The GOP Dilemma, how to win without the loyal Racist base?

[horn4life 3755]

It is a dilemma, that once was pushed to the rear.  Just a few years ago Racist jokes told at the country club were always preceded by a fervent look around, a lean forward, and a lowered voice.  Now those jokes are told loudly and laughingly by the same folks that whispered the same jokes a few short years ago.  But Trump changed all that, only because the GOP simply cannot and will not reject the racists in their party.  Trump elevated the racist wing of the party, and danced with the devil when he said "good people on both sides" when referring to Nazis and White Supremacists. Most importantly there was almost no pushback at all from the rest of the party.  You see... they know exactly who their most loyal voters are.

Now let me be especially clear here.  I am not saying that all Republicans are racist.  What I am saying is that most racists are Republican,  and they are necessary for Republicans to win elected office and certainly to ever have a shot at the Presidency.  

But the demographics are changing. And the future does not look very bright for a party that is nearly universally white at the Federal level, and whose values are simply not held by the younger generations that are beginning to vote more.  The fact that young turnout has increased is a terrible indicator for Republicans.  That is what you see the attacks on education, and the "brainwashing and indoctrination" of young college students.  As if this silliness is a rationalization for young people turning away from a party that embrace racists as an electoral necessity.  

Now do I think a lot of the GOP wishes that they did not need the racist vote.  But, the fact of the matter is they do.  And that fact prevents the GOP from strong rejections of racism. Here is a good snapshot of the Republican reaction to Trump calling Nazis and White Supremacists "good people." 

Quote

In the wake of the violence in Charlottesville, The Atlantic reached out to 146 Republican state party chairs and national committee members for reaction to Trump’s handling of the events. We asked each official two questions: Are you satisfied with the president’s response? And do you approve of his comment that there were “some very fine people” who marched alongside the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis?

The vast majority refused to comment on the record, or simply met the questions with silence. Of the 146 GOP officials contacted, just 22 offered full responses—and only seven expressed any kind of criticism or disagreement with Trump’s handling of the episode. (Those seven GOP leaders represent New Mexico, Texas, Virginia, North Dakota, Alaska, Massachusetts, and North Carolina.) The rest came to the president’s defense, either with statements of support or attempts at justification.

I will also say that George W. Bush tried to get the party to lean away from racism.  But even Bush needed the racists to win his Presidency with a minority of the votes. So the GOP is simply caught between a rock and a hard place.  Denounce the racists and you risk not even achieving the narrow victories in Presidential races.  But the voting population is changing and gradually getting younger.  This is not to say that the Trump years have not helped spawn more you racists, because I believe that it has.  But the problem is still the same, younger people are simply not as racist.   

The GOP could rid itself of the racist fairly easily simply by universally and strongly denying even a glimmer of support for the racist wing of the party!  But what about the upcoming election they muse...  So they are stuck.  They can't grow their base.  They have restricted voting access about as much as they can.  They have gerrymandered extremely well in the states they control. And very narrow victories at the national level are still possible without the majority of the vote.  But that very narrow window is closing.  And I personally don't see how the party can move away from the racist base at this point.  

I think that the GOP could get back to having a platform and trying to occasionally actually bass legislation that is reasonable and bipartisan.  And I see this as honestly the only way for the party to gradually mute the voices of those that clearly are supporters of racism in their party.  But unfortunately I see the GOP playing the narrow victory playbook.  I guess if there is a complete wipeout in several elections in row voices that denounce racism within the party will grow louder and louder.  But right now, young people know that racist vote Republican, and they simply do not want to vote with the racists.  Going forward that is going to be a numerical problem for the GOP, and I see no easy escape from what is still a base of necessity for the party.

So let us hope that young people keep voting, and that in a few years the GOP can again be a party that at least attempts to become a bigger tent party. Because the current model is eventually going to lead to a dead end. And as a country we are better with strong debate, with an eye toward solutions.  But you need two willing partners to come to this end, I fervently hope that the GOP can find a way to tack away from the racist base they cannot currently survive without. I honestly believe that a lot of leaders in the party wish they did not need this base.  But moving away from them it is not going to be easy... just look at Majorie Taylor Greene as exhibit A.

Edited December 2, 2022 by horn4life

[Goredho 17349]

It’s ok to be racist in an apartheid state.  So the GOP doesn’t have to purge their ranks of racists, they just have to erect systems of apartheid.

