domain:savenshine.com
TheDemonRazgriz
20hr ago
Every time I hear this kind of shit from my colleagues I want to shake them: you are burning political capital for short-term gain.
I think in most cases it’s much worse than that: they are burning political capital for no gain at all (well, except in their own personal/social lives, perhaps). Was anyone, any single solitary person, actually convinced by the argument that “the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus”? I highly doubt it. On the other hand, did people who read things like that lose their faith in the fields of science and medicine? Quite plainly yes, by the hundreds of thousands.
magicalkittycat
20hr ago
It's been winning for a long time in the US! We have slip ups but don't confuse not attaining a permanent perfection with a complete failure. Each time a would be censor is prevented from censoring, a win is had. Sometimes it will fail, but when no one tries to fight for what is right then nothing good will come.
magicalkittycat
20hr ago
They did these things not even for such a good reason as revenge, but instead out of pure will-to-power.
Is revenge a good reason to do things you find immoral? I think a lot of us more principled folk would disagree.
thejdizzler
20hr ago
The gender question is interesting, especially since the trilogy does seem to be very concerned with sex (the various relationships between the first 100, Hiroko's weird sex cult, the loose sexual relationships between the children in the hidden colony). 2312, a later work with many similarities to the Mars Trilogy, also extensively deals with the trans question, although kind of in a background way (everyone is just implied to be trans because why not). This does make me think a lot less of KSR as a thinker: there's a lot more kowtowing to current thing going on than I would like to think.
07mk
20hr ago
Do you expect demands of political loyalty to result in better science when they are coming from the nationalist right rather than the woke left? What would it even mean for academia to place America first?
Both would result (has resulted) in worse science than no political tests, but almost certainly some sort of jingoistic nationalist right America-first political test would result in better science than the woke left. The woke left has, as its basis, a rejection of concepts like "objectivity" and "logic," which are pretty fundamental to doing science. I expect that testing for nationalist right would filter out more intelligent people, but filtering for the woke left filters for more people who are willing and able to reject the fundamental basis of science. Filtering for scientists based on their commitment to the woke left is like a straight guy going to a lesbian bar to hit on women. You've pre-filtered specifically for people who have made visible commitments to behavior that is specifically antithetical to the role they're supposed to fill.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
21hr ago
This may be low-effort but... why do so many people glaze Terrance Tao...!?
Prior to this discussion, I don't think I had heard of him. But I don't work in a STEM field.
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
21hr ago
Thank you for the clarification!
crushedoranges
Can Marx explain the used panties market?
21hr ago
You seem to think that there is a tit for tat MAD argument to be made for restraint. Uh, no, there isn't. A politician promising to punish the hicks for having the audacity to touch the academy is less a political platform and more the hysterical overreaction of a crazy person. There's a popular thread of argument that goes 'but imagine if it was happening to you'. In this case, I don't have to imagine: conservatives have been driven out of everything from literature to knitting to table-top RPG games. Your consequences have already happened. Deterrence doesn't work if the opposing side uses the imagined bad end as a frequently-executed goal that often succeeds.
So yes, we are justified. Oderint dum metuant.
johnfabian
21hr ago
I about wrote some of my reflections on the trilogy here last year.
07mk
21hr ago
If the main observable action when in power is to further the downward trend against academic freedom, why should anyone trust the claims being made? Actions speak louder than words after all.
If. Notably, that is not the main observable action, since academic freedom isn't being suppressed by defunding academic organizations that violate civil liberties law or by defunding academics that support explicitly anti-academic ideologies. Even if academic freedom were being suppressed, most people don't observe academic freedom as some sort of scalar value that increases when the sum of all academics practicing their academic freedom goes up or something. These are vectors where the specifics matter, and, as such, to say that this is the "main observable action" - even presuming that it were an observable action in the first place, which it isn't - is wrong.
If we want academic freedom we should make moves towards academic freedom, not be indistinguishable from the censors
I don't think most people have a difficult distinguishing between the behavior of Trump and his ilk in this context and the behavior of the censors that have been running roughshod throughout academia's veins. Notably, this does make moves towards academic freedom, by punishing organizations and people who have demonstrated and/or made commitments to suppressing academic freedom. If we want academic freedom, we should punish such people so as to provide an incentive not to do it further.
And empirically, one method that has absolutely not worked at all for increasing academic freedom - in fact, it has only resulted in things getting worse and worse over time until today, when academics not being free has become so common knowledge that academia has substantially discredited itself as a source for truth - is to not punish these people when you have power.
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
21hr ago
The ACLU shit the bed ages ago and their top lawyer is in favor of burning books.
FIRE exists and has expanded their purview, yes. I am glad there is one organization that actually has principles.
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
21hr ago
So how do you feel about a situation like this?
Face tattoos, white guy dreds, mediocre taste in music... are there any examples that aren't quite so literal regarding the old maxim about defending scoundrels?
