• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Clickbait "Bigotry by definition" an actual slide from the conference for science teachers

Weiji

Member
Jul 20, 2018
606
706
365
Not to put us off topic but I saw the below in her feed. Which posits that with luxury goods getting cheaper, the upper class has turned to luxury beliefs and verbiage. Which have minimal impact on the upper class, but massive negative impact on those who emulate them.

I think it makes a very interesting and compelling argument.

 

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
16,178
27,560
1,415
Australia
Not to put us off topic but I saw the below in her feed. Which posits that with luxury goods getting cheaper, the upper class has turned to luxury beliefs and verbiage. Which have minimal impact on the upper class, but massive negative impact on those who emulate them.

I think it makes a very interesting and compelling argument.

 

Razvedka

Member
Oct 20, 2018
117
124
225
Many like to fool themselves into believing that truth is self evident, and science is the domain of those who seek it. Naturally, then, scientists will be exposed to only correct conclusions based upon empirical evidence. Inarguable, clean, black and white. All neat straight lines.

That's the first category of people and does include some scientists. A sub-category of this group often, naively, believe that science points in a single, nearly divine, 'unifying, humanitarian' (or really whatever it is that they imagine) direction, as opposed to keeping a truly open mind about things. The conclusion is already drawn, and so they pursue it. Not from malevolence, merely idealism and innocence.

But this is not reality. As we have no entitlement to truth, it is left up to fallible human minds to interpret information they may or may not have accurately tabulated. We can only hope this corresponds to truth. This reality eludes most people, so they're willing to be spoon fed whatever the latest science person or study says without a whole lot of critical thought applied. Because people crave certainty.

Quite certainly, there are people, a second category, who understand all of this. They realize that science may not support their narrative, at least, perhaps, not currently. A subgroup understands the intrinsic risk of a process which tries to impartially ascertain truth (to an acceptable probability). So they seek to dominate and manipulate the field of science, subverting the process, to ensure the positive outcome they want. Many likely believe that they are right, just that so far the 'right facts' have yet to be found. Others are less scrupulous of course.

To me, this slide is Category 2 force feeding Category 1 types. Real power lies in the beliefs people hold about what is true, it's what shapes and moves our human world. Truth, which as mentioned is slippery and hard to come by, has no motive force in and of itself. It requires an agent to make it have real impact. Over time, beliefs which correspond more closely to truth will often (but not always) win out. These beliefs will often give some sort of edge over those who dissent. Sometimes though there is simply no truth to be found on a particular subject.

Regardless, Category 2 is a corrosive influence which is undermining the purpose of science. I can understand, even empathize, with the fear of dark knowledge. That sometimes one goes knocking on doors that are better left unopened- but we can't know which doors those are for certain before hand. We can only try and go back the way we came and try shutting it, until we're ready. But the sort of reality they envision is short sighted and incompatible with the human condition as it stands, it is destructive and sacrifices the group for the individual. No stable society can endure under them.
 
Last edited:

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
7,754
10,411
695
38
LOL @ “broken system”

Can these scientists invent us an “unbroken system” pls? If there are no “outcome differences” in this unbroken system then how could it ever practically exist? It is a conceptual and physical impossibility. Undifferentiated sameness is the goal? Huh?
 
Last edited:

Miku Miku

Gold Member
Jan 13, 2018
2,513
4,221
585
I can't imagine any actual sociologist writing a slide like that. And "broken system" is such a childlike way to even phrase it. Outcome differences can be measured for all kinds of things, like job market, wages, housing prices, commute time, tuition cost, marriage rates, daycare costs, health care availability, and on and on into infinity. The amount of variables are near infinite.

I'd like to see the context of what they're even talking about. Sounds stupid as fuck.
 
Last edited:

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
5,379
7,149
880
Many like to fool themselves into believing that truth is self evident, and science is the domain of those who seek it. Naturally, then, scientists will be exposed to only correct conclusions based upon empirical evidence. Inarguable, clean, black and white. All neat straight lines.

