Are Republicans Stupid?

Just for the record, I don't believe that all Republicans are stupid. There are many smart Republicans. Many of them are smarter than me. I have friends who would define themselves as Republicans.

However, in general, Republicans with a capital "R", are stupid. This is because the party believes in two things that define stupidity. Rather, I should say that they don't believe in two things that define stupidity: they don't believe in evolution and they don't believe that climate change is real.

Humor for Republicans
Humor for Republicans

Both evolution and climate change are facts backed up by real data and proved by science. When a person doesn't believe in science or doesn't understand science well enough to understand why both of these things are considered beyond doubt, we say that such a person is stupid. It's one thing to say that you're not convinced that the liberal answer to climate change is the right one. It's quite another to say you think climate change is some kind of hoax. And evolution and a belief in God can easily co-exist, but to say that the theory of evolution isn't a fact, is absurd. It's one thing to sort of remove human beings from the evolutionary equation and argue about the missing link between apes and man, but it's quite another to throw out the entire theory because you don't understand that evolution itself is much more than just a question of how human beings came to be on this earth.

If Republicans want to argue that evolution and climate change aren't scientific facts, then they might as well argue that the sun revolves around the earth. The arguments are basically the same. Thus, any Republican who doesn't understand evolution or climate change, is fundamentally an idiot, deserves no intellectual respect whatsoever, and cannot be argued with in any rational manner. One cannot argue with a person who doesn't understand science or data and a person who doesn't understand science and data cannot form a rational argument. That person is, by definition, irrational.

It's one thing to be stupid and it's another to be dangerous. It's generally a given that stupid people are dangerous. Thus, Republicans are dangerous. Let's take the gun control debate as an example. A Republican who believes there should be no gun control cannot be argued with rationally. I've provided a link to a study that uses data to show that in states with limited gun control, gun violence is more prevalent. The conclusion is that gun control does have the effect of lowering gun violence.

Now, I can accept the gun advocate's argument that a law-abiding person should have a right to protect him or herself. Heck, I can even agree with it. I have no problem with that. The problem with the gun control debate is that the same Republicans who are ignoring scientific facts are the same ones who are arguing against gun control. A person who values science and data cannot have a productive discussion with somebody who doesn't. All the data in the world doesn't matter to a person who doesn't know how to interpret data. All the science in the world doesn't matter to a person who doesn't respect and understand science.

Another thing that makes Republicans stupid is that they're always voting against their self-interest while their elected officials are actually working against them. Take consumer protection as an example. Most people who vote Republican would benefit from increased consumer protection, but Republicans are always fighting against it, which makes those who vote for Republicans against common sense consumer protections.

It's quite common for Republican senior citizens to rail against socialism and then complain when cuts are made to Medicare and Medicaid. Often, these people will vote for Republicans based on their talking points on the evils of socialism. Now, I'm not even arguing about the pros and cons of a political position opposing socialism. I'm talking about a person who actively votes for somebody who is working to get something they want taken away. Usually, we vote for the candidates who want the same things that we want, but when we actually don't understand that what we want is in opposition to what we say, that's kind of stupid.

That's where the argument about consumer protection comes in. Republicans are usually "pro-Business", whatever that means. Usually, that means voting for legislation that favors businesses over consumers. In practice, it means that when the individual gets injured by something a business does, Republican legislation makes it easier for the business to get away with it and harder for the individual to be protected. Pollution would be a perfect example. If a business poisons your drinking water and you get cancer, you should be entitled to compensation. The business should be shut down. Unfortunately, Republicans don't vote in a way that supports this position.

So What is Stupidity?

How do you define stupidity? I have to believe that a good definition of stupidity is "willfull ignorance of data" or "continued ignorance in the face of data". Perhaps an even better definition is "not only maintaining ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence, but the insistence of righteousness due to the inability to comprehend complex data."

In other words, it's one thing to insist that the sun revolves around the earth. However, it's quite another to insist the sun revolves around the earth after somebody shows you a clip from a satellite showing the opposite and then claim that the clip is an elaborate hoax and that the person who showed it to you is going to hell.