[CooterBrown 17913]

It’s ok to be racist in an apartheid state.  So the GOP doesn’t have to purge their ranks of racists, they just have to erect systems of apartheid.

See The Supremes thread for the latest case which will make that extremely easy to do.

[tx 3 putt 76400]

Ban anyone under 30 from voting 

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

Here’s the thing though. Your most loyal supporters are the ones you DONT have to pander to. It’s the ones on the other side that actually will abstain or vote dem that they should be working to collect. 

[horn4life 3755]

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Here’s the thing though. Your most loyal supporters are the ones you DONT have to pander to. It’s the ones on the other side that actually will abstain or vote dem that they should be working to collect. 

That's the irony.  Instead of muting the voices of racism there is a tacit embrace from top to bottom politically in the GOP.  The problem is "abstain" means never winning a1st term presidency.  When you are taking power with a minority of the vote (Supremes now represent a minority for example) you can't afford to lose anyone.  So abstaining is as dangerous as anything to the GOP's national chances.

Catch 22 for those old enough to remember the term.

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

Yeah it tells me that the racism is what they want, since they are embracing it even when it’s demonstrably against their interest. 
 

I think it’s part and parcel to them looking for ways of taking and retaining power other than by popular vote.  Fraud and violence is when you need the loyalists that are committed dogmatically to “do what must be done.”

Edited December 2, 2022 by Pato del Muerto

[956 Worldwide 34444]

20 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Here’s the thing though. Your most loyal supporters are the ones you DONT have to pander to. It’s the ones on the other side that actually will abstain or vote dem that they should be working to collect. 

The problem here is the primary system and non-competitive gerrymandered districts. A lot of GOP candidates unlocked the cheat code— you can win a primary, especially in the deepest red districts— by being the most racist. It actually helps. And then they win in these districts and have a national platform which they use to energize the racist blocs in other places.

And a lot of these people and their voters would rather lose an election than elect a R who isn’t an open racist. 

[Old Freak Nasty 818]

The GOP is starting to win over the undereducated poor Hispanics and other minorities in significant numbers now so they might have a way to thread this needle and at least modestly push back on outward racism?  It'll still be pretend to make sure the racists still come to the polls but they have to consolidate those gains in some way.

But these poor Hispanics might just be as racist as their fellow poor undereducated whites and could be why they are attracted to the Trumpified GOP (as well as unconscious attraction to fascist style leadership).  If that's the case, the lesson they take is racism works.

[Slacks 6791]

Racism and killing of non-whites is the foundation upon which this country was built.

Make America Great Again 

[troph 24563]

You have to energize your base you can’t ignore them. Turnout is the winning formula so you do have to “pander” but for republicans it’s beyond racism, it’s their way of life - a part of which is racism, it’s white, straight, cisgender, faithfully Protestant church attending (varying degrees of fundamentalism), top 5-10% income/wealth, and if you don’t fit well into these categories it’s not really your party.  But it is how the poor southern Baptist and the rich country club Republican find themselves in the same party - white, Protestant, straight, cisgender, likely racist, likely either actively homophobic and transphobic or at least insulated from being around us (so they think), etc, etc. 

so racist pandering is helpful but as long as republicans are attacking someone not like them and they are preaching tax cuts they keep this coalition together.

Edited December 10, 2022 by troph

[Celery Man 20886]

On 12/2/2022 at 10:00 AM, horn4life said:

Now let me be especially clear here.  I am not saying that all Republicans are racist. 

Being pro racism is being racist even if you don't like others knowing about it.

Edited December 10, 2022 by Celery Man

[horn4life 3755]

29 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Being pro racism is being racist even if you don't like others knowing about it.

I also think there is honestly a lot of rationalization on the issues, while pretending the underlying issue isn't racism in many instances.  Some folks probably honestly believe that they are not racist even thought the party they endorse has shown a special tolerance for racism.  A lot of folks I know point to taxes as their reason for voting Republican.  But their comments belie perhaps a reason far beyond taxes IMHO.

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

43 minutes ago, troph said:

top 5-10% income/wealth

That’s the thing though. They have changed their messaging that they are the party of the common (poor) man and democrats are the rich liberal elite.  The real delineator is education level, but that correlates somewhat with income level. 

[troph 24563]

7 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

That’s the thing though. They have changed their messaging that they are the party of the common (poor) man and democrats are the rich liberal elite.  The real delineator is education level, but that correlates somewhat with income level. 

