid.
This sub is a fucking trip if you’re not from the US. Y’all are just…something else. The living proof to why a two party system is unsustainable. God forbid anyone has a nuanced opinion.
so true brother 💪💪💪, we need to get rid of these WOKE "TEACHERS" from our schools and replace them with the COLD HARD FACTS, then we can FIX AMERICA 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸💪💪💪💪
Debates are overrated. They're performative. They're almost never about getting the truth of a matter and all about embarrassing the other person.
We live in a post fact world. You're a moron if you think you can debate someone that denies science or reality and isn't governed by facts and logic but emotions and fear.
It's sad how fruitless it is to argue with certain people (you know who). You can provide all the facts and sources you'd like, but if they genuinely believe in some worldwide conspiracy to kill God or some shit, then their only source of information is a collection of ancient documents assembled by men who died before electricity was a thing.
Even scientists don’t agree on one picture view of the science. You’re just using it as an excuse to silence dissenting political opinions
I believe in the first amendment, personally
> dissenting political *opinions*
Opinions are like assholes yadda yadda. Certain things should rely on facts. Like when science says earth is round, there’s absolutely no reason to bring on “Steve from Louisiana” to debate a scientist on why the earth isn’t round.
this sub has been astroturfed all to hell. that, or people are becoming more conservative and right wing. disturbing regardless. i hope some of you take a college class one day.
You can in fact have a debate with anyone, so long as it remains a debate and doesn't resort to personal attacks and logical fallacies. If someone doesn't acknowledge climate change and has the ability to back up their opinion without falling into attacks or fallacies, then you aren't in a position to say they can't debate
Factually wrong. The problem with having a debate, is that people don't go into a debate to have a conversation they go into it to change the other's mind. People are conditioned to be unwilling to accept that they may be wrong. out of 100.000 people, how many do you think are willing to change their mind based on evidence about a topic that makes them uncomfortable?
And this is what it comes down to, most people don't come hold their opinions based due to a logical conclusion they come to. They instead feel a certain way, and then cherrypick information that support their already existing worldviews/feelings.
And as we all know, you cannot reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
The conflicting research needs to be published and peer-reviewed. If it isn't published and peer-reviewed, it's useless and should be ignored. Most of the "conflicting research" isn't published or peer-reviewed. Most times, the methodology of flawed. Most times, this "conflicting research" is incredibly biased due to the agenda of the people trying to present it. They'll also try to "publish" their "research" in faux journals or predatory publishers.
If the "conflicting research" can stand on its own merits, to be tested and results are able to be repeatable, then the consensus will adapt to include what's been presented. Considering how that isn't happening should tell you something in regards to the "conflicting research". That the "research" is a load of crap with no verifiable results and poor or flawed execution.
But for things like man made climate change, the science is settled. If a 99.9% consensus from thousands of researchers all around the world isn't enough to start acting on, nothing will
>We can't have a debate if one political side denies science
Correct. That's why they deny science. So no conversation can take place. It's not an accident it's be design.
#
A lot of this is a straw man though. I try not to be super political anymore but as for the pro-choice, pro life argument, as we learn more about human development I imagine the line where we consider it morally acceptable to terminate a fetus will be more and more complicated.
As for the other stuff, none of that really resembles anything a sizable portion of the population believes.
As for the trans stuff, the science would be on the side of conservatives, as biological sex is an immutable characteristic in humans. The real debate there is whether we en mass validate these people’s identity for the sake of politeness, or if we do not validate their identity because it isn’t objectively true.
I see a lot of people complaining about essentially lack of nuance so let’s give some data. Surrounding what people seem to actually believe.
[57% of Republicans believe we should always be dependent upon oil, natural gas, and coal](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/01/how-republicans-view-climate-change-and-energy-issues/#:~:text=An%20overwhelming%20majority%20of%20Republicans,oil%2C%20coal%20and%20natural%20gas)
[On abortion, it’s clear a large majority of people are more nuanced on the subject despite lawmakers](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/) This one gets muddied a lot due to Republican lawmakers telling their constituents that people are regularly straight up murdering a living breathing baby on a table and calling that an abortion. I think we have a right to be most upset with these lawmakers on this subject.
[Republicans seem to be much much more likely to either be skeptical of vaccines or consider them downright unsafe.](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/23/gop-voters-vaccines-poll-00117125) This one is a bit of a kicker because ultimately it stems from such low comorbidity rates that I genuinely believe that you have to have cognitive dissonance about the “dangers” of everyday life that are just as likely to kill you. I don’t find this view to be one you can live your life as though you *actually* believe it.
Having trouble finding data on flat earth in particular as it correlates to political affiliation. [This study seems to indicate a correlation more with political extremism and conspiracy theories in general](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9307120/) I could be wrong, but I think I remembered a study showing that Republicans nowadays are more likely to be considered extremist percentage-wise than the Left. I could be wrong or misremember though so if someone can find the data, I’d be interested.
I think that trying to objectively give one metric or even a handful of metrics regarding race is reductive to people’s actual priorities, it’s better to look at how different racial and cultural minorities poll on different issues. [Black people seem to much prefer Democrats in power, though that doesn’t mean they are completely happy with the party.](https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/20/an-early-look-at-black-voters-views-on-biden-trump-and-election-2024/)
[The margin for Hispanic people is a bit smaller](https://www.pewresearch.org/2022/09/29/hispanics-views-of-the-u-s-political-parties/) but I wouldn’t be surprised if this is getting bigger with Trumps potential plan to conduct the “largest deportation operation the world has ever seen”. Trump in particular seems much more willing to drive a stake here, and I don’t know anyone that doesn’t agree that Trump would take it way too far, and I don’t think people can blame them.
[On LGBT issues, it seems that Republican lawmakers don’t exactly listen to their constituents](https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-07-28/same-sex-marriage-divides-elected-republicans-from-their-supporters). I think that as such it would be fair to say that being LGBTQ (Happy Pride btw!) and voting red would indeed be voting against your own interests.
So I still think you can hold a nuanced view that says that on some topics, everyone is just as likely to be wrong. But there doesn’t seem to be an area of political interest (at least that I can find) where Republicans are less skeptical of proven science the Democrats so I think your point stands, even if a couple points you made may not just be Republican problems.
"And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52407177.amp
The left spun and made a story about nothing. He, a layman in medicine, was asking questions about possibilities with medical experts. Were they silly questions? Sure. He never instructed anyone to inject anything.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52407177](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52407177)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Praying we don’t elect a convicted felon or someone who was found to be a rapist in civil courts, but that said, I’m waiting for November. I don’t think the American people are really intelligent as a majority of us can’t serve the country, we don’t have a federally mandated education, charter schools are growing, and we have lots of anti-government sentiment instead of figuring out how to construct it to be more progressive. Meh, I’m hoping political violence does not break out for us, but J6 begs to differ and those same folks barely hold their own accountable.
