this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2025
299 points (95.4% liked)
Progressive Politics
2542 readers
204 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ignorance is dangerous.
Another line of thought: this is severe negligence, leading to death. Throw this guy in jail for homicide.
This is why pseudoscience at all levels is dangerous to a modern society. Including "harmless" shit like astrology. It encourages magical thinking and the disregard of science in favor of belief in something that "feels right."
Take that to its logical conclusion, and people die.
Astrology? Of all things, why point fingers at that? Give me one example on why it may lead to dangerous conclusions.
That's a generalization, not an example. What does that even mean or tries to mean?
Astrology also was used by Ronald Reagan, president of the United States, to help decide important issues.
I think that's good proof it's fucking dangerous.
It took me some time to order my thoughts on this. It would be easy to go for a knee jerk reaction but your reply deserves a proper answer.
Let's see if I can do what I want.
I'm going to start by repeating myself: ignorance is dangerous.
You made me remember an article I once read where it was denounced the practice of an insurance company of using clients zodiac signs to calculate risk. It ended in court and ridicule, obviously. Or thankfully.
I personally enjoy astrology. Strangely enough, it was what triggered me in my fascination for psychology. And if the historical context for what zodiacs/totems were originally for, which was to serve as a guide for an individual's life and moral decisions, is taken into account, then those symbols acted as such: symbols, archetypes, with good and bad traits or inclinations, to which the individual under its influence/guidance could tap or should avoid in order to make the best path they could build in life.
Balance. The choice is on the individual.
The way astrology, religion, pseudo science, science denial, etc, becomes dangerous, in my understanding, comes from the moment an individual chooses to relinquish their personal agency to instead allow something they do not understand decide over their lifes - and of others, by extension - unquestioned and unreasoned upon.
It is extremely hard to take up the sole responsibility of the outcome of one's decisions. Religion offers that escape through the means we are painfully aware. And because making a religion out of anything is easy, it is easy to find a escape for one's personal responsability.
I can't imagine what decisions Reagan took under astrology guidance; just the notion is ridiculous enough make me smile. He should have been laughed out of office, for that alone. But considering a country has the representatives it chooses, the US got what they chose.
Like I always say: be free to believe whatever you want, just keep it to yourself.
I pointed at that for the exact reason you think: because people believe it's harmless.
What it does is erode the critical thinking abilities of a population. If you can believe that giant balls of gas millions of light years away that aren't even close to one another but only appear to form shapes when viewed from one specific angle, can have an affect on events on this planet, then you can be convinced of literally anything.
It's no different than religion. It's magical thinking, and as we have seen, it breaks people's brains.
Read "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan for a much better explanation of my position. This book should be required reading by every adult imo.
I already addressed that issue on another reply and I manage to disagree and agree with your position.
This is the way. "Food has stuff in it we don't trust, so I stopped feeding her."
These people do, sincerely, need to be incarcerated.
It's not going to happen, though, under this or even under any administration under the current Democratic party.
"UnDeR tHe DeMocRatS"
Oh yes, the Democrats. FAMOUSLY in charge of Texas. CURRENTLY in charge of the FDA and government.
How about we stay on topic.
MMR would still be required in schools if the Dems won. It's one of the very few things they bother to do (though poorly). This kid could possibly still be alive.
These idiots are so transparent.
It makes me think they're bots, honestly.
It makes me want to write a bot that explains FPTP and damage reduction over and over, since that seems to be how I spend my time..
I wish they were all bots...
To your point about Texas: California, the bastion of liberal ideals for decades, deregulated their power grid in 1996, when Democrats controlled the state Senate and the state Assembly. Fucking conservative bullshit. So don't go picking and choosing your "it's only the Republican's fault" talking points.
