531–540 of 883 posts
Yet, people can be harmed indirectly. For example, research may — inadvertently — stigmatize individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic. It may provide justification for undermining the human rights of specific groups, simply because of their social characteristics. [..] Advancing knowledge and understanding is a fundamental public good. In some cases, however, potent…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
David Shor was ostracized for presenting this research: https://www.vox.com/2020/7/29/21340308/david-shor-omar-wasow... > Shor, citing research by Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow, suggested that these incidents could prompt a political backlash that would help President Donald Trump’s bid for reelection. At the same time, he noted that, historically, nonviolent protests had been effective at driving politica…
The galling thing about this was that he was fire by a white-controlled organization for saying “people think rioting is bad.” Rioting continued and democrats didn’t stand up and say “rioting is bad,” and as a result of that rioting the criminal justice movement was set back a decade. In Minneapolis now Ilhan Omar barely won her primary because she wants to defund the police and even Black people want more cops: http…
Yet, people can be harmed indirectly. For example, research may — inadvertently — stigmatize individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic. It may provide justification for undermining the human rights of specific groups, simply because of their social characteristics. [..] Advancing knowledge and understanding is a fundamental public good. In some cases, however, potent…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He with the biggest gun wins. Now I'm not exactly sure why the side which is currently stoking the culture war is also the one that's disarmed itself, but here we are.
I’m curious, I genuinely dont know what sides you’re talking about. Who do you think is stoking the culture war?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there is a lot more nuance than people admit. Lets take an example of we have a deadly disease spreading through the population (much more deadly than covid) . Let's say a scientist finds out that the disease is primarily (exclusively) spread by red haired people. Should they just publish the finding? The fact becoming openly known might lead to mobs of people chasing red hairs and locking them up or even lyn…
> The fact becoming openly known might lead to mobs of people chasing red hairs and locking them up or even lynching them. You missed this small little thing called Rule of Law, which - in any polity worth living in - bans vigilante justice and forming mobs to punish people without trial. You also missed this other small little thing called the Internet, where you can publish a paper on arxiv for free without review,…
Yet, people can be harmed indirectly. For example, research may — inadvertently — stigmatize individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic. It may provide justification for undermining the human rights of specific groups, simply because of their social characteristics. [..] Advancing knowledge and understanding is a fundamental public good. In some cases, however, potent…
[deleted]
I did try to read it in good faith and give it the benefit of the doubt, but there's about 20 red flags in the article. With the ultimate smoking gun "to consult with advocacy" groups. Advocacy groups as gatekeepers for scientific publication. It's impossible to get a more biased, emotional and fatalistic view on science. The next articles on the website: "Marginalized" people struggling to attend conferences (due to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People always say this. But I have a hard time believing things weren't more divisive, say, during The Vietnam War. The internet makes conflicts more visible. It also attenuates them, so fewer people get killed. Physical conflict is transformed into digital conflict.
I’m specifically talking about the 90s and not all pre-internet time periods. Cold War was over, Berlin Wall came down, Gulf War was over on almost the first day thanks to stealth technology. Comedy was at a high point, music was diverse and fun. There was a lot more happy and a lot less angry in people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't call being on the receiving end of racial slurs for dating outside your "race", being shunned for being queer, and other such things mere "disagreements". (This was me, as a teen, in the 90s). It is really easy to romanticize the past, back when you were younger and just didn't have the same grasp of the world. Especially if you had a decent enough life at the time.
That is true, but the difference between then and now is that, back then, it felt like the world was on an inexorable road to greater open-mindedness. The world has made progress since you were a teen, but there is also an atmosphere of fear that the world is starting to backslide.