11–19 of 19 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citizens in a free society do not temper their criticisms for fear that "the government" might get mad about them. Donald Trump's science policy is destroying one of the key components of American power, and if he doesn't like people posting evocative images about that he'll have to get over it.
The evocative image is of science destroying America, which is not the point the article is making.
To be clear, while there is _specific_ language around DEI/gender identity, the actual language of parts of this goes far, far further, and essentially codifies giving political appointees explicit discretion over what gets funded and what conferences scientists with government funds can go to, and disallows any government money to go towards publishing research.
> and essentially codifies giving political appointees explicit discretion over what gets funded I approve of this. The people who make the funding decisions should be politically accountable. If you have a mental model of unappointed civil servants as detached, neutral, non-political entities, I can understand why you wouldn't. But I see them as just people, and I don't know anybody like that. I'd like the folks who…
Yes if you suck at science, you can't get paid.
But if the subjects you study are politically inconvenient to the presently-in-charge admin, you should still be allowed to research them.
The picture of the flag being dissolved in acid is ... perhaps not the best way to convince the government to change course ...
As a remedy, I recommend everyone on the left read George Lakoff's book "Don't Think of an Elephant." It's a guide for how to communicate effectively, especially to people who have a vastly different worldview from themselves.
He's been consulting to organizations for a long time and these books are the distillation of his knowledge in plain language.
Preview:
1. He makes an (obv simplified) model of left vs right communication as "nurturing parent" vs. "strict father." There is obvious overlap - it's a model, but you can see how much this explains as he develops it a bit further.
2. He talks about a "staining" or "triggering" effect when communicating. what does that mean? people have key words that instantly shut down their thought, preventing useful discussion. For example, immediately upon hearing the words "trans," conservatives might picture a man in a dress molesting someone in a bathroom. Similar for leftists when they hear a word like "corporation" or "business." So he teaches how to communicate without stumbling on these.
The ultra wealthy that fund them are also all too happy to see proud institutions hollowed out, happy to see knowledge workers cast out of good worthy public effort and prestigious storied jobs, and made to look for corporate jobs.
To be clear, while there is _specific_ language around DEI/gender identity, the actual language of parts of this goes far, far further, and essentially codifies giving political appointees explicit discretion over what gets funded and what conferences scientists with government funds can go to, and disallows any government money to go towards publishing research.
I will not miss "US science as we know it", at least that part of it that gave us terms like "menstruating people".
Climate science is not "woke." Basic and applied research at agencies like NASA is not "woke." Math departments are not "woke." NIST is not "woke." Yet all of their funding is under threat by the Trump administration and Republicans in general.
I will not miss "US science as we know it", at least that part of it that gave us terms like "menstruating people".
That's a fair objection, but it's not OK to politicize everything else in science just because a few idiots handed your party an unusually-catchy wedge issue. Climate science is not "woke." Basic and applied research at agencies like NASA is not "woke." Math departments are not "woke." NIST is not "woke." Yet all of their funding is under threat by the Trump administration and Republicans in general.
No, it isn't. Climate research is a real discipline. Climate catastrophism isn't "woke" either, it is just nuts. The term "woke" has been generalised far too much and is starting to fill the same role on the "right" as "racist" fills on the "left": a word to use for something people don't like. While there are plenty of real "woke" infections in academia not all bad ideas pushed by "the left" are "woke", some are just bad.
I will not miss "US science as we know it", at least that part of it that gave us terms like "menstruating people".
That's a fair objection, but it's not OK to politicize everything else in science just because a few idiots handed your party an unusually-catchy wedge issue. Climate science is not "woke." Basic and applied research at agencies like NASA is not "woke." Math departments are not "woke." NIST is not "woke." Yet all of their funding is under threat by the Trump administration and Republicans in general.
Money was paid to Mary Theofanos and Justyna Zwolak, and their supervisors to produce this crap, instead of researchers and engineers that do real things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a fair objection, but it's not OK to politicize everything else in science just because a few idiots handed your party an unusually-catchy wedge issue. Climate science is not "woke." Basic and applied research at agencies like NASA is not "woke." Math departments are not "woke." NIST is not "woke." Yet all of their funding is under threat by the Trump administration and Republicans in general.
Sure, NASA and NIST are not "woke", but somehow this cancer creeps there. Example: https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=93249... Money was paid to Mary Theofanos and Justyna Zwolak, and their supervisors to produce this crap, instead of researchers and engineers that do real things.
> over a third of all respondents expressed beliefs that the best opportunities do not go to the most deserving employees but rather are given based on who one knows
Sounds like a real problem in the culture at NIST that should be fixed.
What kind of PUAHate incel loser angrily calls out women scientists by name because they carried out a large-scale analysis of NIST HR data, incomes, and a survey? What part of that isn't "real things" to you? What a tiny little worldview you have.