I'm not one of those people who don't think there's any difference between the parties, but the Democrats are certainly only the lesser of two evils. The recent vote in which a full 10 Democrats voted for the stop-gap spending bill, which strengthens Trump's dictatorial agenda; Biden's stance on numerous issues, and Kamala's refusal to distance herself on those issues; despite Biden showing up at Labor rallies, the utter lack of recognition - much less any action to combat - the increasing wealth disparity in the US; the constant repetition of Biden's administration of how great the economy is while middle and lower class families struggle; the whole way the Biden/Harris 2024 campaign was handled, with the obvious back-stabbing of Biden (poorly handled, if nothing else); the Democratic party's rejection of anyone left of, or more pro-working class, than Biden - including Sanders, AOC, or anyone that would be considered too "left" for the corporations that control the US government; all these things demonstrate that the Democratic party aren't the party of the left anymore. They're merely not outright fascist Nazis, but the party is still pro-Billionaire, pro-big-business.
When the Democrats have been in charge, where were the bills for Traveler's Rights? Where were the bills strengthening civil liberties? Where were the bills working to reduce income disparity, to strengthen Unions - where was any of that? Republicans have certainly been effective at advancing their agenda - who's been advancing the agenda of progressives? Who stood up against the invasion of Iraq? Anyone? Not Hillary, that's for sure. Who shut down Guantanamo? It's still there, and still running.
The Democratic party is weak, ineffectual, and seems more concerned with profiting from their own positions (thanks for that bit of ammunition, Pelosi) than doing anything for the working classes, or protecting immigrants, or minorities, or going any fucking thing to fight the far right. Or maybe they're just incompetent. While Republicans have been stacking the courts, Democrats have been either incompetent, uncaring, bafflingly oblivious, or downright stupid, and I don't know which is worse.
There are exceptions in the party, but that's only because it's been proven that it's nearly impossible to get elected without belonging to one party or the other. But the Democratic party as a whole is little better than the lesser of two evils.
We're already in an oligarchy, run by the wealthy and large corporations, and with a Russian asset as our president. What have the Democrats - our elected representatives - done to prevent this? I'll take personal responsibility when we have direct representation, and I can bypass my representatives and vote directly on bills; until then, the representatives are answerable for the state of the country.
The Democratic party needs a leftist version of the Tea Party. Until then, they're going to continue to concede and compromise us into a complete dictatorship.
The topic is measles. Would you like to comment on that?
I did. Four comments back in history.
To summarize:
X: These people that let their kids die from medical neglect need to be jailed
Me: Yes they do, but it isn't going to happen under either the Pubes or the Dems
X: Oh, you're one of those "both parties are the same" idjits
Me: No, Dems are the lesser of two evils, but they haven't been "the good guys" in a long time. They've only been "the least bad", and they're getting less "least bad" over time.
The Democratic party now is like the Republican party was in the 70's. Give them 20 more years with the way they've been going, and they won't be defending vaccines anymore, either.
This whole thread has everything to do with vaccines; context is important. The whole sequence of statements on the thread is significant to what's said.
Pardon? Which Democrats are you referring to with respect to the story at hand? What made you bring them up?
You're kind of bad at this.
The current Democratic party, as opposed to the one from, say, the 80's.
The current leadership of the Democratic party are, and have been for several years, not an effective foil to the far right; they've been failing. Since Reagan they've been letting Republican administrations stack courts, block progressive legislation, failing to block conservative legislation, and just been all-around failures.
Why are the courts stacked with conservative judges? Why do we have literal criminals sitting, unimpeached, on the Supreme Court? Why do we have a felon in the White House? Why did 10 Democrats just give Republicans the votes they needed to Push through a spending bill that cedes even more power to Trump? Why is the country riddled with Gerrymandered states ensuring Republican control even in states where they don't hold a majority of votes? Why, in the past 4 elections where a Republican has won the Presidency, has only one won the popular vote? Why is no-one in Congress standing up for Palestine? Why is anti-vax so popular? Where. The fuck. Is. The Democratic leadership?
Oh! An ad hominem attack. That's... unsurprising.
Yeah... that wasn't an ad hominem attack, just an observation.