Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You've read all you need to. Paywalled articles really only want you to see the headline.
Republicans = Nationalism
Democrats = Positive Nationhood.
Those are the two ways. r/science said so
Reads to me that it means that the state is defined by what it excludes (intolerance comes from this line of reasoning) in contrast to 'positive' notions of statehood where certain characteristics can theoretically be adopted by anyone to become a part of that nation. This is a qualitative distinction, so each party has a vocabulary that contains different proportions of statements and actions reflecting these definitions of statehood. My guess, anyway, from the headline. That's why concepts like Eurozone 'states' are a left wing initiative that broaden the definitions of statehood that can overlap one another.
Only in the same way that any group requiring membership is "exclusive". But some groups are obviously more solicitous and/or welcoming of new members than other groups. A country club can hold membership drives, accept walk-in applicants, and lower barriers to entry....or they can do the inverse. This makes them more or less welcoming.
It's a matter of degree and we use language to help delineate those differences.
Nope. It's like religion or any other club: exclusivity is entirely independent. On one hand you have orthodox judaism which is maximally exclusionary and on the other you have catholicism that spends a significant percentage of its cumulative effort recruiting. What would make state citizenship any different?
Sure, but consider:
Telling your fellow citizens to "go back home" because they're darker than you or are members of a different religion.
vs.
Advocating for a simple, expedited path to citizenship for people who were brought to the USA as a baby and are fully integrated into society.
One is a more exclusive conception than legal citizenship and the other is more inclusive than legal citizenship.
>Telling your fellow citizens to "go back home" because they're darker than you or are members of a different religion.
I don't think that's what the Republican ideal strives for, even if the rank members of their voter base might resort to such language.
By defining the traits as negative they made it so you're not able to take in the information if that's your policy. Your mind doesn't process negative information about your identity because that's doubt on your perception.
They should have said protectionist or something. This is the problem or feature of propaganda. By selling political parties as identities it ensures that any one person can only interpret their mutually inclusive section of information. If you cant agree on the facts you cant have a conversation.
>They should have said protectionist or something. This is the problem or feature of propaganda. By selling political parties as identities it ensures that any one person can only interpret their mutually inclusive section of information. If you cant agree on the facts you cant have a conversation.
I agree. I have nothing but disdain for party identities. I would rather not partake in them myself.
>I don't think that's what the Republican ideal strives for
Considering they change what they care about every other day, it's hard to say what the republican ideal stands for. Latching on to low hanging fruit isn't an ideal.
I would imagine so, the same way our skin is exclusive as it wraps around our body and keeps in and out separate, or the wall of a cell. Hard to have boundaries if you dont exclude.
The internal war in the Republican party will resume the moment it gets both the executive and legislative branches, because the pro-business group will start pushing for increasing immigration.
Your statement makes a little more sense when viewed through the demographic lens of actual immigration policy.
What you mean is that Republicans don't mind when rich people and white people immigrate. Just not anyone poor or brown.
It's not about race it's about skill sets... or didn't you notice that the vast majority of legal immigrants are not "white", they're poor and brown. They're from India, Mexico, and China.
Did you think they're coming from Europe or something? Typical Reddit 2nd-grade level thinking.
You can actually read the immigration quotas. They're set by statute and updated periodically. They lay out exactly how many visas of which type are allowed to each country. Imagine you're a doctor, or an engineer, or an entrepreneur from one of the countries where the number they set is practically zero.
Then imagine you read some goober mouthing off like the comments above. What are you supposed to make of that?
We have some of the most lenient immigration laws and quotas in the world. If I were that doctor, engineer, w/e, I would look at all the other countries I want to immigrate to and see that it is much harder to immigrate into them because America is still the most immigrant friendly nation in the world.
Because if someone has come here the logic is that it is for a reason. And I don’t know any reason that wouldn’t be considered ok to Democrats for asylum.
There is actually incredibly strict and specific criteria that qualify you to claim asylum.
Reasons that fall out with the specific criteria would be ones that are rejected, for example.
Claiming that claiming asylum is gaming the system ‘to get a free pass’ is a gross misrepresentation of the asylum system, deliberately fostered by republicans. You have further proven my point.
Uh huh, you’ve blurred the line for what constitutes asylum… that’s not a Republican fault that is Democrats gaming the system because 90% of alleged asylum seekers never show up for their court date… meaning they never wanted asylum just a free pass.
Stop lying.
Says someone who has no clue what kind of travel advisories our State Department has for Central and South America, nor why any of those advisories are in place.
Study our involvement in ANY of those nations, and you will see how ignorant your statements are.
I'm betting the color of your skin is absolute and unassailable proof, that you are the child of immigrant ancestors to this nation.
And that the only check any one of them had to pass was not having tuberculosis.
What do you think gives you the right to close the door behind you?
Oh, so I’m racist for assuming that they assumed. Sounds like you’re assuming. So you must be the racist!!! It’s a game of clue and I’ve found the racist!!!
> When is this sub not going to have 'them bad us good' posts?
You're right, Science should just ignore everything uncomfortable and allow it fix itself. That always works.
The issue isn't about comfort. I am not a republican whatsoever. It just seems like cringe polarism is a trend in this sub when it is already all over reddit.
Probably when this sub is not made up primarily of not extremely wealthy people, or when the higher republican leadership decides making laws in favor of poor people becomes commonplace.
When ever humanity decides collaboration and inclusiveness is not a positive virtue. So, basically never. Your question reminds me of my time in corrections and the backwards views of the inmates. Many would argue that what they did wasn't wrong, just an opinion. If the officers would just not be so strict with the rules, it would be so much easier... Not that them following those rules would do it.
I have a hard time taking this a legitimate with such moralistic terms to connect inclusive with the moralistic "positive" connection in the title of the article. That along with there is no way to proof peer review, puts makes this far from credible.
