54 ms·

There is nothing odd about this. The purpose of attacking Webb and the telescope is to mine controversy and social status out of other people and other accompli

There is nothing odd about this. The purpose of attacking Webb and the telescope is to mine controversy and social status out of other people and other accomplishments. This is the MO of culture war activists. By being publicly rebuked and told they were wrong, the attackers were embarrassed and therefore needed to double down to continue their gambit. Right or wrong has little to do with it, it only supplies the pretense. Once you understand this, culture war makes a lot more sense. There is no objective wrong being righted. There are only ever more new grievances to be invented to continue the zero-sum racket.

Beltalowda 4y ago
People doing unsavoury things to get attention is one thing, but that I find odd how serious it's taken. Some may be "media whoring" or (ab)using the controversy to fight out personal grievances, but overwhelming majority of people and organisations supporting this are undoubtedly well-intentioned decent honest folk just wanting to do the right thing. When an argument about history accuracy is countered with "you are marginalizing a black queer junior scientist" – as seems to be happening here – then how is this person not eye-rolled out of the conversation? How can you possibly take someone like that serious? Even if we assume their position is the historically correct one here, these kind of statements are exceedingly toxic and have no place in any serious good-faith conversation.
- braingravy 4y ago
  It’s those magic words “I am an XYZ…” that prevent any eyes from rolling. Those words provide an untouchability and radioactivity around the speaker that we have yet to integrate into modern discourse. As OP said, the good faith nature of argument is turned on it’s head by identity, not merit, based logic. I disagree with cynicism of the OP however. Many people are just tied up in a movement, without a conniving pathos driving their support. If you look at the historical context identity arguments arrive from, it is very much reactionary to past oppression. And society tolerates reactionary swings for only so long before seeking homeostasis. It is possible (likely, even) that the junior professor behind the vitriol is doubling down due to self preservation. However, I don’t think her supporters are as interested in her self interest so much as they are interested in supporting the movement as a whole. She’s more or less an ideological soldier; yes she may have violated her enemies in atrocious ways, but she is fighting for home team, and thusly retains support regardless of abuse of basic logic. Hopefully we out grow this phase soon because the ignorance inherent in that support does seem culturally toxic.
- rep_lodsb 4y ago
  From the article: «Several prominent astrophysicists in interviews supported Dr. Oluseyi but declined to talk publicly. “People err on the side of prudence, which is to say they don’t speak up,” Dr. Gates noted.» Not so different from what happened in those bad old days, only the acceptable targets have changed.
jquery 4y ago
It’s unfair to lump in all activists with dishonorable, lying ones. There will always be parasites who glob onto any movement purely for the status, but that shouldn’t alone discredit the movement.
- yucky 4y ago
  Not until these supposed "good activists" loudly and vociferously throw these toxic people out, and under the bus (and very publicly). Until that happens, they are mucking around in the same mud as the pigs, which makes them indistinguishable.
  - api 4y ago
    I've heard a number of Christians talk about how many of them dislike people like Pat Robertson. Why don't they speak up? Sometimes they do, but they don't have media empires. Lunatics and fanatics and grifters are always the loudest and their messages have the highest virality. They maximize engagement. After all, here we are talking about them. We're not talking about the sane people.
    - yucky 4y ago
      > I've heard a number of Christians talk about how many of them dislike people like Pat Robertson. Why don't they speak up? Couldn't tell you, I'm not a religious person. But I agree that these "warriors" for social justice are grifters just like the Pat Robertson's of the world.
      - api 4y ago
        ... and just like LibsOfTikTok and Tim Poole and all the rest of those kind. They're all professional trolls that farm controversy for money. They've always existed but social media has just opened up the professional troll career to a lot more independent entrants.
  - jquery 4y ago
    Why is “good activists” in quotes when the entire NYT article is about these good activists (and indeed, the very act of getting such an article published in the NYT is as close to “throwing them out” as we have in our society)..
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Beltalowda 4y ago

People doing unsavoury things to get attention is one thing, but that I find odd how serious it's taken. Some may be "media whoring" or (ab)using the controversy to fight out personal grievances, but overwhelming majority of people and organisations supporting this are undoubtedly well-intentioned decent honest folk just wanting to do the right thing. When an argument about history accuracy is countered with "you are marginalizing a black queer junior scientist" – as seems to be happening here – then how is this person not eye-rolled out of the conversation? How can you possibly take someone like that serious? Even if we assume their position is the historically correct one here, these kind of statements are exceedingly toxic and have no place in any serious good-faith conversation.

braingravy 4y ago
It’s those magic words “I am an XYZ…” that prevent any eyes from rolling. Those words provide an untouchability and radioactivity around the speaker that we have yet to integrate into modern discourse. As OP said, the good faith nature of argument is turned on it’s head by identity, not merit, based logic. I disagree with cynicism of the OP however. Many people are just tied up in a movement, without a conniving pathos driving their support. If you look at the historical context identity arguments arrive from, it is very much reactionary to past oppression. And society tolerates reactionary swings for only so long before seeking homeostasis. It is possible (likely, even) that the junior professor behind the vitriol is doubling down due to self preservation. However, I don’t think her supporters are as interested in her self interest so much as they are interested in supporting the movement as a whole. She’s more or less an ideological soldier; yes she may have violated her enemies in atrocious ways, but she is fighting for home team, and thusly retains support regardless of abuse of basic logic. Hopefully we out grow this phase soon because the ignorance inherent in that support does seem culturally toxic.
rep_lodsb 4y ago
From the article: «Several prominent astrophysicists in interviews supported Dr. Oluseyi but declined to talk publicly. “People err on the side of prudence, which is to say they don’t speak up,” Dr. Gates noted.» Not so different from what happened in those bad old days, only the acceptable targets have changed.

jquery 4y ago

It’s unfair to lump in all activists with dishonorable, lying ones. There will always be parasites who glob onto any movement purely for the status, but that shouldn’t alone discredit the movement.

yucky 4y ago
Not until these supposed "good activists" loudly and vociferously throw these toxic people out, and under the bus (and very publicly). Until that happens, they are mucking around in the same mud as the pigs, which makes them indistinguishable.
- api 4y ago
  I've heard a number of Christians talk about how many of them dislike people like Pat Robertson. Why don't they speak up? Sometimes they do, but they don't have media empires. Lunatics and fanatics and grifters are always the loudest and their messages have the highest virality. They maximize engagement. After all, here we are talking about them. We're not talking about the sane people.
  - yucky 4y ago
    > I've heard a number of Christians talk about how many of them dislike people like Pat Robertson. Why don't they speak up? Couldn't tell you, I'm not a religious person. But I agree that these "warriors" for social justice are grifters just like the Pat Robertson's of the world.
    - api 4y ago
      ... and just like LibsOfTikTok and Tim Poole and all the rest of those kind. They're all professional trolls that farm controversy for money. They've always existed but social media has just opened up the professional troll career to a lot more independent entrants.
- jquery 4y ago
  Why is “good activists” in quotes when the entire NYT article is about these good activists (and indeed, the very act of getting such an article published in the NYT is as close to “throwing them out” as we have in our society)..

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]