That is grim.

Completely different situation. Sanders is very popular and polls better against Trump than most other candidates. Corbyn ended up being very unpopular, largely because he was caught in the Brexit vice not because he was progressive.

(I could see Warren turning off independents and white rural voters though, especially as she'll be portrayed both as an elitist and a commie.)

PM me and I'll change it.

:point: :up:

I'd call that a basic duty of care. Luckily, it usually tends to gel well with the profit motive as workplace suicides tend to be bad for business.

Makes my point. "French Telecom Company Convicted Of 'Moral Harassment". And you won't hear much argument against that over here. Seems self-evident its undesirable practice.

It's a choice. As a society we choose what we will put up with. Why should potential "efficiency gains" outweigh every other consideration? You could get efficiency gains by forcing kids to work, extending the working week to 60 hours, abolishing retirement. That would toughen us all up too. The question is why would we want that?

The best case (and questionably realistic) scenario for allowing abusive work environments of the sort described is that company X makes more profits. That doesn't seem a very compelling reason to sanction lives being destroyed unless you deify commercial success to balance the equation. Which I suppose many rightists do. Mix that with a bit of social Darwinism and corporate psychopathy and soon you're at "Fuck the lambs, we need more Doner kebab!". Not much of a crowd pleaser this side of the pond.

But isn't it cool that presidents can use the state apparatus to subvert the democratic process and give themselves an unfair advantage in upcoming elections? Isn't the right to do that what we should really be protecting?

*Squirts gas over American public. Grabs Zippo.*

(And the proper response to a gaslighter is not to argue reasonably, which just gives them more fuel, but simply to tell them to fuck off.)

Edit: I'm referring to Republican politicians here btw, not suggesting we insult our esteemed interlocutors in this discussion. *Ahem*.

It's called gaslighting.

Don't mind @Hanover, he's just lawyering from a shit-igloo.

It's hardly any worse than @NOS4A2's pictures of Trump hugging American flags and whatnot.

A couple of months ago the forum was infested with bad theology. Now it's bad maths. — Banno

So, we're making progress. :strong:

If Trump built himself an igloo out of human excrement, the Republicans would cut each other's dicks off to be the first to dive in and claim it was a five-star hotel. The guy owns their souls. It's fascinating to watch.

Yes, it's political, but he's guilty as fuck anyway, so let's talk about that instead of Partisan Dems! which is just a Republican distraction technique.

Edit: Or maybe let's not. I think we both know the deal anyway.

There's no point giving me the Sean Hannity "It's all a big conspiracy by Dems" line. He did it. Sondland et al are telling the truth and he's lying. Simple as that. That the Dems are partisan doesn't change anything. And whether or not he'll win the election, who knows. But yes, the polarity is fucking your country up royally.

exactly what Trump said in the phone call — Hanover

It's not just about the phone call, it's about what he actually did. The phone call wasn't the crime in itself, it led to the discovery of the crime of abuse of power, which involved much more, and which is described in detail in the report and backed up by multiple witnesses. And he obstructed justice by directing his minions not to obey subpoenas and such. Trump's blabbering on about his perfect phone call is just a silly distraction technique.

Then again, the whole thing is probably going to end up as little more than a distraction, so yes, mostly theater.

You don't "solve" a contradiction. — khaled

Yes, you solve paradoxes (apparent contradictions) not contradictions.

This is delicious.

*Grabs bullwhip* Go @Hanover! Go!

I get that, but a) The connotations of words can change over time regardless of intention (that includes the N-word!) and b) If you accept the principle that some words, such as the extreme example I gave, don't belong in a scientific context, we're mostly on the same page but disagree over particular instances, right?

First of all, of course words can be ideological. No words, no ideology. And that doesn't mean that "words are ideology"—as in every word is ideological—because ideologically loaded words are a subset of words in general; I'm not claiming any more than the obvious on that one. Secondly, if a particular scientist is given free rein to name a scientific term any way s/he wants, it follows (seeing that at least some words are ideologically loaded) that s/he is given free rein to introduce ideological connotations. That doesn't mean s/he will do that but s/he could and there should be a mechanism to keep this unnecessarily ideological baggage out of science. This is what @NOS4A2 claims to want, and I agree with the desire, but as I said his position is confused. Thirdly, I never made the argument that "supremacy" means "white supremacy" nor did anybody else. The argument made by the small group of scientists in question is that the term "supremacy" connotes the idea of white supremacy, that therefore it is polluted by that term and a more neutral phrasing is desirable. Seeing as the only consequence of a more neutral phrasing with a synonymous term would be to remove the possibility of the negative connotation, it's a hardly a terribly unreasonable proposal. But it's not one that I would be gunning for either.

