3 ms·

> In case anyone missed it, I'd like to point out the obvious: her professional reputation, and her paycheck (i.e. her grants), depend on a continued supply of

> In case anyone missed it, I'd like to point out the obvious: her professional reputation, and her paycheck (i.e. her grants), depend on a continued supply of unhappy gender-transitioning children. This kind of knee jerk conspiratorial nonsense is exactly why reactionaries share blame for making this into a needlessly politicized shit show. It is indeed anti-scientific to hold back the study, just like it's anti-scientific to latch on to one result and use it to support the reactionary panic narrative. Just like covid and climate change before it, once we're here we've all lost. Do better and maybe we can manage to walk the fine line of truth at the heart of the matter, because neither extremist camp has it right.

hilux 2y ago
[flagged]
- mindslight 2y ago
  Regardless of literal truth, it puts the focus in the wrong place. Your emphasis makes it so the only conclusion is that no experts can trusted. With the complexity and interconnectedness of modern society this is essentially untenable, but yet the simplicity appeals to people's gut feelings. Meanwhile compromise and middlegrounds are boring. This is the basic anti-intellectualism powering the cancer that devoured the republican party [0]. So despite your seemingly only trying to criticize the excesses of your closer camp, you've inadvertently added to the polarized environment. If we can no longer assume that people who have spent their careers studying things and developing nuanced opinions are closer to right than wrong, then for every question there is but two possible answers. [0] and one of the main reasons it's no longer appropriate to call them conservative so instead I use Moldbug's own word reactionary. Meanwhile the democratic party is checking most conservative boxes these days. This also trivially explains things like the "hyper liberalization" of college campuses and tone policing in general - it's actually a standard hallmark of conservatism.
  - hilux 2y ago
    > If we can no longer assume that people who have spent their careers studying things and developing nuanced opinions are closer to right than wrong What are you talking about? You really express yourself in a convoluted way - it doesn't help your case. I'm not questioning her science. I'm questioning her decision not to publish a study that she did using public money, because she didn't like how it turned out. At least, that's what the article says. > This is the basic anti-intellectualism powering the cancer I'm quite familiar with the world of R1 universities. And I used to be a huge fanboy of Dan Ariely, amongst other "charlatans," to quote one of his peers. If anti-intellectualism is on the rise, then arrogant, narcissistic, dishonest academics should look in the mirror for the explanation.
    - 0xdeadfa65 2y ago
      [dead]
    - mindslight 2y ago
      There is no single "the" explanation for a breakdown in societal trust. It's a mutual process. Yes, dishonest academics share the blame. Yes, authorities lying about straightforward things to fit political conclusions (eg covid masks) shares the blame. But also narratives implying that no experts can be trusted, as every expert will inherently have conflicts of interests, share the blame. That is where you majorly stepped over the line in your original comment. It's literally true, but it's true for everyone across the board. By emphasizing it and assuming bad faith you've made it so there can be no such thing as an expert opinion or consensus. That leaves nowhere to go besides non-nuanced pro/anti positions on everything, or "doing your own research" which ends up being mostly being sifting through the politicized tripe to feel which is more convincing.
- Ralfp 2y ago
  I've always though people are voting for Trump because there is quite a lot of disillusioned people who consider Trump the anti-establishment choice, whatever the system they are imagining is. Hence "drain the swamp" and "you will be in jail" things. If far left is such an issue, why focus polls keep bringing up economy as top issue for his voters and things like abortion or trans rights come up last? Why conservative candidates who run on mainly anti-trans platforms or anti-abortion platforms lose to conservative candidates that pitch economy as their focus? Why those claims fail to mobilize voters?
  - hilux 2y ago
    I'm not sure whether you have a question for me. I'll just make the observation that what people "say" is important to them is often not reflected in how they actually vote. E.g. you can find countless stories of red-state voters who are on Obamacare, and who say that healthcare is a top priority ... who nevertheless vote Republican. > there is quite a lot of disillusioned people who consider Trump the anti-establishment choice I agree with you here, although I think this is an idiotic choice by entitled, lazy, out-of-touch people. And I'm not willing to give them a pass.
  - mindslight 2y ago
    I'm just spitballing, but I think you could explain it that the disillusioned people aren't anti-trans by itself, but rather anti what they perceive is so much attention being spent on the issue rather than the "real problems". So "culture war" fuels negative condemnation of the other side, while not directly creating positive support for their own politicians. Of course that's still totally disconnected from reality given that if you're concerned about inflation you shouldn't be voting for the guy that oversaw the printing of trillions of dollars (monetary inflation) that caused immediate asset inflation (his goal) but price inflation spread over several years as monetary velocity went back up. And if you're concerned with taxes going up, you shouldn't be voting for the guy that signed those tax increases into law. So I don't think rationality actually has much to do with where we're at.

