domain:rifters.com
magicalkittycat
23hr ago
They're all making the same general point so how is it obnoxious? I'm wishing to clarify with different people their views on censorship.
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
23hr ago
If one is saying "just add this line of text to your grants"
Don't forget things like we'll cut your database access if we think you'll find something you shouldn't.
It is easy to make the argument if you completely understate how one side behaved.
So how do you feel about a situation like this? https://x.com/pjaicomo/status/1958124476001861948
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?
I think no, but "the other side started it" being a valid reason to betray what you previously said seems like it would apply here too then.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
23hr ago
· Edited 17hr ago
Has the Trump administration/MAGA at large explicitly denied the possibility of further punishment? Restrictions on left-wing speech are completely aligned with the illiberal right-wing vector, they'd be stupid not to. The question is whether the right's ascendance is complete enough to allow it; the general opinion ITT seems to be that it is not, but we shall see.
Edit: This post quite nicely sums up the actual opinion/driving animus of the new right. Prediction: the final vote count will end up around +20/-10.
atelier
Jimmys: unrustled
23hr ago
Yes, until the other side commits in a way that means their violation of trolerance will cost them in power then absolutely. If one side pays no price for punishing those with "bad opinions" they're going to do more of it when they return to power.
Yes, I think this feels odd to people who actually believe that balance and harmony can be brought back to academia by playing within rules and norms that have been finely tuned in these places to achieve plausible deniability and leftist creep simultaneously.
"Why don't we just separate the real world truths these people discover from the political ideology they have a religious-like attachment to?"
The ideology and the institution are now inseparable by design. That's why.
atelier
Jimmys: unrustled
23hr ago
He's not being silenced or arrested. What is the old XKCD line, that's not your free speech rights being violated, that's just someone showing you the door.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
23hr ago
It's an old joke from a while back; people started speculating that Vance was secretly commenting on the Motte.
the_others
23hr ago
That makes sense. I think I lost track of the thread's context at some point.
I don't know much about changes to the NSF and NIH so I won't comment there.
I don't think most of the people making this argument believe Trump is doing it because he specifically wanted to penalise Tao. They're just making the point that Tao did insert himself into the culture war and can't claim he was Just A Normal Guy Doing Research Things until politics found him, that in the "tranquil past" he did not solely "focus on technical or personal aspects" of his own research, teaching, and mentoring, nor did he "leave the broader political debate and activism to others".
I mean the context here is Tao expressing disgust at the Trump administration's supposed imposition of politics upon academia and thus crippling it, something which is difficult to see as anything other than exceptionally hypocritical when Tao himself actively participated in the politicisation of academia (the open letter). The point of bringing it up is not to justify Tao's defunding but to respond to what he wrote about it.
I don't understand why you are just ignoring the question - it wasn't intended as rhetorical.
Anyhow, my answer to this question is no, but as with many other things (e.g. war crimes, military invasions...) I would rather live in a world where 2+ competing parties do it than in one where only 1 party does it, even if having 0 parties do it is best.
To make it very explicit for the situation at hand: not punishing any researchers for opinions unrelated to their work is best, but punishing researchers of all teams for opinions unrelated to their work is second best. (Not even a distant second best - as a working scientist I honestly think the science community would be much improved if all scientists trying to play at being politicians or "public intellectuals" were summarily kicked out)
More options
Context Copy link