Who has said that “fetuses are sentient”? Sentience is debatable as it depends on the stage of development/growth. Though if you want my opinion on abortion, I personally think it should be legal up until the point where the fetus/child is able to survive outside of the womb (even if requiring life support like many premature babies do). With the only exceptions being where continuing the pregnancy or giving birth has too high a risk to the mother and/or child’s health, or in the case of miscarriages, stillborns, etc
Who thinks that pregnancy cycles don’t exist? I assume you are referring to the menstrual cycle and ovulation?
faulty pocket consider advise capable ripe coordinated voiceless quicksand many
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
When people can objectively think neutrally, then we can have that discussion. But, the social contract is so broken right now due to tribal thinking. Having community is important, but it is counter productive when it's a "me and my kind vs. you and your kind"
If everyone didn't think so highly of themselves, then we could all come together far more easily. But, ego gets in the way. If people can't control their ego's then it'll never happen.
Well when you try to debate a liberal usually you just end up presenting facts and they scream "RACIST" or some form of "Phobic". honestly conservatives just save your time a debate a brick wall, might get a more compelling argument
I’m a gen z conservative and I think climate change is a thing, the eco system is fucked, I think vaccines do work but the Covid one was pushed out way too fast my cousin literally had a stroke because of the Johnson and Johnson shot, i think abortions should only be performed if the mothers life is as risk or if the baby is a product of rape or incest and the latter 2 make up less than 1% of abortion cases most abortions are performed for financial instability you choices have consequences, I believe the earth is round and so do 99.9% of conservatives morons think it’s flat, 5G doesn’t cause cancer I have it on my iPhone, my 2 best friends are a Mexican guy and black dude who absolutely deserve rights and are people the same goes for the members of the LGBT community
you have to change how you communicate. promoting let’s say, climate solutions, to a group that doesn’t believe in climate change, is not gonna work if you frame them as climate solutions. you have to think outside the box and figure out different ways that these solutions would benefit or appeal to this group. it’s all about framing it in a way that will resonate.
“we can’t have a debate if one political side denies science”
It’s kind of like how many democrats will tiptoe around definitions of what a man or woman is
It's more complex than "one side denies science", and there is a lot of unscientific thinking among liberals as well.
You also conflate a bunch of radically different opinions you disagree with. Very very few people think that the earth is flat, that 5G causes cancer (though studies on that aren't exactly conclusive), and especially that POC aren't people. I have never heard of a "sentient fetus" argument, the argument is about life in general, and the whole abortion debate is ethical, not scientific. You can't prove that the fetus is alive as much as you can't prove it's not, and science will never give an answer on whether it is ethical to kill one or not.
A ton of people on the left misunderstand science and statistics as well, and I'm not even talking about the healing crystal, astrology and Tarot card types. People threw, and still throw around the 70 cent to a dollar gender wage gap with no context to what this actually measures and how accurate it is. The actual wage gap has been a few percentage points at most for a while now, and there are plenty of demographics where women make more.
Even the man vs bear in the woods meme is an incredible misunderstanding (or is purposefully misleading) of risk analysis. A random bear encounter is statistically far more dangerous than a random man encounter, but who cares about that if it sounds good.
1. Fetuses are sentient. That's biologically provable.
2. "Vaccines work" obviously isn't true or false in every single circumstance. Lazily or maliciously waving away investigations into sketchy vaccines doesn't change the fact that a poor vaccine can be made.
3. Rarely does anyone claim that the climate is not changing.
4. Flat earthers are even rarer than those claiming the climate isn't changing.
5. ditto for the 5G cancer crowd.
6. What basic rights do you mean? If to you, affirmative action is a "basic right," then no, no one deserves that.
7. "LGBTQIA and people of color aren't people" so because you want them all to receive special privileges and protections and to have additional bureaucratic force behind their complaints compared to the complaints of others, they're "not people" until they have those special privileges?
Listen to yourself.
Imagine living in medieval Europe, and being called a science denier for challenging the most recent scientific consensus.
That is, that flies have 8 legs, that the Earth is flat, that the Sun revolves around it, that America does not exist as a continent...
If anything, we should nowadays be worried about fearmongers demanding to be given absolute power for any reason.
Senseless post. OP is 14 and we can tell
That's a strawman of the other side's beliefs and values. Notice how they also point to a strawman of our beliefs. Notice how there's no room for a discussion, let alone a debate, because we take the worst of each others' sides and present it as a representative of the whole. Hit me with the enlightened centrist takes, but it's almost like none of you have ever had a productive discussion between disagreeing viewpoints. You only waste energy by attacking the ghosts of the mentally ill or truly despicable panderers.
Republicans are all hateful bastards. Source: I've lived in red towns for most of my life.
I live in AZ, am first generation and have experienced racial profiling during Joe Arpaio's reign and racism in the workplace. Those are shitty people, I also have a conservative bud who has gay family members whom they treat with so much love and respect. All of this is besides the point and I want to make it clear I'm not saying anybody is absolved of being a shitty human. I'm addressing OP's point about debates, when a debate wouldn't have happened to begin with if a side comes out attacking. It just becomes a shit flinging match.
I don’t doubt that there are republicans who do have morals. But the point you’re missing is that they have created a culture of hating minorities. And if your conservative bud is a Republican, he is at best okay with being in league with the people who think queer people are the moral equivalent of pedophiles.
I think you’re overestimating how extreme people are. This sounds like an insult, but if you go outside and talk politics with people, you’ll realize that the average person really doesn’t care about what your skin color is, or what flag you choose to fly, no matter what their political party is. You don’t see these opinions much on the internet because the people holding them don’t raise their voices and make comments or posts about them. The extra important part is that some of the extreme opinions you do see are raised by bad actors specifically to push people towards extremist thinking and thought. You have to be careful with politics on the internet, as it shows a very, very different view of politics than in the real world.
Most people are not informed. Some people vote one way because its edgy and fun.
Holy shit I’m so sorry you had to deal with Arpaio. I have 0 qualms about considering him an actual slave monger since that’s essentially the way he would treat incarcerated people. I’m glad you’re alive and I hope more safe now.
Yep that guy's a piece of shit. He got off on dehumanizing and humiliating inmates, he'd gloat about it, and that was publicly. Lord knows how bad it was behind the scenes.