Do you believe the left would be justified with removing Tom Macdonald for his "the devil is a democrat" speech because the right wing started with saying legal residents don't have protections?
"Legal resident" is an extremely broad category. It's not clear to me under what policy Macdonald resides in the US, but if there are Congressionally-approved restrictions on the speech of certain categories, then yes, this applies under "your rules, applied fairly."
I'm not a free speech absolutist, but I care about fairness and equality before the law. Unilateral disarmament of letting one side do whatever and the other side only gets to wag the finger and say tut-tut does not improve the status of the principle at hand.
thejdizzler
21hr ago
The this I refer to is thus: science's inability to think in terms of political solutions and general narrow specialization that leaves them pretty useless at anything the real world. I think this used to be less true in the past, and is probably a result of pedagogical choices that have been made by the university system. Learning another language for example, which used to be the standard for science because not everything was published in English, forces you to realize that there isn't one way of doing things (because different languages make different choices).
I can't really argue with what you said in the first half of your response. However, I would suggest that these problems also are the result of the myopically applied science that I complain about. Global warming was the result of using combustion to make shit and get us places without thinking about the production of greenhouse gases, obesity was the result of food science creating hyperpalitability without thinking about wether it was a good idea, ditto for birth control.
Corvos
21hr ago
The irony when Vance is on the Motte explaining why people think Vance is on the Motte :P
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
21hr ago
To ignore the input of scientists on these issues, like many on this forum want to do, seems incredibly myopic.
Various other fictional examples to mind: "We have finally invented the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel, Don't Invent The Torment Nexus;" "your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." A non-fictional example could be underrated details of the Scopes "monkey" trial.
And of the examples you've chosen- climate change, artificial intelligence, the obesity crisis, the fertility crisis- they are also the product of scientists! Are they the only solution to problems they created? Bit of a racket, don't you think? (I'm being a bit facetious, as I think deep green ecology is even worse)
What Robinson is highlighting with his trilogy about colonizing Mars, perhaps the ultimate scientific endeavor, is that unless this changes, the science is not going to get done properly in the real world.
I think you're gesturing towards something interesting but I'm not quite grokking what "this" is, exactly. The tendency of scientists towards arrogance and Gell-Mann amnesia? Their tendency to consider the world perfectable and to be shaped in their image?
netstack
Texas is freedom land
21hr ago
I thought I remembered reading this, but it turns out I was thinking of Scott’s classic Against Murderism.
Anyone got any tips for alleviating psycho-spiritual damage?
Been in a pre-existing sour state for a while, but having just watched a guy walking around a local art museum taking pictures of Brueghel the Younger paintings and loudly asking ChatGPT to explain to him over speakerphone what the artworks were and how he should feel about them seems to have taken a chunk out of my soul that I didn’t realize I still had.
haroldbkny
21hr ago
Well, good on you for reading that and trying to steelman it. No matter what, I always believe that all ideas should be considered at their own merit.
However, I'm not sure I fully agree with your analysis. I'm not the best at understanding those sorts of jargon-upon-jargony passages in this type of philosophy. I'm inclined to, at a certain point, simply write it off as something that's so detached from reality as to be worthless. I can understand a little better if I go really slow, but even so, I'm not really seeing how what you said relates to the passage you quoted. It seems to me that her point has something to do with (arbitrarily) claiming that metaphor is more like a solid, and metonymy is more like a fluid, presumably because fluids in real life have the capability of changing shape. But this to me already is an overstep into the ridiculous, because she is simply using her own personal associations to claim two unrelated abstract concepts are related, not justifying it, and then going on to use that towards her own end.
I don't really know where you're then getting this notion that we can draw any conclusion from what she says to how theoretical objects are thought up for use in scientific scenarios.
And in reply to the point that you think she's trying to make, I'd say, if people are choosing spherical cows for their thought experiments (not something I've personally heard of myself, but I'd believe that it's a thing if you say so), it's likely because it is a simpler concept to do math with, than fluid cows. And it's not un-justified, since our bodies behave more like solids than fluids under such conditions; we generally take up a certain volume, give or take a very small amount for our ability to deform our skin by pushing into it. Certainly the outside of our bodies generally stays together under normal conditions, and holds inner fluids inside, such that they have little effect on how we'd interact with an incline.
I'm well aware, and I'm against it. I'm a leftist at the object level while strongly disavowing cancel culture and persecution. This is an awkward position, awkward enough that I am not optimistic about the Left reforming itself from within. Hence, I view the anti-woke Right as potential allies in the shared project of bringing an end end cancel culture, with the aim of restoring a status quo that's better for everyone than a crab bucket where everybody is constantly persecuting everybody else.
Fair. And I do get where you're coming from, then, and I even agree with you to some extent that "these are dirty tactics, and our enemies are inherently rotten for using them, never mind whatever crazy stuff they're fighting for". Please bear in mind that 15 and even 10 years ago I was saying, with absolute sincerity, "I don't like what you're saying, but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it".