There is no doubt the republicans do not have all of the “wealthy” isolating on that marker alone, but if you take income, add white, straight, faithfully attending a Protestant church, you’ll end up with folks voting R that are not openly racist, who aren’t fired up about social issues and aren’t poor. There is a Republican coalition it’s got fewer factions than democrats but it is there.  But you are correct, there are plenty of high income/wealthy, educated whites who may or may not attend church but if they do it’s probably a liberal denomination that are democrats or at least not republicans. 

my point is you do have to pander but it doesn’t always have to be overt racism against Americans, it can be immigrants, LGBTQ, lazy poors not hard working poors obviously, point at someone not like you and disparage is the formula along with lowering taxes. That’s all they’ve got but it’s all they have to do to keep their base.

Edited December 10, 2022 by troph

[Celery Man 20886]

22 minutes ago, horn4life said:

I also think there is honestly a lot of rationalization on the issues, while pretending the underlying issue isn't racism in many instances.  Some folks probably honestly believe that they are not racist even thought the party they endorse has shown a special tolerance for racism.  A lot of folks I know point to taxes as their reason for voting Republican.  But their comments belie perhaps a reason far beyond taxes IMHO.

the journey from voting for Trump because Hillary=lib/bad (which was always a stupendously foolish choice and always patently racist) to still voting GOP in 2022 is enormous. It's incredible because the starting point was so horrible, and yet they've come so far.

To the extent that I'm making a point relevant to this discussion other than disagreeing that not all GOP voters in 2022 are racist, it's that I disagree that the problem is how the rational/decent/conservative portion of the party separates from the actual racist/fascist segment of the party. Those people have already separated. The problem faced by republicans is how do the quietly racist/fascist voters (2022's "rational" and "decent" "conservatives") lie to themselves and lie to everyone else about what they are if they wish to continue living in the civilized world. As you alluded, taxes is mostly an issue they see as legitimate that they believe provides a respectable excuse to continue voting for the horrible things they believe in.

Edited December 10, 2022 by Celery Man

[tx 3 putt 76400]

GoP needs to attract many more non white voters, while also vilifying them

It’s a tight ripe for sure 

[Bullneck 18987]

 

Here is the formula for success:

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

His 5 and 3 year olds are up at 4:30?

[conVINCEd 21468]

Family prayers.  The biggest prayers the world has ever seen.  Jerry Falwell heard the prayers and told me he had never heard a more beautiful prayer.  Then I snort a line of coke and have breakfast.

Edited December 10, 2022 by conVINCEd

[lemonlime 5503]

8 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

His 5 and 3 year olds are up at 4:30?

That's actually the least not believable part of that fascistic fairytale.

Edited December 10, 2022 by lemonlime

[Incredulity 11555]

As fate would have it I read an interesting counter point in the WSJ today.

 

spoilered because longcat

Spoiler

The most obvious change in American politics this century is the sorting of voters along educational lines. The Democrats are increasingly the party of educated urban elites; the GOP belongs to the white working class. The dispute is over suburban and minority voters. The latter still plump mostly for Democrats, although the party’s social radicalism is pushing them toward the GOP. Voters with impressive educational credentials tend to be Democrats, and those without them lean strongly Republican. 

That one party is the educated party—that its members see themselves, in some respects accurately, as more cultured and informed than their opponents—has generated an intellectual pathology that is obvious to everyone but themselves. Adherents of the smart-people party have lost the capacity for self-criticism. Which on its face makes sense. If your views are by definition intelligent, those of your critics must be dumb. Who needs self-reflection?

 

We can start to understand the Democrats’ predicament by ridding ourselves of a set of metaphors. For a decade or more, we’ve been told that left and right live in “silos” or “bubbles” or “echo chambers” or “information cocoons.” The left watch MSNBC and read the New York Times, and the right watch Fox News and listen to talk radio. 

In any case, the silo/bubble metaphor doesn’t describe American politics in the 2020s for the simple reason that there is no silo or bubble. Or if there is, it’s very large and almost exclusively populated by adherents of the smart-people party. 

If you’re on the right, you simply can’t isolate yourself from the habits and attitudes of left-liberal progressivism. They are everywhere. The most determined imbiber of right-wing opinion still watches television and movies and reads the mainstream press. The left-liberal outlook is expressed everywhere in these media, and generally it isn’t expressed as viewpoint but as established fact. 

