I don’t smoke weed and I don’t have a uterus, but I voted to protect both and I’m glad we won!
What? You voted to support someone ELSE'S freedom?
Blasphemy.
Hey everybody! This guy doesn't have a uterus!
Could be a lady, sometimes those hysters gotta be ectomied.
I like the use of "guy" as unisex. Like the word "dude"
He's a dude, she's a dude, they're all dudes
I use "guys" plural to refer to any group of people, including all women/girl groups. I know saying "that guy" still means "that man/boy" but I'm hoping people will adopt it as completely unisex
A guy can dream (I'm a cis woman btw)
welcome to goodburger
Home of the goodburger
hijacking this post to ask some passing linguist, why is it that any of the invented neopronouns that are socially acceptable and potentially gender neutral, like guy, dude, bro (maybe not that one), how come they're all male-coded? is that cause it makes it go down easier, or do they just become associated with the boys over time?
I'm not a linguist, but I can answer partially. Women have their own: chick, dame, gurl come to mind. While dame is antiquated, I still occasionally hear "chick", and "gurl" is used somewhat like "bro" in a close-friends-one-of-us kind of way
I suspect that, depending on how things progress, words will continue to become more gender neutral. Language is supposed to be fluid and the meaning of words rightly changes over time to reflect the society we live in
And if I had to guess as to why we have so many that are gendered, it would be for men/boys (of the past) to be able to identify whether the person in question is dateable and for women/girls (of the past) to be able to identify if the person in question could be a threat
Times are changing, though, and hopefully we can continue to go into a more inclusive/neutral direction. Back when I was a teen alot of this was unheard of. I didn't even know trans people existed until my 20's. It took me a while to wrap my head around it, but I've mostly caught up and try to use the appropriate language where applicable
i have a guess! it’s because they originate with guys saying them to other guys. just the way they feel and type of situations i see them in first. (also, don’t forget that every bit of language is invented, not just whatever is recent)
i do it too. casual forums are for casual language. i’m a woman and a retired copy editor. words and their usage were my career, and i was trained by one of the top copy editors in the country. you’re on the side of the angels. 🍀🌸😜
Fuck yeah dude!
"One small step for guy, one giant leap for guykind."
Could be a lady, sometimes those hysters gotta be ectomied.
Hysters arent so bad, but if you're going to ectomy them, I'd recommend a fleet of Yales or Toyotas. Id avoid Crowns unless you like cleaning up hydrualic fluid.
But do they have a vagina? I'll need photos for reference.
Creeeeeeepy
Oh like you never look at pictures of vaginas.
Asking for pictures, and being given them, are two entirely different things. >.>
I don’t smoke weed and I don’t have a uterus
Same and I'm personally anti-abortion, but that's my personal stance and I have no right to try to force that on others.
I've always said that the best way to reduce abortion would be to treat the reasons behind why women get abortions.
Suppose some women get abortions as a form of birth control (as the right likes to claim). You might be able to reduce this with better sex education and better access to birth control. If abortion happens due to rape or incest, figure out programs to reduce the incidence of these. (I'll admit that I'm not knowledgeable enough to come up with specific proposals, but I'm sure people who know more than I do could come up with something.)
Nothing is going to be 100% effective, though. Abortion would need to be available for the cases that slip through. This would reduce how many abortions are performed by supporting women more instead of by banning them and putting women's lives in danger.
The conservative's greatest fear, people who actually care about people other than themselves.
Issue 1 covers so much more than just Abortion.
From the ballot:
Establish in the Constitution of the State of Ohio an individual right to one’s own reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion.
Create legal protections for any person or entity that assists a person with receiving reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion.
Prohibit the State from directly or indirectly burdening, penalizing, or prohibiting abortion before an unborn child is determined to be viable, unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means.
Grant a pregnant woman’s treating physician the authority to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether an unborn child is viable.
Only allow the State to prohibit an abortion after an unborn child is determined by a pregnant woman’s treating physician to be viable and only if the physician does not consider the abortion necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s life or health.
Always allow an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of viability if, in the treating physician’s determination, the abortion is necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s life or health.
This is a Freedom of Speech type amendment that centers around a person's reproductive rights. In that this amendment prohibits the Ohio State government from passing any law that restricts a person's reproductive rights except in special cases under strict scrutiny. So this goes way pass just abortion. Additionally, it grants doctors benefit of the doubt protections that would have strict scrutiny bars for the State to overcome, an incredibly high evidentiary bar for the State to overcome.
To just say this protects abortion is really missing the forest for the tree. Yeah, it protects abortion but additionally it protects everything related to reproductive rights (contraception, IVF, etc) and sets a massive barrier for the State to later meddle. This is a massive win for not those seeking abortion but for everyone who cheers reproductive protection and Government non-intervention in such matters.
This is a Freedom of Speech type amendment that centers around a person's reproductive rights
Watch the Supreme Court challenge reproductive rights as free speech.
It doesn't say reproductive rights are free speech, it says they are as important as free speech.
Alito: “Were we not fucking clear enough the first time?”
It would be hard for the current Supreme Court to actually rule the protection of abortion rights since they leave it up to the states. Interestingly, Alito basically wrote in a slant that was very pro-state's rights to ban abortions specifically but it also does heavily imply to the point of being just shy of explicitly allowing the opposite but it must be what they meant or it doesn't make actual sense.
It would take a lot of logical gymnastics to essentially unwind and rewrite an opinion otherwise that doesn't go against their own majority opinion. Saying that, they did perform some Olympian gymnastics on not only Roe v. Wade but also Planned Parenthood v. Casey or in some instances, outright just say that they were plainly wrong.
They would essentially have to all but support a fundamentalist christo-fascist government (probably under the guise of what is in the best interest of the people, even against their own will) over even the Constitution itself and specifically the 10th Amendment and have a serious risk of impeachment unless he would opine that that it is the Congress' business to supersede that (Article VI), because that would also run counter to his written opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (that it is the state's prerogative to regulate abortion and not the federal government's), unless it was specific that he meant it all narrowed specifically to the 14 Amendment and further would run counter to his own weaker federal government stance.
It would be far more likely for the SC to find that a state and its people have the right to regulate abortion as they see fit if they were even to decide to hear such a case.
TLDR; it'd be extremely risky and difficult to essentially give the state's the right to regulate abortion but take away unless those laws are only to ban them.
Thanks for the breakdown. I had no idea what was at stake.
I'm sure conservatives will be absolutely thrilled to see the power of Big Government so strongly limited!