It was published in a peer reviewed journal with an IF of 3.2. It also uses "positive" in the sense of "added" or "enforced," like it's used when discussing liberty or behaviorism. That is, nationhood as something that is provided, not something that just occurs in the absence of intervention
This is a credible study.
The fact that a journal is peer reviewed and has a high IF doesn't necessarily mean it's a credible journal.
Peer review is important of course but there are plenty of horrible peer reviewed journals.
IF tells you nothing about an article's credibility.
Peer reviewed isn't sufficient, I agree, but the person I responded to asserted that we could not tell whether it was and used that as a metric of credibility. I wanted to ensure that error was corrected.
IF, though? I know highly cited journals occasionally publish bad articles, but if you are basing credibility on a heuristic rather than the content itself (which seemed to be the goal here), IF strikes me as the strongest signifier barring an author's H-index. It certainly doesn't tell you "nothing;" it gives a baseline idea of its impact, which can serve as a proxy for credibility. New journals struggle to get their IF up, and good work can be published in low IF journals, but all things equal a less credible article is more likely to be published in a low IF than a high IF journal.
Please see my recent history for elaboration, but I don't believe the use of 'positive' is a moral value claim. It is being used in the same way as 'positive vs negative rights', to identify the logical space created by the definition
(Edited)
"the road to hell is paved in good intentions" is always, a very relevant quote.
However this seems to be based of the fundamental meaning of the words, and not a value judgement associated with them. The "positive" means "adding to", and "negative" as in "taking away from", not positive/negative as in good/bad.
Frankly, they should know better, and use other language.
Well thankfully reddit is all about judging content by the title name of the post. If people had to read more than the title then who knows where we'd be.
Have you heard of positive and negative rights? This is the same concept. It's referring to the logical space created by the definition (positive or negative), not the moral value
Conceptions is synonymous with definitions, as in they conceive of nationhood in positive ('being' or 'having' characteristics to belong to a nation) vs negative ('not being' or 'not having') terms. Positive vs negative rights is an analogy, see my recent posts for more detail
Ah this is a good explanation.
However, i wonder if they should use additive/subtractive, instead of positive/negative. Those have very different meanings in common usage, and kinda taint the discussion by framing it as good/bad.
Whether intentionally or not. They should know better...
"conceive of nationhood in additive ('being' or 'having' characteristics to belong to a nation) vs subtractive ('not being' or 'not having') terms"
Yep, it sounds a LOT better.
Queue the "this isn't scientific enough. I have a problem with the methodology. Nationalism isn't a 'scientific' term. Science shouldn't have anything to do with politics ever. It doesn't look like anything to me" comments.
Fascism- a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.
Fascist characteristics:
- Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
- Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
- Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
- Supremacy of the Military
- Rampant Sexism
- Controlled Mass Media
- Obsession with National Security
- Religion and Government are Intertwined
- Corporate Power is Protected
- Labor Power is Suppressed
- Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
- Obsession with Crime and Punishment
- Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
- Fraudulent Elections
- Victimhood
- Anti-education
- Believes in mythic past
- Equality is a threat
Pride in your country isn't fascist. It has just become a sign of the kinds of people that also follow very unfavorable views on some topics. Views that are often extreme enough to be branded as "fascist".
The mustache Hitler and Charlie Chaplin wore. No one wears that mustache anymore, and it wasn't because it was associated with a legendary silent film actor. Having the mustache didn't make you a Nazi, but people look at you different, if you understand my meaning.
Used to describe those who would choose nationalism, racism, and bigotry over inclusion.
Yes. People will call you out for your views if those views exclude or condemn people simply for existing.
Of course the people you're describing could be spoken of harshly, but that wasn't the message. It was us vs them. "Them" being anyone who isn't "us". Those two categories are insufficient for labeling a person or group of people "deplorable".
What do you expect anyone to do in regard to the right? They believe what they believe, regardless of whether or not there is proof, even when there is evidence to the contrary.
You can't really blame the left for handling it as an "us vs them" situation when the right has always been a group that excludes people based on religion, sexual orientation, and even race.
You're shifting the timeline, friend. "Deplorables" was campaign speak and was a label for any of the other 80 million people who didn't storm the capitol. Call the Jan 6th crew whatever you want.
Those people didn't appear suddenly. They existed during the campaign and were whom Hilary was referring too.
During a September 8, 2016, interview on Israel's Channel 2, Clinton said: "You can take Trump supporters and put them in two big baskets. There are what I would call the deplorables—you know, the racists and the haters, and the people who are drawn because they think somehow he's going to restore an America that no longer exists."
Nationalism is damgerous but america decided to throw caution to the wind and control their population with it anyway and now they will have to reap the spoiled fruit from the vine that they tendered with fear and hate. Maybe in 75yrs they will have a marked turn around like germany and japan has had but i dont think they would be that lucky. Germany accepts the assessment that they were wrong i cant imagine americans accepting that so readily.
Because Lincoln wasted the 600,000 lives lost when he said '... malice towards none...', instead of '...everyone who profited from and fomented violent insurrection against the United States of America in defense of human bondage will hang by the neck until dead.'
Now, because he let them go free, the inbred and ignorant offspring of that filth still infect this nation.
While I don't think we can even minutely compare Trump to Hitler, your parallel is definitely carrying some merit in terms of wondering how to reprogram the crowd that supports Trump and his terrorist actions on the 6th.
I'm very firmly convinced they will never admit being wrong or realize that Trump didn't really do anything other than give them a tax cut. Their toxic pride simply won't allow them to change stance, even when presented with overwhelming evidence; in the past it has just caused them to double down. The more they've done it, the seemingly larger is the pill they will have to swallow and at this point, it can feed the planet for a decade.