The conservative voter who follows nothing but right-wing accounts on social media still sees CNN as a captive audience at airports. He advises his college-age children as they negotiate campus environments in which they’re expected to state their “pronouns” and declare themselves “allies” of the “LGBTQ2SIA+ community.” However scornful of left-wing opinion he may be, his employer still subjects him to diversity training. He attends a concert by the local symphony orchestra and has to listen to a four-minute lecture about systemic racism or climate change before the music starts. He can’t watch a pro football game without enduring little pronouncements of wokeness. The right-winger may get 100% of his news from Republican-leaning news sites but still has to be vigilant as his 5-year-old browses the children’s section of the local public library.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

There is no bubble, no silo, for such a person. 

The urban-dwelling knowledge-class progressive experiences few such dissonant moments. So pervasive are the opinions of left-liberal progressivism throughout American culture that the adherent of that worldview may roam freely in it with minimal disquiet. The TV ads that subtly legitimize the latest sexual identity; the lefty sermonettes intoned at public events; the movies and sitcoms that virtually all accept trendy orthodoxies; the race-fixated version of American history promoted in public schools—these the holder of conventional progressive opinions can absorb almost without noticing it.

The left-liberal outlook has triumphed across American culture—in corporate boardrooms, in government agencies, in sports and entertainment institutions, in K-12 education bureaucracies, in universities and in media organizations. But that is precisely what has robbed progressives, especially those in the political class and in the media, of any ability to criticize themselves or doubt their own righteousness. They don’t engage with serious arguments advanced by the other side. They live in a world in which it is possible to pass through a month without encountering much in the way of serious conservative opinion. When they do encounter a conservative view, it is precategorized as “fringe” or “extreme” by the calm, omniscient NPR voice that relates its content.

And so progressives have become, if I could put it bluntly, incurious and lazy. Every conservative journalist born in the last 70 or 80 years has, early in his career, come to the sad realization that liberal writers and intellectuals, the people conservatives are so careful to read and react to, don’t actually read conservatives or know much about the right. Their attitude recalls that wonderful line in “Casablanca” when Ugarte (Peter Lorre) asks Rick (Humphrey Bogart), “You despise me, don’t you?” 

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Rick’s answer: “If I gave you any thought, I probably would.” 

In the early 2000s, the Bush administration’s critics in Congress and the media showed no interest in understanding the neoconservative outlook that supposedly drove the Iraq War. Preposterous caricatures and badly informed theorizing were enough. Today, the left’s politicos and journalists, with a small number of exceptions, have still made no effort to understand the strangest and most surprising turn in politics in many decades: the election of Donald Trump. Russian meddling, “collusion” with Vladimir Putin, fear of nonwhite people, the ignorant reaction of poor white opium addicts, a resurgence of fascism—any explanation was OK as long as it didn’t involve self-reflection. 

Something about Mr. Trump gave Democrats and liberal journalists all the emotional license they needed to discount, once and for all, any possibility that a Republican might have a point. No party that could nominate Mr. Trump deserved further thought; the GOP had, in their eyes, defenestrated what was left of its legitimacy. 

 

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Consider the past two years of Democratic governance. A slender majority in the U.S. House and a 50-50 tie in the Senate somehow led Democrats to believe they had no opposition to speak of. At times they seemed literally to believe this, as when Sen. Bernie Sanders and others fulminated against his Democratic colleagues Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema for resisting President Biden’s so-called Build Back Better bill—as if the bill had two opponents and not 52. 

Democrats and their backers in the news media, insisting on the infallibility of science, doubled down on onerous Covid restrictions long after it was clear that shutdowns, school closures and mask mandates were futile and destructive. In July of this year Anthony Faucisaid his only regret is that he didn’t recommend “much, much more stringent restrictions” in the spring of 2020. Even now, long after the views of antimasking and antishutdown protesters have been largely vindicated on the available evidence, long after fans of China’s draconian restrictionism have been disgraced by the reality of China’s failure, no one has offered an apology or an admission of error. 

The pullout from Afghanistan was a stupendous debacle, but virtually no Democrat in Congress or the administration could be found to hint that the thing had been less than ideal. Violent crime has returned to major cities, but the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN and elected Democrats have treated the matter as though it were an invention of conservative media. Massive levels of illegal immigration at the southern border, too, are treated by Democrats as though the whole business is made up. 

