Total posts: 1,893
Posted in:
It appears that there was never much data backing up the efficacy and necessity of lockdowns and masking young children. Cases in point— such hasty and unscientific measures— in the name of “following the science”— reduce people’s trust in science and cause societal damage that will manifest for some time to come…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Wow… eventually a movie will be made paying tribute to those who took it upon themselves to get Americans out— sort of like “Argo” I’m thinking…
Created:
Posted in:
I actually thought W was the worst president in my memory. That is until our botched withdrawal from Afghanistan put Biden in the number one spot, with no signs of that status improving in the next 3 years…
Created:
Posted in:
“We learned our lesson from Vietnam… don’t go into Vietnam!”
-Dana Carvey as George HW Bush prior to Gulf War I
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I can just quote you… back to yourself on that matter:
Our back and forth dialogue is all documented through this site,
I might go have a lie down now… getting a bit sleepy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Indeed. Yet, for whatever reason, it didn’t stop you from trying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It’s easy to discern when you are lying in regards to me and what I’ve said in order to save face in an argument. Much harder to discern when you are lying about things only you would know. Besides, I wouldn’t be asking you the question if I were automatically going to disbelieve your answer!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No, I’ve been talking about what she did say all along. Your outright lying smacks of desperation, and it’s no wonder. About time to put a fork in this, methinks…
whether or not someone is white isn’t a matter of opinion it’s a matter of fact
Just out of curiosity, do you describe yourself as a “race realist”?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Ms. Goldberg failed to say “it’s about ethnic hatred” didn’t she? Why do you think that is? That is a monumental omission on her part, hence why her adamant claim of what it ISN’T is problematic.
What do you not understand about this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
perhaps she should’ve offered a more specific term rather than the vague one she used since getting the narrative right is the goal, maybe she would’ve gotten less heat if she called it for EXACTLY what it is, antisemitism.
Antisemitism is a subset of racism:
It’s a head scratcher why you and Ms. Goldberg are so invested in denying this…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
A poster other than yourself asked a question, and I began my answer with:
“I probably cannot speak for why others see Goldberg’s words as problematic, but I can say why I do:”
In other words, I’m not pontificating here. I’m not telling others what to think, as Goldberg is. Again, my post was not directed towards you. So you are out of line accusing me of pontificating and speaking out of turn.
Back to Whoopi:
Saying it’s about “man’s inhumanity to man” isn’t at all informative. Genocide, rape, murder, torture, etc all fall under that large umbrella. In other words… DUH! At the same time, she attempts to subtract insight from the discussion, saying what it ISN’T about.
To what point? To what benefit?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I agree that Goldberg doesn’t have a substantive point. She’s actually not adding any meaningful info to the discussion (“man’s inhumanity” well, duh!) while also subtracting info (what it ISN’T about).
However, the insightful, informative paragraph you quote first isn’t Tarik but FLRW.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If “strident” troubles you too much, substitute “overconfident.” Point being, she doesn’t have the knowledge of the subject to pontificate as confidently as she did.
In this case, “race” is just a catch-all for ethnicity and group identity. The point is the same— Jews were hated, scapegoated, and genocided based upon group identity.
If you feel the need to convince me otherwise, feel free to make Ms. Goldberg’s case to me for her.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If you have seen the clip, why do you need me to recite what she said “EXACTLY”?
The Jews in Germany were indeed separated… from non Jewish whites. It was hatred based upon identity. Regarding that, there is no misconception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I probably cannot speak for why others see Goldberg’s words as problematic, but I can say why I do:
1. Goldberg was very authoritative and strident in her words— on a subject she is in no position to be authoritative about, even by your own admission
2. Goldberg brings up racism fairly frequently. So, when she carves out an exception to racism here, it strikes me as disingenuous and self-serving— as if Jews don’t deserve the same identity based victimization sympathy as people of color such as herself do
3. I’m pretty certain Goldberg is pro: more stringent penalties for “hate crimes.” Here, it seems like she is saying that the Nazis were certainly guilty of crimes, just that it didn’t rise to the level of hate crimes— hatred based upon immutable or identity based characteristics.
Created:
I’m far more scandalized by the poor quality of CNN’s purported “objective journalism” and punditry than I am by Zucker’s consensual, workplace romance…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It's just another caricature of the left.
Agreed. AOC is basically a living caricature of the left.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Regarding edible substances in this case, yes— high fructose corn syrup.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I said they (generally speaking) are *made from* natural ingredients— wheat, milk, etc.
I specify human intervention because I have found that is the intent of the meaning behind the adjective “natural”— that is its descriptive property. If, as you seem to say, everything in the universe is natural, then the word “natural” never really had any need or purpose for entering language in the first place. You render it meaningless and lacking any descriptive property. You may as well just say “it’s a real thing” instead of “it’s natural.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I specifically said *human* intervention, so your first example does not apply.
