4 ms·

>Personally I think these movements are the natural result of pivoting our epistemological institutions from truth-seeking to progressive political advocacy. W

by slg 6y ago

>Personally I think these movements are the natural result of pivoting our epistemological institutions from truth-seeking to progressive political advocacy. What institutions are you claiming have shifted from "truth-seeking to progressive political advocacy"? It seems to me that the reason these institutions appear more progressive is that American conservatism is becoming less and less in touch with the truth. There are countless examples, but the two most obvious ones are climate change and the politicization of basic COVID precautions like mask wearing. When you stake out the claim that acknowledging climate change is a progressive viewpoint, the National Weather Service is going to start looking progressive when it reports facts. >when the right asks, “how do we know that racism and not crime rates belies police shooting disparities?” The problem is that when these questions are answered "the right" just dismisses the answers as biased. There is little to no way to satisfactorily answer that question in a way that will change people's minds if they already believe that police are justifiably harsher against Black people because Black people commit more crime.

scarmig 6y ago
> What institutions are you claiming have shifted from "truth-seeking to progressive political advocacy"? ...the politicization of basic COVID precautions like mask wearing The most glaring example of this was public health authorities pushing for shut downs of pretty much all public spaces (including of red-coded protests), but then turning around and giving the greenlight to BLM protests as critical to public health. Another example is the imbroglio about vaccine prioritization, though that's more about values (is it worth saving more lives if the saved lives are disproportionately white?) than it is about factual claims.
- slg 6y ago
  >The most glaring example of this was public health authorities pushing for hard shut downs of pretty much all public spaces, but then turning around and giving the greenlight to densely packed BLM protests as critical to public health. The BLM protests weren't the first protests since the pandemic started. There were anti-lockdown protests going on before that which were just as if not even more "greenlit" than the BLM protests. I will also note that the BLM protesters were much more likely to follow basic precautions like mask wearing and only holding events outside when compared with the lockdown protesters. In the end multiple organizations reported that there were no noticeable COVID spikes related to the BLM protests. >Another example is the imbroglio about vaccine prioritization, though that's more about values (is it worth saving more lives if the saved lives are disproportionately white?) than it is about factual claims. I don't know what you are talking about here. Care to share a link to a mainstream institution arguing that we should prioritize diversity in vaccine recipients over saving lives?
  - scarmig 6y ago
    > There were anti-lockdown protests going on before that which were just as if not even more "greenlit" than the BLM protests No. Public health authorities did not greenlight anti-lockdown protests, as they rightly shouldn't have. > In the end multiple organizations reported that there were no noticeable COVID spikes related to the BLM protests. Even if this were the case (I'm skeptical, so I'd be curious to see cites of actual papers), that indicates a failure on the part of public health authorities: they should have been greenlighting the anti-lockdown protests as consistent with public health, so long as participants masked appropriately. > Care to share a link to a mainstream institution arguing that we should prioritize diversity in vaccine recipients over saving lives? See e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-first.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-firs... (non-paywall https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/the-elderly-vs-essential-workers-who-should-get-the-coronavirus-vaccine-first-7093624/ https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/the-elderly-vs-e...). To jump to the bit in question, ctrl-f "Ultimately, the choice comes down to whether preventing death"
    - slg 6y ago
