4 ms·

I think this hits the nail on the head. That the academic space is not just dominated, but overtly hostile to right wingers probably worsens this. Why would the

by esyir 5y ago

I think this hits the nail on the head. That the academic space is not just dominated, but overtly hostile to right wingers probably worsens this. Why would they trust advice given by people who proclaim their hatred of them?

unclebucknasty 5y ago
>academic space is...overtly hostile to right wingers... >Why would they trust advice given by people who proclaim their hatred of them? 1. It's all institutions, not just academia. 2. The "right winger" narrative seems to be that everyone is overtly hostile to them (media, academia, Hollywood, scientists, health organizations, voting machine manufacturers, pharma companies, Dr. Fauci, Big Bird, etc.), which apparently somehow justifies all sorts of irrational and anti-social behavior. 3. Deciding whether something is factual based on how you think the people communicating it feel about you is flawed, to put it mildly. But, if you can convince someone that it's a valid approach, then you can manipulate them against all reality. I do think that poor critical thinking skills, as exemplified in your rationalization here, do play a major role in how we got here though.
- esyir 5y ago
  >I do think that poor critical thinking skills, as exemplified in your rationalization here, do play a major role in how we got here though. I love the way you prove my point by immediately going with a barely more civil version of "You're retarded". For the record, I'm both Vaccinated and, in a previous life, was a biomedical researcher, critically evaluating scientific literature was literally my job. I'm mostly on your side as far as policy goes, but Jesus Christ, with friends like you, who needs enemies. I ask anyone here, if someone were to go to you, talk down to you and continuously declare their contempt for you and your kind. Then suddenly flip around and say that they mean the best for you and X policy is for your own good. What would your initial reaction be, assuming you have no idea about the ground truth. So go on, insult them, demonize them and continue your tribal war. Then complain to your own tribe why the enemy tribe doesn't take your perfectly good advice at face value.
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    You made a bad argument and got called on it. That's as far as it goes. No need to be a victim. No need to double-down with more bad arguments. But, my apologies if I seemed unnecessarily harsh. I don't know you. I was referring to your argument; an argument that rationalizes malignant behavior and happens to be the crux of the problem. You're more a victim of tribal thinking than you think. You talk almost purely in terms of "sides" and profess to be on my "side" because you agree with me on policy. So, you are surprised when I call out your poorly constructed argument, as if I should have just gone along. That's tribal thinking. OTOH, you can agree with me on 99 out of 100 issues, but if your position on that one issue makes no sense to me then I'll tell you exactly that. That's not tribal thinking.
    - esyir 5y ago
      >You made a bad argument and got called on it. That's as far as it goes. No need to be a victim. No need to double-down with more bad arguments. You don't even have a damn argument here. You've lobbed personal attack after personal attack without any backing. I'm going to quote paraphrase the zen of python here on this. Be explict. Tell me exactly which part of my argument you're dismantling, rather than yelling "YOUR ARGUMENT SUCKS" and declaring victory. >You talk almost purely in terms of "sides" Of course I do. That's how American political lines on this are drawn. Deny the existence of this all you want, but your covid debate is almost perfectly modeled by tribal politics. So, give your counterargument to this point, not some spiel about how I'm a bad person, or some unsupported claim about how my argument is bad. Give a proper, good faith rebuttal - Most people function with heuristic trust evaluation. That is to say, they gauge trustworthiness by some measure of the source. - Generally, people who detest you are not going to give you advice that is in your best interest. - Left aligned spaces are often, if not generally, against, if not outright hostile to any right-aligned individuals. You don't really need to look very hard for this, reddit front page popular posts will give you a fantastic slice - Given that lefty spaces are so open with their disdain of the right, it is expected that right-aligned individuals do not trust left-aligned authorities. Despite what a good chunk of the internet seems to believe, screaming at them about how they're horrible people and deserve to die is really really unlikely to change their mind. It is however a fantastic way of signaling to your the ingroup though.
op00to 5y ago
Please provide examples of “academia” proclaiming hatred of “right wingers”.
- esyir 5y ago
  Gladly, as far as hostility goes. The "hatred" was a rhetorical flourish about the relationship between the left and the right, as drawn from their media presence, as well as the general trend on left-aligned circles across social media. A scan of twitter and reddit should be more than sufficient to see that, especially /r/hermancainaward. I'm going to place a few cases here, but you're going to have to accept that there is a cherry-picking-esque effect here, there isn't really solid data on this, unfortunately, only surveys and general opinion. A decent chunk of my social circle are academics in the state though anecdotal as that is. I'm also going to try to contrast the clash of opinion on both sides. >https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/health/jama-bauchner-race-medicine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/health/jama-bauchner-race... Dr Livingstone claims that medicine is not structurally racist, gets placed on administrative leave by journal. While the endemicity of structural racism is generally accepted on the left, it's very much not so on the right, and in a sizable chunk of the center. >https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2021/03/16/uvm-professors-viral-video-prompts-calls-for-his-resignation https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2021/03/16/u... Professor Kindsvatter made a video about how he felt that the way "whiteness" was applied to him like "some kind of disease" was dehumanizing. This gets him an immediate attempt to get him to step down. The concept of "whiteness" as a clear negative is pretty common in left and progressive aligned media. See [1], and imagine the fireball would be if "white" was replaced with "black". This definition of "whiteness" is certainly not the mainstay outside of said circles. >https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/georgetown-law-professor-resigns-over-insensitive-remarks-about-black-students-n1261034 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/georgetown-law-profes... “I hate to say this. I end up having this angst every semester that a lot of my lower ones are Blacks, happens almost every semester." This results in David Batson's resignation and the firing of his colleague. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/magazine/classics-greece-rome-whiteness.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/magazine/classics-greece-...

by esyir 5y ago

unclebucknasty 5y ago

>academic space is...overtly hostile to right wingers... >Why would they trust advice given by people who proclaim their hatred of them? 1. It's all institutions, not just academia. 2. The "right winger" narrative seems to be that everyone is overtly hostile to them (media, academia, Hollywood, scientists, health organizations, voting machine manufacturers, pharma companies, Dr. Fauci, Big Bird, etc.), which apparently somehow justifies all sorts of irrational and anti-social behavior. 3. Deciding whether something is factual based on how you think the people communicating it feel about you is flawed, to put it mildly. But, if you can convince someone that it's a valid approach, then you can manipulate them against all reality. I do think that poor critical thinking skills, as exemplified in your rationalization here, do play a major role in how we got here though.

esyir 5y ago
>I do think that poor critical thinking skills, as exemplified in your rationalization here, do play a major role in how we got here though. I love the way you prove my point by immediately going with a barely more civil version of "You're retarded". For the record, I'm both Vaccinated and, in a previous life, was a biomedical researcher, critically evaluating scientific literature was literally my job. I'm mostly on your side as far as policy goes, but Jesus Christ, with friends like you, who needs enemies. I ask anyone here, if someone were to go to you, talk down to you and continuously declare their contempt for you and your kind. Then suddenly flip around and say that they mean the best for you and X policy is for your own good. What would your initial reaction be, assuming you have no idea about the ground truth. So go on, insult them, demonize them and continue your tribal war. Then complain to your own tribe why the enemy tribe doesn't take your perfectly good advice at face value.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  You made a bad argument and got called on it. That's as far as it goes. No need to be a victim. No need to double-down with more bad arguments. But, my apologies if I seemed unnecessarily harsh. I don't know you. I was referring to your argument; an argument that rationalizes malignant behavior and happens to be the crux of the problem. You're more a victim of tribal thinking than you think. You talk almost purely in terms of "sides" and profess to be on my "side" because you agree with me on policy. So, you are surprised when I call out your poorly constructed argument, as if I should have just gone along. That's tribal thinking. OTOH, you can agree with me on 99 out of 100 issues, but if your position on that one issue makes no sense to me then I'll tell you exactly that. That's not tribal thinking.
  - esyir 5y ago
    >You made a bad argument and got called on it. That's as far as it goes. No need to be a victim. No need to double-down with more bad arguments. You don't even have a damn argument here. You've lobbed personal attack after personal attack without any backing. I'm going to quote paraphrase the zen of python here on this. Be explict. Tell me exactly which part of my argument you're dismantling, rather than yelling "YOUR ARGUMENT SUCKS" and declaring victory. >You talk almost purely in terms of "sides" Of course I do. That's how American political lines on this are drawn. Deny the existence of this all you want, but your covid debate is almost perfectly modeled by tribal politics. So, give your counterargument to this point, not some spiel about how I'm a bad person, or some unsupported claim about how my argument is bad. Give a proper, good faith rebuttal - Most people function with heuristic trust evaluation. That is to say, they gauge trustworthiness by some measure of the source. - Generally, people who detest you are not going to give you advice that is in your best interest. - Left aligned spaces are often, if not generally, against, if not outright hostile to any right-aligned individuals. You don't really need to look very hard for this, reddit front page popular posts will give you a fantastic slice - Given that lefty spaces are so open with their disdain of the right, it is expected that right-aligned individuals do not trust left-aligned authorities. Despite what a good chunk of the internet seems to believe, screaming at them about how they're horrible people and deserve to die is really really unlikely to change their mind. It is however a fantastic way of signaling to your the ingroup though.

op00to 5y ago

Please provide examples of “academia” proclaiming hatred of “right wingers”.

esyir 5y ago
Gladly, as far as hostility goes. The "hatred" was a rhetorical flourish about the relationship between the left and the right, as drawn from their media presence, as well as the general trend on left-aligned circles across social media. A scan of twitter and reddit should be more than sufficient to see that, especially /r/hermancainaward. I'm going to place a few cases here, but you're going to have to accept that there is a cherry-picking-esque effect here, there isn't really solid data on this, unfortunately, only surveys and general opinion. A decent chunk of my social circle are academics in the state though anecdotal as that is. I'm also going to try to contrast the clash of opinion on both sides. >https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/health/jama-bauchner-race-medicine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/health/jama-bauchner-race... Dr Livingstone claims that medicine is not structurally racist, gets placed on administrative leave by journal. While the endemicity of structural racism is generally accepted on the left, it's very much not so on the right, and in a sizable chunk of the center. >https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2021/03/16/uvm-professors-viral-video-prompts-calls-for-his-resignation https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2021/03/16/u... Professor Kindsvatter made a video about how he felt that the way "whiteness" was applied to him like "some kind of disease" was dehumanizing. This gets him an immediate attempt to get him to step down. The concept of "whiteness" as a clear negative is pretty common in left and progressive aligned media. See [1], and imagine the fireball would be if "white" was replaced with "black". This definition of "whiteness" is certainly not the mainstay outside of said circles. >https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/georgetown-law-professor-resigns-over-insensitive-remarks-about-black-students-n1261034 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/georgetown-law-profes... “I hate to say this. I end up having this angst every semester that a lot of my lower ones are Blacks, happens almost every semester." This results in David Batson's resignation and the firing of his colleague. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/magazine/classics-greece-rome-whiteness.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/magazine/classics-greece-...