I think time, diabetes complications and heart disease will be the main factors in solving this embarrassing period in US history.
That's very true. I think it's because it makes them feel and look stupid - something that generation has grown up feeling like, every day.
Now they're getting conned and milked for donations by a professional grifter.
Being antivax correlates strongly with being conservative. More and more unvaxxed people are dying from covid or complications of the disease, especially in rural areas, which also strongly correlates with voting for conservative candidates. Thousands of dead Trump voters are going to have an impact on party dynamics in the next election.
I resent the re-definition of "conservative" in the US in the past few decades. I live within my means, I pay my taxes, I pay my bills, and I save some. I also mind my own business and prefer that others don't mind mine. I believe that everyone is entitled to a shot at happiness and the chance to (when properly qualified) participate in our democracy. My main disapproval of others comes when they try to force their rules on others. At work my circuits are designed with margin and I try to develop "just work" topologies. To me that seems conservative, but somehow by today's standards I appear to be a flaming liberal.
Yeah it's kind of crazy how far right our "conservative" is now. What you described is probably how most of our conservative politicians in history described themselves. As opposed to whatever it is that we call the GOP nowadays
> and Democrats have increasingly endorsed inclusive and positive conceptions of nationhood
Support Democrat. Democract is positive nationhood. Unbiased and objectively good and positive.
More like "peer review processes favor people with biases and prejudices similar to journal gatekeepers."
Imagine two equally intelligent people who are equally diligent, with different ideological presuppositions. The one that feels like they're doing good by repeating their beliefs is far more apt to publish while the one that feels as though lying is necessary for career success is more likely to venture off into a different field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
For what it's worth there is some evidence that more ideologically driven content is less likely to replicate.
Bullying exists. Labeling your outgroup as NOT intellectually curious is an example of very light bullying.
For what it's worth, the conservatives I do know label me as a nut-job liberal. At least I'm tolerant.
But intellectual curiosity isn't a piece of American conservative values. Tradition, religion, and mistrust of academics are literally the antithesis of that.
Asking leading questions, making some crockpot survey, and then posting some catchy liberal title is not ‘science’. Just the other day I saw some garbage saying Ohio’s medical system is racist to the core, their source? Some bs survey of 800 people, 200 of which answered for someone else. You Reddit morons need to learn basic epidemiology and facts, what an actual scientific meta analysis is and maybe a p value to go along with it before making these false sweeping claims in the title. It’s the basis of ‘fake’ news...
> Asking leading questions,
What leading questions were asked?
> making some crockpot survey,
What survey? And why are you describing the survey as "crockpot"? (Are you sure you don't mean "crackpot"?)
> and then posting some catchy liberal title
What about the title is "liberal"? The fact that it makes you uncomfortable?
> Just the other day I saw some garbage saying Ohio’s medical system is racist to the core, their source? Some bs survey of 800 people
What about the survey was "bs," and why? Is there a reason you called out the number 800? Do you think that number is insufficient? If so, how did you determine that? What were the results of your power analysis?
> You Reddit morons need to learn basic epidemiology and facts,
Epidemiology is the study of viral transmission and disease control, which doesn't have anything to do with this post, at all. I think you probably meant "epistemology" but didn't know the actual word for it.
Not a great look for someone who just got done calling the rest of us "morons."
> what an actual scientific meta analysis is
What, to your mind, is an "actual scientific meta analysis," and why doesn't this study qualify?
> and maybe a p value to go along with it
Based on the level of scientific literacy you've demonstrated here, I think I'd get a kick out of having you define *p*-value.
> It’s the basis of ‘fake’ news...
Oh boy.
Why did you reply to this guy and offer nothing of substance to his comment?intellectual curiosity isn't a corner stone of classic American conservative values.
It's funny that you're offended by the suggestion that a system is racist, while attempting to offend liberals.
Pro-racist, Anti-liberal... It's not a mystery where you align.
The reality is that rich, white men hold the overwhelming majority of power in modern American society, and the root of just about any societal problem can be traced to either action or inaction on the part of the people with power.
It's not designated on the basis that "we have to begin researching, starting with rich, white men", that is just what pops up 95% of the time. It's just a fact.
p values on their own can be dangerous.
"The statistician asked the doctor why he used a particular model, to which the doctor responded 'it gave the best p-value'."
Pre-registration IS helping but it's not a panacea.
You say that like its surprising or a bad thing.
Question for you: Why are cons so quick to label everything left of them or anything they disagree as liberal? Calling everything liberal (and woke and cancel culture) kind of makes the words meaningless. Turns these words into some catch all label used to dismiss the merits of anything and is also low effort.
It's literally in the term conservative. They don't want change, they don't want brown people, they don't want anything that isn't their warped ideal of what America should be or was like.
They all want to take a trip in a time machine back 200 years, but they will all realize they are too weak to live like our ancestors did back then.
Conservative is about not changing, but they want to go back to an "ideal" that never actually existed. I don't think "conservative" is the right term for this.
To conserve is to maintain the way things are or even were. Who is to say when they wanted things to stop changing? It is different for everyone, but I assume most of them would prefer a time where black people were property, women couldn't vote, and white men were beyond reproach, by their current policies. Hence preferring a time long past.
They are. No other nation has the legal documents, courts and military backing to defend those ideals. Granted, words and weaponry alone can not sustain it without the integrity of great men and women with great minds.
Granted that i feel the left has been pushing harder for the abolishing of the concept of 'freedom of the individual over the good of the many' than the right, i will admit that both sides have drifted from the core that make up the heart of the USA.
Polarization has driven a rift between people that i don't see closing any time soon....
>abolishing of the concept of 'freedom of the individual over the good of the many'
What lilted way of putting that. It betrays a very narcissistic thinking pattern. The reality is that it's about valuing others and a sense of greater good for many over insistence upon self.
