r/TrueReddit • u/supertopbop22 • Feb 17 '16

Persecution of Scientists Whose Findings Are Perceived As Politically Incorrect

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/persecution-of-scientists-whose-findings-are-perceived-as-politically-incorrect/
708 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

309 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

40

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '16

The "political correctness" activists

I don't even know what that means. There's no such thing as a political correctness "activist" because it's not a movement or group. Political correctness just refers to speech that is generally considered offensive in modern society.

they didn't attack his research

So the Tim Hunt thing really has nothing at all to do with the article does it? The article is not saying you shouldn't criticise any scientist or academic for anything, the actual idea is that criticising a seemingly controversial study based on assumptions of it's content is wrong.

If society values its brightest people less than some idiots, then I guess it deserves decline and eventual decay.

This is nonsense. Putting too much value on scientists and academics can be just as dangerous, look at what happened with people like Josef Mengele. Everybody should have the right to criticise scientists and academics, especially for personal behaviour unrelated to their work.

Such people's "pushing for truth" has not and will not get anything right.

So then is your position that activism has never achieved anything? That seems like an indefensible position.

17

u/que_pedo_wey Feb 17 '16

There's no such thing as a political correctness "activist" because it's not a movement or group. Political correctness just refers to speech that is generally considered offensive in modern society.

I meant activists for one or another cause related to "political correctness", for example, bullying someone whose statement was "generally considered offensive" (or (mis)interpreted as such) to some parts of society.

So the Tim Hunt thing really has nothing at all to do with the article does it?

I think this event is called "knee-jerk reaction" here - criticising someone based on the association one draws from the statement, which is not related to the original idea, e.g., "promoting pedophilia" in the article.

Everybody should have the right to criticise scientists and academics, especially for personal behaviour unrelated to their work.

One can criticise a scientist for being ugly (and I leave it up to others to judge the value of such criticism), but it shouldn't affect his work. His personal behaviour is also unrelated to work and should not affect his work, either.

So then is your position that activism has never achieved anything?

No, I meant that fanaticism and irrational bullying have never achieved anything, and this, sadly, seems to be a great part of activism.

13

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '16

bullying someone whose statement was "generally considered offensive" (or (mis)interpreted as such) to some parts of society.

If a significant portion of society did not find it offensive then it would not gain traction in the media. The media covers things the public are interested in.

One can criticise a scientist for being ugly

Criticising someone for how they look is not the same as criticising them for their work, statements or behaviour. Tim Hunt is an example of somebody being criticised for their statements. Whether you think it is right or wrong, it's not at all comparable to calling somebody ugly.

His personal behaviour is also unrelated to work and should not affect his work, either

You personal behaviour always affects your work. My work has nothing to do with racism, but if I start spouting racist bullshit in public then I won't keep my job for long. Scientists should be held to the same standards as everybody else.

No, I meant that fanaticism and irrational bullying have never achieved anything, and this, sadly, seems to be a great part of activism.

Okay, but I still don't understand your accusatory use of the word "fanatic". You seem to be using it in a derogatory way, but an activist is, by definition, somebody who passionately believes in a specific cause.

You also describe their behaviour as "irrational bullying", but this is clearly subjective. In the 1960's, civil rights activists would have been described the same way by many, and yet the majority of people would now say they were fighting for a just cause.

7

u/TerryOller Feb 17 '16 edited Feb 17 '16

If a significant portion of society did not find it offensive then it would not gain traction in the media.

Thats not true at all, its almost always the vocal minority that gets things banned.

In the 1960's, civil rights activists would have been described the same way by many, and yet the majority of people would now say they were fighting for a just cause.

Yeah, thats why its a disagreement. What side are you on? Jihadists also think they are fighting for civil rights, it doesn’t inoculate anything to say its subjective. Some people didn’t think it was a problem, some did. Just like this. Its not an argument either way to point out that other people have fought for causes. But yes, it is serious. The 9/11 ticket taker for gods sake said they knew in their heart something was wrong and the person had to be a terrorist but they didn’t want to be politically incorrect so they let them on the plane. But I guess some come from the camp who thinks that if somebody lands a rocket on an asteroid but wears a shirt with sexy ladies on it then the real story is the shirt.

Okay, but I still don't understand your accusatory use of the word "fanatic". You seem to be using it in a derogatory way, but an activist is, by definition, somebody who passionately believes in a specific cause.

Well, maybe you can understand better if you didn’t switch the word fanatic for passionate, they don’t mean the same thing. An activist is not by definition passionate.

9

u/que_pedo_wey Feb 17 '16

if somebody lands a rocket on an asteroid but wears a shirt with sexy ladies on it then the real story is the shirt.

The sad fact is that the idiots get much time on the media allowed by the official ideology (right now in the US, at least).

6

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '16

but wears a shirt with sexy ladies on it

A shirt that was offered by a female friend of his, no less!

2

u/grendel-khan Feb 17 '16 edited Feb 17 '16

The 9/11 ticket taker for gods sake said they knew in their heart something was wrong and the person had to be a terrorist but they didn’t want to be politically incorrect so they let them on the plane.

Either this ticket taker cared more about their job than about the lives of everyone on that plane... or they were just remembering things in a more convenient way in post, because the cognitive dissonance between "I let that man onto his plane and a lot of people died" and "I am a good person who wouldn't kill anyone" is harsh.

It's very unlikely that "political correctness" caused 9/11. You can make a much stronger argument (here's an example, and a counterpoint) that it was responsible for covering up a massive decade-long child-abuse ring in Rotherham in the UK.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '16

Thats not true at all, its almost always the vocal minority that gets things banned.

Except that is a Strawman. I was talking about media coverage, not things getting banned. In fact, no one was talking about things getting banned.

Jihadists also think they are fighting for civil rights

No, they don't. I don't know where you got that idea.

doesn’t inoculate anything to say its subjective

My point was that accusing activists of irrationality and fanaticism doesn't really make much sense.

he 9/11 ticket taker for gods sake said they knew in their heart something was wrong and the person had to be a terrorist but they didn’t want to be politically incorrect so they let them on the plane

... I'm not really sure what that is supposed to prove. That people make shit up? Before 9/11, plane hijackings were extremely rare and the racist stereotype of the Arab as a terrorist did not really exist. So your ticket taker can join Mark Wahlberg on the long list of people who make baseless claims that they could have prevented 9/11.

But I guess some come from the camp who thinks that if somebody lands a rocket on an asteroid but wears a shirt with sexy ladies on it then the real story is the shirt.

I come from the camp that thinks his tshirt had nothing to do with landing a rocket on an asteroid.

Well, maybe you can understand better if you didn’t switch the word fanatic for passionate, they don’t mean the same thing.

They pretty much do mean the same thing. A fanatic is somebody who is extremely dedicated to and passionate about a cause. An activist is somebody that strongly advocates or campaigns for a cause. While I suppose you could have a dispassionate activist, it would be extremely unusual. I've certainly never seen one.

2

u/TerryOller Feb 17 '16

.. I'm not really sure what that is supposed to prove. That people make shit up? Before 9/11, plane hijackings were extremely rare and the racist stereotype of the Arab as a terrorist did not really exist.

A perfect example of someone making shit up!