      >No. Public health authorities did not "greenlight" anti-lockdown protests, as they rightly shouldn't have. At this point, I'm not sure what you even mean about public health official greenlighting protests. Both protests were allowed to happen. Both had parts of protests that were preplanned and parts that weren't. Are you just talking about the comments Fauci made in an unofficial capacity? >Even if this were the case (I'd be curious to see cites of actual papers), that indicates a failure on the part of public health authorities: they should have been greenlighting the anti-lockdown protests as consistent with public health, so long participants masked appropriately. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27408/w27408.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27408/w274... >See e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-firs https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-firs... (non-paywall https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/the-elderly-vs-e https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/the-elderly-vs-e...). To jump to the bit in question, ctrl-f "Ultimately, the choice comes down to whether preventing death" That appears to be an argument about saving lives versus returning to normal. They aren't arguing that the vaccine should be given to people from diverse backgrounds just because. They are arguing that essential workers getting vaccinated is more important than getting the elderly vaccinated. They are simply noting the essential workers have a "high proportion of minority, low-income and low-education workers" which means they often aren't valued politically as much as other groups. Either way, they were only talking about recommendations that have no real power in deciding what happens with prioritization.
throwaway894345 6y ago
> What institutions are you claiming have shifted from "truth-seeking to progressive political advocacy"? It seems to me that the reason these institutions appear more progressive is that American conservatism is becoming less and less in touch with the truth. I think it's a feedback loop at this point, but as for "which institutions", the media and the academy are pretty prominent institutions that have largely come to describe themselves as activist institutions, including making arguments like "objectivity props up the status quo". Obviously these aren't monolithic institutions, and you still have a lot of variety within (especially the academy) with respect to the degree to which they've become progressive orthodoxies. > The problem is that when these questions are answered "the right" just dismisses the answers as biased. Again, I posit that's because the media and the social sciences have a track record of progressive bias. If they made a concerted effort over time to demonstrate good faith and a commitment to the truth wherever it leads (as opposed to outright identifying themselves as activists, although their honesty is worth something), I think far fewer on the right would reject a given claim as 'biased'. Even if I'm wrong, it must be something. There are a lot of people arguing that it's hopeless to interact with the right because they're fundamentally worse people or something, but clearly we haven't always had such a large contingent of "the right" who have completely divorced themselves from mainstream epistemology, so something is driving this change, and there's no reason to believe we can't stall or even reverse the phenomenon.
- slg 6y ago
  I don't know how to counter this argument because it just reverts back to the original question that djtriptych asked for which I don't have an answer. Open discussion failed. Many conservatives distanced themselves from the truth. That inherently leaves any truth seeking institution with a progressive bias because reality has a progressive bias. I agree that can turn into a feedback loop like you suggest, but what is the way out of that for these institutions? Is the National Weather Service supposed to distance itself from reality and introduce conservative bias into its coverage in order for conservatives to trust it more? I'm also not sure what specifically you are referring to with the "objectivity props up the status quo" line. Do you have examples of institutions using that as an example to lie? Do you have an example of when an organization was able to "demonstrate good faith and a commitment to the truth wherever it leads" that was truly about to change falsely held beliefs of people on the right?