Right?
I could actually cry right now, what a fucking relief
I don't live in Ohio, but I'm right on the state border. So many "vote no on issue 1" signs around here. I was worried that it would fail. Glad to see otherwise.
It's been polling consistently strong. Those signs you were seeing on the border are not representative of where the majority of Ohioans live.
What people need to take away from this is that the majority very often want things that are denied to them by a minority of voters who have been given disproportionate control.
What were seeing is direct democracy in action. No gerrymandered districts, just the people voting for what they fuck they want, and majority rules.
If we had more of that (not full direct democracy 24/7 but more than we have now) you'd see a lot more popular things actually get done.
There's danger there, populism is a double edged sword, but the opposite extreme is what we have now: a majority of people consistently and perpetually having their will undermined by a minority entirely because of their zip code, while the Republicans the minority gives power to continue to make this even worse.
When you actually look at national polling, the majority of people want a lot of things that have no hope of ever making it through Congress any time in the near future because of obstruction from red states that get disproportionate power entirely because of geography. This is untenable.
Those last 2 paragraphs are the sanest thing I'm likely to read all day.
My polling place is right next to a sizeable Catholic church, and the amount of "vote no on issue 1" signs I saw in front of it was almost comical
Drop off a donation box of wire coathangers.
New hobby unlocked
Did some of those signs "mysteriously" break?
I drive primarily in the country and it's been interesting to see how deep the divide is between rural and urban areas.
Maga flags above American flags everywhere. No on issue 1 signs everywhere. A couple handmade signs who's message is summed up with "keep potheads out of Ohio".
Four houses in particular amuse me when I pass. Two had one sign out from each, then the NO sign multiplied into 3,spaced along the road. So YES put up 3 more signs for 4 total. NO put out a few more scattered around the yard, and in response YES put up what looks like 30 or so randomly scattered over the yard.
Similarly in a different county, a YES sign went up, and in response the neighbor put up a NO THINK OF THE CHILDREN sign big enough to block the YES SIGN. Maybe 6ft wide. So YES put up a 10ft tall banner mounted on a 20ft scaffold in the middle of the yard with bullet points about the issue under the VOTE YES stuff.
Honestly given a couple of the areas I've been through, I wouldn't put it past some neighbors to put a brick through someone's window or a bullet through a wall just for having the YES sign out front.
When Kansas and then Ohio thoroughly shoot holes in your platform and you're the dominant party in those places, maybe you should start re-thinking your platform.
No, it's the voters who are wrong
Greene's takeaway was literally "we're losing because we're not extreme enough on abortion.'
I guess that means Republicans will start proposing that any woman who even thinks of getting an abortion should be thrown in prison and any woman who suffers a miscarriage should be tried for murder.
Then, they'll wonder why they are losing even worse!
There are already states that have been trying to criminalize miscarriages unless they can be "proven" to not be the result of an abortion.
Guilty until proven innocent
I dare them to push for a federal abortion ban. Make every Republican vote on it. Let's get it on record so voters know exactly who to replace.
Wonder what the odds are in Vegas that that harpy has had an abortion herself...
"You don't want that. You think you do, but you don't."
Issue 2, legalizing recreational marijuana for people over 21, is also projected to pass.
Psychedelics need to be next. That step will take a bit, but it'll be awesome if that happens.
Colorado did good in setting the example, I believe. There wasn't a huge push to monetize it and the most common psychedelics were made fully legal to produce, use and give away.
In some ways, I don't really see mushrooms easily fitting into the dispensary model that we have here already. It's just a different kind of drug, s'all.
Here in California my local smoke shop sells psilocybin infused chocolates under the table, but everyone knows about it and they're all branded and clean looking
It's legit a dream come true to pop by on the way home Friday for a trip on the weekend, and the idea that it's illegal disgusts me
I read up on those, and (generally speaking, YMMV) the amount of active ingredient is ineffectively negligible, if there's any detectable at all. Not what I want to spend my money on.
A couple of the brands I'd agree with you on as I ate an entire bar of one type and felt nada, and another brand regularly felt much weaker.
However, as someone who grows their own as well, there are brands that aren't fucking around and will have you tripping hard on just a few pieces, and it's definitely psilocybin.
Smoke shop owner actively gets reviews from those of us who buy and has been filtering out the duds over time, it's been one of the most wholesome illegal drug experiences in my life tbh
I was right to qualify my statement, then! I can see where if you had a shop owner who was on their game, that would be a fantastic place to buy from. The vape store that sells Delta 9 and happens to have some rando shroom products, I'll pass on that.
Smart man
I'll take my home grown gourmet shrooms over any chocolate bar that is sold under the counter.
While the common phrase is "a cube is a cube", I am finding that different mushrooms can have very distinct trip characteristics. (My Stormtroopers give me a really "fluffy" high and everything feels like a pillow, for example. It's weird, and I compare it to being inside a vagina. It's... a unique experience.)
Grinding up rando shrooms and shoveling that into a candy bar doesn't seem that appealing after having felt the nuances of different strains.
I would also take your gourmet shrooms over any chocolate bar, for what it's worth
And I generally give them away, so it would even be a cheaper option.
If it's anything like the weed edibles market, steer clear unless you know who's making it.
Otherwise you're just going to be ripped off.
In some ways, I don't really see mushrooms easily fitting into the dispensary model that we have here already.
In Massachusetts the dispensaries are giving out mushroom chocolates as "gifts" since they are decriminalized but not yet legal to "sell"
So at least in some states they are already being integrated into the dispensary market ahead of legalization.
From what I've seen you really need to eat the whole bar to get a legit trip but at least they are available to the general public. I suspect that given a little time (and actual legalization) there will be a wider variety of stronger products available.
They are likely playing it safe to avoid any mishaps that could damage their PR or their grey market psilocybin business
I think psychedelics are interesting because their non-addictive nature doesn't cause competition for other drug companies.
There simply isn't a way to make egregious profits with them. Mushrooms are cheap and easy to grow. LSD, while being exceptionally hard to make, is effective in such small dosages it ends up being significantly cheaper than mushrooms.
I guess the biggest fear would be psychedelics causing people to 'wake up' to what they've been ignorant of. There's also the "I don't do it and so neither should anyone else crowd," but I don't think they're plentiful in Colorado.
And this is after they tried very very hard to rig the election to put obstacles in the way of people voting for the measure.