Further, controlling word usage in this fashion is not harmless, its a wedge for authoritarian control whether its intended that way or not. (Meaning, even if that control is used to combat racism or something by a good actor, it can and will be used by bad actors). — DingoJones

Again, a very confused position. Combating racism in science shouldn't be allowed because that could be used by bad actors and therefore it's authoritarian to do so? So, a scientist could discover a new particle and call it the "N-word particle" and we would be word-Nazis to oppose that? I suggest you either think things through a bit more or try to phrase your arguments with more nuance (If you just mean, for example, this type of word control is not always harmless but still should be allowed then fine, but you give the impression you're against it in principle).

The sensible solution to this is that the scientific community follow a set of thoroughly thought-through guidelines on the appropriate naming of scientific concepts and enforce those in a unified and fair fashion to keep politically incendiary notions as remote from scientific terms as possible. No trial by Nature article but no absolute free rein either.

In fairness, this belongs in the Lounge at best.

Or a massive coronary while heaving pathetically against an impassably constipated bowel would suffice (NY Post headline: The Shit Couldn't Even Shit Right!) — 180 Proof

I vote for this. :clap:

My point is that science should remain ideology-free and scientists should have free reign to use the words they see fit. — NOS4A2

The argument for changing 'supremacy' to something else is precisely that science should be ideologically free because 'supremacy' is considered by those scientists making the argument to be an ideologically loaded term. And if scientists were given free reign to use the words they see fit, they would be given free reign to introduce ideology into science. So, your position here is incoherent.



Yes, politics can interfere with science and there are a lot of issues raised in your post, some of which may relate to political correctness. But getting more specific, there are two questions I find interesting:

1) If a scientific fact was politically explosive, would obscuring it be justified? (Should "political correctness" ever take precedence over scientific truth?)
2) Is there any instance of a scientific fact where this kind of deception has taken place? (Something that's scientifically true but the public at large is not allowed to know).

I would lean 'no' on the first one, but it's a very thorny issue. On 2) I believe the answer currently is 'no'.

So, what I would ask of you is can you find a specific instance where you can demonstrate the answer to 2) is 'yes' and do you have an unequivocal position on 1)?

Make that hours. It's nearly midnight here bud'. :lol:

Thank F someone is making an effort. I'll get back to you on this. At least it will take more than a thirty second Google search to refute.

(Just one point for now is that I don't equate the left with PC.)

No, you're giving up for good reason.

"Crockford is a signatory of the International Conference on Climate Change's 2008 Manhattan Declaration,[12] which states that "Carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse gas' emissions from human activity...appear to have only a very small impact on global climate," and "Global cooling has presented serious problems for human society and the environment throughout history while global warming has generally been highly beneficial."[13] Between at least 2011 and 2013, she received payment from The Heartland Institute, in the form of $750 per month"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Crockford#Controversy

"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984 and based in Arlington Heights, Illinois ... Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

"After 15 years as an adjunct professor, University of Victoria did not renew her contract in May 2019, possibly for her climate change views."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Crockford#Controversy

So, it's possible she was not renewed for being a climate-denying crank. Not surprising seeing as she was being bribed by climate change deniers and hadn't even had her supposed polar-bear studies peer-reviewed. So, no facts and not even any evidence she was let go because of those particular studies. Just right-wing spin.

Try again.

Where's your evidence she was fired for discovering a fact? Hint: You have none. But go on, try.

You can't be politically correct or incorrect when you're trying to describe nature. Politics has nothing to do with it. What you choose to call different terms isn't science in the first place, so I don't think your question fits your example. Changing the name of a term isn't science — khaled

This is along the lines of what I'm getting at; changing the name of a scientific term to something equally descriptive but less emotive or connotative is not a scientific issue and doesn't have any negative effect on science.

When the idea is that people should be protected from facts, to avoid having their worldview shattered or their feelings hurt, I consider that infantilization. — Tzeentch

Agreed, but that doesn't apply in this case. There is no protection from "facts" in changing the word "supremacy" to "dominance" or whatever, there is only a change in connotation and tone. So, can you give me an example where a protection from scientific fact has been demanded, or even better, successfully demanded by proponents of PC?