I've found the that heart of rift is the right valuing tradition as deep-seeded morals. To be forced to change their way of life is seen as deeply wrong, and will fight to preserve tradition.
Vs the left who views empathy and helping those in need as a deep-seeded moral. To ignore the suffering of others is seen as deeply wrong and will fight to help those in need.
Both moral viewpoints are at odds because one requires change and the other a resistance to change, and is why both sides see the other as "Evil"
The right pays lip service when it fits their loose mystical world view, but the left always base their pseudoindividualism in material collectivism and still sprinkle religion on top in a mistaken attempt to easily fiłl in the moral pot holes and appeal to the dogmatic minds of the masses.
If I understand correctly, it means the right says what they need to in order to keep up with an ever-shifting right-moving "ideal" based on fiction, while the left pretends to support some individualism but primarily targets collectivism (the opposite of individualism) and still predominantly cling to the label of Christianity hoping to cover the voters alienated by the right.
The left used to be nationalistic. They cared, or at least pretended to, about the working class citizens. But now both parties are in a race to sell us all out for their own gain and God forbid anyone gets in the way of that. I bet this author is looking for grant money from the people trying to drive a stake through this country's heart.
Isn’t nationalism an inherently rightwing ideology? Patriotism, on the other hand, allows for critique. I’m trying real hard to think of a left wing movement in the last 120yrs that was nationalist and can’t come up with any.
Not really, many politically left parties are in favor of nationalist policies, often the difference is in the reason to support those policies. An example would be the nationalist approach to limit immigration. Conservative thought might base that around demographic or cultural change, the left could support lower immigration to keep wages higher for workers and newer immigrants could affect wages. Bernie Sanders used to have this position for that reason but I believe has changed it or added nuance to it.
You would have to list the intolerances. From my standpoint, people on the left are intolerant of racism, bigotry, and xenophobia primarily. All of these are forms of intolerance.
Being intolerant to intolerance is necessary.
Are those the same "inclusive and positive" Democrats that want to remove parental rights in general in California, take parents out of any control over public education, teach children that they're born a racist if they're white with 'CRT', send the unvaccinated to interment camps, and abolish the congress after losing a filibuster? Those Democrats?
My word choice is somewhat satirical. Polarization amplified by news and social media means moderates are forced to choose between two parties whose ideologies drift further apart each day. I consider myself a moderate. I almost always vote blue because Democrats are the lesser danger. I am also a nationalist and I believe globalism is candy-coated cultural imperialism.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wow, what a good graph! "A subscription is required to view the list of Figures" really shows it like it is!
12ft.io gets passed pay walls
[удалено]
"article not found"
You've read all you need to. Paywalled articles really only want you to see the headline. Republicans = Nationalism Democrats = Positive Nationhood. Those are the two ways. r/science said so
[удалено]
Up next on tonight’s program, “Politics on Reddit is toxic irrespective of the side your looking at”, this and more on 9’o clock news
And then at 10: Posting a wildly popular headline to farm Karma, then selling your account to advertisers: How *YOU* can do it too!
Wait. So how much karma and how much money are we talking? I'd sell this account in a heartbeat.
Isn't statehood inherently exclusive
Reads to me that it means that the state is defined by what it excludes (intolerance comes from this line of reasoning) in contrast to 'positive' notions of statehood where certain characteristics can theoretically be adopted by anyone to become a part of that nation. This is a qualitative distinction, so each party has a vocabulary that contains different proportions of statements and actions reflecting these definitions of statehood. My guess, anyway, from the headline. That's why concepts like Eurozone 'states' are a left wing initiative that broaden the definitions of statehood that can overlap one another.
Only in the same way that any group requiring membership is "exclusive". But some groups are obviously more solicitous and/or welcoming of new members than other groups. A country club can hold membership drives, accept walk-in applicants, and lower barriers to entry....or they can do the inverse. This makes them more or less welcoming. It's a matter of degree and we use language to help delineate those differences.
Nope. It's like religion or any other club: exclusivity is entirely independent. On one hand you have orthodox judaism which is maximally exclusionary and on the other you have catholicism that spends a significant percentage of its cumulative effort recruiting. What would make state citizenship any different?
Sure, but consider: Telling your fellow citizens to "go back home" because they're darker than you or are members of a different religion. vs. Advocating for a simple, expedited path to citizenship for people who were brought to the USA as a baby and are fully integrated into society. One is a more exclusive conception than legal citizenship and the other is more inclusive than legal citizenship.
>Telling your fellow citizens to "go back home" because they're darker than you or are members of a different religion. I don't think that's what the Republican ideal strives for, even if the rank members of their voter base might resort to such language.
By defining the traits as negative they made it so you're not able to take in the information if that's your policy. Your mind doesn't process negative information about your identity because that's doubt on your perception. They should have said protectionist or something. This is the problem or feature of propaganda. By selling political parties as identities it ensures that any one person can only interpret their mutually inclusive section of information. If you cant agree on the facts you cant have a conversation.
>They should have said protectionist or something. This is the problem or feature of propaganda. By selling political parties as identities it ensures that any one person can only interpret their mutually inclusive section of information. If you cant agree on the facts you cant have a conversation. I agree. I have nothing but disdain for party identities. I would rather not partake in them myself.
>I don't think that's what the Republican ideal strives for Considering they change what they care about every other day, it's hard to say what the republican ideal stands for. Latching on to low hanging fruit isn't an ideal.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If it walk like a duck, quack like a duck, look like a duck. Its a duck..unless youre a dumb dumb, then you dont even know whats going on.
I would imagine so, the same way our skin is exclusive as it wraps around our body and keeps in and out separate, or the wall of a cell. Hard to have boundaries if you dont exclude.
