Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Inauguration Day!


165 replies to this topic

#151
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,882 posts

The more I read about the tariff I'm thinking we may have a booze problem. Price increases on my booze could make me consider moonshine again.



#152
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,933 posts
Because there aren't a ****load of beers and tequilas out there to choose from?

#153
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,905 posts

Oh pav, I'm not implying anything. Simply offering up two possilibites that appears to apply to pretty much everyone who participated. Not suggesting that one possibility was more likely than the other. :)
 
I'm disappointed to hear you don't think we have enough in common anymore.  Have the battle lines really been drawn that strongly for you?


I'll admit that I'm less level-headed and indifferent than I used to be. I'm outside of my comfort zone more often lately, and likely that is the reason. I'm trying to assert myself in the political realm, and am not having success. I have no money, only one vote, and only the scientific method in my toolkit. If I participate in politics while being a scientist, I can be and often am accused of "politicizing" science, even if just discussing something as foundational as thermodynamics. If I do not participate, then I have no voice and the politicians can come in and meddle with the infrastructure I rely on to be a scientist. I don't mean just budget cuts at funding agencies, but the very existence of objective facts. Who needs evidence when you can just assert the truth you want? It's anathema to me. 

 

I would hazard to guess that we probably have more in common than maybe any other two people left on this board, given that, at least to my knowledge, we're the only professionals here with post-graduate education and roots in the Northeast (even if yours was more temporary).  Also I'm a little confused as to why you'd think my perspective is limited.  After all, I understood pretty easily why Trump got elected, despite me not having anything in common with probably a good half of his voters.  Something that liberals are still really struggling with.
 
Try me.  I'm not going to mock or dismiss you, long as you give me a little bit more benefit of the doubt than say, Tex.  Look, I know my initial post to you was more of a shot across the bow than it was inviting, and so I'm taking it back, OK?  I didn't mean to suggest anything about your marriage pav. :)


I'd like to think we have more in common than just Star Wars, but I'm not certain I understand you. Again the wealth disparity between us is real and it works both ways. I'm not familiar with your view of the world because I do not have the resources you do. I can't just pick up and move to Europe for the hell of it, because I lack the money to be independent of steady income for any length of time.


 

I think you're being a bit alarmist in this thread, which I suspect is based in an emotive reaction and groupthink pressure from your peers- something that I find surprising, coming from a man of science.  I don't think making comments suggesting that this administration is somehow "hostile" to the very idea of science or educated people is very productive, nor is it good for your mental health.  It's an untrue statement that leads me to believe you're letting your political fandom of one side color your thinking too much.  Shoot, I was pretty disappointed when my NY Giants got knocked out of the playoffs too, but I let it go after a couple days brotha.


I am alarmed. The signs from the Trump administration with regards to scientific research are not encouraging. Will the research done at the EPA be subject to review by political appointees before release? Why would that be a good idea? Why should administrators get to have any say in what facts and data are released? Why I should I think that such a move would be limited to the EPA? Why wouldn't all taxpayer-funded research get reviewed for "political correctness"? But if you're going to assert that I'm subject to "groupthink pressure" rather than acknowledging I'm an adult with the ability to observe and reason independently, then where does that leave us? I can't even claim to not be subject to groupthink, because of course someone who is subject to groupthink wouldn't think they were. It's so much easier to dismiss someone when you can say they're probably brainwashed. 
 

Let's think about this for a second.  I'm pretty sure the scientist that works for ExxonMobil is gonna be just fine over the next 4 years.  Sh-t, he's probably grinning ear to ear.  Or the nuclear physicist that works for Pantex.  Or the aeronautical engineer that works for Lockheed Martin (even accounting for Trump's criticism of the F-35 project.. they're gonna be just fine).


I don't know what your point is here. So my friends at ExxonMobil get to do their testing of rocks and prospecting for resources uninhibited. Pantex is going to do its applied nuclear engineering work regardless of government policies and cultural mores. Therefore, I have no reason to complain? Perhaps you're suggesting I should leave my university and take up a job at ExxonMobil or BP? What's your point? 

