5 ms·
Did you read the article? There are no laws attacking accepted science, there are laws pushing back on ideological capture. That the country is “systemically r
by tjs8rj 3y ago
Did you read the article? There are no laws attacking accepted science, there are laws pushing back on ideological capture.
That the country is “systemically racist” and that “men can be women” are not scientific facts. These are increasingly less prominent interpretations of various observed phenomena, and especially for a lot of the gender stuff: just preferred philosophy or cultural mindset. Because these areas both have political policy recommendations, they are just politics by definition.
In short, this is a shortage of politically motivated academics who bias their research and teaching towards political ends rather than the truth. Purging the university of these kinds is a major win.
- fuckyou232 3y ago[flagged]
- drewbug01 3y ago> These are increasingly less prominent interpretations of various observed phenomena, and especially for a lot of the gender stuff: just preferred philosophy or cultural mindset. Could you provide some citations showing how this is becoming less prominent over time? > Because these areas both have political policy recommendations, they are just politics by definition. That’s interesting, don’t you think? Wouldn’t that discount most practical research as “politics”?
- repubsdead 3y ago[dead]
- orf 3y agoThere is an objective truth to things. Wrapping those things in “political policy recommendations” doesn’t detract from that objective truth. Now you can discuss that objective truth but dismissing it as politically motivated, saying, without any cause, that the people who left those positions “ bias their research and teaching away from truth, and finishing with stating that a (objectively politically motivated) purge is a “major win” is the height of lazy, brain-dead thinking that might benefit from a little bit more education and a little bit less red-meat politics.
- kelseyfrog 3y agoI'm curious. Where did you learn that social facts fall under the umbrella of objective truth?
- orf 3y agoI’m curious. What part of my comment led you to ask that question?
- kelseyfrog 3y agoIt was "There is an objective truth to things." How did you come to that conclusion?
- orf 3y agoI dunno. Reality? If I throw a ball, it’s objectively true that it’s position changes?
- kelseyfrog 3y agoHow does throwing a ball analogize to observations about social phenomena for you?
- orf 3y agoWhat a strange one-sided debate you’re trying so desperately to have. I suggest re-reading my comment again, but without the “I’m completely triggered by any mention of gender online” glasses that you’re clearly wearing right now.
- kelseyfrog 3y agoI'm not sure what made you think this is a debate. I'd just like to understand how you came to your conclusions. If you don't want to participate, that's fine. You don't have to answer. The process takes some back and forth, that's all. It sounds like your observations about how people interact socially are as clear as watching a ball travel through the air. Is that right?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago> politically motivated academics who bias their research This stands out in a good faith reading as a real problem that commonly occurs. However, the preceding words "this is a shortage of" suggest that it is known that these specific academics perpetrate this problem. Is there a way for one who is currently uninformed to become informed about this? > Because these areas both have political policy recommendations, they are just politics by definition. This sounds like a Political Person can choose to co-opt my opinion as part of their Platform and then tell me that my opinion is Political. No, it's just an opinion; not everything is Politics.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]