Ignorance and refusal to accept reality is bipartisan.
Government funded science burned all its currency decades ago with fraudulent nutrition science. If your conclusions don't fall in line with agendas your funding vanishes.
Credibility matters. California says you can swim but can't hang out on the beach. New York says you can hang out on the beach but can't swim. Both assert their policies are science based.
California says you can only buy raw milk from grocery stores and not directly from farmers. Texas says you can only buy from farmers and not grocery stores. Both claim this is to protect consumers.
Agreed. I'm also somewhat amused by religion being assumed to be a factor in whether or not someone happens to be ignorant. People see the nonsensical dogma of the Catholic church, past and present, and stereotype religion based only on that. Looking at history, I actually, ironically, see the Protestant Reformation as a good example of how knowledge, reason, information, etc, will need to be overhauled in order to fix our broken political system, among other nonsensical institutions, although (also ironically) I see modern Lutheranism as almost indistinguishable from the Catholic church.
For millennia, doctrine was based partly on untranslated Greek, Hebrew, and Latin texts. Many of these texts were picked and chosen based solely on their social, political, and economic benefits to the Catholic leadership. Even then, since priests and the rich were the only ones with the education required to read these texts for themselves, priests could deliver whatever message they liked and it would be accepted as rigid orthodoxy. Wars on a scale (as far as number of nations involved) not seen again until the 20th century, were started on the whim of the Pope, for the most arbitrary of reasons. Suddenly, you had this maniac translating the original text into German, and printing it for everyone who can to read, and offering alternative interpretation and/or direct dissemination for those who could not. Now, in the same vein as what tp4 so eloquently said, this caused mass political and religious chaos, upheaval, and death for centuries. The end result, however, was eventual religious freedom throughout Europe and the reduction of the Pope, who was once basically the unofficial emperor of all of Christendom, to an essentially meaningless figurehead in global political affairs.
I see open and free access to information, which is now afforded by the internet to an ever-growing degree, as the potential to be a catalyst for another event of the same magnitude. What passes today as science is often a thinly-veiled religion all its own with little more consideration for reason than Catholicism in the 16th century, in all of the circles with influence anyway. Both political parties, and the corporations behind our media outlets, are certainly taking stances and pushing agendas with no rational goals in order to keep us at each other's throats, literally over topics of no real consequence and/or with no meaningful solution, in order to continue to consolidate and accumulate wealth and power. Money and power were previously the only way to effectively promote an idea, and when money and power are involved, that idea is usually nothing more than the vehicle for a veiled agenda. This is no longer the case. Anyone, of any means, can reach hundreds, thousands, even millions, with whatever message they like, so long as our current channels of information remain as free as possible of censorship.
In short, I see the dissemination of information, of all kinds, to be a net gain for our society, even with crackpots (or con artists, as I believe he may be) like Alex Jones in the mix. What's been called the new media, afforded to us by the internet, without censorship, at least affords us with the ideas and choices that those in the halls of power either ignore, or intentionally hide away. If history repeats itself, and I do think that it does, then we may well be on the brink of a modern reformation of sorts. Not specifically religious, but involving all that is currently regarded to be fact, all that's currently regarded to be reasonable, all that's currently regarded to be acceptable. We already see the beginnings of this today. It is already ugly, and it will get much worse, but I think that within a century or two we may come out of it in a much better position in terms of objectivity, or at least consideration for other viewpoints, in all aspects. All we need to do is make sure that these channels of free information remain open long enough to smash the status quo.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with populism. I honestly wonder if its divisiveness is itself a great example of people being brainwashed by the media. It is, in effect, the whole idea behind the people being those who bestow power on the government, and not the other way around. It is the embodiment of freedom itself. You could even say that it is the very idea behind representative government, and even socialism and communism. The danger is only that it is also the banner often waved by autocrats of all forms. I view nationalism similarly. We are all citizens of a nation. We abide by the laws of this nation. We contribute to, and have a stake in, its well-being. When our nation's economy is doing well, the people of our nation do better than if it is not. If we are not to be nationalistic, then there are only two logical conclusions as alternatives: Anarchy, or one world government. I don't know about you but, like our founders, I do not like even the idea of such a monumental concentration of power.
You can hate those currently in power, for whatever reasons you like, but don't conflate the meanings of very important terms.
I do not believe in completely unlimited freedom of speech, because that's also essentially anarchy, and defeats the purpose of government. The whole idea of government is that we have entered into a social contract that provides consequences for the trampling of the rights/freedoms of others. Our founders were wise to make the very exceptions that they did, as liberty is wonderful only so long as it doesn't inhibit the liberty/well-being of others. We see this today in our broken, and often corrupt, judicial system. People are often convicted or acquitted based primarily on the testimony of people who may or may not even be telling the truth, especially if they've made a deal with the prosecution. That's not fair at all to a defendant (or their potential victims), and should obviously not take place when it can be avoided. It is an extreme example, but one of the easiest to demonstrate. There must be consequences for actions that are wrongfully detrimental to our fellow man. If there are not, then there's little reason to have a government at all. The problem is making sure that government keeps its nose out of everything else.
