DVK-on-Ahch-To

@NathanCooper - No, that's not freedom. Freedom is EXPRESSLY from the government. You have the freedom not to choose an employer with bad insurance. You do NOT have the made-up fake "freedom" or "right" to steal other people's money to pay for health insurance you wish.

@NathanCooper - "low personal freedom" has nothing to do with "right wing". Guess who had more personal freedom - USSR citien or USA citizen in 1950s? Guess which wing Libertarians are considered today? Guess which party wants to curb MY personal freedoms of expression (PC), right to bear arms (gun control), freedom of association (sanctions on, say, Boy Scouts), freedom of religoion (requirement for Catholics to subsitie abortion).

@herzmeister - how is Fox New related to Nancy Pelosi?

@herzmeister - "“You be the judge. They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care." - Nancy Pelosi on Tea Party movement. Try a little research. Read Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism".

@LennartRegebro - edit away. I can always roll back if I disagree majorly

@LennartRegebro - if it will be substantial change, just post a separate answer and reference (or quote) parts of mine you wish :)

@LennartRegebro - please see the part of my answer regarding the origins and proper meaning of "right wing". Admittedly, US political definition of "liberal" is somewhat disconnected with European, a party that has "liberal" in its name in Europe would be considered a "Conservative" type party in USA, if normalized for broad political views. In other words, I was referring to liberal politics as defined in USA, NOT as defined by a spectrum of all worldwide parties with "liberal" in name. We seem to be in agreement substantially, but differ on terminology. Which was a whole point of answer :)

@LennartRegebro - '"liberal" is considered right wing' - could you please elaborate?

I have provided specific examples of that sharing, which you are welcome to refute.

"Science can’t tell you why you should do X or Y. " - wrong. In many cases, science CAN tell us, if you make reasonable assumptions, by using game theoretical approach. You do need base assumptions (e.g. do you apply veil of ignorance? etc...) but once you make it, game theory can help you build up a provable ethical system

@user253751 Taking illegal medication doesn't violate any laws. It's illegal to SELL not to consume. So you're not doing any better analogy wise.

Oh, and I mean legit research, which accounts for people holding views who haven't been exposed to that media :) Namely nearly every single immigrant from socialist countries (who are on average far more to the right than random Westerner)

Show me any research that directly ties right wing views to being INFLUENCED by media (for that matter, find me where you can find right wing media outside of Fox or radio, since 99% of mainstream western "journalists" are left wing activists who by 2012 abandoned even trying to appear impartial)

@user253751 Your comment about views LITERALLY contradicts facts. My comment about left wing views, literally is supported by statistics. Otherwise, yes, almost same.

@user253751 Faulty analogy (probably other logical fallacies but too lazy to bother). The CORRECT analogy would be "my father had to battle liver disease for 5 years because there was a line to get liver transplant, then some dude robbed an organ bank and got a liver in 1 day instead of waiting 5 years. Therefore I opposed doing liver surgery for people who rob organ donation banks"

@user253751 Considering I had my views since before I ever consumed even a minute of "corporartist media heads", you may want to actually get some information before insulting people. I loved it how lefties assume that people can't hold right wing views other than being told by someone else (and ignore the evidence that there's an iron-clad super high correllation between left wing news and being educated by Western college professors; higher so in humanities)

Personally, everyone I know who's Hispanic and in the country legally, dislikes illegals to a great degree (so do I, as a first generation immigrant) - we all waited, paid our dues and followed the law, often to detriment to ourselves. They just said "Eff the law" and bypassed the process everyone else followed. As far as I'm concerned, any support for illegal aliens is a slap in the face to legal immigrants.

("In theory" because, unless I'm mis-remembering, in reality, immigration hardliner Trump did better with Hispanic voters than Romney did; or any other R nominee before him). IIRC, he even improved his share in 2020 with Hispanics compared to 2016.

... Republican elites are significantly softer on illegal immigration than "regular" people; there's a large caucus in the party leadership that is far to the left of the rest of the party on the topic - partly for reasons of alignment with commercial interests, partly because the left very successfully lied thanks to mass media and branded opposition to illegal immigration as "racist" and thus hurting R party with Hispanic voters, at least in theory.

... And Democrats were always pro-illegal immigration (as far back as Reagan); they just became more readicalized lately (en masse).

@prosfilaes ROFLMAO Whenever I hear something like that my only response is "you mean people brainwashed by left wing university professors". Because "education" rarely has anything to do with it, if you take people who were not educated in the West as a control group; or separate people by age when the education happened.

@prosfilaes in case of gay marriage, I'd argue that the shift was more bottom-up than top-down; unlike certain other stances where elites shifted regardless of (and sometimes in opposition to) the masses; the most obvious being illegal immigration.

And yes ++ what @Trevortni said, there's ALSO a divergence between party elites and party voters. There's a reason "RINO" is a political term that exists.

