Similarly, you know that "moved some magazines" doesn't accurately portray what this person was sentenced for. It was evidence tampering, and intentionally trying to frame it as "just moved some magazines" is disingenuous. You don't even have the plausible excuse of "missing the point".
You know what they say about glass houses and stones, right?
No, I called them out on something I thought they were wrong about because they were being super obnoxious in the way they were stating it.
Turns out they were right, but instead of losing the attitude, they doubled down on the toxicity. When I admitted they were right, they doubled down again.
Transparency mode is better, but it isn't perfect. The simple fact that you have something else producing noise in close proximity to your ears is enough to disrupt your ability to hear other things, even if they're also making it to your ears with high fidelity.
I mean, noise cancelling works by producing more noise, not less; and there will be plenty of times when what's outside with destructively interfere with what you're listening to, or vice versa.
This may be hard to do in a city, but a good test is to go outside on a quiet night, wearing only on one ear, and then turn your head back and forth to alternate ears while trying to listen to specific distant sounds. It'll really highlight just how many things are still being filtered out.
Or it'll demonstrate how much more deaf you might be in one ear :P
The thought of intentionally deafening myself to the outside world, even partially, is unnerving, because I can't stand the thought of nerfing my own situational awareness to that degree. Especially in fast-paced environments, like city streets, where sounds can carry such important signal.
Even watching someone else walk around a city with headphones/earbuds in is something that makes me uncomfortable by proxy. It's like someone deciding that walking around with beer goggles is a good idea
> Look at how much "trust me, I've got training, I know what's good, I know what's already right" is in their argument.
I mean, isn't that what we're supposed to do in science? Listen to the folks who have the expertise? Like sure, don't believe that they have the expertise or whatever, but ask for proof of the expertise, don't just handwave it away because you don't agree with the expert. Nothing that they've said has appeared to be inconsistent with their claim of expertise, however.
So... maybe trust the person with the experience? Or, if you have a contrasting experience, present that instead. But this is not what you're doing.
> What is their actual point? That we can say across the board that good research must have easy-to-control experimentation and guarantee novelty?
My read is something like this: Their point is that the scientific method (aka "science") is fundamentally about rigor. If some science doesn't have rigor, it's fair to question its quality, because without rigor, you can't trust any of the results. There's too much possibility for error. The social sciences are notorious for lacking rigor. It's part of the reason there's a repeatability crisis in the field.
> My point is that their stance is political too, because it says 'I don't care about this like how they care about this, so I think it should get cut'.
That's really not what they're saying at all. You keep trying to spin it that way, but I haven't seen that indication of that particular intent.
> Their position is not some innocent defense of empiricism, it's a political stance that says "these questions don't matter, I already know how the world works."
No! They're not saying "these questions don't matter", they're saying "the people doing the science to 'answer these questions' are doing it badly, because they know what good science looks like, and that ain't it."
> At the start of this I said: "I think the surprise is that someone believes its indicative of a giant conspiracy to exile conservative professors." If you agree with this could have saved yourself a lot of trouble.
You were clearly implying that the person you were responding to was saying it was some kind of conspiracy. I'm not buying this sudden retcon.
> We're talking about adults, right? In any event, it would be interesting to see some stats or hear some anecdotes on the matter.
Thats... literally what you were replying to in the aforementioned post! Here's the link again, in case you forgot: https://www.aei.org/articles/partisan-professors/ It's literally a lack of diversity, just like there used to be an equally stark lack of diversity in tech, etc.
I'm almost positive you're just trolling at this point.
> I think you know perfectly well my meaning in context of the comment thread I was replying to.
No, I don't, and smugly insinuating I have some ulterior motive or whatever is, frankly, offensive.
I asked you a question because I didn't know what you meant, because you made a statement that was wildly ambiguous even with well-defined context.
> most people fall into one of the categories
One of... Which categories, exactly? This is why I'm asking. You keep making statements as if they're somehow inherently obvious, but... I can think of many different competing definitions of "race", so I'm trying to figure out which one you're using, or if you're even using one at all.
> My friend, I simply stated a conclusion that is very commonly accepted, including by conservatives (hints: populism, religion, gender roles).
People commonly accept that God exists, too, all across the political spectrum. That doesn't mean he actually does exist, though. "Commonly accepted" does not mean "is true".
> It certainly can. That's a long way from a coordinated conspiracy. And there are layers of insulation like wanting talent regardless of personality and avoiding legal issues.
No one in this thread is claiming a "coordinated conspiracy", just years and years of ever increasing political bias amongst faculty at universities in the U.S.
C'mon, implicit bias training is supposed to teach you about how the negative impacts of persistent, low-grade bias accumulate over time, right?
> Like stealing their lunch or lighting them up in a reply-all or what are we talking about here? Note I'm not freaking out that you "just declared something as a fact".
Like not inviting them to conferences, social gatherings, networking opportunities, etc.
Again, decades of small bias add up. I mean, isn't that the entire thesis of things like "systemic racism"? Why would that not also be true in other areas?
Don't get me wrong, I believe theories like systemic racism have merit and are largely true. I just acknowledge that, if it's true that being black in America is an inherent disadvantage due to years of accumulated bias, it's probably also true that being conservative in academia is also an inherent disadvantage, due to the same mechanism.
All that being said, way to double down on the elitism!
Having read through this whole discussion, and as an outsider: they're approaching this from a much stronger and consistent position than you. This is most obvious given how far you've moved the goalposts along the way.
> I don't think there is surprise that higher learning is associated with progressivism.
This is such a wildly elitist take. There's nothing intrinsically progressive about education, and to just declare so as fact is an excellent example of the exact kind of hostility that keeps non-progressives from being at home in higher education.
> I think the surprise is that someone believes its indicative of a giant conspiracy to exile conservative professors.
Is it really surprising that people who disagree with someone's politics would let that bleed over into their assessment of that person's professional abilities?
We literally see this everywhere! People use a person's politics to discredit other aspects of their being all the time.
Conservative professors are a rare breed in academia because non-conservatives in academia make it a very hostile workplace environment.
Care you define who makes up the "white race"? Or any other overly-broad category that typically gets bandied about as "race"?
From my perspective, as someone who is flexibly categorized as "white" or "latino", depending on whatever is most convenient for the categorizer, "race" is a remarkable fluid label. Most people can't even agree on what "race" folks of mixed ethnic heritage actually are.
Race is a social construct. There's nothing intrinsic or immutable about any social construct.
> Yes, that is the correct term. In each election >50% chose "Not Trump".
Uhhh... Not voting at all doesn't count as "Not Trump". It counts as "I don't care," which implicitly means "whatever everyone else thinks".
This is such a dumb thing to try to play semantic games about. A majority of voters elected the clown, and the population of non-voters is complicit in that.
Wow, this is such a wildly pessimistic and cynical take. Are you okay?
> But that's not a cure. If they don't take that drug, assuming it works, they still have the original mutation in the cancer cells.
The person you're replying to called this out specifically:
> and also various combinations with other drugs.
Why do you think they try it in combination with other drugs? You might be right that this drug alone might not be a cure, but if it inhibits cancer growth, then it empowers other drugs to work more effectively.
> people still die
So what... We do nothing, then? This is your complaint? That we can't be immortal, so why bother trying to cure anything?
> This is akin to how two kinds of people respond to law. The first kind think "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it".
What? I don't understand how this is a "two kinds of people" generalization, when the two categories aren't even mutually-exclusive?
One can think a law is bad and should change, while simultaneously recognizing the rule of law and following it.
It's pretty weird to try to pit those two perspectives against each other
You know what they say about glass houses and stones, right?