5 ms·

Scientists please come to the EU, we can't pay you much, you won't be able to find a place to live and we don't do air conditioning, but plz come. /s

oulipo 1y ago
This easily beats being persecuted because of your research. Humanity and researchers use to live on more modest means, and you don't need 100k's to do math research. So sure, come to France we would love to welcome all of you!
- qcnguy 1y ago
  The government not funding something isn't persecution. If it were the vast majority of people on this forum would be persecuted, which clearly wouldn't be a right use of the term.
  - xoa 1y ago
    >The government not funding something isn't persecution So you're not just getting down votes, worth noting that you are incorrect to state this as an absolute, as a matter of both law and common sense. It is very well established (and again, makes sense) that there are many many areas of life where it's utterly uncontroversial that the government is in no way required to offer people services. However, IF the government chooses to offer people services, then it must do so in a fair way. For example, a local government need not offer any of its building space for public use. But if it lets one group make use of it, it can't then disallow other groups from doing so based on disliking their race/speech/etc. Any restrictions must be content-neutral (this has been litigated). Or for a broader theoretical example, there's nothing in the US Constitution that requires government to fund any sort of medical care. While it might be political suicide, Congress could choose to just sweep away Medicaid and Medicare completely whenever it wished, and that wouldn't be unconstitutional. Now instead imagine that the government said "to save money we're going to deny Medicaid or Medicare to filthy negroes or dirty jews going forward!" I would hope that you'd recognize that the government "not funding something" there would absolutely be a form of persecution. Conditioning funding on something the government would not be able to make a direct law about is not a universal Get Out Of The Bill Of Rights Free card.
    - qcnguy 1y ago
      The US government has all sorts of schemes that fund some groups whilst not funding others, so this rule you think exists doesn't really. That's part of why Trump admin is on the warpath. They ended up funding educational schemes that discriminate openly against certain groups. And are you claiming that academics are some sort of protected group, that the government can't exercise any agency inner which academics it gives money to? Because that's just not true, if so.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

oulipo 1y ago

This easily beats being persecuted because of your research. Humanity and researchers use to live on more modest means, and you don't need 100k's to do math research. So sure, come to France we would love to welcome all of you!

qcnguy 1y ago
The government not funding something isn't persecution. If it were the vast majority of people on this forum would be persecuted, which clearly wouldn't be a right use of the term.
- xoa 1y ago
  >The government not funding something isn't persecution So you're not just getting down votes, worth noting that you are incorrect to state this as an absolute, as a matter of both law and common sense. It is very well established (and again, makes sense) that there are many many areas of life where it's utterly uncontroversial that the government is in no way required to offer people services. However, IF the government chooses to offer people services, then it must do so in a fair way. For example, a local government need not offer any of its building space for public use. But if it lets one group make use of it, it can't then disallow other groups from doing so based on disliking their race/speech/etc. Any restrictions must be content-neutral (this has been litigated). Or for a broader theoretical example, there's nothing in the US Constitution that requires government to fund any sort of medical care. While it might be political suicide, Congress could choose to just sweep away Medicaid and Medicare completely whenever it wished, and that wouldn't be unconstitutional. Now instead imagine that the government said "to save money we're going to deny Medicaid or Medicare to filthy negroes or dirty jews going forward!" I would hope that you'd recognize that the government "not funding something" there would absolutely be a form of persecution. Conditioning funding on something the government would not be able to make a direct law about is not a universal Get Out Of The Bill Of Rights Free card.
  - qcnguy 1y ago
    The US government has all sorts of schemes that fund some groups whilst not funding others, so this rule you think exists doesn't really. That's part of why Trump admin is on the warpath. They ended up funding educational schemes that discriminate openly against certain groups. And are you claiming that academics are some sort of protected group, that the government can't exercise any agency inner which academics it gives money to? Because that's just not true, if so.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]