5 ms·

No that's a more partisan one, and is exactly the sort of thing OP was arguing against. If you want broad based support for research funding you will necessaril

by rurp 3mo ago

No that's a more partisan one, and is exactly the sort of thing OP was arguing against. If you want broad based support for research funding you will necessarily need support from a lot of people you personally find distasteful. You can either try to appeal to people across the spectrum and keep bipartisan support, or label half the country racist and deal with the resulting backlash. As someone who hates the current administration and thinks it's doing untold harm to our future, I'm disappointed by how many people in the sciences chose option two.

amanaplanacanal 3mo ago
I don't understand. We shouldn't research whether institutional racism is causing problems? Because Republicans don't want it to be true? Is that the claim, or am I confused about what you are saying?
- wins32767 3mo ago
  Part of the issue here is that the academy has lost the trust of Republicans. So even if there are results that institutional racism is a significant factor, if it's coming from someone who is "woke" in their views it'll just be dismissed. To them it feels like using their tax dollars to fund someone who is going to skew results so they have a club to beat them with. And a big part of the reason they've lost trust is that the academy doesn't acknowledge when it's being political (see "reality has a liberal bias" in this thread or your frame here, for that matter).
  - jibal 3mo ago
    You're portraying Republicans as fundamentally intellectually dishonest people. I'm not one to argue.
  - amanaplanacanal 3mo ago
    The way science is supposed to work, it doesn't matter who is doing the study. Anybody can read the resulting paper and see whether the conclusions are supported by the data. That's what science is. Saying they don't trust science is a pretty heavy indictment that they have lost their way. What are they proposing to replace science with, vibes?
- tbrownaw 3mo ago
  > I don't understand. We shouldn't research whether institutional racism is causing problems? Is "institutional racism" when institutions do treat individuals differently on the basis of race, or when they make sure not to? I'm used to seeing that term in context of advocating for explicit double standards.
- Borealid 3mo ago
  I will have a stab at legitimately explaining the viewpoint you profess not to understand. "Institutional" or "structural" racism doesn't just mean racism by one or two people in power. It's the idea that the majority of society demonstrates some kind of racial bias, by whatever means. Society is made up of people. One of two things must, logically, be true: 1. A SUBSTANTIAL portion of the people who make up society exhibit some kind of racist behavior, or 2. Structural racism is not a widespread issue Which one of these two propositions must one believe is likely if one is researching the impact of structural racism? Keep in mind people do not generally don't go looking for things they do not believe exist. In other words, people don't like other people believing they-en-masse discriminate (even IF they do), so taking actions that only make sense if you think that poorly of the everyman offends them. It's not about what someone wants to be true, it's that investigating implies a level of distrust in society some members of that society find uncivil. To use a blunt analogy, "why not let me check your underwear to make sure you haven't soiled it? Do you just not want it to be true?".
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  - ordersofmag 3mo ago
    You have misunderstood what structural racism is. It is not about the majority of people being racist. Is about the systems being constructed in ways that lead to racist outcomes. You can have a society with zero racist individuals and if they continue to enact the racist systems (perhaps created by racist folks long dead) you'll have structural racism. I don't disagree with the idea that the mis-understanding you have is widespread though, and would certainly be a cause for folks not being comfortable with the idea (as they have mis-understood it).
    - naijaboiler 3mo ago
      I compare it basketball. Due to the goal being 10ft in the air, it structurally biased against shorter people. You don’t need actually size-ist for it to exist. It’s just inherent to how the system of rules are constructed
datsci_est_2015 3mo ago
> or label half the country racist and deal with the resulting backlash. This is an unfair characterization, and frankly, is baseless political rhetoric. Incredible propaganda job moneyed interests have performed in order to convince the right wing that any research that asks probing questions about equity automatically implies anyone white and conservative is “racist”. My favorite research that falls into this category concerns the effects of nuclear weapons testing on the lands and livelihoods of indigenous peoples. Clearly, nakedly something that anyone with a decent moral compass would give a shit about, but pulled under the umbrella of DEI because empathy is dead.
- wins32767 3mo ago
  It's not propaganda, it's all the normal people on the left in my life who have in the last 5-6 years started calling anyone to their right on social justice issues racist. You're doing a lesser form of it here with "Clearly, nakedly something that anyone with a decent moral compass..." That makes a moral issue out of something that's clearly within the realm of politics in a healthy society (where to direct tax dollars). It's perfectly reasonable to think that I'd rather have slightly higher dollars spent on Medicaid funding than do that research study. If you agree with that, then it's clearly a political question, not a moral one.
  - datsci_est_2015 3mo ago
    Sounds quite reasonable when you put it that way, but unfortunately the entire domain of such research has been demonized and turned into a right wing meme, essentially disqualifying any such research from being funded at all. “DEI” is a rhetorical hammer and any funding for research that involves equity is the porcelain that the hammer is smashing. So it’s no longer about whether we allocate funding to this or that, as a political compromise, it’s about the culture war.
  - jibal 3mo ago
    Of course it's propaganda--the product of moneyed interests, as he said. It's ignorant, irrational, and dishonest to deny it. (And the rest of your comment here, and comments here, are in the same basket.) The statement was "Incredible propaganda job moneyed interests have performed in order to convince the right wing that any research that asks probing questions about equity automatically implies anyone white and conservative is “racist”" and then you immediately respond with exactly that claim. It's not those on the left who are the baddies. The statement here was about those on the right using "DEI" to institutionalize bigotry. And it was a response to blatant lies like "label half the country racist". And masking immorality and blatant bigotry as "politics" is a common "conservative" ploy. Of course "the effects of nuclear weapons testing on the lands and livelihoods of indigenous peoples" is prima facie a moral issue--nakedly, as he said. Elsewhere you claim that > Richard Muller have come in to disprove the mainstream consensus It seems that there's nothing you won't lie about. But enough wallowing in the mud with ____ ... I won't respond further.

