Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Are people in the West being persecuted for their political beliefs?


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, The Lock said:

Would you perhaps be able to give a specific example of a field that's been lost because of the left?

 

I think the problem's more how a lot of scientific studies are being conducted. John Oliver did a good show once on scientific studies.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

 

Basically, there's a lot of "science" happening at the same time, where you have results that are funded by corporations and are just on in the best interest of the populace as a whole. So while, yes, there are issues happening that you are bringing up and I'm not denying that, there's also "science" that's not really science.

 

I think, when it comes to science, there's just a lot of murky waters. Don't get me wrong. I love science and read a lot about space and technology and learn a lot about physics, but how many studies are promoting chocolate and wine, and then saying the opposite a few years later?

 

Definitely. How many scientific discoveries actually hold up through rigorous review? I'd guess very very few.

 

Along those lines there's also a point to be made about the whole "just trust the science" statements that act as if science is a settled answer key, rather than a method of testing to world to replicate results & find correlations.

 

Im not advocating conspiracy or anything, but if the "trust the science" view is taken & accepted to refute any form of questioning, then corruption would become appealing for corporations and such, as you say.

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Kryten said:

IMO, @Smashian Kassian is correct in saying both left-wingers and right-wingers are guilty of science denial/sabotage. I personally believe that the Left will end up doing more harm to science than the right, especially during today’s political climate.

 

You asked for an actual example so I will give you one written by Kate Kelland from Reuters: 

https://news.trust.org/item/20190418094429-rl1l2
 

Science is under attack by BOTH extremes of the political spectrum, however; only the Left has been able to cancel entire branches of science because particularly loud individuals were offended by the results. Yes the Right cries about scientific results but the research is published no matter how much they whine. The Left keeps scientists in a state of fear that keeps them from doing the research at all. 
 

More people need to be aware and combat this anti-progressive, scientific “cherry-picking”. 

OK so this is an example of one guy on a mission to discredit a single clinical trial. The guy is pissed that someone is suggesting a potential psychological aspect to a disease. There's nothing here about "left or right" though so I don't see the political angle to this example at all. 

 

It is an example of how toxic social media can be for sure, but this doesn't support some sort of lefty attack on the scientific method. 

 

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

 

One of the core tenants of post modernism is that objective knowledge isn't possible. It's all power structures. Meaning; institutions & ideas are developed to uplift & benefit those who set them up - while oppressing other experiences & ways of knowing. Other ways of knowing which are all equally valid because, again, the notion of objective knowledge is rejected. 

 

And if objective knowledge is not possible..

Well then theres the issue, as that's kind of the whole point of things like math (dealing in) & science (discovering).

 

The anti-racism movement has adopted this post-modern power structures idea quite explicitly (among other ideas);

 

https://blogs.ams.org/blogonmathblogs/2020/06/21/what-does-anti-racist-mathematics-look-like/

 

^ This is just to say that I'm not making up my original points about the postmodernism stuff.

 

The example is from Oregon, the ODE.

 

https://mises.org/wire/math-racist-does-not-compute

 

https://clarion.causeaction.com/2021/02/13/why-math-is-racist/

 

And on the science end, there's been the attack on biological sex surrounding transgenderism & gender neutrality, which has been pretty well documented. 

But all you're showing here is some researchers have this particular interpretation of post modernism. Academia is full of people with all kinds of interpretations and points of view, you're taking a few and suggesting thats how entire branches of science look at things, which is not correct imo. Its also people mixing social science with physical science which is OK from a philosophical pov but no one at CERN e.g., is looking at racist particles. 

 

"the anti-racism movement" if thats even one group, has every right to look at power structures. I mean, if they didn't whats the point of their movement?

 

looking closer at the math stuff, what they are talking about is mostly how math is taught and who has more success with learning it, which is a legitimate thing to look at,  but then you get one-liner tweets from places like the Post Millenial that take it and turn it into something absurd. 

 

I disagree that there's been an attack on biological sex, thats something politicians and media personalities like to use for donations / clickbait. 

 

 

Edited by Jimmy McGill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

Definitely. How many scientific discoveries actually hold up through rigorous review? I'd guess very very few.

 

Along those lines there's also a point to be made about the whole "just trust the science" statements that act as if science is a settled answer key, rather than a method of testing to world to replicate results & find correlations.

 

Im not advocating conspiracy or anything, but if the "trust the science" view is taken & accepted to refute any form of questioning, then corruption would become appealing for corporations and such, as you say.