I'm going to step in it now by bringing religion into the mix. A smart person can use religion in a way that is beneficial. Unfortunately, religion makes stupid people even stupider because it provides them comfort in believing that things that are unseen have more credence than things that are seen. The far right in the Republican Party who base most of their political views on their religion can do so because they have been brought up believing that the greatest beliefs can be established with no evidence whatsoever.

It's one thing to have faith in a higher power. It's quite another, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, to have faith that an idea is correct simply because you believe it to be correct. In most rational circles, that is stupidity. It is this belief system that is eroding the very definition of intelligence and understanding of science. By its very nature, faith is about believing in something the one reads or is told, without evidence, because that thing is comforting or comes from a person or book whose authority seems without question. Science is about asking a question and then testing that question with the use of data. A scientist sees a question and then determines how best to arrive at the answer to that question using a particular testing method.

This does not mean that faithful people are stupid and scientific people are smart, but to deny the scientific accuracy based on what you don't know is the opposite of intelligence. There are many religious people who understand science who are not stupid.



The Republican Party encourages stupidity. It does so by undermining an understanding of science and how science works, and encouraging people to believe things without evidence and without testing. Science and the practice of science is the basis for how we know most things. To reject science and the means by which scientific theories and facts are determined, is stupid. The Republican Party does this with most things, particularly with their views on climate change and evolution. To do so, without opposing, testable evidence, is stupidity.

And let's just remember that Republicans have been pushing the idea that President Obama was not born in the United States despite the existence of his birth certificate. So let's just review how that belief works:

  1. Somebody says Obama was born outside of the United States
  2. Republicans believe it and start repeating it
  3. Irrefutable evidence is produced showing he was born in the U.S.
  4. Republicans claim irrefutable evidence is fake

Sound familiar?

What answer best defines a stupid person?

  • A person who believes the sun revolves around the earth
  • A person who believes that evolution is fake
  • A person who believes in something when all the evidence says otherwise
  • A person who believes climate change is a hoax
  • A person who leaves a loaded gun in a house full of children
See results without voting

© 2013 Sychophantastic

More by this Author

Comments 30 comments

Sychophantastic profile image

Sychophantastic 8 weeks ago Author

I appreciate the comments.

promisem profile image

promisem 8 weeks ago

Everyone is stupid. If you are over 30, you should know that by now.

Trevor Wallace profile image

Trevor Wallace 21 months ago from Outside Houston, Tx

I think many of the comments here just proved your point, Sychophantastic.

SassySue1963 3 years ago

smh really? a poll from 2007 and one from a politically motivated group? lol

Further, the Yale study (mentioned in your link) shows that 52% of Republicans believe global warming is happening. Um..last I checked 52% would be considered the majority yes? Kind of...throws your entire "the majority of Republicans" theory out of the water already.

I never said the Earth was only 6000 years old at all. Never even made a claim to religion at all. Science changes its findings and mind on a dime all the time so to say that because science deems something so at this point in time, well, that just does not make it fact. Tomorrow they could have something new. Not to mention that not all scientists agree. So I guess the ones you agree with are the right ones though huh? lol

You see where I'm going here?

Sychophantastic profile image

Sychophantastic 3 years ago Author

I shouldn't have used the word irrefutable because science is always refining its methods and retesting. That is the nature of science. However, the theory of evolution came about as the result of observable data and tested methodology. But to discount the entire theory and say you don't believe in evolutionary theory because it doesn't prove what existed before the earth was here is ridiculous. And what in the world makes you think I don't think the Bible is a history book? Of course most of the events in it actually happened and the places existed.

Do you believe the earth is 6000 years old or not?

SassySue1963 3 years ago

You're good at double speak. You claim that requiring it to prove what existed before anything existed is absurd, and yet that is the requirement you seek of those that believe in either Creationism or Intelligent Design (which are 2 different things). It's nice to believe you can have it both ways, but that is fantasy. Anytime you use the word "majority" you'd best have the facts to back up such a claim, which I know you do not. Just because your narrow view of the world does not allow religion and an older Earth co-exist, that isn't so of most of those of faith. It also does not make your view any more valid than theirs. Science has proven not only the existence of places but events that are written about in the Bible, so it is kind of ironic that you deem science irrefutable (even though they contradict themselves, even reverse themselves, all the time) when such is a fact. You really should pry open your mind at least a crack and let some light in.