That's the first category of people and does include some scientists. A sub-category of this group often, naively, believe that science points in a single, nearly divine, 'unifying, humanitarian' (or really whatever it is that they imagine) direction, as opposed to keeping a truly open mind about things. The conclusion is already drawn, and so they pursue it. Not from malevolence, merely idealism and innocence.

But this is not reality. As we have no entitlement to truth, it is left up to fallible human minds to interpret information they may or may not have accurately tabulated. We can only hope this corresponds to truth. This reality eludes most people, so they're willing to be spoon fed whatever the latest science person or study says without a whole lot of critical thought applied. Because people crave certainty.

Quite certainly, there are people, a second category, who understand all of this. They realize that science may not support their narrative, at least, perhaps, not currently. They understand the intrinsic risk of a process which tries to impartially ascertain truth (to an acceptable probability). So they seek to dominate and manipulate the field of science, subverting the process, to ensure the positive outcome they want. Many likely believe that they are right, just that so far the 'right facts' have yet to be found. Others are less scrupulous of course.

To me, this slide is Category 2 force feeding Category 1 types. Real power lies in the beliefs people hold about what is true, it's what shapes and moves our human world. Truth, which as mentioned is slippery and hard to come by, has no motive force in and of itself. It requires an agent to make it have real impact. Over time, beliefs which correspond more closely to truth will often (but not always) win out. These beliefs will often give some sort of edge over those who dissent. Sometimes though there is simply no truth to be found on a particular subject.

Regardless, Category 2 is a corrosive influence which is undermining the purpose of science. I can understand, even empathize, with the fear of dark knowledge. That sometimes one goes knocking on doors that are better left unopened- but we can't know which doors those are for certain before hand. We can only try and go back the way we came and try shutting it, until we're ready. But the sort of reality they envision is short sighted and incompatible with the human condition as it stands, it is destructive and sacrifices the group for the individual. No stable society can endure under them.
One should never sacrifice the individual for the group though.

Dare I say it, but it is the groups responsibility to protect the idea of the individual. The group should sacrifice its own existence so that an individual can be free. Because we all are individuals, not groups.

Science is objective. The Truth is objective and self evident. Those who manipulate the truth for their ideals of what it should be are the group two that you speak of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KeeXE and Doc Honk

FMXVII

Banned
Aug 27, 2019
883
591
300
One should never sacrifice the individual for the group though.

Dare I say it, but it is the groups responsibility to protect the idea of the individual. The group should sacrifice its own existence so that an individual can be free. Because we all are individuals, not groups.

Science is objective. The Truth is objective and self evident. Those who manipulate the truth for their ideals of what it should be are the group two that you speak of.
Some truth is self-evident.

For everything else, there is science.

Neither is applicable in what THOSE asshats assert.
 

FMXVII

Banned
Aug 27, 2019
883
591
300
bigotry
/ˈbɪɡətri/
noun

  1. intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

[X] Doubt

Side note, why is it those that cry bigotry the most, are by definition of the word, the biggest bigots themselves?
It is a Zen Koan that transcends the bounds of actual category error is it not.
 
Last edited:

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
5,379
7,149
880
Some truth is self-evident.

For everything else, there is science.

Neither is applicable in what THOSE asshats assert.
I should clarify that the truth isn’t always directly perceivable. Naturally one cannot naturally observe an atom or a quark, but through technology one can observe their existence. If presented with directly observable evidence how can one deny they exist?

That is to say, data, not opinion is what should always have precedent.
 
Last edited:

Razvedka

Member
Oct 20, 2018
117
124
225
No truth is self evident, in my opinion. But there is utility in believing that it could be, I think.

One should never sacrifice the individual for the group though.

Dare I say it, but it is the groups responsibility to protect the idea of the individual. The group should sacrifice its own existence so that an individual can be free. Because we all are individuals, not groups.

Science is objective. The Truth is objective and self evident. Those who manipulate the truth for their ideals of what it should be are the group two that you speak of.
I think that I disagree, actually. Certainly there's a fine line between the individual and the group. We can see a spectrum existing on earth with this, where east asia occupies one extreme (collectivism) and the west another (individualism).

Many of you here, in post split-gaf, are conservative or 'right-leaning'. Typically, conservatism is defined as being more collectivist while progressivism is all about the veneration of the individual. Consider the actions of the Left in that lens, and things begin to make sense. They will stop at nothing to help each individual bee at the expense of the hive- and it is entirely well intentioned.

But it is short sighted.

For Americans, we occupy a weird spot if you're center-right. Because you hold tradition, religion, and institutions of order (for instance the military) as being incredibly important that one must honor. But we are steeped in the individualist streak which permeates the heart of all the west, so there's a bit of tension there. To varying degrees of c ourse this holds true for conservative movements across Europe, but the US we have the bill of rights and all that.

But our society cannot function if we place the individual above the whole, because fundamentally that's a what a society is: the whole working together in concert. Cooperating. Co-existing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the individual should in its entirety be sacrificed for the sake of the whole, I don't like alot of what I see coming out of east asia in that regard. Just my 2 cents on that, I'm not trying to throw all those countries under the bus, just saying that I don't want to go 'that far'.


As for 'data' vs 'opinion'. Data by itself conveys nothing; there is no meaning. It requires an interpreter, a mind, to determine just what the data, if properly created and represented, actually means. The universe requires an observer, and maybe that's why we exist who knows.

Here's an example: despite the absurdity of it all, there are people who honest to god believe that the earth is flat. If truth were self evident, there could not be people who earnestly believed that the earth is not in fact round.
 
Last edited:

Ixiah

Member
Feb 16, 2018
403
406
270
What if these Subgroups suddenly do better then the average, are they bigoted as well ?
 

FMXVII

Banned
Aug 27, 2019
883
591
300
No truth is self evident, in my opinion. But I can there is utility in believing that it could be, I think.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.

Also: The Excluded Middle.

Aristotle flat-out stated that if you couldn't understand that last one, then you were literally too stupid to teach.

Neither he, nor Locke, nor Jefferson were what one could call conservatives, much less regressive thinkers.
 

Razvedka

Member
Oct 20, 2018
117
124
225
I mean, what if their outcome differences suddenly disapears by hard Work ?
For one, I never called anyone a bigot. Just pointing this out.

Certainly, naive idealists can win out over realists, manipulators, and zealots and vice versa. Over time you would probably begin to see a pattern though, all things being equal. Sometimes it is, in fact, the zealots and their crusading which pushes us closer to the truth. But that doesn't mean science should be controlled or pushed by them.

F FMXVII

The declaration of independence, along with the constitution, was clever rhetoric, and I admire its verbiage very much. Are their statements and assertions truth? Possibly. Self evident? Absolutely not. They simply used that phrase, along with its employment of God, to make their position(s) unassailable and resolute. See also: God ordained monarchies.

That said, I don't disagree with what they set out to do and I rather like the foundational values of the US.

I'm also not sure which portion of my remarks you think the 'Excluded Middle' applies. If you mean the bit about "One should never sacrifice the individual for the group", then I have a bone to pick with your argument although perhaps I was unclear. I would argue the individual can, should be, and has been sacrificed for the group and this is done routinely. See: military service. But if we are speaking about an ideal, a concept, wherein the individual must always be sacrificed for the group then I disagree. But I can find fewer compelling arguments for sacrificing the whole for the individual, you wouldn't really have civilization. But conceptually, this can\has\should be done too. Like bodyguards protecting a VIP, whose death would cause untold suffering to many. But conceptually, taken as something along the lines of a 'rule'? No.

But implying that I am stupid isn't very cash money of you.
 
Last edited:

FMXVII

Banned
Aug 27, 2019
883
591
300
For one, I never called anyone a bigot. Just pointing this out.

