Try the political quiz

Radicalism

Achieving transformative social, political, and economic change through revolutionary means to create a more equitable and just society.

Overview Issues Discuss

Radicalism policies on science issues

These issues below are sorted in descending order based on how important the average American voter ranked them on the quiz.

Filters

Topics

Science  ›  Mandatory Vaccinations

Should the government require children to be vaccinated for preventable diseases?

R>R  ChatGPTYes, they are essential to protecting other children who are too young to be vaccinated

Science  ›  Nuclear Energy

Do you support the use of nuclear energy?

R>R  ChatGPTYes, and nationalize the industry

Science  ›  GMO Labels

Should producers be required to label genetically engineered foods (GMOs)?

R>R  ChatGPTRegardless, producers should not be allowed to patent foods

Science  ›  Genetic Engineering

Should the government fund research into genetic engineering for disease prevention and treatment?

R>R  ChatGPTYes

Science  ›  Lab Grown Meat

Should the government allow the commercialization of lab-grown meat?

R>R  ChatGPTYes, as long as a disclosure is prominently displayed on packaging and restaurant menus

How similar are your political beliefs to Radicalism issues? Take the political quiz to find out.

Science  ›  Space Exploration

Should the government fund space travel?

R>R  ChatGPTNo, we should focus on saving the Earth instead of leaving it

Science  ›  CRISPR Technology

Should the government regulate the use of CRISPR technology for human genetic modifications?

R>R  ChatGPTYes

Popular conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies