UlyssesT [he/him] @ UlyssesT @hexbear.net

Posts

3

Comments

1,694

Joined

4 yr. ago

But just because something is junk doesn't mean we should prevent people from accessing it.

Again, after glibly dismissing antivax conspiracy theories as unscientific under the presumption that no one credible would believe them (not that that stopped the spread and distribution of them to the general public) you're suggestion that all of the harmful prior false science listed at the following:

https://legacyofslavery.harvard.edu/report

https://slaveryandjustice.brown.edu/

https://slavery.virginia.edu/

https://georgetown.app.box.com/s/nzo1tx4elaerg13akjwxuve3pv9sb03a

https://news.emory.edu/features/2021/09/emory-unpacks-history-of-slavery-and-dispossession/index.html

should get openly and freely distributed under some idealistic notion of "set it all free" while you already derided the public for buying into antivax nonsense. Your idealism can and will hurt a lot more people because you clearly are more fine with racism than antivax conspiracy theories.

And again, who are you suggesting should be the arbiter?

Are you suggesting there should be no arbiter?

it does not have anything to do with the output of most scientific endeavor

It does when you keep proclaiming the distribution of "all" science, false/shitty and whatnot, if you're arbitrarily in favor of it under some pious ideal of "set it all free."

If we want to combat misinformation we should be encouraging people to trust scientists

That sounds really grand on paper but in reality the societal definition of who a scientist is (and who is a credible scientist) is blurred to the point that you can piously disavow antivax conspiracy theories (some of them pushed by quack scientists with dubious qualifications) but also proclaim that even "shit science" should be freely released for all to see (with "race science" being mentioned in particular with you glibly disavowing knowledge of it) and you still haven't provided a distinct measurable difference between the two.

You really seem to be more in favor of "race science" than antivax nonsense, and they are both nonsense.

Are you doing a blowhard long winded workaround way of calipers-free-but-still-racist "shitty" science under pious pretenses of it still being scientific enough to get attention?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdyin6uipy4

Who is the arbiter of what compromises junk science, if not the scientific community?

Release all the science.

It's clearly a losing battle within that community if you're making excuses for "shitty" science getting attention that it both doesn't deserve and that will actually harm people.

You're conjuring up a false exaggerated position no one here took ("require many barriers to science") and making dubious excuses for "shitty" science under pretense of "release all the science, shitty/false or otherwise" idealism.

EDIT: Fine. You quoted one person. That doesn't justify making dubious excuses for "shitty" science under pretense of "release all the science, shitty/false or otherwise" idealism.

The media and the general population do not recognize any one single specific scientific organization as an authority to depend upon, so being smug about your claimed place in the ivory tower does nothing to stop people from getting false science from somewhere other than that ivory tower.

EDIT: And how exactly are those masses that you condescend to supposed to distinguish "shitty" science from outright false science? And why should "shitty" science things be given validity and attention (which may well include race science because you never said otherwise in this thread) while you somehow distinguish that away from antivax nonsense? They're both nonsense but you seem to be making pious excuses for one kind of it.

Stating "post all the science" must feel good to say but it does nothing to stop the posting of false science calling itself science and many people going along with that. You yourself claimed (or feigned) ignorance of race science as false science, which shows just how insidious such things really are.

I'm sorry,

But "the dominant source of academic science is race science" therefore we need barriers to all science ain't it

Cut the bullshit and just tell us how badly you enjoy calipers and racism masquerading as science.

@Civility@hexbear.net

It's practically a cliche now and there's a lot of reactive pushback to it, but the finale of the True Pacifist Run of Undertale lit a fire in me like nothing else could.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n9zJKhTeaU

That got me too. It resonates, even now.

This is what "nonpolitical" politics really are: status quo adherence.

There's cheap models and they do a much quicker and easier and cleaner job of cleaning between teeth than regular floss.

I remind people that this comes in the context of it being a US wargame.

War games conducted by Chinese researchers

The basic principle underlying the exercise was to be “lenient with the enemy and strict with oneself,”

Imagining a fresh default computer with a new user just sitting down with no blockers of any kind and just wandering around is like imagining a baby sheep in a dark forest.

So far the "conflict" is so one sided that it's hardly a conflict at all, especially considering the death-juice is being wrung out of the Earth at an all-time high.

I enjoy that moment when the seemingly invincible ruling class of the setting is finally vulnerable, exposed with all its weaknesses, and may even experience some hurt and loss for a change.

One example that immediately comes to mind is Equilibrium, where the emotion-stifling dystopia is revealed to be the passion project of one particular asshole who only allowed himself the privilege of his own passion.

It was a cringe rebrand entirely because of the narcissistic "this is mine now I scribbled my name on it" antics of its new owner.