Bread and cheese are foods made (and invented) by humans from natural ingredients.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As far as the word “natural” having utility and consistency of meaning in this context, I favor the human intervention interpretation. Basically put, “Did we humans have something to do with that, or did we not?” If yes, then it is not natural but artificial, synthetic, etc. If no, then it is deemed “natural.” Take uranium and plutonium, for example. It is meaningfully descriptive to say that one is naturally occurring and the other is not.
BUT… big picture wise, yes, I agree that we are a part of nature, too. It strikes me as self-hating and naively simplistic when some have the knee jerk reaction that natural must be good, and not natural must be bad. For that though, I blame the revolution in chemistry where just about any substance could be concocted to perform a predetermined function but without thought towards the unintended consequences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I agree with your rebuttal in post 14, but if a global economic shutdown barely made a dent in climate change, I’m left wondering what will…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
How does the Hoover Dam qualify as natural by the Wiktionary definition you pointed to earlier?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Thanks for your thoughtful post. You are actually the first to get past the nuts and bolts and into the more philosophical angle that I intended for this thread. This thread has crossover potential into the Philosophy forum, but I am specifically talking about “natural” as in physical substances and structures rather than actions, behaviors, and instincts.
To restate the conundrum a different way: aren’t humans a part of nature, or do we work in opposition to the natural world? Either way, nature “gets the final say” so to speak. I hope we can all agree on that…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
What makes the ISS and Chicken McNuggets not natural as opposed to the Hoover Dam, which you see as natural?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Nearly every description in the English language has multiple uses and interpretations, that doesn’t make them useless. Words are just tools for conveying ideas and concepts, if it did the job that’s all we need, if it didn’t then try another one.
I’m not saying the word is useLESS. I’m saying that it presently is not a highly useful or uniquely informative adjective. I doubt it was intended to be so. I’m also saying that it is an easily misunderstood and misused adjective. This thread is demonstrating that far better than I expected or intended. I actually wanted to get more into the philosophical aspects of this, as RM has done, but more to do with “nature” as in “the natural world” rather than “what comes naturally” as RM explores it.
To answer your question, I do not consider a beaver damn natural because it was constructed by a thinking agent. Some might disagree. That’s not really important because in the context it’s most often used, it merely contrasts with the human process of altering the chemical makeup of substances in ways that are harmful to the human body.
What makes beavers “a *thinking* agent” (emphasis added)? It seems to me that you are overcomplicating this for yourself, but that, too, supports my point about the word “natural.”
As to your latter point, I agree as far as it goes. The problem is that people have extrapolated that to mean “natural = good” and “not natural = bad”, and that isn’t necessarily the case. Also, your mention of “the human process” supports both my best understanding of the word as stated in my OP, and, again, leads to my stated quasi-philosophical conundrum: are not we humans a part of nature?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
How about an automobile? Bleach? The plastic jug the bleach comes in?
Created:
Posted in:
It seems to me that a lot of people don’t really know what “natural” means. “Uh, it means occurring in nature?” or guesses along those (tautological) lines. So, then, is a beaver dam natural?
“Yes, I think.”
Honey?
“Sure.”
An automobile?
“No!”
Why not?
“Because Man makes cars!”
Aren’t we humans… also a part of nature?
“Uh…”
How about… uranium?
“Uh…”
So many products these days claim to be “100% natural.” Why is that necessarily good? Oil is natural, and we tend to see it as toxic and damaging to nature, rather than “natural” in the good sense, rather than being “in harmony with nature.” Yes, I know that we humans go out of our way to dig it from deep in the earth— same with uranium.
My point here being: “natural” is not a very useful or informative descriptor. It is often misunderstood and misleading. I believe it is merely a layman’s term meaning “not man made or caused by man.” But, really, aren’t we humans also a part of nature?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If Trump in early 2021 backed vaccines and even vaccine mandates, the right would be saying, "Get vaccinated; it's your patriotic duty. We should force you to get vaccinated you pussy."
It doesn’t seem so:
People seem to like Trump because he advocates for what they already believe to be true and sensible. The above demonstrates what happens when he does not do this…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You forgot to mention getting the US out of Afghanistan in your list of Biden’s accomplishments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I gotta give credit where credit is due. Your post #79 is perhaps the best substantiation of a point I’ve seen you make on this forum. I even learned something new with your OJ trial insight. It helps that I already agreed with the point beforehand, but in any case, well done.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I’ve seen how he votes!
Do you have some examples of how he has voted against your wishes and those of the Republican Party?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
… that immigration drives down wages (disagree, and if there is an impact on wages, it's negligible);… but forcing a small business owner to hire more expensive workers is somehow okay even if that hurts their business.
How do you reconcile these two apparently contradictory claims?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What do you think about the Christian Science Monitor article I posted on this subject in post 35?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Your point is what then, exactly? Should I simply ignore you?
Created:
Posted in:
Excellent post, Resurget.
