/sci/ - Science & Math

Sometimes, yea. There is things that directly affect science such as budgets, permits for proyects and research and public education. Shoehorning your political beliefs to students is just annoying though, but professors can't see where their egos end.

No one should really care about Bill Nye.

I'm a prof and I think others feel like it's not "political" per se because Trump wants to cut their funding. I disagree but I think that's how they feel. Most of them hate Trump for way more reasons than the funding. They just use the funding issue to claim that Trump attacked them.

At the end of the day they're just another group of people whining about how they want money. I want money too but I won't stoop to that

>>8933827
Well politic and science can actually be quite intricated.
Science sometimes need money, large scale and risky project, whi can be granted by politics. It can impact society on such point it become a political problem. Sometime, politics use science to justify a given policy.
In short, there's no hard boundary between those two. Just like with anything and politic, tbqh.

My political compass points to whoever is the most apt to respond to the ecological problems we created.

As i said, it's illusional to think science is hermetics to politics. And yeah, sometimes it's the right thing to do ti bring politics in it. Do you really want to test that new-gen reactor who would wipe th entire country if it fails ? Maybe non-scientist, whose live may be at stakes, have a word in it ?

This topic is relevant, yeah. Bill Nye is not.

Also, regarding your first question ; as a teacher i ALWAYS warn my student about the diverse political ramification of every subject. They're future engineer, they must know that and be able to think critically about what they do. I always make sure to represent all sides of the argument and not dictate thel what to think, but more "how" to think.
That's what i feel every prof should do. Some colleagues hates me for not pushing their agenda tho (on both sides of the political spectrum tho)

>>8933827
i had an economics teacher who taught us, in 2010 or so, that global warming is a socialist hoax designed to undermine capitalism, that liberals are sending diseased immigrant children into our schools to infect our children, and obamacare is going to destroy america.

in the same term, i had an english teacher talking about his life as an ex-christian "fundie" (a hyper religious denomination he was unfortunate enough to be born into), straight white male privilege, etc.

personally i just listened closely recognizing that you don't normally get to hear the opinions of intelligentsia on controversial topics.

also interestingly enough, even though liberals are supposed to be the safe-space snowflakes, the hippie english teacher got tons of anger and pushback from students (including a walk out) while the right-wing econ teacher got none at all

op existing in the world is inherently a political act and "not inserting politics into stem" is just as political as the opposite. stem is not apolitical and people pretending its so have an agenda. a good education must involve political education, i.e. reading marx.

>>8934728
>reading marx

>>8933827
Ideally science ought to be apolitical. In practice it's not, partially because in the modern era a gigantic chunk of funding comes from governments and partially because people are dickheads who can't keep their personal biases out of places they don't belong. There's nothing you can do about this; people will never stop being dickheads and "barring" opinions is a political stance more extreme than what you're trying to block.
However /sci/ is an imageboard, not a research group, and 100% of politics that gets brought up here is the second source.
Every politically charged thread is one of the exact same 3 templates recycled over and over by /pol/tard immigrants who can't bottle up their diarrhea when they spend 5 minutes outside their containment board.

>>8933827
i agree OP

politics off my STEM and my /sci/

>>8933827
Daily reminder only brainlet moralfags care about politics, everytime someone bitchs about Trumps its about moralfag HURR HES RACIST OR SEXIST reasons not any rational reason like his budget plan.

>>8933827
Nelson mandella was a terrorist who decided later to become a politician. He for real planted bombs

Heres my political compass. I think politics should always be kept to ones self unless you are with close friends or anon on the internet.

My chem dept has weekly seminars where a prof from different uni comes to talk about research but one week we had an alumni who does social work come and talk about social justice and women/POC in science.

>>8934794
That graph really captures the spirit of 4chin

>>8934763
Politics is what we call fighting to see who will control the money. Also, that is why "getting the money out of politics" is stupid.

>>8933827
If he is not speaking to you in binary he should fuck off.

>>8933827
I see a lot of political opinions formed around ill-studied concepts. Where the empirical facts end and policy depends on having those facts, the political ideologies begin to fill the voids in scientific knowledge.

For instance, climate change research is well-documented in terms of the rise in CO2 levels and the rise in global temperature, but no publicly available empirical study has managed to turn up any more than a correlation. As any good scientist or statistician knows, correlation is not causation. They're both rising, but there's scant a study out there giving good evidence that one is a primary cause of the other, and without that, climate change is not a good reason to pour funding into changing our CO2 output. It just so happens that the ones who would receive funding for such efforts also favor one major political party over the other, which further muddies the water. For all we know, it's just a benign conspiracy to take the power of global energy needs out of the hands of a fossil-fuel-rich Middle East that can't handle such power right now. We just don't know, because there's no unbiased comprehensive study out there to displace all the ideologies that are fighting to fill in the gaps right now.

