Comment by galfarragem
9 days ago
Contrarian view: One "false-positive" example that a simplistic and sloppy "ctrl+F" caught is being highlighted to unfairly criticize a political proposal (in this particular case, dismissing DEI extremisms). This is old as the world.
Of course, the whole anti-DEI movement is based on finding one extreme example and then using it to delete entire government departments and fields of study.
In the end we just discord in one function: what to do in case of doubt? Cut or keep. Recent examples (Milei, Bukele) seem to favor the "cut" option.
So this is ok then? Sounds like you approve of the anti-DEI approach.
How could it be classified as "unfair criticism" if the political proposal has made a very specific mistake in this instance? Should we not criticise a mistake simply because they are to be considered infallible or should we point it out so that they can learn and correct it? (Assuming that they are acting in good faith)
Free speech and criticizing mistakes is great but there's already comments comparing Trump's US to Weimar's Germany..
It's a very concerning and valid comparison.
I holidayed in Munich a couple of years ago and the Holocaust museum has a very instructive section that details a lot of specifics around Hitler's rise to power. I'm certainly seeing the same pattern beginning to happen in the U.S. with the "othering" of certain people and the clamping down on certain opinions/political leanings.
Are you suggesting that it's not a valid comparison, or that it's not safe to speak out against the administration?
What is an appropriate false positive rate for canceling already approved research funding based on political motivations on a mass scale?
What do you think it is?
I'm sure this particular example will be gladly rolled-back. This "aggressive" stategy is working wonders in several quadrants. I recall Milei and Bukele.