Sychophantastic profile image

Sychophantastic 3 years ago Author

It's better to let everyone's statements stand for themselves. Me trying to convince any of the commentors about things they don't believe is pointless. The idea that the theory has to prove what existed before anything existed in order to be believed is ridiculous in the extreme for obvious reasons, and if that's the proof you need to consider the theory valid, so be it. My comment before was apropos because the majority of Republicans do not believe in the Theory of Evolution because they believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Ironic.

SassySue1963 3 years ago

Actually, before I explain have to explain how a dog evolves into a cat. You know, back to the original "an entirely different creature" statement. The one you've gone all around the maypole to avoid. :) Because that is exactly what the Theory of Evolution claims, you know, back to all that "organic material" that magically transformed into billions of entirely different entities, many with absolutely no common genetic material. Hmmm...odd, when we all came from the same organic soup mix.

You see, there is absurdity in that theory too. That one you decide people are "stupid" if they don't think it's well, entirely logical. Besides, prior to his death, Darwin himself, in light of greater scientific advancements and knowledge, talked about the absurdity of such a thing. Yet, that is what you claim as undeniable fact. lol

Superkev profile image

Superkev 3 years ago

Every evolutionary theory begins with an ocean full of organic material. What they can't explain is where it came from.

If you want to prove your theory, you have to go back to when there was NOTHING and explain how something got there. Did the universe just always exist? How would that be possible?

Two molecules collided causing the "big bang"? Where did the molecules come from?

Go back to nothing and tell me how something just magically appeared. If you can't the rest falls apart rather quickly. There had to be a point at some time when there was nothing, void. How does something materialize in that void??

SassySue1963 3 years ago


Um..I'm left scratching my head at your response because it completely ignores the entire content of my comment.

Further, why would it preclude any basis for believing in any evolution? Do you think that a "day" had to be exactly a 24 hour period? Just because that is what we call a day now? Do you believe that a being that can create the Earth cannot create seemingly inconsistent realities? Pretty narrow minded view.

Anyway, I see you've chosen to chase the rabbit tale rather than address the fact that the THEORY of Evolution is in serious doubt already anyway and not by religion, but science itself.

Sychophantastic profile image

Sychophantastic 3 years ago Author

It would definitely be hard to believe in Evolution if you believe the Earth is only 6000 or so years old. Actually, it would be impossible.

bzirkone profile image

bzirkone 3 years ago from Kansas

"And regarding politics, I'm arguing that climate change is a fact. If that's political, it's only so because the people on the other side of the so-called argument are rejecting mountains of evidence to the contrary. You can't argue with somebody who doesn't understand science and data and the definition of science and scientific inquiry. Is there a political argument around whether the earth is flat? Once, there was." ...

And you are saying that you do understand the science?

SassySue1963 3 years ago

Well...tried to edit to include the line but...alas....could not. I might add that even Darwin himself, as science made advancements into biology, had this to say:

"Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Even Darwin saw the absurdity in his earlier claims. :)


SassySue1963 3 years ago

Um...dude...of course it does. Do you know the Theory of Evolution that you proclaim is so "factual" that anyone who questions any part of it is "stupid"? Apparently not because you do know we all came from one tiny little amoeba right?

"Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature). " :) Get it? "an entirely different creature"

Sychophantastic profile image

Sychophantastic 3 years ago Author

Evolution does not posit that cats turn into dogs nor that tadpoles turn into a billion different species. If you have scientific evidence to the contrary, please provide a link.

SassySue1963 3 years ago

Well I guess I'm late to this party. :)

First, really, labeling an entire group of people "stupid" based solely on one issue is pretty narrow minded and smacks of bigotry. If your intent was to draw attention to issues such as climate change, certainly better ways to go about it.

I might add that the term global warming was traded in favor of climate change for a reason. Core samples taken from both Poles clearly show the Earth has gone through such drastic temperature changes before. That would be before man, industry etc. Faced with irrefutable proof that it is part of the planet's natural cycle, the popular term became climate change.

Another reason for the change, are studies stating if we stopped using all pollutants tomorrow, we would not reverse the warming of the planet. Pretty much because it is part of a natural cycle.