Then, there's racism, for which, there also happens to be no empirical study on how racism happens. Despite this, either side will swear up and down that that it's because of media representation or because of genetics or because of this particular cherry-picked part of a case study. They'd rather fight over the problem than solve it. This is where the actual scientist comes in. If a scientist can test the hypotheses proposed by either side, then the opinions won't matter anymore.

So yes, the scientist has a place in politics, but such a scientist must have integrity and will have a hell of a time getting the facts known since the facts are likely to contradict both major narratives in some way.

>>8934886
>dat compass
Reddit tier political views. KYS commie

>>8934926
>commie

but today's commies are the top left larping as anarchists. this guy's a hippie.

>>8933827
I am pretty Conservative, I would consider myself to be pretty pro-science. I find it irritating when any party, candidate or ideology gets off into the weeds of "woo" and such. I am particularly put off when political entities claim that their set of policy reactions to a science issue shows that they are exclusively "pro science," while the other side's policies in reaction to the issue mean that they are "anti science." But that is more a statement about the politics than the science.

>>8934817
>Politics is what we call fighting to see who will control the money.

I'd amend that -- War is when we fight about who gets the money, politics is how we bicker over who gets the money without fighting. Of the two, I prefer politics.

>Also, that is why "getting the money out of politics" is stupid.

Agreed. Also, compared to how much we spend on other, trivial, shit, the amount of money pent on electoral politics is actually surprisingly low.

>>8934734
>Ideally science ought to be apolitical

That is not possible, unless what you really mean is "not overtly partisan," which I guess would be technically possible.

Politics is the word for how more than one or two of us interact and reach decisions, Politics impacts science funding, as an obvious example, and scientific findings will impact public policy. That is not only inevitable, but seems to me a Good Thing.

>>8934794
>politics should always be kept to ones self

You have no idea of what politics means, do you? If you "keep it to yourself," it is literally not politics.

>>8935032
>I am particularly put off when political entities claim that their set of policy reactions to a science issue shows that they are exclusively "pro science," while the other side's policies in reaction to the issue mean that they are "anti science."
Both major parties have their anti-intellectual fringes. But you have to admit, the GOP is controlled by its anti-science crazies in a way that the Democratic Party isn't.

>compared to how much we spend on other, trivial, shit, the amount of money pent on electoral politics is actually surprisingly low.
that's not the issue with money in politics, though; it's not about how much money is actually spent, but rather about how easy it is for people with deep pockets to influence the political process. whether an official is being bribed (honestly, that's essentially what the current lobbying scheme is) with $50 or $50,000, it's still a corruption of his duty to his constituents.

>>8934817
Politics is really monkeys arguing with other monkeys to make them think the top monkeys dont control everything do.

Democracy was a mistake it causes too much social division, monarchy or an oligarchy by blood oath was the best form of government.

>>8935036
nice pedantry asshat

>>8933827
/pol/ isn't even trying to hide it anymore.

>>8935101
>Acting as if lefty/pol/ hasn't invaded every single board once they got tired of circle-jerking over at Reddit.

>>8933827
>What's phams opinion of politics in relation to science?
It destroy's science.
Both in the USSR and nazi Germany science has suffered as the result of being politicized.
It should be every scientists goal that their results are not used to push a certain ideology but as a guidance for everyone.

>Where does your political compass sit?
Moderately right wing, slightly anti-authoritarian. Mostly as a result of the people who are literally communists at my university, they are exactly the kind of people who ham fist their ideology into everything they can get their hands on, especially science.

>Do you think its ok to bring up political issues in the scientific community or should it be barred to preserve the objectivity and rigor of the scientific community?
It certainly should be discussed how science relates to political issues. But on the other hand it should never be part of science as a whole to advocate for a particular party or ideology.
Science should be the presenter of facts, the people who talk to ALL politicians so that they can steer the country into the right direction.
Obviously it is also the job of ALL politicians to listen to science, so that their opinions can be as educated as possible.

If scientists decide to push one ideology science itself will suffer immediate consequences. (Take 99% of the humanities as an example)

>>8933827
>What's phams opinion of politics in relation to science?
In a near-perfect world (for, no perfect world exists wherein there are also governments), all of our politicians would use science as a means of identifying the best possible policies.