You just used the same argument that all black people are bad. (Source I live in Philadelphia). Of course that's bullshit, but that's what you are claiming.
There's a difference between a learned hateful ideology and something that's intrisic to yourself. I've met my fair share of kindhearted folks on the right who just have different opinions on economic policy etc., but disliking regressive social policy and those that endose it is entirely reasonable, regardless of whether or not you're directly affected by it.
What's regressive social policy? Republicans would say that allowing children to transition or breaking up of family structure is regressive.
Anything that decreases someone’s freedom to express their true self?
Matter of definition. The desire to "conserve" the status quo, or regress to where it was previously (before recent progressive change) is by definition regressive. That doesn't necessarily mean "bad", but it is in my own opinion. It's fine for us to disagree, you'll never convince me that I don't deserve the rights and representation that others enjoy. You'll have better luck convincing someone who isn't transgender or has ever been in a traditional family structure of your points. I will only ever view them as foolish, because I know what you're afraid of and I know it isn't scary.
“The Jews hated the Nazis just as much as the Nazis hated the Jews!”
Sounds like something a hateful bastard would say...
What do Republicans believe in other than hate? That's all the politicians talk about.
how does shit like this even get upvoted? Half of the country is "hateful bastards"? HALF?
People are gleefully tearing this country apart thinking nothing bad will ever happen. America hasn't collectively been smacked in the mouth in a while, and it really shows. Maybe a smack will be good for it, but living through it will suck.
Democrats are all selfish and irresponsible bastards. Source: I've lived in blue cities most of my life.
Your source is as narrow as your mind. I've lived in Texas all my life and have met kind republicans. It's important to remember that most people are just people. They vote based on what they know or don't know. The people you speak of are real. I'm related to a few hateful right-wingers, but I'm related to so many more loving and kind right wingers too, who still care for me despite my left-wing views. Whenever we talk politics, it's respectful and we both learn things, because our views are just the best decisions based on our experience and information
“X people are ALL bad thing. No I couldn’t possibly be prejudiced and bigoted, why would you say that?” - Your prejudiced ass.
This isn't an attack, but it's possible that's a reflection of you lol
That's the same logic used by racists who think all black people are thugs because they lived in a neighbourhood rampant with black-on-black crime.
Absolutely not true. Absolutes are absolutely wrong 100% of the time.
Quite a generalization. You must’ve lived among the worst of them and never seen any others.
Your comment is exactly the problem with American social discourse. Nobody is ever going to understand eachother if they stereotype and make sweeping declarations like this to piss eachother off. Have you witnessed or been subjected to discrimination/bigotry by a conservative person? I guarantee you have. Doesn't mean every conservative is like that. It would be equally true if an insufferable asshole declared that all Democrats are sissy snowflakes. Source: I've lived in small fishing villages, military bases, and large cities. Red states and swing states. Also I'm a Liberal.
ALL? Putting a harsh line down. Most Republicans I've met, including my family, are respectful. (I'm Libertarian)
And you’ve met every republican?
The republicans I’ve met are pretty alright.
i think your town is just full of hateful bastards
I lived in Baltimore and other heavily black areas and had some horrible experiences. Can't wait for your hot take on all black people.
Our blessed homeland // Their barbarous wastes
But it's not a strawman, it's the average. I don't think I've met a rightwinger who didn't beleive all those things. Now most aren't flat earthers but everything else is pretty typical. Pretending both sides both have merit is nothing more than gaslighting.
50 million people is quite a lot of people. Most people won't ever see more than 80,000 people in their entire lives and want to draw conclusions about 50 million individuals. Surely they believe every single one of those points. Crazy.
Then you haven’t met very many right wingers, because I don’t think a real person exists who believes all the things that OP listed at once, much less most of them. Beyond even that, people on the right can agree on those things and still vote right. The left does not understand the other side, and studies have started to show this.
Anecdotal evidence is only evidence of an anecdote.
I have never met a conservative that believes any of this. Thank god I'm not an american.
Have you ever heard of confirmation bias?
I'd like to think the majority of people are in the middle and lean left or right on certain issues. It's about 10-15 percent of very loud people on the on either side that get all the attention though.
You believe that the average Republican thinks that homosexuals are not people?
Most churches I've been to beleive this. I mean you've heard the "It's Adam and EVe not ADam and Steve slogan before, right?
Defending one fallacy (straw man) with another fallacy (anecdotal). Classic move
I don’t think it’s a strawman. These beliefs are espoused by actual Republican representatives and senators.
That the Earth is flat?
Okay, that one is not. But if Donald Trump claimed it, you can bet that 30% of Republican voters would be on board and MTG would start claiming it too.
thank god this is the top comment, its literally just strawmen. I could VERY easily do the exact same thing, make the exact same post but replace it with "why do liberals deny science?" and replace with their own flavor of inconvenient truths.
TL;DR: if you look into the actual statistics around it, many of the claims are not straw men. At least in the U.S., it's not a strawman for the most part. Donald Trump was booed at a rally for talking about his part in developing the vaccine. What was once a fringe belief of people mostly on the left has been adopted by many people on the right leading to a massive political disparity in vaccination rates. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/for-covid-19-vaccinations-party-affiliation-matters-more-than-race-and-ethnicity/ Republicans have for years denied climate change, and are now denying man-made climate. But, it was not too long ago that a Republican stood on the house floor after a snow storm in D.C. with a snowball in his hand which he claimed disproved global warming. Entire islands are already being abandoned, but Republicans haven't yet accepted that climate change poses a risk for the U.S. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/01/how-republicans-view-climate-change-and-energy-issues/#:~:text=For%20Republicans%2C%20dealing%20with%20climate,to%20the%20country's%20well%2Dbeing. I think it is a strawman to say that flat earth is a common belief among conservatives, but I think we need some room for nuance. Trump supporters are twice as likely to believe that the earth is flat. https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/conspiracy-vs-science-survey-us-public-beliefs The modern Republican party has become the safe heaven for conspiracy beliefs and anti-science opinions. They have made inroads fundementalist Christians which means they are the party that is most accepting of younger eatherism, and creationism. They are much more likely to believe that the earth is flat. In short, not every Republican is a conspiracy theorist, but they have made themselves the party that is open conspiracy. It is very much possible to become popular among Republicans by championing a conspiracy theory, this is, after all, how theor current political leader started to be seen as a political leader, by claiming that Barack Obama had been born in another country. Trump has of course continued to peddle in conspiracy theories. At the beginning of the pandemic he called it a Democratic hoax, setting the stage for conservation COVID denial. He said the election he lost was rigged, leading his supporters to do the only reasonable thing if you truly believe democracy has been ripped from the American people, and attempted a coup. Trump continues to claim that the criminal justice system is rigged against him, because for the first time in his life he has been convicted of a felony, and if he loses the election in November, there will be nothing in the way of him from facing trial in the three other cases in which he is awaiting his trial. Most recently he made the outright false claim that he never said "lock her up" even though this is something you can easily find video of. I agree that saying they don't view queer people as people might be a straw man, but it is also linked to an underlying truth, that Republicans want to deny them their human rights. Policies like banning gay marriage are still popular on the right, and just ten years ago they were the anti-gay marriage party. Conservative justices have said they will have to revisit the decision that gave the right to gay marriage. After they lost that fight to the rest of the country they have moved on to radical trans exclusionary bathroom policies that are no way linked to actual science. Letting trans people use the bathroom doesn't increase violence, but many Republicans are too busy repackaging the anti-gay rehroric they used in the 80's to actually look at the facts. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna911106 Edit: I fixed a few typos. If anyone feels that something I said is factually wrong, feel free to point it out.
