3 ms·
You did exactly what GP was commenting on - conflating something that happened occasionally in the past with policy that mandates it should happen every time to
by brookst 5mo ago
You did exactly what GP was commenting on - conflating something that happened occasionally in the past with policy that mandates it should happen every time today.
Yes, grants were given and revoked for political purposes in the past.
But what percentage of grant proposals were reviewed by an appointed political officer whose sole job was to screen out wrongthink? It did happen, but it was ad hoc and amateur. Today’s administration is formalizing Soviet-style political reviews of science.
It’s scary, and it’s a mistake to hold up occasional (but serious!) mistakes from the past to justify systematic evil today.
- FpUser 5mo ago>"Today’s administration is formalizing Soviet-style political reviews of science." He who kills the dragon becomes one.
- coldtea 5mo ago>But what percentage of grant proposals were reviewed by an appointed political officer whose sole job was to screen out wrongthink? It did happen, but it was ad hoc and amateur. Small consolation for those excluded. It wasn't "occasional (but serious!) mistakes" it was systematic ideological control. I'd say explicit is better than implicit. Less hypocrisy, and more transparency. And at least now that this shit is officially set as word to paper, and is out in the open, the other side, when in power, can dismantle it and make into law guarantees that such wrongthink persecution wont happen again. But they wont. They'll use the same mechanism of "appointed political officer whose sole job was to screen out wrongthink". Because it was never about the principle. It was about doing it convertly as long as they politically/ideologically controlled those establishments. Controlling them through government power will suit them too, as much as it suits the other side.