← Back to context

Comment by Supermancho

10 hours ago

> I am stating the politicians are the customers of the government-employed scientists

You can restate the ideology over and over. It doesn't change reality. There are many parties involved. I have agency as well. It's all very pedestrian to be reductive, but it's not compelling.

>You can state the ideology over and over.

This is rich considering it's the first time I stated it in this particular sub thread as the person I responded to was both too chickenshit to quote what I said or respond directly where I said it because it would betray that their portrayal was bad faith and full of shit.

The "reality" check, in fact, is coming for the scientists who are still suspending belief that they too were not better than the plebs who could be shit-canned in a millisecond by the whims of the "parties" involved (but muh reductive portroyal! Also science is in chaos!) and have to go on a "pedestrian" and "reductive" mission to use their "agency" to find a new "party."

Time to face the music, "scientists."

  • More noise. Lovely. Do you think how often you say something has any bearing on a base assumption from which all your conclusions are drawn, is not an ideology? Oh boy.

    • Of course not, go "make noise" about science being in "chaos", say it a lot. The "scientists" seem to have no problem saying the shock of their plight over and over with the hope it will change the "base assumptions" of the "ideologies" influencing their employment. But as you say, it doesn't change reality.

      2 replies →