by slg 6y ago

scarmig 6y ago

> What institutions are you claiming have shifted from "truth-seeking to progressive political advocacy"? ...the politicization of basic COVID precautions like mask wearing The most glaring example of this was public health authorities pushing for shut downs of pretty much all public spaces (including of red-coded protests), but then turning around and giving the greenlight to BLM protests as critical to public health. Another example is the imbroglio about vaccine prioritization, though that's more about values (is it worth saving more lives if the saved lives are disproportionately white?) than it is about factual claims.

slg 6y ago
>The most glaring example of this was public health authorities pushing for hard shut downs of pretty much all public spaces, but then turning around and giving the greenlight to densely packed BLM protests as critical to public health. The BLM protests weren't the first protests since the pandemic started. There were anti-lockdown protests going on before that which were just as if not even more "greenlit" than the BLM protests. I will also note that the BLM protesters were much more likely to follow basic precautions like mask wearing and only holding events outside when compared with the lockdown protesters. In the end multiple organizations reported that there were no noticeable COVID spikes related to the BLM protests. >Another example is the imbroglio about vaccine prioritization, though that's more about values (is it worth saving more lives if the saved lives are disproportionately white?) than it is about factual claims. I don't know what you are talking about here. Care to share a link to a mainstream institution arguing that we should prioritize diversity in vaccine recipients over saving lives?
- scarmig 6y ago
  > There were anti-lockdown protests going on before that which were just as if not even more "greenlit" than the BLM protests No. Public health authorities did not greenlight anti-lockdown protests, as they rightly shouldn't have. > In the end multiple organizations reported that there were no noticeable COVID spikes related to the BLM protests. Even if this were the case (I'm skeptical, so I'd be curious to see cites of actual papers), that indicates a failure on the part of public health authorities: they should have been greenlighting the anti-lockdown protests as consistent with public health, so long as participants masked appropriately. > Care to share a link to a mainstream institution arguing that we should prioritize diversity in vaccine recipients over saving lives? See e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-first.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-firs... (non-paywall https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/the-elderly-vs-essential-workers-who-should-get-the-coronavirus-vaccine-first-7093624/ https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/the-elderly-vs-e...). To jump to the bit in question, ctrl-f "Ultimately, the choice comes down to whether preventing death"
  - slg 6y ago
    >No. Public health authorities did not "greenlight" anti-lockdown protests, as they rightly shouldn't have. At this point, I'm not sure what you even mean about public health official greenlighting protests. Both protests were allowed to happen. Both had parts of protests that were preplanned and parts that weren't. Are you just talking about the comments Fauci made in an unofficial capacity? >Even if this were the case (I'd be curious to see cites of actual papers), that indicates a failure on the part of public health authorities: they should have been greenlighting the anti-lockdown protests as consistent with public health, so long participants masked appropriately. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27408/w27408.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27408/w274... >See e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-firs https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-firs... (non-paywall https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/the-elderly-vs-e https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/the-elderly-vs-e...). To jump to the bit in question, ctrl-f "Ultimately, the choice comes down to whether preventing death" That appears to be an argument about saving lives versus returning to normal. They aren't arguing that the vaccine should be given to people from diverse backgrounds just because. They are arguing that essential workers getting vaccinated is more important than getting the elderly vaccinated. They are simply noting the essential workers have a "high proportion of minority, low-income and low-education workers" which means they often aren't valued politically as much as other groups. Either way, they were only talking about recommendations that have no real power in deciding what happens with prioritization.

throwaway894345 6y ago

> What institutions are you claiming have shifted from "truth-seeking to progressive political advocacy"? It seems to me that the reason these institutions appear more progressive is that American conservatism is becoming less and less in touch with the truth. I think it's a feedback loop at this point, but as for "which institutions", the media and the academy are pretty prominent institutions that have largely come to describe themselves as activist institutions, including making arguments like "objectivity props up the status quo". Obviously these aren't monolithic institutions, and you still have a lot of variety within (especially the academy) with respect to the degree to which they've become progressive orthodoxies. > The problem is that when these questions are answered "the right" just dismisses the answers as biased. Again, I posit that's because the media and the social sciences have a track record of progressive bias. If they made a concerted effort over time to demonstrate good faith and a commitment to the truth wherever it leads (as opposed to outright identifying themselves as activists, although their honesty is worth something), I think far fewer on the right would reject a given claim as 'biased'. Even if I'm wrong, it must be something. There are a lot of people arguing that it's hopeless to interact with the right because they're fundamentally worse people or something, but clearly we haven't always had such a large contingent of "the right" who have completely divorced themselves from mainstream epistemology, so something is driving this change, and there's no reason to believe we can't stall or even reverse the phenomenon.

slg 6y ago
I don't know how to counter this argument because it just reverts back to the original question that djtriptych asked for which I don't have an answer. Open discussion failed. Many conservatives distanced themselves from the truth. That inherently leaves any truth seeking institution with a progressive bias because reality has a progressive bias. I agree that can turn into a feedback loop like you suggest, but what is the way out of that for these institutions? Is the National Weather Service supposed to distance itself from reality and introduce conservative bias into its coverage in order for conservatives to trust it more? I'm also not sure what specifically you are referring to with the "objectivity props up the status quo" line. Do you have examples of institutions using that as an example to lie? Do you have an example of when an organization was able to "demonstrate good faith and a commitment to the truth wherever it leads" that was truly about to change falsely held beliefs of people on the right?