Author Topic: #Shirtstorm  (Read 9564 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lt. Fred

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2994
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you were trying to do there
Re: #Shirtstorm
« Reply #75 on: November 22, 2014, 09:04:44 am »
Just a general thought:



This is clearly true about me as well. I don't think that's necessarily a flaw unique to myself; I think a lot of people probably don't care about stuff that has direct significance to their life - or, at least, a symbol of something of significance in their life. Hence this shirt becomes a big deal. Nobody lands on a comet every day, but they do experience casual sexism.

What does that mean for science? I'm not sure. Is it really necessary for this stuff to be publicly popular? Obviously everyone wants their efforts to be recognised, but does it matter that the public don't follow science closely?

From a journalistic perspective, I think most science journalism is a waste of time and resources. The public interest, after all is: what I need to know to live happily. You have to know all sorts of complicated things about government to make an informed vote, because otherwise we have a distorted political system. If we have a broken political system, you can't live happily. Almost all journalism is not in the public interest, including all crime journalism, all sports journalism, ect.

So, why do we think science should be in the headlines? I have an emotional, intuitive support for that view, but no actual reason for it. Can anyone give me a good argument?

1) Exciting new science is a big draw for science popularization, and science popularization is how you get people interested in becoming scientists, which are big plus to civilization (but adjust for my obvious bias here).

Are there better ways to do this? I think there are probably better ways to do this. In any case, the moralistic, nerdier-than-thou ethic proposed by the pro-sexism side of this "debate" is counter-productive. You make science interesting to children by making it interesting, not by demanding human nature change and abusing children for acting like people have always acted when faced by something fairly boring (like a science experiment, if you don't do it right).

In short, if children don't find some scientific discovery cool, that's your fault, not theirs. Shouting at them will make it worse. This is probably why it is done.

Quote
2) People having at least some knowledge of what scientists are working on helps bridge the gap between academia and society. The more approachable science seems, the more likely people are to take it into account.

I agree with this, to a degree. I definitely agree that the academia/layperson divide is destructive. This is an issue individual scientists have made a lot of headway into fixing. Sites like the Conversation routinely explain major scientific discovery in an easily digestible way. So the problem is no longer the way scientists present information. This is just shit journalism, the primary problem behind perhaps 50% of what is wrong with humanity.

Quote
3) Some science has direct relevance to decision-making, e.g. global climate change. Some science has indirect relevance, e.g. knowing what NASA is doing can help you evaluate whether we might want to cut or increase its budget.

This is true. The instrumental effects of gee-whiz science are useful. It's difficult for Republicans to cut funding from something really cool. Again, I think the easier solution is to remove the Republican rather than make everything cool. Human nature isn't going to change.

Quote
4) It would be pretty fucking sad for the average person in a technologically advanced society to have no idea what their society is capable of, be it genetic engineering or space travel or analysing brains with an fMRI. I admit "it would be sad" is not an argument, but going with instinct here, I suspect there are relevant effects from the average non-scientist knowing at least where the cutting edge of science is roughly located. Even if it is just to be able to tell at a glance whether some proposal is currently impossible or not.

Would it though? How much do you know about, say, medical science? I know roughly nothing. I don't think this is unusual.
Ultimate Paragon admits to fabricating a hit piece on Politico.

http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6936.0

The party's name is the Democratic Party. It has been since 1830. Please spell correctly.

"The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time."
-FDR

Offline Sigmaleph

  • Ungodlike
  • Administrator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3515
    • sigmaleph on tumblr
Re: #Shirtstorm
« Reply #76 on: November 22, 2014, 10:50:02 am »
1) Exciting new science is a big draw for science popularization, and science popularization is how you get people interested in becoming scientists, which are big plus to civilization (but adjust for my obvious bias here).

Are there better ways to do this? I think there are probably better ways to do this.

Is that an either/or proposition? We use multiple ways to acheive the same goal, if they aren't mutually exclusive.