In practise, you get this sick relationship where people use 'science' to justify taking extreme positions, and you have 'scientists' that use politics to try and get tax funding. It's pretty gross.

>Where does your political compass sit?
Pic related.

>Do you think its ok to bring up political issues in the scientific community or should it be barred to preserve the objectivity and rigor of the scientific community?
In present western culture, the two should be kept separate.

>>8933845
Which is why it's surprising they never focus their hate on the jews

>>8935148
That's like the opposite of what that post was claiming, dude.

Science doesn't exist in a vacuum.

>>8933827

Well unfortunately the science in the United States will probably get destroyed once the United States is inevitably destroyed as a result of your prof's politics LOL.

>>8934886
>talking points
I'm guessing you swung hard center since you got that compass result.

>>8935045
I don't agree with that. The anti-science crowd on the right does not seem to me to be more in control of the party than their counterparts on the left -- though the fact that the left has generally been more fragmented into different interest groups than the right might make it seem that way.

I am also not sure how quantifiafiable that is.

I'd suggest the left and the right both see to the beam in their own eyes before worrying about the mote in the other side's eye. Though it is of course more fun to get worked up about how those other guys need to change, rather than dealing with how you need to change.


I'd also argue with your idea of what "money in politics" means but that seems to be off topic for the board, so let's just let that one go.

>>8935083
Powerful argument. Powerful.

>>8933827
>complains about politics in science
>posts politics on science board
I guess your school really is shit.

>>8933827
>The other day my Chem prof put pic related at the first power-point slide of a lecture, I'm not used to having randomly politics shoved into science, every 3rd lecture he yarns about how Trump is going to ruin everything for Scientists, global warming basically every contemporary issue in modern science is at risk of being sullied by Trump.

It's unfortunate that he's wasting your time and money by pontificating about a topic he isn't an expert in. You didn't pay/sacrifice an hour of your time to hear his political views, you did these things to learn chemistry from an expert. He can believe what he wants to believe, but he should leave this unrelated interest out of his job. If you paid for a massage and instead got a lecture on politics, you'd be mad, so why is a paid lecture on chemistry exempt?

>What's phams opinion of politics in relation to science

They can be related, but if it's not in the course syllabus, I don't want to hear it (this is particularly true when it comes from a non-expert). Sure politics can be discussed in relation to science, but if I paid for an Organic Chemistry lecture, I want an Organic Chemistry lecture. Every second he spends discussing politics is a second that could be spent discussing Organic Chemistry (i.e. what the student paid for).

>Where does your political compass sit?

Left

>Do you think its ok to bring up political issues in the scientific community or should it be barred to preserve the objectivity and rigor of the scientific community?

It's fine, but it should be kept outside of unrelated class work.

>This topics even more relevant now because of the whole Bill Nye gender abacus, ice cream orgy bullocks.

Please don't bring up Bill Nye here.

>>8935308
>The anti-science crowd on the right does not seem to me to be more in control of the party than their counterparts on the left
Rejection of mainstream climatology is practically a requirement among Republicans at the national level. The GOP continues to push to allow public schools to teach intelligent design in schools, a vaguely religious brand of pseudoscience with no empirical support. Numerous Republican-led statehouses have passed bills allowing (or even forcing) doctors to lie to their patients when abortion is concerned, or mandating medically unnecessary procedures. The current head of the party is a man who has described climate change as a hoax, believes (apparently in earnest) that vaccines cause autism, has purged scientists from technical review boards, and is currently attempting to slash federal research funding across the board.
What have the Democrats done that could POSSIBLY compare to that wholesale embrace of anti-science ideology?

>>8935380
B-b-b-but muh bathrooms!

>>8934786
The USA was founded by terrorists-turned-politicians, so no one cares.

>>8935380

Yeah and the left wants the populations that create Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico, and Brazil to demographically usurp the United States and vote for which people get control of it's nuclear stockpiles; which exist because the phenotypes that created Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, and Ireland made them. It is much more dangerous and much more urgent than any pet quackery of the right. Climate change is peanuts compared to this.

Also, the forces on the right that pushed for Trump to win clearly don't care about his religiosity and had to fight as hard as possible against anti-evolution evangelicals for him to win the party nomination.

The worst position that Retardlicans take is anti-abortion because it means more brown people will be born than if abortion were allowed. We should be permitting infanticide lol.

