4 ms·

Scott Atlas is a clear case of someone who is either genuinely unwell, or has let his 15 minutes of fame go to his head. Tweeting oblique threats of violence at

Scott Atlas is a clear case of someone who is either genuinely unwell, or has let his 15 minutes of fame go to his head. Tweeting oblique threats of violence at the governor is definitely not something a sane or trustworthy person does. Perhaps the opprobrium of those closest to him will make him stop and rethink his life choices.

kaczordon 6y ago
It boggles my mind how anyone could condone personally attacking Scott Atlas instead of his arguments, the resolution just makes vague statement about how his views “don’t align with science” without specifically mentioning what they disagree with or what’s he’s said. How convenient...reeks of political wokeness. Also there are plenty of other scientists who hold views similar to his from Stanford and Harvard as well just look up the Great Barrington declaration.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  As always, respond to what I actually said and not what you wish I'd said. It's always really annoying to have to tell people that they're making up my entire point. Secondly, how is condemning Scott Atlas for his calls for an insurrection against the elected governor of Michigan a "personal attack" against him? I'll remind you that the governor of Michigan was already the target of a plan to kidnap her and execute her on television; having someone in the White House calling for an uprising against her is no small thing. And if "don't call for uprisings" is your definition of "political wokeness", then I think that you've watered down the idea of "woke" to the point of uselessness.
- tfehring 6y ago
  It would be awfully charitable to categorize Atlas's call for people in Michigan to "rise up" as an argument. Among other reasons, a call for insurrection isn't falsifiable. As for his actual arguments (see [0] for reference) they're a good reminder that there's no virtue in contrarianism in and of itself. I think it's pretty obvious at this point that advocating for reduced mask usage at the margin will impact mask usage in "public settings" in "areas with known or suspected widespread transmission" - a situation in which the WHO report Atlas cites [1] unambiguously recommends that the general public wear masks. But of course, I'm sure Atlas's decision to sum up that nuanced balance of evidence as "Masks work? NO" were rational and non-partisan. [0] https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/18/white-house-expert-scott-atlas-censored-by-twitter/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/18/white-house-expert-scot... [1] https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/332293/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng.pdf https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/332293/WHO-...
redis_mlc 6y ago
I read the article, and one could argue the opposite. - Stanford suggests values are important, but supports the CCP by admitting their wealthy Chinese students - saying "rise up" to protect your rights is bad, while not speaking out about the burning of American city downtowns - anything position said about masks or "science" was also supported by the CDC at some point in time. You get my point.
paganel 6y ago
Never heard of this person until now (I'm not from the States) but when those that hold the monopoly on violence (in this case the Governor) force you to do things against your will without any due process then violence is indeed one of the avenues of stopping all that.
- yokaze 6y ago
  How is there not due process? You can go in front of court.
  - paganel 6y ago
    Presumably the powers that be should have gone to court/prosecutor/district attorney/constitutional court before restricting those liberties for hundreds of thousands/millions of people, and I'm not even sure if a "simple" court/prosecutor would even have enough authority for that. Imo it's a 50-50 choice between what the Constitutional Court says (I think in the US that would fall on the Supreme Court) and what the public opinion says/believes. Going out in the street to protest against such measures falls under "what the public opinion says/believes".

kaczordon 6y ago

It boggles my mind how anyone could condone personally attacking Scott Atlas instead of his arguments, the resolution just makes vague statement about how his views “don’t align with science” without specifically mentioning what they disagree with or what’s he’s said. How convenient...reeks of political wokeness. Also there are plenty of other scientists who hold views similar to his from Stanford and Harvard as well just look up the Great Barrington declaration.

ashtonkem 6y ago
As always, respond to what I actually said and not what you wish I'd said. It's always really annoying to have to tell people that they're making up my entire point. Secondly, how is condemning Scott Atlas for his calls for an insurrection against the elected governor of Michigan a "personal attack" against him? I'll remind you that the governor of Michigan was already the target of a plan to kidnap her and execute her on television; having someone in the White House calling for an uprising against her is no small thing. And if "don't call for uprisings" is your definition of "political wokeness", then I think that you've watered down the idea of "woke" to the point of uselessness.
tfehring 6y ago
It would be awfully charitable to categorize Atlas's call for people in Michigan to "rise up" as an argument. Among other reasons, a call for insurrection isn't falsifiable. As for his actual arguments (see [0] for reference) they're a good reminder that there's no virtue in contrarianism in and of itself. I think it's pretty obvious at this point that advocating for reduced mask usage at the margin will impact mask usage in "public settings" in "areas with known or suspected widespread transmission" - a situation in which the WHO report Atlas cites [1] unambiguously recommends that the general public wear masks. But of course, I'm sure Atlas's decision to sum up that nuanced balance of evidence as "Masks work? NO" were rational and non-partisan. [0] https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/18/white-house-expert-scott-atlas-censored-by-twitter/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/18/white-house-expert-scot... [1] https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/332293/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng.pdf https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/332293/WHO-...

redis_mlc 6y ago

I read the article, and one could argue the opposite. - Stanford suggests values are important, but supports the CCP by admitting their wealthy Chinese students - saying "rise up" to protect your rights is bad, while not speaking out about the burning of American city downtowns - anything position said about masks or "science" was also supported by the CDC at some point in time. You get my point.

paganel 6y ago

Never heard of this person until now (I'm not from the States) but when those that hold the monopoly on violence (in this case the Governor) force you to do things against your will without any due process then violence is indeed one of the avenues of stopping all that.

yokaze 6y ago
How is there not due process? You can go in front of court.
- paganel 6y ago
  Presumably the powers that be should have gone to court/prosecutor/district attorney/constitutional court before restricting those liberties for hundreds of thousands/millions of people, and I'm not even sure if a "simple" court/prosecutor would even have enough authority for that. Imo it's a 50-50 choice between what the Constitutional Court says (I think in the US that would fall on the Supreme Court) and what the public opinion says/believes. Going out in the street to protest against such measures falls under "what the public opinion says/believes".