Without this degenerating into a global warming discussion thread, let me just ask you this question. When Trump says "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive", what am I supposed to think of that? Is it a joke? Is it a policy statement? Is it a firm belief of his? On its face it's so disconnected from reality that it must be a joke, and yet his policy decisions and selections for Cabinet and government positions are evidence that he believes it. Arguing about what we might do, or even whether it's worth doing anything, to deal with climate change is one thing, but to dismiss it completely, to not even acknowledge the reality of it? What do you suggest I do when Trump and his administration makes claims that have no factual basis? Ignore it? Wait until 2020 and vote him out? Just walk away from the political activity altogether because I'm not participating correctly? All I'm gathering from my exchanges here is that I should just shut up and roll over, because, hey, it's all just a really big game, and only the professionals get to play. Everyone else should just watch.

It's not just Trump and his administration. There's been a growing trend of dismissing any kind of expertise as "elitism", and elitism is bad, mmmkay - with the exception of financial elitism. If you're rich, you're obviously smart and knowledgeable. If you're not rich, you're not worth paying attention to. Demonstrating any kind of non-financial expertise that might be useful is easily dismissed because anyone can find someone else who says the opposite and has the right credentials. Opinions are all equal nowadays. Expertise is not valued anymore. But I shouldn't be alarmed by this trend, because...? Give me some reasons to be as indifferent to the political and cultural climate here in the US as you are. You're rich and you don't even live here. No matter what, you'll come out ahead. I'm not even confident I'll manage to hold my own. You've practiced engaging in politics more than I, and I cannot compete in your arena. I'd be fine with that, if it weren't so asymmetric. You (rhetorical you - the rich and powerful) can come in and meddle in my wheelhouse unscathed.
 

Now, will the whole cottage industry of scientists that have cropped up around academia and non-profits still be fine?  I dunno.  Maybe, maybe not.  But if that's the concern, well then just say that instead of being all hyperbolic about it.  Now that's probably a comment and concern I could understand- after all, who doesn't get a little worried when the gravy train looks like it might be ending?  But let me offer to you a different perspective.  Today much was said about how apparently the Doomsday Clock was moved 30 seconds closer to midnight by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, for basically no other reason than the fact that Trump was elected.  So, now apparently we are closer to doomsday than most of the time during the Cold War, a time when, you know, we actually had a legitimate risk of a nuclear war with Russia.  And why?  Because of an election.  It's like, really?  Come on.


You think I'm engaged in a cottage industry? That I do my research, teaching, and service to the academic community as some sort of hobby that I happen to get paid for? What "gravy train" (i.e., an activity that earns lots of money for little effort) do you think I am on? There's effort and money, but my experience has the relationship inverted.

I am not privy to the exact reasoning for the change in the "Doomsday Clock", but I guess it's related to Trump's statements about no-first-use of nuclear weapons. He's said that he wouldn't use nuclear weapons first, but has also said he wouldn't want to take anything off the table. I am not completely clear on what he means, because he hasn't articulated a clear policy on nuclear weapons (and given his past statements I'm no longer certain whether I should believe what he says or not). If he wants to be unpredictable and let other nations and groups think he's willing to deploy a nuke or two somewhere, fine, but it certainly doesn't make a nuclear exchange less likely, which is what the clock symbolizes. So, yeah, it has political meaning. Are scientists not supposed to have political opinions? Are scientific societies not supposed to take a stand on issues related to science and technology? I'm not certain what you expect of us.
 
 

I know that you do more hard science, and I'm not trying to loop you in with this tomfoolery, but for every one of you, there's of 3 of them.  And this is an organization that has 15 Nobel Laureates as sponsors by the way, peddling this "science."  Maybe you can understand now, why plenty of educated Republicans like myself, are not particularly disturbed when certain GOP elements go on the warpath, even if I believe in Jesus about as much as I believe in sobriety.  If you're gonna become political with an overt agenda, then you can't be surprised when you're treated like just another political lobby.


Is telling the truth and making decisions based on facts and evidence an agenda now? I'm sorry, but I do not understand, and I am trying. For you, I make an effort. But maybe I'm just thick?

 

Anyways, just some things to think about pav.  You don't have to have the guard up 24/7.  You don't necessarily have to be culturally signaling all the time.  It's OK to admit that maybe you're just pissed because you know where your bread is buttered.  And it's OK to maybe admit I might have a point here and there... I get it, you could obviously not say this in front of your peers, since agreeing with a Trump supporter on anything (even just a possible Trump supporter) is a fireable offense in your circles, but again, just some things to think about.

