3 ms·
Totally off topic, and I have no strong opinion on the whole transgender and ROGD thing (i learned that acronym from your comment), but: > anti-science and ant
by skrebbel 5y ago
Totally off topic, and I have no strong opinion on the whole transgender and ROGD thing (i learned that acronym from your comment), but:
> anti-science and anti-fact
This combination of words doesn't make sense to me. Science constantly discovers new "facts" that invalidate old "facts". I understand stuff like "the current scientific consensus", but I don't understand how you can call people who question the current scientific consensus on something "anti-fact". Especially in the context of psychology and psychiatry, where lately the facts have been superseding themselves rather rapidly.
Tldr, if you're pro science, shouldn't you by definition be ever so mildly sceptical of facts?
EDIT: note, I'm not trying to attack you personally nor weasel in some alt right talking point. I've seen words like "anti-fact" used a lot lately, I think I understand where it comes from, especially in the context of American hyper-polarized politics. I guess i wrote.my comment hoping to contribute to slightly more constructive language, at least from the sane side of the aisle.
- JasonFruit 5y ago> constructive language > sane side of the aisle That's not how constructive language is done. You don't improve "hyper-polarized politics" by saying one pole represents sanity and the other the opposite.
- skrebbel 5y agoFair enough.
- JasonFruit 5y agoI guess, on second thought, there's a place for saying, quietly, among yourselves, "I agree that the opposition is crazy, but it's probably going to be more productive if we engage them like rational people." But that's not a useful public stance.