You see a similar pattern with gun owners, which every statistic suggests exist in vast numbers even in neighborhoods with politics strongly aligned with anti-gun activists, but almost no one ever publicly admits to owning one. Like with creationism, being a member of this group isn't nearly as much of an affectation of political alignment as people assume.
There are many polite fictions like this in society.
Does having an NRA sticker on your pickup's bumper count? I see those all the time.
Do you think people who own guns who live in non-rural areas do so for (a) personal protection, (b) hunting, or (c) sport shooting? I'm not a hunter myself, but (b) and (c) seem pretty reasonable anywhere that you live. However, I never understand the (a) crowd.
For the record, Finland also has very high gun ownership.
In rural areas my impression is it a mix of A, B and C in different ratios per person.
In urban areas, it seems primarily A, especially for women. Here pistols are favored, because they are discreet and Supreme hasn’t released an AR-15. Yet. You probably wouldn’t suspect for example my ethnically ambiguous gym coach and his hispanic girlfriend to be packing, but they are very enthusiastic about having the capability of defending themselves from strife. Police after all cannot be relied upon to do anything other than start paperwork about the the mess a criminal or group rioters/looters leave. Consider the sentiments of survivors of Hurricane Katrina are likely to hold.
My impression is there are also periodic mass renewals of interest whenever we elect a new president, or some massive thing like covid or a depression occurs. Obama was often called “gun salesman of the year” in regards to conservatives, and Trump did a bigly job convincing many liberals that the whole “perhaps I need a gun because government” sentiment most commonly associated with rural/conservative areas wasn’t so outrageous after all. Now, for all the posturing and larping of some blowhards, there are vanishingly few who actually think having a civil war would be a grand time. But it doesn’t hurt to be ready, just in case. Especially with the worlds most powerful military involved.
That said, the future of effective defense against governments will be drones, with the classic “heroic personal stand” being far less desirable for obvious reasons.
I myself don’t hunt, but I occasionally shoot for recreation. An AR-15 is basically an engine you can easily modify, playing around with weights, springs, muzzle devices and ammo to achieve silly low recoil. I also for some reason just love troubleshooting firearms. This is a great video about how things function, and how the use of gauging can be used to help find tolerance issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv6a1hs9U5o And of course then there’s the whole making holes close together from far away aspect as well. Really tickles my nerdy white guy autism (at least once I got a suppressor, because funny enough I don’t like loud sounds lmao). I didn’t really understand “car guys” who were always fucking with their car until I realized I was doing the same thing.
I tend to mostly carry when I’m up doing agronomy in the foothills, because bear, mountain lions, methheads, deer and dogs (the last two are what I’m most likely to be attacked by). I also have bear spray, and a knife, allowing me to actually deter something not already deterred by my ATV engine, and to react to an ambush attack by a mountain lion (in the event I manage to not immediately have my neck snapped). Now, an actual incident is very unlikely and I certainly don’t operate under some kind of omnipresent terror or anything. After an initial scan of an area I basically go about my day completely preoccupied with other things. But if a motherfucker wants to take me down, they better do it right the first time because I am prepared and willing to drag them down to hell with me.
Fortunately though we don’t have moose here. Those are “I can’t even make you regret it” scary, unless you want to carry a repeating large caliber rifle.
Also had encounters with yaks that were scarier than that (and I know of incidents with cows/bulls).
It seems people think of deer as giant harmless bunny rabbits. But you can get into situations where the big animal with horns feels trapped and threatened and shows you their horns. Bluff charges are a real thing, they show you what’s up.
Fortunately I’ve never actually been charged by an animal, and I’ve seen bears, mountain lions, coyotes, bobcats, yaks, deer, etc at close range in the wild. 99.9% of the time they are just as surprised to see you and book it. Except big cats—they just walk off like bosses.
Deer are absolutely capable of attack though. While they normally try to just fuck off, there are a few situations where otherwise can happen:
1. For unprovoked attacks, Male deer can be territorial, especially in a rut where they basically get seasonal roid rage and decide to square up even with the creepy things that walk around on two legs. Getting stabbed with antlers and pounded by hooves is dangerous.
2. If deer (male or female) become used to humans because they are being fed, then they lose their timidness and can get mean if they think it'll get them what they want, though they are unlikely to have the goal of killing.
3. They can also attack if their young are nearby. I come across baby deer roughly once a year, and while usually the mom is somewhere else for most of the day, that may not always be the case. I've been in hazelnut orchards, only to realize I almost just stepped on a fawn laying at a base of a tree. Pretty sure this raises both of our heart rates for a while.
4. Deer can also sometimes attack if they feel trapped and panic, generally from entering a neighborhood and having curious humans start coming around.