On economics, Republicans warned the administration in early 2021 about the danger that trillions in spending would inflate the currency. Their warnings were ignored. Inflation exploded, and the administration denied it. In August 2022 President Biden asserted that inflation was “zero percent.” He was, absurdly, comparing that month’s prices to the previous month’s, ignoring everything that happened before July. 

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

A global energy shortage has sent gas and electricity prices skyward. Congressional Democrats and the administration might easily have backed off their green commitments, promoted fracking and increased domestic oil production, at least on a temporary basis. That would have brought prices down, which was the only outcome Mr. Biden and other elected Democrats appeared to care about. I am not aware that such a policy change was ever considered. 

Rarely in politics does anyone admit fault. You don’t expect high-ranking members of either party to acknowledge straightforwardly that they were wrong about anything. But people sometimes adjust, even if they don’t admit they’re adjusting. After the 2022 midterm elections, in which Democrats outperformed expectations but still lost the U.S. House, the president was asked what, in light of the fact that three quarters of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction, he plans to do differently in the future. His reply: “Nothing.” You can discount Mr. Biden’s words for senescence, but that answer expressed perfectly the solipsistic self-confidence of his party.

Even if the Democrats had been crushed in the 2022 midterm elections, they would have been unable to adjust. Their cultural dominance discourages them from changing course, which is why they can be counted on to invent exogenous reasons for electoral defeats: an allegedly racist TV ad in 1988, shenanigans in Florida in 2000, faulty voting machines in Ohio in 2004, collusion with Russia in 2016. Mr. Trump adopted this custom with abandon in 2020, but Republicans, who aren’t encouraged by elite culture to think themselves infallible, usually blame each other for electoral losses. Hence the 2013 autopsy, as wrongheaded as it was. There is no Democratic correlative to such a document. 

 

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Democrats will hotly contest this analysis of their mindset and behavior. They will note that Republicans, too, think themselves infallible, and conservatives discount the views of their critics. 

And they do—sometimes. But Republicans and conservatives, when they are empowered and can make decisions, can’t depend on elite society backing them up. If a Republican official somewhere expresses a view falling outside the liberal conventional wisdom, that official can expect opposition from every segment of educated elite society—Hollywood actors, Fortune 500 boardrooms, university-based experts and so on. Blowback from so many sources isn’t easy to take, and in that case the Republican official will often, perhaps usually, back down. 

But this objection—the objection that Republicans often behave peremptorily—misses the point. The GOP is, increasingly, the party of the uneducated, of the uncredentialed worker who lacks proper data and nuance. Surely it is the educated voter, the respecter of scientific argumentation and informed debate, who bears a special responsibility to consider contrary views. It’s the smart person, not the stupid or ignorant one, who holds the gravest obligation to respect views other than his own. Yet owing to his status as a smart person, respecting other views is precisely what he can’t do.

 

 

 

 

 

The left-liberal outlook has triumphed across American culture—in corporate boardrooms, in government agencies, in sports and entertainment institutions, in K-12 education bureaucracies, in universities and in media organizations. But that is precisely what has robbed progressives, especially those in the political class and in the media, of any ability to criticize themselves or doubt their own righteousness

Edited December 10, 2022 by Incredulity
cleaned up ads in spoiler

[safe sex 11684]

What an exercise in masturbation 

[Foosters 17734]

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

His 5 and 3 year olds are up at 4:30?

No he just stands above them in the dark while they sleep, hand over heart whispering the pledge. Normal stuff 

[Gatorubet 30115]

21 minutes ago, Foosters said:

No he just stands above them in the dark while they sleep, hand over heart whispering the pledge. Normal stuff 

Crotch. Heart.  Same-same.

[mchookem 16224]

Quote

"Something about Mr. Trump gave Democrats and liberal journalists all the emotional license they needed to discount, once and for all, any possibility that a Republican might have a point. No party that could nominate Mr. Trump deserved further thought; the GOP had, in their eyes, defenestrated what was left of its legitimacy."

 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

2 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Here is the formula for success:

Lie constantly. 

[Jack Straw 2953]

18 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Lie constantly. 

yep.  Republican voters absolutely love Trump and serial liars like him not in spite their dishonesty, but because of it.  

[Snake Diggity 4614]

Short term it will serve them to keep beating the fear drum.  Boomers will keep that model viable over the next 5-15 years.  I consider it likely that if the GOP runs anyone other than Trump in 2024, they will take back the presidency and probably also control congress.
 

