In my book, the difference between right and left boils down to people who only worry about themselves and people who try to help the most people.
Except you want to help them by hurting me. And most of the time your "helping" doesn't work any way.
Unfortunately, the "only worry about themselves" doesn't extend to leaving other people alone, they view everything through the prism of their own life, with no ability or desire to understand other circumstances.
On the topic of the gay wedding cake trial, understand they did not "refuse to serve gays." The couple were long-time customers of the bakers, the bakers knew they were gay, and had served them before. They refused to participate in the gay wedding by baking a cake for it.
Obviously a Christian is not going to refuse to serve sinners. They'd have no customers. But they can refuse to take part in sin. Yes, you can serve masturbators, but no you can't be compelled to cater a circle jerk.
why can't white supremacist businesses refuse to serve blacks, or male businesses refuse to serve women?
I don't know. We have essentially eliminated the right to freedom of association. It might not be so bad if we were a more homogenous culture, but now that the policy is "invite the world" I don't know how that works in the long run when you are basically forced to interact with every culture in the world.
This may well mean that some Christians find that the wedding cake business is not right for them, just as observant Jews don't take jobs or run businesses that require them to work on Saturday, devout Mormons don't work in bars, etc.
Doesn't this kill culture, though? "Sure, you can keep your religion, but you can't actually live according to its teachings, and you can't segregate into a place where you can?"
This all seems like an extremely low entropy arrangement. We have to pump a massive amount of energy into coercing every combination of race, religion, culture, gender into equivalent cogs in society.
Lena Dunham Posts Video Celebrating 'the Extinction of White Men'. And this is a person who appeared with Hillary Clinton at campaign stops. This sort of thing is common. You can find videos on YouTube of BLM marchers screaming about dead cops. This sort of thing is common, and both Hillary and Bernie endorsed BLM.
This is the difference. You will never see "friend of the show Richard Spencer" invited onto Sean Hannity. You will never see Laura Ingraham cite "the scholarly research of Dr. David Duke." The extremists and the nutjobs on the right are disavowed and swept under the rug. The nutjobs on the left are defended, encouraged and celebrated. Hell, the vice chair of the DNC thinks Jews did 9/11. That is David Duke tier nuttery, but there ya go.
The left has rioters and nutjobs and violent mobs on college campuses and illegal immigrants setting police cars on fire while waving Mexican flags and prominent people acknowledged by the political establishment pouring hatred on whites and men and that's not even the problem. Yes, there are always going to be nutjobs. The problem, pnutjam, is you. You will respond to this post and defend those people (or deny they exist). You'll make up some bullshit about how they're "punching up" or "making reasonable points about power imbalances in society" or "expressing heartfelt anger over injustice" or whatever.
But as the target of all that hatred, I hear it. And I hear you're fine with it. This is not going to end well. And there's nothing I can do about it, because none of those people are going to listen to me. I'm already the enemy. Me chastising them doesn't do anything.
You saw the BLM protests, right? "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon?" "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now!" Both Bernie and Hillary supported BLM. At least Trump disavowed the racists on his side.
This is the problem. There are incredibly hateful people on both sides, but at least the right tries to suppress theirs. The left celebrates theirs, puts them up on stage at the DNC, and earnestly believes their hatred is justified and good.
No, it's absolutely lying with statistics. If the objection to illegal immigrants is crime, responding with "they're less criminal than the native population" is incredibly misleading. If your neighborhood has a rapist and a murderer in it, objecting to someone moving in who's merely a robber is not unreasonable.
Put another way, your street has 4 people on it. 2 of them are both racist and homophobic. A new person wants to move in who's homophobic. How happy are you about that? After all, he's less intolerant than the current population of your street.
Except the left's definition of "tolerance" is more like "forced acceptance of." Not stopping gays from doing gay stuff is tolerant. Forcing Christians to bake gay wedding cakes is forced acceptance.
This denial of fact, science, and climate change, what's with that?
This is not unique to the right. The left denies human biodiversity. The formula is:
1. Divide humans into different groups.
2. Insist despite all evidence that these groups are equivalent and interchangeable. Violently attack anyone who proves otherwise (see Charles Murray at Middlebury).
3. When Group A has a better outcome in society than Group B, insist as the only possible explanation the oppression of group B by Group A.