Quote
In any case, the moralistic, nerdier-than-thou ethic proposed by the pro-sexism side of this "debate" is counter-productive. You make science interesting to children by making it interesting, not by demanding human nature change and abusing children for acting like people have always acted when faced by something fairly boring (like a science experiment, if you don't do it right).

In short, if children don't find some scientific discovery cool, that's your fault, not theirs. Shouting at them will make it worse. This is probably why it is done.

I'm afraid you lost me here. Which side is in favour of shouting at children?

Quote
Quote
2) People having at least some knowledge of what scientists are working on helps bridge the gap between academia and society. The more approachable science seems, the more likely people are to take it into account.

I agree with this, to a degree. I definitely agree that the academia/layperson divide is destructive. This is an issue individual scientists have made a lot of headway into fixing. Sites like the Conversation routinely explain major scientific discovery in an easily digestible way. So the problem is no longer the way scientists present information. This is just shit journalism, the primary problem behind perhaps 50% of what is wrong with humanity.
There is a lot of shit science journalism, and I'm all for fixing that. I don't think that requires scrapping the whole thing.

Quote
Quote
3) Some science has direct relevance to decision-making, e.g. global climate change. Some science has indirect relevance, e.g. knowing what NASA is doing can help you evaluate whether we might want to cut or increase its budget.

This is true. The instrumental effects of gee-whiz science are useful. It's difficult for Republicans to cut funding from something really cool. Again, I think the easier solution is to remove the Republican rather than make everything cool. Human nature isn't going to change.

My point was not "make science cool so it's politically costly to cut its funding". My point was "let people know what science funding is actually buying, so they can better evaluate how much of the budget we should give it". Among others things.

Also, isn't "remove the Republican" also trying to change human nature? Republicans and their voters are more or less an emergent property of human nature.

Quote
Quote
4) It would be pretty fucking sad for the average person in a technologically advanced society to have no idea what their society is capable of, be it genetic engineering or space travel or analysing brains with an fMRI. I admit "it would be sad" is not an argument, but going with instinct here, I suspect there are relevant effects from the average non-scientist knowing at least where the cutting edge of science is roughly located. Even if it is just to be able to tell at a glance whether some proposal is currently impossible or not.

Would it though? How much do you know about, say, medical science? I know roughly nothing. I don't think this is unusual.

To use something that I can guarantee I heard from science journalism and not other sources, I know there are experimental procedures to actually cure HIV using bone marrow transplants from naturally immune people. I also know that so far they have only been confirmed to work on one person. This is immediately relevant to me; I know people who are HIV-positive. If someone offers them a reliable cure, I can tell them it's a scam and to be wary of anyone who offers anything other than a long-shot experimental treatment.

A convoluted hypothetical, maybe. Nobody has actually come to me offering cures for HIV. But the general principle stands; people being offered technological solutions to their problems should have some basic awareness of what is and isn't possible. This could go from the average person being offered a cure for cancer to the investor being sold a cold fusion reactor to the society being offered a space colonization program.
Σא

Offline I am lizard

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3545
    • https://www.instagram.com/p/9SIHifrULJ/
Re: #Shirtstorm
« Reply #77 on: November 22, 2014, 11:49:48 am »
Paragon and Dpar pls acknowledge.

Hi.

The point is that it's hypocritical to say that, on the one hand, there are things people don't deserve because of what they are wearing, and on the other that there are things that people do deserve because of what they are wearing.
That's not hypocritical at all.

It's no different than saying it's wrong to kill someone for giving an opinion but it's okay to mock or criticize them.

Nope. You're missing the point.

It's not that rape is comparable to criticism. It's that the defence of the action--that the person deserved it because of what they were wearing--is the same, and it's hypocritical to use that defence in one case and say it's invalid in another.
Read what I said above, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't understand what I was saying do I'll explain it again.

If I say Bill o' Riley deserves to be mocked because he says stupid shit, I would be justified.
If I say that you can't justify sending death threats to someone because they have a stupid opinion it would be justified.