Medium term they will have to do something different.  Espousing actual fiscal responsibility (I.e. balanced budget amendment) and actual border security (I.e. presenting an actual plan for immigration reform) along with legalizing drugs would be a place to start. They are already doing a good job of outflanking the Dems for the Hispanic vote and they should continue doing that.

It is hard to see the current version of the GOP being a successful party post ~2035.

[BevoAbyss 2057]

Since Reagan and Falwell merged religion (fundamentalist, evangelical) with the Republican Party in the 1980s, the long-term goal of the GOP and Religious Right has always been a fascist theocracy. Always. Just look at the makeup of the Supreme Court. Look at the theocratic  ideology that the GOP uses to rule Texas. (Of course, the GOP apologists and true believers will remain in denial.)

[Willfully Horn 7916]

6 hours ago, Incredulity said:

As fate would have it I read an interesting counter point in the WSJ today.

 

The left-liberal outlook has triumphed across American culture—in corporate boardrooms, in government agencies, in sports and entertainment institutions, in K-12 education bureaucracies, in universities and in media organizations. But that is precisely what has robbed progressives, especially those in the political class and in the media, of any ability to criticize themselves or doubt their own righteousness

Homer reaction out of gratitude for cleaning up the quote and the offer of a right wing perspective, presumably in good faith. I will resist the temptation to pick this apart, bit by bit, and I will agree that folks committed to right wing ideology, in 2022, must feel overwhelmed by a culture that has ostensibly rejected their beliefs. 
 

I think the public discourse has been won, yes. Sorry that the right lost. Surely there are right wing ‘truths’ that can help our Republic see better days. I was not convinced your linked article highlighted any such truth,
 

To the contrary, I want to call out this belief held by the right, because it is both relevant and damaging: masks don’t work. Masks are not only effective at slowing the spread of airborne disease, they would be more effective if they were universally adopted. The cost of this bullshit belief has not yet been fully understood, as covid’s effect on the body’s resistance to other threats is not yet understood. But, this belief is costly and anti-social.

I will link support for my claim, and I would consider contrary facts. Let’s focus on masks, what do you say?

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg6296

https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/covid-19-coronavirus-sars-cov-2/face-masks-covid-19-coronavirus

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-face-masks-what-you-need-to-know
 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449

Edited to suggest that the debate to validate the RW belief that masks don’t work ought be held in the COVID-CR THREAD. Mention me and I will engage you there.

Edited December 11, 2022 by Willfully Horn

[Incredulity 11555]

4 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Let’s focus on masks, what do you say?

There is a thread for that.

 

6 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I was not convinced your linked article highlighted any such truth,

It very specifically wasn’t an argument about truth.  It was about Leftists unwillingness to consider they aren’t absolutely right about everything.  “Settled Science” and all that.

[Willfully Horn 7916]

12 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

There is a thread for that.

 

It very specifically wasn’t an argument about truth.  It was about Leftists unwillingness to consider they aren’t absolutely right about everything.  “Settled Science” and all that.

Okay. The thing is, the efficacy of masks IS settled science. And, as presented in your link, the RW chooses to believe the opposite. How is a thinking person supposed to react? What’s the takeaway?

Edited December 11, 2022 by Willfully Horn
Punctd

[Incredulity 11555]

35 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Okay. The thing is, the efficacy of masks IS settled science. And, as presented in your link, the RW chooses to believe the opposite. How is a thinking person supposed to react? What’s the takeaway?

I take that point in the article to be that mask mandates as implemented were ineffective and performative.

A continuously worn N95 is effective.  Placing a loose banded cloth over your face as you walk from restaurant entrance to table is just silliness.  

[Willfully Horn 7916]

36 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I take that point in the article to be that mask mandates as implemented were ineffective and performative.

A continuously worn N95 is effective.  Placing a loose banded cloth over your face as you walk from restaurant entrance to table is just silliness.  

I agree with your second paragraph. No question.

Implementation was unquestionably ineffective. Can you explain what I am missing when, to me, that is an example of the right wing sabotaging a social construct and later denigrating the construct because it didn’t work as intended?

I remember the cloth masks, the pronouncements that were later rescinded. I agree that we are not as concerned about COVID as we should be.

The contempt for performative mask wearing, for virtue signaling, also escapes me. I understand derisive humor, though, but I think you reference something beyond that. Any thoughts that might help?

 

 

[Incredulity 11555]

11 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Can you explain what I am missing when, to me, that is an example of the right wing sabotaging a social construct and later denigrating the construct because it didn’t work as intended?

