3 ms·
The original comment talks about > it is a taboo subject that ends careers and family connections. To be specific, in US, subjects like criticising Trump can
by cauch 3mo ago
The original comment talks about
> it is a taboo subject that ends careers and family connections.
To be specific, in US, subjects like criticising Trump can have a big impact. In Europe, criticizing any politician is very very common. In US, it is very polarised, you cannot talk politics with people you don't know.
As for work, in US, research grant were removed for using some "woke" keywords for political/ideological reasons. In Europe, grants are decided by the peers, and when a controversial subject is not attributed a grant, it is not for political/ideological reason, it is because the scientific value is considered as poor.
> Freedom of speech requires the right to offend. You don't know what you say might offend someone until you've already said it.
That's not a good argument. I'm not talking about "someone expressing their opinion that happen to offend". I'm talking about people doing actions that are offending without regard of their opinion. In the examples you have given, the exact same person would have the exact same problem if they had the same behavior but hold totally different ideological opinion.
That's my point: you are politicizing the debate. These people got in trouble not at all because of their opinion, but because they acted like prick. For each "right-wing" opinion that got into trouble, you can easily find example of "left-wing" opinion that also got into trouble the same way in similar circumstances. And people doing exactly the same acts as these people would be prosecuted the same way: there is no "cooling effect", people are not afraid of talking about certain topics, because whatever topics you are talking about, the probability of getting into trouble is identical.
If your argument is "there is no freedom of speech unless people can act like prick", then this is obviously incorrect. Killing my neighbour is "acting like a prick". Where does it stop? Does me not being able to kill my neighbour means I don't have freedom of speech? Is "libel" or "harassment" something we should accept for "freedom of speech" while in practice, tolerating these practices reduce diversity of opinion?
- naasking 3mo ago> In Europe, criticizing any politician is very very common. Criticizing politicians has gotten people arrested in Europe. This doesn't happen in the US. > As for work, in US, research grant were removed for using some "woke" keywords for political/ideological reasons. In Europe, grants are decided by the peers, and when a controversial subject is not attributed a grant, it is not for political/ideological reason, it is because the scientific value is considered as poor. This is naive. You think European scientists are immune to political influence, ideological conformity and fads?
- cauch 3mo ago> Criticizing politicians has gotten people arrested in Europe. This doesn't happen in the US. Can you provide some examples? All I've seen are examples where people did not just criticize politicians, but went way further. When, at the same time, "normal" people have absolutely no problem criticizing politicians in a "normal" way. So they were not arrested for criticizing politicians, they were arrested for acting like idiots. > This is naive. You think European scientists are immune to political influence, ideological conformity and fads? Well, first, it cuts both way: left-leaning scientists have a left-leaning bias, and right-leaning scientists have a right-leaning bias. So it cancels out. But second, there is a difference between "experts making a rational decision but being unconsciously biased" and "politicians who have no idea of the subject who ruin a scientist career because they saw the term "Enola Gay" or "financial equity"". One is a bad second order side-effect, the other is frontal political thought control.
- naasking 3mo ago> When, at the same time, "normal" people have absolutely no problem criticizing politicians in a "normal" way. So you agree that the US has more free speech because people can deviate from your completely arbitrarily defined "normal" form of critique. As for examples, the German criminal code has literally criminalized insulting people (section 185), and insulting politicians has even harsher penalties (section 188). There are hundreds of articles covering cases, just ask any AI for a summary. > So they were not arrested for criticizing politicians, they were arrested for acting like idiots. In your opinion, acting like an idiot is a criminal offense, even if it does not harm anyone, in the tort sense? > Well, first, it cuts both way: left-leaning scientists have a left-leaning bias, and right-leaning scientists have a right-leaning bias. So it cancels out. And what are the political demographics of academia right now? This is a big reason for the replication crisis in the social sciences. > politicians who have no idea of the subject who ruin a scientist career because they saw the term "Enola Gay" or "financial equity"". That isn't really happening. No one's career is being ruined by having to rewrite grant proposals to remove DEI language, because previous policy required DEI language. The restructuring of academic funding and incentives is frankly long overdue. Everyone, including scientists, has been complaining about grant funding and the skewed incentives in academia, like publish or perish. You often have to break a system before it can be fixed.