So scientists shouldn't be allowed to hold their own political opinions, or organizational leaders shouldn't be allowed to exercise some autonomy with regards to the culture they foster, or educated people shouldn't tend to favor the political tribe that focuses on constructive solutions, or what? What is your specific critique here?
Whatever it might be, it seems like we could have instituted a targeted reform for that specific problem rather than self-immolating our educational institutions and continuing to hand the reigns of world leadership to China.
It's a solution. No other solution has worked, or been proposed.
Remember Brendan Eich? He was excommunicated because of a personal political view, allegedly because "he lost trust of the community". So yeah, being right-wing is faux-pass in tech and academia, therefore the left has no argument against people being defunded / fired because of personal political opinions. But we're talking here (see my other post) is institutional far-left policy (DEI meaning explicit racism and sexism against white men). No wonder they have totally lost trust of the community (like half the US), to be seemingly beyond reform, up for restarting from scratch.
Brendan Eich did not simply give a commentary on his economic policy. Brendan Eich went so far as donating not insignificant amounts of money to make sure a significant portion of the population - of which many of his users and employees are a part of - do not have equal rights.
I am so beyond tired of this trope.
What, nobody ever faces consequences for hurting other people? We just have to tolerate intolerance forever with a smile?
I think this is the crux of your misunderstanding. I did not say the scientific institutions were self-immolating - I said you were self-immolating. You're not torching some independent other. You're burning the foundations on which the strength of our country lays.
It's also frightening how often I hear this same refrain of griping about instances of "the left" transgressing upon a certain value, as justification for discarding the entire value - did those values ever matter to you, or do they not? Because the way I see it, the entire point of values is something you stick to even when others trample on them, giving society at least a chance of converging around stability.
For example: I'm a libertarian. I did not like what happened to Eich and I certainly understand the oppressiveness of DEI run amok. I have spoken out about those, dissecting the nuances in those issues modulo my own values. But now that those issues are being used as anti-intellectual rallying cries to tear down our institutions rather than reform them? I'm done. I'll choose the tribe that believes we should at least try to have a society.
Have you tried researching the topic? Very quick search:
- Nobel laureate Carolyn Bertozzi expressed a desire for her lab to reflect social justice and actively works to foster a diverse and inclusive environment following events such as George Floyd's murder. (also runs a chem/bio/med lab at Stanford)
Every job requires a somewhat politically neutral attitude, at the very least on the job. And of course "neutral" will be judged as leftist by people on the right and rightist by people on the left. So look past that. And that includes not getting into political fights with the rest of the company and not being so politically "out there" that your company gets attacked on the street.
My employer requires that too, even if we've never explicitly discussed that.
I bet universities are easy targets and so require a very low risk political profile from their employees. That was definitely somewhat leftist-affiliated after George Floyd's murder, and frankly, given what happened, I don't see that as particularly unfair. I see myself as pretty rightist, and I am of the opinion that what happened to George Floyd was a serious fuckup against rightist ideology. Everyone deserves a chance. And when they fuck up, another chance. To me, that is rightist. And that means the police must avoid killing people when arresting them.
I don't understand today's political movements. What I appreciated about leftists was that 40 years ago they were going to bring technological advancement and freedom from religious lunacies and use that technological progress to give everyone an easy and fun life. Progress meant nuclear fusion, fixing diseases, ... "progress" DID NOT mean just letting people steal clothes, or, let's be honest, letting terrorists kill Jews and others in the name of getting muslim votes. That, to me, is NOT leftist, but obviously it is to a lot of today's leftist movements. Yes, antisemitism was a part of leftism 40 years ago, let's be honest, but it was definitely not the rage-bait sole-issue-with-us-or-we'll-kill-you focus of the left it appears to be today.
What I appreciated about rightists that almost absolute equality was the very core of rightist ideology. Color, nationality, religion, ... everyone gets a chance, no one gets a free ride. No guarantee of success, but the possibility is sacred, and if you do fuck it up, you get another chance. So, to me, George Floyd was a pretty fucking serious screwup against rightist ideology and so I think a lot of people supported that effort despite it being "leftist", in that most of the protests were organized by leftist organizations, and those protests did more damage than was acceptable.
But to me, George Floyd was very much NOT OKAY from a rightist perspective, and so justified a strong reaction against what happened.
Is it really so hard to see past the affiliation of the screamers on the street? Leftists have the same idiocy going. Not many leftists support even moderate islam, hell, not many muslims do, never mind terrorism, it's only "the party" that does. Today "if you're not with us you're against us" is so deeply ingrained in BOTH leftism and rightism and muslim organizations and maga and ... and I don't swing that way.
I see myself as pretty to the right, but if you're going to let the police kill black people by casually suffocating them during arrests, I am not with you. In fact, I prefer just letting people steal from shops to that. So if you force that particular issue, you've lost me. Find something else.
So scientists shouldn't be allowed to hold their own political opinions, or organizational leaders shouldn't be allowed to exercise some autonomy with regards to the culture they foster, or educated people shouldn't tend to favor the political tribe that focuses on constructive solutions, or what? What is your specific critique here?
