It's not as if the research caused these people to have the views they have; they use it as a post-hoc justification. And more importantly it's not as if they can't do their own research, even if it's bad quality (or even fake). By remaining intentionally ignorant yourself you won't have a strong answer, and let the "MAGA and similar organisations" take the initiative and control the debate.
Besides, it's not as if reality is going to change just because we don't research it, and if we understand reality better we can maybe do better by everyone.
Given that SO many women and minorities actively support and vote for these groups and candidates, and this is a democratic system, is this really such a bad thing in this case?
In short, if groups of people actively and happily vote against their own best interests, and to keep themselves oppressed, is it wrong for them to be oppressed? Or, in this case, is democracy even a system we should be upholding? And if not, what is the alternative? A system where a group of unelected, unaccountable elites run society because they know what's best? I honestly don't have the answer here.
What do you mean by this?
FWIW as far as I can tell, the OP is correct in that 55% of white women, 36% of hispanic men, and 30% of hispanic women voted for trump. It was also telling that in the 2020 election support for the republican party from all minority groups increased by a few percentage points. I think that counts as "SO many". It's not a majority, but I don't think the OP claimed that.
>Do you take issue with the premise? Do you consider the finding not to be meaningful?
Just wanted some elaboration. It's a bold claim given with no data.
"SO many," if defined as less than 50%, is irrelivant given a democratic sysyem with only two parties. Therefore "SO many" must refer to more than 50%.
Hitler was elected by a minority of the population, but American liberals seem to have forgotten that. It's becoming easy to see how leaders like Hitler come into power. If Trump had been much more competent and destructive than he really was, the US would be really screwed right now, while American liberals would still be sitting around whining about how "gerrymandering" got him elected by a tiny, tiny, tiny minority. (Yes, I know gerrymandering only affects elections for the House members. American liberals don't: they routinely blame gerrymandering for governor's elections and Senatorial elections.)
Seems like a bit of a jump to assume they're distributed the same way and start making conclusions based on that.
The answer is yes. And in fact that's how fascism typically rises to power.
I feel like this is a paradox.
If we're voting on dinner, and I say I'm not going to eat at any restaurant with an F health inspector rating, we can still vote.
Democracy always has to accept that we must set limits on choice. I can't vote for a foreign national to be our president. But honestly, I'm not that broken up about that limit. Just like I wouldn't be that broken up about limiting the ability to elect fascists.
Ok, and who sets those limits? If an unelected group sets the limits, then what you have is not a democratic system at all; it's more like a 1-party state where you can vote who whomever you want, as long as The Party has approved them.
That doesn't replicate the conditions of national elections which are monopolistic and repeated. You can't opt to participate in a different group and you have to play all your games with the same rules - if you refuse to eat at F-grade restaurants you may end up starving.
In "real" elections you end up without the ability to set those convenient limits consistently or usefully.
>Note that none of the studies I am referring to include inquiries into race or sex differences. Apparently, NIH is clamping down on a broad range of attempts to explore the relationship between genetics and intelligence.