This has happened a lot more in the past than I think we'd like to believe too. The sugar companies for example paid large sums of money to "scientific research" to divert obesity away from sugar and blame fat instead. Of course, we know now that sugar's arguably the biggest culprit of obesity and fat's actually not all that bad for you. In fact, having some fat's actually important for your health. On the flip side, you don't need sugar at all.

 

And yet, there are people to this day who still believe fat's bad for you because of the scientific propaganda that was spewed in the previous century. Don't get me wrong, too much fat can't be good either, but the same can be said about having too much of anything.

Edited by The Lock
  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Lock said:

This has happened a lot more in the past than I think we'd like to believe too. The sugar companies for example paid large sums of money to "scientific research" to divert obesity away from sugar and blame fat instead. Of course, we know now that sugar's arguably the biggest culprit of obesity and fat's actually not all that bad for you. In fact, having some fat's actually important for your health. On the flip side, you don't need sugar at all.

 

And yet, there are people to this day who still believe fat's bad for you because of the scientific propaganda that was spewed in the previous century. Don't get me wrong, too much fat can't be good either, but the same can be said about having too much of anything.

that says more about people being lazy about digging up the truth than it does about science being manipulated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fair amount of false equivalency going on here, IMHO....

 

One one hand, we're given a single example of someone (or someones) pushing back against a non-traditional type of medical treatment and we're told that this somehow "cancels" an entire branch of Science. (Although I'd argue that the thing being disputed is this particular application of the branch, rather than the entire field of psychology)

 

Meanwhile, OTOH, you have literally millions of people who don't believe in Climate Change, vaccinations, or earth being over 6000 years old....

 

But yeah, "both sides".....:rolleyes:

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stawns said:

that says more about people being lazy about digging up the truth than it does about science being manipulated

They go hand in hand though. Because people are lazy, it opens things up for corporations to "create science". You're definitely right in that it's because people are lazy. The problem there is that people will always be lazy, at least in general and we can't really expect people to just change. Therefore, the next best thing is the corporation side.

  • Hydration 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

OK so this is an example of one guy on a mission to discredit a single clinical trial. The guy is pissed that someone is suggesting a potential psychological aspect to a disease. There's nothing here about "left or right" though so I don't see the political angle to this example at all. 

 

It is an example of how toxic social media can be for sure, but this doesn't support some sort of lefty attack on the scientific method. 

 

It was not a partisan hack piece which is why it did not use politically explicit language. Tuller is not “one pissed off guy”, he crowdfunded and spearheaded a movement. The majority of his supporters are left-wing and they used their influence to curtail the very research that could potentially help them because they felt offended that their affliction may not be strictly anatomical.


If a more explicit piece is required, fine. Here is a piece by a more partisan author on a very controversial issue (which is why I didn’t lead with it but alas, it is what is):

 

https://quillette.com/2018/12/09/a-surfeit-of-empathy-and-an-absence-of-compassion/

 

Olivia Goldhill (now covers Covid response for Stat) wrote these pieces before the Left discovered the power of social media activism:

 

https://qz.com/740569/one-of-the-fastest-growing-fields-in-science-still-makes-a-lot-of-people-very-uncomfortable/ 

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/qz.com/1177154/political-scientific-biases-the-left-is-guilty-of-unscientific-dogma-too/amp/ 

 

Right-wingers are not the only ones opposing their own interests. 

 

43 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

A fair amount of false equivalency going on here, IMHO....

 

One one hand, we're given a single example of someone (or someones) pushing back against a non-traditional type of medical treatment and we're told that this somehow "cancels" an entire branch of Science. (Although I'd argue that the thing being disputed is this particular application of the branch, rather than the entire field of psychology)

 

Meanwhile, OTOH, you have literally millions of people who don't believe in Climate Change, vaccinations, or earth being over 6000 years old....

 

But yeah, "both sides".....:rolleyes:

You are misrepresenting my position and please don’t be afraid to quote me or the article (especially the post where I acknowledge my exaggeration), your paraphrase was not at all accurate and not appreciated. 
 

IMO, the left was just as culpable as the right in the anti-vaxxer movement, especially here in BC. I am a vaccine advocate and the push back is from ALL sides (just look at what we are experiencing now). Anyways, here is an article which touched on the partisanship of the anti-vaxxer movement:

 

https://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2014/10/20/are_liberals_or_conservatives_more_anti-vaccine_108905.html

 


Left and right are both wrapped up in religious BS. Evangelicalism, Satanism, Baptist, New Age, Sunni, Jainism, Shia, Wiccan; all have members of varying political affiliation. 
 

