4 ms·

> 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

by 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.
- cauch 3mo ago
  > So you agree that the US has more free speech because people can deviate from your completely arbitrarily defined "normal" form of critique. What? No, in the US, people will also be in trouble, not only from deviating from my "normal" form of critique, but also when they don't deviate from it. Trump called for investigation and arrest on Comey, Cheney, Powell, ... despite the fact that they never crossed the line in expressing their criticism to Trump's decisions. This has never happened in Europe. > the German criminal code has literally criminalized insulting people How is that a bad thing? If your opinions are not stupid, you don't need to insult people to express them. > In your opinion, acting like an idiot is a criminal offense What? Is that really what you understand? I'm just saying that they acted like an idiot by doing something they should have known was unnecessary and will led to trouble, including judicial one. Me: "Mr Smith was not arrested because he wears a red t-shirt, he was arrested because he acted like an idiot by deciding to expose himself to children in the street". You: "So you are saying that acting like an idiot is a criminal offence". > And what are the political demographics of academia right now? This is a big reason for the replication crisis in the social sciences. Oh, there it goes. Academia are highly international and therefore meritocracy based: if you think that Harvard is too "left wing", go to Paris, or Tel Aviv, or Quebec, or Japan, or Melbourne, or Rome, or London, or any other "anti-woke" university in USA or somewhere else, and publish your piece and become famous for having demonstrated objectively something that the intelligencia wanted to hide. This idea that the whole word is so much into the conspiracy that every universities on Earth are covering the left-wing academia conspiracy is so stupid. Maybe another reason is that a lot of right-wing political ideas don't make sense when confronted to a rigorous analysis, and therefore the right-wing positions are falling from natural selection. > That isn't really happening Yeah, sure, and your fantasy about academic left-wing conspiracy and anti-freedom-of-speech-dictatorship in Europe, these are really happening. Sure.
  - naasking 3mo ago
    > Trump called for investigation and arrest on Comey, Cheney, Powell, ... despite the fact that they never crossed the line in expressing their criticism to Trump's decisions. I'm not a fan of Trump's governance, but none of those people were investigated for "criticizing Trump's decisions". > This has never happened in Europe. Poland: The "Lex Tusk" Commission (2023) Hungary: The Sovereignty Protection Office (2023) Ukraine: Viktor Yanukovych vs. Yulia Tymoshenko (2011) Turkey: Erdoğan vs. Ekrem İmamoğlu Romania: Investigating the Chief Anti-Corruption Prosecutor (2018) France: The "Clearstream Affair" (2004) > How is that a bad thing? If your opinions are not stupid, you don't need to insult people to express them. 1. Insults are subjective. If you don't see the problem with criminalizing subjective opinions, then I don't know what to tell you. 2. You're literally trying to restrict how I express my legitimate opinions while simultaneously claiming that speech is freer in Europe. > Me: "Mr Smith was not arrested because he wears a red t-shirt, he was arrested because he acted like an idiot by deciding to expose himself to children in the street". You: "So you are saying that acting like an idiot is a criminal offence". You've lost the plot. The original point was that people were arrested for criticizing politicians, your rebuttal was that the way they did it was idiotic, which directly implies that you're ok with criminalizing idiocy even when the criticism is legitimate. Your reply here is a complete red herring. > Academia are highly international and therefore meritocracy based: This does not follow. Literally. > This idea that the whole word is so much into the conspiracy that every universities on Earth are covering the left-wing academia conspiracy is so stupid. It's not a conspiracy when people are just acting in their own best interests. I don't know where you got the idea that it has to be a conspiracy. > Maybe another reason is that a lot of right-wing political ideas don't make sense when confronted to a rigorous analysis, and therefore the right-wing positions are falling from natural selection. This is also delusional, and frankly completely ignorant of studies done on exactly this (not only researcher bias, publication bias, hiring bias, and more).

by cauch 3mo ago

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.

cauch 3mo ago
> So you agree that the US has more free speech because people can deviate from your completely arbitrarily defined "normal" form of critique. What? No, in the US, people will also be in trouble, not only from deviating from my "normal" form of critique, but also when they don't deviate from it. Trump called for investigation and arrest on Comey, Cheney, Powell, ... despite the fact that they never crossed the line in expressing their criticism to Trump's decisions. This has never happened in Europe. > the German criminal code has literally criminalized insulting people How is that a bad thing? If your opinions are not stupid, you don't need to insult people to express them. > In your opinion, acting like an idiot is a criminal offense What? Is that really what you understand? I'm just saying that they acted like an idiot by doing something they should have known was unnecessary and will led to trouble, including judicial one. Me: "Mr Smith was not arrested because he wears a red t-shirt, he was arrested because he acted like an idiot by deciding to expose himself to children in the street". You: "So you are saying that acting like an idiot is a criminal offence". > And what are the political demographics of academia right now? This is a big reason for the replication crisis in the social sciences. Oh, there it goes. Academia are highly international and therefore meritocracy based: if you think that Harvard is too "left wing", go to Paris, or Tel Aviv, or Quebec, or Japan, or Melbourne, or Rome, or London, or any other "anti-woke" university in USA or somewhere else, and publish your piece and become famous for having demonstrated objectively something that the intelligencia wanted to hide. This idea that the whole word is so much into the conspiracy that every universities on Earth are covering the left-wing academia conspiracy is so stupid. Maybe another reason is that a lot of right-wing political ideas don't make sense when confronted to a rigorous analysis, and therefore the right-wing positions are falling from natural selection. > That isn't really happening Yeah, sure, and your fantasy about academic left-wing conspiracy and anti-freedom-of-speech-dictatorship in Europe, these are really happening. Sure.
- naasking 3mo ago
  > Trump called for investigation and arrest on Comey, Cheney, Powell, ... despite the fact that they never crossed the line in expressing their criticism to Trump's decisions. I'm not a fan of Trump's governance, but none of those people were investigated for "criticizing Trump's decisions". > This has never happened in Europe. Poland: The "Lex Tusk" Commission (2023) Hungary: The Sovereignty Protection Office (2023) Ukraine: Viktor Yanukovych vs. Yulia Tymoshenko (2011) Turkey: Erdoğan vs. Ekrem İmamoğlu Romania: Investigating the Chief Anti-Corruption Prosecutor (2018) France: The "Clearstream Affair" (2004) > How is that a bad thing? If your opinions are not stupid, you don't need to insult people to express them. 1. Insults are subjective. If you don't see the problem with criminalizing subjective opinions, then I don't know what to tell you. 2. You're literally trying to restrict how I express my legitimate opinions while simultaneously claiming that speech is freer in Europe. > Me: "Mr Smith was not arrested because he wears a red t-shirt, he was arrested because he acted like an idiot by deciding to expose himself to children in the street". You: "So you are saying that acting like an idiot is a criminal offence". You've lost the plot. The original point was that people were arrested for criticizing politicians, your rebuttal was that the way they did it was idiotic, which directly implies that you're ok with criminalizing idiocy even when the criticism is legitimate. Your reply here is a complete red herring. > Academia are highly international and therefore meritocracy based: This does not follow. Literally. > This idea that the whole word is so much into the conspiracy that every universities on Earth are covering the left-wing academia conspiracy is so stupid. It's not a conspiracy when people are just acting in their own best interests. I don't know where you got the idea that it has to be a conspiracy. > Maybe another reason is that a lot of right-wing political ideas don't make sense when confronted to a rigorous analysis, and therefore the right-wing positions are falling from natural selection. This is also delusional, and frankly completely ignorant of studies done on exactly this (not only researcher bias, publication bias, hiring bias, and more).