Certainly, naive idealists can win out over realists, manipulators, and zealots and vice versa. Over time you would probably begin to see a pattern though, all things being equal. Sometimes it is, in fact, the zealots and their crusading which pushes us closer to the truth. But that doesn't mean science should be controlled or pushed by them.

F FMXVII

The declaration of independence, along with the constitution, was clever rhetoric, and I admire its verbiage very much. Are their statements and assertions truth? Possibly. Self evident? Absolutely not. They simply used that phrase, along with its employment of God, to make their position(s) unassailable and resolute. See also: God ordained monarchies.

That said, I don't disagree with what they set out to do and I rather like the foundational values of the US.

I'm also not sure which portion of my remarks you think the 'Excluded Middle' applies. If you mean the bit about "One should never sacrifice the individual for the group", then I have a bone to pick with your argument although perhaps I was unclear. I would argue the individual can, should be, and has been sacrificed for the group and this is done routinely. See: military service. But if we are speaking about an ideal, a concept, wherein the individual must always be sacrificed for the group then I disagree. But I can find fewer compelling arguments for sacrificing the whole for the individual, you wouldn't really have civilization. But conceptually, this can\has\should be done too. Like bodyguards protecting a VIP, whose death would cause untold suffering to many. But conceptually, taken as something along the lines of a 'rule'? No.

But implying that I am stupid isn't very cash money of you.
I did not imply you were stupid.

You inferred incorrectly.

The Excluded Middle is an example of a form of self-evident truth.

And the Founding Fathers never mentioned "God", but rather mankind's creator.
 

FMXVII

Banned
Aug 27, 2019
883
591
300
Heck - not even the Pledge of Allegiance, in all of its Nationalistic fervor, mentions "God", in its original, proper form.

As a child, I always thought it flowed badly, and that "One nation" and "Indivisible" ought to be one right after the other.

As an adult, I learned it was changed by Christian influences in politics.
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: Cybrwzrd

Razvedka

Member
Oct 20, 2018
117
124
225
?
"the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.."

They also reference a capitalized "Creator", and the very nature of how they used that word within the context of their era points to a supernatural being.

This is in the Declaration of Independence.

If you're referring strictly to the Constitution, then yes you're correct.

And thank you for clarifying your use of Excluded Middle. That being said, I'm not quite sure I think it applies to my point. We might be talking past each other here.
 
Last edited:

FMXVII

Banned
Aug 27, 2019
883
591
300
?
"the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.."

They also reference a capitalized "Creator", and the very nature of how they used that word within the context of their era points to a supernatural being.

This is in the Declaration of Independence.

If you're referring strictly to the Constitution, then yes you're correct.
Nature's God.

This is a precisely distinct concept from "God", as it is understood in religion.

Nature's God is literally science.
 

FMXVII

Banned
Aug 27, 2019
883
591
300
As is mankind's Creator.

Physics, in the parlance of today's understanding, to be more precise.
 

Razvedka

Member
Oct 20, 2018
117
124
225
Nature's God.

This is a precisely distinct concept from "God", as it is understood in religion.

Nature's God is literally science.
I strongly disagree with this interpretation based upon everything I've read. Although I can see why you might assert the bits about science. Certainly, the scientific vein is there in that statement (nature's laws) but I disagree with your conclusion that the Divine/supernatural is unreferenced in the Declaration. Certainly this phrase has been discussed countless times for years, and basically every interpretation I've ever read asserts that this document does reference the Divine, using it as a justification for revolution. Even if it's only in a deist context given Jefferson.

Newton and science were certainly channeled. But so was the supernatural. All part of the plan with that document.

But I digress, we've gotten very off topic.

 
Last edited:

FMXVII

Banned
Aug 27, 2019
883
591
300
I strongly disagree with this interpretation based upon everything I've read. Although I can see why you might assert the bits about science. Certainly, the scientific vein is there in that statement (nature's laws) but I disagree with your conclusion that the Divine/supernatural is unreferenced in the Declaration. Certainly this phrase has been discussed countless times for years, and basically every interpretation I've ever read asserts that this document does reference the Divine, using it as a justification for revolution. Even if it's only in a deist context given Jefferson.

