The Science Is In, Fox News Is A Security Blanket

[IsaacNewton]

Yes well, some see humor, some see sarcasm, and then some construct a whole memey world that has no bearing on reality.

Hence this thread.

You certainly see the splinter in other's eyes but miss the log in yours.

If there was a log in my eye I'd be a dead man.

You don't read, point taken.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Political conservatives tend to have a higher need for closure. Conservatives who are authoritarian/absolute in style maintain their beliefs against challenges by limiting their experiences, and surrounding themselves with sources of information that will tell them they are right."

Exactly.

This is why we see so many ridiculous, clueless, and out of touch threads and posts from conservatives on USMB.

USMB conservatives actually believe the nonsense they post because they’re exposed to no other information and sequester themselves from the facts.

Conservatives then wonder why their threads and posts are subject to warranted and appropriate ridicule from non-conservatives who know the facts and truth, and prove those conservatives to be wrong by providing the evidence demonstrating why conservatives are wrong.

Needless to say, even when confronted with the facts, most on the right continue to blindly adhere to their ridiculous lies.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think the liberals pay more attention to Fox News than most people i know. In fact i would even bet they watch it more than i do.

If it's not Fox News, where do right wingers get their cockamamie ideas? It sure as hell isn't from reality.

AM talk radio, loony rightwing websites such as Breitbart, and the conservative blogosphere and email subscriptions.

Known collectively as the Echo Chamber.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

And the left wingers who refuse to watch anything else than MSNBC are...

 

[SuperDemocrat]

"Political conservatives tend to have a higher need for closure. Conservatives who are authoritarian/absolute in style maintain their beliefs against challenges by limiting their experiences, and surrounding themselves with sources of information that will tell them they are right."

Exactly.

This is why we see so many ridiculous, clueless, and out of touch threads and posts from conservatives on USMB.

USMB conservatives actually believe the nonsense they post because they’re exposed to no other information and sequester themselves from the facts.

Conservatives then wonder why their threads and posts are subject to warranted and appropriate ridicule from non-conservatives who know the facts and truth, and prove those conservatives to be wrong by providing the evidence demonstrating why conservatives are wrong.

Needless to say, even when confronted with the facts, most on the right continue to blindly adhere to their ridiculous lies.

What I find interesing that we never ever wonder if those sources are right. If those sources are right and true then wouldn't it be natural for anyone whose opinions are validated by those sources feel uplifted? I don't see how this is necessarily a left/right issue but just an issue about human nature. It is generally true that when our opinions are validated as being correct we feel really good about ourselves. I don't see what your sentence you cut and paste actually proves.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

And the many 'liberals' whose opinions of conservatives have been validated by this guy's book and they feel really awesome about it. How is that different?

 

[JoeNormal]

I think the liberals pay more attention to Fox News than most people i know. In fact i would even bet they watch it more than i do.

If it's not Fox News, where do right wingers get their cockamamie ideas? It sure as hell isn't from reality.

AM talk radio, loony rightwing websites such as Breitbart, and the conservative blogosphere and email subscriptions.

Known collectively as the Echo Chamber.

Yup. The loony AM radio has significant contributions from Fox (when hosts or pundits get too loony to be on TV, this becomes their outlet).

 

[JoeNormal]

And the many 'liberals' whose opinions of conservatives have been validated by this guy's book and they feel really awesome about it. How is that different?

The degree to which it is based in reality is the difference.

 

[320 Years of History]

Oh cool... a Daily Kos piece about a book written by a leftwing hack. Yep, definitely, the science is in.

And you wonder why we just laugh at you folks.

You don't like it so I'm guessing you didn't read any further than the first line.

You notice the folks attacking the book are doing so not presenting rigorous rebuttals of the specific content -- premises, inferences and conclusions -- in the book, but rather on the basis of the author's political affiliation.

Review of Chris Mooney's 'The Republican War on Science'

 

[JoeNormal]

Oh cool... a Daily Kos piece about a book written by a leftwing hack. Yep, definitely, the science is in.

And you wonder why we just laugh at you folks.

You don't like it so I'm guessing you didn't read any further than the first line.

You notice the folks attacking the book are doing so not presenting rigorous rebuttals of the specific content -- premises, inferences and conclusions -- in the book, but rather on the basis of the author's political affiliation.

Review of Chris Mooney's 'The Republican War on Science'

Nice find. This excerpt caught my eye:

Alas, as you might expect from Mooney's chosen title, this page or two of "balance" gives way to the tedious habit of all sides in the Culture War -- squeezing complex issues along a cramped left-right political axis, inherited from the French Revolution -- a dismal and demeaning metaphor that nobody can define. Regrettable is Mooney's oversimplification that "big business" has lined up against science. Not all capitalists or conservatives resist the notion of fine-tuning market forces to match our evolving understanding of the world. Moreover, it was Republican President George Herbert Walker Bush who said in 1990: "Science relies on freedom of inquiry, and government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance."**

The "war on science" is better defined along a completely different axis: Future vs. past. On one side are traits that dominated nearly all other cultures and eras: nostalgia, faith in dogmatic incantations and a reactionary fear of change. On the other side are qualities compatible only with a scientific age: pragmatism, confidence, and eagerness to confront change. Plus -- perhaps -- a deeper assumption: That any Creator (if one exists) will approve of children who study and use His tools.