>>8935792

And if brown people take over the United States and all of it's institutions, "anti-vax" positions won't even mean anything anymore because only subsets of white people are concerned about the moral hazards of anti-vaccination. "Climate change" won't mean anything anymore either, because climate treaties aimed at emission reduction are a white-person concern and every other group just emits whatever the fuck it wants in the absence of Europeans pushing for climate agreements.

Many of the environmental concerns that use to be part and parcel of the left in the 1970s are increasingly considered cooky Green Party issues as nogs and beaners take over the democrats and push racial revenge increasingly to the forefront. In 2040, you won't hear a word from Democrats about climate change or anti-vaccination hazards since it will be brown faces screaming for gibs. And Republicans have already made Trumpian concessions that the religious right sort of sucks, so in this trend the "anti-science" will just be dead as more whites with the university consensus on the issues move to the Republican party because they won't be welcome to the brown democratic party anymore.

Not that emissions would be a problem in a century, since if brown people took over the western world then the experiment in individual rights that sprung from the Reinassance would come to an end and the emissions would plummet because niggers and beaners don't know how to make or maintain anything that uses as many emissions as the United States currently demands for it's energy use.

>>8935792
>>8935806
>PERMISSIVE IMMIGRATION POLICY IS ANTI-SCIENCE BECAUSE THEM MEXICANS DON'T SCIENCE HURR
found the acoustic /pol/ack
just watch, he won't be able to resist the compulsion to reply and call me a libtard or tell me to go to tumblr or something.

(by the way, splitting your shitpost into two posts so you get 2x the (You)s? absolutely genius)

>>8934728
>agenda
yes an agenda to not warp empiricism and science/scientific method to the whims of the ideologies of tribalistic dumbfucks.

obviously you can't escape politics, that's not the point of the thread, the point is that time is wasted on specifically shilling something. It's mandatory propaganda when you've paid handsomely for a decent education in a specific field.

also like every other work on economy and/or politics, marx's work is ideology-steeped pseudoscience.

>>8935792

Dude, you went off into a totally different territory.

The fuck are you going into immigration for?

>>8934886
Ayy lmao I also did it and was actually quite surprised by the result. I feel more liberal than I apparently actually am.

I've noticed a lot of Chemists, environmental,
and earth science types tend to be on the liberal side due to their profession often dealing with politicized issues like global warming, and thermodynamics,
the right wing in Murica tends to describe carbon dioxide as fairy dust so they don't touch that shit with a 50 foot pole, physics, engineering and bio people tend to be more mixed politically.

The Bill Nye thing was embarrassing but the guy is a mechanical engineer, all throughout my childhood I thought he was an atmospheric chemist or environmental scientist because the guy brings up global warming at every opportunity.

Some issues are inherently political regardless of whether you try to take the politics out of it energy usage is one, global warming another.

The energy challenge is something engineers will have to deal with and the problems that arise from it will occur in our lifetimes, Nye will likely be dead when India exceeds the U.S GW usage of electricity.

>>8935821
>well thought, well written post
>reply is a two sentence strawman
I think you're the one that needs to go back.

>>8935380
No university level professor is going to teach creationism in the way OP's commie professor did. It just doesn't happen.

>>8936141
>>8935821


The permissive immigration policy is based on the lie of cognitive human equality. It is human creationism and therefore anti-scientific directly.

>>8935821
Terrible grammar, no capitalization, half the post is meme arrow, the other half is more memes, no arguments and no content. You're the one acting like a /pol/tard here. Please leave.

>>8933827
I'm conservative, switched from being a liberal before i knew what i really stood for (protip: not enslaving the population under the yoke of socialism is a good start). got a gay math prof who always takes wisecracks at conservatives for some reason. i think he just goes with whatever the media says is the truth, or the truth from their ideological perspective. brilliant at math though

>>8933838
the redpill about budgets

start it at 29 minutes, it's only a few minutes long from there. comfy talk though if you have the time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hLwVv-EFvg

>>8933845
>others feel like it's not "political" per se because Trump wants to cut their funding
That's literally political.

>>8933827
>that image
>implying it's wrong to throw a terrorist in prison

>>8934794
eyyy

>>8935041
I think he was more talking about discussing it with other people in everyday life, not necessarily the entire political system.

I disagree with that to some extent, but I think you misunderstood him.

>>8935257
>reading comprehension
not my post, but "hasn't" was a critical word there, try again

>>8935045
>But you have to admit, the GOP is controlled by its anti-science crazies in a way that the Democratic Party isn't
Why do we have to do that?

