|
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 |
On September 17 2020 03:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
That’s a major 20th century idea that they aren’t legitimate. Scopes monkey trial is 1925. You have a new 21st century idea, “Scientific publications shouldn’t commit to rising above political partisanship.” I see very little support, only some very nasty allegations, that objections to politicizing science from scientists themselves would only impact anti-evolution luddites. If there were more than mean-spirited attacks on the group opposite, I think somebody would’ve brought them up by now. (And in general, if you have to write off and dismiss the group that doesn’t think like you, you probably should reconsider if you arguments are actually persuasive at all)
|
On September 17 2020 03:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2020 03:11 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2020 03:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. Sounds like you’d see a problem if the endorsement was on the other political foot. On September 17 2020 03:06 Simberto wrote: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. 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.
Not to mention the fact that refusing to “play politics” is itself a political play 
Ahh yes, more pearl clutching as though writing off and dismissing SA’s fairly well written explanation for its break from tradition is somehow more principled than doing so with regard to extremist Christians whom Trump has brought into the Oval Office to lay hands on him. What a distinction.
|
On September 17 2020 03:19 Erasme wrote:And yet the difference is showing between members of the 2 party. www.pewresearch.orgYou 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.
I would rather say that science is still unpolitical.
The problem is that somehow in the US, a party which believes that when the facts are against you, that must mean that the facts are wrong is relevant. Science doesn't give political answers. But one party decides that scientists should give that parties answers rather than what the data shows, and if they don't, they are political.
|
On September 17 2020 03:28 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2020 03:19 Erasme wrote:And yet the difference is showing between members of the 2 party. www.pewresearch.orgYou 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. I would rather say that science is still unpolitical. The problem is that somehow in the US, a party which believes that when the facts are against you, that must mean that the facts are wrong is relevant. Science doesn't give political answers. But one party decides that scientists should give that parties answers rather than what the data shows, and if they don't, they are political.
Until science can be done without humans or scarcity being involved, it will be political, though we can do our best to carve out a space for as much limitation on that dynamic as possible in the meanwhile.
|
On September 17 2020 03:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2020 03:08 Mohdoo wrote: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. That’s a major 20th century idea that they aren’t legitimate. Scopes monkey trial is 1925. You have a new 21st century idea, “Scientific publications shouldn’t commit to rising above political partisanship.” I see very little support, only some very nasty allegations, that objections to politicizing science from scientists themselves would only impact anti-evolution luddites. If there were more than mean-spirited attacks on the group opposite, I think somebody would’ve brought them up by now. (And in general, if you have to write off and dismiss the group that doesn’t think like you, you probably should reconsider if you arguments are actually persuasive at all)
I have read this post 3 times and I don't know what you are saying here.
|
He's playing the victim card.
Let's enter a century of "megafires" with the guy who thinks its just seasonnal.
Winter is coming.
|
Only the latest example of attacks on career scientists at the CDC and POLITISATION OF SCIENCE via @Forbes
Michael Caputo, who has held that assistant secretary position in the Trump administration since April, has had an interesting week. On Friday, a POLITICO story from Dan Diamond broke that Caputo and his team have been trying to alter scientific reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as I detailed for Forbes. This is despite the fact that Caputo is not a scientist. He is not a doctor. He has been a political strategist, lobbyist, and public relations consultant. According to Alex Henderson writing for Salon, Caputo has served as an adviser to Russian leaders Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin and on President Donald Trump’s campaign.
You remember how people were worried when the Trump administration said they wanted to make it more efficient and better to count covid data? How people warned and asked themselves - why the heck change the system in the midst of an ongoing health crisis and make it so that the CDC was no longer in charge of giving out the numbers of covid - that is from the Politico piece above.
Below is the next gem from the same Trump appointee, from the weekend.
Then, as The New York Times reported, over the weekend, Caputo posted a video on his personal Facebook page in which he said some not-so-flattering things about CDC scientists. He claimed that these scientists “have given up science and become political animals.” Oh, and he did say that they “haven’t gotten out of their sweatpants except for meetings at coffee shops” to plot “how they’re going to attack Donald Trump.” OK, that’s a lot to say without providing supporting evidence, especially for the scientists wearing sweatpants claim. Although he didn’t specify why scientists wouldn’t just keep wearing sweatpants in coffee shops if that happened to be their normal attire.
Now, can we we please come back to that whole "we have higher standards" in regards to our government? What I did not quote, but you can read it in the Forbes story, is how he warned of an armed insurrection because Biden would never concede and people should buy guns - because... reasons and HHS spox is very stressed out.
|
On September 17 2020 03:36 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2020 03:25 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2020 03:08 Mohdoo wrote: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. That’s a major 20th century idea that they aren’t legitimate. Scopes monkey trial is 1925. You have a new 21st century idea, “Scientific publications shouldn’t commit to rising above political partisanship.” I see very little support, only some very nasty allegations, that objections to politicizing science from scientists themselves would only impact anti-evolution luddites. If there were more than mean-spirited attacks on the group opposite, I think somebody would’ve brought them up by now. (And in general, if you have to write off and dismiss the group that doesn’t think like you, you probably should reconsider if you arguments are actually persuasive at all) I have read this post 3 times and I don't know what you are saying here.
Why did you ask what century carbon dating and evolution comes from? Are you aware of the connection of the scopes monkey trial? You recently connected two groups of people in your last post, so maybe I should’ve quoted your own post back to you to help establish the context. You used one group to smear the other.
|
Who are you voting for GH?
|
He will not vote because as he explained it before, his vote won't matter. So to preserve his moral integrity, he will absent from voting. Or vote blank idk.
|
Science should be apolitical. Unfortunately politicians keep politicising it. Therefore, as a scientist, I am forced to consider the politics, because I can't operate apart from it.
If people with no knowledge of science stopped firing scientists to prevent us disagreeing with their wild flights of fancy, we might be able to go back into our labs as God intended.
We would much prefer to, believe me.
|
On September 17 2020 05:39 IgnE wrote:
Who are you voting for GH?
La Riva if I bother.
On September 17 2020 06:26 Erasme wrote:
He will not vote because as he explained it before, his vote won't matter. So to preserve his moral integrity, he will absent from voting. Or vote blank idk.
You make it sound like that reflects poorly on me rather than you and the system?
|
On September 16 2020 19:39 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2020 19:36 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 19:34 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 19:32 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 19:24 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 18:31 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 18:24 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 16 2020 17:45 JimmiC wrote:On September 16 2020 17:23 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
I thin my opinion is somewhere between yours and GH's, but in effect I agree with GH. The question is a matter of degrees, which you find better is irrelevant if you find both options unacceptable.
You have decided that for you Biden is acceptable. I can't agree with the vitriol GH gets on here for saying neither is acceptable.
In my badly thought out analogy, both guys are very bad people who have no interest in helping. The long term effects of their ideas are literally exactly the same, but one uses obviously immoral means to get there. If you focus on the morality, the choice is obvious, if you focus on the long term consequences, there's not even any choice at all because both outcomes are identical. Saying neither is acceptable is fine. Saying their is no difference when it is clearly wrong. Trump is actively rolling back environmental protections, put in place by the Obama and older!!! Biden has promised to do better, but to better than Trump all he has to do is go back. The earth is a complex set of systems, there is climate science and you can spend years studying it. How long it takes for the end of the world matters very much and the changes we are talking about here matter very much. We could be talking about 100's or even thousands of years depending on many factors. People have tried to point out this is not a matter of opinion but science. You can say they are not acceptable for social justice or something and that could be argued, this cannot. Basically Danglars and GH are both climate science deniers. They have just ignored the science in two completely separate directions. On September 16 2020 17:19 Zambrah wrote:
[quote]
Biden’s commitment to fracking doesn’t make him seem like he’ll do much at all about climate change, whether he believes in it or no, though. Belief in climate change only means something if you’re willing to actually go about combating it and Biden seems real cozy with fossil fuels, fracking, and other monied interests. It doesn’t seem like he’ll do much of anything for climate change that’ll matter. Nothing will fundamentally change after all. Not banning fracking is a lot different than rolling back existing rules. Biden has promised to re-enter the Paris accord and quite a few other promises. If you think you can't trust his promises, then you also can't Trust that he won't ban fracking. There is basically no way that Biden can be as bad as Trump is on the environment on so many levels. And yes even believing in the science matters because that influences how people act, and what they chase. On September 16 2020 17:46 Neneu wrote:
Well going full speed towards a disaster gives us less time to avert and react, than having someone going half-speed towards disaster.
