There is a strong culture that is anti science. The immediate reaction of most is to wait for a piece about the GOP or the right wing folks, but when one steps out of the narrative propped up by the television, and they begin to ask folks they know to actually define the terms they are using, the person seeking answers will undoubtedly be given a handful of positions we can safely refer to as "rhetorical default". These" defaults" are set in place to curb the potential for unity in a direction not determined by party leaders or 'approved' pundits; deviation from the default is often greeted with ridicule or mockery, and a coordinated assault of intellectually divisive dismissals. This is far from an intellectually sound position.
This "rhetorical default" is most readily seen when an individual attempts a question that could be taken as an attack on the core moral structure of the one being asked; even aside from the possibility of the question being taken as an attack, if it is taken as a simple question, and is not gaffed off as the musings of an illiterate twit, the uncontrollable reflex, or the knee-jerk reaction, is to answer with apprehension to avoid emotional damage to a part of our moral mainframe which is tethered to our system of nervouses through earned attachments, though the value of those attachments vary by person. While the weight, or amount, of the reflex needed is being balanced and determined, the aforementioned question becomes less about the asker, for however brief a moment, and more about the actual content of the question, which is part of what makes all the components seem incongruent with each other, probably most noticeably would be the actual question and the answer thereof.
These defaults are a prime example of the intellectual laziness found in cultures today, the challenge does not lie in finding truth merely for display, rather finding truth to build a structure to make sense of the world around oneself. The deficit one creates by not plunging deeper into the information is part of a societal shift of responsibilities from a less able agent to a more able agent; this is done so in hopes of establishing a new era in the way society is engineered. The mechanics are then adversely affected and the emotional ties to a specific era of responsibility becomes nostalgia.
When an opinion of a topic that can be tested by science is based in the most reliable study available, the opinion is not what ends up being called into question, sure, superficially this is the case, but not always so, rather it is the science. By forcing affirmations about a position not founded in science, one hold back the next person, which tends to have dangerous ramifications. There are also times when the science is downright offensive.
Finally, the willingness to use force to keep people from thinking is not the same as the willingness to use force to make people think a particular way. The way we approach our thoughts is on full display when we choose to be apolitical or socialize our politics; it shows that we don't want to have to work out the flaws in logic or take the risk of offending folks. It takes a willing person to believe in a given notion, but after a notion gains motion, the person outgrows the ability to choose to be willing. With science indicating that human brain does not finish its developmental wiring needs until an individual reaches approximately 26 years old. Please simply consider that.