4. Demand government power to remove property from Group A to compensate Group B.
5. Repeat everywhere, in all aspects of human endeavor, forever.
Because many of the individuals arguing against extending marriage equality to the LGBT community are using the same arguments that "BIGOTs" used to argue against mixed race marriages.
But they actually are different, but there is no charity in the debate. The left has no interest in understanding the difference between positive rights and negative rights, and that in Loving v. Virgina the court ruled against the state because Virginia was throwing people who married across races in jail, thereby denying them their liberty. There's a big difference between "the state will imprison you for doing X" and "the state will not give you a certificate to do X."
There is no interest in understanding the other side, the debate, or the objections. We're going to force you to issue the certificates and we're going to force you to bake the cakes and that is it.
Unless perhaps they're interested in getting the rest of society's crime rates down to those of illegal immigrants.
This is one of those cases in which the left is lying with statistics. They compare the crime rates of illegal immigrants to the crime rate of the "native population," as if they're talking about the crime rate of you, the listener, a likely white guy in the suburbs. However the "native population" includes the American black underclass in Detroit, Chicago, etc, which has extremely high crime rates that skew the numbers. So, "illegals have crime rates lower than the native population" might be technically true, but "illegals are less criminal than blacks" is hardly a selling point for mass immigration.
On the other hand, when mainstream politicians publicly spew racism and xenophobia, and people openly cheer them on for it, that's public discourse - that's what I'm talking about.
The problem is you're only seeing the other tribe's racism, and ignoring your own, and have actually redefined racism so that you can't be guilty of it. But your side is still spewing "kill whitey" racial hatred, and whitey can hear it. Whitey don't like it.
The non-regressive left needs to have a come to Jesus (come to Marx?) chat with the regressive left. What happens is some leftists beat down a right-wing speaker and then the "reasonable" leftists defend it. While yes, it's viscerally satisfying when a particularly obnoxious member of the other tribe gets punched, you still have to insist your people not do that, and be appropriately punished for doing the bad thing. The criticism and threat of expulsion has to come from in your own tribe. Me, a right-winger, wagging my finger at a left wing rioter doesn't do anything.
On my side, yes, when obnoxious protestors showed up at Trump rallies and a few of them got punched, I won't lie and say it wasn't satisfying seeing a loudmouth jerk get clocked. However, the puncher still shouldn't have done that, he was arrested and spent time in jail and on probation. That is right and good, and I would never argue that he was justified and should not be punished.
This doesn't happen on the other side. Left-wingers riot and beat up people and HuffPo writes articles "condemning" the violence...and then justifying it because the other guys totally had it coming. This doesn't work. Everybody has to punish their own people who step out of line. If we're not going to do that then we're just going to get escalating violence. And as a practical matter, this seems like it would have a very poor outcome for the left if this turns into a competition for who can be the most brutal.
All they needed to do instead was say that they needed the processing ability of human brains. You wouldn't be able to call that "wrong" because we don't know enough about how the human mind works or how machine intelligence would work to say. Also, it would give them a reason to have used humans in the pods instead of, say, cows. If all you need is body heat, why bother with consciousness?
Finally, my favorite during my college days, even the trailer blew me away:
The Matrix
What was so amazing about the Matrix, was back in the day before movie fandom blogs and production staff twitter accounts, you really had no idea what the movie was about going in. The trailer was Keanu dodging bullets and Larry Fishburne saying "Unfortunately...no one can be...told what the Matrix is." And then it says "What Is The Matrix?" and that's it. So I wanted to see it because it looked cool, and I wondered, "cool, they can dodge bullets...are they superheroes? Robots? Aliens? Guess I'll find out." And then it turns out the world is a computer simulation and they're super h4xx0rs and the only thing you can can say is "whoa."
What more worries me is does all this stuff make it to easy to decide to go to war in the first place?
It does, but it shouldn't. The standard should be "war means innocent little babies are going to die. Is this action worth it?" And the answer to that is almost always "no."
or should we keep the blood off our hands, even when that means sitting by and allowing injustice and even atrocities to occur?
Generally yes, we should keep the blood off our hands, because eventually if everybody decides they don't want blood on their hands the wars kind of stop.