Do you view questioning the efficacy of cloth masks, the classic chin diaper off the nose mask, masking only when out of seat at crowded restaurant, and calling bullshit on most strident mask mandaters own maskless misadventures as, “sabotage”?

 

say, “ mask mandaters maskless misadventures”  5 times fast.

[troph 24563]

Years ago the battle front was making sure creationism was presented as a competing theory to evolution because a theory is a theory not settled science and the Bible tells me so and I believe it.

that was my first experience of settled science being trashed to make others feel good.

masks are at the end of a long list of settled science subjects from climate change, to being LGBTQ, to vaccines, to even conspiracy theories.

the rejection of settled science is one of the most catastrophic causes of where we are today.
 

can progressives be wrong about welfare reform or border and immigration policies, or tax policy or implementation of settled science like masking, or any number of other initiatives? Of course. Settled science isn’t one of them though, it’s not political even if a politician is the one saying it.   
 

 

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

Thread drift but I’m not a fan of the term “settled science” or the phrase the science is settled.  I find it too rigid a term, and in many cases it’s not entirely true.  We still spend billions on climate change research, for instance. Shouldn’t need to do that if the science is settled. It’s a poorly constructed phrasing for what is meant to be conveyed, like defund the police.  When I see it, I think the meaning is that we know broadly the effect or trend we are studying.  I feel like others want to see it as if there was a mathematical  proof demonstrated, and that can be pushed back against in most cases. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26284]

20 hours ago, Incredulity said:

left-liberal outlook has triumphed across American culture—in corporate boardrooms

Lol no

[Incredulity 11555]

15 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Thread drift but I’m not a fan of the term “settled science” or the phrase the science is settled.  I find it too rigid a term, and in many cases it’s not entirely true.  We still spend billions on climate change research, for instance. Shouldn’t need to do that if the science is settled. It’s a poorly constructed phrasing for what is meant to be conveyed, like defund the police.  When I see it, I think the meaning is that we know broadly the effect or trend we are studying.  I feel like others want to see it as if there was a mathematical  proof demonstrated, and that can be pushed back against in most cases. 

It’s absolutely used as a political cudgel by the left.  To the point of accusing anyone who questions the, “settled science” of heresy.  Which ties back to the article I posted.
 

What is absolutely befuddling is a group that completely shuns religious orthodoxy quite literally prays at the alter of, “settled science”.  And no that is not a defense of religious orthodoxy.

[Goredho 17349]

nt

Edited December 11, 2022 by Goredho
hit save too quick

[Nivek 16861]

On 12/3/2022 at 9:15 PM, Slacks said:

Racism and killing of non-whites is the foundation upon which this country was built.

Make America Great Again 

Exploiting the poor is really the third pillar.  

[Willfully Horn 7916]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

Do you view questioning the efficacy of cloth masks, the classic chin diaper off the nose mask, masking only when out of seat at crowded restaurant, and calling bullshit on most strident mask mandaters own maskless misadventures as, “sabotage”?

 

say, “ mask mandaters maskless misadventures”  5 times fast.

Right up to your calling “bullshit,” no. But, you lose me there.

I am talking about the narrative, with which we do not read in the same way, which holds  that mask wearing doesn’t work. I believe you see that message in a much different light. Because, for me, it offers a reason for folks not to wear masks,, That is the sabotage I see. 

[troph 24563]

49 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Thread drift but I’m not a fan of the term “settled science” or the phrase the science is settled.  I find it too rigid a term, and in many cases it’s not entirely true.  We still spend billions on climate change research, for instance. Shouldn’t need to do that if the science is settled. It’s a poorly constructed phrasing for what is meant to be conveyed, like defund the police.  When I see it, I think the meaning is that we know broadly the effect or trend we are studying.  I feel like others want to see it as if there was a mathematical  proof demonstrated, and that can be pushed back against in most cases. 

Well you are using precise language and you are correct. But the ramifications you want the moment you say it’s not settled science are not the ramifications you get.  
 

and you need only look at the following response to you to see exhibit 1 of my assertion.

settled science to me means we can devote more resources to further understanding the problem and finding a solution. conservatives use the retort to be a do nothing party. That’s catastrophically dangerous. I just read an article about the US forest service surveying millions of acres of dead firs in Oregon, it’s settled science that temps have risen there and climate change is a major problem. It’s unclear the acute cause here though but it’s settled science it’s the worst wipe out of firs since they’ve measured. Drought, heat dome, weakened ecosystems so is it water, temps, insects, disease, etc? Not settled, but they are trying to do something. And those who say nature just doing what nature does are the ones that say the science isn’t settled so no need to do anything.

you are correct but be careful, the ramifications you seek are happening among the scientists but making the point in the public square aligns you with the deniers and the creationist style fairy tale believers.

