If Mort Divine ruled the world

Science is a movement?

It is now.

You could as easily roll your eyes over the fact that "women's rights" had to be a movement. Movements arise from the way their interests are treated by the political elite. And despite the strong liberal presence in America, right now Trumpish conservatism is the political elite.
 
And despite the strong liberal presence in America, right now Trumpish conservatism is the political elite.

So elite it can barely do anything other than ram a SCJ through the Senate and sign a few EOs, and "Trumpcare" still doesn't look like it attempts to fundamentally fix healthcare, just reduce coverage. Obviously hamfisted way to reduce costs is hamfisted. So far, if I had been a Trump voter, I'd be pretty upset. At this point, avoiding any new wars and potentially getting in an additional good SCJ are probably the best a cynic can hope for.
 
It is now.

You could as easily roll your eyes over the fact that "women's rights" had to be a movement. Movements arise from the way their interests are treated by the political elite. And despite the strong liberal presence in America, right now Trumpish conservatism is the political elite.

Yes but women's rights movements have been a thing since a much darker period for the rights of women, are you suggesting we're in a dark period for science of such similarity and severity that it needs to become a movement? Because that to me sounds more over the top than any of the reasons you often accuse the right of, with being sensationalist or hyperbolic.

Furthermore, I'm sure you would scoff at the idea that the left has created a situation wherein an actual movement for freedom of speech is required, yet I think that has more credibility than the implication about the need for a science movement.
 
I've actually never scoffed at any rightist protest movements--they just don't do that many. But I've never even tried to make the argument that pro-lifers shouldn't be protesting. I wouldn't scoff at a free speech march, but I'd be interested to see what the organizers think "free speech" means.

I know you don't like doing this, but you can't compare your attitude toward science with the attitude you have about women's rights in a contemporary setting. You have to imagine what men like you (and me) probably thought in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, when a lot of men felt that women were being "over the top," "sensationalist," and "hyperbolic."

That said, I don't think the state of science is similar to that of women pre-suffrage era; but protesting also shouldn't be restricted to after shit gets really bad.
 
I've actually never scoffed at any rightist protest movements--they just don't do that many.

Marching for freedom of speech wouldn't be a rightist protest movement though, if it existed, which I would say there is more justification for it to exist than a march for science.

I know you don't like doing this

I don't like engaging in thinking exercises? Huh? Lost me there with that implication.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm just not quite sure how it's relevant to science and how the average person thinks about science today.
Are you saying I should think that the march for science is necessary because the average person today feels about science the same way the average man during the suffrage movement felt about women's rights?

That said, I don't think the state of science is similar to that of women pre-suffrage era; but protesting also shouldn't be restricted to after shit gets really bad.

Agreed, and I'm not saying there shouldn't be a march for science, I'm just wondering about the details. Why is there a march, why should there be a march and so on.
 
Marching for freedom of speech wouldn't be a rightist protest movement though, if it existed, which I would say there is more justification for it to exist than a march for science.

I agree. And a march for science shouldn't be a leftist movement either.

I don't like engaging in thinking exercises? Huh? Lost me there with that implication.

Sorry, I'm thinking of past instances where I compare something today to something in the past and you (or maybe it's others, I apologize if so) tend to say that past examples are irrelevant because they're "clearly" different than what we see today. I not only think that's an impossible claim to make, I also think it's questionable to suggest that people at that time didn't have responses similar to the ones we have today when it comes to issues we deem controversial.

In other words, women's right to vote isn't controversial today, and it's clearly different than the dangers faced by, say, science. But it's important to realize that the reactions many people have today to protests for science (e.g. hyperbole, sensationalism, overblown, etc.) were the same kinds of reactions that people had in the early twentieth century when women sought the right to vote.

Are you saying I should think that the march for science is necessary because the average person today feels about science the same way the average man during the suffrage movement felt about women's rights?

I wouldn't say necessary--but warranted, no?

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a march for science, I'm just wondering about the details. Why is there a march, why should there be a march and so on.

Well, I think the primary reason is that Trump is actively taking measures to cut funding in particularly important areas of scientific research. I think we have a cabinet that isn't shy about its skepticism toward scientific research, which isn't based on any philosophical parameters of skepticism (in other words, the kind of skepticism that drives science) but rather on politically and paranoically informed skepticism. Trump has said that climate change is part of a left-wing, or maybe Chinese, plot to exert control over the country.

Trump is a figure who claims to support scientific research and development, but only in strategically narrow margins. He doesn't believe in truly speculative and/or skeptical scientific research, only the kinds of research that come to bear on specific financial interests (such as energy or defense).
 
And a march for science shouldn't be a leftist movement either.

It probably isn't, there likely are many rightists involved, they just won't reveal that they're right-wing in any fashion is probably the case.

Sorry, I'm thinking of past instances where I compare something today to something in the past and you (or maybe it's others, I apologize if so) tend to say that past examples are irrelevant because they're "clearly" different than what we see today.

Yeah I don't think that's me you're thinking of, but if you think of any specific instances I'm happy to concede. Just doesn't seem like me...

In other words, women's right to vote isn't controversial today, and it's clearly different than the dangers faced by, say, science. But it's important to realize that the reactions many people have today to protests for science (e.g. hyperbole, sensationalism, overblown, etc.) were the same kinds of reactions that people had in the early twentieth century when women sought the right to vote.

Well sure, but I would say that's where the similarities end. I find it to be a strange and rather unworkable comparison. The comparable threat science faced was in the past as we all know, when scientists were oppressed as blasphemers and so on, not today because Trump moronically dismisses climate science.