I always think about what you post. Have I regularly failed to acknowledge when you've convinced me you're right and I'm wrong? I'm a scientist, and accustomed to being wrong more often than not. It comes with the training. Though if you think that I have to spout a particular political opinion because of my position and out of some fear of being fired or not toeing a line, remember that the physical sciences and engineering fields are still dominated by old white guys (which I am rapidly becoming), so there is no shortage of politically conservative opinions to discuss and debate. But we always agree that there are basic facts that we have in common and that are not subject to political vetting. Despite the strong correlation of "academia" with "humanities" to the public at large, I am not surrounded by hippies. Nor is there any political litmus test for success in my part of academia, so making claims about "my peers" and "fireable offenses" isn't necessary.

I often wish you and I could communicate in person; I suspect we have had many miscommunication incidents between us due to lack of non-verbal cues. No doubt I missed some cute jokes, too. Apologies. 


  • Driver +1 this

#154
Good God a Bear

Good God a Bear

    well ****

  • Member
  • 8,428 posts

For the record: I also wasn't offended by CM's post. I was just poking fun.

 

It's a fair assumption (at least from my posting from afar). I know pav is in science or (academia?), I know CM has been in law (and/or finance?), and they have the requisite degrees for that. I also know because they frequently lend their expertise in those areas to discussions. I couldn't really tell you about too many other posters educational backgrounds, even the ones I'm friends with on facebook and get tons of regular updates from!

 

You mean you're not familiar with my educational background?!?!?!? You bastard



#155
monkeygirl

monkeygirl

    Advad Disagerer

  • Administrator
  • 22,202 posts
THIS; Carrie, address this, please and thanks:

Without this degenerating into a global warming discussion thread, let me just ask you this question. When Trump says "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive", what am I supposed to think of that? Is it a joke? Is it a policy statement? Is it a firm belief of his? On its face it's so disconnected from reality that it must be a joke, and yet his policy decisions and selections for Cabinet and government positions are evidence that he believes it. Arguing about what we might do, or even whether it's worth doing anything, to deal with climate change is one thing, but to dismiss it completely, to not even acknowledge the reality of it? What do you suggest I do when Trump and his administration makes claims that have no factual basis? Ignore it? Wait until 2020 and vote him out? Just walk away from the political activity altogether because I'm not participating correctly? All I'm gathering from my exchanges here is that I should just shut up and roll over, because, hey, it's all just a really big game, and only the professionals get to play. Everyone else should just watch.

#156
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

If I participate in politics while being a scientist, I can be and often am accused of "politicizing" science, even if just discussing something as foundational as thermodynamics. If I do not participate, then I have no voice and the politicians can come in and meddle with the infrastructure I rely on to be a scientist. I don't mean just budget cuts at funding agencies, but the very existence of objective facts. Who needs evidence when you can just assert the truth you want? It's anathema to me.

 

Wow.  You seriously need to reexamine yourself.  You were the one that ignored the evidence to assert the truth that you wanted.  And here you still are claiming that all you need to know is thermodynamics and you are automatically correct.  You should frankly be embarrassed by your performance on that global warming thread and how you continually ignored a reasoned scientific counter-argument in favor of smugness.

 

By all means, go over that thread again and tell me where I got it wrong.  And this time try to do it without your damn prejudice that anyone who would question you must not care about the evidence blinding you to the possibility that your objective facts led you to a very flawed opinion.

 

Put simply, you are guilty of exactly what you're complaining about and acting like the put upon victim for it.  And I'm sure you'll have plenty of colleagues and like-minded folks that will shake their head that you were ever questioned because, by gosh, no one but you can understand the laws of thermodynamics.

 

Is telling the truth and making decisions based on facts and evidence an agenda now? I'm sorry, but I do not understand, and I am trying. For you, I make an effort. But maybe I'm just thick?

 

It's a metaphorical clock.  Everything about it is an opinion.  The only reason they dropped the clock a fraction instead of a full minute or more is because, except for a single minute in 2010 for New START, they've only been subtracting minutes since the Cold War ended and they're running out of minutes to take away.