That doesn't mean we aren't having an effect on the climate change, because certainly we have sped up the process with the pollutants that go into the atmosphere, combined with the destruction of a vast number of trees, which pull the CO2 from the atmosphere. We are not the cause however and study after study has shown such cycles throughout the history of the planet.

Further, if you do choose to denigrate an entire populous perhaps you should at least get it right about what they do and don't believe. As stated, it isn't that they deny the warming cycle of the planet, just the root cause and how much our efforts can affect the cycle. It isn't that they don't believe in evolution, only that they don't believe a tadpole became a billion different species. :) In other words, they believe that evolution most certainly exists, just that a cat doesn't evolve into a dog, as an example.

Sychophantastic profile image

Sychophantastic 3 years ago Author

No, it's just not worth arguing with somebody who doesn't believe something and is never going to believe it. Anybody can see that you based your initial objection on East Anglia, which was debunked. Arguing based on incorrect information or drawing a conclusion based on incorrect information makes for an impossible debate. The argument about autism being caused by vaccinations is similar. That argument is often justified on a study that was completely refuted, yet the supporters of the position keep citing it as proof of their position, just as you are doing with East Anglia.

Superkev profile image

Superkev 3 years ago

But, but....I thought yours was the only argument and anyone who dared question it was stupid. Irrefutable, right??

Yeah, not so much.

Sychophantastic profile image

Sychophantastic 3 years ago Author

I'll leave it to others whether they want to believe your argument or mine. The evidence for either argument is out there. An intelligent person can figure out which is more legitimate.

Superkev profile image

Superkev 3 years ago

No, I am taking an example of an outright lying hoax from the scientists tasked with writing the next IPCC report.

You can sit and ignore all the proof of fabrication and outright lying that you wish. It will not change the fact that AGW is a political and economic hoax and has been from the very start. Even the founder of Greenpeace agrees with me LOL.

Your problem is you cut, slice and parse, bend yourself in to a pretzel to somehow make true that which has been proven untrue and inaccurate. e.g. The computer model simply does not work.

What you are showing me with your responses is that you are simply an ideologue, facts do not matter to you, proof does not matter to you. To you Global Warming is a political, not a scientific, imperative.

Sychophantastic profile image

Sychophantastic 3 years ago Author

Furthermore, the "climategate" from East Anglia University has been entirely debunked. The conclusion of five independent investigations was that the science was entirely sound. This argument is typical Republican misdirection. Republicans find one example of something that agrees with their theory despite all evidence to the opposite, then hang their hat on it like it's proof when it's exactly the opposite. All any reasonable person has to do is search on climategate and you'll find it was a completely overblown thing.

Sychophantastic profile image

Sychophantastic 3 years ago Author

You are correct, everything in science should be tested. But scientists have tested it and it keeps coming up that our planet is heating up and global warming is a major problem. You're taking one example of a peer review problem and applying it to the entire scientific inquiry, which is where my religious analogy came into play. If some priests molest, then religion must be a hoax according to your logic, because it invalidates the entire practice.

Superkev profile image

Superkev 3 years ago

NOTHING is irrefutable, that is the basis of ALL science. God save us from the pseudo-intellectuals.

In science everything must be questioned. Catholicism does not rely on data but faith so your comparison is ridiculous.

It has been proven that the people at East Anglia lied, and fudged their numbers to suit their agenda, and subverted the peer-review process.

It has been proven that the computer models they all rely on are completely flawed and skewered to give the desired outcome.

Remember, these are many of the same 'scientists' who in the 1970s said we were going in to a new Ice Age and that we had to take steps to mitigate THAT disaster too. Then, with hardly a breath in between, these same scientists where spouting off about Global Warming, or Climate Change or whatever you lot are calling it this week.

"There is significant evidence that would tend to falsify global warming. The mean global air temperature has not risen for the last fifteen years. At the end of March the global extent of sea ice was above the long-term average and higher than it was in March of 1980. Last December, snow cover in the northern hemisphere was at the highest level since record keeping began in 1966. The UK just experienced the coldest March of the last fifty years. There has been no increase in droughts or wildfires. Worldwide hurricane and cyclone activity is near a forty-year low.