Actually getting abortion bans in place is the "dog that caught the car" moment for Republicans. The world is so complicated and people have so little attention to spare, that the GOP can get away with blaming "the economy" or "jobs" or "crime" on the Democrats, and for the most part, people who support them will go with it, even though they spend most of their time being in power making the problems worse and stealing money for themselves and their friends.
Abortion is dead simple. If people know someone who's suffering in a terrifying way, and it's because of something the Republicans have been banging their fists on the table about how bad they want to do it for the last fifty years, it becomes a lot harder to shift the blame.
Edit: I backwards
You mean the part where they held a special election in August after writing rules to BAN special elections in August (unless they involved budget crises)? The supermajority 60% of the Aug Issue 1 would've tanked this if they had their way (or kept it from hitting the ballot with the 80~ county petition requirement).
THEN they had the gall to change the language on today's Issue 1 text.
I'm so proud right now, big win for a state that's had a lot of fails lately (i.e. literal train wrecks that got swept under the rug).
Also: how well do you all think the inclusion of Issue 2 here REALLY brought out the voters? I heard a lot of pot smokers got out of bed early today for it - had to add some extra push for Issue 1.
Why would Democrats want to defeat the measure?
They are talking about an earlier, even more out of cycle ohio constitutional amendment that would have made it much, much harder to pass any amendments. They force marched it into its own election as soon as the abortion and weed amendments hit the necessary thresholds to be on the upcoming November ballot. It would have gone into affect immediately. It was a very transparent attempt to derail abortion rights by the state GOP.
It had its own special election, after they banned the exact type of election a year earlier. It shifted the burden of "yes" from 50% +1 vote to 60%, and most nefariously, shifted the requirments to get an amendment on the ballot form "X voters in half of all districts (44 of 88) to "X voters in all 88 districts," i.e even the tiny 1k ones that lean 90% Republican. They tried to basically give veto power over all future constitutional amendments to tiny, very, very conservative counties.
Voters rejected it 57% to 43%, which ironically would not have passed it under its own requirements, but would have under the current requirements if the numbers were inverted. If they had a legit bone in their body, they would have imposed a one time "60%" threshold for it as that's what they were forcing all future votes to, but we all know their bulllshit.
This happened in early August 2023, for anyone trying to follow along. The last few months have been a hell of a ride in Ohio.
I got it backwards as regards this election for some reason. Fixed, thank you.
As a Michigander this is physically painful to say... but you done good Ohio.
We did. And it pains me to say too. But we did.
Michigan won’t be flying as high anymore on Ohioan’s dollars for marijuana, either!
For at least a couple more years we will. It took us a bit to set up our system. Probably will take you a couple as well. Takes time to build a distribution network too, since you can't really import it from growers in other states, so for a while ours will probably be cheaper.
But it's still a huge win and it's better for us all to have more states legalize it. And in the meantime we can just both suck Indiana dry of marijuana money.
Well you still have a legislature that has to put the laws into place and setup the system. I bet they do everything they can to slow it down.
As a Hoosier, this is mentally and physically painful to say but... please help us!
Good job, Ohio. Despite our strange relationship I'll call this one a win for everyone.
Thank you, genuinely! I know there's a lot of bad blood but Michigan is stunning and my last few visits have been spectacular (yes even before any cannabis).
I hope you all can find the beauty in Ohio too. I recommend Kelly's Island for the glacial grooves. Also the Cleveland Metroparks; there's a good reason it was once called the Forest City.
Anyone else notice how the "why do you want to kill babies" crowd has fallen mostly silent on these posts? It's almost like they never had any real horse in this race, and now that most of them aren't being paid to stir people up they've got nothing to say.
The real ones probably just got tired of seeing /\ 2 \/ 101 underneath their posts and slunk back underneath their bridge
And they probably know that their opinions are unpopular and are too scared to post unless one of the paid rabble rousers post first to loan them the courage to do so.
I only internet for 30-60min per day, can I get an explanation on what /\ 2 / 101 means
2 up votes and 101 down votes.
This is a time when emoji would have made it clearer:
⬆️2 ⬇️101
Emoji? Unicode suffices.
↑ 2 ↓ 101
Ohhhh got it. Actually really obvious now that you point it out. Silly me thout it was something like l ll ll l_
FUCK YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! This is some great fucking news for everyone with more then a single braincell.
The right wing fought SO HARD to prevent his from happening.
But it's not like the loss is going to do anything to change their beliefs or actions.
few of them have real beliefs, it’s mostly emotion and personal gain of some kind.
Fuck yeah! You love to see it!! I was a poll worker today and the turnout was incredible. I obviously don't know who voted for what but it was great to see.
I am from another country. I have to say that in your movies and shows they have always painted Ohio as being a backwards state. I guess that this goes to show that everything changes. Now Ohio seems to be more civilized than a lot of other states that were the "modern" standard. I love change, it's so refreshing to see new generations at last making a change statewide.
Ohio as being a backwards state.
The People that LIVE in Ohio are not nearly as backwards as the gerrymandered elections elect representatives from.
Clearly, this result is absolute proof that the gerrymandering of Ohio is ABSOLUTELY NOT properly representing the WILL of actual Ohio Voters .
Well, nearly half are. You still need a shit load of people to vote Republican, just simply declaring "it's gerrymandered" isn't enough. They still need the votes, and they get a lot in Ohio.
Ohio has more complex political environment than a lot of states. It sits on the border of a number of major geographic features, and host a relatively large, diverse population. It's swung hard right over the past decade as the Republicans embraced populism, but has always been more left-leaning than many of its neighbors. This state is a political and cultural circus, but I wouldn't have it any other way (well, a bit bluer would be nice).
It also features both some well populated cities (which trend left), but also a large rural population (which trends right). Between that and the gerrymandering, makes sense it's often a bit "confused".
The government of Ohio is backwards, every Ohioan ive met has been fucking great.
Ohio native here. You can't have met many Ohioans.
Michigan native here. Give us back Toledo you fucks.
Okay, politics aside this comment is hilarious
As an Ohioan who has been stranded in Toledo, you can have it. The place looks and acts more like Detroit than Columbus anyways
Sez the state who stole the UP from Wisconsin!
Cause I haven't im from California. But those I meet while on road trips or playing online have been decently chill if not mildly insane.
The cool ones leave.
Is that why Ohio has more astronauts per capita?
Yep, The Flight Stuff.
There's probably some selection bias going on there. I used to work on the Michigan side of the Toledo border. It's not like night and day when you cross the border, but there are a lot of backwards assholes there. I thought I was going to move there but nah, I just commuted 200 miles a day to live far away.
are you floyd from 30 rock?
