Why MAGA hates science and knowledge

General Discussion
#1

Hits the nail on the head…

“There’s the danger to those who consider themselves superior — by race, color, creed or position on the Forbes annual list of billionaires — to the mass of men and women. Scientific advancements make us ever more aware that we are all the same and should enjoy the same basic rights to education, health care, civil liberties like voting, freedom of and freedom from religion, and the freedom to read or otherwise consume whatever opinions or cultural works we choose — the very things that the current occupant of the White House and his MAGA followers are working to take away from us.”

Why MAGA hates science so much

#2

With everything going on with heat and floods and etc, this is extraordinarily concerning.

Trump admin removes climate data from U.S. government sites](MSN)

#3

Sigh. So Leif really asserted that everyone has "basic rights to education, health care, civil liberties like voting, freedom of and freedom from religion, and the freedom to read or otherwise consume whatever opinions or cultural works we choose — the very things that the current occupant of the White House and his MAGA followers are working to take away from us.” Two levels of bullshit there: First, several of those “basic human rights” are not “rights” at all; consult your Ayn Rand regarding “paper rights.” Second, MAGA is is no way attempting to “take away” any real (not fake) rights from anyone. Unless you maintain that generating and sharing child pornography is acceptable. Or if you maintain that people in shithole countries (yes, they certainly do exist) should be enabled to vote in U.S. elections. And is the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights a “religion” (secular, to be sure, but religion that everyone is obligated—and compelled—to comply with if they want to live among us). Hmmmm?

#4

Actually, I didn’t say that I agreed with what the article was trying to say.
I quoted a part of it, because I believe that MAGA believes that they are superior for some reason.
Further, I do believe that science has made people more aware of what we call rights… whether,
or not they are such. The writer of the article obviously believes that.
It is quite possible that I don’t agree with almost anything in the article.

But I do think that we need to understand the dynamic of what’s happening now. That has to be
framed in the context of the writer’s understanding of what is going on.
Doing that is crucial to be able to either avoid or to counter the social upheaval.

In fact, there was a time that public education didn’t really exist. Over the years it has come to be
understood as a basic right within the American consciousness. Another fact – when public education
was being discussed there were many who foretold that public education would become a propaganda
tool of the government.
A similar line of reasoning might be applied to the other things mentioned. These “basic rights” are not
the same as what people would call “natural rights”, whatever that means. But they have become basic
rights within the context of American life.

Personally, I believe that the government should get out of the business of education, health care,
religion, what foods we eat, and many other things. As to opinions or cultural works, the government
should not even attempt to mold people’s opinions, or to guide the culture (again, as far as I’m concerned). My greatest complaint is that the government ever got involved with them in the first place.
I don’t care what what happens in “shithole countries” - I will not take away the rights of those people to
deal with their own world.
I will treat people as individuals. Period.

#5

P.S. to the above… "… consult your Ayn Rand regarding “paper rights.”

Ahem… while I have read Ayn Rand, I do not take her words as gospel truth, or as somehow sacred, any more than I would consider the U,S. Constitution and Bill of Rights" a religion.
I also do not accept the writings of the Mises Institute as gospel truth…
Nor do I accept the writings of any anarchist or libertarian writers as gospel truth.

I have read much of what has been written by many people.
To assert that one writer’s work, or some body of philosophy should be taken as absolute is not within me.
While I might find many things “acceptable” or “unacceptable”, I will not impose my own beliefs on anyone else.