Especially considering the idea that science will most certainly outlive the Trump presidency.

I wouldn't say necessary--but warranted, no?

Well I'm not sure, that's essentially what I'm asking, is it warranted? Promoting science is pretty much as far as I can see, always a positive thing so it's irrelevant either way. All for it in spirit.

Well, I think the primary reason is that Trump is actively taking measures to cut funding in particularly important areas of scientific research. I think we have a cabinet that isn't shy about its skepticism toward scientific research, which isn't based on any philosophical parameters of skepticism (in other words, the kind of skepticism that drives science) but rather on politically and paranoically informed skepticism. Trump has said that climate change is part of a left-wing, or maybe Chinese, plot to exert control over the country.

Trump is a figure who claims to support scientific research and development, but only in strategically narrow margins. He doesn't believe in truly speculative and/or skeptical scientific research, only the kinds of research that come to bear on specific financial interests (such as energy or defense).

Trump is a moron. Though he did say he was going to shrink the government, and cutting the funding of various things is inherent in such a policy plan. But I think these people who are involved in science marches etc go about this all in the wrong way.

The way to get Trump to do what you want is through populism, and so I support people promoting and pushing science en masse as I think that kind of people power will motivate Trump in certain areas, but instead what I see is these movements demonising and attacking Trump as an anti-science type which is fine if all you want is a politically motivated attack movement, but I don't think it will be at all productive.

Attacking a man like that only causes him to double down on his scientific idiocy and this is why I think it's more politically motivated than people would admit and if any rightists are involved, they'll keep it hidden.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Einherjar86
Well, a lot of people are angry, myself included. And anger can inspire irrationality. :D It might not be the most effective method, but if it makes Trump cut science spending out of spite, well... then I'm going to start marching to impeach his ass.
 
Well, between the backlash against Stephen Colbert and the recent Hypatia controversy (not to mention some of the backlash against Dave Chappelle's recent routines), political correctness is beginning to devour its own tail.

For those unfamiliar with the Hypatia controversy, here's a link: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/transracialism-article-controversy.html

Tuvel’s article rebuts a number of the arguments against transracialism, and it’s clear, throughout, that Tuvel herself is firmly in support of trans people and trans rights. Her argument is not that being transracial is the same as being transgender — rather, it’s “that similar arguments that support transgenderism support transracialism,” as she puts it in an important endnote we’ll return to. It’s clear, from the way Tuvel sets things up, that she’s prodding us to more carefully examine why we feel the way we do about Dolezal, not to question trans rights or trans identities.

Usually, an article like this, abstract and argumentatively complex as it is, wouldn’t attract all that much attention outside of its own academic subculture. But that isn’t what happened here — instead, Tuvel is now bearing the brunt of a massive internet witch-hunt, abetted in part by Hypatia’s refusal to stand up for her. The journal has already apologized for the article, despite the fact that it was approved through its normal editorial process, and Tuvel’s peers are busily wrecking her reputation by sharing all sorts of false claims about the article that don’t bear the scrutiny of even a single close read.
 
Perhaps, but what concerns me is whether articles like Tuvel's will survive the culture war. I've read some academics who support the backlash, and who think the article shouldn't have been published. That's disturbing to me.

For what it's worth, I also know plenty of academics whose opinions fall generally along the same lines as the New York Mag piece--i.e. that Tuvel's article is neither hostile nor dismissive, but tries to engage the trans-identitarian discourse. Some critics have accused her of brushing over four or five subfields with nary a mention; but no single piece can cover every possible perspective, and it's the responsibility of a vibrant and professional discursive tradition to make readers aware of these details--not to attack the author and say the article should be removed and read by no one.

Long story short, it's a disappointing day for academia.

For me personally, the discrepancies and/or disparities between transgender and trans-race (I'm still unsure about this term, to be honest) raise numerous question that deserve to asked, mainly concerning what I see as the dissonant attitude toward identity in today's political climate. Clearly there's a difference between gender and race, which Tuvel notes. She's interested in where claims to/about identity seem to correspond between them. It's worth pondering these commonalities and pursuing their logical ends. Academic journals are, in my opinion, one of the best places to have these conversations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dak
i'm going to read this tuvel article in a second, and I imagine the Colbert reference is about Trump being gay with Putin, but the anti-trans race is easy. If we decide that being black is more than just being black, then black identity falls apart. And black identity doesn't want to fall apart, as this 'trick' they do, as in uniting all black people under one experience, makes them a weaker political and social group
 
That Hypatia controversy is so unbelievably fucking stupid. The article that these pieces of shit are complaining about just makes a standard kind of argument that is made all the fucking time in academic philosophy. The same sort of argument has been made to show that you have to accept infanticide if you think abortion is okay. Yet these whiners never made a peep about that. The only reason it's a controversy is that trannies are suddenly, for no fucking good reason at all, supposed to be STUNNING and BRAVE.

Moreover, they are applying "standards" (if feminist "philosophers" could be said to have standards) to this article that are never applied elsewhere. Oh, she failed to cite some obscure corner of academic literature that nobody in academic philosophy (besides idiot feminist "philosophers") takes seriously otherwise. Wow! The whole motivation behind the attack on the article is political. The claim that it has anything to do with academic rigor doesn't pass the laugh test.
 
Last edited:
(4) She refers to “a male-to- female (mtf) trans individual who could return to male privilege,” promoting the harmful transmisogynistic ideology that trans women have (at some point had) male privilege.

HAHA YES. Finally! I can now say I no longer possess white privilege because I did not grow up wealthy. Been waiting a long time to distance myself from those beneficial whites
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG and Dak