EPTHis COVID response as a whole is good enough justification for it, but it's an inevitable consequence of constantly leveling nonsensical attacks on non partisan institutions: they'll become partisan against you.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2633
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
His COVID response as a whole is good enough justification for it, but it's an inevitable consequence of constantly leveling nonsensical attacks on non partisan institutions: they'll become partisan against you. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 17 2020 00:27 Nevuk wrote: I think scientific american's endorsement has a lot more to do with Trump having personally leveled attacks against science as a whole for a while now. It's hard to be non partisan when one side is attacking your job's entire role in society. His COVID response as a whole is good enough justification for it, but it's an inevitable consequence of constantly leveling nonsensical attacks on non partisan institutions: they'll become partisan against you. Or they’ll stay nonpartisan, because science isn’t the science of Republicans or Democratic Science; it’s just science. Huge own goal here for professionalism. One institution after another becomes associated with a political party, some whining “you made me do it” into the void. Two reactions: “it doesn’t affect anyone we care about, the impact is constrained to people science has lost anyways” and “you’re just giving people more reason to distrust the nonpartisan nature of science, and more will question if the conclusions are more dependent on political advocacy or the nature of the research.” We already see trust in dozens of institutions fall to historically low levels. Bad play, bad signaling. They’re giving Trump an easy “even science is biased against you for voting for me” narrative close to an election. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
It's like those athletes taking a knee during the anthem. "This is not the time nor the place for it!" When is it then ? Once the earth is reduced to a wasteland ? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11941 Posts
On September 17 2020 01:17 Danglars wrote: Or they’ll stay nonpartisan, because science isn’t the science of Republicans or Democratic Science; it’s just science. Huge own goal here for professionalism. One institution after another becomes associated with a political party, some whining “you made me do it” into the void. Two reactions: “it doesn’t affect anyone we care about, the impact is constrained to people science has lost anyways” and “you’re just giving people more reason to distrust the nonpartisan nature of science, and more will question if the conclusions are more dependent on political advocacy or the nature of the research.” We already see trust in dozens of institutions fall to historically low levels. Bad play, bad signaling. They’re giving Trump an easy “even science is biased against you for voting for me” narrative close to an election. I love how you don't even consider the possibility that your side might just be wrong for even one second. A science journal claims that your president is so uniquely anti-science that they need to speak out against him, despite the fact that it hasn't done anything like that for its whole existence. But that couldn't mean that your president is just bad. It means that they needlessly turned partisan. Maybe, just maybe, if almost every scientist is against you, you are just wrong. Maybe science is actually still nonpartisan, but you are incorrect. And the fact that the crazy Trump cultists view stuff differently really shouldn't matter, because no matter what anyone does, they will always interpret it in a way to fit their cult of worshipping their corrupt, boorish, arrogant, incompetent leader. | ||
|
pajoondies
United States316 Posts
Surre, Danglers isn't wrong about how it'll be viewed but as many have succinctly pointed out, that's how it has been viewed for a long time anyway. It's particularly saddening because the skepticism the right demonstrates can be a very good thing IF they allowed themselves to understand all aspects of a topic. Unfortunately they can be provided with a solid, widely agreed upon explanation of something and instead of countering it with logic and nuance, we get the "but how do you KNOW for sure it isn't what I think?" It's painfully frustrating to deal with those kinds of responses. Their explanations (especially in science denialism) make literally no sense, like Trump saying it'll get cooler with all evidence showing the opposite. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 17 2020 02:15 pajoondies wrote: Nobody who truly supports Trump gives a damn about 'how things look' because if they did, they would have a hyuuuge problem with "insert endless list of lies, misleading statements, and awful acts performed by Trump". So SA supporting Biden doesn't look bad to most because Biden supporters will say that it makes sense, and Trump supporters never cared or believe the overwhelming opinions of the medical and scientific communities anyway (COVID and climate change included). Surre, Danglers isn't wrong about how it'll be viewed but as many have succinctly pointed out, that's how it has been viewed for a long time anyway. It's particularly saddening because the skepticism the right demonstrates can be a very good thing IF they allowed themselves to understand all aspects of a topic. Unfortunately they can be provided with a solid, widely agreed upon explanation of something and instead of countering it with logic and nuance, we get the "but how do you KNOW for sure it isn't what I think?" It's painfully frustrating to deal with those kinds of responses. Their explanations (especially in science denialism) make literally no sense, like Trump saying it'll get cooler with all evidence showing the opposite. It is important to keep in mind that scientists have been dragged over coals for "being too political" for trying to have evolution taught in schools. Same with smoking. Same with environmental issues. This has been going on for so long. What is amazing is seeing people try to warn scientists, as if we need to shut up or else we might lose their vote. These people have been bad faith actors for so long. People grasping pearls pretending this endorsement hurt scientist credibility? Ask them this: How old is the earth and did humans evolve from other organisms. You'll realize this was totally toast anyway. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
The good old “pretend your opponents are mid 20th century luddites to reap conservative tears” is liberal porn. Had they endorsed Trump, suddenly people would recall that nonpartisan institutions are the bedrock of America. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46243 Posts
On September 17 2020 02:54 Danglars wrote: Baloney. Scientists talking about the earth’s age, the origin of life, and the future of the environment is ages away from scientific publications endorsing presidential candidates. People critical of the first are way different than people critical of the second. The good old “pretend your opponents are mid 20th century luddites to reap conservative tears” is liberal porn. Had they endorsed Trump, suddenly people would recall that nonpartisan institutions are the bedrock of America. What rationale would a scientific publication have for endorsing an objectively anti-science / science-denialist presidential candidate though? It's not like SA flipped a coin or arbitrarily decided to support one candidate over another. There are legitimate, pro-science reasons to prefer Biden/Harris over Trump/Pence, so this whole "what if the shoe was on the other foot" doesn't make any sense. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11941 Posts
