Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 421 posts

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#101

Post by EamonnMR »

cm2187 wrote: post #31

Another field where science is on a collision course with online (and offline) activists is genetics. As we decode and understand more of the genome, it is possible that our genes affect more of our behavior than what the partisans of tabula rasa hold for truth. And unless the political climate evolves, in a power struggle between activists and science, I wouldn't bet on the scientists.

I don't think our society is ready for it, much like we aren't ready for human gene editing. It's gonna result in some unfortunate outcomes.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#102

Post by [deleted] »

aikah wrote: post #72
cm2187 wrote: post #31

Another field where science is on a collision course with online (and offline) activists is genetics. As we decode and understand more of the genome, it is possible that our genes affect more of our behavior than what the partisans of tabula rasa hold for truth. And unless the political climate evolves, in a power struggle between activists and science, I wouldn't bet on the scientists.

"behavioural genetics" and something else I will not even talk about for fear of being hunted and bullied by an angry mob on the internet. These topics are so sensitive because of the current political climate that they are literally career suicide for any western scientist. It has become way too easy to bully people into submission with tools such as Twitter, but not only, too easy to create harassment brigades agai…

[deleted]

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#103

Post by triplewipeass »

mrfredward wrote: post #85
triplewipeass wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a capitalist society, I will see in a negative light any statement or action that negatively impacts my livelihood. I don’t care if the most vocal activists think that it’s “right” in an absolute sense to enact a policy of reverse discrimination. Anything that detracts from my ability to provide for my family is bullshit.

>In a capitalist society Capitalism has nothing to do with it. Whether it's social security recipients or public school teachers, people whose income is determined by the government are as defensive of their livelihoods as people whose pay is set by market forces, perhaps even more so.

Capitalism has everything to do with it: a commercial entity fires people on a whim, whereas public school teachers basically cannot be fired. The NYC public school system is full of underperforming teachers who shouldn't be employed to begin with. Their pay and conditions of employment are determined via collective bargaining, so they're protected from any conceivable equivalent of a PIP or other "adverse action" by the employer.

Likewise, hiring practices in the private sector change like the weather.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#104

Post by weberc2 »

cm2187 wrote: post #46
dragonwriter wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As we decode and understand more of the genome, it is possible that our genes affect more of our behavior than what the partisans of the tabula rasa hold for truth What “partisans of the tabula rasa”? Activists of both the left and right seem more likely to be partisans of genetic determinism, though of which aspects of intellect, identity, and behavior varies between them.

Well a lot of our policies are based on the tabula rasa theory. Gender or racial imbalances between professions for instance are attributed to cultural bias and discrimination. It may be the case, I think only science will provide a definitive answer. And you are right, far right activists do assume full genetic determinism and they may also be proven wrong by advances in genetics. But they are kind of a smaller marg…

With sincere respect, I think you’re understating the power and prevalence differential across the political spectrum. :) There are a handful of far right “activists” who believe in genetic determinism and they are rightly marginalized and have no platform whatsoever. Left wing proponents of blank slatism are mainstream, particularly in the (often publicly funded) “grievance studies” fields, and they have a significant cheering section comprised of journalists at leading media institutions (Guardian, NYT, etc), corporate diversity consultancies, and elsewhere. Not only are there far more proponents on the left; they enjoy enormous platforms and public coin.

Climate-change denialism is a more bipartisan problem than this. :)

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#105

Post by alexandercrohde »

dragonwriter wrote: post #36
cm2187 wrote: post #31

Another field where science is on a collision course with online (and offline) activists is genetics. As we decode and understand more of the genome, it is possible that our genes affect more of our behavior than what the partisans of tabula rasa hold for truth. And unless the political climate evolves, in a power struggle between activists and science, I wouldn't bet on the scientists.

> As we decode and understand more of the genome, it is possible that our genes affect more of our behavior than what the partisans of the tabula rasa hold for truth What “partisans of the tabula rasa”? Activists of both the left and right seem more likely to be partisans of genetic determinism, though of which aspects of intellect, identity, and behavior varies between them.

There are huge proponents of tabula rasa. Consider, fore example, I do research and realize trait X correlates with IQ.

Also suppose trait X is highly visible so that I can easily identify who has it (just for concreteness, let's say it's black eyebrows, and 20 IQ points). This would drive the internet batty.

The same is true if any such correlations are found for a number of other traits.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#106

Post by theandrewbailey »

ayvdl wrote: post #38
akerro wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they can and want to. Why are you on HN?

