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

9 minutes ago, 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. 

If that wasn't your intent, then I apologize for misinterpreting your post. However in my defense, the following quote led to my confusion:

 

Quote

MO, @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.

In any event, as I said in my other response, you weren't the only person I was responding to and I still believe that others believe the problem is equally (or close to equally) represented on both sides of the political spectrum.

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

3 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

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 agree with the tenor of this post, but I would point out that there is quite a bit of infighting on both sides. On one side you have the GOP vs the GQP and on the other, there are the old school, middle of the road Dems vs. the Progressive wing of the Party (aka the "Radical Socialists")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

If that wasn't your intent, then I apologize for misinterpreting your post. However in my defense, the following quote led to my confusion:

 

In any event, as I said in my other response, you weren't the only person I was responding to and I still believe that others believe the problem is equally (or close to equally) represented on both sides of the political spectrum.

I see, no harm done.

  • Like 2
  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

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 )

Good/bad are both subjective.

If you are not impacting others in a negative manner I will defend your right to do/ believe whatever you want.

 

I do not want to fight with anyone  except maybe in defense of the people I love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@RUPERTKBD @Kryten

 

Don’t mean to intrude on the conversation but wanted to point out that your conversation was a bit of an example of online misinterpretation and the solution of elaboration which requires the willingness to hear the other out. 
 

Could prevent a lot of misinformation by having an open mind and figuring out exactly what someone meant when they say something critical online like you guys did.

  • Like 2
  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Junkyard Dog said:

@RUPERTKBD @Kryten

 

Don’t mean to intrude on the conversation but wanted to point out that your conversation was a bit of an example of online misinterpretation and the solution of elaboration which requires the willingness to hear the other out. 
 

Could prevent a lot of misinformation by having an open mind and figuring out exactly what someone meant when they say something critical online like you guys did.

Intrude away JYD. That's what these discussions are for.

 

It wouldn't be the first (nor probably, the last) time I've misinterpreted someone's meaning on an Internet forum....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Junkyard Dog said:

@RUPERTKBD @Kryten

 

Don’t mean to intrude on the conversation but wanted to point out that your conversation was a bit of an example of online misinterpretation and the solution of elaboration which requires the willingness to hear the other out. 
 

Could prevent a lot of misinformation by having an open mind and figuring out exactly what someone meant when they say something critical online like you guys did.

 Very true and I should add that I know Rupe’s heart is in the right place and he is a smart guy. Certainly knew that I was opening a can of worms and I was willing to take some hits until we reach the place necessary to have what is I believe to be a very interesting discussion. I can’t wait to get to @The Lock ‘s post which is a good one.

  • Like 2
  • Hydration 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 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.

 

35 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

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

Interesting, have not heard this perspective before. I am assuming this is referring to greed and the relationship with capitalism and the evolution of such a union?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Intrude away JYD. That's what these discussions are for.

 

It wouldn't be the first (nor probably, the last) time I've misinterpreted someone's meaning on an Internet forum....

I can tell you first hand that sometimes I'm terrible with English and portraying a thought. Just look at my conversation with Kryten last night when I accidentally changed a word like "branch" to "field". My English does sometimes leave something to be desired. lol

  • Like 3
  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Kryten said:

 

Interesting, have not heard this perspective before. I am assuming this is referring to greed and the relationship with capitalism and the evolution of such a union?

That is part of it.

More so the that humanists believe rational/critical thinking provide the source of knowledge and a moral code to live by.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, gurn said:

Just a shout out to the posters on/in this thread.

Well presented, minimal name calling or flame wars. Wish they all could be this.

This whole conversation has been bloody brilliant,made so by the respect shown by all posters.

I wish that all people would conduct themselves in this manner

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

1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Intrude away JYD. That's what these discussions are for.

 

It wouldn't be the first (nor probably, the last) time I've misinterpreted someone's meaning on an Internet forum....

Doing it purposely like the media/politicians and accidentally are two different things. You don’t seem like the type that would purposely twist words so I wouldn’t give yourself a hard time. 
 

Another issue is how rare is it nowadays to have an open conversation with both sides or a healthy disagreement. Takes open minds both ways to have these sort of conversations. 

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

7 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Doing it purposely like the media/politicians and accidentally are two different things. You don’t seem like the type that would purposely twist words so I wouldn’t give yourself a hard time. 
 

Another issue is how rare is it nowadays to have an open conversation with both sides or a healthy disagreement. Takes open minds both ways to have these sort of conversations. 

Exactly this. I'm starting to avoid the actual Canucks section of this forum because of it. There's just rarely a healthy discussion going on there at the moment with pretty much a mob mentality taking shape in a really unhealthy way.

 

I try and think of every conversation as a journey of learning. That other person you're talking with is there with you to try and figure everything out. . However, it's also unknown how much they other person wants to learn unless if you've seen their posts or debated with them before. It's because of that I'm trying to go away from the whole "I'm right you're wrong" debates you normally see (although sometimes I'll get in that mode without realising still, especially if the other person is 100% in that mode).

 

I've actually managed to get some good debates with people who I didn't expect to have such a conversation with. It's been pretty interesting so far.

  • Like 3
  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Doing it purposely like the media/politicians and accidentally are two different things. You don’t seem like the type that would purposely twist words so I wouldn’t give yourself a hard time. 
 

Another issue is how rare is it nowadays to have an open conversation with both sides or a healthy disagreement. Takes open minds both ways to have these sort of conversations. 

We are all really on the same side.

Unfortunately some are too greedy, ignorant and selfish to either realise it, or they ignore it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Lock said:

Exactly this. I'm starting to avoid the actual Canucks section of this forum because of it. There's just rarely a healthy discussion going on there at the moment with pretty much a mob mentality taking shape in a really unhealthy way.

