4 ms·

> Historically the bringers of bad news were executed. These days we're a bit better but not all that much. Am I reading this right—currently scientists that b

> Historically the bringers of bad news were executed. These days we're a bit better but not all that much. Am I reading this right—currently scientists that bring bad news aren’t treated all that much better than…being executed?

jacquesm 3y ago
You are not reading that right. We are not executing them in the literal sense but people's lives are being ruined. One of the bits that made it into the guidelines is that if there are multiple explanations for a comment that you're supposed to go with the stronger one. You seem to have picked the wrong interpretation on purpose. Please don't do that.
- bandyaboot 3y ago
  > You are not reading that right. We are not executing them in the literal sense but people's lives are being ruined. I didn’t suggest that my reading was that they are being executed in the literal sense. I was saying that my reading was that what’s happening to scientists is only a little bit better than literal execution—and because I found that reading so surprising, I asked if that was correct. > One of the bits that made it into the guidelines is that if there are multiple explanations for a comment that you're supposed to go with the stronger one. You seem to have picked the wrong interpretation on purpose. Please don't do that. Seems to me there’s a bit of hypocrisy going on here. I literally asked if my reading of it was correct. For you to say that I purposely picked a wrong interpretation (though I’m not sure your explanation suggests that my actual interpretation was wrong) would seem to mean that you think my question was insincere—that I wasn’t actually wanting to know if my interpretation of it was correct. That’s fine, but you had the choice of believing I was being sincere or that I was being insincere. Did you pick the “stronger”? And to be clear, I’m generally on your side with regard to your overall point. The trend over the last decade or more of people attacking scientists who dare find results that conflict with their politics makes me furious.

jacquesm 3y ago

You are not reading that right. We are not executing them in the literal sense but people's lives are being ruined. One of the bits that made it into the guidelines is that if there are multiple explanations for a comment that you're supposed to go with the stronger one. You seem to have picked the wrong interpretation on purpose. Please don't do that.

bandyaboot 3y ago
> You are not reading that right. We are not executing them in the literal sense but people's lives are being ruined. I didn’t suggest that my reading was that they are being executed in the literal sense. I was saying that my reading was that what’s happening to scientists is only a little bit better than literal execution—and because I found that reading so surprising, I asked if that was correct. > One of the bits that made it into the guidelines is that if there are multiple explanations for a comment that you're supposed to go with the stronger one. You seem to have picked the wrong interpretation on purpose. Please don't do that. Seems to me there’s a bit of hypocrisy going on here. I literally asked if my reading of it was correct. For you to say that I purposely picked a wrong interpretation (though I’m not sure your explanation suggests that my actual interpretation was wrong) would seem to mean that you think my question was insincere—that I wasn’t actually wanting to know if my interpretation of it was correct. That’s fine, but you had the choice of believing I was being sincere or that I was being insincere. Did you pick the “stronger”? And to be clear, I’m generally on your side with regard to your overall point. The trend over the last decade or more of people attacking scientists who dare find results that conflict with their politics makes me furious.