Climate is absolutely a failure on the right side of the spectrum. They value the spectre of trickle down economics more than our future (and their children’s future ffs). The failure to fight climate change is 100% the fault of the right. No argument there. 
 

I know I am being tough on liberals but that is because I am one and it pains me to see bad faith arguments, whataboutism, cancellation etc of diverse opinions simply because it is not in line with today’s group think. Yes, most liberal activists have good intentions but those intentions could very well cause harm. They should embrace dialogue and research, not shut it down.

 

Are there literally millions of left-wing activists who employ silencing tactics? I don’t know. All I know is that such tactics are wrong, I do not care how many use them. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Kryten said:

It was not a partisan hack piece which is why it did not use politically explicit language. Tuller is not “one pissed off guy”, he crowdfunded and spearheaded a movement. The majority of his supporters are left-wing and they used their influence to curtail the very research that could potentially help them because they felt offended that their affliction may not be strictly anatomical.


If a more explicit piece is required, fine. Here is a piece by a more partisan author on a very controversial issue (which is why I didn’t lead with it but alas, it is what is):

 

https://quillette.com/2018/12/09/a-surfeit-of-empathy-and-an-absence-of-compassion/

 

Olivia Goldhill (now covers Covid response for Stat) wrote these pieces before the Left discovered the power of social media activism:

 

https://qz.com/740569/one-of-the-fastest-growing-fields-in-science-still-makes-a-lot-of-people-very-uncomfortable/ 

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/qz.com/1177154/political-scientific-biases-the-left-is-guilty-of-unscientific-dogma-too/amp/ 

 

so "the left" has a wide range of people with different ideas and motivations. So what? these people don't represent a main stream anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Kryten said:

You are misrepresenting my position and please don’t be afraid to quote me or the article (especially the post where I acknowledge my exaggeration), your paraphrase was not at all accurate and not appreciated. 

 

IMO, the left was just as culpable as the right in the anti-vaxxer movement, especially here in BC. I am a vaccine advocate and the push back is from ALL sides (just look at what we are experiencing now). Anyways, here is an article which touched on the partisanship of the anti-vaxxer movement:

 

https://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2014/10/20/are_liberals_or_conservatives_more_anti-vaccine_108905.html

 


Left and right are both wrapped up in religious BS. Evangelicalism, Satanism, Baptist, New Age, Sunni, Jainism, Shia, Wiccan; all have members of varying political affiliation. 
 

Climate is absolutely a failure on the right side of the spectrum. They value the spectre of trickle down economics more than our future (and their children’s future ffs). The failure to fight climate change is 100% the fault of the right. No argument there. 
 

I know I am being tough on liberals but that is because I am one and it pains me to see bad faith arguments, whataboutism, cancellation etc of diverse opinions simply because it is not in line with today’s group think. Yes, most liberal activists have good intentions but those intentions could very well cause harm. They should embrace dialogue and research, not shut it down.

 

Are there literally millions of left-wing activists who employ silencing tactics? I don’t know. All I know is that such tactics are wrong, I do not care how many use them. 

Then let me answer that for you. The answer is "no". No there are not.

 

Hence my "accurate" point about false equivalency....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Then let me answer that for you. The answer is "no". No there are not.

 

Hence my "accurate" point about false equivalency....

If you want to divide individual human being's into just 2 categories, I believe that humanist and non humanist are better descriptions than left or right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

If you want to divide individual human being's into just 2 categories, I believe that humanist and non humanist are better descriptions than left or right.

I wasn't the one who made that determination.

 

Someone else made the claim that "both the Left and Right" are anti-science. The implication that the two camps are equally so, is what I was pushing back on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

so "the left" has a wide range of people with different ideas and motivations. So what? these people don't represent a main stream anything. 

They don’t have to represent the main stream, social media has allowed them to bypass the vetting process and go right to the source. That is the point and I was hoping for your thoughts on online activism and your opinion on cancel culture and it’s effect on universities and their scientists. If you don’t feel like offering an opinion, that’s ok. I’m disappointed if that’s the case but c’est la vie.
 

8 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Then let me answer that for you. The answer is "no". No there are not.