>>8935045
>But you have to admit, the GOP is controlled by its anti-science crazies in a way that the Democratic Party isn't.

>>8935045
>But you have to admit, the GOP is controlled by its anti-science crazies in a way that the Democratic Party isn't.
Just no.

>>8933827
I did my first semester of uni in what was claimed to be the best engineering university of Ecuador. All the fucking lectures were filled to the brim with politics, it was horrible. I stopped going after two months and did all my paperwork to get the fuck out. I am now in Europe in a comfy city in a university I really like

>>8936655
Oh and no one ever talks about politics here, not even the students

>>8936657
>Oh and no one ever talks about politics here, not even the students
I can not believe that.

Some do, some don't.
My pathological microbiology professor obviously commented about Trump's anti-vaccine shit and the NIH funding cuts (both of which very much apply to that material research-wise, but only time he ever touched on global warming was permafrost melting and the possibility of an epidemic occurring from that.

My genetics professor giggled when two unrelated genes came back with 666bp, but that's all I can think of in terms of religion in the field.

>>8936658
Literally no one. I cant prove it but whatever believe it if you want. There are some feminist posters and shit sometimes but people just dont talk about it inside the university. Im in Madrid

>>8936709
Lucky you. My university is in northern Germany and while the professors show some restraint, the students don't.
Leaflets about current political ""issues"" written from everyone between neo-liberal to full on communists, are everywhere and I haven't been to many of the humanities departments yet.

I believe you, but I was just very surprised that such a place existed.

>>8936718
Is everywhere in Germany like that? My family ancestry is German and I am planning on going back to our "hometown" which is Hamburg when I do my phd. Would you not recommend it?

>>8933827
If your professor isn't praising the omissiah at least 256 times a day and giving you political advise in fucking binary he should fuck off to the moon.

>>8936816
>I am planning on going back to our "hometown" which is Hamburg when I do my phd
Coincidentally I am living exactly there.

I am actually a student at the TUHH, the technical university, there the amount of political fliers is greatly reduced.

But quite often I am at the UHH and even in them math/physics building you will see fliers about all kinds of political shit. (The most current topic is demonstrations against the G20)
There are even "elections" for a "student parliament" and during that voting season (1/2 weeks I believe) some of the "parties" will have stands inside the building.

Aside from that the professors (which I had classes with) completely avoided politics (aside from one harmless joke about "alternative facts in exams").

In conclusion I really don't think you should take this too much into consideration, you can (just like I did) completely avoid everything about politics, it is never forced upon you and from what I have heard and seen I doubt that it will be better anywhere else in Germany or for that matter in all of western Europe.

>>8936841
Ok then, than you! Would you mind sharing somewhere I could contact you to ask you some questions about going there? I understand if you dont though

>>8936477
>>8936495
>>8936634
>I don't like your claim but I don't have any evidence against it, so I'll just dismiss it.
I'm sorry, this is /sci/

>>8936261
>No university level professor is going to teach creationism in the way OP's commie professor did. It just doesn't happen.
There are some! Just look at Liberty """"University""""
But the bigger issue isn't university, but rather public school. The GOP is currently pushing to have creationism and/or intelligent design allowed on middle and high school curricula, where kids are at their most impressionable and vulnerable.

>>8937212
If you really want to, you can write an email to my secondary email account joto.rand.spam@gmail.com, but I am afraid that I might not be of much help, especially if you plan on going to the UHH.

>>8937219
I don't think you read their arguments correctly.

>>8937219
>Make a claim
>demand evidence
>HURR DURR YOU have to prove that you are right to make claims

I think it is clear where the burden of proof lies.

>>8934730
>not reading marx

>>8933827

You want to fuck up science and remove any credibility or benefit to society? Mix it with politics.

>>8937265
please see >>8935380
there is ample evidence of anti-science positions becoming mainstream within the GOP. do you have any evidence that the Democratic Party has been comparably co-opted?

>>8937365
>do you have any evidence that the Democratic Party has been comparably co-opted?
it's been presented to you but you ignored it, stupid anime faggot

>>8935052
No, democracy is good if done right, even fucking Socrates of all people bitched about this same thing.

>>8933827
I think academia has gotten a little too cozy with and dependent on government institutions. Hopefully academics and scholars take this as a warning to not unconditionally trust governments and to work more independently of them in the future.

>>8935052
Democracy is only a mistake when it's users have no skin in the game.