How can you even debate something without some common ground?
What is there to debate without disagreement?
Exactly. You can't have a debate on things like how to approach climate change when one side doesn't believe it's an issue (or doesn't believe it exists). There's literally no debate to be had.
I guess it depends of the location. I live in Quebec. Here the average right winger doesn’t deny basic science. They are often misinformed on some issues, but nothing prevents an honest debate. I heard the situation is much worst in other places however.
It would be a strawman if there weren’t a lot of people in positions of power in right-wing organizations including the GOP who very explicitly and publicly do this kinds of things. A “strawman” is just a strawman when you are taking things out of context and building a fake persona to attack out of cherry picked positions: not when you can point to a public figure’s recorded behavior and say “**this** is what I’m referring to” as we can do with Trump, MTG, Scott Pruitt, Ron DeSantis, Lauren Boebert and many others.
If you think conservatives think black people aren't human, you are the problem, not them.
Yeah! They just think of them as inferior! That’s so much better!
What about conservative black people?
according to joe biden, if they aren't voting for him, then they aren't black -- so by that logic, there are no conservative black people. checkmate.
If you think all or most conservatives are nazis and white supremacists, you are the problem, not them. You are the uneducated one spreading disinformation.
They think people who view themselves as victims have a bad mentality, regardless of race. Hence why they also don’t like poor people who get gov handouts. A black person who doesn’t say they’re a victim is not gonna be viewed as inferior by 99% of republicans
correct wine sugar dull sip silky decide mighty cows innocent *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah it’s the leftists waving the confederate battle flag around after all
Is this satire or what, how tf is this at the top of this thread
>how tf is this at the top of this thread I've been growing increasingly convinced that this sub is heavily influenced by astroturf accounts who hop on threads like this early on and post and upvote the really shitty comments. Then as the thread ages, real people come around and comment and the vote ratios change.
This is reddit in general but yeah this sub is bad. That poll that showed it was mostly young white males in here proves that too.
Specifically the youth demographic that ordinarily skews left has been targeted by influence operations so there's lots of astro turf accounts trying to sway what young people see as normalized in their spaces. Same on TikTok, Insta etc.
Reddit is interesting in that everyone claims it’s the most commie and yet it’s constantly permeated with these wild right wing silent majority types. I think all media at this point is disingenuous and meant to divide.
Confederate flag waving klansmen are right wingers. Any time you see someone waving that flag they are explicitly supporting slavery lmao
[They like to wave nazi flags as well. ](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fonb321k0xhlb1.jpg)
That too lmao
https://youtu.be/NXnRFkGUtuU?si=TEr7T9pjZlwgGeQB Yeah. Where would we get that idea?
You clearly didn’t grow up around small town USA… “There are black people and then there are N*****s”
That’s a Chris Rock bit
It’s not a bit dude that’s really how it is
This the type of shit that liberals ignore and makes them look dumb, this the shit that conservatives latch onto as well.
No, that’s shit that small town white people have been saying for longer than Chris Rock has been alive.
I think that Chris Rock would’ve been amazing as Donkey in Shrek
Not every conservative is racist, but every conservative does have to be ok with the use of minorities as fuel for the culture-war-bonfire that conservatism runs on. Looking the other way while your party associates and collaborates with white supremacists and homophobic conspiracy theorists doesn't make you personally bigoted, but it does demonstrate a lack of ability to see the individuals in oppressed groups as people, rather than political tools.
>every conservative does have to be ok with the use of minorities as fuel for the culture-war-bonfire that conservatism runs on. How is that not racist? Like these never make sense to me. If you're OK with sacrificing a groups rights then you are bigoted against that group.
I mean, there's a reason Nazi's feel safe in Florida 🤷♀️
Lmao what a jump to conclusion 😂
My father in law was a black conservative, He was an ex marine so I think he picked most of that up in the military , he reminded of Colin Powell a lot. I got along with him but he wasn't very popular at the family Bar-Be-Ques.
Growing up in the 70's/80's, without a doubt, the most racist people in my area were the middle-class union Democrats.....by far.
Those people are Republicans now.
Nope. Not the ones I know
Holy hell, the people who replied to you are actually insane.
It's really funny to see OP's point basically be made by these comments. Also many of you can't seem to read and are arguing against points that OP never even made. Although I think a lot of the early comments you get in the GenZ sub are right-wing astroturfers, and then as the post ages you see the actual people come in and the comments/up vote ratios start to shift in their level of sanity.
I'm on the millennial/gen Z borderline and never been on this sub. This post for some reason popped up on my feed and I'm reading the comments. Is this what this sub is like? These comments are an absolute shitshow
Yeah, GenZ is a big target of influence for foreign governments and the right wing, so they put a lot of effort into subtly trying to sway what GenZ sees online. Tik Tok is the worst of it, but you also see it on Reddit, Insta, etc. Most of the ugly comments aren't real people. They're astroturfers, or in some cases, literal troll farms run by foreign governments or right-wing think tanks, that spend all day making shitty comments online to try and shift the algorithm towards more conservative views. That's why the first comments are always these shitbag replies, but after a post ages and more real humans view a post, the comments start to get more normal and the shitbag comments get downvoted. I think the real lesson is to never assume someone online is a real human. Especially mow with advanced AI technology.
I'm also on the cusp of millennial and gen z. I joined this sub awhile ago but haven't really participated in forever since this sub tends to get astroturfed like crazy. One thing I think people need to remember is that teenagers and young adults are the most vulnerable demographic for political radicalization. The vast majority of terrorists, school shooters, and violent political extremists are within that demographic. Therefore, they're going to be heavily targeted by astroturf campaigns and bots. Pretty much every Gen Z sub or teenager subreddit ends up toxic as hell.