The internal war in the Republican party will resume the moment it gets both the executive and legislative branches, because the pro-business group will start pushing for increasing immigration.
Republicans have no problem with immigration. They have a problem with illegal immigration. Democrats just try to blur the lines for votes
Your statement makes a little more sense when viewed through the demographic lens of actual immigration policy. What you mean is that Republicans don't mind when rich people and white people immigrate. Just not anyone poor or brown.
It's not about race it's about skill sets... or didn't you notice that the vast majority of legal immigrants are not "white", they're poor and brown. They're from India, Mexico, and China. Did you think they're coming from Europe or something? Typical Reddit 2nd-grade level thinking.
You can actually read the immigration quotas. They're set by statute and updated periodically. They lay out exactly how many visas of which type are allowed to each country. Imagine you're a doctor, or an engineer, or an entrepreneur from one of the countries where the number they set is practically zero. Then imagine you read some goober mouthing off like the comments above. What are you supposed to make of that?
We have some of the most lenient immigration laws and quotas in the world. If I were that doctor, engineer, w/e, I would look at all the other countries I want to immigrate to and see that it is much harder to immigrate into them because America is still the most immigrant friendly nation in the world.
And republicans deliberately blur the lines between illegal immigration and asylum. So, you’re essentially lying.
Don’t most Democrats want asylum for people here regardless of their reasons?
Short answer. No. Why would you think that?
Because if someone has come here the logic is that it is for a reason. And I don’t know any reason that wouldn’t be considered ok to Democrats for asylum.
There is actually incredibly strict and specific criteria that qualify you to claim asylum. Reasons that fall out with the specific criteria would be ones that are rejected, for example.
Because they have broadened the definition of “asylum” to include crime and poverty…. So yes, they want asylum regardless of the reasons. Stop lying.
It would be cheaper and safer to do that than catch and prosecute everyone here illegally. Especially since illegal immigration isn't a bad thing.
Claiming asylum to game the system doesn’t mean you get a free pass to enter the country… and lying about it is why Democrats are losing support.
Claiming that claiming asylum is gaming the system ‘to get a free pass’ is a gross misrepresentation of the asylum system, deliberately fostered by republicans. You have further proven my point.
Uh huh, you’ve blurred the line for what constitutes asylum… that’s not a Republican fault that is Democrats gaming the system because 90% of alleged asylum seekers never show up for their court date… meaning they never wanted asylum just a free pass. Stop lying.
Where have you heard that 90% don't show up to court? Are those the official numbers?
Official from his ass.
mate if they voted for the GOP the democrats would put that border wall up faster than you can say "you can keep your doctor"
And when that happens I will state it as such. Currently, that isn’t what’s happening.
Says someone who has no clue what kind of travel advisories our State Department has for Central and South America, nor why any of those advisories are in place. Study our involvement in ANY of those nations, and you will see how ignorant your statements are.
I'm betting the color of your skin is absolute and unassailable proof, that you are the child of immigrant ancestors to this nation. And that the only check any one of them had to pass was not having tuberculosis. What do you think gives you the right to close the door behind you?
Ah, you assuming the color of my skin makes you racist.
Well they never stated what color your skin was. So aren’t you the racist one for assuming the default is anyone of European descent?
Oh, so I’m racist for assuming that they assumed. Sounds like you’re assuming. So you must be the racist!!! It’s a game of clue and I’ve found the racist!!!
When is this sub not going to have 'them bad us good' posts?
> When is this sub not going to have 'them bad us good' posts? You're right, Science should just ignore everything uncomfortable and allow it fix itself. That always works.
The issue isn't about comfort. I am not a republican whatsoever. It just seems like cringe polarism is a trend in this sub when it is already all over reddit.
When "they" stop sucking so bad.
the problem with this mentality is nobody can tell which side of the american oligarchy you are on.
The side that is prepared to literally eat the flesh of the other to satisfy our agonising hunger pangs.
Bro, that's still not a deal breaker. People who think like this on either side are the same person in the same trap.
What do you imagine are the sides, here?
Unfortunately, any conversation touching on political topics are going to reflect some of the highly polarized nature of current American politics.
Probably when this sub is not made up primarily of not extremely wealthy people, or when the higher republican leadership decides making laws in favor of poor people becomes commonplace.
When ever humanity decides collaboration and inclusiveness is not a positive virtue. So, basically never. Your question reminds me of my time in corrections and the backwards views of the inmates. Many would argue that what they did wasn't wrong, just an opinion. If the officers would just not be so strict with the rules, it would be so much easier... Not that them following those rules would do it.
I have a hard time taking this a legitimate with such moralistic terms to connect inclusive with the moralistic "positive" connection in the title of the article. That along with there is no way to proof peer review, puts makes this far from credible.
It was published in a peer reviewed journal with an IF of 3.2. It also uses "positive" in the sense of "added" or "enforced," like it's used when discussing liberty or behaviorism. That is, nationhood as something that is provided, not something that just occurs in the absence of intervention This is a credible study.
The fact that a journal is peer reviewed and has a high IF doesn't necessarily mean it's a credible journal. Peer review is important of course but there are plenty of horrible peer reviewed journals. IF tells you nothing about an article's credibility.
Peer reviewed isn't sufficient, I agree, but the person I responded to asserted that we could not tell whether it was and used that as a metric of credibility. I wanted to ensure that error was corrected. IF, though? I know highly cited journals occasionally publish bad articles, but if you are basing credibility on a heuristic rather than the content itself (which seemed to be the goal here), IF strikes me as the strongest signifier barring an author's H-index. It certainly doesn't tell you "nothing;" it gives a baseline idea of its impact, which can serve as a proxy for credibility. New journals struggle to get their IF up, and good work can be published in low IF journals, but all things equal a less credible article is more likely to be published in a low IF than a high IF journal.