Newton and science were certainly channeled. But so was the supernatural. All part of the plan with that document.

But I digress, we've gotten very off topic.

Oh, they were Deists, absolutely, for want of a better explanation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Razvedka

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
5,379
7,149
880
Many of you here, in post split-gaf, are conservative or 'right-leaning'. Typically, conservatism is defined as being more collectivist while progressivism is all about the veneration of the individual. Consider the actions of the Left in that lens, and things begin to make sense. They will stop at nothing to help each individual bee at the expense of the hive- and it is entirely well intentioned.
What? Progressivism is all about the group, not the individual. Neither are conservatives, mind you. Progressive politics put the group identity far above the individual. Being X is more important than being an individual.

Conservatives also place value to the group, though it is different. It also depends on the type of conservative. The Alt-Right is far more individualistic than the Religious right, for example.

Identitarian "conservatism" isn't conservatism. It is reactionary and regressive, and not much different than progressivism. Conservatism by definition is purely believing the current system is OK and doesn't require change. Wanting to go back to a prior system is regressive.

As for 'data' vs 'opinion'. Data by itself conveys nothing; there is no meaning. It requires an interpreter, a mind, to determine just what the data, if properly created and represented, actually means. The universe requires an observer, and maybe that's why we exist who knows.
What does 1+1 represent to you. Does it ever equal 3? It cannot, without "interpretation".

Mind you, I am in another thread advocating for Keynesian economic policies, and that billionaires are a bug in the capitalist system, I consider myself quite left leaning when it comes to real policy. I just don't believe in social justice or other collectivistic systems to put one group on top of another.
 
Last edited:

Liberty4all

Member
Nov 11, 2007
9,524
802
1,350
Not to put us off topic but I saw the below in her feed. Which posits that with luxury goods getting cheaper, the upper class has turned to luxury beliefs and verbiage. Which have minimal impact on the upper class, but massive negative impact on those who emulate them.

I think it makes a very interesting and compelling argument.

Really interesting article alot I agree with.

However in America we have two competing ideologies. I do think the synopsis of the article applies to both.
 

Razvedka

Member
Oct 20, 2018
117
124
225
What? Progressivism is all about the group, not the individual. Neither are conservatives, mind you. Progressive politics put the group identity far above the individual. Being X is more important than being an individual.
I, like you, thought this too for a very long time. It was the works of Haidt and his Moral Foundations Theory that really turned me around. I suggest reading his literature, he can make the point far more compellingly and saliently than I can.

"Members of traditional, collectivist societies, like political conservatives, are more sensitive to violations of the community-related moral foundations. Adult members of so-called WEIRD (western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) societies are the most individualistic, and most likely to draw a distinction between harm-inflicting violations of morality and violations of convention."


See: "Tolerance", "Identity Politics", (occasional) disillusionment with police/military, etc

He didn't come up with any of this by the way. It was just that through his works I was exposed to the wider assertion made by (many) other that progressivism === individualism, and conservatism === collectivism.

What does 1+1 represent to you. Does it ever equal 3? It cannot, without "interpretation".
I understand what you're saying with this, but my counter point would (whimsically) be that it took principia mathematica hundreds of pages to 'prove' 1+1=2. This does not scream 'self evident', even if it is absolutely true. As it is, my argument revolves largely around human interactions and beliefs. Why people do the things that they do.

I'm happy to actually be putting some of it to paper as it were. Getting my thoughts critiqued in a public forum is definitely helpful for their refinement.
 
Last edited:

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
5,379
7,149
880
I, like you, thought this too for a very long time. It was the works of Haidt and his Moral Foundations Theory that really turned me around. I suggest reading his literature, he can make the point far more compellingly and saliently than I can.

"Members of traditional, collectivist societies, like political conservatives, are more sensitive to violations of the community-related moral foundations. Adult members of so-called WEIRD (western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) societies are the most individualistic, and most likely to draw a distinction between harm-inflicting violations of morality and violations of convention."