Alternatively, the "Not all X" defense, justified in cases of actually claiming all of group x are bad, not justified as a way to randomly dismiss all criticism against group x.

Basically my point is that yes, certain defenses can be valid in one case and invalid the next case.
Is this understood?

Have some drilbert
« Last Edit: November 22, 2014, 05:05:08 pm by I am lizard »

Offline Dakota Bob

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2264
  • Gender: Male
  • UGLY BAG OF MOSTLY WATER
Re: #Shirtstorm
« Reply #78 on: November 22, 2014, 05:52:00 pm »
I don't get that comic.

Offline I am lizard

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3545
    • https://www.instagram.com/p/9SIHifrULJ/
Re: #Shirtstorm
« Reply #79 on: November 24, 2014, 08:06:26 pm »
So, Dpar, are you not responding because you've lost interest, because you don't want a shirtstorm to occur, or because you've accepted my god like point as truth.

https://www.fanfiction.net/tv/Seinfeld/

Offline Second Coming of Madman

  • Some of Internet Jesus
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Gender: Male
  • Cisscum Internationale Society
Re: #Shirtstorm
« Reply #80 on: November 24, 2014, 08:18:48 pm »
(click to show/hide)

@KanzlerImaginos - Feel free to drop me a line.

Quote
Toddlers get too much exercise, they wouldn't make good veal.

Online dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4809
Re: #Shirtstorm
« Reply #81 on: November 24, 2014, 11:06:50 pm »
So, Dpar, are you not responding because you've lost interest, because you don't want a shirtstorm to occur, or because you've accepted my god like point as truth.

https://www.fanfiction.net/tv/Seinfeld/

Because I've decided it's not worth arguing the point.
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Offline I am lizard

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3545
    • https://www.instagram.com/p/9SIHifrULJ/
Re: #Shirtstorm
« Reply #82 on: November 26, 2014, 03:34:50 pm »
How bout this: criticizing his shirt isn't comparable to victim blaming, but is still wrong as the shirt isn't sexist.

Their, compromise .


Also, UP is a massive tool.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2014, 05:39:29 pm by I am lizard »

Offline I am lizard

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3545
    • https://www.instagram.com/p/9SIHifrULJ/
Re: #Shirtstorm
« Reply #83 on: November 28, 2014, 05:42:13 pm »
.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2014, 05:57:35 pm by I am lizard »

Offline Second Coming of Madman

  • Some of Internet Jesus
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Gender: Male
  • Cisscum Internationale Society
Re: #Shirtstorm
« Reply #84 on: November 28, 2014, 05:47:21 pm »
WHAT DOES IT MEAN?!
@KanzlerImaginos - Feel free to drop me a line.

Quote
Toddlers get too much exercise, they wouldn't make good veal.

Offline Dakota Bob

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2264
  • Gender: Male
  • UGLY BAG OF MOSTLY WATER
Re: #Shirtstorm
« Reply #85 on: November 28, 2014, 06:36:41 pm »
Always wanted to know what happens when a lizard goes insane.

Offline I am lizard

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3545
    • https://www.instagram.com/p/9SIHifrULJ/
Re: #Shirtstorm
« Reply #86 on: November 30, 2014, 12:43:12 pm »
Make a thread this pointless again and they'll be more shitposting.

Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 7990
  • Gender: Male
Re: #Shirtstorm
« Reply #87 on: November 30, 2014, 01:28:50 pm »
Except that this thread wasn't completely pointless. While on the other hand, the scandal over the shirt was an overreaction.
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!

Offline I am lizard

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3545
    • https://www.instagram.com/p/9SIHifrULJ/
Re: #Shirtstorm
« Reply #88 on: November 30, 2014, 01:41:02 pm »
Except that this thread wasn't completely pointless. While on the other hand, the scandal over the shirt was an overreaction.
1. Okay, it wasn't pointless, just meaningless in a cosmic sense.

2. Sure, the reaction to the shirt may have been overblown, but everyone's acting as if this guy was victim to a vicious harassment campaign, and to my knowledge he wasn't.