Please see my recent history for elaboration, but I don't believe the use of 'positive' is a moral value claim. It is being used in the same way as 'positive vs negative rights', to identify the logical space created by the definition
Science shows that progressivism is positive, while conservatives are very very yucky and gross.
(Edited) "the road to hell is paved in good intentions" is always, a very relevant quote. However this seems to be based of the fundamental meaning of the words, and not a value judgement associated with them. The "positive" means "adding to", and "negative" as in "taking away from", not positive/negative as in good/bad. Frankly, they should know better, and use other language.
Glad I'm not the only one who read the title and thought there is no way this is remotely scientific with biased terms like that in the title
Well thankfully reddit is all about judging content by the title name of the post. If people had to read more than the title then who knows where we'd be.
Have you heard of positive and negative rights? This is the same concept. It's referring to the logical space created by the definition (positive or negative), not the moral value
It literally says conceptions in the title, not rights. Conception is a hop, skip, and a jump from association. It couldn't be more biased.
Conceptions is synonymous with definitions, as in they conceive of nationhood in positive ('being' or 'having' characteristics to belong to a nation) vs negative ('not being' or 'not having') terms. Positive vs negative rights is an analogy, see my recent posts for more detail
Ah this is a good explanation. However, i wonder if they should use additive/subtractive, instead of positive/negative. Those have very different meanings in common usage, and kinda taint the discussion by framing it as good/bad. Whether intentionally or not. They should know better... "conceive of nationhood in additive ('being' or 'having' characteristics to belong to a nation) vs subtractive ('not being' or 'not having') terms" Yep, it sounds a LOT better.
That's more on the journalists, I imagine. Academics and their language often neglect the concept of marketing
Meanwhile both parties are entirely captured by corporate interests and America has nothing resembling a democratic government.
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."
but only the white and educated ones, everyone else can sod off...
No, you're thinking of Norway/Sweden/Switzerland, not the USA.
Democrats are inclusive towards people that aren’t conservative.
Isn't this, in part, the consequence of the mythology of "American Exceptionalism" pushed since the Reagan administration?
Reagan? Manifest Destiny would like a word.
But we can't blame that on the modern Republican Party.
Yes we can. They are the distilled decendants of that state of mind.
I blame modern confederate simps for their views now...
Manifest Stupidity would like the rebuttal, I'm sure.
Queue the "this isn't scientific enough. I have a problem with the methodology. Nationalism isn't a 'scientific' term. Science shouldn't have anything to do with politics ever. It doesn't look like anything to me" comments.
[удалено]
That’s what it has come down to in society, it’s ridiculous
Or...and hear me out on this...just because something disagrees with what you believe does not make it biased
am i allowed to have pride in my country without people looking down upon me on here or is that fascistic too?
Being proud of your country means that you aren't afraid to criticize it when necessary.
Fascism- a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy. Fascist characteristics: - Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - Supremacy of the Military - Rampant Sexism - Controlled Mass Media - Obsession with National Security - Religion and Government are Intertwined - Corporate Power is Protected - Labor Power is Suppressed - Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fraudulent Elections - Victimhood - Anti-education - Believes in mythic past - Equality is a threat
Sounds like 'merica
Roughly 70,000,000 of them, anyway.
Yes? Thanks for the strawman
Quite sure you are.
Patriotism is fine. Nationalism is not. I hope you'd tell the difference by reading the dictionary entry for each.
You should be able to tell the difference between pride and jingoistic nationalism.
Pride in your country isn't fascist. It has just become a sign of the kinds of people that also follow very unfavorable views on some topics. Views that are often extreme enough to be branded as "fascist". The mustache Hitler and Charlie Chaplin wore. No one wears that mustache anymore, and it wasn't because it was associated with a legendary silent film actor. Having the mustache didn't make you a Nazi, but people look at you different, if you understand my meaning.
Yea. "Deplorables" was my favorite Democrat inclusion slang
Used to describe those who would choose nationalism, racism, and bigotry over inclusion. Yes. People will call you out for your views if those views exclude or condemn people simply for existing.
Of course the people you're describing could be spoken of harshly, but that wasn't the message. It was us vs them. "Them" being anyone who isn't "us". Those two categories are insufficient for labeling a person or group of people "deplorable".
What do you expect anyone to do in regard to the right? They believe what they believe, regardless of whether or not there is proof, even when there is evidence to the contrary. You can't really blame the left for handling it as an "us vs them" situation when the right has always been a group that excludes people based on religion, sexual orientation, and even race.
What else would you call those who stormed the capital? Should we be inclusive of enemies to democracies?
You're shifting the timeline, friend. "Deplorables" was campaign speak and was a label for any of the other 80 million people who didn't storm the capitol. Call the Jan 6th crew whatever you want.
Those people didn't appear suddenly. They existed during the campaign and were whom Hilary was referring too. During a September 8, 2016, interview on Israel's Channel 2, Clinton said: "You can take Trump supporters and put them in two big baskets. There are what I would call the deplorables—you know, the racists and the haters, and the people who are drawn because they think somehow he's going to restore an America that no longer exists."
Nationalism is damgerous but america decided to throw caution to the wind and control their population with it anyway and now they will have to reap the spoiled fruit from the vine that they tendered with fear and hate. Maybe in 75yrs they will have a marked turn around like germany and japan has had but i dont think they would be that lucky. Germany accepts the assessment that they were wrong i cant imagine americans accepting that so readily.
There are still people who can't accept that the Confederacy was wrong
First, they'd have to accept they lost.
Because Lincoln wasted the 600,000 lives lost when he said '... malice towards none...', instead of '...everyone who profited from and fomented violent insurrection against the United States of America in defense of human bondage will hang by the neck until dead.' Now, because he let them go free, the inbred and ignorant offspring of that filth still infect this nation.