Voters exercise power, by voting, and power must be earned via showing that you hold civic virtue, not just given by turning 18.

Don't all you idiots see that left and right are the exact same thing.

Having opinions is the most naive thing one can do.

>>8937301
>Not reading Sowell

If it's appropriate. Politics impacts their jobs and they'd be doing a bad job not to mention some aspects of it. For example, Obama was decreasing red tape for ITAR research, but Trump has shown no indication to follow thru on it, so we are stuck with more delays and paperwork when doing anything ITAR

>>8937640
It's worth it if it keeps the poos and dog-eaters out tb.h

>>8937637
>not reading Rothbard

>>8937624
You just gave an opinion.

>>8933827
>thinly veiled /pol/ thread
This is sure to be a productive discussion.

>>8933827
>What's phams opinion of politics in relation to science?
Little to no politics in science, but science should play a role in politics (to an extent).
>Where does your political compass sit?
I'm a minarchist (see Ron Paul)
>Do you think its ok to bring up political issues in the scientific community or should it be barred to preserve the objectivity and rigor of the scientific community?
Only
Only when science is threatened by certain political issues
>This topics even more relevant now because of the whole Bill Nye gender abacus, ice cream orgy bullocks.
Bill Nye ought to keep his mouth shut and leave science popularization to more qualified individuals

>>8937624
>brainlet so small that it's in between the pixels

>>8937397
>he didn't accept my unsupported assertions that blacks and Latinos are innately inferior to whites, and that allowing immigrants into America will result in its total destruction?
>blasphemy!
this is what crossboarding /pol/ degenerates actually believe.

you know, people like you were making the same arguments (about different people) seventy or eighty years ago. if we let in those subhumans, surely we'd be overrun by them and they'd ruin everything! well, those undesirables did just happen to include one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, a Nobel prize winner who helped develop a superweapon with which we won the war.
so when I hear some brainlet bloviating about how their basement-dwelling ass is the Superior Form of Man and we need to keep out people who don't look like them, I treat him with a reasonable degree of skepticism/derision.

>>8938070
holy shit BTFO

>>8934728
> Yo Marx (& Mao, Lenin, Trostky, Stalin, Castro, Chaves, Pol Pot)
> Muh Adam Smith
> (& John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Friedrich Hayek, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, David Ricardo, Murray Rothbard)

>>8934728
"Yuh" Marx & Engels
>Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Zedong, Tito, Castro, Che Guevara, Chaves, Kim Il Sung, SJWs
"Muh" Adam Smith & Friedrich Hayek
> John Locke, Frédéric Bastiat, David Hume, Alexis de Tocqueville, David Ricardo, Rose Wilder Lane, Lysander Spooner, Milton Friedman, David Friedman, Ayn Rand, Friedrich von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises e Murray Rothbard, Karl Hess, Samuel Edward Konkin III, Linda and Morris Tannehill, David Friedman, Noam Chomsky, Robert Higgs, Walter Block, Randy Barnett, Richard Epstein,, Roderick Long, Steve Horowitz, Kevin Carson, Gary Chartier, Matt Zwolinski, David Henderson, Brad Spangler, Bryan Caplan, Sheldon Richman

If it's a science professor (one who might know about issues like global warming, not a sciologist...) talking about global warming, then I think that's 100% appropriate in the current climate.

If it's somebody just making trump zingers or yelling about identity politics or telling you how to vote, then they can fuck right off.

>>8938422
>global warming

>>8933827
>What's phams opinion of politics in relation to science?
Leftists are degenerates incapable of self reflection. After the soviets helped them overthrow conservative academia they quickly dropped the facade of all their alleged principles.

Education should either be apolitical, or influenced by the politics of the country (not leadership). Meaning for America, liberty and republicanism should be emphasized and focused, with the only wiggle room being debate over the merits of federalism and anti-federalism.

>Where does your political compass sit?
How I act/vote: Conservative libertarian.
How I want to act/vote: Conservative statist libertarian (liberty by force, with considerations for the long term survival and goals of humanity)

>Do you think its ok to bring up political issues in the scientific community
Yeah sure, why not.

>should it be barred to preserve the objectivity and rigor of the scientific community?
If they act as individuals, it's fine. If they try to use their positions of authority to give their views merit/reach, then they deserve public ostracization.
You're professor is a degenerate.


tl;dr
Trump has legitimate faults and shortcomings from a traditional (read: true) American (read: conservative and/or libertarian) viewpoint, but we don't hear them because people are too busy echo-chambering and/or defending him from baseless criticism to listen to the legitimate criticisms.
Also a third of the country thinks that the legitimate criticisms are absurd because they believe that they are good things but are bad because they are done by trump.