Obviously it depends on what kind of ethics you practice. If you're a utilitarian or consequentialist then you're going to start trying to predict the future about how many people you're going to kill or how many people would have died otherwise. As a Catholic and therefore big on the deontological ethics I get to neatly sidestep the question by saying "killing is wrong and therefore don't do it."
Interesting, sort of releated: I just read a study titled Roman Catholic beliefs produce characteristic neural responses to moral dilemmas wherein the authors hooked up atheists and Catholics to MRI machines and asked them moral questions and showed there's a real difference in the thought processes and areas of the brains activated. Makes me wonder if we can never really agree on a common ethical system between the religious and the non-religious.
Consider the MOAB. We killed 36 ISIS 'fighters' were they all fighters or were two of them just guys ISIS grabbed and said "you'll be cooking our meals or we kill your family" those two hypothetical individuals are men who might have surrendered to ground troops when the position was eventually over run.
Do you remember how women were normally treated before the feminist movement? I'm not interested in returning to the 1950s-type racism and sexism.
I'm not suggesting we go back to the 1950s, but I am suggesting things the benefits of the feminist movement have been unequally distributed. On average women have lower reported happiness now than 50 years ago. Only wealthy women can afford to get married and stay at home with kids today if they so choose. Evil arch-conservative reactionary Nazi Elizabeth Warren wrote a book called "The Two Income Trap" about it. My upper middle class wife stays home with our darling children, and when I walk through the rows and rows of cubes in Billing and Accounts Receivable on the way to my tech job office I see all the lower middle class women (the majority of whom are black) chained to their desks, getting yelled at by insurance companies for 8 hours a day and I think "gee, feminism, fantastic job freeing these women from, ugh, loving homes and children and chaining them to the corporate machine instead. Progress!!" I don't think those women are there by choice, pursuing their dream of a rewarding career in call center work.
Thankfully as a heterosexual white Christian male upper middle class engineer the progressives will never set their eyes on "liberating" me.
Go find a high school student and ask if they care what race their best friend is. They don't, maybe unless they're American.
So if you have black friends, you're cleared of racism? Well I have black friends, so, whew, I'm not racist!
Hey, white people, if you're ever accused of racism just let everyone know you have black friends and you'll be fine.
Seriously though, you're confusing individual attitudes with group outcome. Very few people are actively discriminating based on race. What you're doing is starting with the false assumption that all races are biologically equivalent, and then when there are differences in outcome it must be because evil whitey. Ignore of course that Asians and Jews are on average wealthier and less incarcerated in whites. Apparently America is totally white supremacist, they just really suck at it pushed up the Asians and Jews instead of oppressing them. Whoops!
How did you come up with that idea every group is the same, anyway? How did we get through 50,000 years of different selection pressures in radically different environments and come out biologically equivalent except for skin color, from whites to Japanese to Kenyans to Australian Aborigines? Was it magic? Did God do it? Are you a Creationist? They never have any explanation for how this biological mechanism works so I assume egalitarian leftists must be Creationists.
nobody's ever demonstrated real differences between the races outside the societal context,
This is the complete opposite in reality. Genetics is a real thing, and yes, many, many studies have been done showing the biological differences between different human ethnic groups (shorthand collated into "races" for simplicity of reference). This is real and this is science, and there is no excuse for still parroting the radical egalitarian ideology. That is a political ideology with no basis in fact. How do you possibly arrive at the concept that somehow humans left Africa 50,000 years ago and then, after 50,000 years of different selection pressure in vastly different environments we will find no differences beyond superficial ones in different human populations?
How do you justify this? This is as ridiculous an assertion as young earth Creationism. Man, magically created perfectly identical (except for skin color) in every corner of the Earth. What the biological mechanism that yields this result? Magic is not a biological mechanism.
You did not look at the evidence and come to the conclusion that there's no difference in races. You started with your comfortable political ideology (everyone's equal!) and then you're willfully blind to science (on a science website!) and deny your own lying eyes. This is very bad, because policy recommendations you make off this false assumption of biological equality will fail, and have many unintended consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
In my book, the difference between right and left boils down to people who only worry about themselves and people who try to help the most people.
Except you want to help them by hurting me. And most of the time your "helping" doesn't work any way.
Unfortunately, the "only worry about themselves" doesn't extend to leaving other people alone, they view everything through the prism of their own life, with no ability or desire to understand other circumstances.
Other way around, actually. Ideological Turing tests have been performed and conservatives understand liberals, while liberals do not understand conservatives.