"One might think that the foregoing facts would raise doubts in scientists interested in pursuing objective truth. But global warming is not so much a scientific theory subject to empirical falsification as it is a political ideology that must be fiercely defended in defiance of every fact to the contrary. In the past few years we have been told that not only hot weather but cold weather is caused by global warming. The blizzards that struck the east coast of the US in 2010 were attributed to global warming. Every weather event–hot, cold, wet or dry–is said to be caused by global warming." -Dr David Deming

There is nothing in science that cannot or should not be questioned, nothing!

Sychophantastic profile image

Sychophantastic 3 years ago Author

There's no system, even scientific inquiry, where the motives of the entire group are going to be without question, so there are always going to be outliers. There are Catholic priests who abuse children, right? Does that mean Catholicism is invalidated? Again, the science and the evidence on global warming is irrefutable. We can argue about what the solution should be, but arguing that it's a hoax is, like I said, arguing that the sun revolves around the earth. You are merely making my point.

And regarding politics, I'm arguing that climate change is a fact. If that's political, it's only so because the people on the other side of the so-called argument are rejecting mountains of evidence to the contrary. You can't argue with somebody who doesn't understand science and data and the definition of science and scientific inquiry. Is there a political argument around whether the earth is flat? Once, there was.

bzirkone profile image

bzirkone 3 years ago from Kansas

If you are not writing about the politics of it, why would your excerpt include disparaging remarks about Republicans?

Superkev profile image

Superkev 3 years ago

So the 'scientists' at East Anglia University caught lying in their emails and planning among themselves how to pervert the peer-review process means nothing huh? They wanted to "Hide the decline" (meaning the decline in global temps) and were apoplectic that they could find no way to do so. Even the IPCC has come out and admitted that there has been no rise in global temps for at least the last ten years.

Al Gore has been saying we have "only 5 years left" for the last 20 years. Yet he buys a ocean-front mansion with his now hundreds of millions of dollars. And let's not forget how he hypocritically sold his TV network to Al-Jazeera, a company financed by the country of Qatar, who get their money from.....wait for it.......OIL!!!! Yeah, he's REAL concerned....about profit!

AGW's whole premise is based on provably flawed computer modeling. You should be able to take a known decades weather data, put it in to their computer model and it should accurately show the known data from the following decade. (i.e. take data from 1980-89 and it should produce the known data from 1990-99) But guess what? IT DOESN"T!!!!

GIGO Garbage In- Garbage Out. And that's what this whole global warming scam is, Garbage.

The stupid ones are the people who buy in to this hysterical crap decade after decade while the people whipping you in to a frenzy just get richer and richer off your ignorance.

Sychophantastic profile image

Sychophantastic 3 years ago Author

The statement that the scientific work on climate change is "bogus and proven such" is itself "bogus and proven such". Let me get this right, you're saying there's no climate change? You're saying that all the science on climate change, most of which has been peer reviewed (like 98% of it) is wrong. I'm not writing about the politics of it. I'm writing about the science of it. Greenland isn't melting? The glaciers aren't disappearing? Really? The vast majority of science on climate change is irrefutable. The answers to what to do about it are not. Criticisms leveled at Al Gore are fine and justified, but to use those criticisms to claim that climate change science is bogus is insanity. And I can't possibly undermine my credibility on evolution as I have none. The science on evolution stands for itself and does not need my credibility to be true.

Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 3 years ago from Texas

Your premise is rooted in some pretty shallow ground. Do not use the credibility of science to prop up the sham that has been perpretrated on climatic change by those who stand to gain personally from offering such bogus findings in the name of science including the mad-man himself, Al Gore. Further, you undermine any credibility you might establish on the subject of evolution with your unquestioning admiration of the scientific work which has been done on climate change....bogus and proven such. Thus I would say your premise that allows you to label Republicans as stupid on the basis of your reasoning is half-baked from the outset. One does not have to study the carbon credits program very long to realize that any industry can continue to do what it is currently doing under that program simply by paying a fee which is the "carbon credits" they purchase and that money magically disappears into someone's pocket...there for a while it looked Al Gore was planning on having retail store fronts to sell carbon credits. That should accomplish a lot for the envirnoment huh? Good thing ol' Al is not stupid like those Republicans. ~WB

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article