Because I want to comment. But if someone replies to my comments with the equivalent of hate mail, I won't say that they are "silencing" me. If I go to that scientist's profile I can read his tweets just fine. Someone quoting him and saying he's an idiot is not "silencing" him.

If you plan to comment at a conference, and someone tweets the conference organizers, then your panel gets canceled, is that silencing you?

> Fink said he and the organisers of a conference he addressed at Columbia University in New York in October 2018 were hounded by complaints and protests from CFS/ME activists. A petition calling for Fink to be disinvited was signed by 10,000 people. Tuller – who in his blog wrote that the person who invited Per Fink to speak at the conference must be “uninformed or stupid or both” – called Fink a “scary guy” whose methods had “destroyed families.” Tuller urged readers of his blog to go to the Columbia conference and demonstrate.

This kind of stuff happens to IDW members constantly, except their venues have a pattern of giving in to the activists.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#107

Post by cf141q5325 »

ativzzz wrote: post #70
ayvdl wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't dislike people having Twitter, but to be on Twitter you need to have a thick skin, and if you don't then you shouldn't be there.

Instead of normalizing outrage and harassment, why not say the opposite: 'To be on twitter you should treat others with respect, and if you don't then you shouldn't on there' Obviously that's not representative of Twitter right now, but why can't it be?

Pretending that reality is something else is rarely helpful. Sure we could, but thats not the situation we are in. Hypothesizing doesnt change the current situation.

The parent made an appropriate comment in my opinion. Twitter as it exists today is in the public sphere, it is not your living room. You are shouting something throughout the net and invite everyone to share their opinion on what you said.

We should all be old enough to understand that the world is full of morons whether we like it or not. And if they are part of your community it becomes your problem too. Dont want to be confronted with the unpleasant parts of of the twitter userbase? Dont be on twitter.

If you however want the reach of twitter without any of the downsides, to bad. Make up your own platform with your own user guidelines. Twitter offers such a huge reach because everyone gets to comment whether you like it or not. You might like that or dislike that, but your opinion on it doesnt change the current atmosphere on twitter.

If you use twitter as it exists today, you better have a thick skin. There are no two ways around it. To exaggerate, you would also need a thick skin if you wanted discuss the topic of migrant rights in some neonazi club. Sure it would be awesome if they behaved, but not something you should expect as a reasonable person. And if you wanted to have a positive reasonable discussion, why would you ask them in the first place about their opinion?

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#108

Post by beat »

mirimir wrote: post #81

> There is no biomarker or blood test to establish diagnosis ... So arguably there is no "CFS/ME". Arguably, there are many conditions that can be diagnosed as "CFS/ME". And so it's not surprising that some patients benefit from talk therapy. And that other patients won't, and will be insulted by the very idea. About being "silenced" by online activists, that's just the Internet working as expected. Or at least, expe…

That's not how science works.

CFS/ME is a diagnosis based on real, observable behavior. The lack of a scientific explanation for the cause doesn't mean there isn't a cause, and it certainly doesn't mean the condition is not real. It means the cause has not yet been isolated by repeatable experiment. (And yes, it's possible that there are multiple conditions all diagnosed together as CFS/ME, and that some of them are purely psychological. But it's also reasonable to assume that some or all have a physical cause.)

Long ago, we didn't know about germs, and people believed diseases were caused by sin (and arguably, some still do). Doesn't mean the diseases weren't as real then as they are now that we know what causes them.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#109

Post by alexandercrohde »

I'm not seeing anybody else suggest what seems to me to be the obvious solution: opt out of twitter (which seems like a self-abuse platform) and filter your email.

Part of why communication works is because we can't hear everybody's opinion on everything. People earn the right to our ear through networking and earning our company. Twitter undoing this is not progress.

Re: Online activists are silencing us, scientists say

#110

Post by SCdF »

nateberkopec wrote: post #10

Over the next 20 or so years, expect a lot of syndromes/conditions to be reclassified, as Michael Sharpe puts in the article, as "biological condition[s] that can be perpetuated by social and psychological factors.". I struggled with RSI for a couple of years until I read John Sarno's "The Mind-Body Connection" on the recommendation of someone from HN. Sarno's thesis is that many chronic pain conditions (those withou…

Just so there is a dissenting reply about Sarno's book, I have chronic RSI and his book did not help me at all. I wish it did, I'm pretty over RSI in general, but after going through a variety of different ideas and experiments pretty much "don't use your hands" is all I've got :-(
Post reply on HN