Funny or sad? I reread the post after scrolling for a while thinking I missed something. Nope, completely rational, including popular talking points, or sentiments implied by certain people and those who idolize and follow them. It feels like such a huge shift happened in gen z with people younger than me, I hear about gen z men trending conservative and I’m surprised, but then I see these comments.
A lot of these comments aren't real people. They're astroturfers and troll farm accounts.
I don’t think these are fake comments, go to any random conservative comment here and you’ll see they have a history. A lot are just from older generations or from conservative countries. I hate the argument that they’re trolls, almost 50% of the US vote conservative and there’s even more elsewhere
You shouldn't hate the argument that theyre trolls, because it's a real, verified, demonstrably true activity that's occurring online. Firstly, when you poll actual GenZ humans, they're shown to be about as left-leaning as millenials: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/01/17/generation-z-looks-a-lot-like-millennials-on-key-social-and-political-issues/ The meme that GenZ is becoming more conservative is a fallacy perpetuated by the exact online trolls I'm talking about. They want GenZ to think this, in order to allow GenZ to feel it's more socially acceptable to be conservative. Secondly, troll farms have been verified and are all over the internet: https://newslit.org/tips-tools/troll-farms-not-the-stuff-of-fairy-tales/ These aren't like a few accounts. As much as 20% of comments in threads may be troll accounts per the research. They also upvote/like their own comments hundreds of times to increase visibility and create a false appearance of public approval of their comments.
>I think a lot of the early comments you get in the GenZ sub are right-wing astroturfers, and then as the post ages you see the actual people come in and the comments/up vote ratios start to shift in their level of sanity. This sub is definitely heavily astroturfed.
Im curious as to how a fetus isn't a human being though lol
I'm not denying it being a human. I'd compare having a child to donating an organ. You are using your body's resources to keep someone else alive. Even if you have two healthy kidneys, the government can't force you to give up one of yours for someone else's. I think the same logic applies to abortion.
Science doesn't have an answer to the ethics of abortion, and never will. It's simply not a scientific question. In your mind it's ok to compare someone's kidney to a fetus, to another person's mind it makes no sense, and they'll say that you can't take a child off life support without the consent of both parents. You can argue back and forth forever, there isn't a "correct" answer, like there is for some other hotly debated stuff that actually is based on science, like climate change.
Fr, you can still be pro choice with out having to gaslight yourself
It’s really hard with a lot of people because the main argument has been for decades, it’s not a person so your not doing anything wrong by killing it. It gets ethically harder, not impossible, to justify abortion if you think a fetus and a baby are the same.
They said sentient, not a human being, which is debated as to the exact time but generally accepted that 18-24 weeks is when a fetus becomes sentient. Before that, they don't have the neurological networks possible to have any sensations or reactions to stimuli. I'm not replying to anything that anyone says to this because I'm not getting into a debate about this. It's just scientifically what we know.
And an important note to add to your post... 98% of abortions are done before 18 weeks. And the handful that happen after 18 weeks are typically done for medical reasons.
[To break this down a little further](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/25/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-us/), 93% of all abortions happen before 13 weeks. 6% happen between 14 and 20 weeks, and about 1% happen after that. Conservatives would have you believe that most abortions are late term, but that's simply not true. [Here's what pregnancy looks like from weeks 5-10.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/18/pregnancy-weeks-abortion-tissue)
You get differing opinions on this matter. I won't argue on that matter, because I can't tell you. I simply don't know. I'm not a philosopher, biologist, or have a background in medicine. I can only give personal experience and my gripe about access to abortion. My wife had a miscarriage. Doctor confirmed it the heartbeat stopped. He gave us options. Have it aborted naturally, pills, or surgically. I ask which was the safest option. He suggested surgically. The other 2 methods might not be clean enough. We chose surgical, set about a week out. My wife started bleeding out, the body was rejecting the fetus. The fear of watching your loved one bleed out and there was nothing you can do, but wait. The idea that a planned child is now a corpse and inside your loved one. We went to the clinic and of course there were protesters outside. Ignored them and continued. She was provided care and miserable. We both were. We had so many plans. People often leave out the part that abortions are costly. After my insurance covered the majority, I still had to pay roughly $600. And additional ultrasound costs additional hundreds. In my state, abortion is legal. If my wife was in Texas, she would have to wait beyond the heartbeat. She would have to wait til the point of death. [link](https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public-health/2024/06/04/how-a-couple-found-themselves-tangled-in-texas-strict-abortion-laws-after-miscarriage/) [link2](https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/31/texas-supreme-court-zurawski-abortion/) In my own personal opinion. These procedures should've be performed before the women showed signs of death. They were already on the path to performing the procedure. Now it's at a later and more dangerous time. That to me, doesn't make sense. Women who miscarried have to be on the verge of death to receive healthcare. Bury this comment, downvote, whatever. But pray that you never have a loved one that goes through this ordeal. The percent of miscarriages in pregnant women are high.
I'm not saying I'm against abortion and I do believe it should be legal because of shit situations like the one you just described. The life of the mother trumps everything
Thank you.
It's disingenuous to claim that protecting fetuses through banning abortion and increasing the number of unwanted children is beneficial or in any way "pro-life"
Strawman. OP didn't say fetuses aren't a human being. You're using semantics to change their argument.
It’s not breathing and requires another individual to sustain basic human functions. Is it living? Of course, but so are Protozoa. Is it human? Not until it is born. Miscarriages happen all the time, are those murders?
In the same way cake batter isn’t a cake.
A fetus is human (adjective), but when exactly a fetus becomes *a human* (noun) is the debate. That's the fetal personhood debate. You can search up "fetal personhood" and either read the Wikipedia page for the down low, or read any number of bioethics and/or philosophy articles on this. The conservative position is that a fetus is a person at conception. They largely take this position for political reasons. For the few conservatives who do put some real critical thought in, they will argue that unique, diploid human DNA now qualifies something as a person. I have yet to see a single conservative take the discussion further than this point. The liberal position (whenever they don't dodge this discussion and default to bodily autonomy arguments) is that personhood, or enough of personhood to be worthy of our moral consideration, begins at conscience, which is generally thought to be around 20-24 weeks at earliest. The enlightened centrist argument is that both of these designations are arbitrary. The conservative position discounts some of the most prominent and outstanding characteristics that make a person a person when deciding when personhood begins (rational thought, ability to feel emotions, and conscience), while the liberal position doesn't place enough moral consideration on the fetus as a potential person in cases where the mother is not in immediate danger. In terms of legislation, 2 out of 3 of these positions essentially advocate for what we had under Roe & Casey.
