WTF is Happening in Texas? 666 New Laws in Effect Today

[Shalcker]

And what do you think it "aims to achieve?" Because if your answer is anything other than "suffering" the effectiveness of policies like this is questionable, at best. But you already know that.

It aims to achieve either local win in a health&culture fight that was made political, or to bring up RoeVsWade to be re-negotiated under stacked Supreme Court.

[Endus]

Things like this.

William Darity, a professor of public policy at Duke ... wrote, such investigations were at best futile:
“There will be no reason to pursue these types of research programs at all, and they can be rendered to the same location as Holocaust denial research.”

That's a weirdly edited quote, since the edit seems deliberately intended to misrepresent Darity's statement. No source comes up for exactly what you posted, which means you almost certainly did the edits yourself, maliciously.

Here's the source and original quote, for comparison;

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...netics-matters

"William Darity, a professor of public policy at Duke and perhaps the country’s leading scholar on the economics of racial inequality, answered curtly, starting a long chain of replies. Given the difficulties of distinguishing between genetic and environmental effects on social outcomes, he wrote, such investigations were at best futile: “There will be no reason to pursue these types of research programs at all, and they can be rendered to the same location as Holocaust denial research.”

The bit in bold being particularly informative, since it makes it crystal clear his issue was primarily methodological, not ideological.

In the end, the article's pretty shittily written, ignoring the reality to push what's at least bordering on race-realism. Nobody denies the genetic components of things like autism, as he claims. What's denied is when people try to use the concept of genetics and heredity to argue that entire racial groups are inferior to some other racial groups. Not the concepts of genetics and heredity itself. Not that genetics is some even playing field for all. That's a straw man, and the author either knows it's a straw man, or he's an idiot who has no business talking about the subject in the first place.

But to be clear, since the two of his articles for the New Yorker preceding this one were both about UFOs, I'm suggesting he's a bit of a noodge, not that he's being deliberately dishonest.

[uuuhname]

what does any of this have to do with what's happening Texas.

[Kallisto]

Trans vampires is the best guess I have for what they're thinking.

Trans vampires? Shit you're onto us.

[Kaleredar]

what does any of this have to do with what's happening Texas.

Absolutely nothing. Should Just report the offenders and move on.

[Shalcker]

That's a weirdly edited quote, since the edit seems deliberately intended to misrepresent Darity's statement. No source comes up for exactly what you posted, which means you almost certainly did the edits yourself, maliciously.

Here's the source and original quote, for comparison;

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...netics-matters

"William Darity, a professor of public policy at Duke and perhaps the country’s leading scholar on the economics of racial inequality, answered curtly, starting a long chain of replies. Given the difficulties of distinguishing between genetic and environmental effects on social outcomes, he wrote, such investigations were at best futile: “There will be no reason to pursue these types of research programs at all, and they can be rendered to the same location as Holocaust denial research.”

The bit in bold being particularly informative, since it makes it crystal clear his issue was primarily methodological, not ideological.

Except article goes on further past that and shows clearly it isn't limited to "methodological" differences.

In the end, the article's pretty shittily written, ignoring the reality to push what's at least bordering on race-realism. Nobody denies the genetic components of things like autism, as he claims. What's denied is when people try to use the concept of genetics and heredity to argue that entire racial groups are inferior to some other racial groups. Not the concepts of genetics and heredity itself. Not that genetics is some even playing field for all. That's a straw man, and the author either knows it's a straw man, or he's an idiot who has no business talking about the subject in the first place.

A lot of people deny - like in quote above - that science is capable of disentangling them from other effects; or even think that any definitive conclusion that could land on the wrong side given uncertainty would be dangerous by itself, and thus keeping it uncertain is preferable.

But to be clear, since the two of his articles for the New Yorker preceding this one were both about UFOs, I'm suggesting he's a bit of a noodge, not that he's being deliberately dishonest.

I'm more interested in scientists in question, so maybe her interview with The Guardian will be more to your liking.

[Noxx79]

I hate to break it to you, but ever since the neo-mythology created in the aftermath of WW2 there are entire areas of science in which actively researching or measuring anything objectively is highly discouraged or socially not even allowed. I could drop several names of researchers against which the criticism levied never is based on any objective data or anything that was observed and measured, but entirely on the socially acceptable narrative.

Science today is not free or honest. It is controlled by a certain ideological narrative. Any scientific findings that go against that narrative are summarily dismissed. There is a new religion that lives in many people's hearts and minds today, they just are very convinced of themselves that it's not a religion but 'true science and facts'... which obviously isn't true. They are faithful worshippers of the post WW2 mythos, most people are.

Bullshit. You’re absolutely too lazy to look at data. Stop wallowing in ignorance. I notice you still have yet to provide any examples.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course you would be forced to say this, anything else would force you to accept that your own ideology and beliefs are based on... fake bullshit, which they are.



Well, thanks for admitting that the social narrative to you is more important than science and facts at least. It is a good first step.

Ask yourself, would you accept the science and facts if they went against your religious faith in things such as equality? Of course not.

Still no evidence or actual examples.

[Gelannerai]

Interesting tag-team of bad-faith posting happening here.

[Shalcker]

One professor criticized her work? OMG! Weird how her research continued. It even says Princeton Press was publishing her book regarding that same research. Not exactly a good example. Got one where research was actually halted?