Not quite. It's just that abortion is such a powerful issue that it activates the left to actually get out and vote. Any time it has been on a ballot, it wins, and democrats tend to win other positions on that same ballot.
It's also not a coincidence that recreational marijuana passed with nearly identical support. I think Issue 2 helped bring out another demographic that was already likely to support abortion access.
We'll likely see similar tactics in 2024. Especially as Biden is looking more and more like a weak candidate and that the DNC should have ran a proper primary...
You may be confusing Ohio with Utah.
This is wonderful! It's a great day when the voice of justice for the people can cancel out unrepresentative government!
This is also a great example of why federal referendums would be a game changer. Thanks to gerrymandering, an enormous incumbent advantage and an even bigger incumbent PARTY advantage, most politicians in Washington tend to be a decade or two behind their constituents on most issues, if not in a completely different world. Asking voters directly could shake that up.
Sadly, it would probably require a constitutional amendment which is already de facto impossible BEFORE you take into account that most people in Congress would be against it, but a guy can dream!
State referendums have become the best way to institute liberal policies, and Republicans are terrified of them. For good reason, a commanding majority keeps supporting abortion and legal weed. Here in Missouri, we had the Obamacare Medicaid expansion and legal weed because they were state referendums. Republicans tried to ignore the former, but the state supreme court said they had to do it.
Republicans never gave a shit about states rights and it shows. It was just cover for letting Republicans do whatever they want. And now that abortion actually is a state issue, they've fucked around and are finding out.
It's being sold as abortion rights, but the language is pretty broad and supports everyone's reproductive rights. Yay human rights!
Nice job, Ohio!
Shout-out to this article for putting the percentage in the article/headline.
I read two different articles and none of them included the 57% number.
+14% margin bitches. Republicans are in the find out phase
Ohio still sucks but at least passing through will be bearable now
Yeah well feel free to enjoy some of our lovely weed and abortions when you do.
Just passing through for a the ol' joint and reproductive healthcare twofer!
Fuck yes! I’m so proud of us
Happy to have voted to legalize Marijuana for all those future unborn senior citizens!
Looking at the direction in which things are heading, they're going to need alot of it.
Before 2016, I would've been comfortable with where we are.
Now? I want to run up the score as much as possible. We're in the lead? Floor the gas pedal! We can't let up on the gas now!
It’s about damn time this sorry state did something worth a damn. Good shit 💪🏼
Now do Pennsylvania.
Looks like the Dem won the PA Supreme Court seat, so that might happen through a ruling
PA supreme court was already solidly blue and had the seat gone red it wouldn't have made a difference. A voter approved constitutional amendment is the way to go to actually enshrine it and not just kick the can until it isn't fresh in everyone's mind.
Great chance that it happens and fucks over Republicans
I mean, I’m conservative leaning and generally trend republican, just less so since Dobbs. I just wish the left would drop gun control or the right would drop abortion. Is it so much to ask that I’m not picking between which right I’m willing to give up with either side?
I think for gun control we need to have discussions across the aisle about how we stop all the shootings. It needs input from people who actually use guns to make sure the policies actually address the root cause. Plus a lot of these shootings could be prevented if we just properly funded and executed the laws we already have.
I digress though, I see your point. I still want to see gun control, but I want to do it in a manner that's smart and gets people like you on board.
Does this kill the Ohio meme?
No, Ohio is still so bad it has produced the most astronauts because they are sick of earth.
I hope that’s true.
It's true. This also explains all the cosmonauts.
Wait, not those states rights!
republicans are already promising to ignore the law because they don't like it
i just don't get WTH is US doing.
Let the f***ng scientist figure out when it's human enough and when it's not yet human and make the line there as other countries did.
This infighting will only ruin the states.
The definition of "human enough" would be a social and legal issue, not a scientific one, because there is no scientific definition of 'human enough.' Scientists can tell you what is going on with a fetus at any given time in the pregnancy, but not if that means it is too advanced to abort. Theoretically, you could abort at any time in the pregnancy and it is not up to or possible for science to tell you when.
To accentuate the argument, relying on science here is not a good idea because concepts like “viability” will very likely change with technological advancement. In 100 years, it could be perfectly possible for a fertilized egg to grow into a baby outside a mother’s womb. Eggs or sperm could be genetically modified to correct for disorders and syndromes. What would viability really mean in this scientific context?
This argument tormented one of the SCOTUS justices on the original Roe vs. Wade decision.
Could I have a source for the viability dilemma with Roe V. Wade?
Would love to hear more about this
I highly recommend people read / listen to The Brethren by Woodward. It is a political narration of the inner workings of the Supreme Court by one of the same reporters who took down Nixon.
Just added to my reading list, thanks for the suggestion
Yet concept of "feeling" to make the decision is accepted. I see few problems with it. 1st mood change. 2nd everyone feels different. 3rd anthropomorphism . 4th feelings change much faster than scientific progress.
Well i still find it much worse deciding based on feelings than lets say based on level of cognition or consciousness of fetus by properly defined and tested rules.
Since we can't define or explain consciousness, that would be difficult.
You can't, but it doesn't mean people in the field should not try to make educated conclusion. It also doesn't mean that random dude out there is wiser.
That would be a great plan if we ever elected scientists to our legislature. Or even had politicians who listened to science.
We don't, so here we are.
You'd need to significantly increase overall education (both among voters ans legislators) on how science works to make the latter feasible.
Scientists are human. Scientists have opinions. Scientists require funding. Scientists disagree.
Simple example: The heliocentric model didn't become accepted knowledge because the "earth is the center of the universe" crowd (who *were? scientists) was convinced by scientific argument - they weren't. It did when they died.
Science holds a lot of high-likelihood facts. This is what we call the "generally accepted body of knowledge". We know that the earth is round. We can predict gravity in most circumstances. And yes, we know that anthromorphic climate change is real.
But there's also a lot of "game-changing" studies/experiments out there that are still to be debunked without ever making it into said body of accepted knowledge. This is normal, it is how science works.
Yet it also means that for virtually any hair-brained opinion that is not already strongly refuted by said body of knowledge (flat earth, for example, is refuted), you can find some not yet debunked science to support it.
Separating the wheat from the chaff here requires insight into the scientific process (and it's assorted politics and market mechanisms) most people (and voters) don't have.
And no, just telling people whether a fact is broadly accepted in the scientific community or fringe science doesn't work. We tried that with the topic of anthromorphic climate change.