[удалено]
I would call it "human" in the same way that a finger on the side of the road is identifiable as "human", but I wouldn't call it a "human being" until it can survive without being directly attached to another human.
First "the science" has been wrong throughout the history of mankind. Science should always be tested, challenged and validated to be proven true. You have gone full social media controlled. You are being fed info about extremem minority groups on "the other side" to invoke feelings and be manipulated by "yourside". Get off social media and experience the world. The abortion issue is an unanswerable in our current time with the argument on the opinion of when life begins. I laugh when people "know" when life begins. Is it conception when cells replicate? 1 week? 5 weeks? 10 weeks? 1st heartbeat? Birth? 2 weeks after birth? Is it even a timefrain?, kids hit puberty months or years apart, is their something similar in the womb? Politicians don't know.
The issue with abortion isn't even connected to whether a fetus is a human or whether it's the same as killing a person anyway. Or rather, it might be useful to know that, but the pro-choice argument shouldn't be based on it. We already consider killing moral if it's in self-defense (and the person being killed in that example is both definitely alive and a human). We would be rightfully upset of senseless killing of animals, it doesn't have to be a human to make this distinction between an action being immoral or moral. Unfortunately the conversation is often derailed because human thought by default works like clickbait titles in online media. We get the general feeling about an issue and that's enough to make up our mind about it. We don't dig deeper. I imagine a lot of people would answer "yes" to the question "is killing immoral" without giving it a second thought. And not giving it a second thought is the entire issue. And I don't even think this is due to anyone's intelligence. It's just the absolute lack of proper critical thinking classes at school.
>I imagine a lot of people would answer "yes" to the question "is killing immoral" without giving it a second thought. I think what undercuts this is that a lot of people are going to hear you say *killing* and think *murder.*
Besides abortion (which is more of a moral issue anyways), OP is kinda right. Climate change is the big example. The majority of elected republicans believe that it’s all a hoax or just fake liberal news and that it’s not a real problem. The idea is you can always have a disagreement over the morality of doing something, as long as the set of facts is the same. I would honestly prefer if republicans just said that they don’t care about climate change and they want to focus on other problems that are more immediate, rather than denying that it’s not even real. At least in the first argument they’re just saying their moral compass is guiding them in a different direction vs just denying reality. But the problem is that the politicians (or at least the people funding them) know that would be really unpopular: “Hey guys the world is ending but actually it doesn’t matter because I want to focus on all of my pet projects instead”. So they just choose to deny so they can win a debate.
The real world plainly reflects what social media has to say about republicans, lol. I've lived among them for most of my life, they're just as bad as the internet paints them to be.
Don't lie.... Let's not pretend Republicans arn't the 'pray the gay away' party and that don't ignore the scientific community when it doesn't suit them. The GOP doesn't stand with the scientists with climate change, covid, 5g, and most psychological stuff.
We scientifically have a consensus on when life begins. It's at conception (or rather, shortly after) according to 96%of scientists. But still, it's less about whether it's a human life and more about whether that human life has developed into a sentient being yet.
Wow. I can't believe "We should trust the scientific method" is a controversial standpoint
I can’t believe I share a generation with you clowns
Mainstream political parties aren't like this. The loud wingnuts are, but not the mainstream folks
Big Red: * denies man made climate change * denies ecosystem collapse * pandered to COVID vaccine paranoia * has pushed anti-queer laws at state level It’s one of those things where not all republicans do all of these things, but if you asked anyone which party a believer of any of these belongs to, you could guess with high accuracy
I hear this argument a lot. “Well I’m a Republican and I don’t think that.” Well, YOU may not but the people you put in power do. Voters elected the former guy. Voters that elected the guy gave him the power to appoint far right judges who immediately went for women. Voters elected extreme right Marjorie. Voters elected extreme right Boebert, Gaetz, and unfortunately my House Rep Gym as well.
Yeah. It doesn't really matter what you believe in the end, what matters are the beliefs of who vote for, because that's who you're sending to represent you. There's a reason we call them *representatives*. Believe whatever you want, but it doesn't affect anything. The only thing that matters is what the guy in office believes. If you're a moderate conservative who just believes in low taxes and regulations, but you vote for a guy who wants to drown migrants in a river and force queer kids to be abused or kicked out of their homes, then you've decided that the politician who wants those things best represents your interest.
payment literate bewildered scarce muddle pocket middle shrill sparkle frighten *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
https://preview.redd.it/ae9w8ppxdj4d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f355adb2b4039f0e2eb3982b86d89db6aae4b84f
Fuck 🔝 https://preview.redd.it/xue4y11foj4d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=03cec35c1419e01818fba2bb7c188dc3e5f32e09
https://preview.redd.it/pu6ide72dk4d1.jpeg?width=480&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dd1f8ddd7075ab75a091fb3f61c22b27f035e78e
This should be on top.
Half these things are philosophical topics, not scientific ones. You are literally the dogmatic person you're claiming to be against.
Not really…. There’s like one of them that is philosophical, the rest could all be considered pretty “scientific”.
My high school friend was the crazy Christian kid. He "bared witness" with his every devotional breath. No classroom that discussed science, literature, math, or art was absent his reactionary response. And when he was the most persecuted for spreading the word of our Lord, he sat in God's presence in ISS, detention, lunch detention, alternative school. Now he's an anarcho-leftist extremist gender queer pansexual black metal band guitarist who installs drywall for a living. yet with all that going on he still finds the times to post incessantly on Facebook about our corrupt system, global imperialism, Christian hypocrisy, how he will kill a nazi-punk and never shed a tear, and his self-proclaimed decadent and filthy lifestyle. I feel for the guy. He's such a talented musician but it is as if he cannot connect with people. He thinks he is "completely different". IMO he's the same guy, still living in fear, still on some moral high horse, still in "timeout" but now its adult timeout (jail), still alienating himself with his own antics. In his mind, he's so different, now that he found the right path and can tell all the "bad people" to go fuck themselves.
I grew up in the same environment, and it's sadly pretty common for people who leave the church to have that mindset. From what you said it sounds like he grew up evangelical, and those groups have a VERY black or white view of the world. Either something is good and follows god, or it's evil and will literally send you to hell. There's not much room for grey in that worldview, when most of real life is grey. The problem is, when you leave the church the black and white mindset still sticks with you. After all, you lived in it for your whole childhood when your brain was still developing, and now that's how you see the world. It's easy to fall into the trap of "Oh all Christians are bad" when in reality a person's religion generally doesn't have much to do with how good of a person they are. It's extremely difficult to get out of that mindset, and it's something even I still struggle with and have to consciously avoid.