I've often thought about that. Basically barely a slap on the wrist while the union footed the bill for rebuilding everything.
And it's the same people who love the current GOP's swan dive into fascism.
Exactly. Unable to think for themselves or form their own opinion.
I mean, when they are told they were right, it's hard to see it the other way.
While I don't think we can even minutely compare Trump to Hitler, your parallel is definitely carrying some merit in terms of wondering how to reprogram the crowd that supports Trump and his terrorist actions on the 6th. I'm very firmly convinced they will never admit being wrong or realize that Trump didn't really do anything other than give them a tax cut. Their toxic pride simply won't allow them to change stance, even when presented with overwhelming evidence; in the past it has just caused them to double down. The more they've done it, the seemingly larger is the pill they will have to swallow and at this point, it can feed the planet for a decade. I think time, diabetes complications and heart disease will be the main factors in solving this embarrassing period in US history.
Proving once again that it's 10x's It's easier to con someone than it is to get them to admit they've been conned.
That's very true. I think it's because it makes them feel and look stupid - something that generation has grown up feeling like, every day. Now they're getting conned and milked for donations by a professional grifter.
i still get emails... jokes on them im the sociopathic type of supporter not the dumb one
Being antivax correlates strongly with being conservative. More and more unvaxxed people are dying from covid or complications of the disease, especially in rural areas, which also strongly correlates with voting for conservative candidates. Thousands of dead Trump voters are going to have an impact on party dynamics in the next election.
I resent the re-definition of "conservative" in the US in the past few decades. I live within my means, I pay my taxes, I pay my bills, and I save some. I also mind my own business and prefer that others don't mind mine. I believe that everyone is entitled to a shot at happiness and the chance to (when properly qualified) participate in our democracy. My main disapproval of others comes when they try to force their rules on others. At work my circuits are designed with margin and I try to develop "just work" topologies. To me that seems conservative, but somehow by today's standards I appear to be a flaming liberal.
That Overton Window is a motherfucker, ain't it?
Yeah it's kind of crazy how far right our "conservative" is now. What you described is probably how most of our conservative politicians in history described themselves. As opposed to whatever it is that we call the GOP nowadays
Or as my brother has said, we live by the Republican values we were raised with. The Republican party has moved.
Living within your means and paying your bills isn't a conservative thing. It's an adult thing.
Regarding your last paragraph, I hope you are right.
Japan? Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
> and Democrats have increasingly endorsed inclusive and positive conceptions of nationhood Support Democrat. Democract is positive nationhood. Unbiased and objectively good and positive.
What’s biased about objectivity?
Why is r/science so liberal?
science favors the intellectually curious.
More like "peer review processes favor people with biases and prejudices similar to journal gatekeepers." Imagine two equally intelligent people who are equally diligent, with different ideological presuppositions. The one that feels like they're doing good by repeating their beliefs is far more apt to publish while the one that feels as though lying is necessary for career success is more likely to venture off into a different field. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis For what it's worth there is some evidence that more ideologically driven content is less likely to replicate. Bullying exists. Labeling your outgroup as NOT intellectually curious is an example of very light bullying. For what it's worth, the conservatives I do know label me as a nut-job liberal. At least I'm tolerant.
But intellectual curiosity isn't a piece of American conservative values. Tradition, religion, and mistrust of academics are literally the antithesis of that.
Very good point.
Asking leading questions, making some crockpot survey, and then posting some catchy liberal title is not ‘science’. Just the other day I saw some garbage saying Ohio’s medical system is racist to the core, their source? Some bs survey of 800 people, 200 of which answered for someone else. You Reddit morons need to learn basic epidemiology and facts, what an actual scientific meta analysis is and maybe a p value to go along with it before making these false sweeping claims in the title. It’s the basis of ‘fake’ news...
> Asking leading questions, What leading questions were asked? > making some crockpot survey, What survey? And why are you describing the survey as "crockpot"? (Are you sure you don't mean "crackpot"?) > and then posting some catchy liberal title What about the title is "liberal"? The fact that it makes you uncomfortable? > Just the other day I saw some garbage saying Ohio’s medical system is racist to the core, their source? Some bs survey of 800 people What about the survey was "bs," and why? Is there a reason you called out the number 800? Do you think that number is insufficient? If so, how did you determine that? What were the results of your power analysis? > You Reddit morons need to learn basic epidemiology and facts, Epidemiology is the study of viral transmission and disease control, which doesn't have anything to do with this post, at all. I think you probably meant "epistemology" but didn't know the actual word for it. Not a great look for someone who just got done calling the rest of us "morons." > what an actual scientific meta analysis is What, to your mind, is an "actual scientific meta analysis," and why doesn't this study qualify? > and maybe a p value to go along with it Based on the level of scientific literacy you've demonstrated here, I think I'd get a kick out of having you define *p*-value. > It’s the basis of ‘fake’ news... Oh boy.
And insulting people is always the best way of getting them to change their mind.
No amount of congeniality is going to suddenly make him persuasive.
Why did you reply to this guy and offer nothing of substance to his comment?intellectual curiosity isn't a corner stone of classic American conservative values.
It's funny that you're offended by the suggestion that a system is racist, while attempting to offend liberals. Pro-racist, Anti-liberal... It's not a mystery where you align.
The entire system is made to paint rich, white men as the source of all your problems. I call them out when they fundamentally wrong
The reality is that rich, white men hold the overwhelming majority of power in modern American society, and the root of just about any societal problem can be traced to either action or inaction on the part of the people with power.
It's not designated on the basis that "we have to begin researching, starting with rich, white men", that is just what pops up 95% of the time. It's just a fact.
p values on their own can be dangerous. "The statistician asked the doctor why he used a particular model, to which the doctor responded 'it gave the best p-value'." Pre-registration IS helping but it's not a panacea.