See: "Tolerance", "Identity Politics", (occasional) disillusionment with police/military, etc

He didn't come up with any of this by the way. It was just that through his works I was exposed to the wider assertion made by (many) other that progressivism === individualism, and conservatism === collectivism.



I understand what you're saying with this, but my counter point would (whimsically) be that it took principia mathematica hundreds of pages to 'prove' 1+1=2. This does not scream 'self evident', even if it is absolutely true. As it is, my argument revolves largely around human interactions and beliefs. Why people do the things that they do.

I'm happy to actually be putting some of it to paper as it were. Getting my thoughts critiqued in a public forum is definitely helpful for their refinement.
It's 2AM here, and I've been partaking of delicious distilled beverages for a few hours now, so my normal shitposting would be par for course but I actually desire to debate this in its entirety, Mind you, you are misinterpreting Haidt here. The average American "conservative" is a populist liberal. I'll go into greater detail tomorrow when I'm more sober than I am now. I will say the average leftist is far from liberal.
 

Razvedka

Member
Oct 20, 2018
117
124
225
I'm not sure that I am. His Magnum opus on the subject was written with American politics in mind (He's an American) and examples he uses, and studies he quotes, are American. The purpose of his book was to addrese deepening hostilities between Americans and he does this by analyzing politics, religion, sociology and psychology and explaining how people think.. And then explaining how liberals, conservatives, and libertarians think. What their moral matrices are as described in MFT (which has been used in various countries not just the US).

His conclusions are not unique to Americans by any means, but it was the focus of the book. So that's the context.

I agree that "Conservative" and "Liberal" is something of a floating definition depending on which country you're talking about. Your point is well made. But Haidt contends, and I broadly agree, that political conservativism, even as seen in the US, has collectivist roots. Liberals have individualist roots.


It's also quite late here and I think I've confused progressive with liberal. So no worries.. I can't even blame drinking.
 
Last edited:

Ryujin

Member
Dec 28, 2006
1,157
257
1,120
As fascinating as this derail is, I honestly think it deserves its own thread at this point. Not even 2 pages in and we have already derailed from the topic at hand.

Often times this seems to be a tactic anchored in obfuscation to distract from obvious failings in an ideological narrative. In other words purposeful derails when uncomfortable discussion, facts or truth that are damaging to the faith are brought up.

In this particular case I don't believe that this is Razvedka Razvedka 's intention at all, I believe he just brought up a really interesting topic that deserves a thorough discussion in its own right to really get into the meat of it.

However the reason I bring up the obfuscation/distraction/derail tactic is that we see this pattern happen again and again with ideologues that wish to slide inconvenient pieces off the board while distracting onlookers. It can get pretty tiresome in general, although once again just to clarify I don't believe Razvedka Razvedka is an ideologue nor do I believe he is participating in this tactic.

I would just prefer if we didn't get derailed from the topic at hand so rapidly that less than half way through the first page of the thread and nobody is even discussing the topic anymore. And I don't mean that specifically for this thread, more just in a general sense that it is something I would like to see less of.

Anyway, I guess I am oddly enough also derailing but in a different direction so I'll leave it at that.
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,641
3,567
520
Moore Park Beach
Many of you here, in post split-gaf, are conservative or 'right-leaning'.
That is incorrect.
We have people from all parts of the spectrum here. Including actual communists.

The majority of people here are centrists or centre left.

You may be so far far crazy left you think moderate leftists are right-wingers or alt-right.
Sorry but that is deranged.
 

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
1,615
4,696
570
Facts are racist, bigot.

If a group of people are doing bad things it’s always someone else’s fault. Nobody can be generalized to be evil except cis heterosexual white men, who are scum of the earth.

🤡🌎
 

Razvedka

Member
Oct 20, 2018
117
124
225
As fascinating as this derail is, I honestly think it deserves its own thread at this point. Not even 2 pages in and we have already derailed from the topic at hand.