#157
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,905 posts
Sorry, Poe, but I wasn't referring to you. Though I suppose you're right about our exchange. I'd apologize to you, but I don't respect you. You'll have to be satisfied with that.

#158
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts
Sorry, Poe, but I wasn't referring to you.

 

You'll excuse me if I'm dubious that you were referring to the other time you made a claim involving thermodynamics and were accused of politicizing science.



#159
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,905 posts
I see why you're dubious. To you, I'm just text on a screen. But in truth I am a real boy and I regularly interact with people who do not post at nightly. Strange, I know, but you should try it.

#160
Marc DuQuesne

Marc DuQuesne

    Member

  • Members
  • 592 posts

I gotta say, my opinion of most of you has gone up a fair amount in the last few pages of this thread. Not even sure why. Holy ****, I might be in a good mood. Can't remember the last time that happened.

 

Also, I wasn't offended by CM either. That ship sailed years ago. I like the bitch.



#161
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

 

 

 

 

Trumps been in office just DAYS and I already have major complaints about every ****ing thing he's done. Hope that brings a smile to your face.
You're almost as interesting a piece of wrk as he is. ALMOST.


Everything? I wouldn't have put you as a TPP supporter.

 
Post of the thread.  Says so much.  With so little.
 
I don't have your talent for brevity, Brando. :)

 


Understatement.

And why wouldn't you have assumed I was a TPP supporter?

 


Because pretty much every prominent Democrat opposed it, including Clinton and Sanders.

Its main base of support was actually establishment Republicans.

It's OK, MG, to admit that maybe not everything Trump does is evil Hitler. I disagree with plenty that Trump and the GOP does.

Independent thought. Give it a try. I won't tattle on you to your liberal friends, I promise. :)

 

I'm not a Democrat, though, prominent or otherwise. But now I get why you'd think the way you do about this. And I'll admit when Trump does something that's not evil when he actually does something that's not evil. Independent thought?  You mean things like being an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment when almost all my friends are terrified of guns? Or still thinking the Electoral College is a good idea though most liberals want to now get rid of it? I'll consider it.

 

Alright, I'll give you that there have been times you've surprised me with some of your stances.  The 2nd amendment being one of them.. I forgot that you supported it.

 

So do you think withdrawing from the TPP is evil?



#162
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

For what it's worth, if the media's reaction to Trump's first week in office can be distilled down to one sentence it would be:

 

"Holy crap, you mean he really meant what he said during the campaign?"



#163
monkeygirl

monkeygirl

    Advad Disagerer

  • Administrator
  • 22,202 posts

Trumps been in office just DAYS and I already have major complaints about every ****ing thing he's done. Hope that brings a smile to your face.
You're almost as interesting a piece of wrk as he is. ALMOST.


Everything? I wouldn't have put you as a TPP supporter.

 
Post of the thread.  Says so much.  With so little.
 
I don't have your talent for brevity, Brando. :)


Understatement.

And why wouldn't you have assumed I was a TPP supporter?


Because pretty much every prominent Democrat opposed it, including Clinton and Sanders.

Its main base of support was actually establishment Republicans.

It's OK, MG, to admit that maybe not everything Trump does is evil Hitler. I disagree with plenty that Trump and the GOP does.

Independent thought. Give it a try. I won't tattle on you to your liberal friends, I promise. :)

I'm not a Democrat, though, prominent or otherwise. But now I get why you'd think the way you do about this. And I'll admit when Trump does something that's not evil when he actually does something that's not evil. Independent thought?  You mean things like being an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment when almost all my friends are terrified of guns? Or still thinking the Electoral College is a good idea though most liberals want to now get rid of it? I'll consider it.

Alright, I'll give you that there have been times you've surprised me with some of your stances.  The 2nd amendment being one of them.. I forgot that you supported it.
 
So do you think withdrawing from the TPP is evil?


No, I guess not-but I"m not thrilled about it, either. On the evil part-I must admit-Trump has done this thing I don't find evil.

And if he can repair the ACA without tossing it all, I may find that more than not evil.