hilux 2y ago

[flagged]

mindslight 2y ago
Regardless of literal truth, it puts the focus in the wrong place. Your emphasis makes it so the only conclusion is that no experts can trusted. With the complexity and interconnectedness of modern society this is essentially untenable, but yet the simplicity appeals to people's gut feelings. Meanwhile compromise and middlegrounds are boring. This is the basic anti-intellectualism powering the cancer that devoured the republican party [0]. So despite your seemingly only trying to criticize the excesses of your closer camp, you've inadvertently added to the polarized environment. If we can no longer assume that people who have spent their careers studying things and developing nuanced opinions are closer to right than wrong, then for every question there is but two possible answers. [0] and one of the main reasons it's no longer appropriate to call them conservative so instead I use Moldbug's own word reactionary. Meanwhile the democratic party is checking most conservative boxes these days. This also trivially explains things like the "hyper liberalization" of college campuses and tone policing in general - it's actually a standard hallmark of conservatism.
- hilux 2y ago
  > If we can no longer assume that people who have spent their careers studying things and developing nuanced opinions are closer to right than wrong What are you talking about? You really express yourself in a convoluted way - it doesn't help your case. I'm not questioning her science. I'm questioning her decision not to publish a study that she did using public money, because she didn't like how it turned out. At least, that's what the article says. > This is the basic anti-intellectualism powering the cancer I'm quite familiar with the world of R1 universities. And I used to be a huge fanboy of Dan Ariely, amongst other "charlatans," to quote one of his peers. If anti-intellectualism is on the rise, then arrogant, narcissistic, dishonest academics should look in the mirror for the explanation.
  - 0xdeadfa65 2y ago
    [dead]
  - mindslight 2y ago
    There is no single "the" explanation for a breakdown in societal trust. It's a mutual process. Yes, dishonest academics share the blame. Yes, authorities lying about straightforward things to fit political conclusions (eg covid masks) shares the blame. But also narratives implying that no experts can be trusted, as every expert will inherently have conflicts of interests, share the blame. That is where you majorly stepped over the line in your original comment. It's literally true, but it's true for everyone across the board. By emphasizing it and assuming bad faith you've made it so there can be no such thing as an expert opinion or consensus. That leaves nowhere to go besides non-nuanced pro/anti positions on everything, or "doing your own research" which ends up being mostly being sifting through the politicized tripe to feel which is more convincing.
Ralfp 2y ago
I've always though people are voting for Trump because there is quite a lot of disillusioned people who consider Trump the anti-establishment choice, whatever the system they are imagining is. Hence "drain the swamp" and "you will be in jail" things. If far left is such an issue, why focus polls keep bringing up economy as top issue for his voters and things like abortion or trans rights come up last? Why conservative candidates who run on mainly anti-trans platforms or anti-abortion platforms lose to conservative candidates that pitch economy as their focus? Why those claims fail to mobilize voters?
- hilux 2y ago
  I'm not sure whether you have a question for me. I'll just make the observation that what people "say" is important to them is often not reflected in how they actually vote. E.g. you can find countless stories of red-state voters who are on Obamacare, and who say that healthcare is a top priority ... who nevertheless vote Republican. > there is quite a lot of disillusioned people who consider Trump the anti-establishment choice I agree with you here, although I think this is an idiotic choice by entitled, lazy, out-of-touch people. And I'm not willing to give them a pass.
- mindslight 2y ago
  I'm just spitballing, but I think you could explain it that the disillusioned people aren't anti-trans by itself, but rather anti what they perceive is so much attention being spent on the issue rather than the "real problems". So "culture war" fuels negative condemnation of the other side, while not directly creating positive support for their own politicians. Of course that's still totally disconnected from reality given that if you're concerned about inflation you shouldn't be voting for the guy that oversaw the printing of trillions of dollars (monetary inflation) that caused immediate asset inflation (his goal) but price inflation spread over several years as monetary velocity went back up. And if you're concerned with taxes going up, you shouldn't be voting for the guy that signed those tax increases into law. So I don't think rationality actually has much to do with where we're at.