On the topic of the gay wedding cake trial, understand they did not "refuse to serve gays." The couple were long-time customers of the bakers, the bakers knew they were gay, and had served them before. They refused to participate in the gay wedding by baking a cake for it.
Obviously a Christian is not going to refuse to serve sinners. They'd have no customers. But they can refuse to take part in sin. Yes, you can serve masturbators, but no you can't be compelled to cater a circle jerk.
why can't white supremacist businesses refuse to serve blacks, or male businesses refuse to serve women?
I don't know. We have essentially eliminated the right to freedom of association. It might not be so bad if we were a more homogenous culture, but now that the policy is "invite the world" I don't know how that works in the long run when you are basically forced to interact with every culture in the world.
This may well mean that some Christians find that the wedding cake business is not right for them, just as observant Jews don't take jobs or run businesses that require them to work on Saturday, devout Mormons don't work in bars, etc.
Doesn't this kill culture, though? "Sure, you can keep your religion, but you can't actually live according to its teachings, and you can't segregate into a place where you can?"
This all seems like an extremely low entropy arrangement. We have to pump a massive amount of energy into coercing every combination of race, religion, culture, gender into equivalent cogs in society.
Lena Dunham Posts Video Celebrating 'the Extinction of White Men'. And this is a person who appeared with Hillary Clinton at campaign stops. This sort of thing is common. You can find videos on YouTube of BLM marchers screaming about dead cops. This sort of thing is common, and both Hillary and Bernie endorsed BLM.
This is the difference. You will never see "friend of the show Richard Spencer" invited onto Sean Hannity. You will never see Laura Ingraham cite "the scholarly research of Dr. David Duke." The extremists and the nutjobs on the right are disavowed and swept under the rug. The nutjobs on the left are defended, encouraged and celebrated. Hell, the vice chair of the DNC thinks Jews did 9/11. That is David Duke tier nuttery, but there ya go.
The left has rioters and nutjobs and violent mobs on college campuses and illegal immigrants setting police cars on fire while waving Mexican flags and prominent people acknowledged by the political establishment pouring hatred on whites and men and that's not even the problem. Yes, there are always going to be nutjobs. The problem, pnutjam, is you. You will respond to this post and defend those people (or deny they exist). You'll make up some bullshit about how they're "punching up" or "making reasonable points about power imbalances in society" or "expressing heartfelt anger over injustice" or whatever.
But as the target of all that hatred, I hear it. And I hear you're fine with it. This is not going to end well. And there's nothing I can do about it, because none of those people are going to listen to me. I'm already the enemy. Me chastising them doesn't do anything.
to do something based on how they were born
You understand gays are not "born that way," correct?
So we agree the issue is not "tolerance" but "forced compliance," right?
You saw the BLM protests, right? "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon?" "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now!" Both Bernie and Hillary supported BLM. At least Trump disavowed the racists on his side.
This is the problem. There are incredibly hateful people on both sides, but at least the right tries to suppress theirs. The left celebrates theirs, puts them up on stage at the DNC, and earnestly believes their hatred is justified and good.
No, it's absolutely lying with statistics. If the objection to illegal immigrants is crime, responding with "they're less criminal than the native population" is incredibly misleading. If your neighborhood has a rapist and a murderer in it, objecting to someone moving in who's merely a robber is not unreasonable.
Put another way, your street has 4 people on it. 2 of them are both racist and homophobic. A new person wants to move in who's homophobic. How happy are you about that? After all, he's less intolerant than the current population of your street.
No, the ideology of the left can loosely be summarized as "you're evil, I'm going to take all of your shit." Hard to have a dialog with that.
Except the left's definition of "tolerance" is more like "forced acceptance of." Not stopping gays from doing gay stuff is tolerant. Forcing Christians to bake gay wedding cakes is forced acceptance.
Relevant: I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup
This denial of fact, science, and climate change, what's with that?
This is not unique to the right. The left denies human biodiversity. The formula is:
1. Divide humans into different groups.
2. Insist despite all evidence that these groups are equivalent and interchangeable. Violently attack anyone who proves otherwise (see Charles Murray at Middlebury).
3. When Group A has a better outcome in society than Group B, insist as the only possible explanation the oppression of group B by Group A.