I think we all would prefer crashing at 30 mph, rather than 70 mph. I find it pretty mystifying how people will defend the indenfisible. If something isn't done about climate change, something radical, then millions will die and billions more will suffer a huge amount. When looked at in that frame, crashing at 30mph seems bad enough that you wouldn't wanna vote for it. The science on climate change is absolutely clear. NOTHING is more irrelevant than making a token effort. Wind the clock forward 200 years and no-one will care that Biden's apocalyptic policy is not as obnoxious as Trump's. Jimmi you say that GH is a climate denier. I would throw that accusation back at you to be honest, and at Scientific American or whoever it is that endorses Biden. Listen to what scientists are actually saying about what is required to fight climate change, now look at what Biden is saying he will do, then go back and look at what scientists say the consequences are for not doing enough. The endorsement is so ridiculous it could be a joke. I'm left wondering whether they would have endorsed a green new deal candidate, or whether the endorsement is about something else. You would be wrong though. I have posted tons of links showing this. There are some a few up. There is a drastic difference between Biden and Trump on the environment. Saying they're the same is factually wrong. Just as it is factually wrong at this point to pretend their is a 3rd option that will actually do something better. If there is please by all means say it. When Bernie lost the better choice for the environment was lost, but it is not like he would have been some savior. It would have still taken, and still does state, municipal and personal responsibility. What GH is saying is no more intelligent or well thought out than , well we shouldn't do anything in Canada because the USA, China, India and Russia are doing way more harm than we could ever do better. Or who cares if the USA does anything China, Pakistan, India, Russia Venezuela and the whole continent of Africa need to get on board. The reality of the climate situation is every country and person matters and it is going to take a group effort. But right now the best we can hope for is to slow down the collapse so we give people time to get on board. Bidens policies will make a huge difference compared to Trump the same way Steins policies would make a huge difference compared to Biden. But if you are just going to say the world is ending anyway so.why bother there is also no reason to vote any green party anywhere, unless it is to king of the world. Biden and trump are not the same on the environment, it is not close and it matters. You're mischaracterizing my argument, I'm not saying the world is ending anyway so why bother. I'm saying we can stop it, but electing either Biden or Trump is moving in the wrong direction, as both of their policies will accelerate us towards a disastrous outcome on the climate. Think about the endorsement like this: Biden's policies are a half measure between the anti-science polic of Trump and the Pro-science policy of earlier left wing primary candidates. Why are they backing the half measure now, instead of backing the pro science measures that were available earlier? I would suggest it has more to do with funding streams for science than it does any particular dedication to using science for good outcomes for everyone. They are backing the half measures now because there are only two choices. It is the trolley problem and you can obstain or pick c because it does not exist. The best you can do is pick the better of the two and try to influence other things. They are also backing him because climate is not the only area where Trump is attacking science he is doing it everywhere. Saying there is no difference is wrong, there is a major difference. Back to your analogy is one was suggesting to beat him to death and take his stuff and the other one was suggesting to give him a backpack of water, which might save him if it buys him enough time to get more help from others or find water himself but also could just mean he dies later. Who is better? And if you don't pick they will just beat him to death and take his stuff. GHs the dems too schtick had a lot more traction when there was a much smaller difference between. The two options. Now there is a massive difference. It is just as nonsensical to say climate change is a hoax as it is too say that making major differences in policy will make no change. 2+2 =3 is different than 2+2=5 but both are wrong. C did exist, and Scientific American was silent. So they should double down on their mistake and remain silent? No, but as a science publication, endorsing an anti-science candidate because he isn't as anti-science as the other guy is embarrassing. That America only has those two choices right now? So they should stay silent to avoid embarrassment instead of trying to make the better choice?