Then you have endless infighting because today people feels one way and tomorrow the other way.
We legalized marijuana too!
I don’t smoke weed and I don’t have a uterus, but I voted to protect both and I’m glad we won!
What? You voted to support someone ELSE'S freedom?
Blasphemy.
Hey everybody! This guy doesn't have a uterus!
Could be a lady, sometimes those hysters gotta be ectomied.
I like the use of "guy" as unisex. Like the word "dude"
He's a dude, she's a dude, they're all dudes
I use "guys" plural to refer to any group of people, including all women/girl groups. I know saying "that guy" still means "that man/boy" but I'm hoping people will adopt it as completely unisex
A guy can dream (I'm a cis woman btw)
welcome to goodburger
Home of the goodburger
hijacking this post to ask some passing linguist, why is it that any of the invented neopronouns that are socially acceptable and potentially gender neutral, like guy, dude, bro (maybe not that one), how come they're all male-coded? is that cause it makes it go down easier, or do they just become associated with the boys over time?
I'm not a linguist, but I can answer partially. Women have their own: chick, dame, gurl come to mind. While dame is antiquated, I still occasionally hear "chick", and "gurl" is used somewhat like "bro" in a close-friends-one-of-us kind of way
I suspect that, depending on how things progress, words will continue to become more gender neutral. Language is supposed to be fluid and the meaning of words rightly changes over time to reflect the society we live in
And if I had to guess as to why we have so many that are gendered, it would be for men/boys (of the past) to be able to identify whether the person in question is dateable and for women/girls (of the past) to be able to identify if the person in question could be a threat
Times are changing, though, and hopefully we can continue to go into a more inclusive/neutral direction. Back when I was a teen alot of this was unheard of. I didn't even know trans people existed until my 20's. It took me a while to wrap my head around it, but I've mostly caught up and try to use the appropriate language where applicable
i have a guess! it’s because they originate with guys saying them to other guys. just the way they feel and type of situations i see them in first. (also, don’t forget that every bit of language is invented, not just whatever is recent)
i do it too. casual forums are for casual language. i’m a woman and a retired copy editor. words and their usage were my career, and i was trained by one of the top copy editors in the country. you’re on the side of the angels. 🍀🌸😜
Fuck yeah dude!
"One small step for guy, one giant leap for guykind."
Hysters arent so bad, but if you're going to ectomy them, I'd recommend a fleet of Yales or Toyotas. Id avoid Crowns unless you like cleaning up hydrualic fluid.
But do they have a vagina? I'll need photos for reference.
Creeeeeeepy
Oh like you never look at pictures of vaginas.
Asking for pictures, and being given them, are two entirely different things. >.>
Same and I'm personally anti-abortion, but that's my personal stance and I have no right to try to force that on others.
I've always said that the best way to reduce abortion would be to treat the reasons behind why women get abortions.
Suppose some women get abortions as a form of birth control (as the right likes to claim). You might be able to reduce this with better sex education and better access to birth control. If abortion happens due to rape or incest, figure out programs to reduce the incidence of these. (I'll admit that I'm not knowledgeable enough to come up with specific proposals, but I'm sure people who know more than I do could come up with something.)
Nothing is going to be 100% effective, though. Abortion would need to be available for the cases that slip through. This would reduce how many abortions are performed by supporting women more instead of by banning them and putting women's lives in danger.
The conservative's greatest fear, people who actually care about people other than themselves.
Issue 1 covers so much more than just Abortion.
From the ballot:
This is a Freedom of Speech type amendment that centers around a person's reproductive rights. In that this amendment prohibits the Ohio State government from passing any law that restricts a person's reproductive rights except in special cases under strict scrutiny. So this goes way pass just abortion. Additionally, it grants doctors benefit of the doubt protections that would have strict scrutiny bars for the State to overcome, an incredibly high evidentiary bar for the State to overcome.
To just say this protects abortion is really missing the forest for the tree. Yeah, it protects abortion but additionally it protects everything related to reproductive rights (contraception, IVF, etc) and sets a massive barrier for the State to later meddle. This is a massive win for not those seeking abortion but for everyone who cheers reproductive protection and Government non-intervention in such matters.
Watch the Supreme Court challenge reproductive rights as free speech.
It doesn't say reproductive rights are free speech, it says they are as important as free speech.
Alito: “Were we not fucking clear enough the first time?”
It would be hard for the current Supreme Court to actually rule the protection of abortion rights since they leave it up to the states. Interestingly, Alito basically wrote in a slant that was very pro-state's rights to ban abortions specifically but it also does heavily imply to the point of being just shy of explicitly allowing the opposite but it must be what they meant or it doesn't make actual sense.
It would take a lot of logical gymnastics to essentially unwind and rewrite an opinion otherwise that doesn't go against their own majority opinion. Saying that, they did perform some Olympian gymnastics on not only Roe v. Wade but also Planned Parenthood v. Casey or in some instances, outright just say that they were plainly wrong.
They would essentially have to all but support a fundamentalist christo-fascist government (probably under the guise of what is in the best interest of the people, even against their own will) over even the Constitution itself and specifically the 10th Amendment and have a serious risk of impeachment unless he would opine that that it is the Congress' business to supersede that (Article VI), because that would also run counter to his written opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (that it is the state's prerogative to regulate abortion and not the federal government's), unless it was specific that he meant it all narrowed specifically to the 14 Amendment and further would run counter to his own weaker federal government stance.
It would be far more likely for the SC to find that a state and its people have the right to regulate abortion as they see fit if they were even to decide to hear such a case.
TLDR; it'd be extremely risky and difficult to essentially give the state's the right to regulate abortion but take away unless those laws are only to ban them.
Thanks for the breakdown. I had no idea what was at stake.
I'm sure conservatives will be absolutely thrilled to see the power of Big Government so strongly limited!
Right?
I could actually cry right now, what a fucking relief
It's also by a pretty decent margin so far:
With 59% reporting:
55.9% For
44.1% Against
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/11/07/us/elections/results-ohio-issue-1-abortion-rights.html
Edit:
56.6% For
43.4% against
I don't live in Ohio, but I'm right on the state border. So many "vote no on issue 1" signs around here. I was worried that it would fail. Glad to see otherwise.
It's been polling consistently strong. Those signs you were seeing on the border are not representative of where the majority of Ohioans live.
What people need to take away from this is that the majority very often want things that are denied to them by a minority of voters who have been given disproportionate control.