My disposition is to show maximum contempt for @NOS4A2 complaining about the "dumbing down" of science over the suggested use of an alternative word for one scientific term by a tiny number of scientists for at the very worst a misguided reason when the willful stupidity on climate change and other scientific issues by the President he supports literally threatens lives. Anyway, it won't do to use that as an excuse not to back up your own position. Again, show me the broad infantilization of science caused by PC. I'm much more likely to listen to you than @NOS4A2.

Such as... ? Where's the broad PC attack on science that we need to worry about going on? The only serious attacks on science I'm aware of are from the right. And the idea that we should be worried about this shit when far-right think tanks are forever dreaming up new ways to deny climate change and nutty religious fanatics are trying to take biblical literalism mainstream is what's infantile or at least naive in the extreme. As is not realizing what @NOS4A2 is up to, but, sure, play along.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/15/united-nations-climate-talks-collapse-after-trump-shuns-paris-pact-085464

Well, this is exactly what @NOS4A2 wants. Let's use scientific objectivity (who could disagree with that!) to bash political correctness because one person wrote an article co-signed by hardly more than a dozen scientists suggesting there was a less political way to refer to a scientific term. Suddenly science is being infantilized! Hook, line, and sinker.

Anyway, my position is I couldn't care less one way or the other what they call it in this case. Retaining the term will change nothing important nor would replacing it as imo the political overtones are not strong enough to be concerned about. :yawn:

Science should be politically neutral, which is why scientific terms shouldn't have political overtones. If "supremacy" can be considered historically such a term or has recently developed into such a term, it would be sensible to avoid it, especially if doing so incurred no great cost or inconvenience. But of course, since your goal here is to politicize science under the guise of complaining about the politicization of science that answer will hardly satisfy you.

He always touts freedom and fairness and justice in his speeches. — NOS4A2

Yes, like every other politician. And then he lets KSA murder journalists because he wants their arms deals. When are you going to get beyond your infantile non-analysis and say something worth reading? Have you just given up?

Edit: I guess Michael said much the same thing. Whatever. Nvm.

Politics by greeting card slogans. :yawn:

Yes, the U.S. is that shining light at the end of the tunnel (that signals an oncoming train).

This is a way longer answer than you deserve so Happy Christmas (or Hannah’s Car, or whatever).

Broad generalizations in either direction aren't informative and tend to do no more than reflect the opposing ideologies of the winners and losers. The winners will almost always say "The people got what they wanted" and the losers will very often say "The people were duped". Any decent analysis is going to look much deeper than either non-answer above to the question of what happened in a given election.

Re that, this latest UK poll is a nice one to analyze because of its dual-layer nature and the strategies that were taken advantage of to maximize political outcomes, particularly by the Conservatives (Labour might as well have been trying to minimize political outcomes though that was as much to do with the rock/hard place they were stuck in as incompetence). So, the dual layers were Brexit and everything else and they were interwoven in a complex way. The "everything else", which is normally all there is, can be sub-layered into party personality and party policy. First, the party personality or party "brand" is normally led by and embodied in the party leader and can be anything, but in this case the choices showed an unusual level of polarity (Boris’s brand was the (alpha) male—loud, forceful, closed, active. And Corbyn’s, as @un pointed out, the female—quiet, restrained, open, passive). Second, the party policies are the functional aspect of the election outcomes and in judging whether or not the voters acted in a rational/self-interested manner are all that matters. So, if you can roughly determine self-interest by demographic according to a reasonably refined number of social and economic criteria and then look at voter behaviour, you can form a credible thesis as to the extent to which voters acted rationally, and the inverse, which is to what degree they were manipulated/deceived into acting irrationally (leaving out for simplicity’s sake cases where they were simply mistaken in a way that did not at all depend on political influence).

But even here, we’re over-simplifying things, and Brexit is useful in making clear how. So, voters can be manipulated into voting against their best interests by, first of all, obscuring/masking a policy, so they vote for a policy that's in not in their interest because they think they’re voting for something else or voters can be manipulated into wanting a policy that’s not in their interest so they get what they want but it has a negative effect on them down the line in a way they may or may not become directly aware of.