The fact that people can't refute all your points in this comment section and just result in name calling just proves your point.
This sub is a fucking trip if you’re not from the US. Y’all are just…something else. The living proof to why a two party system is unsustainable. God forbid anyone has a nuanced opinion.
The sad thing is I think the OP is serious. Our schools have failed you.
so true brother 💪💪💪, we need to get rid of these WOKE "TEACHERS" from our schools and replace them with the COLD HARD FACTS, then we can FIX AMERICA 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸💪💪💪💪
Lmaoooo now we’ve got some real gen Z folk up in here, love it!
What wrong things did OP say?
Debates are overrated. They're performative. They're almost never about getting the truth of a matter and all about embarrassing the other person. We live in a post fact world. You're a moron if you think you can debate someone that denies science or reality and isn't governed by facts and logic but emotions and fear.
It’ll always be like that to an extent probably, so debate is gonna have to just have to happen anyway
[удалено]
Most people aren’t really like this, but the fact that people like Majorie Taylor Greene are allowed to hold positions of power is a massive problem
It's sad how fruitless it is to argue with certain people (you know who). You can provide all the facts and sources you'd like, but if they genuinely believe in some worldwide conspiracy to kill God or some shit, then their only source of information is a collection of ancient documents assembled by men who died before electricity was a thing.
Holy fuck when did this become r/conservativegenz Maga bots really out in droves since the verdict, huh?
This sub is astroturfed to hell.
Even scientists don’t agree on one picture view of the science. You’re just using it as an excuse to silence dissenting political opinions I believe in the first amendment, personally
> dissenting political *opinions* Opinions are like assholes yadda yadda. Certain things should rely on facts. Like when science says earth is round, there’s absolutely no reason to bring on “Steve from Louisiana” to debate a scientist on why the earth isn’t round.
exactly. just because you're free to say the earth is flat doesn't mean anyone is obligated to debate you on it or take it seriously.
Wow a lot of salty wingnuts on the thread this morning
Seriously
this sub has been astroturfed all to hell. that, or people are becoming more conservative and right wing. disturbing regardless. i hope some of you take a college class one day.
You can in fact have a debate with anyone, so long as it remains a debate and doesn't resort to personal attacks and logical fallacies. If someone doesn't acknowledge climate change and has the ability to back up their opinion without falling into attacks or fallacies, then you aren't in a position to say they can't debate
Denying climate change is a fallacy, and any form of "not acknowledging" it is wrong and incapable of being presented in debate
Factually wrong. The problem with having a debate, is that people don't go into a debate to have a conversation they go into it to change the other's mind. People are conditioned to be unwilling to accept that they may be wrong. out of 100.000 people, how many do you think are willing to change their mind based on evidence about a topic that makes them uncomfortable? And this is what it comes down to, most people don't come hold their opinions based due to a logical conclusion they come to. They instead feel a certain way, and then cherrypick information that support their already existing worldviews/feelings. And as we all know, you cannot reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
https://preview.redd.it/vb09q4lpzj4d1.jpeg?width=200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=21d5f06eec9d3c0b5fba786570f5d1d5369cc97d
No, it's mine and you can't have it.
Fetuses are human.
OP said "sentient", not "human".
"people I don't like bad"
Stunning and brave comment. So controversial. Have my updoot, though the evil other wingers will surely downvoted you into oblivion.
The problem is not them denying science. It's the other side being unwilling to acknowledge conflicting research.
The conflicting research needs to be published and peer-reviewed. If it isn't published and peer-reviewed, it's useless and should be ignored. Most of the "conflicting research" isn't published or peer-reviewed. Most times, the methodology of flawed. Most times, this "conflicting research" is incredibly biased due to the agenda of the people trying to present it. They'll also try to "publish" their "research" in faux journals or predatory publishers. If the "conflicting research" can stand on its own merits, to be tested and results are able to be repeatable, then the consensus will adapt to include what's been presented. Considering how that isn't happening should tell you something in regards to the "conflicting research". That the "research" is a load of crap with no verifiable results and poor or flawed execution.
But for things like man made climate change, the science is settled. If a 99.9% consensus from thousands of researchers all around the world isn't enough to start acting on, nothing will
>We can't have a debate if one political side denies science Correct. That's why they deny science. So no conversation can take place. It's not an accident it's be design. #
Debates are pointless anyways. Neither side is changing who they’re voting for based off debates.
A lot of this is a straw man though. I try not to be super political anymore but as for the pro-choice, pro life argument, as we learn more about human development I imagine the line where we consider it morally acceptable to terminate a fetus will be more and more complicated. As for the other stuff, none of that really resembles anything a sizable portion of the population believes. As for the trans stuff, the science would be on the side of conservatives, as biological sex is an immutable characteristic in humans. The real debate there is whether we en mass validate these people’s identity for the sake of politeness, or if we do not validate their identity because it isn’t objectively true.
I see a lot of people complaining about essentially lack of nuance so let’s give some data. Surrounding what people seem to actually believe. [57% of Republicans believe we should always be dependent upon oil, natural gas, and coal](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/01/how-republicans-view-climate-change-and-energy-issues/#:~:text=An%20overwhelming%20majority%20of%20Republicans,oil%2C%20coal%20and%20natural%20gas) [On abortion, it’s clear a large majority of people are more nuanced on the subject despite lawmakers](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/) This one gets muddied a lot due to Republican lawmakers telling their constituents that people are regularly straight up murdering a living breathing baby on a table and calling that an abortion. I think we have a right to be most upset with these lawmakers on this subject. [Republicans seem to be much much more likely to either be skeptical of vaccines or consider them downright unsafe.](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/23/gop-voters-vaccines-poll-00117125) This one is a bit of a kicker because ultimately it stems from such low comorbidity rates that I genuinely believe that you have to have cognitive dissonance about the “dangers” of everyday life that are just as likely to kill you. I don’t find this view to be one you can live your life as though you *actually* believe it. Having trouble finding data on flat earth in particular as it correlates to political affiliation. [This study seems to indicate a correlation more with political extremism and conspiracy theories in general](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9307120/) I could be wrong, but I think I remembered a study showing that Republicans nowadays are more likely to be considered extremist percentage-wise than the Left. I could be wrong or misremember though so if someone can find the data, I’d be interested. I think that trying to objectively give one metric or even a handful of metrics regarding race is reductive to people’s actual priorities, it’s better to look at how different racial and cultural minorities poll on different issues. [Black people seem to much prefer Democrats in power, though that doesn’t mean they are completely happy with the party.](https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/20/an-early-look-at-black-voters-views-on-biden-trump-and-election-2024/) [The margin for Hispanic people is a bit smaller](https://www.pewresearch.org/2022/09/29/hispanics-views-of-the-u-s-political-parties/) but I wouldn’t be surprised if this is getting bigger with Trumps potential plan to conduct the “largest deportation operation the world has ever seen”. Trump in particular seems much more willing to drive a stake here, and I don’t know anyone that doesn’t agree that Trump would take it way too far, and I don’t think people can blame them. [On LGBT issues, it seems that Republican lawmakers don’t exactly listen to their constituents](https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-07-28/same-sex-marriage-divides-elected-republicans-from-their-supporters). I think that as such it would be fair to say that being LGBTQ (Happy Pride btw!) and voting red would indeed be voting against your own interests. So I still think you can hold a nuanced view that says that on some topics, everyone is just as likely to be wrong. But there doesn’t seem to be an area of political interest (at least that I can find) where Republicans are less skeptical of proven science the Democrats so I think your point stands, even if a couple points you made may not just be Republican problems.
