>US certainly has a cultural problem, out of all major countries out there, US has a weird position where a significant population denies evolution/climate change
This is not a manifestation of stupidity, I think it is motivated by distrust of authorities.
Essentially: "If I agree that X is true, what will you do next?". If I don't trust what you will do, well then X cannot be allowed to be true. Since I need rhetorical ground to stand on and by giving up that position I'll have no position from which to argue against the policies that follow on, I choose not to agree with X. Sure there are probably stupid people that don't understand but they are not driving so to speak.
I don't think the GP was saying that they are, only that stupidity is not the driving force. They even said as much at the end:
>Sure there are probably stupid people that don't understand but they are not driving so to speak.
For example, we're all aware of Einstein's flub wrt quantum mechanics, a mistake that was grounded in his religious beliefs. I think you'd have a hard time arguing he was a stupid man.
I wouldn't call them stupid. Though when irrational and unreasonable fear of a slippery slope result leads a significant portion of a population to deny the obvious to their detriment, I'm comfortable calling that a stupid action.
This is not a manifestation of stupidity, I think it is motivated by distrust of authorities.
Essentially: "If I agree that X is true, what will you do next?". If I don't trust what you will do, well then X cannot be allowed to be true. Since I need rhetorical ground to stand on and by giving up that position I'll have no position from which to argue against the policies that follow on, I choose not to agree with X. Sure there are probably stupid people that don't understand but they are not driving so to speak.
This logic is true for all political stripes.