#164
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

Pav
 

Will the research done at the EPA be subject to review by political appointees before release? Why would that be a good idea? Why should administrators get to have any say in what facts and data are released? Why I should I think that such a move would be limited to the EPA? Why wouldn't all taxpayer-funded research get reviewed for "political correctness"? But if you're going to assert that I'm subject to "groupthink pressure" rather than acknowledging I'm an adult with the ability to observe and reason independently, then where does that leave us?


Well, what exactly are we talking about here?  Are you referring to that whole thing about the EPA being asked to take down climate change websites?  Because that plan was suspended.. I don't know if you know that.  So to some degree it seems like the administration is at least somewhat capable of self-reflection... so you'll excuse me if I still think you sound like Chicken Little.  As to whether research gets reviewed for political correctness, I dunno, maybe, but that ship sailed long ago.  You had whole programs in the State Department in the last administration devoted to diversity building or whatever, and you better believe that anything released was getting the proper scrutiny for sufficient levels of inclusion or whatever the f-ck.  And then of course, we all know that conservative thinkers, minus the rare example here and there, are practically banned from academia, minus the pathetic Jeb Bush types.  So what can I say?  Yeah, there might be an element of fighting fire with fire here, but I care not.  Ideally do I want objective and non-partisan research repressed?  No.  But liberals turned this into an us or them situation years ago.  They opened the door to pushing people to get fired for their beliefs, for leading the SJW mobs against people who may have donated to an anti-gay marriage candidate over a decade ago (you know, when even Obama and Clinton were against it).  So given that some federal agencies (not just the EPA) are chock full of liberals, I truly couldn't care less what their fate is.
 
I do think you have the ability to observe and reason independently, I do pav.  My "groupthink pressure" comment was more just pointing out that I've detected a noticeable shift in tone from you over the past year or so... it's just more.... histrionic.  Usually people get that way because of external social factors, that's all I'm saying.
 

I don't know what your point is here. So my friends at ExxonMobil get to do their testing of rocks and prospecting for resources uninhibited. Pantex is going to do its applied nuclear engineering work regardless of government policies and cultural mores. Therefore, I have no reason to complain? Perhaps you're suggesting I should leave my university and take up a job at ExxonMobil or BP? What's your point?

 
I'm not saying you don't have reason to complain.  My point is that your complaints are not precise.  A precise criticism is something like, "I expect the new EPA administrator to do XYZ, based on his previous stances, and that's bad because ABC."  An imprecise criticism is something like "the GOP hates science."  Even though it's obvious, from the examples I gave, that plenty of STEM fields are gonna be just fine under Trump, in fact, will probably be better than ever.
 

Without this degenerating into a global warming discussion thread, let me just ask you this question. When Trump says "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive", what am I supposed to think of that? Is it a joke? Is it a policy statement? Is it a firm belief of his? On its face it's so disconnected from reality that it must be a joke, and yet his policy decisions and selections for Cabinet and government positions are evidence that he believes it. Arguing about what we might do, or even whether it's worth doing anything, to deal with climate change is one thing, but to dismiss it completely, to not even acknowledge the reality of it? What do you suggest I do when Trump and his administration makes claims that have no factual basis? Ignore it?

 
Well it's a bit of a half-joke, yes.  The problem is, you have to stop taking Trump so literally.  This is just classic Trump bluster.  He comes out and says something quite ridiculous, with a tinge of humor, but that still has a kernel of truth to it.  And by doing so, he moves the overton window over to what the ultimate goal actually is.  It's just basic negotiating.  Your opening bid is never what you'll settle for.  Art of the Deal, that's all.  The reason it seems so shocking to you is just because we haven't had a legit showman as president in a long time (Clinton had some of the same qualities).
 
The kernel of truth in this case is that when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, China is by far the worst offender, and it's not even close, so it begs the question of why we should even bother, since any regulation, no matter how minor, will restrict US industry at least to some degree and China will just keep doing what they're doing, probably while snickering at us behind our back.  No, China obviously didn't "create" warming, but any serious discussion about global regulation needs to start with a re-focus on why the f-ck China can just sit there while we have to suffer the haircut.  The goal is obviously to reach an eventual compromise, but you sure as sh-t aren't going to get it by being the first one to cave and offer the olive branch from a position of weakness.  But yeah, this is just standard Trump.  It's sorta like what happened with the Muslim ban.  The real goal may have been (and looks like it will be) to just reduce refugees from Syria and a couple other countries, but if you started with that, we all know what the Left would say (racist).  If you know that's what the Left will say no matter what you propose, might as well just go all out and then move the overton window closer to your preferred policy.
 
