3 ms·

That doesn't show they were purged. There are many reasons their numbers declined.

by jasonlotito 4mo ago

WarmWash 4mo ago
[flagged]
- jasonlotito 4mo ago
  So you admit you were lying. Gotcha.
  - WarmWash 4mo ago
    There are not many reasons for climate change, it is in fact just humans. That should be obvious.
    - anon84873628 4mo ago
      Ok, so we establish that "Climate change could seem to have many causes, but educated people know that human activity is the proven cause of the majority of the change." And now you have another situation where "there could be many causes for the change X". And you think that because Climate Change followed that pattern above, X must necessarily have only one real cause, and that cause is your preferred pet theory. Does not sound like a convincing argument.
      - defrost 4mo ago
        Let's just talk about the recent (past 500 years) change in the insulation properties of the planet's atmosphere. It's been in a constant burbling flux that has many factors, fires, volcanoes, etc all contribute to the steady level of churn. The substantial change away from baseline is well recorded, tied back to sources by isotopes, and has a single cause - carbon dioxide by products from the combustion and release of previously sequestered carbon sources. There's no doubt about that - there are multiple atmospheric libraries of gases from various parts of the world to back that up. The data source sets for atmospheric makeup and ocean thermoclines are deeply tied into Cold War nuclear test monitoring and watching enemies, not some hippy dippy eco friendly new age hand wavyness.
        anon84873628 4mo ago
        What in my comment makes you think I'm disputing anthropogenic climate change? It's about the pattern of logic you are applying. You seem to think that because Climate change is a messy topic with one real explanation, every other messy topic must also have a single true explanation. No, it doesn't work that way
    - jasonlotito 4mo ago
      Except we weren't talking about climate change. We were talking about you lying. You said one thing, and the link you provided did not support your claim. If you make a claim, and the thing you say supports it does not support it, kinda sounds like lying. You trying to make this about climate change just proves even further that you know you are a liar.
- esarbe 4mo ago
  That human industrial activities are the primary direct causation of the currently observed climate change is a scientific fact, proven beyond any reasonable doubt. What you show is that there are not many conservatives in academia. The reason for that is manifold. It could be that they are forced out. It could be that their views are changed with higher learning and turn progressive. It could be that conservatives self-select to not go into academia. Pointing that out is not hand-waving.
  - Levitz 4mo ago
    When we are talking about a context in which affirmative action and diversity statements were normalized it absolutely is hand-waving
    - esarbe 4mo ago
      No it's not. If scientific investigation shows that there are many causes that have a relevant impact on "A", then saying that "A has multiple relevant and possible causes" is not hand-waving. It's stating the fact. Hand-waving is to pearl clutchlingly throw out vague terms like "affirmative action" and "diversity statements" without properly stating what the mechanism is supposed to be and without providing any evidence that it is relevant in the last. You know, polemic tribal whistle-blowing like you are doing. That's hand-waving.
      - Levitz 4mo ago
        >vague terms like "affirmative action" and "diversity statements" And this is circling the wagons. Sorry but I can't believe someone who is intellectually honest is capable of writing such thing. You are either blatantly ignorant on this matter (and shouldn't be talking about it at all) or taking me for a ride. It's preposterous that I have to explain how requiring a document in which you state allegiance to leftist ideals has an impact on the political makeup of admissions. I don't have enough frontal lobe damage to take you seriously.
xdennis 4mo ago
> That doesn't show they were purged. There are many reasons their numbers declined. Fun fact, what you're arguing is actually one of the reasons Charlie was murdered. He notoriously said that the Civil Rights Act was a mistake. He specifically referred to Title VII which states even a neutral policy can be racism if it produces disparate impact[1] in practice. That is, if a neutral policy results in fewer black people being hired, that's evidence of racism. Charlie disagreed with that. It's fun to see leftists argue the same when it comes to discrimination against right wing or centrist academics. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact
- anon84873628 4mo ago
  Well, a key difference is that race is an intrinsic immutable attribute, and political views aren't. The paradox of tolerance is real. And more practically, it's impossible to guarantee representation of all viewpoints because there are an infinite number of them.
  - defrost 4mo ago
    > that race is an intrinsic immutable attribute Not to those familiar with the history of the US Census racial classifications, given the number of times the categories shifted and changed it seems more than a little opinionated.
    - anon84873628 4mo ago
      Ok fine, let's call it "ethnicity" then. Would you and your sibling care to comment on the actual point of the parent comment thread?
      - defrost 4mo ago
        > fine, let's call it "ethnicity" then. Ethnicity is mostly stable for most individuals, sure, but it too is hardly immutable - people do and have changed their countries, social cultures, and daily language usage- even to the point of struggling to think and talk in their primary birth languages. > care to comment on the actual point of the parent comment thread? Ahh, that "Charlie" (Kirk) had opinions, that US science is in chaos, that US use of the phrase "leftists" is always grating, that a two party Hotelling's law cluster feck inevitably resulting from US style elections is inadequate to politically represent a large population? There's a lot going on here; one thing at a time is that race being an "an intrinsic immutable attribute" is all manner of horseshit.

That doesn't show they were purged. There are many reasons their numbers declined.

WarmWash 4mo ago

[flagged]

jasonlotito 4mo ago
So you admit you were lying. Gotcha.
- WarmWash 4mo ago
  There are not many reasons for climate change, it is in fact just humans. That should be obvious.
  - anon84873628 4mo ago
    Ok, so we establish that "Climate change could seem to have many causes, but educated people know that human activity is the proven cause of the majority of the change." And now you have another situation where "there could be many causes for the change X". And you think that because Climate Change followed that pattern above, X must necessarily have only one real cause, and that cause is your preferred pet theory. Does not sound like a convincing argument.
    - defrost 4mo ago
      Let's just talk about the recent (past 500 years) change in the insulation properties of the planet's atmosphere. It's been in a constant burbling flux that has many factors, fires, volcanoes, etc all contribute to the steady level of churn. The substantial change away from baseline is well recorded, tied back to sources by isotopes, and has a single cause - carbon dioxide by products from the combustion and release of previously sequestered carbon sources. There's no doubt about that - there are multiple atmospheric libraries of gases from various parts of the world to back that up. The data source sets for atmospheric makeup and ocean thermoclines are deeply tied into Cold War nuclear test monitoring and watching enemies, not some hippy dippy eco friendly new age hand wavyness.
      - anon84873628 4mo ago
        What in my comment makes you think I'm disputing anthropogenic climate change? It's about the pattern of logic you are applying. You seem to think that because Climate change is a messy topic with one real explanation, every other messy topic must also have a single true explanation. No, it doesn't work that way
  - jasonlotito 4mo ago
    Except we weren't talking about climate change. We were talking about you lying. You said one thing, and the link you provided did not support your claim. If you make a claim, and the thing you say supports it does not support it, kinda sounds like lying. You trying to make this about climate change just proves even further that you know you are a liar.
esarbe 4mo ago
That human industrial activities are the primary direct causation of the currently observed climate change is a scientific fact, proven beyond any reasonable doubt. What you show is that there are not many conservatives in academia. The reason for that is manifold. It could be that they are forced out. It could be that their views are changed with higher learning and turn progressive. It could be that conservatives self-select to not go into academia. Pointing that out is not hand-waving.
- Levitz 4mo ago
  When we are talking about a context in which affirmative action and diversity statements were normalized it absolutely is hand-waving
  - esarbe 4mo ago
    No it's not. If scientific investigation shows that there are many causes that have a relevant impact on "A", then saying that "A has multiple relevant and possible causes" is not hand-waving. It's stating the fact. Hand-waving is to pearl clutchlingly throw out vague terms like "affirmative action" and "diversity statements" without properly stating what the mechanism is supposed to be and without providing any evidence that it is relevant in the last. You know, polemic tribal whistle-blowing like you are doing. That's hand-waving.
    - Levitz 4mo ago
      >vague terms like "affirmative action" and "diversity statements" And this is circling the wagons. Sorry but I can't believe someone who is intellectually honest is capable of writing such thing. You are either blatantly ignorant on this matter (and shouldn't be talking about it at all) or taking me for a ride. It's preposterous that I have to explain how requiring a document in which you state allegiance to leftist ideals has an impact on the political makeup of admissions. I don't have enough frontal lobe damage to take you seriously.

xdennis 4mo ago

> That doesn't show they were purged. There are many reasons their numbers declined. Fun fact, what you're arguing is actually one of the reasons Charlie was murdered. He notoriously said that the Civil Rights Act was a mistake. He specifically referred to Title VII which states even a neutral policy can be racism if it produces disparate impact[1] in practice. That is, if a neutral policy results in fewer black people being hired, that's evidence of racism. Charlie disagreed with that. It's fun to see leftists argue the same when it comes to discrimination against right wing or centrist academics. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

anon84873628 4mo ago
Well, a key difference is that race is an intrinsic immutable attribute, and political views aren't. The paradox of tolerance is real. And more practically, it's impossible to guarantee representation of all viewpoints because there are an infinite number of them.
- defrost 4mo ago
  > that race is an intrinsic immutable attribute Not to those familiar with the history of the US Census racial classifications, given the number of times the categories shifted and changed it seems more than a little opinionated.
  - anon84873628 4mo ago
    Ok fine, let's call it "ethnicity" then. Would you and your sibling care to comment on the actual point of the parent comment thread?
    - defrost 4mo ago
      > fine, let's call it "ethnicity" then. Ethnicity is mostly stable for most individuals, sure, but it too is hardly immutable - people do and have changed their countries, social cultures, and daily language usage- even to the point of struggling to think and talk in their primary birth languages. > care to comment on the actual point of the parent comment thread? Ahh, that "Charlie" (Kirk) had opinions, that US science is in chaos, that US use of the phrase "leftists" is always grating, that a two party Hotelling's law cluster feck inevitably resulting from US style elections is inadequate to politically represent a large population? There's a lot going on here; one thing at a time is that race being an "an intrinsic immutable attribute" is all manner of horseshit.