 

Hence my "accurate" point about false equivalency....

I would ask you to prove it but I really do not care about the numbers as it does not have anything to do with my position which you have unequivocally failed to address. The numbers are not important, what is important is the fact that the left has a mob of online activists influencing everything from policy to science in a very negative manner. I respect your position Rupe and was hoping you would offer your own opinion instead of just a criticism of mine. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I wasn't the one who made that determination.

 

Someone else made the claim that "both the Left and Right" are anti-science. The implication that the two camps are equally so, is what I was pushing back on.

I would totally agree with the fact that there are far more non humanist human being's who are anti-science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I wasn't the one who made that determination.

 

Someone else made the claim that "both the Left and Right" are anti-science. The implication that the two camps are equally so, is what I was pushing back on.

Never said that which is why I wanted you to quote my post. My assertion is that both left and right are guilty, not just the right. Equality of blame was never in mind.

 

My controversial opinion, and yes it is open to change, is that the left will do more damage to science than the right if we continue down this path of unvetted activism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still waiting for proof that this is a case of lefties shutting down science.

Article posted. Poster says it was about lefties, doing what he alleges.

Stating that one person quoted in the article works at Berkely does not establish lefty-ism.

 

Again, stupid people do stupid things. That does need to be stopped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kryten said:

I would ask you to prove it but I really do not care about the numbers as it does not have anything to do with my position which you have unequivocally failed to address. The numbers are not important, what is important is the fact that the left has a mob of online activists influencing everything from policy to science in a very negative manner. I respect your position Rupe and was hoping you would offer your own opinion instead of just a criticism of mine. 

It's quite simple really. I admit that there are science deniers on the left, but I disagree that their numbers are anywhere near what is on the right. That is exactly what I meant by saying "false equivalency" (and you are not the only one who was suggesting that. That is why I didn't single out your post)

 

If you meant that both sides are not equal in this regard, then we have no disagreement.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

It's quite simple really. I admit that there are science deniers on the left, but I disagree that their numbers are anywhere near what is on the right. That is exactly what I meant by saying "false equivalency" (and you are not the only one who was suggesting that. That is why I didn't single out your post)

 

If you meant that both sides are not equal in this regard, then we have no disagreement.

That is what I meant and thank you.

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

If you want to divide individual human being's into just 2 categories, I believe that humanist and non humanist are better descriptions than left or right.

Depends who you talk to. Both sides think the other are the bad guys. Both sides think they have the moral high ground. 
 

In reality everything isn’t black and white, everyone is human. Both sides are subject to the wide span of human nature when you break it down to the individual level. 
 

If the left and right didn’t have each other to fight with, they’d fight amongst themselves. Even within groups not everyone is gonna think the same. 
 

I think both sides could have more accountability instead of the amount of finger pointing we do. Probably would benefit both sides greatly. (I am not gonna make the argument one more than the other. Just pointing it out )

Edited by Junkyard Dog
  • Like 1
  • Hydration 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kryten said:

Never said that which is why I wanted you to quote my post. My assertion is that both left and right are guilty, not just the right. Equality of blame was never in mind.

 

My controversial opinion, and yes it is open to change, is that the left will do more damage to science than the right if we continue down this path of unvetted activism. 

To be honest, I don't know if it's possible to fully get a grasp of the extent science gets condemned by the left and the right because in both cases you have people for science and against science. However, after thinking things through a bit, I still think the right's a little more hampering of science than the left. Here's why....

 

For example, on the right, you have a lot of religious people who put religion before science. You also have a lot of the people who are pro-oil companies and are against any science that will change all of that. In general with the right, it's about conservatism and yet science is often about change. The more advancements in science, the more change there is. So fundamentally, the right is going to hamper science.

 

With the left, you have a lot of activists, but the interesting part of it is you have activists for science (ie. preventing climate change). The left fundamentally is for change which coincides with science. Now, obviously there are the issues you have brought up in terms of activists against certain research, but that is small compared with what we see the right side blocking.

 

Look at Texas right now and their issues and how they don't want something as simple as green energy while making up their own science. Or look at Trump and how he's claimed on multiple occasions that climate change isn't even happening. I know Trump's Trump and probably not the greatest example but people are going to believe him.

 

So I weigh both sides, and it sucks to see certain fields get a lack of research due to left activists, but then I see what the right is doing.... which is going to affect everyone in terms of the (lack of) scientific outcomes just because they don't want change.

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...