Theory: Americans don't believe in climate change because temperatures and sea levels are only ever discussed in terms of smarter-than-you Euro-units.
You touched a very valid problem here, specifically the growing knowledge gap in society.
It's also true that large part of scientific community is alienated, but I guess they are just as much victims of the divide as those on the other end of the spectrum.
I believe there's no way to close such gaps other than the society actively closing it by education targeted not only at children (as we do today) but also adults.
@kravietz @cjd US liberals accept the credible climate science but most of them will only rally behind climate action if it doesn't directly impact them. E.g. a democratic lawmaker threatened to raise gasoline tax in the progressive state of #California. He was attacked by both dems & republicans & ultimately ousted. Even US liberals are proving to have little tolerance for lifestyle compromises.
That's part of the knowledge gap, and the tribal fixation which is especially acute in the US, is making this even worse.
@kravietz @koherecoWatchdog
The US has a long history of anti-intellectualism which has served it well.
If you look at English written in the 1600s you'll see page-long sentences loaded with flowery language to signal superior intelligence. As I understand the Quakers had a big impact in getting rid of that.
Anti-intellectualism is also anti-authoritarianism because it rejects authority of "smarter than thou" elitists. But it does lead to "my beliefs = your facts" which we also see.
@cjd @kravietz @koherecoWatchdog Read Chernow's Hamilton bio. Anti-intellectualism in U.S. politics started with Jefferson and was from the very beginning primarily about populism and protecting [southern] states' rights.
So no, it isn't anti-authoritarian, it is as authoritarian as the modern anti-education anti-science anti-journalism anti-objective-reality version of it.
@angdraug @kravietz @koherecoWatchdog
If you get pedantic, there is no such thing as anti-authoritarianism, it's just power struggle all the way down.
Your point does make sense but I think there is more to the story given there were 4 distinct sub-groups which went on to form American culture.
@cjd @kravietz @koherecoWatchdog Going from "anti-intellectualism is also anti-authoritarianism" to "there is no such thing as anti-authoritarianism" is not pedantic, it's just ridiculous.
Refusing to accept that different power structures can be more or less authoritarian doesn't erase that distinction, it only serves to justify and promote the more authoritarian of them.
4 is a very arbitrary number, I can tell you're erasing entire peoples without even knowing which groups you mean.
@angdraug @kravietz @koherecoWatchdog
"erasing entire peoples" - as if it's some sort of keyboard-genocide.
This is an example of how people use language-tricks to try to grab power in a conversation.
Ad-hom attack by vague comparison to some historical atrocity.
What's important is to disengage from these conversations because bad-faith argumentation never goes anywhere.
@angdraug @kravietz @koherecoWatchdog
Unfortunately people pattern-match what they see in others, so you have people walking around thinking ad-hom and witch-burning are is a legitimate way of conversing.
So I usually just say "nice attempt at a power grab" and let people either think about what I said or else add me to their (undoubtedly long and colorful) block list.
@cjd @kravietz @koherecoWatchdog So much projection. Describing disagreement as "trying to grab power in a conversation" is a language trick; a reference to culture erasure isn't. Calling out inconsistencies isn't an ad hominem; summarily dismissing that callout as "bad-faith witch-burning" is. And what's with the passive-aggressive switch to third person? Who is "people use language-tricks" and "people pattern-match" directed at? Are you now trying to erase me from this conversation?
@angdraug @kravietz @koherecoWatchdog
"Erasing entire peoples" an example of Loaded Language ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language ). From the context, you clearly mean oversimplification, but that term can also be used to mean genocide, so it has the effect of casting ME in a vague negative light.
Attacking your debate partner personally is an easy way to win, unless they catch you, which I did.
Incidentally, my heritage is Irish potato famine refugee so I myself am part of a "peoples" that I "erased".
@cjd @kravietz @koherecoWatchdog Simplification, sure. But not oversimplification: if you believe that cultural erasure is ok and not in any way related to genocide, that's not me attacking you, that'd be you telling on yourself.
How does your heritage invalidate my argument that the American culture was formed from -- and continues being formed by -- way more than 4 distinct groups?
@cjd @kravietz @koherecoWatchdog FWIW I don't see this conversation as a zero-sum game that I'm supposed to try to "win". My goal here is to learn new things and help you and others reading this gain a new perspective. Ad hominem attacks don't serve that goal in any way.
@kravietz @cjd Great point about the missing education for adults.
Scientific and technical progress creates a growing need for life-long education: the world and our understanding of it is changing too fast for knowledge and skills to remain relevant for decades.
At the same time social progress should (but because of growing inequality often doesn't) create enough prosperity for adults to have enough leisure time to spend on life-long education.
We need to fight for the 8 hour work week.
@kravietz @cjd The problem is, in the US the oil giants financing #climateDenial propaganda & they're good at it-- good at appearing scientific enough. US consumers are extremely adverse to giving up meat and cars. Republicans simply don't give a shit about the environment so the don't even matter there; they're happy to have climate denial sources to cite to win their argument.