As to what you should do, I would wait until some actual policy occurs as opposed to just freaking out about Trump's rhetoric.  And then when that policy comes out, focus on that issue.
 
Now, I'm not completely beyond understanding.  I get why this bluster is a little jarring.  You want a "serious" president, I assume. 
 
Well, the people didn't.  After all, serious politicians have had decades to do something about some of the root causes of this angst, such as the fact that wages haven't meaningfully gone up for most Americans in a generation.  And instead they wasted their time with a circle-jerk of pet projects, patting themselves on the back, and celebrating popular social causes to culturally signal to other people how in vogue with the times they were.  Well, you can only hold off the masses long enough before the pitchforks come out.  That we would eventually get a Trump was predictable way back in the early 90s.
 
So no, I'm not sympathetic about the Left's complete mental breakdown about how un-serious our president is.  As the old saying goes, you broke it, you bought it.
 

It's not just Trump and his administration. There's been a growing trend of dismissing any kind of expertise as "elitism", and elitism is bad, mmmkay - with the exception of financial elitism. If you're rich, you're obviously smart and knowledgeable. If you're not rich, you're not worth paying attention to. Demonstrating any kind of non-financial expertise that might be useful is easily dismissed because anyone can find someone else who says the opposite and has the right credentials. Opinions are all equal nowadays. Expertise is not valued anymore. But I shouldn't be alarmed by this trend, because...? Give me some reasons to be as indifferent to the political and cultural climate here in the US as you are. You're rich and you don't even live here.

 
Dude the anti-elitist streak and poo-pooing of the 'experts' has been around since the beginning of the country.  You can go all the way back to the people who originally settled here, who had huge chips on their shoulders since they were never accepted by the British aristocracy.  The celebration and romanticization of the average country dude that's folksy and kinda stupid is as American as apple pie.  Didn't you ever read Huck Finn when you were a kid?
 
You shouldn't be alarmed by this "trend," because there is no trend.  You just perceive there to be one because your team didn't win.  Meanwhile, back in reality, fiery populism has been a part of this country for a very long time, from Andrew Jackson, to William Jennings Bryan, to Huey Long.  Just because it's been a little dormant for a while doesn't mean that it disappeared.  I'm not saying you should be indifferent to the political culture in the US, I'm just saying you could probably stand to be a little less melodramatic.  For your sanity, if anything (otherwise this is going to be a loooooooong 4 years for you).
 
Oh, and by the way, I do live here.  I moved back to the US.  :)
 

You think I'm engaged in a cottage industry? That I do my research, teaching, and service to the academic community as some sort of hobby that I happen to get paid for? What "gravy train" (i.e., an activity that earns lots of money for little effort) do you think I am on? There's effort and money, but my experience has the relationship inverted.

I am not privy to the exact reasoning for the change in the "Doomsday Clock", but I guess it's related to Trump's statements about no-first-use of nuclear weapons. He's said that he wouldn't use nuclear weapons first, but has also said he wouldn't want to take anything off the table. I am not completely clear on what he means, because he hasn't articulated a clear policy on nuclear weapons (and given his past statements I'm no longer certain whether I should believe what he says or not). If he wants to be unpredictable and let other nations and groups think he's willing to deploy a nuke or two somewhere, fine, but it certainly doesn't make a nuclear exchange less likely, which is what the clock symbolizes. So, yeah, it has political meaning. Are scientists not supposed to have political opinions? Are scientific societies not supposed to take a stand on issues related to science and technology? I'm not certain what you expect of us.

 
No, I don't think you are part of the cottage industry, per se.  I'm just saying that one exists, and is part of a larger academic machine, that is to a large extent a political arm of the left.  An unchecked one too- I strongly advocate taxing university endowments at least at the corporate rate, if not more, but that's another discussion for another day.
 
No, the change in the Clock had nothing to do with Trump's policies.  It's solely because they don't like Trump and are making a political statement.  Pav, the no-first-use policy has never been US policy.  We have always reserved the right to first use (and in fact, most NATO countries support that... going back to the days where they feared Russian tanks rolling in).  The reason Trump was beating around the bush on that subject was because he got caught off guard on something he hadn't given a lot of thought about (if any).
 