What were seeing is direct democracy in action. No gerrymandered districts, just the people voting for what they fuck they want, and majority rules.
If we had more of that (not full direct democracy 24/7 but more than we have now) you'd see a lot more popular things actually get done.
There's danger there, populism is a double edged sword, but the opposite extreme is what we have now: a majority of people consistently and perpetually having their will undermined by a minority entirely because of their zip code, while the Republicans the minority gives power to continue to make this even worse.
When you actually look at national polling, the majority of people want a lot of things that have no hope of ever making it through Congress any time in the near future because of obstruction from red states that get disproportionate power entirely because of geography. This is untenable.
Those last 2 paragraphs are the sanest thing I'm likely to read all day.
My polling place is right next to a sizeable Catholic church, and the amount of "vote no on issue 1" signs I saw in front of it was almost comical
Drop off a donation box of wire coathangers.
New hobby unlocked
Did some of those signs "mysteriously" break?
I drive primarily in the country and it's been interesting to see how deep the divide is between rural and urban areas.
Maga flags above American flags everywhere. No on issue 1 signs everywhere. A couple handmade signs who's message is summed up with "keep potheads out of Ohio".
Four houses in particular amuse me when I pass. Two had one sign out from each, then the NO sign multiplied into 3,spaced along the road. So YES put up 3 more signs for 4 total. NO put out a few more scattered around the yard, and in response YES put up what looks like 30 or so randomly scattered over the yard.
Similarly in a different county, a YES sign went up, and in response the neighbor put up a NO THINK OF THE CHILDREN sign big enough to block the YES SIGN. Maybe 6ft wide. So YES put up a 10ft tall banner mounted on a 20ft scaffold in the middle of the yard with bullet points about the issue under the VOTE YES stuff.
Honestly given a couple of the areas I've been through, I wouldn't put it past some neighbors to put a brick through someone's window or a bullet through a wall just for having the YES sign out front.
That's a hell of a margin!
When Kansas and then Ohio thoroughly shoot holes in your platform and you're the dominant party in those places, maybe you should start re-thinking your platform.
No, it's the voters who are wrong
Greene's takeaway was literally "we're losing because we're not extreme enough on abortion.'
I guess that means Republicans will start proposing that any woman who even thinks of getting an abortion should be thrown in prison and any woman who suffers a miscarriage should be tried for murder.
Then, they'll wonder why they are losing even worse!
There are already states that have been trying to criminalize miscarriages unless they can be "proven" to not be the result of an abortion.
Guilty until proven innocent
I dare them to push for a federal abortion ban. Make every Republican vote on it. Let's get it on record so voters know exactly who to replace.
Wonder what the odds are in Vegas that that harpy has had an abortion herself...
"You don't want that. You think you do, but you don't."
It's ok, Ohio Republicans have already signaled that they intend to put it on the ballot again to reverse the will of the people.
It won by such a large margin clearly abortion was supported by some Republican voters too. It won't be reversed.
They’ll word it deceivingly, and confuse people into not voting.
Issue 2, legalizing recreational marijuana for people over 21, is also projected to pass.
Psychedelics need to be next. That step will take a bit, but it'll be awesome if that happens.
Colorado did good in setting the example, I believe. There wasn't a huge push to monetize it and the most common psychedelics were made fully legal to produce, use and give away.
In some ways, I don't really see mushrooms easily fitting into the dispensary model that we have here already. It's just a different kind of drug, s'all.
Here in California my local smoke shop sells psilocybin infused chocolates under the table, but everyone knows about it and they're all branded and clean looking
It's legit a dream come true to pop by on the way home Friday for a trip on the weekend, and the idea that it's illegal disgusts me
I read up on those, and (generally speaking, YMMV) the amount of active ingredient is ineffectively negligible, if there's any detectable at all. Not what I want to spend my money on.
A couple of the brands I'd agree with you on as I ate an entire bar of one type and felt nada, and another brand regularly felt much weaker.
However, as someone who grows their own as well, there are brands that aren't fucking around and will have you tripping hard on just a few pieces, and it's definitely psilocybin.
Smoke shop owner actively gets reviews from those of us who buy and has been filtering out the duds over time, it's been one of the most wholesome illegal drug experiences in my life tbh
I was right to qualify my statement, then! I can see where if you had a shop owner who was on their game, that would be a fantastic place to buy from. The vape store that sells Delta 9 and happens to have some rando shroom products, I'll pass on that.
Smart man
I'll take my home grown gourmet shrooms over any chocolate bar that is sold under the counter.
While the common phrase is "a cube is a cube", I am finding that different mushrooms can have very distinct trip characteristics. (My Stormtroopers give me a really "fluffy" high and everything feels like a pillow, for example. It's weird, and I compare it to being inside a vagina. It's... a unique experience.)
Grinding up rando shrooms and shoveling that into a candy bar doesn't seem that appealing after having felt the nuances of different strains.
I would also take your gourmet shrooms over any chocolate bar, for what it's worth
And I generally give them away, so it would even be a cheaper option.
If it's anything like the weed edibles market, steer clear unless you know who's making it.
Otherwise you're just going to be ripped off.
In Massachusetts the dispensaries are giving out mushroom chocolates as "gifts" since they are decriminalized but not yet legal to "sell"
So at least in some states they are already being integrated into the dispensary market ahead of legalization.
From what I've seen you really need to eat the whole bar to get a legit trip but at least they are available to the general public. I suspect that given a little time (and actual legalization) there will be a wider variety of stronger products available.
They are likely playing it safe to avoid any mishaps that could damage their PR or their grey market psilocybin business
I think psychedelics are interesting because their non-addictive nature doesn't cause competition for other drug companies.
There simply isn't a way to make egregious profits with them. Mushrooms are cheap and easy to grow. LSD, while being exceptionally hard to make, is effective in such small dosages it ends up being significantly cheaper than mushrooms.
I guess the biggest fear would be psychedelics causing people to 'wake up' to what they've been ignorant of. There's also the "I don't do it and so neither should anyone else crowd," but I don't think they're plentiful in Colorado.
And this is after they tried very very hard to rig the election to put obstacles in the way of people voting for the measure.
Actually getting abortion bans in place is the "dog that caught the car" moment for Republicans. The world is so complicated and people have so little attention to spare, that the GOP can get away with blaming "the economy" or "jobs" or "crime" on the Democrats, and for the most part, people who support them will go with it, even though they spend most of their time being in power making the problems worse and stealing money for themselves and their friends.
