On Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 9:02:43 AM UTC+1 spudb...@aol.com wrote:
> No, I was claiming the side of the rubes, the hicks, the anti-science > bozos, the vast unwashed, ignorant, trumpkins, not you or your team. If you > think I am a fascist I have no reason to embrace or demur, because what the > hell does it really mean as a matter of relevance to today? It's just a > name tag that people who would still embrace Joe Stalin, or Mao, or Pol > Pot, without a cogent thought, and just agree to see if they can draw an > emotional response? If that was your thing or maybe just getting weary of > the 'convo' so be it. > > Now, as a matter of fact I do supply the evidence that the liberal mindset > (whatever you identify as?) ignores stuff like this at your own peril. It's > not merely hypocrisy but the attempt to control the rest of us. I suppose > the dems expected us to let this glide on by? > > https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-health-protests-301534 > Your perspective is warped: polarization is a social media mirage. I'm not sure anybody here fully identifies with being on "team dem" in the sense that you understand: 100% loyalty as if it were a home sports team, even if yours truly will take a rather aggressive stance against not tolerating folks for merely existing (doesn't make me right on everything; just like the next/every guy). At first glance your link demonstrates the capacity for self-criticism, which is markedly absent from folks that buy into polarized narratives, conspiracies as an explanatory system for the state of reality in its entirety, and feel compelled to argue for "their team". People should stay safe and find means to have their voices heard at the same time. A difficult balance for anybody, particularly for overburdened health workers. And people not doing so are irresponsible, no matter who they are. > > Secondly, for your faith in the infallibility of researchers, something > that I thought was simple a feature of the Popes, I would line this up > before your faithful eyes. > > > https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2020/11/28/i_published_a_fake_paper_in_a_peer-reviewed_journal_651221.html?_escaped_fragment_&_escaped_fragment_ > Nah, again only in the eyes of ideologues that generalize moral judgement over some black sheep example in some badly defined group to the total group. Ideologues need to blame folks as their nonsense never flies on merit alone. Only on peoples' justified anger and frustrations. Hence racism is ok to some folks. The roots are real suffering and their "heroes" are "telling it how it is". > > Now if you are looking to a view for scientific (technological) progress, > that is a different feature. This, of course, is not what this interaction > is about. > You'll never get rid of dishonesty. In science or any other matter. You can incentivize against it perhaps or through education realize that it is self-destructive. But getting rid of it 100%? Show us your utopia and how it works; particularly how it is brought online by folks who perpetually and knowingly peddle digital claims with no evidence and the clear intention to mislead. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f5b82972-bee4-4f4e-b5ef-d6c5a86de98en%40googlegroups.com.