Edited December 11, 2022 by troph

[Goredho 17349]

38 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

It’s absolutely used as a political cudgel by the left.  To the point of accusing anyone who questions the, “settled science” of heresy.  Which ties back to the article I posted.
 

What is absolutely befuddling is a group that completely shuns religious orthodoxy quite literally prays at the alter of, “settled science”.  And no that is not a defense of religious orthodoxy.

To me it gets again back to standards.  Science and the scientific method requires standards of evidence and scrutiny.  I don't worship science, but a scientific study that has been peer reviewed has had to stand on its own two evidentiary feet, so to speak.  Does it mean that its findings are infallible?  Absolutely not.  Will it more often than not be more reliable information than a YouTube video offering up conclusions rooted in religious mysticism?  Absolutely.

Data is data, and the inferences from the pandemic data were sound.  Hundreds of thousands did die from COVID-19.  If you had COVID-19 and wore a mask appropriately, you do have less of a chance to infect others in your environment.  People of an age or with co-morbidities truly are more likely to get seriously ill, be hospitalized and die from covid if they do not take the covid vaccine.  Those are simple evidentiary facts, and they were generally also disputed by the same sources who were against mask mandates.

Where I think there absolutely should be a pandemic post-mortem and questioning are the decisions made with respect to that information and information from areas outside of public health and science. I think there did come a point where the mental health effects of isolation were worse than the health risks of contracting covid.  I think there was a devastating economic impact from government restrictions for some, and that those restrictions were lifted too late after a vaccine was generally available.

These policy decisions had effects outside of public physical health, so they should be made considering information outside of physical medicine and science.  Our leaders should be weighing the medical scientific information against information from economists and mental health experts to come up with policy.  We could have done better in this regard, and I am sad that our political state means we will never have a true examination of what we could do better next time.  Everyone wants to simply defend the positions they had entering the pandemic, or criticize the opposition for what they got wrong without also examining their own beliefs for what they got wrong.

And so the wheel keeps turning...

Edited December 11, 2022 by Goredho

[Celery Man 20886]

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Thread drift but I’m not a fan of the term “settled science” or the phrase the science is settled.  I find it too rigid a term, and in many cases it’s not entirely true.  We still spend billions on climate change research, for instance. Shouldn’t need to do that if the science is settled. It’s a poorly constructed phrasing for what is meant to be conveyed, like defund the police.  When I see it, I think the meaning is that we know broadly the effect or trend we are studying.  I feel like others want to see it as if there was a mathematical  proof demonstrated, and that can be pushed back against in most cases. 

this is exactly the kind of subtlety that people like incredulity are far too stupid to understand

[Incredulity 11555]

9 minutes ago, troph said:

I just read an article about the US forest service surveying millions of acres of dead firs in Oregon, it’s settled science that temps have risen there and climate change is a major problem. It’s unclear the acute cause here though but it’s settled science it’s the worst wipe out of firs since they’ve measured. Drought, heat some, weakened ecosystems so is it water, temps, insects, disease, etc?

 

1.) There is an explosion of fir beetle tree deaths because zero forest service control efforts happened during the lockdown of 2020.   Of course the powers that be are scratching their heads.

2.) nearly all of the PNW wildfire of the last decade have occurred on public land.  Public land that the eco-left has put off limits to even moderate forest management.

[Incredulity 11555]

9 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

this is exactly the kind of subtlety that people like incredulity are far too stupid to understand

A picante and pithy journey through the heart of the intellectual left.  I’m giving this post 3.5 stars.

[Bozo_Casanova 26284]

49 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

What is absolutely befuddling is a group that completely shuns religious orthodoxy quite literally prays at the alter of, “settled science”.  And no that is not a defense of religious orthodoxy.

The rare begging the question + strawman + category error triple play.

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

I had hoped that by comparing settled science to defund the police, it would be apparent to anyone that I was describing a labeling issue, where the term doesn’t accurately reflect the intent.  I guess not and I’m sorry I made the post now.