That's not true. Countless journalists, academics, and luminaries have expressed serious concern over the election of Donald Trump. To put it simply, the only ones celebrating his victory are the KKK, Russia, ISIS, and American conservatives.
Anyway, if people want to vote for right wing nutcases who refuse to believe in science, data, evidence, they deserve to be insulted and rightfully so. Don't expect a retraction or apology from people with common sense. The truth mattars not what your opinion is.
When the right refuses to believe in science, data, and evidence, it's derided as climate change denial.
When the left refuses to believe in science, data, and evidence, it's celebrated as tolerance, diversity, and multiculturalism.
Do you see the difference? When the right believes something contrary to science, they're attacked for it. So why does the left get a free pass in denying biology and evolution?
The fact is the right tends to be religeous nutcase who believe in Creationism. Recet polls show support for evolutionary biology among Republicans have been disturbingly dropping.
"sizable differences by party affiliation in beliefs about evolution, and the gap between Republicans and Democrats has grown. In 2009, 54% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats said humans have evolved over time, a difference of 10 percentage points. Today, 43% of Republicans and 67% of Democrats say humans have evolved, a 24-point gap."
When the right refuses to believe in science, data, and evidence, it's derided as climate change denial.
When the left refuses to believe in science, data, and evidence, it's celebrated as tolerance, diversity, and multiculturalism.
Do you see the difference? When the right believes something contrary to science, they're attacked for it. So why does the left get a free pass in denying biology and evolution?
The fact is the right tends to be religeous nutcase who believe in Creationism. Recet polls show support for evolutionary biology among Republicans have been disturbingly dropping.
"sizable differences by party affiliation in beliefs about evolution, and the gap between Republicans and Democrats has grown. In 2009, 54% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats said humans have evolved over time, a difference of 10 percentage points. Today, 43% of Republicans and 67% of Democrats say humans have evolved, a 24-point gap."
While I cannot defend them from a scientific viewpoint (though I can defend them reasonably well from a logical one), I can absolutely defend them over a moral viewpoint.
Creationism, in its purest form, states that all beings were created by some creator (like God, for instance). Therefore, since the creator created all beings (including us), all "natural" rights are granted by this being. The last part is a leap of faith, but it provides a handy justification for why things like murder and cannibalism should be illegal. Do note that this belief in itself did not stop countless wars, including "holy" ones, and sacrifices as well.
The alternative is to accept that our rights to live and so forth are granted by fellow humans...and can be revoked by fellow humans. Not exactly reassuring given our history as a species.
I realize that my statement is entirely meaningless to some, since I defend it on moral grounds, and I know that my argument is shaky.
I WON A BET AGAINST AZUREN! WOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Post-factual doesn't mean "explanation for a loss". It means "facts don't matter".
Look at the presidential and vice presidential debates. How many times did Trump lean into the mic and say "wrong" to statements that are easily verified with a google search, like when he said "wrong" when Hillary brought up that he said global warming was a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese?
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.
How about when Pence said the Clinton/Kaine campaign was doing an "insult driven campaign" when every "attack" on Trump or Pence was literally just quoting them?
How about how the economy is doing great, we have millions of new jobs, and the stock market is at record highs. But "economic anxiety" was somehow a major issue for Trump voters and they didn't want Hillary to win because that would be "four more years of Obama". Millions of new jobs and the stock market at records highs and people don't want that. Why? Because facts don't matter. It's not so much that "they don't want that", it's that people don't believe the actual facts that that is the current reality, and instead believe the false reality that unemployment is up, the stock market is down, we don't have millions of new jobs, etc. when that is demonstrably false.
Proof. 67% of Trump voters think unemployment increased during Obama's presidency (it went down). 39% think the stock market is down (it's up. It'd "never been higher" at one point). 40% believe that Trump, who lost the NPV by nearly 3 million votes....won the NPV.
This is what "post-factual" means, and it was going on long before November 8th. It's why no matter what Trump did, he kept going up in the polls. "I could shoot someone on 5th avenue and wouldn't lose any votes". "Grab em by the pussy". "Ted Cruz's dad collaborated in assassinating JFK". "Four more years of Obama" (as pointed out, this would actually be a good thing). "When Mexico sends it's people, they're not sending their best [sic] they're bringing criminals, they're rapists....". "He's not a war hero". "I know more about ISIS than the generals". Asking Russia to hack US emails, then playing none the wiser when it happened and it's causing a firestorm. The facts literally don't matter.
People act like none of these things A. happened or B. mean nothing and it all gets brushed to the side. I guarantee if Obama said he went around forcing himself on women because he "couldn't help himself" and that he grabbed them by the pussy, there would be massive outrage. But when Trump does that or basically anything else, it's nothing.
Peh said: What a great time it is, indeed. I can now make several claims without providing proof.
Yeeeah, that's great, right? For the very first time in history, one can now make claims without providing proof. As everyone knows, this is an absolute novelty in 2016, it never happened before, as something like that was plain impossible in the last 13 billion years. Aus... Gründen, I guess.
But now it is officially official. If someone asks me for proof, I can point to post-factual world and can go away with it.
That's not true. Countless journalists, academics, and luminaries have expressed serious concern over the election of Donald Trump. To put it simply, the only ones celebrating his victory are the KKK, Russia, ISIS, and American conservatives.
Anyway, if people want to vote for right wing nutcases who refuse to believe in science, data, evidence, they deserve to be insulted and rightfully so. Don't expect a retraction or apology from people with common sense. The truth mattars not what your opinion is.
