politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
My biggest gripe is that science is really fucking hard and we're unbelievably lucky to have made so many strides in knowledge and technology on the backs of generations of brilliant people lending their genius to the greater good. Flat-earth and other pseudo-sciences degrade the amount of pure brilliance, luck, and hard fucking work involved in getting to where we've gotten. I love the idea that some randos on the Internet could fundamentally turn science on it's head, and perhaps it's still possible. Science is much harder than most of these people even realize though.
Should we be skeptical of things in general--absolutely! Even if you truly believe you have a take that will change science at its core, you won't be taken seriously by the scientific community if you can't provide rock-solid proof that can be vetted and verified by other scientists. Is that unfair?
People are most certainly making their own choices -- remember how hot ivermectin was for a minute there? Completely unsupported evidence of efficacy and guess what -- it didn't work. Personally, i think they should take science in their own hands and figure out why they're wrong about so much. The problem here is what i think is a defining difference between a scientist and a pseudo-scientist: the scientist will pay attention to the results and will even change their hypothesis/theory when new evidence to the contrary is discovered. The pseudo-scientist already knows the answer they are looking for and will disregard any evidence to the contrary out of hand.
Remember the flat earther documentary where they set out to finally disprove modern science and failed spectacularly? Remember when confronted with hard evidence disproving their theory, they immediately started blaming the testing equipment and methodology, never yielding for a moment that they could be wrong. That is a problem, in my opinion. They regularly begin to reject real indisputable evidence in favor of 'vibes' or whatever leads them to believe hare-brained theories, and next thing you see people venturing further out into Lala Land where everything magically fits into their set of "theories" and they are further disconnected from reality.
I really think we've let down generation after generation with degrading educational standards. Pet theories are one thing but outright rejecting science because you can't understand it or do it yourself is counterproductive. Pseudo science doesn't help anyone and deserves to be relegated to the tabloids like they used to be (of course I'm sure that people believed some of that shit whole-heartedly back then too, again despite lacking any credible evidence)