4 ms·

That’s absolutely the argument... What other argument was there? You didn’t actually point it out, unless your minor rephrasing of one sentence of what I wrote

That’s absolutely the argument... What other argument was there? You didn’t actually point it out, unless your minor rephrasing of one sentence of what I wrote somehow invalidates my point. And where does the accusation of virtue signaling come in here? It sounds like it’s not a superficial change they’re making. What’s the difference between “virtue signaling” and merely “a press release announcing policy changes”, exactly? Where is this needless cynicism coming from?

CountDrewku 5y ago
I feel like you're not fully thinking this through- 1. Let's say it's not a superficial "virtue-signalling" change which means it cannot be just widening their selection field as you suggested because that alone IS a superficial change unless... 2. They've decided that the they're going to change standards to make it easier for disabled individuals to gain entry which addresses the actual argument that candidates will be of lower quality and possibly cause worse results. 3. Your argument cannot logically hold water because you're presenting two cognitively dissonant ideas. For it not to be virtue signaling they would need to do more than just say they're opening up the program for disabled people. However, if they do that then #2 comes back into play and you've still lost part of the argument where you suggest it won't produce lower quality results. The only way your idea holds water is if the disabled individuals are able to pass the current standards, which doesn't really make sense or they most likely wouldn't have those standards against certain disabled individuals to begin with. >Where is this needless cynicism coming from? This isn't cynicism it's just a logical thought pattern, stop injecting unnecessary emotions into it. No one wants a lower quality space program just so we can make some people feel better.
- anthony_romeo 5y ago
  You’re overthinking it. This is a study to better inform the needs of disabled people in space. You know, for the future. I happen to think that research about the types of accommodations needed for people with disabilities is valuable, and the earlier we learn the unknown-unknowns here the better. You seem to think that this is somehow a wokeist ploy which will lower the “quality” of the space program (whatever that’s supposed to mean), so you’re making a bunch of hypothetical points that actually don’t matter and trying to “logic” your way to victory with a bunch of flimsy premises. BTW I hope there are no hard feelings. Sometimes I just like arguing.
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    >You’re overthinking it. Possibly, but that's sort of how my mind works for better or worse. Your argument is a a good one IF their currents standards are just not good. For example, maybe they have a blanket standard that people who've had panic attacks can't apply or something... >You seem to think that this is somehow a wokeist ploy which will lower the “quality” of the space This is because I can't think of any other good reason to make an announcement like this, other than a PR stunt, which I consider virtue signaling. In the end we'd have to see exactly what criteria they have. The blanket statement that they're allowing people with disabilities in still seems like virtue signaling to me though. I assume they've got legal reasons for not being more descriptive, that way they can still deny entry for various "disabilities".

CountDrewku 5y ago

I feel like you're not fully thinking this through- 1. Let's say it's not a superficial "virtue-signalling" change which means it cannot be just widening their selection field as you suggested because that alone IS a superficial change unless... 2. They've decided that the they're going to change standards to make it easier for disabled individuals to gain entry which addresses the actual argument that candidates will be of lower quality and possibly cause worse results. 3. Your argument cannot logically hold water because you're presenting two cognitively dissonant ideas. For it not to be virtue signaling they would need to do more than just say they're opening up the program for disabled people. However, if they do that then #2 comes back into play and you've still lost part of the argument where you suggest it won't produce lower quality results. The only way your idea holds water is if the disabled individuals are able to pass the current standards, which doesn't really make sense or they most likely wouldn't have those standards against certain disabled individuals to begin with. >Where is this needless cynicism coming from? This isn't cynicism it's just a logical thought pattern, stop injecting unnecessary emotions into it. No one wants a lower quality space program just so we can make some people feel better.

anthony_romeo 5y ago
You’re overthinking it. This is a study to better inform the needs of disabled people in space. You know, for the future. I happen to think that research about the types of accommodations needed for people with disabilities is valuable, and the earlier we learn the unknown-unknowns here the better. You seem to think that this is somehow a wokeist ploy which will lower the “quality” of the space program (whatever that’s supposed to mean), so you’re making a bunch of hypothetical points that actually don’t matter and trying to “logic” your way to victory with a bunch of flimsy premises. BTW I hope there are no hard feelings. Sometimes I just like arguing.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  >You’re overthinking it. Possibly, but that's sort of how my mind works for better or worse. Your argument is a a good one IF their currents standards are just not good. For example, maybe they have a blanket standard that people who've had panic attacks can't apply or something... >You seem to think that this is somehow a wokeist ploy which will lower the “quality” of the space This is because I can't think of any other good reason to make an announcement like this, other than a PR stunt, which I consider virtue signaling. In the end we'd have to see exactly what criteria they have. The blanket statement that they're allowing people with disabilities in still seems like virtue signaling to me though. I assume they've got legal reasons for not being more descriptive, that way they can still deny entry for various "disabilities".