4. Demand government power to remove property from Group A to compensate Group B.
5. Repeat everywhere, in all aspects of human endeavor, forever.
Because many of the individuals arguing against extending marriage equality to the LGBT community are using the same arguments that "BIGOTs" used to argue against mixed race marriages.
But they actually are different, but there is no charity in the debate. The left has no interest in understanding the difference between positive rights and negative rights, and that in Loving v. Virgina the court ruled against the state because Virginia was throwing people who married across races in jail, thereby denying them their liberty. There's a big difference between "the state will imprison you for doing X" and "the state will not give you a certificate to do X."
There is no interest in understanding the other side, the debate, or the objections. We're going to force you to issue the certificates and we're going to force you to bake the cakes and that is it.
Unless perhaps they're interested in getting the rest of society's crime rates down to those of illegal immigrants.
This is one of those cases in which the left is lying with statistics. They compare the crime rates of illegal immigrants to the crime rate of the "native population," as if they're talking about the crime rate of you, the listener, a likely white guy in the suburbs. However the "native population" includes the American black underclass in Detroit, Chicago, etc, which has extremely high crime rates that skew the numbers. So, "illegals have crime rates lower than the native population" might be technically true, but "illegals are less criminal than blacks" is hardly a selling point for mass immigration.
On the other hand, when mainstream politicians publicly spew racism and xenophobia, and people openly cheer them on for it, that's public discourse - that's what I'm talking about.
The problem is you're only seeing the other tribe's racism, and ignoring your own, and have actually redefined racism so that you can't be guilty of it. But your side is still spewing "kill whitey" racial hatred, and whitey can hear it. Whitey don't like it.
The non-regressive left needs to have a come to Jesus (come to Marx?) chat with the regressive left. What happens is some leftists beat down a right-wing speaker and then the "reasonable" leftists defend it. While yes, it's viscerally satisfying when a particularly obnoxious member of the other tribe gets punched, you still have to insist your people not do that, and be appropriately punished for doing the bad thing. The criticism and threat of expulsion has to come from in your own tribe. Me, a right-winger, wagging my finger at a left wing rioter doesn't do anything.
On my side, yes, when obnoxious protestors showed up at Trump rallies and a few of them got punched, I won't lie and say it wasn't satisfying seeing a loudmouth jerk get clocked. However, the puncher still shouldn't have done that, he was arrested and spent time in jail and on probation. That is right and good, and I would never argue that he was justified and should not be punished.
This doesn't happen on the other side. Left-wingers riot and beat up people and HuffPo writes articles "condemning" the violence...and then justifying it because the other guys totally had it coming. This doesn't work. Everybody has to punish their own people who step out of line. If we're not going to do that then we're just going to get escalating violence. And as a practical matter, this seems like it would have a very poor outcome for the left if this turns into a competition for who can be the most brutal.
"combined with a form of fusion..."
All they needed to do instead was say that they needed the processing ability of human brains. You wouldn't be able to call that "wrong" because we don't know enough about how the human mind works or how machine intelligence would work to say. Also, it would give them a reason to have used humans in the pods instead of, say, cows. If all you need is body heat, why bother with consciousness?
some were discovering brand-new ideas for the first time.
Most wondering if there's a computer they can put in their brain so they know kung fu.
Finally, my favorite during my college days, even the trailer blew me away:
The Matrix
What was so amazing about the Matrix, was back in the day before movie fandom blogs and production staff twitter accounts, you really had no idea what the movie was about going in. The trailer was Keanu dodging bullets and Larry Fishburne saying "Unfortunately...no one can be...told what the Matrix is." And then it says "What Is The Matrix?" and that's it. So I wanted to see it because it looked cool, and I wondered, "cool, they can dodge bullets...are they superheroes? Robots? Aliens? Guess I'll find out." And then it turns out the world is a computer simulation and they're super h4xx0rs and the only thing you can can say is "whoa."
What more worries me is does all this stuff make it to easy to decide to go to war in the first place?
It does, but it shouldn't. The standard should be "war means innocent little babies are going to die. Is this action worth it?" And the answer to that is almost always "no."
or should we keep the blood off our hands, even when that means sitting by and allowing injustice and even atrocities to occur?
Generally yes, we should keep the blood off our hands, because eventually if everybody decides they don't want blood on their hands the wars kind of stop.