by rurp 3mo ago

amanaplanacanal 3mo ago

I don't understand. We shouldn't research whether institutional racism is causing problems? Because Republicans don't want it to be true? Is that the claim, or am I confused about what you are saying?

wins32767 3mo ago
Part of the issue here is that the academy has lost the trust of Republicans. So even if there are results that institutional racism is a significant factor, if it's coming from someone who is "woke" in their views it'll just be dismissed. To them it feels like using their tax dollars to fund someone who is going to skew results so they have a club to beat them with. And a big part of the reason they've lost trust is that the academy doesn't acknowledge when it's being political (see "reality has a liberal bias" in this thread or your frame here, for that matter).
- jibal 3mo ago
  You're portraying Republicans as fundamentally intellectually dishonest people. I'm not one to argue.
- amanaplanacanal 3mo ago
  The way science is supposed to work, it doesn't matter who is doing the study. Anybody can read the resulting paper and see whether the conclusions are supported by the data. That's what science is. Saying they don't trust science is a pretty heavy indictment that they have lost their way. What are they proposing to replace science with, vibes?
tbrownaw 3mo ago
> I don't understand. We shouldn't research whether institutional racism is causing problems? Is "institutional racism" when institutions do treat individuals differently on the basis of race, or when they make sure not to? I'm used to seeing that term in context of advocating for explicit double standards.
Borealid 3mo ago
I will have a stab at legitimately explaining the viewpoint you profess not to understand. "Institutional" or "structural" racism doesn't just mean racism by one or two people in power. It's the idea that the majority of society demonstrates some kind of racial bias, by whatever means. Society is made up of people. One of two things must, logically, be true: 1. A SUBSTANTIAL portion of the people who make up society exhibit some kind of racist behavior, or 2. Structural racism is not a widespread issue Which one of these two propositions must one believe is likely if one is researching the impact of structural racism? Keep in mind people do not generally don't go looking for things they do not believe exist. In other words, people don't like other people believing they-en-masse discriminate (even IF they do), so taking actions that only make sense if you think that poorly of the everyman offends them. It's not about what someone wants to be true, it's that investigating implies a level of distrust in society some members of that society find uncivil. To use a blunt analogy, "why not let me check your underwear to make sure you haven't soiled it? Do you just not want it to be true?".
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- ordersofmag 3mo ago
  You have misunderstood what structural racism is. It is not about the majority of people being racist. Is about the systems being constructed in ways that lead to racist outcomes. You can have a society with zero racist individuals and if they continue to enact the racist systems (perhaps created by racist folks long dead) you'll have structural racism. I don't disagree with the idea that the mis-understanding you have is widespread though, and would certainly be a cause for folks not being comfortable with the idea (as they have mis-understood it).
  - naijaboiler 3mo ago
    I compare it basketball. Due to the goal being 10ft in the air, it structurally biased against shorter people. You don’t need actually size-ist for it to exist. It’s just inherent to how the system of rules are constructed

datsci_est_2015 3mo ago

> or label half the country racist and deal with the resulting backlash. This is an unfair characterization, and frankly, is baseless political rhetoric. Incredible propaganda job moneyed interests have performed in order to convince the right wing that any research that asks probing questions about equity automatically implies anyone white and conservative is “racist”. My favorite research that falls into this category concerns the effects of nuclear weapons testing on the lands and livelihoods of indigenous peoples. Clearly, nakedly something that anyone with a decent moral compass would give a shit about, but pulled under the umbrella of DEI because empathy is dead.

wins32767 3mo ago
It's not propaganda, it's all the normal people on the left in my life who have in the last 5-6 years started calling anyone to their right on social justice issues racist. You're doing a lesser form of it here with "Clearly, nakedly something that anyone with a decent moral compass..." That makes a moral issue out of something that's clearly within the realm of politics in a healthy society (where to direct tax dollars). It's perfectly reasonable to think that I'd rather have slightly higher dollars spent on Medicaid funding than do that research study. If you agree with that, then it's clearly a political question, not a moral one.
- datsci_est_2015 3mo ago
  Sounds quite reasonable when you put it that way, but unfortunately the entire domain of such research has been demonized and turned into a right wing meme, essentially disqualifying any such research from being funded at all. “DEI” is a rhetorical hammer and any funding for research that involves equity is the porcelain that the hammer is smashing. So it’s no longer about whether we allocate funding to this or that, as a political compromise, it’s about the culture war.
- jibal 3mo ago
  Of course it's propaganda--the product of moneyed interests, as he said. It's ignorant, irrational, and dishonest to deny it. (And the rest of your comment here, and comments here, are in the same basket.) The statement was "Incredible propaganda job moneyed interests have performed in order to convince the right wing that any research that asks probing questions about equity automatically implies anyone white and conservative is “racist”" and then you immediately respond with exactly that claim. It's not those on the left who are the baddies. The statement here was about those on the right using "DEI" to institutionalize bigotry. And it was a response to blatant lies like "label half the country racist". And masking immorality and blatant bigotry as "politics" is a common "conservative" ploy. Of course "the effects of nuclear weapons testing on the lands and livelihoods of indigenous peoples" is prima facie a moral issue--nakedly, as he said. Elsewhere you claim that > Richard Muller have come in to disprove the mainstream consensus It seems that there's nothing you won't lie about. But enough wallowing in the mud with ____ ... I won't respond further.