I'm not saying scientists can't have political opinions, nor am I saying they can't take a stand on issues they care about.  What I am saying, however, is that once a political stance has been taken, you are not merely the objective presenter of fact anymore.  You are a political entity and have now opened yourself up to reciprocal political attack and can't act surprised when it happens, even it means a little dirty pool happens here and there.
 

Is telling the truth and making decisions based on facts and evidence an agenda now? I'm sorry, but I do not understand, and I am trying.

 
Well no, that wouldn't be an agenda.
 
This is a fact- the climate changes over time (whether that be warming, cooling, whatever).
 
Another fact- humans, at least to some degree, impact the earth's climate.
 
OK, fine.  But what society should do about that, whether that be banning automobiles tomorrow, or shrugging one's shoulders and saying "f-ck it," are not facts.  That is advocacy.  Now a group of scientists that feel so strongly about what they think the ultimate implications of certain facts are, that it leads them to certain policy positions, is completely understandable.  That's fine.  As I said above, scientists can express political points and have political ideology, there is nothing wrong with that.  But you can't complain when you are treated like any other politician.  This whole b-tching and moaning about how the GOP is the 'anti-science' party is just a little too cute by half, especially when such scientists' advocacy style reflects some rather un-scientific thinking (the Doomsday Clock from above being an example- rooted almost entirely in melodramatic hysteria). 
 
And make no mistake, plenty of scientists have a clear agenda.  And so do you.  I'm not arguing about scientific facts here, I'm talking about your preferred policies based on what you think people should do about certain environmental issues.  And like I said, if you open the door to policy argument, well you're gonna get it all, above and below the belt.  This is why I can sit back and be completely unconcerned about the rabid elements going after the scientists with the nonsense, you know, like the Earth was created a few thousand years ago or whatever bullsh-t the churchies are saying these days.  Maybe now you know what it feels like to constantly be called racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc., no matter what policy I'm arguing for, even when it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
 
I used to respond to these arguments with pleas to reason- but my motivations are good!  I'm not racist!  I'm talking about trade for goodness' sake!
 
Nope, doesn't matter.  You literally open your mouth and say anything that's not 100% anti-Trump, and you are literally Hitler.  Well, two can play at this game.  Your pleas to reason- but my facts are good!  Warming is a scientific fact!
 
Guess what, I don't care.  We could argue all day about what to do about warming, but instead I'm gonna turn and look away as politicians feed schlock to the useful idiots, no matter how ridiculous it is.  Sh-t, they could be advocating flat Earth for all I care, long as the GOP wins elections.  To tie the end of my post with its beginning- It's fight fire with fire.  It didn't have to be this way... but nothing was enough for the Left.  No limits would be accepted.  Motivations of the person, as opposed to the policy they were advocating, became central (if not the only thing that mattered), and when the motivations couldn't be discovered, they became assumed.  Witch hunts over thought crimes are the norm.  Well, it's unfortunate that it's an arms race now, but it is what it is.  I can't change it, so I've accepted the reality.  As long as my team wins I don't particularly care what they have to do.  Since at this point, it's simply last man standing.


  • pavonis and The Kurgan +1 this

#165
Guest_El Chalupacabra_*

Guest_El Chalupacabra_*
  • Guests

Wow. Did we just self-moderate the Lyceum?

I don't know about that, but in my case, I am trying to make a real effort to not let the fact my personal life is in shambles right now, affect how I view posts from other members of nightly, and how I respond to them.  I was unfair in my comments, and it was something I wouldn't have said in person to an acquaintance or friend,  or at least in the way I did.


  • Jacen123 +1 this

#166
Lucas1138

Lucas1138

    Spam Lord

  • Moderators
  • 18,276 posts

For what it's worth, if the media's reaction to Trump's first week in office can be distilled down to one sentence it would be:

 

"Holy crap, you mean he really meant what he said during the campaign?"

Well Trump supporters spent almost the entirety of the campaign going

 

"Ugh, they take everything he says so literally! THE MEDIA is so awful!"


  • Jacen123 +1 this



Reply to this topic