The point I'm trying to make here and why this is so important is that there's a reason I side with the left more than the right. There's a clear distinction between the sides, and much of that distinction is a person's level of intelligence. I remember reading a thing about how 'colleges are pushing propaganda for the left!' and the scare mongering that comes with it. The reality is that, when you actually understand what the fuck you're talking about, you tend to err on the left because that's where all the smart people go. The scientists and researchers who actually understand endocrinology and climate science and history tend to agree...the current right is outright villainous and frankly ignorant of the nuance of the situation. Almost every argument I've had on the matter boils down to my opponent just not understanding the depth of the topic at hand and woefully butchering the details that explain why they think they're right.

I tend to not get involved in a lot of point by point breakdowns of different topics and I try to avoid responding to every paragraph someone writes because 90% of my rebuttal would boil down to 'no, that's wrong. you don't know what you're talking about' followed by 3 paragraphs explaining things in more detail. I'm not getting paid to educate people on the chemical composition or biological mechanisms involved in vaccine use, and in my 20+ years of debating this shit on the internet, I've come to learn that the people who are on the wrong side of the debate have no interest in learning, they just act like their feelings and passion on a topic are enough to validate their opinions. 

Like I've said before, there are plenty of discussion topics out there with lots to say on both sides of the debate. I'm pro-choice but I understand the reasoning and logic behind pro-life arguments (I just personally feel that your own life is your own choice, and you shouldn't be forced to bring life into this world if you cannot give that life...a life worth living.) I know from research that capital punishment/death penalty doesn't work, it isn't a deterrent, and it definitely isn't applied equally to all those who are handed that sentence....but I still have no problem with it in some cases. Again, I understand when you disagree with the science, or personally feel your values supercede the hard numbers. I get that cold hard reality doesn't always square up with your values and opinions on the matter. 

The issue is that, with some things, you need to concede. I know I'm wrong for my opinions on the death penalty, but my emotions often don't care about the facts when I read about some of the things people do. I can be objective on a subject while still having a subjective opinion. I would never try to force my opinions on certain matters on others.

But a lot of what's going on right now? The systemic racism, the climate change denial, the ignorance about Covid and vaccines in general? These are all issues that are having massive effects on the world and the people that inhabit it. Bad information spreads so quickly and so virulently that it's hurting us all. And in this situation, I don't give a shit about your opinions on the matter, not when the lives of...what, 400,000 Americans is at stake? I don't give a flying fuck if you're mildly inconvenienced when you're expected to wear a mask. PErsonal freedom is great and all, but if your decision to push your personal freedom infringes on the freedoms and safety of others, then fuck your personal freedoms. 

This is LITERALLY why we have a legal system in place. That's why laws exist. That's why we have law enforcement. Freedom is great, but mutual success is better. 

"The reality is that, when you actually understand what the fuck you're talking about, you tend to err on the left because that's where all the smart people go."

>This seems dangerously close to appeal to authority.

Again, there's more nuance. I said you 'tend to err on the side of the left' not 'all smart people are liberals' or 'all stupid people are conservative' because those statements would be absurd. I am saying there's a strong correlation between intelligence and the values of the left. Because, you know, it's the left pushing for more education and climate science and a more nuanced understanding of sex and gender, and it's the left who are about progression while the right are all about regression. 

This has nothing to do with authority, it's an observable correlation between values and politics. You don't seem to understand what your 'logical fallacy' actually means or how it fails to apply to what I'm saying here. 

While 53% is the majority, the 47% that are left are still a pretty big portion in and itself.

You said more than that, you said: "you tend to err on the left because that's where all the smart people go."

Being smart is no guarantee of correctness.

One should appeal to the argument, not the arguer. One should tend to the side with the good arguments, not the smart arguers.

You said more than that, you said: "you tend to err on the left because that's where all the smart people go."

Being smart is no guarantee of correctness.

One should appeal to the argument, not the arguer. One should tend to the side with the good arguments, not the smart arguers.

Then present a good argument, backed up by evidence.

And who do you think is 'correct' more often, smart people having studied the subject they are talking about, or people repeating tweets with a personal agenda.

I'm pretty sure Runa meant intelligent people with 'smart people', not quick witted smooth talkers. Problem is, most people have very little experience reading scientific papers, thus only read some interpretation from someone else or worse, watch a you tube video talking about a report. And on the other side, the most intelligent people often have a problem explaining what they're talking about in layman's terms. This problem is easily solved with better education.

"Then present a good argument, backed up by evidence."

>Will try to if the situation calls for it...

"And who do you think is 'correct' more often, smart people having studied the subject they are talking about, or people repeating tweets with a personal agenda."

>More often? The former, sure. Still not a guarantee, smart people who have studied a subject are perfectly capable of carrying an agenda of their own... And these two aren't the only choices we have right?

Seems the people don't realize that a minority can still be significant. 

Even so, why would they vote "no"? Was the alternative secession? If so, I'd understand, but remaining a territory seems like a dumb choice. 

It was a straight Yes/No question, so continuing the status quo, independence or any other possibility (like a free association to the US) got rolled into one.

The problem with this referendum is that it was everything but clear what the outcome really  will be. Voting yes could be a path to statehood, but for now, it's just a continuation if the status quo. Voting No would have appointed  some people to turn Puerto Rico to either a Free Association or full independence.

As a result, voting Yes could be interpreted as staying a territory while no would be a vote for independence just as much as yes would be statehood and no staying a territory...