The Four Quadrants of Conformism

It's hard to explain in a short HN comment, so my apologies here if it's a bit gripe-y and disjointed.

I've just gotten the feeling that the Universities, very much including the STEM departments, are all about funding. Since the funding is largely controlled by other professors in the field (via Study Sessions), you have to get on the good side of many people. The after-talk drinking sessions at major conferences are a key way to do this.

If you're 'likable' and a 'big' name, then committees send funding your way. After all, at that level, every proposal is pretty much gold anyways. I remember a Nature editor telling a class once that they could shut down the submissions portal at about noon January 1st and see no drop in the quality of what they published for the year. Still, Nature and funding committees have to dole out things. So, when given the choices of people you know and people you don't, you tend to go with people you know (academic pedigree is also super important here).

So 'rocking the boat' is very much discouraged, your mortgage depends on you not doing that. Then the same issues that we see on Twitter occur as well. The louder voices tend to get more 'views', as long as the voice is stating the orthodox opinions. In STEM fields, it's less bad in terms of the research (facts very much matter), but the underlying culture is just the same as with all humans.

If you get into the replication crisis issues, then it's the funding crunch on steroids. Those fields tend to be all about 'name', as the facts have become so difficult to obtain that no one could 'fact check' even if they wanted to (nutrition, bio, psych, fMRI, etc). I'm still surprised that particle physics hasn't fallen down this hole and I think that their 'culture' is one to look into.

Again, apologies on the rant here. Still, heterodox opinions (not facts, to be clear) are not the place for Universities in the US anymore.

I'd look at where all the Burners went after about 2012 to find the better places to deal with the aggressively independent minded. Ephemerisle is a thought, but those guys are a bit wacko in terms of covid-19 safety, though that may just be a side effect. Maybe the Rainbow gatherings?

I was explaining how "chilling effects" can work using a hypothetical example.

Your answer argued against something entirely different, that I guess I reminded you of. But I didn't even talk about cancel culture.

This kind of turning on people who agree with you in principle but might have some of the details wrong is exactly the kind of fractally magnifying divisiveness that some of these subthreads are talking about.

We are all largely on the same side w.r.t. wanting positive outcomes for everyone. We will get there through deescalation and cooperation (not that I am perfect at either).

[1] On (The Future Of) Conservatism

.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu5T3sWAg0w

Most young Western people seem to be conventional in the progressive tradition, because they were indoctrinated at school and university by ex-hippies from the 1960s, who couldn't actually do anything, so they all became teachers. Sixty years is more than enough to become the conventional wisdom.

Marx proposed a keen and mesmerizing analysis of Capitalism, a plausible (but wrong) diagnosis, then a completely ridiculous and laughably naive solution. Real class-based Marxism was proved wrong many times over, so the Frankfurt School and 1960s French philosophers decided to switch the dialectic, from class-based polarization, to group identity politics and the anti-scientific relativism of non-truths. Struggle by any other name would smell as sweet.

America is now in the middle of its Maoist Cultural Revolution. Let's see what happens. The world is watching. Does the Enlightenment survive? It's certainly up for grabs at this point.

The precedent is not good. China was utterly laid waste for decades by Mao. Tens of millions died, leaving a legacy of intellectual, historical and economic impoverishment.

It is hard to imagine anyone more evil than Mao, because his fear-mongering catastrophes and casual genocides were so routinely inflicted against his own people, his supportive party colleagues, his family, his (ex)wives, and even his children:

[2] Mao: The Unknown Story, Jung Chang & Jon Halliday.

[3] Nine Commentaries on the (Chinese) Communist Party

.... https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLED64004A96BE76FA

[4] Evolution Of Evil: Mao Zedong

.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxaWmqgmJxs

Let us see what happens in America ...

That's an interesting move you've done there: now protestors have to behave "sensibly" as well as peacefully? I suppose I didn't realise that deadly force was justified against someone behaving "not sensibly".

> I've watched pretty much all of them

Yeah, I mean then you're probably too far gone to have a discussion with. I guess I don't understand how someone can watch all of the same videos I have and come away thinking "yes, the police are justified in their violence". To be honest it suggests a quite shocking lack of basic humanity.

> in some way being a part of the violent protest group,

Being in a "protest group" when others are violent is not a crime, and does not justify the use of deadly force against you.

> being intermixed with the violent protesters

Being intermixed with violent protestors is not a crime, and does not justify the use of deadly force against you.

> refusing to follow police orders during the clearing of unlawful gatherings (which only happens after violent rioting).

So what, you think all of the unlawful gatherings were violent? Seriously what world are you living in?

> Even that older man who got his head cracked open from falling, decided to ignore orders to vacate

Stop a second. Think about what you're writing.

Every person with a basic sense of decency who saw that video was horrified.

An old man had his skull cracked open for refusing to step back. That's what you're justifying now.

I am not going to respond to any more of your comments, but I really hope you get a sense of perspective on some of this stuff. When you see a cop in riot gear beat some poor person to death your first response should not be "but what did the person do?" When you see a cop car drive through a crowd of protestors you should not immediately start looking up the local ordinances for whether or not the protest had a permit to be on the road at that time.

There is a simple, human way to respond to the obvious evil and brutality that you're seeing, and for some reason you are not doing it.