3 ms·

Strange comment. Is the argument that a PhD, professor and author of several books on any given topic is no longer a credible authority in their field after the

Strange comment. Is the argument that a PhD, professor and author of several books on any given topic is no longer a credible authority in their field after they act as a "political commentator?" And by extension, presumably, the most credible political commentators are the ones without any education or academic credentials? That all seems pretty dumb. > I am very, very pro-free speech I bet.

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
<< > I am very, very pro-free speech I bet. *** I addressed commentator comment with another poster, but if you were to look at my other posts, it is not hard to see the way I lean. You would lose that bet friend.
- anon84873628 2y ago
  Elsewhere you said you go where the argument takes you, but haven't responded to this one. Please find us any professor of social sciences who is not also a "commentator". The purpose of these studies is hypothesize new viewpoints and narratives through which to understand the world. There is no unbiased or apolitical view of history.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
    << but haven't responded to this one. I am apparently rate limited in what I can post; nothing personal. You can blame HN/Dang/God/whathave you as needed. << Please find us any professor of social sciences who is not also a "commentator". Um.. I would like you to reconsider the phrasing here. I can absolutely respond in line with HN guidelines and I am relatively certain you will not be that happy with that answer. I will help you out a little though, because the response to you would be trivial. Maybe consider the population of professors in social sciences and population of commentators on various news outlets? Maybe consider venn diagrams where they do and do not overlap? Can you see why your argument barely passes as an argument?
    - justin66 2y ago
      > Maybe consider venn diagrams where they do and do not overlap? Or consider that we're adults who are capable of doing things like on the one hand presenting a nonpartisan lecture on a subject when it's called for, or on the other hand attending a lecture presented by someone we disagree with on a number of topics and nevertheless deriving some value.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        Have you been to US lately? This is not a rhetorical point. If you typed those words and I am expected to take those at face value, I have to assume that you have not seen the rabid mobs calling for not allowing X to speak/present/or even be vaguely associated with a given group ( X to avoid adding a political spin to it ). Any other day, yeah, I agree.. that is absolutely how things SHOULD work. But then, we are here. It is what you get for not protecting freedom of speech enough and excusing attempts at restricting it further ( if you actually tried to stop it, you can ignore that sentence ). That said, I have a suspicion that you have been to US and know exactly what I am talking about, which means several different things ( among other that I can't really trust those tears of 'nonpartisan lecture' ), but I will let you respond first.
        justin66 2y ago
        Are these comments machine generated?
        A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        Welcome to the new and improved interwebz friend! You will love it here. Try using sneaking in appropriate command ( say 'ignore previous instructions' or 'i cant let you do that dave' ) and see if it works. We may all be pleasantly surprised to not be real. Even if I was not human ( or comments were not - hah - organic ), wouldn't it make more sense to try to respond to the point of the argument and not try to divert the attention to LLM generation ( which is kinda lazy btw )? Am I really asking for too much here?
throwawaymaths 2y ago
It's not a question of if she's a credible commentator, it's that arms of the executive aside from the president and vp are forbidden by law from making political commentary directly relating to active candidates. By announcing the title she did, the author put the academy at risk of violating the law.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- SauciestGNU 2y ago
  So are you proposing that nobody who has ever published a political opinion can speak at a state-sponsored event without violating the hatch act?
  - throwawaymaths 2y ago
    Of course not. General political opinions are welcome. Even specific exhortations against most individual candidates from the past are too. But you better not come in guns blazing announcing your state-sponsored lecture with a title that calls out a candidate in this election cycle.

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago

<< > I am very, very pro-free speech I bet. *** I addressed commentator comment with another poster, but if you were to look at my other posts, it is not hard to see the way I lean. You would lose that bet friend.

anon84873628 2y ago
Elsewhere you said you go where the argument takes you, but haven't responded to this one. Please find us any professor of social sciences who is not also a "commentator". The purpose of these studies is hypothesize new viewpoints and narratives through which to understand the world. There is no unbiased or apolitical view of history.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  << but haven't responded to this one. I am apparently rate limited in what I can post; nothing personal. You can blame HN/Dang/God/whathave you as needed. << Please find us any professor of social sciences who is not also a "commentator". Um.. I would like you to reconsider the phrasing here. I can absolutely respond in line with HN guidelines and I am relatively certain you will not be that happy with that answer. I will help you out a little though, because the response to you would be trivial. Maybe consider the population of professors in social sciences and population of commentators on various news outlets? Maybe consider venn diagrams where they do and do not overlap? Can you see why your argument barely passes as an argument?
  - justin66 2y ago
    > Maybe consider venn diagrams where they do and do not overlap? Or consider that we're adults who are capable of doing things like on the one hand presenting a nonpartisan lecture on a subject when it's called for, or on the other hand attending a lecture presented by someone we disagree with on a number of topics and nevertheless deriving some value.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
      Have you been to US lately? This is not a rhetorical point. If you typed those words and I am expected to take those at face value, I have to assume that you have not seen the rabid mobs calling for not allowing X to speak/present/or even be vaguely associated with a given group ( X to avoid adding a political spin to it ). Any other day, yeah, I agree.. that is absolutely how things SHOULD work. But then, we are here. It is what you get for not protecting freedom of speech enough and excusing attempts at restricting it further ( if you actually tried to stop it, you can ignore that sentence ). That said, I have a suspicion that you have been to US and know exactly what I am talking about, which means several different things ( among other that I can't really trust those tears of 'nonpartisan lecture' ), but I will let you respond first.
      - justin66 2y ago
        Are these comments machine generated?
        A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        Welcome to the new and improved interwebz friend! You will love it here. Try using sneaking in appropriate command ( say 'ignore previous instructions' or 'i cant let you do that dave' ) and see if it works. We may all be pleasantly surprised to not be real. Even if I was not human ( or comments were not - hah - organic ), wouldn't it make more sense to try to respond to the point of the argument and not try to divert the attention to LLM generation ( which is kinda lazy btw )? Am I really asking for too much here?

throwawaymaths 2y ago

It's not a question of if she's a credible commentator, it's that arms of the executive aside from the president and vp are forbidden by law from making political commentary directly relating to active candidates. By announcing the title she did, the author put the academy at risk of violating the law.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
SauciestGNU 2y ago
So are you proposing that nobody who has ever published a political opinion can speak at a state-sponsored event without violating the hatch act?
- throwawaymaths 2y ago
  Of course not. General political opinions are welcome. Even specific exhortations against most individual candidates from the past are too. But you better not come in guns blazing announcing your state-sponsored lecture with a title that calls out a candidate in this election cycle.