5. If you hunt deer, sometimes they'll decide to fight back or not be as dead as you think. Fair enough, TBH.
6. They can also become rabid. This is a good time to remind everyone that all animal attacks should immediately be followed up with a medical examination, no matter how minor any injury. You are vastly more likely to survive trying to commit suicide with a gun, than untreated rabies. Tuberculosis and all the other diseases and parasites they carry are also a consideration.
Horses and Cows will also wreck serious shit if they become inclined. Deer, horses and cows each cause something like a few dozen deaths (not to be confused with attacks, which is far greater) each year, similar to dogs. While bears cause something closer to just 1 death per year when averaged out, and mountain lions and rattle snakes are something like 0.25 deaths per year averaged out. All these numbers are very rough, as this is from foggy memory from past investigation, rather than a nice and neat source I have on hand. As an aside, most rattlesnake deaths are from a drunk deciding to mess with a snake, getting bit, and decide they're fine and go to sleep instead of the hospital. Big rattlesnakes aren't really a danger, just take a hint and leave them alone, they are fat and lazy and really don't need your shit.
Comparatively, things like driving my truck around, or even my ATV is a far larger source of danger, with ATV deaths being in the several hundreds per year I believe. But most of those are not likely from people puttering slowly around like me for crop inspection work.
Only slightly related, but prior to Oregon's partial drug legalization a short while ago, there was a non-zero danger of running into someone in the mountains looking after their million dollar weed plots and no interest in witnesses. There were areas that law enforcement would straight up refuse to go because of Reefer Rambos crawling about.
We've had out fair share of horse and cow accidents around these parts. Them back hooves are deadly. We used to joke that you have to exceed the number of cow-caused deaths to declare something a serious problem.
> Only slightly related, but prior to Oregon's partial drug legalization a short while ago, there was a non-zero danger of running into someone in the mountains looking after their million dollar weed plots and no interest in witnesses. There were areas that law enforcement would straight up refuse to go because of Reefer Rambos crawling about.
Here, you have to be steering clear of meth labs and moonshine operations out in the woods.
It's generally illegal to carry anything as a weapon with the intent of using it as a weapon against a person, even in self-defence, unless you have one of those very rare concealed weapons permits. Knives, pepper spray, and tasers are also illegal in Canada to carry around for self-defence. Though the law does let you use whatever is coincidentally at hand, if you truly must use force as a last resort, to defend from an attacker.
So officially, no, people aren't supposed to be carrying firearms around for protection. American-style "right to defend oneself" with firearms is a bit taboo here. You're also not supposed to keep a firearm loaded at home. But I imagine quite a few do keep shotgun shells nearby and their shotgun safe can be unlocked very quickly.
Which is deliciously ironic considering how much non-theists enjoy mocking theists "for their 'irrational' thinking".
Most atheist are agnostics who decided they will not arbiter if one religion is more right than other, at least that's my case and most atheist I've discussed with.
I like rites (catholic funeral and Muslim marriage would be my perfect combo) and I enjoy talking spirituality and belief systems with people who believe in one more god than I do. I think Shintoism led to the most interesting discussions in general, but Jehovah's witnesses are the most consistent ones (also I always take so much of their time and they're too polite to tell me to stuff it, I always feel bad after).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology_of_Jehovah%27s_Wit...
In fact, consistency is their major weak point.
Heck, it's such a popular idea that techies have reinvented it by saying we live in a simulation, which obviously implies one or more creators.
> The term creationism most often refers to belief in special creation; the claim that the universe and lifeforms were created as they exist today by divine action, and that the only true explanations are those which are compatible with a Christian fundamentalist literal interpretation of the creation myth found in the Bible's Genesis creation narrative.
Others are quite far from that.
Do you mean a transcendent God who exists outside spacetime and created it ex nihilo? The three Abrahamic faiths definitely believe that.
However there are other faiths that believe spacetime is eternal and that the Creator created the world or possibly the universe out of eternally existing matter. I get the impression that Hindus and maybe Mormons believe something along those lines.
If we abstract we can identify eternal universe vs created universe and intelligently designed universe vs random but we sure did get lucky universe as two independent dimensions. I don’t know of any created/lucky faiths, but the standard model is compatible with eternal/lucky.
The difference is that if you go out of your way to tell you have mixer, you are weirdo. If you go out of your way to tell you have a gun, then you are someone who brags about having gun unnecessary, which means weirdo too, but in different way.
I'm not sure 'never tell anyone' is a first rule, although I do agree that in many situations one could gain more value from other not knowing you have it.
There are some situations in which sharing possession of such a tool and the knowledge of using one could be beneficial.
Although most of the time, in most situations one would gain advantage in having defensive ability without broadcasting it to the world, and as the parent comment eluded to, one often gets by / through social interactions just fine, and due to some group's disdain for such, often gets by better, without advertising such. imho.