I also submit this excellent article which discusses this same issue. I hope that those who disagree with me find more agreeable middle ground here:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I made no mention of “fake science.” You seem to insist on missing my point. I’m talking about virtue signaling with the word “science” being the virtue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Just make sure they say the magic words before you trust what they say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
They'll tyrannise us with right course of action then.
You are assuming it is the “right course of action” because the person of influence merely utters the word “science.”
This sentiment exemplifies the problem I am pointing out here…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
We have a lot bigger and realer problems in science denial
That’s just it— the issue I am highlighting here contributes to, rather than mitigates science denial.
I guess one either gets this, or one doesn’t…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Thanks for asking.
My point is that authority figures who say “Listen to the science” are in danger of using a catchphrase in place of actual leadership. They are in danger of implying “Obey me without question because… science.”
You bring up the vaccine as an example. Ok— should a person who just had COVID get the vaccine right away? The data show otherwise, yet people of influence insist “Everyone get the vaccine asap! It’s science!”
How about prioritizing who gets the vaccine first? What does the data say about who the highest risk groups are? Did policymakers “follow the science” when prioritizing vaccine recipients?
Science is a great tool, but it does not make decisions, automatically generate practical solutions, weigh pros and cons, consider unintended consequences, etc. Merely saying the word should not be confused for leadership nor should one assume that mentioning science = the person mentioning it must be doing all the right things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You miss my point, I’m afraid. It is right there in straightforward prose, but let me know if you need me to clarify anything further.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
- "Listen to the Science" is not an admonishment, per se. The phrase just asdvises folks to "pay attention to the body of collected data regarding this subject."
I might agree insofar as it does not have to be an admonishment technically, but that aspect is actually beside my point. What single word might you use to label such a direction? Ha, “direction” might be an alternative descriptor! You can substitute “direction” in my OP for admonishment, if you like.
"Use the Science" is far more imperative semantically than "Listen to the Science." Listening happens before decision-making and doesn't necessarily influence the decision whereas "Use the Science" implies a specific course of action. Therefore, "Use the Science" is far closer in meaning to "Obey the Science" than "Listen to the Science.”
Seems like a distinction without a difference to me. However, now that you bring it to my attention, I realize that I wouldn’t like it if people of influence said “Use the science,” either. It would still come off as superior, preachy, and being beyond question.
I will now say that I would prefer it if people just present good ideas and strategies. Don’t tell me (to listen to the science); show me (how you yourself are using all the available data, weighing the pros and cons, managing risk, unintended consequences, etc) in other words…
Created:
Posted in:
Sounds reasonable at first… science is as close to objective investigation as we can get, and it would behoove us humans to heed its lessons. As time goes on in the COVID era, however, it is starting to sound more and more like “Obey the science,” or worse, “Obey me.”
Science is a tool. Tools do not issue commands, make tough decisions, make prescriptions, make moral arguments, weigh all the pros and cons, account for unintended consequences, etc. People— leaders in particular— do (or should do) those things. You never hear anyone admonish anyone else to listen to any other tools. That would be absurd, wouldn’t it? You might conceivably be advised to “listen to the computer,” but that would take on a disturbing tone if taken to the lengths that “listen to the science” has taken. I can tell you that in my work, we back up the computer’s directions with our own cross checks.
The problem is that the people who say “listen to the science” or “follow the science” often have an underlying ideological agenda. They tend to cherry pick the available data. Science doesn’t create or side with ideologies; people do. So, in effect, these people are saying “listen to the science (obey me), because I, too, follow the science.” That just leads to authoritarianism with an effective tool as the presumably unquestionable justification— the person in question may not even be using science in the most optimal way, and the results of scientific studies should never be implied as being unquestionable.
I would much prefer “Use the science” be the admonishment. Use the tool… to your advantage. What a concept! Just don’t confuse using science as constituting effective leadership.
Science is a tool. Tools do not issue commands, make tough decisions, make prescriptions, make moral arguments, weigh all the pros and cons, account for unintended consequences, etc. People— leaders in particular— do (or should do) those things. You never hear anyone admonish anyone else to listen to any other tools. That would be absurd, wouldn’t it? You might conceivably be advised to “listen to the computer,” but that would take on a disturbing tone if taken to the lengths that “listen to the science” has taken. I can tell you that in my work, we back up the computer’s directions with our own cross checks.
The problem is that the people who say “listen to the science” or “follow the science” often have an underlying ideological agenda. They tend to cherry pick the available data. Science doesn’t create or side with ideologies; people do. So, in effect, these people are saying “listen to the science (obey me), because I, too, follow the science.” That just leads to authoritarianism with an effective tool as the presumably unquestionable justification— the person in question may not even be using science in the most optimal way, and the results of scientific studies should never be implied as being unquestionable.
I would much prefer “Use the science” be the admonishment. Use the tool… to your advantage. What a concept! Just don’t confuse using science as constituting effective leadership.
Created:
Posted in:
Created: