Give me a freaking break. One side is carrying on the Enlightenment ideals of rationality and secular humanism, while the other is trying to drag us back to the dark ages of superstition and fear. It has nothing to do with political “left” and “right” anymore. It’s just sane vs. insane.
I'd honestly love to have a real discussion with people about this topic. HN comment sections, as imperfect as they may be, are afaik about the only place left on the internet where somewhat fact-based discussions of contentious topics happen.
The flagged comment is pretty inscrutable but I think I can explain the overall sentiment a bit better: half the country is under the impression that much of the science spending in this country is wasteful or even pernicious. They hear stories about studies of "racist highways" and "periods in transgender men," or the CDC claiming racism and gun control are diseases it should control, and think "why am I paying for this?". Combine this with the perception that the science establishment really shat the bed in their response to covid--lying about its origins, lying about the efficacy of masks, lying about the efficacy of the vaccine, lying about two more weeks, pushing ineffective and harmful lockdowns, etc--and half the country is ready to burn the whole thing down.
I, personally, know that science in general is a great good and should be funded. But the craziness, corruption, and dishonesty have to be excised or people are not going to support it.
To your comment in particular, the people supportive of these cuts don't think they're dragging us back to the dark ages. They think they're excising a tumor.
I’m not telling people stories about “racist highways” or “periods in transgender men.” I’m sure you’re not either. Maybe the problem here is whoever is telling those stories.
But in all seriousness, the time to have discussions about this was last year. The time for discussion has passed at this point. The damage is locked in now, as is the blowback that will result when people realize what was done.
I don't think most here would disagree about the perceptions that each side has. The problem is that is imperfect a lens to reality they are, it sure seems like the one side has embraced much of the fundamentals of QAnon even if most haven't realized it.
I'm happy to have this discussion, but I think you're making a false equivalence between the two sides. The examples you provided of liberal scientific overreach are either false or exaggerated. On the other side, you have an anti-vaxxer running the Department of Health and a president who suggested ingesting bleach to treat covid.
To respond to your examples specifically:
* Racist highways: I don't know what this is about.
* Periods in transgender men: This is a small, nuanced issue, not something worth destroying civilization over.
* Racism is a disease: Again, not familiar with this.
* Gun violence is a disease: It is the leading cause of death among children in this country, so treating it as an epidemic makes some sense. Should the CDC just pretend it's not happening?
* Lying about the origins of covid: Not sure who lied about this. The actual origin may never be known, but it most likely evolved from a disease that affected animals in Asia. There is no evidence that it was developed deliberately by China as a bioweapon.
* Lying about the efficacy of masks: Again, not sure what lie you're referring to. Masking was a rational response to an unknown virus. Since covid is a highly contagious respiratory disease, too much masking is certainly better than not enough masking.
* Lying about the efficacy of the vaccine: Again, not sure what lie you're referring to. The covid vaccines saved many thousands of lives.
* Pushing ineffective and harmful lockdowns: This was another rational response to an unknown virus. Lockdowns saved lives, even though they caused huge disruptions.
Your claim that the scientific community overreacted to covid is particularly unjustified and concerning to me. People like Anthony Fauci should be celebrated as heroes, not vilified.
>Lockdowns saved lives, even though they caused huge disruptions.
The problem with this argument and op's is that they're starting from different baselines. This next sentence is not meant to be as judgy as it sounds I'm afraid.
But your context is that lives are worth more than economic problems. The counterpoint that exists is that other people's lives aren't a valuable as my livelihood and income.
This is why rational debate breaks down so very quickly. We don't even have the same starting point anymore, let alone view of the facts at hand.
I think one can make a rational argument that the cost of the lockdowns was not worth the lives saved. I probably wouldn't agree with that argument, but I'd certainly hear it out, especially with regard to the impact on children's education.
The problem is that the current administration isn't interested in (or perhaps capable of) making rational arguments at all.
I just want to point out that America could have blunted the impact the lockdowns had on children, the government just chose to do nothing. It wasn’t a requirement of the lockdowns, it was a choice.
> * Lying about the efficacy of masks: Again, not sure what lie you're referring to. Masking was a rational response to an unknown virus. Since covid is a highly contagious respiratory disease, too much masking is certainly better than not enough masking.
During the first few months of the pandemic the CDC, as well as various media commentators, stated that masks were not an effective measure. The advice was based on decades-old studies that established the "air-borne" vs "not air-borne" dichotomy, according to which COVID was not air-borne and thus masks were unnecessary. But the advice was also motivated by a desire to prevent a run on masks, which were in short supply and already being rationed in healthcare settings. Saying they lied is a stretch, but they were quite intransigent about it even as evidence piled up supporting masking efficacy. This history eventually became one kernel truth justifying a lot of anti-CDC, anti-institutional medicine rhetoric. Though that rhetoric existed before the incorporation of this history into their narrative, and of course the broader movement was always against masking, anyhow, so it's kind of inconsistent logically, but consistency isn't that important when it comes to politics.
I'll tell you what: I'll admit that one side has put too much emphasis on the freedom to choose one's sexual identity if you'll admit that the other side has put too much emphasis on resisting such choices.
I appreciate the effort to be conciliatory but I think this undermines the point you were making. Anti-scientific thinking has proliferated in left-wing spheres since the mid-2010s. This was one obvious example, but you also have the rejection of psychometrics and heredity (admittedly more among academics than actual scientists), an (albeit brief) embrace of Modern Monetary Theory, and then the “Trust the experts, believe in science” mantra of the early 2020s.
I just don’t see a lot of evidence to support the idea that progressives are exceptionally rational.
your comment would have a lot more weight if the grandparent hadn't been flagged and removed by people who don't like to read things they disagree with!
How am I supposed to know what arguments to expect from MAGA if you people censor what they have to say?
Censorship isn't helping your cause! It just makes your side look weak and scared.
I agree HN hides comments/posts too quickly, but the main issue here is that you can easily google federal outlays by month. This is an extremely easy thing to do. Unless you don't believe the data collected, there's nothing to debate. Why don't we have a debate about what color the sky is, or what 1+1 is?
What are people supposed to argue with the sort of person that claims destroying 2B of federal science funding is justified solely by alleviating 0.001% of the 1.83T deficit - aka accomplishing nothing?
There's nothing to be aware of, nothing to prepare for, it's an "argument" that destroys itself with simple division. (Taking their grossly exaggerated "3T per semester" deficit number - combining the 2020 peak in annual deficit and casually doubling it - at face value only makes the 2B from the NSF an even more insignificant 0.00033%)
I find nothing revelatory about it. Just another person that wants to vandalize anything associated with their vague meme-complex of woke-lib-fed-science-international stuff.