Abortion is dead simple. If people know someone who's suffering in a terrifying way, and it's because of something the Republicans have been banging their fists on the table about how bad they want to do it for the last fifty years, it becomes a lot harder to shift the blame.
Edit: I backwards
You mean the part where they held a special election in August after writing rules to BAN special elections in August (unless they involved budget crises)? The supermajority 60% of the Aug Issue 1 would've tanked this if they had their way (or kept it from hitting the ballot with the 80~ county petition requirement).
THEN they had the gall to change the language on today's Issue 1 text.
I'm so proud right now, big win for a state that's had a lot of fails lately (i.e. literal train wrecks that got swept under the rug).
Also: how well do you all think the inclusion of Issue 2 here REALLY brought out the voters? I heard a lot of pot smokers got out of bed early today for it - had to add some extra push for Issue 1.
Why would Democrats want to defeat the measure?
They are talking about an earlier, even more out of cycle ohio constitutional amendment that would have made it much, much harder to pass any amendments. They force marched it into its own election as soon as the abortion and weed amendments hit the necessary thresholds to be on the upcoming November ballot. It would have gone into affect immediately. It was a very transparent attempt to derail abortion rights by the state GOP.
It had its own special election, after they banned the exact type of election a year earlier. It shifted the burden of "yes" from 50% +1 vote to 60%, and most nefariously, shifted the requirments to get an amendment on the ballot form "X voters in half of all districts (44 of 88) to "X voters in all 88 districts," i.e even the tiny 1k ones that lean 90% Republican. They tried to basically give veto power over all future constitutional amendments to tiny, very, very conservative counties.
Voters rejected it 57% to 43%, which ironically would not have passed it under its own requirements, but would have under the current requirements if the numbers were inverted. If they had a legit bone in their body, they would have imposed a one time "60%" threshold for it as that's what they were forcing all future votes to, but we all know their bulllshit.
This happened in early August 2023, for anyone trying to follow along. The last few months have been a hell of a ride in Ohio.
I got it backwards as regards this election for some reason. Fixed, thank you.
As a Michigander this is physically painful to say... but you done good Ohio.
We did. And it pains me to say too. But we did.
Michigan won’t be flying as high anymore on Ohioan’s dollars for marijuana, either!
For at least a couple more years we will. It took us a bit to set up our system. Probably will take you a couple as well. Takes time to build a distribution network too, since you can't really import it from growers in other states, so for a while ours will probably be cheaper.
But it's still a huge win and it's better for us all to have more states legalize it. And in the meantime we can just both suck Indiana dry of marijuana money.
Well you still have a legislature that has to put the laws into place and setup the system. I bet they do everything they can to slow it down.
As a Hoosier, this is mentally and physically painful to say but... please help us!
Good job, Ohio. Despite our strange relationship I'll call this one a win for everyone.
https://youtu.be/oZzgAjjuqZM?si=FtAw4hVXrEJiOand
Thank you, genuinely! I know there's a lot of bad blood but Michigan is stunning and my last few visits have been spectacular (yes even before any cannabis).
I hope you all can find the beauty in Ohio too. I recommend Kelly's Island for the glacial grooves. Also the Cleveland Metroparks; there's a good reason it was once called the Forest City.
Anyone else notice how the "why do you want to kill babies" crowd has fallen mostly silent on these posts? It's almost like they never had any real horse in this race, and now that most of them aren't being paid to stir people up they've got nothing to say.
The real ones probably just got tired of seeing /\ 2 \/ 101 underneath their posts and slunk back underneath their bridge
And they probably know that their opinions are unpopular and are too scared to post unless one of the paid rabble rousers post first to loan them the courage to do so.
I only internet for 30-60min per day, can I get an explanation on what /\ 2 / 101 means
2 up votes and 101 down votes.
This is a time when emoji would have made it clearer:
⬆️2 ⬇️101
Emoji? Unicode suffices.
↑ 2 ↓ 101
Ohhhh got it. Actually really obvious now that you point it out. Silly me thout it was something like l ll ll l_
FUCK YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! This is some great fucking news for everyone with more then a single braincell.
The right wing fought SO HARD to prevent his from happening.
But it's not like the loss is going to do anything to change their beliefs or actions.
few of them have real beliefs, it’s mostly emotion and personal gain of some kind.
Fuck yeah! You love to see it!! I was a poll worker today and the turnout was incredible. I obviously don't know who voted for what but it was great to see.
Thank you for putting in such a long day.
Good.
I am from another country. I have to say that in your movies and shows they have always painted Ohio as being a backwards state. I guess that this goes to show that everything changes. Now Ohio seems to be more civilized than a lot of other states that were the "modern" standard. I love change, it's so refreshing to see new generations at last making a change statewide.
The People that LIVE in Ohio are not nearly as backwards as the gerrymandered elections elect representatives from.
Clearly, this result is absolute proof that the gerrymandering of Ohio is ABSOLUTELY NOT properly representing the WILL of actual Ohio Voters .
Well, nearly half are. You still need a shit load of people to vote Republican, just simply declaring "it's gerrymandered" isn't enough. They still need the votes, and they get a lot in Ohio.
Ohio has more complex political environment than a lot of states. It sits on the border of a number of major geographic features, and host a relatively large, diverse population. It's swung hard right over the past decade as the Republicans embraced populism, but has always been more left-leaning than many of its neighbors. This state is a political and cultural circus, but I wouldn't have it any other way (well, a bit bluer would be nice).
It also features both some well populated cities (which trend left), but also a large rural population (which trends right). Between that and the gerrymandering, makes sense it's often a bit "confused".
The government of Ohio is backwards, every Ohioan ive met has been fucking great.
Ohio native here. You can't have met many Ohioans.
Michigan native here. Give us back Toledo you fucks.
Okay, politics aside this comment is hilarious
As an Ohioan who has been stranded in Toledo, you can have it. The place looks and acts more like Detroit than Columbus anyways
Sez the state who stole the UP from Wisconsin!
Cause I haven't im from California. But those I meet while on road trips or playing online have been decently chill if not mildly insane.
The cool ones leave.
Is that why Ohio has more astronauts per capita?
Yep, The Flight Stuff.
There's probably some selection bias going on there. I used to work on the Michigan side of the Toledo border. It's not like night and day when you cross the border, but there are a lot of backwards assholes there. I thought I was going to move there but nah, I just commuted 200 miles a day to live far away.
are you floyd from 30 rock?