The point where I part ways (I think) is:
the only hope was that the opposition would provide a credible alternative; for a while it seemed as though they might; but now they look like they're just content to stoop down to their enemies' level, abandoning all the high-minded principles they rightly criticized their enemies for flouting ten years ago. And thus we sink a little further towards total collapse
I don't think the result of seriously, fiercely enforcing neutrality will end up in a reasonably civilised, open academy. Partly because:
-
'neutrality' is in the eye of the beholder: confirmation bias is often enough to dismiss non-woke conclusions as wrong or to (subconsciously) judge them much more harshly than friendly arguments. It's an improvement to go from 'X should be fired' to 'nobody takes X seriously and he can't get funding for his silly ideas', but it's still not great.
-
I think we tried neutrality in the 90s and the result was to delay wokeness by 15 years max, maybe making it worse when it arrived. People bring up the metaphor of the tide coming into shore wave by wave and that is broadly how I see it. Putting a halt on overt politicking just means right-wingers being slowly frozen out anyway, without being able to point to any overtly bad behaviour and therefore without much recourse. The old theories are never actively repudiated (because that would be political), they become just something that ‘everyone knows’ and then the new generation arrives with no antibodies and apply them and we get woke. Contrast anti-socialism in the US (where there was a huge counterpressure and even in the 90s people would spit at the sound of the word), versus the UK where even in the post-Thatcher period you were broadly allowed to do it as long as you didn't say it. I know you're Left-wing and may consider that an objectively good thing, but I'm just comparing the results of the two backlashes.
That’s why I think that you with your stated goals should support some level of pushback past the point of, say, viewpoint neutrality as conceived of 10 years ago. Liberty in the traditional sense arose when all participants were tired of fighting the Wars of Religion, but you do have to have the wars first. Otherwise it’s just surrender and you will swiftly lose any power to enforce the conditions of peace.
On a purely personal note I have other reasons:
-
As a base principle, I believe in fairness, which I define as 'equal treatment'. I don't like the idea that if someone hits, the other guy shouldn't hit back. He might choose not to, and that's admirable or foolish depending, but he absolutely has the right to.
-
Personal disclosure: I was treated quite badly in academia by certain pre-woke academics, just before wokeness really kicked off and when I was much less right-wing than I am now. I'll be honest, I want payback. They made my life miserable when I stood up for just the principles you describe, and I want them to get the same back. Not more - I believe in fairness, as I said - but just the same. I don't claim that it's a noble impulse, but I'm adding it here as a disclosure.
ChickenOverlord
21hr ago
Sure but the chaos would be limited to a single subthread instead of being scattered everywhere
birb_cromble
21hr ago
At the same time, the training that we get as scientists (or at least the training that I have received) does not create people who are really able to participate in the political process
You know, this reminds me of some of the studies done on flat hierarchy companies. By not using explicit organization and hierarchy, you get implicit organization and hierarchy, which is almost always dominated by people who are really good at deniably using soft power while pretending they aren't.
I wonder if something similar is happening in the sciences. By ignoring explicit politics, you accidentally optimize for people who are really good at politicking with plausible deniability.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
21hr ago
The mechanism is that instead of limiting free speech and punishing academics for wrongthink, we win at free speech by fighting for the principle. This is what principled libertarian first amendment groups like FIRE are doing.
They failed. Utterly.
Yep, agreed. It's so fucking dumb and idiotic because it's sacrificing the ability to actually take a scientific approach towards solving problems in the future. Every time I hear this kind of shit from my colleagues I want to shake them: you are burning political capital for short-term gain.
Also see what I wrote above:
At the same time, the training that we get as scientists (or at least the training that I have received) does not create people who are really able to participate in the political process. Gell-Mann amnesia is very real in academia: not just about the hot-button topics like race and gender, but also made-up shit like "learning styles", the efficiency of renewable energy, and a general understanding of politics and human psychology. Combine this with a massive ego because of success in one specific area, and you have the idiot savants that Nassim Taleb likes to harp on who cannot compromise or think outside the box. What Robinson is highlighting with his trilogy about colonizing Mars, perhaps the ultimate scientific endeavor, is that unless this changes, the science is not going to get done properly in the real world.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
21hr ago
It appears nobody has attempted to deport Tom Macdonald for that video. As I understand the law, one may only be deported for First Amendment protected activity on the personal (that is, not delegated) determination of the Secretary of State that it compromises a compelling US foreign policy interest. This means that "The Devil is a Democrat" is not deportable -- Macdonald would in fact be on thinner ice if he criticized Canada, as that would implicate US foreign policy interests, though it is unlikely Rubio would make such a determination.
This has nothing to do, however, with the Tao situation. And that particular law seems like it's going inevitably to head to the Supreme Court.
Yes it's a hypothetical. Would it be ok if the future Dems declared him to not have first amendment rights as a legal residents in the US and deport him based off political speech they find insulting?
More options
Context Copy link