For quite a while during my tech years i was one of those people. I assumed most people in the city didn’t believe in that stuff. But it’s so obvious that is a huge group despite the association on a national level of theists being republicans and Seattle not having many republicans. In the city it’s a lot of gun owning, liberal or at least not-republican, theists.
To hit on the gun topic, I’ve discovered so so many people that carry in their vehicles, which as a gun owner I find disturbing. Many more who own but don’t carry. Almost none of the people I’m aware of have stickers or advertise their gun ownership.
I now work at a hospital and it’s made me realize how popular religion is here. So many people working here are some flavor of religious. It really was just a tech thing to assume religion is not followed regularly in the city or amongst coworkers. I wonder if it’s just the heavy antisocial aspect of tech workers to assume everyone around them comes in the same flavor as themselves.
Society is indeed a lot more diverse than 'mainstream' or 'normal' people assume.
After that I stopped assuming anything about what others are likely to believe. The past decade has proven that, unfortunately, to be a wise decision.
I'd love to hear their math-aware rebuttal to the usual proofs against FE (stuff like horizons, the day-night cycle). Although debates of the sort rarely end well.
The conversation was always 100% focused on what I could prove in the moment. The general form of his argument was a radical skepticism. If you question the vast majority of people enough you will be able to find a place where they are not solid on the science. He would expertly find and exploit these areas. He was also very conspiratorial, specifically believing that NASA was a government plot to hide government spending that was going towards a corrupt elite.
He was also amazing at not understanding simple concepts when necessary. I remember he had an argument about high-quality photos of the earth seen from space distributed by NASA. It was based on some evidence that they were composite images. He had some totally clueless argument about no being able to project 2d surfaces (like those of photos) onto 3d surfaces like spheres. I mean, that is a pretty standard thing to do in 3d graphics texturing so I asked him about that and he would just get confused. It would almost be like you couldn't explain why 1 + 1 = 2 to him in those moments. Every step of the argument was drawn out and made excruciating.
I became cynical about it eventually. He was reasonably intelligent on almost any subject. I figured he just liked being a Socratic debater type, in the sense that he just loved to push people into corners of science they didn't quite know and prove to them that their own beliefs weren't as solidly founded as they thought. Once I realized that I just stopped any debate on the topic immediately after it started.
I've got a take that's a bit of a hot take, but experiencies like yours make more sure about it.
I don't think _any_ of the flat-earthers actually believes it. They're just there for the attention/lulz.
Check out this thread - https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92...
It’s a little hard to follow the arguments, but I think they’re being made out of honest conviction. It’s a fascinating little corner of the internet, one has to wonder if it will live on.
Most forms of decently productive discourse tend to involve multiple parties going back and forth with observations and some criticism that’s not taken personally at least so some semblance of an agreed, cogent world is formed from the discussion. This really doesn’t work if people don’t have some very basic fundamentals agreed upon sometimes, especially if they are relevant to the topic. Like it doesn’t matter if someone’s a creationist on an accounting application development team but it probably matters a lot as a policymaker for public sector.
> I live in a Republican congressional district in a state with a Republican governor. The conservatives are definitely out there. They drive on the same roads as I do, live in the same neighborhoods. But they might as well be made of dark matter. I never meet them.
I agree with OP that it's much more likely that he did meet them, just in contexts where it doesn't come up.
As typical, during that time he was probably so overworked he didn't really interact with any of the locals until his time was up and he moved back out to a self-selected community.
I don't think I know any Flat Earthers, but if I actually do, they probably deliberately keep it to themselves because they know that they'd look like kooks by outing themselves. To get more extreme, maybe some of my friends are Nazis, but they sure aren't showing me their memorabilia, not because "it just doesn't come up" but because they know it's wrong and don't want to ostracize themselves.
Maybe eventually people work up the courage to probe a little, they'll use code words and innuendo, and soft dogwhistles, maintaining plausible deniability until they identify their fellow outgroup members. I think I see this behavior in a few of my friends, but they wisely don't come out with it.
Lots of it doesn't come up, and the "higher in the US money/power structure you get the more you learn to be quiet".
Another is to remember that many people may be technically creationists (the protestant church they go to is young-earth) but they just don't ever think about it at all.
There's no great way to know the "real" rate of creationists, when apparently people change their stated beliefs for social reasons.
> Do you believe that a supernatural force created the universe?
> Do believe that God created the earth 6000-10000 years ago?
The first is much broader and would also probably include the origin stories of many non-Abrahamic religions. The second is referring to a specific school of Christian "young earth" creationism.
If you took San Fran and Chicago, metro Detroit, Minneapolis, they would probably be similar.