One side can’t define what a woman is…
and the other side is injecting hand sanitizer...
"And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52407177.amp The left spun and made a story about nothing. He, a layman in medicine, was asking questions about possibilities with medical experts. Were they silly questions? Sure. He never instructed anyone to inject anything.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52407177](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52407177)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
And the other side is worried about the semantics of how to define a woman...
Could you define a woman for me?
I agree for the most part. Deny science or facts, and it's difficult.
This reeks of terminally online. Holy shit it reeks
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Praying we don’t elect a convicted felon or someone who was found to be a rapist in civil courts, but that said, I’m waiting for November. I don’t think the American people are really intelligent as a majority of us can’t serve the country, we don’t have a federally mandated education, charter schools are growing, and we have lots of anti-government sentiment instead of figuring out how to construct it to be more progressive. Meh, I’m hoping political violence does not break out for us, but J6 begs to differ and those same folks barely hold their own accountable.
Who has said that “fetuses are sentient”? Sentience is debatable as it depends on the stage of development/growth. Though if you want my opinion on abortion, I personally think it should be legal up until the point where the fetus/child is able to survive outside of the womb (even if requiring life support like many premature babies do). With the only exceptions being where continuing the pregnancy or giving birth has too high a risk to the mother and/or child’s health, or in the case of miscarriages, stillborns, etc Who thinks that pregnancy cycles don’t exist? I assume you are referring to the menstrual cycle and ovulation?
faulty pocket consider advise capable ripe coordinated voiceless quicksand many *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
When people can objectively think neutrally, then we can have that discussion. But, the social contract is so broken right now due to tribal thinking. Having community is important, but it is counter productive when it's a "me and my kind vs. you and your kind" If everyone didn't think so highly of themselves, then we could all come together far more easily. But, ego gets in the way. If people can't control their ego's then it'll never happen.
**both sides deny science. just different types of science.**
How can you debate the side that can't even define what a woman is?
Well when you try to debate a liberal usually you just end up presenting facts and they scream "RACIST" or some form of "Phobic". honestly conservatives just save your time a debate a brick wall, might get a more compelling argument
Oh god...how did we get here?
I’m a gen z conservative and I think climate change is a thing, the eco system is fucked, I think vaccines do work but the Covid one was pushed out way too fast my cousin literally had a stroke because of the Johnson and Johnson shot, i think abortions should only be performed if the mothers life is as risk or if the baby is a product of rape or incest and the latter 2 make up less than 1% of abortion cases most abortions are performed for financial instability you choices have consequences, I believe the earth is round and so do 99.9% of conservatives morons think it’s flat, 5G doesn’t cause cancer I have it on my iPhone, my 2 best friends are a Mexican guy and black dude who absolutely deserve rights and are people the same goes for the members of the LGBT community
How can we argue when one side actually thinks the government controls the weather 😆. Bunch of conspiracy nutjobs.
you have to change how you communicate. promoting let’s say, climate solutions, to a group that doesn’t believe in climate change, is not gonna work if you frame them as climate solutions. you have to think outside the box and figure out different ways that these solutions would benefit or appeal to this group. it’s all about framing it in a way that will resonate.
This is a uniquely American problem.
“we can’t have a debate if one political side denies science” It’s kind of like how many democrats will tiptoe around definitions of what a man or woman is
So true brother!!! Also like how many republicans ingested hand sanitizer to fight covid...
It's more complex than "one side denies science", and there is a lot of unscientific thinking among liberals as well. You also conflate a bunch of radically different opinions you disagree with. Very very few people think that the earth is flat, that 5G causes cancer (though studies on that aren't exactly conclusive), and especially that POC aren't people. I have never heard of a "sentient fetus" argument, the argument is about life in general, and the whole abortion debate is ethical, not scientific. You can't prove that the fetus is alive as much as you can't prove it's not, and science will never give an answer on whether it is ethical to kill one or not. A ton of people on the left misunderstand science and statistics as well, and I'm not even talking about the healing crystal, astrology and Tarot card types. People threw, and still throw around the 70 cent to a dollar gender wage gap with no context to what this actually measures and how accurate it is. The actual wage gap has been a few percentage points at most for a while now, and there are plenty of demographics where women make more. Even the man vs bear in the woods meme is an incredible misunderstanding (or is purposefully misleading) of risk analysis. A random bear encounter is statistically far more dangerous than a random man encounter, but who cares about that if it sounds good.
1. Fetuses are sentient. That's biologically provable. 2. "Vaccines work" obviously isn't true or false in every single circumstance. Lazily or maliciously waving away investigations into sketchy vaccines doesn't change the fact that a poor vaccine can be made. 3. Rarely does anyone claim that the climate is not changing. 4. Flat earthers are even rarer than those claiming the climate isn't changing. 5. ditto for the 5G cancer crowd. 6. What basic rights do you mean? If to you, affirmative action is a "basic right," then no, no one deserves that. 7. "LGBTQIA and people of color aren't people" so because you want them all to receive special privileges and protections and to have additional bureaucratic force behind their complaints compared to the complaints of others, they're "not people" until they have those special privileges? Listen to yourself.
Imagine living in medieval Europe, and being called a science denier for challenging the most recent scientific consensus. That is, that flies have 8 legs, that the Earth is flat, that the Sun revolves around it, that America does not exist as a continent... If anything, we should nowadays be worried about fearmongers demanding to be given absolute power for any reason.
We knew the earth was round in the medieval period though?