>>8938155
>unironically having that gif on your computer
luckily that instantly disqualifies you from passing down your genes

>>8939376
>getting this rustled over a picture from a manga

>>8939385
>diverting attention from your nonexistant sexual life

>>8939401
>ha ha I can't refute his post so I'll just accuse him of having no gf
>I sure hope nobody notices

>>8935792
>Yeah and the left wants the populations that create Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico, and Brazil to demographically usurp the United States and vote for which people get control of it's nuclear stockpiles
Your conspiracy theories aren't going to impress anyone here, kiddo. Provide proof or go back to /pol/.
>which exist because the phenotypes that created Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, and Ireland made them.
You really have no idea what you're talking about. But please, elaborate, so you can be BTFO.
>Also, the forces on the right that pushed for Trump to win clearly don't care about his religiosity and had to fight as hard as possible against anti-evolution evangelicals for him to win the party nomination.
This is absolutely and demonstrably false. Trump was overwhelmingly supported by evangelical voters; he wouldn't have won the GOP nomination otherwise.
>The worst position that Retardlicans take is anti-abortion because it means more brown people will be born than if abortion were allowed. We should be permitting infanticide lol.
Racism and genocide are not supported by science.

>>8935806
>more counter-factual racist ranting without empirical support.
You do not belong here. You have to go back.

>>8939209
>Leftists are degenerates incapable of self reflection.
Nah, that would be you. For instance:
>Education should either be apolitical, or influenced by the politics of the country (not leadership). Meaning for America, liberty and republicanism should be emphasized and focused, with the only wiggle room being debate over the merits of federalism and anti-federalism.
This is not "the politics of the country". You do not speak for everyone in the United States, and your views are not reflective of the majority in your country, nor the way the country has ever existed. Most Americans are not libertarian---because most people can see it's idiotic---and they're not traditional conservatives. You're a shrinking minority, but of course, you're too pompous to realize that.

>>8939859
>This is not "the politics of the country".
You're not familiar with American history, are you?

>You do not speak for everyone in the United States
Didn't claim to. At best, I claimed to speak for traditional American views.

>your views are not reflective of the majority in your country
We've certainly lost our way.

>nor the way the country has ever existed.
Wrong.

>Most Americans are not libertarian
Depends on how you view libertarianism. You could categorize most people who aren't foaming leftists as libertarian.

>because most people can see it's idiotic
If you're talking about purely ideological libertarianism: (open borders, government violence is always illegitimate, wars are always wrong, etc) then I would mostly agree.
If you're talking about libertarianism based in the real world, then I'd say you're full of shit.

>they're not traditional conservatives.
Same as above, depends on what you mean by traditional. We've had at least 3 waves of conservatism.
If you talking about statist conservatism, I would agree.
If you're talking about fiscal conservatives, you're wrong.

>You're a shrinking minority
You're not familiar with the political views of those under 22, are you? The wind is rising brother.

>you're too pompous to realize that.
We've been being struck down our entire lives, we are well based in the logic for our positions, and why your (I'm assuming) positions are wrong/fallacious.
We are becoming more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

>>8939903
>You're not familiar with American history, are you?
More familiar with it than you apparently.
>>8939903
>Didn't claim to. At best, I claimed to speak for traditional American views.
You equated "traditional" with "real" and "American" with "conservative/libertarian." That, my friend, is a level of delusion that's rare even on /pol/.
>We've certainly lost our way.
No, we've improved.
>Wrong
Libertarian-like ideas have always had a presence in American politics but they've never been the sole policy of the country.
>Depends on how you view libertarianism. You could categorize most people who aren't foaming leftists as libertarian.
Yeah, if you don't know what the word "libertarian" means. Libertarianism is a "leftist" philosophy.
>If you're talking about libertarianism based in the real world, then I'd say you're full of shit.
No form of libertarianism is based in the real world. Communism works in theory but not in practice; libertarianism doesn't even work in theory. Your conception of libertarianism would fail for the same reason "ideological libertarianism" would fail.
>Same as above, depends on what you mean by traditional. We've had at least 3 waves of conservatism.
They're not fusionists.
>If you're talking about fiscal conservatives, you're wrong.
The most fiscally conservative candidate in the 2016 election lost. Trump was elected primarily because American believe free trade---a key part of fiscal conservativism---is hurting the economy. Americans may identify as fiscally conservative, but they don't even practice this on a personal level.
>You're not familiar with the political views of those under 22, are you?
You're referring to a handful of studies that suggest a little over half of Gen Z lean more socially conservative. Even if this data were verified, political attitudes are not static. These kids aren't old enough to remember how badly conservative presidents fuck the country.

