3 ms·

The Orwellian bit comes once the quality gates are in place and get subverted for political means. But even if that doesn't happen, I disagree strongly. Extrem

The Orwellian bit comes once the quality gates are in place and get subverted for political means. But even if that doesn't happen, I disagree strongly. Extremism doesn't need scientific backing and never has. They'll take it if convenient, but they can quite easily justify their actions without it. Truth and critical thinking are the solution, not the cause.

pj_mukh 4y ago
Extremism doesn’t need scientific backing to exist but it does need scientific backing to make the center complacent. The shooting was a good example but a better example is an extremist takeover of the government buoyed by a complacent public swindled by flimsy science. It’s happened before, it’ll happen again.
- dissent 4y ago
  Could you not argue that religious teaching should be suppressed since it often stands in opposition to fact, therefore is responsible for misinformation leading to violence? (and let's face it, that's probably pretty hard to argue against)
  - trasz 4y ago
    What’s wrong with suppressing religious “teaching”? Let me remind you that freedom of religion was mostly about freedom from religion.
    - dissent 4y ago
      Don't mistake me for a religious person. I think it's the bane of mankind. My point is that despite this, trying to ban it is counter productive.
      - trasz 4y ago
        Banning harmful behavior promoted by religion can be quite productive. Hate speech laws are one example. Barring religiously-affiliated institution from government money is another.
willis936 4y ago
Psychology has always been rife with political fanatics. Since its inception there have been loud cranks using pseudoscience for the express purpose of influencing social policy. It is still happening today. Just look at Joseph H. Manson.
- dissent 4y ago
  My position is that the problem lies with the listener, not the speaker. I looked up Joseph H. Manson. At a glace that looks like exactly what OP was talking about.

pj_mukh 4y ago

Extremism doesn’t need scientific backing to exist but it does need scientific backing to make the center complacent. The shooting was a good example but a better example is an extremist takeover of the government buoyed by a complacent public swindled by flimsy science. It’s happened before, it’ll happen again.

dissent 4y ago
Could you not argue that religious teaching should be suppressed since it often stands in opposition to fact, therefore is responsible for misinformation leading to violence? (and let's face it, that's probably pretty hard to argue against)
- trasz 4y ago
  What’s wrong with suppressing religious “teaching”? Let me remind you that freedom of religion was mostly about freedom from religion.
  - dissent 4y ago
    Don't mistake me for a religious person. I think it's the bane of mankind. My point is that despite this, trying to ban it is counter productive.
    - trasz 4y ago
      Banning harmful behavior promoted by religion can be quite productive. Hate speech laws are one example. Barring religiously-affiliated institution from government money is another.

willis936 4y ago

Psychology has always been rife with political fanatics. Since its inception there have been loud cranks using pseudoscience for the express purpose of influencing social policy. It is still happening today. Just look at Joseph H. Manson.

dissent 4y ago
My position is that the problem lies with the listener, not the speaker. I looked up Joseph H. Manson. At a glace that looks like exactly what OP was talking about.