Not quite. It's just that abortion is such a powerful issue that it activates the left to actually get out and vote. Any time it has been on a ballot, it wins, and democrats tend to win other positions on that same ballot.
It's also not a coincidence that recreational marijuana passed with nearly identical support. I think Issue 2 helped bring out another demographic that was already likely to support abortion access.
We'll likely see similar tactics in 2024. Especially as Biden is looking more and more like a weak candidate and that the DNC should have ran a proper primary...
You may be confusing Ohio with Utah.
This is wonderful! It's a great day when the voice of justice for the people can cancel out unrepresentative government!
This is also a great example of why federal referendums would be a game changer. Thanks to gerrymandering, an enormous incumbent advantage and an even bigger incumbent PARTY advantage, most politicians in Washington tend to be a decade or two behind their constituents on most issues, if not in a completely different world. Asking voters directly could shake that up.
Sadly, it would probably require a constitutional amendment which is already de facto impossible BEFORE you take into account that most people in Congress would be against it, but a guy can dream!
State referendums have become the best way to institute liberal policies, and Republicans are terrified of them. For good reason, a commanding majority keeps supporting abortion and legal weed. Here in Missouri, we had the Obamacare Medicaid expansion and legal weed because they were state referendums. Republicans tried to ignore the former, but the state supreme court said they had to do it.
Republicans never gave a shit about states rights and it shows. It was just cover for letting Republicans do whatever they want. And now that abortion actually is a state issue, they've fucked around and are finding out.
It's being sold as abortion rights, but the language is pretty broad and supports everyone's reproductive rights. Yay human rights!
Nice job, Ohio!
Shout-out to this article for putting the percentage in the article/headline.
I read two different articles and none of them included the 57% number.
+14% margin bitches. Republicans are in the find out phase
Ohio still sucks but at least passing through will be bearable now
Yeah well feel free to enjoy some of our lovely weed and abortions when you do.
Just passing through for a the ol' joint and reproductive healthcare twofer!
Fuck yes! I’m so proud of us
Happy to have voted to legalize Marijuana for all those future unborn senior citizens!
Looking at the direction in which things are heading, they're going to need alot of it.
Before 2016, I would've been comfortable with where we are.
Now? I want to run up the score as much as possible. We're in the lead? Floor the gas pedal! We can't let up on the gas now!
It’s about damn time this sorry state did something worth a damn. Good shit 💪🏼
Now do Pennsylvania.
Looks like the Dem won the PA Supreme Court seat, so that might happen through a ruling
PA supreme court was already solidly blue and had the seat gone red it wouldn't have made a difference. A voter approved constitutional amendment is the way to go to actually enshrine it and not just kick the can until it isn't fresh in everyone's mind.
Great chance that it happens and fucks over Republicans
I mean, I’m conservative leaning and generally trend republican, just less so since Dobbs. I just wish the left would drop gun control or the right would drop abortion. Is it so much to ask that I’m not picking between which right I’m willing to give up with either side?
I think for gun control we need to have discussions across the aisle about how we stop all the shootings. It needs input from people who actually use guns to make sure the policies actually address the root cause. Plus a lot of these shootings could be prevented if we just properly funded and executed the laws we already have.
I digress though, I see your point. I still want to see gun control, but I want to do it in a manner that's smart and gets people like you on board.
Does this kill the Ohio meme?
No, Ohio is still so bad it has produced the most astronauts because they are sick of earth.
I hope that’s true.
It's true. This also explains all the cosmonauts.
Wait, not those states rights!
republicans are already promising to ignore the law because they don't like it
i just don't get WTH is US doing.
Let the f***ng scientist figure out when it's human enough and when it's not yet human and make the line there as other countries did.
This infighting will only ruin the states.
The definition of "human enough" would be a social and legal issue, not a scientific one, because there is no scientific definition of 'human enough.' Scientists can tell you what is going on with a fetus at any given time in the pregnancy, but not if that means it is too advanced to abort. Theoretically, you could abort at any time in the pregnancy and it is not up to or possible for science to tell you when.
To accentuate the argument, relying on science here is not a good idea because concepts like “viability” will very likely change with technological advancement. In 100 years, it could be perfectly possible for a fertilized egg to grow into a baby outside a mother’s womb. Eggs or sperm could be genetically modified to correct for disorders and syndromes. What would viability really mean in this scientific context?
This argument tormented one of the SCOTUS justices on the original Roe vs. Wade decision.
Could I have a source for the viability dilemma with Roe V. Wade?
Would love to hear more about this
I highly recommend people read / listen to The Brethren by Woodward. It is a political narration of the inner workings of the Supreme Court by one of the same reporters who took down Nixon.
Just added to my reading list, thanks for the suggestion
Yet concept of "feeling" to make the decision is accepted. I see few problems with it. 1st mood change. 2nd everyone feels different. 3rd anthropomorphism . 4th feelings change much faster than scientific progress.
Well i still find it much worse deciding based on feelings than lets say based on level of cognition or consciousness of fetus by properly defined and tested rules.
Since we can't define or explain consciousness, that would be difficult.
You can't, but it doesn't mean people in the field should not try to make educated conclusion. It also doesn't mean that random dude out there is wiser.
That would be a great plan if we ever elected scientists to our legislature. Or even had politicians who listened to science.
We don't, so here we are.
You'd need to significantly increase overall education (both among voters ans legislators) on how science works to make the latter feasible.
Scientists are human. Scientists have opinions. Scientists require funding. Scientists disagree.
Simple example: The heliocentric model didn't become accepted knowledge because the "earth is the center of the universe" crowd (who *were? scientists) was convinced by scientific argument - they weren't. It did when they died.
Science holds a lot of high-likelihood facts. This is what we call the "generally accepted body of knowledge". We know that the earth is round. We can predict gravity in most circumstances. And yes, we know that anthromorphic climate change is real.
But there's also a lot of "game-changing" studies/experiments out there that are still to be debunked without ever making it into said body of accepted knowledge. This is normal, it is how science works.
Yet it also means that for virtually any hair-brained opinion that is not already strongly refuted by said body of knowledge (flat earth, for example, is refuted), you can find some not yet debunked science to support it.
Separating the wheat from the chaff here requires insight into the scientific process (and it's assorted politics and market mechanisms) most people (and voters) don't have.
And no, just telling people whether a fact is broadly accepted in the scientific community or fringe science doesn't work. We tried that with the topic of anthromorphic climate change.
Then you have endless infighting because today people feels one way and tomorrow the other way.