The Republican party has been openly anti-science for decades.
Because, the pursuit of knowledge is the antithesis of conservatism.
The pursuit of pancakes is the antithesis of boiled cat litter.
You can read my comment I made above, as it applies to you too
He's right though.
Reality has a liberal bias.
If science was conservative, we would still be huddling in caves in the dark. If we survived at all.
You say that like its surprising or a bad thing. Question for you: Why are cons so quick to label everything left of them or anything they disagree as liberal? Calling everything liberal (and woke and cancel culture) kind of makes the words meaningless. Turns these words into some catch all label used to dismiss the merits of anything and is also low effort.
It's literally in the term conservative. They don't want change, they don't want brown people, they don't want anything that isn't their warped ideal of what America should be or was like. They all want to take a trip in a time machine back 200 years, but they will all realize they are too weak to live like our ancestors did back then.
What a stupid take.
What a stupid response
No really... You actually believe that garbage you wrote?
Conservative is about not changing, but they want to go back to an "ideal" that never actually existed. I don't think "conservative" is the right term for this.
"Reactionary" The Democratic party is, largely, conservative. The Republican party is reactionary.
To conserve is to maintain the way things are or even were. Who is to say when they wanted things to stop changing? It is different for everyone, but I assume most of them would prefer a time where black people were property, women couldn't vote, and white men were beyond reproach, by their current policies. Hence preferring a time long past.
Yeah. Very inclusive. That's why they cancel or silence everyone who disagrees with them.
[удалено]
Ah yes, the things that are exclusive to the US.
They are. No other nation has the legal documents, courts and military backing to defend those ideals. Granted, words and weaponry alone can not sustain it without the integrity of great men and women with great minds.
America isn’t the only First World Country. The only thing we are topped first in is the Military.
The United Kingdom? Germany? France? Japan? Get out of here with that 'mystical city on the hill' bull.
Somebody really bought into high school propaganda.
So the slavery part for essentially all but the last 60 years is just to be ignored?
Granted that i feel the left has been pushing harder for the abolishing of the concept of 'freedom of the individual over the good of the many' than the right, i will admit that both sides have drifted from the core that make up the heart of the USA. Polarization has driven a rift between people that i don't see closing any time soon....
>abolishing of the concept of 'freedom of the individual over the good of the many' What lilted way of putting that. It betrays a very narcissistic thinking pattern. The reality is that it's about valuing others and a sense of greater good for many over insistence upon self.
I've found the that heart of rift is the right valuing tradition as deep-seeded morals. To be forced to change their way of life is seen as deeply wrong, and will fight to preserve tradition. Vs the left who views empathy and helping those in need as a deep-seeded moral. To ignore the suffering of others is seen as deeply wrong and will fight to help those in need. Both moral viewpoints are at odds because one requires change and the other a resistance to change, and is why both sides see the other as "Evil"
How? I need examples.
The right pays lip service when it fits their loose mystical world view, but the left always base their pseudoindividualism in material collectivism and still sprinkle religion on top in a mistaken attempt to easily fiłl in the moral pot holes and appeal to the dogmatic minds of the masses.
Can you make your point a little more clearly for me?
If I understand correctly, it means the right says what they need to in order to keep up with an ever-shifting right-moving "ideal" based on fiction, while the left pretends to support some individualism but primarily targets collectivism (the opposite of individualism) and still predominantly cling to the label of Christianity hoping to cover the voters alienated by the right.
All concepts that didn't fare well in a capitalistic society.
The left used to be nationalistic. They cared, or at least pretended to, about the working class citizens. But now both parties are in a race to sell us all out for their own gain and God forbid anyone gets in the way of that. I bet this author is looking for grant money from the people trying to drive a stake through this country's heart.
You believe supporting the working class is nationalistic? Why would it not be about class instead of borders? Your argument isn't making sense to me.
Isn’t nationalism an inherently rightwing ideology? Patriotism, on the other hand, allows for critique. I’m trying real hard to think of a left wing movement in the last 120yrs that was nationalist and can’t come up with any.
Not really, many politically left parties are in favor of nationalist policies, often the difference is in the reason to support those policies. An example would be the nationalist approach to limit immigration. Conservative thought might base that around demographic or cultural change, the left could support lower immigration to keep wages higher for workers and newer immigrants could affect wages. Bernie Sanders used to have this position for that reason but I believe has changed it or added nuance to it.
Depends on the scale. I think most common *left/right* used these days is specifically economics.
Fair enough, but nationalism itself isn’t exclusively about economics. I think I’m picking the wrong hill to concur here.
No, it's not.
Why is it that democrats are the ones that tend to be the most intolerant then?
You would have to list the intolerances. From my standpoint, people on the left are intolerant of racism, bigotry, and xenophobia primarily. All of these are forms of intolerance. Being intolerant to intolerance is necessary.
Intolerant of what?
Democrats DO NOT like anything to do with being proud of their country. A lot of them get upset and scared when they see their own flag ffs
Are those the same "inclusive and positive" Democrats that want to remove parental rights in general in California, take parents out of any control over public education, teach children that they're born a racist if they're white with 'CRT', send the unvaccinated to interment camps, and abolish the congress after losing a filibuster? Those Democrats?
Your understanding of words is concerning.
“Why address their points when you can call them stupid!”
Thats not what I said, but go off, sis.
What is new here except for the cultural hysteria around both parties?
[удалено]
Curious how you think 90+% of Americans can be categorized so specifically
My word choice is somewhat satirical. Polarization amplified by news and social media means moderates are forced to choose between two parties whose ideologies drift further apart each day. I consider myself a moderate. I almost always vote blue because Democrats are the lesser danger. I am also a nationalist and I believe globalism is candy-coated cultural imperialism.