Whatever it might be, it seems like we could have instituted a targeted reform for that specific problem rather than self-immolating our educational institutions and continuing to hand the reigns of world leadership to China.
They're not self-immolating.
They're being torched down.
It's a solution. No other solution has worked, or been proposed.
Remember Brendan Eich? He was excommunicated because of a personal political view, allegedly because "he lost trust of the community". So yeah, being right-wing is faux-pass in tech and academia, therefore the left has no argument against people being defunded / fired because of personal political opinions. But we're talking here (see my other post) is institutional far-left policy (DEI meaning explicit racism and sexism against white men). No wonder they have totally lost trust of the community (like half the US), to be seemingly beyond reform, up for restarting from scratch.
Brendan Eich did not simply give a commentary on his economic policy. Brendan Eich went so far as donating not insignificant amounts of money to make sure a significant portion of the population - of which many of his users and employees are a part of - do not have equal rights.
I am so beyond tired of this trope.
What, nobody ever faces consequences for hurting other people? We just have to tolerate intolerance forever with a smile?
3 replies →
> They're not self-immolating.
> They're being torched down.
I think this is the crux of your misunderstanding. I did not say the scientific institutions were self-immolating - I said you were self-immolating. You're not torching some independent other. You're burning the foundations on which the strength of our country lays.
It's also frightening how often I hear this same refrain of griping about instances of "the left" transgressing upon a certain value, as justification for discarding the entire value - did those values ever matter to you, or do they not? Because the way I see it, the entire point of values is something you stick to even when others trample on them, giving society at least a chance of converging around stability.
For example: I'm a libertarian. I did not like what happened to Eich and I certainly understand the oppressiveness of DEI run amok. I have spoken out about those, dissecting the nuances in those issues modulo my own values. But now that those issues are being used as anti-intellectual rallying cries to tear down our institutions rather than reform them? I'm done. I'll choose the tribe that believes we should at least try to have a society.
2 replies →
I find it extremely hard to believe that basic medicine and searching for cures or relieving aging is either leftist or rightist.
Have you tried researching the topic? Very quick search:
- Nobel laureate Carolyn Bertozzi expressed a desire for her lab to reflect social justice and actively works to foster a diverse and inclusive environment following events such as George Floyd's murder. (also runs a chem/bio/med lab at Stanford)
https://cen.acs.org/biological-chemistry/One-on-one-with-Car...
- Harvard Faculty of Arts and Science (which includes graduate biology) stops requiring diversity statements for faculty (i.e. they DID require them)
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/harvard-faculty-end-mand...
Every job requires a somewhat politically neutral attitude, at the very least on the job. And of course "neutral" will be judged as leftist by people on the right and rightist by people on the left. So look past that. And that includes not getting into political fights with the rest of the company and not being so politically "out there" that your company gets attacked on the street.
My employer requires that too, even if we've never explicitly discussed that.
I bet universities are easy targets and so require a very low risk political profile from their employees. That was definitely somewhat leftist-affiliated after George Floyd's murder, and frankly, given what happened, I don't see that as particularly unfair. I see myself as pretty rightist, and I am of the opinion that what happened to George Floyd was a serious fuckup against rightist ideology. Everyone deserves a chance. And when they fuck up, another chance. To me, that is rightist. And that means the police must avoid killing people when arresting them.
I don't understand today's political movements. What I appreciated about leftists was that 40 years ago they were going to bring technological advancement and freedom from religious lunacies and use that technological progress to give everyone an easy and fun life. Progress meant nuclear fusion, fixing diseases, ... "progress" DID NOT mean just letting people steal clothes, or, let's be honest, letting terrorists kill Jews and others in the name of getting muslim votes. That, to me, is NOT leftist, but obviously it is to a lot of today's leftist movements. Yes, antisemitism was a part of leftism 40 years ago, let's be honest, but it was definitely not the rage-bait sole-issue-with-us-or-we'll-kill-you focus of the left it appears to be today.
What I appreciated about rightists that almost absolute equality was the very core of rightist ideology. Color, nationality, religion, ... everyone gets a chance, no one gets a free ride. No guarantee of success, but the possibility is sacred, and if you do fuck it up, you get another chance. So, to me, George Floyd was a pretty fucking serious screwup against rightist ideology and so I think a lot of people supported that effort despite it being "leftist", in that most of the protests were organized by leftist organizations, and those protests did more damage than was acceptable.
But to me, George Floyd was very much NOT OKAY from a rightist perspective, and so justified a strong reaction against what happened.
Is it really so hard to see past the affiliation of the screamers on the street? Leftists have the same idiocy going. Not many leftists support even moderate islam, hell, not many muslims do, never mind terrorism, it's only "the party" that does. Today "if you're not with us you're against us" is so deeply ingrained in BOTH leftism and rightism and muslim organizations and maga and ... and I don't swing that way.
I see myself as pretty to the right, but if you're going to let the police kill black people by casually suffocating them during arrests, I am not with you. In fact, I prefer just letting people steal from shops to that. So if you force that particular issue, you've lost me. Find something else.