If you read into the studies, it helps make sense of the world. It helps us understand why things work the way they do. I don't believe social sciences are a vehicle used to pick on conservatives and manipulate facts to prove liberals right.
Why I firmly believe it is permanent is due to the legal ramifications of gay marriage and states legalizing weed such as in Colorado. You can't turn back the courts. You can't establish legality and legal legitimacy then undo it. Law doesn't work that way. You've already created legal economies such as in Colorado, such as in states with gay marriage, where those legal economies will be almost impossible to undo as they become more tiered and stable. Anti-weed Colorado legislators have already said it's now impossible for weed to ever be illegal in Colorado and that the vote of legalization would always pass now in that state if not solely for economic and tax reasons. The same is true of gay marriage in states where it's legal.
You can't "undo legalized social liberalism" from the very mouths of defeated social conservatives in said states and that's precisely why social liberalism is here to stay in my view.
Come back and tell us all about that about 30 years from now after the massive demographic change that's coming at the GOP hits full force like a tidal wave and reduces the GOP to a minor, regional, party.
The clock is ticking.
"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
I've read a few studies before.... they read as a bunch of liberals concocting the many ways they feel conservatives are inferior people or somehow inherently flawed, without fail.
(thank god they don't do many studies on libertarians....no telling how many ways liberals feel we are inferior or somehow inherently flawed.)
when you formulate a closely held tribal-moral cult with a set of sacred values...you'll not find much disagreement, and you'll certain find confirmation bias abounding.
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
The idea that liberals are less subject to confirmation bias and are more willing to change opinions based on evidence is pretty laughable. They are human beings, regardless of their liberal superpowers. It's not as if intellectual history hasn't shown dogma to be pervasive in all ideological designations.
Furthermore, I think taking the social sciences with universal authority is a massive mistake. Researchers, though they have data, can and have fashioned the framework in such a manner as to bias the conversation. Much of this is incredibly innocuous, because they use experience and intuition to guide their research. However, I have discovered peering through forty years of educational research, professional and ideological biases easily crept through.
Last edited by Fiddytree; 05-25-15 at 12:59 PM.
"We all of us know down here that politics is a tough game. And I don't think there's any point in being Irish if you don't know that the world is going to break your heart eventually."-Daniel Patrick Moynihan, December 5, 1963