From a strategic point of view, it’s better to make voters want a policy that’s not in their interest rather than to simply temporarily mask a policy that’s not, as in the latter case the deception is immediately revealed upon policy implementation whereas in the former the negative outcomes can be drip-fed and gradually spun so that voters may find it hard to discern what’s happening and the extent to which they are responsible for it vs. the extent to which it was a deliberate manipulation. Of course, that’s harder to achieve and takes a more sophisticated level of deception, but given the current deregulated, polarised, and diverse state of the media landscape and the technological tools available to inject ideology at an almost surgical level, it’s as doable as ever.

So, there’s a bunch of abstract, how do we tie it to the this election? Well, first a caveat, we’re dealing with a first-past-the-post system in the UK rather than a PR system and that determines to a large extent how the results are viewed, and yet both systems are accepted as being vanilla democratic. To give a quick example of this, the SNP killed it in Scotland; they got something like 80% of the seats, and the other three major parties had to share the crumbs of the remainder between them. The natural interpretation (and the most dominantly purveyed one in the media) is that Scotland has overwhelmingly spoken in favour of independence, it’s a juggernaut that can’t be stopped etc. Change the format of the election to equally democratic PR and the SNP get less than half of the seats. Suddenly, the narrative drastically changes. What remains the same though are the political inclinations of the population. Similarly for Boris’s victory. A stonking roasting of the opposition and a huge mandate turns into a hung parliament under PR. If you think PR is fairer, and it just is in terms of pure percentages because as the name suggests, it’s more proportional, then that’s food for thought. But leaving that aside for now...

As mentioned above, the Brexit issue was interwoven with policy/personality. One very important point to make here is that the alpha male Conservative brand (personality) tied well into pro-Brexit feeling, which was often driven by a tough anti-immigrant, nationalist sentiment that bonded (and was one of the few things that could) class and geographic divisions. So, you had coherence there (and ancillary reach) which was added in emotional strength to by the fact that the Leavers who won the original plebiscite were faced with not a respected enemy but a bunch of namby pamby liberals trying to do them out of their victory (cue personal-historic associations in working-class leavers screwed by the neoliberal elite etc.). So, not only is the strength of emotion particularly intense in losing something you’ve fought for and fairly gained (from your perspective) in general, but in this case, among the personality type that was more likely to vote Brexit, the prospect was akin to an ideological castration by an enemy that was already threatening death by a thousand cuts. And this is what created the countervailing force necessary to smash through Labour’s red wall and ensure the Conservatives not just victory over but utter destruction of their traditional foe.

Getting back to the question at hand though, were voters manipulated/deceived etc? and breaking that down a little in light of the above. First of all, the brand/personality is always to an extent a deceit as its a deliberate strategized mask pulled over the policy platform, and it was reinforced by the vast majority of popular newspapers of the type read by Labour voters in its strongholds. But in concert with that, the dominant policy itself, Brexit, as mentioned above cohered perfectly with the brand anyway. So, to a very real extent the voters did get what they wanted and really wanted what they wanted notwithstanding the desire being much intensified by the Conservative/media alliance where it mattered.

On the other side, ill-feeling towards Corbyn was deliberately stoked and the conservative media cleverly managed to portray him both as a passive, weak, feminine figure and a dark socialist, anti-semitic, terrorist-loving threat. No mean feat. Again though, whether they had pulled this off to the extent they did or not, Corbyn was handicapped by conflicting wings of his party; roughly, the Northern wing, which leaned Brexit, and the Southern wing, which leaned remain. Seeing as the Northern wing was what the Conservatives needed for a majority, and potentially the angrier at an anti-referendum betrayal, it might have made more sense to have favoured that side, but the Remain camp fearing a Lib-Dem attack from the liberal flank made that impossible, and Corbyn was forced to sit incoherently on the fence without a strong message and without the strong brand to deliver it even if he had one. Recipe for disaster and as much a function of political reality as deception.

Last point, removing Brexit and brand and looking at regular and economic and social policies of the type that regularly take center stage in an election, did the defecting firewall voters (to take just one loosely-defined group) get what they voted for? Well, if you hypothesize that they simply prioritized Brexit and were willing to sacrifice themselves economically for that, yes. They went in eyes open. If you hypothesize that Johnson won their trust on Brexit and they believed his economic spin of his platform on that basis, probably not. So, it's complicated, and that’s just one group measured against an uncertain economic future under an unpredictable leader. But the more you dig, the more answers you get.

BTW, don’t dare tl;dr me or Santa won’t come down your chimney this year.

tl;dr: Yes. And no.