Setting a political vision to accommodate to and then rewarding disgusting jokes of pretend scientists has been a pillar of populist politics for over a century. Whereas previously it may have been about building a case for a particular racial or ethnic superiority or scientific experimentation on non-consenting individuals, now it's more about preventing legislation and regulation which doesn't benefit the in-group funding the politicians who set said vision. Today it's the Patrick Browns, Bjorn Lomborgs, the Richard Hananias of the world who are out there committing fraud while telling us all 🤡 tee-hee, I'm a public intellectual. Yeah, if people believe the story that random scientist working in a lab is equivalent to a clown looking for fame I'm not sure what to say to that, they are probably just looking for another way to justify their own thinking, just inherently distrust the idea of science as a tool, or are in some other way pre-primed to conflate an entire group of regular working people with a tiny number of clowns in that group. It would be surprising to see people buy into this type of story which sounds something like, "They are all bad researchers! All of them!" en masse.
I find nothing more infuriating than people giving "enlightened" centrist takes on consequential issues by conflating bad-faith actors with good ones. These types of arguments are deeply appealing for Atlantic or New York Times writers and readers. I'm glad you exposed the "both-sides-are-bad" bullshit peddled by mainstream centrist institutions. These arguments will only embolden far-right reactionary agendas.
Setting a political vision to accommodate to and then rewarding disgusting jokes of pretend scientists has been a pillar of populist politics for over a century. Whereas previously it may have been about building a case for a particular racial or ethnic superiority or scientific experimentation on non-consenting individuals, now it's more about preventing legislation and regulation which doesn't benefit the in-group funding the politicians who set said vision. Today it's the Patrick Browns, Bjorn Lomborgs, the Richard Hananias of the world who are out there committing fraud while telling us all 🤡 tee-hee, I'm a public intellectual. Yeah, if people believe the story that random scientist working in a lab is equivalent to a clown looking for fame I'm not sure what to say to that, they are probably just looking for another way to justify their own thinking, just inherently distrust the idea of science as a tool, or are in some other way pre-primed to conflate an entire group of regular working people with a tiny number of clowns in that group. It would be surprising to see people buy into this type of story which sounds something like, "They are all bad researchers! All of them!" en masse.
I find nothing more infuriating than people giving "enlightened" centrist takes on consequential issues by conflating bad-faith actors with good ones. These types of arguments are deeply appealing for Atlantic or New York Times writers and readers. I'm glad you exposed the "both-sides-are-bad" bullshit peddled by mainstream centrist institutions. These arguments will only embolden far-right reactionary agendas.