It's right there in the article:
Harden applied for a grant from Russell Sage’s biosciences initiative, which had supported similar research in the past. She received enthusiastic peer reviews from its scientific advisers, and was given to understand that the grant’s disbursal was a fait accompli. During a contentious meeting, however, the full board voted to overturn the scientific panel’s recommendation.

Article paints connection in a way that is hard to miss.

[Endus]

Interesting tag-team of bad-faith posting happening here.

It's really fuckin' weird that the concept of peer review is being presented as some kind of ideological puritanism.

- - - Updated - - -

It's right there in the article:
Harden applied for a grant from Russell Sage’s biosciences initiative, which had supported similar research in the past. She received enthusiastic peer reviews from its scientific advisers, and was given to understand that the grant’s disbursal was a fait accompli. During a contentious meeting, however, the full board voted to overturn the scientific panel’s recommendation.

Article paints connection in a way that is hard to miss.

Article invents a narrative based on a single person's assumptions that were not based in fact in the first place.

In fact, what you're citing contradicts the idea of any ideological "puritanism" in science, directly.

[Shalcker]

Article invents a narrative based on a single person's assumptions that were not based in fact in the first place.

"Scientist painted as controversial had his/her grant application refused" is not uncommon story.

In fact, what you're citing contradicts the idea of any ideological "puritanism" in science, directly.

How so? Could you expand on that?

Next two sentences are
Over the next year, a biosciences working group revised the program’s funding guidelines, stipulating in the final draft that it would not support any research into the first-order effects of genes on behavior or social outcomes. In the end, the board chose to disband the initiative entirely.
That looks like result of fairly focused pressure.

[Milchshake]

Interesting tag-team of bad-faith posting happening here.

Putin bots are anxious about the Douma Elections starting tomorrow.

They're basically doing pre-game stretching here.

[Shalcker]

Not receiving funds from a single institution. Fun. Meanwhile she completed her research enough to write a book.

You're moving goalposts here. Not getting grants does halt programs - that's how modern science works. Not a lot is possible on pure scientific enthusiasm.

I don't think anyone claimed that "ethic gatekeeping" is watertight too.

Chilling effects are however undeniable.

[Endus]

"Scientist painted as controversial had his/her grant application refused" is not uncommon story.

The assumptions being about why the grant was refused. Grants get refused all the time. Most scientists don't plead to some persecution complex based on conspiracy theories in response to that.

How so? Could you expand on that?

Next two sentences are
Over the next year, a biosciences working group revised the program’s funding guidelines, stipulating in the final draft that it would not support any research into the first-order effects of genes on behavior or social outcomes. In the end, the board chose to disband the initiative entirely.
That looks like result of fairly focused pressure.

The scientific panel's recommendation was to fund her.

If there was an ideological opposition in science, that wouldn't have happened, they would have been the ones demanding she not be funded.

You're pointing to non-scientific positions proferred by groups who are not engaged in science to argue a bias within science itself, and that's not an honest framing.

[Shalcker]

The assumptions being about why the grant was refused. Grants get refused all the time. Most scientists don't plead to some persecution complex based on conspiracy theories in response to that.

*shrug* Sometimes connection is obvious.

The scientific panel's recommendation was to fund her.

So "scientists are open, it's those who fund them are ideologically captured/pressured"?

You're pointing to non-scientific positions proferred by groups who are not engaged in science to argue a bias within science itself, and that's not an honest framing.

They clearly defer to opposing scientific authority, given that, as written, they do not possess their own expertise.

[Shalcker]

I’m not moving shit. You’re the one who claimed there is science not being done due to ideology.

Never did.

Then you linked a story about someone who was denied a single grant and yet is being published by Princeton Press. Hence, nothing was stopped. Got a valid example to back up your original claim?

You should review that original claim again, because article does support it.

There are a lot more suppression mentioned there then just single grant being denied; that was just specific example that fit your specific criteria.

[Shalcker]

You’re right. On your first claim. On the second, you claim the scientific community rejects taboo shit yet her research enjoyed support from scientists who reviewed it. The non-science people denied her the grant. Which has fuck all to do with scientific consensus.

Do you think that quote comparing it to holocaust denial wasn't from someone in scientific community?

There are a lot of pathways to suppression, and some areas of scientific inquiry are more "free" then others.

[Hollycakes]

My statement still stands.
He/she sounds like a middle schooler trying ever so hard to sound smart.
Throwing out buzz words they've read while admittedly not taking any notes or really absorbing any knowledge.
Then claiming "because I said so is a valid reason"
They aren't worth responding to directly.

Also, tons of us here aren't religious.
Nor is science our religion.
Facts are.

Also, having violence in their username is so fitting.
I'd love to see their gcse/sat/and or grades from college.
One thing I can assure you of:
You are not as smart as you think you are.

There is a name for that.

[Shalcker]

she completed her research and published a book on it. You’re clutching at pearls with this one. Every behavioral science class I’ve taken agrees with her. They have an affect, but it’s not the only factor. Got an example of good science that the community rejects instead of shit that’s part of the consensus?

...it isn't part of consensus though.

Or, rather, it is part of consensus in one part of science (like genetic studies) and actively rejected in other (like social studies).

There would be no point to deny funding and protest it if it would be part of common consensus.

[Rozz]

Cease derailing and get back on topic.