When the right refuses to believe in science, data, and evidence, it's derided as climate change denial.
When the left refuses to believe in science, data, and evidence, it's celebrated as tolerance, diversity, and multiculturalism.
Do you see the difference? When the right believes something contrary to science, they're attacked for it. So why does the left get a free pass in denying biology and evolution?
Politely provide proof of "the left refusing to believe in science, data, and evidence". I don't see left wingers continuing to push abstinence when the studies show places that push abstinence only result in more STDs and more unwanted pregnancies because sex is human nature and will happen anyway, so those who are uneducated about it get the shit end of the stick.
I don't see left wingers being anti-vaxxer.
Can you give me some examples of "tolerance" being cited in order to refuse some scientific research? When has multiculturalism been celebrated for refusing to believe some evidence?
P.S. The same with Trump. All the major Western media was just making fun of him the whole election. And now trying to say they was 'opposing the evil' from the start...
except Trump told more lies/untruths/madeupbullshitnumbers, than all the other candidates together.
Yet he won the election? the explaination? people dont care about the truth anymore.
#dontbelievethemedia, #mediabiased
They all lie who cares who cares who's lying more.
Nice one, Rol! Some examples of this post-factual thing: Take Syria. West started supported so called rebels there. Made an ISIS brand. Started a civil war in Syria. Then refugees start moving to Europe. Then, last autemn, Russia directly involved. But western media now trying to spin the situation the way that Russian involvment was a cause of refugees crysis. Or Aleppo. 5 years of civil war - nobody cared about the city. Until Asad start making military successes there with Russian support. Then BAM - and twitter account of Bana, 7 tears old girl speaking perfect Englush and tweeting day and night arrived.
Its very much as if Orwell's 1984 and 'doublethinking' became a part of reality in the West.
P.S. The same with Trump. All the major Western media was just making fun of him the whole election. And now trying to say they was 'opposing the evil' from the start...
Not just the West, though. While there is a lot of proaganda here, Russians are victim to it as well.
Too bad during times like this everyone goes far-right instead of far-left. Although it isn't very surprising because the establishment are much more threatened by communists than fascists.
When the right refuses to believe in science, data, and evidence, it's derided as climate change denial.
When the left refuses to believe in science, data, and evidence, it's celebrated as tolerance, diversity, and multiculturalism.
Do you see the difference? When the right believes something contrary to science, they're attacked for it. So why does the left get a free pass in denying biology and evolution?
Politely provide proof of "the left refusing to believe in science, data, and evidence". I don't see left wingers continuing to push abstinence when the studies show places that push abstinence only result in more STDs and more unwanted pregnancies because sex is human nature and will happen anyway, so those who are uneducated about it get the shit end of the stick.
I don't see left wingers being anti-vaxxer.
Can you give me some examples of "tolerance" being cited in order to refuse some scientific research? When has multiculturalism been celebrated for refusing to believe some evidence?
There are left wingers that believe women can do anything men can. They believe in the wage gap which has already been disproven as well.
Um, didn't Trump's victory come as a complete surprise to polling? If yes, wouldn't that mean that polls should not be seen as representative of reality?
Didn't the stock market only stabilize under Obama because of countless band-aid measures, i.e. printing lots of money and the USA rising its debt at an alarming rate? Basically, doing just a little bit more than the most superficial of an analysis reveals a trajectory that isn't healthy.
And of course the main reason for the Democrats' loss: Hillary Clinton. She sucked butt. That's the one fact that matters more than all others, but it gets ignored by the people who are screaming "post-factual world". People who do satire for a living got the gist of it a long time ago: The only candidate that Trump could possibly win against is Clinton.
Well, first off, national polling had Clinton winning by ~3 point. With the near 3 million vote lead, she won by about 2.5 points. The total polling wasn't wrong. It was just off, slightly, geographically (Trump won because of a measly 80,000 votes in 3 states. And there were many swing voters that things such as the Comey letter could have influence at the last minute that wasn't reflected in the polls). So, the polls were representative like 97% of the way. But, by "going up in the polls", I meant in the primaries and his point spread decreasing against Hillary. He definitely kept sonning the rest of the Republican candidates in the primaries despite all the dumb things he said, and in the general, he kept creeping up against Hillary in the polls, and even overtaking her at one point, before the final exit polls showed him losing by about 3 points, which he did, roughly.
Also, the stock market didn't "stabilize". Did you see the link? It did nothing but go up, up, up. Again, it had "never been higher" earlier this year. If he was just putting bandaids on, the trend would be a flat line, not historic growth.
And Hillary did suck. I certainly accept that. Hell, I didn't even vote for her (I literally voted for myself. I would have put Harambe, but I didn't want to bother his peaceful soul with our trivial problems). But are you telling me that Trump is better? The guy who knows nothing about politics, has flip flopped on not only his campaign promises the moment he won on November 8th, but he's even flipped on Hillary? She "sucked butt", but the guy who kept saying "she's done nothing for 30 years" is the same guy who said, just a few years ago, that Hillary would, at minimum, be go down in history as a great senator. Last I checked, a few years ago was within the last 30 years, so how could she have done nothing for 3 decades but you still said she was a great senator? As much as she "sucked butt", Trump seemed to like her and her 30 years of work before this election.
Actually, lol at that video. He was talking about how much of a great president Bill Clinton was, then during his campaign he did nothing but rag on Bill. NAFTA, one of the things he hated the most this election year and a major talking point of said ragging of Bill Clinton, was still around when he made that comments, and he still said Bill was a great president. Then he flipped on it to get Republican voters. This pathological liar is better than Hillary?
