91–100 of 883 posts
Will this be good for us, the public? Probably not but only the capable survive, and the current academia is not capable of survival.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is worse than religion because it’s pretending to be rational. And many many people will be fooled. I hate to make the comparison because it's such a trope, but, IMO this is one of the most insidious things the Nazis did to indoctrinate the population: They did things like send people into schools and they would cherry-pick the weakest, least intelligent, least-liked Jewish kid they could find and set him along…
and this is, if you read the actual guidelines proposed, exactly what they are guarding against: inappropriate overgeneralization.
So stop publishing anything because you can't prevent harming others inadvertently.
No, science must pursue the truth, no matter where it leads. There is no such thing as a hate fact.
you'd probably benefit from reading and thinking about this wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism sadly, what is called a fact is a malleable thing in the hands of the ill-intentioned, and all too many bigots are more than happy to pass off pseudo-science as the real deal. "science" isn't some abstract thing, it's composed of people and their actions, and as i think every adult will recog…
I think that most of these types of guidelines and rules are written with good intent, but intent is what ruins good science. Science, as a method, works when you have a hypothesis, but when that hypothesis isn't supported by your findings you can't just discard the findings and go "well I'm still pretty sure I was right anyway." If you find something you disagree with to be true, that makes the science even more imp…
And it only got worse once i realized that this isnt some kind of horrible stupid accident but people do this to deal with an utterly horrible reality they cant cope with anymore. So they just gave up on reality and instead focused on a story they can tell themselves to feel good despite reality.
edit: Just to point it out, even if both of those very obvious fundamental problems would be addressed, what would be left would be "the ends justify the means". Its utterly horrific from which ever angle you look at it.
Quoted post unavailable.
I mentally flip a table every time I hear someone colloquially say "sex is a social construct" (they mean gender) or get hesitant about describing the sex of their gestating baby because they want to leave it ambiguous or on the flip side want to have a "gender reveal" party. People care about the sex of your baby, not their gender. And it's totally fair to study the effects of biological lineage on modern humans instead of treating all humans as the same biological profile or reducing the question to tribally relevant characteristics like skin color (race is a social construct, but biological lineage is not).
Consequently this is why the zeitgeist is so weird. Everything is about e.g. racial identity but race is a social construct that by definition you can't apply based on biological attributes (just like gender) so... ... ??? ...
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…
There is a difference here. One was to maintain the power of a theocracy while the other is to protect the lives of individuals. Is it the right course of action? I don’t know but the motivations are definitely not analogous.
Their logic is that abstract ideas, which have been subject to criticism by credentialed intellectuals, cannot be held above the material interests of any human being, and especially beings who must be made more equal because of historic oppression. In this view, logic itself is an artifact of that oppression, and it forms a literal substrate of abuse that deprives people of having the material symbolic things that others do. Appeals to logic or principle cannot be given standing, because these are the literal barriers that confined beings in the first place. To bring change and justice, they cannot accept their enemy's rules of being accountable to logic, truth, principle, or anything that prevents their absolute overthrow of these oppressive systems and places them at the helm.
My argument against this anonymous central committee decree here is that it is a statement of principle by people who reject principles as a matter of principle. Arguing the internal logic of their points directly is to fatally underestimate the malevolence of the people behind them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is worse than religion because it’s pretending to be rational. And many many people will be fooled. I hate to make the comparison because it's such a trope, but, IMO this is one of the most insidious things the Nazis did to indoctrinate the population: They did things like send people into schools and they would cherry-pick the weakest, least intelligent, least-liked Jewish kid they could find and set him along…
Good thing this practice has since ceased, and is entirely absent from movies and news reporting, where care is taken that even the most maligned groups are represented by, well, representative individuals, instead of cherry-picking the most unlikable members.