Often times this seems to be a tactic anchored in obfuscation to distract from obvious failings in an ideological narrative. In other words purposeful derails when uncomfortable discussion, facts or truth that are damaging to the faith are brought up.

In this particular case I don't believe that this is Razvedka Razvedka 's intention at all, I believe he just brought up a really interesting topic that deserves a thorough discussion in its own right to really get into the meat of it.

However the reason I bring up the obfuscation/distraction/derail tactic is that we see this pattern happen again and again with ideologues that wish to slide inconvenient pieces off the board while distracting onlookers. It can get pretty tiresome in general, although once again just to clarify I don't believe Razvedka Razvedka is an ideologue nor do I believe he is participating in this tactic.

I would just prefer if we didn't get derailed from the topic at hand so rapidly that less than half way through the first page of the thread and nobody is even discussing the topic anymore. And I don't mean that specifically for this thread, more just in a general sense that it is something I would like to see less of.

Anyway, I guess I am oddly enough also derailing but in a different direction so I'll leave it at that.
It wasn't my intention and I'll just stop. Between this post and others here, I think making my remarks about science were probably unwise. All that happened was miscommunication, disagreement, and getting called a leftist. Again. As well as deranged. Both of which are completely bizarre to me.

The tldr; would be: the people leading this conference are either zealots who cannot conceive of being wrong, or savvy manipulators trying to steer science to the conclusions they want before it has the chance to undermine the crazy things they espouse.

If a mod wills it I'll just purge my posts. I did not intend to derail anything.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ryujin

Ryujin

Member
Dec 28, 2006
1,157
257
1,120
It wasn't my intention and I'll just stop. Between this post and others here, I think making my remarks about science were probably unwise. All that happened was miscommunication, disagreement, and getting called a leftist. Again. Which is completely bizarre to me.

The tldr; would be: the people leading this conference are either zealots who cannot conceive of being wrong, or savvy manipulators trying to steer science to the conclusions they want before it has the chance to undermine the crazy things they espouse.

If a mod wills it I'll just purge my posts. I did not intend to derail anything.
Apologies if it seemed like I was attacking you, I just wanted to clarify that I'm not calling you a zealot, leftist, ideologue or any other moniker or insult.

I actually think the topic you brought up is quite interesting and I appreciate you bringing back discussion to the topic at hand and sharing your thoughts on that.

I don't think remarking about science is a bad thing at all and could certainly lead to an interesting discussion. I don't personally think your posts should be purged from the thread at all.

Apologies, my comments were more to do with my frustration with thread derails that normally come from the ideologically possessed to protect their ideology. I was probably a little scatter shot with my approach as I was speaking pretty broadly/generally about the trend and I'm sorry if I caught you in the crossfire. I don't believe you are ideologically possessed and I would generally appreciate your input in threads and your contributions to discussion.

I think in this case it was simply a "natural" derail rather than something underhanded, malicious or otherwise ill intentioned. I do think was a pretty epic derail none the less and quite early in the thread so that is probably where my frustration came from.

The topics you bring up and your point of view are certainly valuable and I think would produce a great discussion, just maybe that the discussion should live in a thread dedicated to its purpose where posters can really get into the meat of that discussion.

Apologies if I came off as hostile in any way, as far as I'm concerned you are good people. :)
 
Last edited:

TheGreatYosh

Member
Jul 19, 2018
1,917
1,691
545
At least they're following the egalitarian narrative all the way through. If we are all the same, then all outcome differences have to be attributed to a racist system.
 

Razvedka

Member
Oct 20, 2018
117
124
225
OUR RESPONSIBILITY WITH DATA

If you conclude that the movements of heavenly bodies are a result of anything other than geocentrism that is, by definition, heresy*

*anathema, excommunication, burning at the stake
Man does so enjoy his cathedrals. His certainty.

I wonder if there will be a rebellion by scientists at some point, an actual concentrated pushback against what's going on. Or if the frog is being boiled slow enough to prevent it.