I'm with Jock here (and I only recently stopped my subscription to SciAm as I found I don't have time to read it). You can endorse not-Trump and point out that Biden is only marginally better, but you are reluctantly endorsing him. Or you can publish something that seems to stump for Biden.
The focus on climate science is a bit myopic though. There is more to science than climate science and Trump has been quite unique (in modern politics) in how he has mischaracterized pretty much every aspect of it. Informed scientific positions in pretty much every department have been filled with cronies and stooges. I expect Biden to take a more technocratic approach, so at least there will be people who understand the subject matter in the government (as there have been in previous administrations).
E: I should point out that the myopic focus on climate science is in this thread, not the SciAm endorsement, most of which is perfectly fine. It's only the 2 or so paragraphs detailing how good Biden's climate plans are that are really an issue.
|
For all the hemming and hawing it's worth remembering all these people would vote for Trump too if the alternative was whichever Republican they think is worse.
|
On September 17 2020 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
For all the hemming and hawing it's worth remembering all these people would vote for Trump too if the alternative was whichever Republican they think is worse.
All of which people?
|
On September 17 2020 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
For all the hemming and hawing it's worth remembering all these people would vote for Trump too if the alternative was whichever Republican they think is worse.
What kind of absurd hypothetical is this? What are you staking on a single vote? You have two options 1) vote 2) not vote. What's the benefit to each one? For a man who isn't voting I don't know why you talk so much about voting. For a man who talks about "the white moderate" so much I don't get why you are so invested in not voting as if you are signalling something to somebody.
Is Biden shit? What should someone committed to fighting global climate change do?
Again, in this case there are two options: 1) vote for Biden 2) not vote for Biden
What's the value of 1? It won't save the planet, that is true. But it seems like it will help some people if Biden wins over Trump. So the value is whatever the value of a vote is in making that more likely.
What's the value of 2? Communicating through your non-vote. It's hard for me to see how this isn't so small as to be negligible. Maybe you feel inclined to argue the same about the value of any vote. Well if that's the case then why are you in here talking about votes at all? I guess you could vote third-party
It seems that some of us are unable to think the "both/and" of this situation. Yes, the climate matters. Yes, other things matter. To what extent does voting for Biden diminish your impact on saving the planet in this instance? Almost none. Acting otherwise sounds a lot like performative self-soothing.
|
On September 17 2020 03:26 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2020 03:22 Mohdoo wrote:On September 17 2020 03:11 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2020 03:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. Sounds like you’d see a problem if the endorsement was on the other political foot. On September 17 2020 03:06 Simberto wrote: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. 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. Not to mention the fact that refusing to “play politics” is itself a political play Ahh yes, more pearl clutching as though writing off and dismissing SA’s fairly well written explanation for its break from tradition is somehow more principled than doing so with regard to extremist Christians whom Trump has brought into the Oval Office to lay hands on him. What a distinction.
You're right, "being apolitical" is indeed a political position. In this context, the apolitical position would be, "it is more important to maintain the position of political neutrality in order to and discuss the science than to explicitly endorse a particular political figure."
That's not the position that the editors of this particular science magazine chose to take. They chose instead to make an explicit political endorsement. It's probably the wrong call, for two reasons:
1. It's not going to make a difference in the campaign.
2. The very act of taking on political endorsements, especially in the form of writing an endorsement "straight out of WaPo" (as someone else here so aptly put it), is going to play out as a net hit to credibility relative to sitting this one out.
It's their wrong call to make, but it's the wrong call nonetheless.
|
|
|
What should someone committed to fighting global climate change do?
Understand Biden and Democrats are in opposition to the changes they recognize as necessary as someone that takes climate science seriously for a start.
|
On September 17 2020 08:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Understand Biden and Democrats are in opposition to the changes they recognize as necessary as someone that takes climate science seriously for a start.
And then what? not vote? Who do you think doesn't understand that in this thread?
You can of course recline back into the cozy "but my vote doesn't matter anyway, I am in Oregon" position. Let's just imagine, however, in a Kantian thought experiment, that you can vote Trump, vote Biden, or not vote. If you vote Trump or Biden then Trump or Biden would win. If you don't vote there's a random coin flip. What do you do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
