• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Prominent atheists are weaponizing the "War on Science" to push right-wing grievances

N

No Robots

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
989
Friendly Atheist has some sharp criticism of a new book:

These buffoons act like progressive activists, trans people asserting their humanity, universities that celebrate inclusion, and academics who study areas and publish papers they don’t understand (or think are beneath them) are the true enemies of science… as opposed to the politicians who are actively dismantling the finest scientific institutions in the world.
Click to expand...
 
Are you posting this because right-wing atheists are involved? Yes, there are right-wing atheists.
 
Yup, some atheists are right wing dickwads too. So what?
 
What has the world come to when you can't molest graduate students?
 
No Robots said:
Friendly Atheist has some sharp criticism of a new book:

These buffoons act like progressive activists, trans people asserting their humanity, universities that celebrate inclusion, and academics who study areas and publish papers they don’t understand (or think are beneath them) are the true enemies of science… as opposed to the politicians who are actively dismantling the finest scientific institutions in the world.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I have not read the book, but I would bet Friendly Atheist is correct; as he quite often points out how educational institutions are being undermined by right-wing politicians, such as the people in Oklahoma and elsewhere trying to push things such as the Bible and Ten Commandments into schools.
 
Jordan Peterson and Krauss. Well poisoned out of the gate.

Yeah, let’s ignore my several friends fired by DOGE in the last month from USGS, NPS,… Each was on probation due to recent promotion. Gender issues are a much bigger threat to science than RFK Jr. and Joe Ladiposenko. DOGE wants to gut NOAA forecast modeling because climate models are run in the same facility. I rely on the GFS model for storm prediction. We finally got the GFS model to par with EURO and these cunts want to fuck it up. But these guys are threatened by women and queers so let’s focus on that instead.
 
Still not sure what point you're trying to make. Yeah, Dawkins and others fell out of favor with some atheists (including myself) because they're dickwads. And? They're not bigger or more influential than the Christian right.
 
GenesisNemesis said:
Still not sure what point you're trying to make. Yeah, Dawkins and others fell out of favor with some atheists (including myself) because they're dickwads. And? They're not bigger or more influential than the Christian right.
Click to expand...
What part of this suggests I support ICE?
 
I also accept that races don't exist and that gender isn't binary. Doesn't seem to suggest I support ICE.
 
And let's use even more basic critical thinking! According to exit polling overseen by Edison Research....

86 per cent of respondents who identified as “gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender” voted for Harris. Meanwhile, 13 per cent of those questioned voted for Trump.
Click to expand...

So, is this as huge a problem as you are seemingly making it out to be and perhaps you are overreacting?
 
No Robots said:
Reddit discussion.
Click to expand...
Based on the five minutes I watched, it appears to be more of the same as your Friendly Atheist material: it's another non-stop whataboutism/ad-hominem tag-team fest. This isn't a contest -- a right-wing war on science does not qualify as evidence against a left-wing war on science. And the circumstance that some dumb-ass greenhouse-effect denialist has also noticed a left-wing war on science does not magically make a Richard Dawkins' observations incorrect. I realize this is a tricky challenge to meet since the book hasn't even come out yet, but do you have any evidence the book's contentions are scientifically wrong? Or do you just assume they are because the authors are a bunch of serial blasphemers?
 
They are simultaneously banning DEI initiatives while demanding that universities force in “viewpoint diversity”; you know “teach the controversy”. Harvard is trying to resist but these guys seem to be bent on getting right wing pseudoscience into every corner. Diversity is bad unless it is “viewpoint diversity” with that being forcing whatever dumb shit Peterson, Behe, Wakefield, et al. can come up with into curricula.
 

(1:18)
General Turgidson, I find this very difficult to understand. I was under the impression that legislators were the only ones in authority to order changes to university curricula.
That's right, Senator. You are the only persons authorized to do so. And although I hate to judge before all the facts are in, it's beginning to look like, uh, Prof. Krauss and his coauthors exceeded their authority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom