Anti-Science: Liberals and Conservatives

[HAL9000]

I have found that no matter where someone lies on the political spectrum they can be anti-science. But I have noticed a trend where 'conservatives' will be anti-science to a specific bundle of topics, and 'liberals' will have their own bundle of anti-science topics.

For example, many conservatives are anti-science when it comes to Biology(evolution, sexuality) and Climate. They don't like facts which go against their view of history, religion, or economics.

However, many liberals are very strongly pro-evolution and understand climate science, but many are against medical science. Many liberals buy into anti-vaccine movements, alternative 'remedies', "mystical healing" and are also anti-GMO.

Does this sound true to anyone else? You know those people who say they are "living healthy" so they only eat organic and use homeopathic 'remedies', practice New Age crystal healing, that type of person as an example of 'liberals'.
And the sterotypical conservative Christian who doesn't accept evolution (evilution) and Climate change is a liberal conspiracy propagated by the Liberal Media.

I think everyone on the political spectrum falls to woo, but it seems like the stereotypical "new agey liberal" buys into more of the "mystical" "feel-good" type of thing.

[Minimalist]

When you say "conservatives" you have to distinguish between the money-grubbing cocksuckers who simply think corporations should be allowed to poison us if they can make a profit, and the nutty jesus freak assholes who hate anything that isn't related to their fucking bible. The first group thinks "science" is a defense mechanism to be employed to defend their rapaciousness. The latter group thinks "science" is out to destroy their silly god. Different motivations.

"Liberals" can be more open to the anti-vaccine stuff but I'm not so sure that it is "anti-medical science" as much as it is "anti-corporation" (see above) who they think are trying to poison them for a profit. I do agree with you about the veganism and woo-woo stuff but, as long as they merely inflict it on themselves they are not causing any harm.

Contrast that with the faith healers who let their kids die rather than see a doctor.

[Darth]

Contrast that with the anti-vac new age healing believers who let their kids die rather than get them immunised, and endanger everybody else's kids by compromising the herd immunity.

[Something completely different]

I have found that no matter where someone lies on the political spectrum they can be anti-science. But I have noticed a trend where 'conservatives' will be anti-science to a specific bundle of topics, and 'liberals' will have their own bundle of anti-science topics.

For example, many conservatives are anti-science when it comes to Biology(evolution, sexuality) and Climate. They don't like facts which go against their view of history, religion, or economics.

However, many liberals are very strongly pro-evolution and understand climate science, but many are against medical science. Many liberals buy into anti-vaccine movements, alternative 'remedies', "mystical healing" and are also anti-GMO.

Does this sound true to anyone else? You know those people who say they are "living healthy" so they only eat organic and use homeopathic 'remedies', practice New Age crystal healing, that type of person as an example of 'liberals'.
And the sterotypical conservative Christian who doesn't accept evolution (evilution) and Climate change is a liberal conspiracy propagated by the Liberal Media.

I think everyone on the political spectrum falls to woo, but it seems like the stereotypical "new agey liberal" buys into more of the "mystical" "feel-good" type of thing.

True for the US.

Not true here.

The only antiscience political factions I heard of here were polish and english right wingers aswell as spanish conservatives.

[Minimalist]

Contrast that with the anti-vac new age healing believers who let their kids die rather than get them immunised, and endanger everybody else's kids by compromising the herd immunity.

If "everybody else's kids" are vaccinated there isn't much of a risk.

This

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/30/us/whe...all&src=pm

Vaccine resisters cite an array of reasons. ''Sometimes it's distrust in government, feeling it's in bed with the vaccine industry and 'everyone's making money off our kids,' '' Mr. Salmon said. Sometimes the objections are religious, as among Christian Scientists and some Amish congregations. Sometimes a community is scared when a child is truly harmed by side effects; the live polio vaccine, for example, is thought to cause about eight deaths a year.

does not sound particularly "liberal."

[Darth]

except for the poor kids who can't be immunised...

Not saying both sides aren't guilty.

[Minimalist]

I'm not following you, Stue. Who "can't" be immunized... unless the parents don't want to?

Even in this shithole of Arizona kids are immunized for free if they are uninsured.

[Darth]

Kids with certain medical conditions or allergies, who must therefore rely on the herd immunity.

Kids undergoing chemotherapy for one, according to the NZ gov.
http://www.health.govt.nz/your-health/co...st-measles
along with the chemo weakening the effects of previous immunisations.

[Isun]

Actually I would disagree. I don't know of any liberals that oppose immunization. Wasn't it Michelle Bachmann that claimed that immunization causes retardation or autism. Last I looked, she was a conservative.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Antivaccination causes a lot of harm to autistic kids and their parents IMO, they chelate their autistic kids thinking it'll get the mercury out and cure their autism. Poor kids.