 

I try and think of every conversation as a journey of learning. That other person you're talking with is there with you to try and figure everything out. . However, it's also unknown how much they other person wants to learn unless if you've seen their posts or debated with them before. It's because of that I'm trying to go away from the whole "I'm right you're wrong" debates you normally see (although sometimes I'll get in that mode without realising still, especially if the other person is 100% in that mode).

 

I've actually managed to get some good debates with people who I didn't expect to have such a conversation with. It's been pretty interesting so far.

There are some really intelligent,well informed people on this forum.

That's why I keep coming back.

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Lock said:

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.

Yes this is what I mull over when conflating one side with the other in respect to scientific facts and the push back involved.


I wonder how many scientists experience the “Who Killed the Electric Car” scenario compared to others? A scary thought. 

 

The act of scaring young scientists into disciplines that are career safe and unchallenging might prevent innovations like the electric car from ever being created in the first place. I wonder if the first nuclear vehicle or other volatile propulsion system will face the scrutiny of the uninformed activist as opposed to the scientific peer? What could offend the activist? Environmental impact? Health impact? Social impact? Perhaps I am simply guilty of romanticizing the act of innovation. I hope so.


I see religion comes up often and I find it funny to be the one to offer up a minor defence for it since I am an atheist. IMO, religion and science can co-exist only if science takes precedence in real world applications. I have no problem if someone uses their religion to make themselves a better person. However, if it is used to coerce or police others then it can GTFO. 

 

I look at social media as a game changer, and not just for refuting science facts. A left-winger wielding a hashtag can force a CEO to fire anyone in his/her company who offends the “customer” simply because that CEO has chosen to publicly join the woke brigade of inclusion and is now obligated to do their bidding without due process or a proper analysis. Previously, a team of lawyers and publicists would shield a company from the wrath of public opinion but nowadays CEO’s are in the trenches trading blows with everyone and their dog and they are pressured to act immediately or risk losing revenue. 
 

A right-winger can barely find a platform to post their content haha. Yes, this consequence is largely their own damn fault (RIP Clam and Harvey), but there are liberals on platforms who are being called right-wingers and being banned for just bringing up controversial subjects that are not remotely conservative talking points. That is another slippery slope that worries me and puts me in the position of having to defend the right-wing’s right to a platform for them to post whatever crap they want, within reason of course. I would be bummed if I lost the ability to follow George Will as much as I would if I could no longer follow Noam Chomsky. Both are important voices.

 

I am aware that this online activism is a fairly recent development but I fear this is only the beginning. I want healthy debate across all platforms and I want a healthy opposition to better keep ourselves grounded in reality. I’m going to enjoy it while it lasts at the very least. 

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

14 hours ago, Kryten said:

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.
 

happy to talk about that point - glad you brought it up actually since these things are usually represented in the media and/or discussions as the views of the mainstream of one side or the other. 

 

I do think we as a society give social media far too much power. In academics, I blame spineless administration who are more worried about their jobs than protecting free speech on campuses. 

 

Cancel culture has a lot of forms, from simply not using a product or service (which can be a good thing to force companies to do the right thing), and some very ugly aspects to it like some of the attacks we're seeing where people are forced out of jobs for having a legal opinion. I don't know what the answer is, other than e.g. in academics administrators need to be forced, or given legal protection, to make sure things like free speech are upheld. 

  • Like 2
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2021 at 7:52 AM, Jimmy McGill said:

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. 

 

 

 

It's not a 'particular interpretation'. Foucault stated it quite clearly. 

 

I don't think every person getting behind the 'anti-racism' movement is fiercely subscribed to PM, I think most are behind the general sentiments (which I think everyone is) & are understandably going with the flow. Some people pushing the course of action however, such as Kendi & DeAngelo, are the ones subscribed to it - and they hold high places of influence. 

 

And to be clear, the power structure PM espouses isn't hierarchical, it's that ideas - and their power - permeate through a society at every level. Which is where Kendi can make the claim (which he does) that everything is inherently racist, and if your not subscribed to his 'anti-racist' view of how to change society then you are upholding the current racist state - and by extension are a racist.

 

I could illustrate how the PM view works in a different (unscientific) example, say women's attraction to height. 

 

If I were to take the post modern route, I would say that women have been merely socialized to like men of height, it's not natural, and if we could break that societal norm then society would be more equitable. But I don't believe that, I believe there is a biological basis for the bias to height.

 

Regarding math. I don't think that's merely what they are saying, I think they are trying to make math less objective than it is, to make outcomes equitable in some bizarre way. And if Im wrong (possible) & it's just an accessibility issue, then thats not a mathematics issue & they are completely wrong in saying the practice of Math looking for objective answers racist.

 

While I think there is certainly good in the 'AR' movement attacking biases, I don't think it's helpful in the 21st century to segregate groups & deal with people on the basis of their group identity. Nevermind the soft racism that comes with assuming Blacks are incapable of succeeding without enforced equity.

 

Lastly on the trans. I disagree as they've been trying hard to push social constructivism against biological sex & biological underpinnings of gender. And as that relates to athletics & raising young people, I think it is/can be problematic. 

 

Edited by Smashian Kassian
  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, The Lock said:

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.

 

16 hours ago, Kryten said:

That is what I meant and thank you.

 

16 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

 

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

 

I agree with what you all are saying, I think Lock broke it down pretty well. This last part is a good summary.

 

The one point I would make is that regardless of what the right thinks; most people in the middle are moving away from their beliefs regarding things like climate change & vaccines. Society as a whole is moving past those views. IMO the power lies infront of the left, which is why I probably come across as often more critical of them.

 

The one thing that does concern me with the right, especially with Trumpism, is the trend towards believing overbearing conspiracy if it suits your 'ideology'.

 

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...