Obviously it depends on what kind of ethics you practice. If you're a utilitarian or consequentialist then you're going to start trying to predict the future about how many people you're going to kill or how many people would have died otherwise. As a Catholic and therefore big on the deontological ethics I get to neatly sidestep the question by saying "killing is wrong and therefore don't do it."
Interesting, sort of releated: I just read a study titled Roman Catholic beliefs produce characteristic neural responses to moral dilemmas wherein the authors hooked up atheists and Catholics to MRI machines and asked them moral questions and showed there's a real difference in the thought processes and areas of the brains activated. Makes me wonder if we can never really agree on a common ethical system between the religious and the non-religious.
Yeah you can buy complete RetroPie kits off Amazon. No l33t h4xx0ring required.
Consider the MOAB. We killed 36 ISIS 'fighters' were they all fighters or were two of them just guys ISIS grabbed and said "you'll be cooking our meals or we kill your family" those two hypothetical individuals are men who might have surrendered to ground troops when the position was eventually over run.
To be fair, the MOAB is totally awesome.
Do you remember how women were normally treated before the feminist movement? I'm not interested in returning to the 1950s-type racism and sexism.
I'm not suggesting we go back to the 1950s, but I am suggesting things the benefits of the feminist movement have been unequally distributed. On average women have lower reported happiness now than 50 years ago. Only wealthy women can afford to get married and stay at home with kids today if they so choose. Evil arch-conservative reactionary Nazi Elizabeth Warren wrote a book called "The Two Income Trap" about it. My upper middle class wife stays home with our darling children, and when I walk through the rows and rows of cubes in Billing and Accounts Receivable on the way to my tech job office I see all the lower middle class women (the majority of whom are black) chained to their desks, getting yelled at by insurance companies for 8 hours a day and I think "gee, feminism, fantastic job freeing these women from, ugh, loving homes and children and chaining them to the corporate machine instead. Progress!!" I don't think those women are there by choice, pursuing their dream of a rewarding career in call center work.
Thankfully as a heterosexual white Christian male upper middle class engineer the progressives will never set their eyes on "liberating" me.
Go find a high school student and ask if they care what race their best friend is. They don't, maybe unless they're American.
So if you have black friends, you're cleared of racism? Well I have black friends, so, whew, I'm not racist!
Hey, white people, if you're ever accused of racism just let everyone know you have black friends and you'll be fine.
Seriously though, you're confusing individual attitudes with group outcome. Very few people are actively discriminating based on race. What you're doing is starting with the false assumption that all races are biologically equivalent, and then when there are differences in outcome it must be because evil whitey. Ignore of course that Asians and Jews are on average wealthier and less incarcerated in whites. Apparently America is totally white supremacist, they just really suck at it pushed up the Asians and Jews instead of oppressing them. Whoops!
How did you come up with that idea every group is the same, anyway? How did we get through 50,000 years of different selection pressures in radically different environments and come out biologically equivalent except for skin color, from whites to Japanese to Kenyans to Australian Aborigines? Was it magic? Did God do it? Are you a Creationist? They never have any explanation for how this biological mechanism works so I assume egalitarian leftists must be Creationists.
No, actually the studies show the exact opposite.
Are they trying to fix prejudices or introduce their own?
nobody's ever demonstrated real differences between the races outside the societal context,
This is the complete opposite in reality. Genetics is a real thing, and yes, many, many studies have been done showing the biological differences between different human ethnic groups (shorthand collated into "races" for simplicity of reference). This is real and this is science, and there is no excuse for still parroting the radical egalitarian ideology. That is a political ideology with no basis in fact. How do you possibly arrive at the concept that somehow humans left Africa 50,000 years ago and then, after 50,000 years of different selection pressure in vastly different environments we will find no differences beyond superficial ones in different human populations?
How do you justify this? This is as ridiculous an assertion as young earth Creationism. Man, magically created perfectly identical (except for skin color) in every corner of the Earth. What the biological mechanism that yields this result? Magic is not a biological mechanism.
You did not look at the evidence and come to the conclusion that there's no difference in races. You started with your comfortable political ideology (everyone's equal!) and then you're willfully blind to science (on a science website!) and deny your own lying eyes. This is very bad, because policy recommendations you make off this false assumption of biological equality will fail, and have many unintended consequences.