... and also, the problem is that there's a faction of R party that overall shifted left and ANOTHER faction that shifted right. Talking about R's as a "party" in this context as if they are a monolith is somewhat misleading at best and uselessly incorrect at worst

@DavidHammen It's more nuanced than that, let's just say. One some issues, at the very least the elites of Republican party, clearly shifted to the left by adopting positions that used to be "D" positions 40 years ago. One some, they shifted to the right, at least compared to 20-30 years ago.

@DavidHammen - it's one of the key, but not the only one. Ability to shield bad employees from being fired (like awful teachers) is a big deal. Another big one is the ability to extort exorbitant compensation and especially pensions because the other side "negotiating" with you (politicians) has zero incentive to not give you what you want, since they will not have to face the conseqences years down the line when those unfunded pensions blow up (see California, or hell most municipalities). Also, air traffic case was only for federal employees, not state/local.

This answer is closely related to politics.stackexchange.com/questions/1084/…

@DavidHammen - "union" can mean different things, too. For example, I - and many others - are strongly anti-government-workers-union e.g. teachers (as in, should be illegal as fsck), and merely bleh about private sector unions (they were clearly a good idea in 1890s, and they are more of a problem than a solution in 2000s in most situations; I wouldn't want their existence outlawed, for sure - but I also would hesitate to invest in a company with unionized workforce as an individual).

@RoseAmes - Not sure about the French, but for English, footmen could be protection for defenseless-in-close-combat archers.

next Q: "were able to shelter their bows." - what was the usual technique for that in the field?

I was actually offered Mod Pro temp on another site, years ago. I graciously declined because... well... I'm not really mod material. To mis-quote from "Office Space", "I'm not a people person"

@JJJ - do you seriously think I'm qualified to be a mod? :) (personality wise, regardless of any other factors) :)

@PeteL.Clark - you're implying that his only option is to publish in perfect English. Unless the native language is of some rare tribe in Amazon, that's NOT the case. He can publish in his native country, and if it really is a valid paper, then have it professionally translated. There ARE experts in the field that read in languages other than English, let me assure you.

@PeteL.Clark - there are countries outside USA. Russia has math publications (at least used to have them back when i cared to check). I'm sure so does China. I didn't say it has to be international publication.

If the person's first language isn't English, why can't they first publish in a journal in their native language? There ARE non-English and non-US academic publications

@DawoodibnKareem - you mean the amount of people in USA worshipping communist/socialist ideas that failed utterly (murdering more people in a century than nazis in the process)?

The latter assertion is especially laughable from anyone who supports criminalizing sex work. Which in my experience a vast majority of left wing people in USA do. Because clearly prohibiting an adult woman from earning money doing whatever she wants to with her body is NOT about controlling women at all.

What you're not allowed to do, is to spin that into some "this is about controlling women" story

BTW, the latter set would be against HPV vaccines for children of ANY sex, if that were an issue (just like they are against condoms and other contraceptives for any sex). They simply have the opinion that enabling kids to have more sex is bad for kids. Right or wrong, the point is that they are convinced they are doing what's best for the kids, just like you think your position is.

@divibisan - first of all, other than some really rare weirdos, nobody supports HPV vaccine prohibition. They may support prohibiting vaccines from being forced on schoolchildren. In more misguded (but if you honestly listen to their motivation instead of assuming it) they may support prohibiting children from getting them because they fully are convinced that getting that vaccine will be more risky for the child's well being.

@JJJ way worse than here than "recommended" you described. In many (at this point most) places in US it's mandated to the point of you can't enroll your child in chool unless they have 100% of required vaccines. HPV included in some locales.

@divibisan - as I told JJJ, welcome to agreeing with those evil women hating consevatives then.

It's more up to whatever inconsiderate ass decides to go out in public when sick, and not wear a mask to stop their germ infested droplets landing on you.

@JJJ - because if you're smart and pass a marshmallow test, your chances of getting HPV are miniscule. Your chances of getting COVID don't really depend on your choices as much, unless you're fortunate enough to self isolate for super extended periods of time.

Sure, you can just choose not to eat unhealthy garbage. Hell, it's cheaper so better for poor people (takeout of fast food is nearly always more expensive than cooking something yourself at home).

@JJJ - leaving aside all the other factors, you don't get covid from unsafe sexual behavior. You get it just being around people. Not at all the same situation :)

@JJJ - there are no people who eat unhealthy and die of preventable heart disease there, just because of medical recommendations? I'm slightly skeptical.

@JJJ - There are no long term HPV safety studies, simply because the vaccine is pretty new. IIRC 2006 or so?

Also - if that is your view (that people should be forced to do what medical science says is best for them), should we force people to not eat saturated fats? heart disease kills what, millions more people than HPV linked cancers do.

@JJJ - I try to stay clear of anti-vax groups, I understand some of their points but I don't necessarily agree with some of their arguments scientifically. But when you hear that HPV is recommended on average but a doctor would prefer not to give it to their child, that's a bit different than "the crystal spirits said that HPV vaccine is GMO and evil".