On September 17 2020 02:54 Danglars wrote: Baloney. Scientists talking about the earth’s age, the origin of life, and the future of the environment is ages away from scientific publications endorsing presidential candidates. People critical of the first are way different than people critical of the second. The good old “pretend your opponents are mid 20th century luddites to reap conservative tears” is liberal porn. Had they endorsed Trump, suddenly people would recall that nonpartisan institutions are the bedrock of America. You are completely misrepresenting and thus replying incorrectly to the argument which was being made. The argument was that the overlap between the group of people who complain that a scientific publication said that trump is bad and the people who believe in utterly stupid nonscientific bullshit like "the earth is 6000 years old" or "manmade climate change doesn't exist" is almost complete. And those people were never going to believe anything scientists told them anyways, and they were going to vote for trump anyways, no matter what anyone did or said. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On September 17 2020 02:54 Danglars wrote: Baloney. Scientists talking about the earth’s age, the origin of life, and the future of the environment is ages away from scientific publications endorsing presidential candidates. People critical of the first are way different than people critical of the second. The good old “pretend your opponents are mid 20th century luddites to reap conservative tears” is liberal porn. Had they endorsed Trump, suddenly people would recall that nonpartisan institutions are the bedrock of America. But they wouldn't because Trump doesn't take decisions based on it. You don't get it. They would never _ever_ endorse Trump. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 17 2020 02:54 Danglars wrote: Baloney. Scientists talking about the earth’s age, the origin of life, and the future of the environment is ages away from scientific publications endorsing presidential candidates. People critical of the first are way different than people critical of the second. The good old “pretend your opponents are mid 20th century luddites to reap conservative tears” is liberal porn. Had they endorsed Trump, suddenly people would recall that nonpartisan institutions are the bedrock of America. If someone doesn't believe evolution or carbon dating are legitimate ideas, which century of Luddites would you say that qualifies as? It is entirely inappropriate to be even slightly skeptical of either one. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 17 2020 03:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Sounds like you’d see a problem if the endorsement was on the other political foot.What rationale would a scientific publication have for endorsing an objectively anti-science / science-denialist presidential candidate though? It's not like SA flipped a coin or arbitrarily decided to support one candidate over another. There are legitimate, pro-science reasons to prefer Biden/Harris over Trump/Pence, so this whole "what if the shoe was on the other foot" doesn't make any sense. On September 17 2020 03:06 Simberto wrote: You are completely misrepresenting and thus replying incorrectly to the argument which was being made. The argument was that the overlap between the group of people who complain that a scientific publication said that trump is bad and the people who believe in utterly stupid nonscientific bullshit like "the earth is 6000 years old" or "manmade climate change doesn't exist" is almost complete. And those people were never going to believe anything scientists told them anyways, and they were going to vote for trump anyways, no matter what anyone did or said. Nah, that’s stupid political spin. Science should not be a political monoculture. It’s politics-independent. Or *ahem* should be. When scientific publications play politics, they lose more trust and expectation of neutrality. You’re presuming way too much in assuming the only people that have trouble with this publication entering politics are bad people you should ignore. Very Trumpian of you too. Write them off, edge lord. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27234 Posts
It’s 2020 and we’re reverting back to having to tell people that vaccines work ffs. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46243 Posts
On September 17 2020 03:11 Danglars wrote: Sounds like you’d see a problem if the endorsement was on the other political foot. I would, but not because I believe that publications shouldn't endorse candidates. The reason I'd have a problem with a scientific publication endorsing Trump is because, as I said before, Trump is anti-science. Traditionally, organizations back the presidential candidate that aligns most closely with the organization's vision, which is why Scientific American and Planned Parenthood endorse the Democratic party while the National Rifle Association and the Ku Klux Klan endorse the Republican party. I would find it equally absurd if PP backed Trump or if the NRA and KKK backed Biden. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
www.pewresearch.org You want it to be non political to fit your point of view. Your party doesn't believe in it. They don't care about it and would rather destroy regulations for stocks. Remember the good old 5 for 1 ? It is political, because one side made it clear that they don't care about it and it just doesn't cut it anymore. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 17 2020 03:11 Danglars wrote: Sounds like you’d see a problem if the endorsement was on the other political foot. Nah, that’s stupid political spin. Science should not be a political monoculture. It’s politics-independent. Or *ahem* should be. When scientific publications play politics, they lose more trust and expectation of neutrality. You’re presuming way too much in assuming the only people that have trouble with this publication entering politics are bad people you should ignore. Very Trumpian of you too. Write them off, edge lord. Don't nurses, doctors, cops and other various groups endorse people that they think will improve their industry or job or whatever? Scientists should have an extreme interest in politics because politics determines basically everything. Funding, priorities, everything. Scientists have an extreme vested interest in how elections turn out. To accomplish their goal, they need to be able to work. There is no loss of credibility here. This is a group of people advocating for what is best for them, as all groups do. I'm 0% convinced by your assertion that they lose credibility here. You've done a super bad job at making that point. Edit: For everyone wondering how Danglars can have such a hard time with this, I'd like to remind people that he recently used Andy Ngo to show that 3 different people on TL who live in Portland, were wrong about the situation in Portland. 3 people living in the city. | ||
| ||