>>8937301
get off /sci/ brainlet

>>8939903
Cont.
>We've been being struck down our entire lives
No you haven't, you just have a persecution complex that rivals the most obnoxious SJWs. You're not more logical than the leftists you hate so much; your arguments just appeal to different emotions.

>you're too pompous to realize that.
>We are becoming more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Way to illustrate my point. And you claim the left is incapable of self awareness?

>>8939453
you're the one who can't refute the reality of differences in intelligence between races so...

>>8933827

Right wingers are historically more anti-science but desu liberals have overtaken them in my opinion

Ignoring race is crazy enough but ignoring gender is just silly

>>8933827
frankly good. scientists need to get off their asses and call out the bullshit ignorance for the destructive load of crap that it is.

>>8933827
In my opinion the aim of politics and economics should be their own extintion, one should study politics in order to give us a future in which politics will be needed no more and not in order to get power for himself or his country; one should study economics in order to give us a future in which human progress is not controlled by money and not in order to get rich over others. I'm studying aerospace engineering and i find it so sad when i hear about space missions that failed because of lack of money. I know that is difficult to find an alternative but i think that there is no future with money and politics

>>8940281
you don't understand what money is

>>8936447
>The permissive immigration policy is based on the lie of cognitive human equality.
Racism is not supported by science. You seem to think that some races are dumber or smarter than others because of some genetic trait; this is a testable hypothesis. It has been tested extensively but there is no evidence of such a genetic trait.

>>8940256
>>8940256
Gender studies is not science.

science in my country depends heavily on state funds, private universities do not teach scientific fields, only law, bussines and all that shit for posh kiddies.
so yeah, science is really political here
the nalso you have the question of what use is given to scientific development, if private companies use it to leech people or if they are used for the benefit of mankind

>>8936447
>The permissive immigration policy is based on the lie of cognitive human equality. It is human creationism and therefore anti-scientific directly.
lmao
"karltueral marx" has nothing to do with permissive immigration, fact is that people from the third world have more kids and are willing to work more hours for less money. the ideological liberal arguments put forth by merkel and the pro immigration multiculti fags is just a facade for the big fish that want to lower "labour costs"

>>8939963
>No you haven't
I grew up being taught by teachers that la raza is a legitimate movement, the result of the mexican american was illegitimate because because, the pledge of allegiance is racist, health care is a right, guns are bad, hate speech is a legitimate concept, monopolies are bad, communism 'has never been tried', republicans are evil racists, and all the other leftist memes.
I went to public school...

>You're not more logical than the leftists you hate so much
All of my experiences and all the arguments presented by them suggest/prove otherwise.

>We are becoming more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
The shifting political demographics of youth are not in your favor.

>And you claim the left is incapable of self awareness?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA9aSvHzEIU
Yes.

>>8940896
You have no belief system at your core of your whining. You just like power and wish you had it. Wanna know how I can tell?

>>8939957
>libertarianism doesn't even work in theory.
Citation please.

>Your conception of libertarianism would fail for the same reason "ideological libertarianism" would fail.
So the libertarianism that rejects the parts of ideological libertarianism that would cause it to fail, it doomed to fail because... ?

>No form of libertarianism is based in the real world.
"don't do X"
"fuck off faggot, property rights"
Wow... Completely irrelevant to reality.

>>8940846
i hope you're an american, cause you're understanding of europe is pathetic

>>8934794
me, except I don't care about people's politics unless they start defending the soviet union/mao, or are sjw's.

>>8940904
>You have no belief system at your core of your whining.
I don't think you can call providing examples of something someone claimed didn't exist as whining.
Also: Conservative libertarianism mixed with ancap.

>You just like power and wish you had it.
This is true, but irrelevant.

>Wanna know how I can tell?
Sure.

>>8940122
Hitchens's Razor :^)

>>8940906
>"don't do X"
>"fuck off faggot, property rights"
tfw someone cites laws made and enforced by a state (specifically, laws prohibiting certain conduct) in support of their claim that libertarianism exists in the real world

>>8940980
I think you have libertarianism mixed up with raw anarchism.

>>8940988
>voluntarism
>state making people do things
pick 1

>>8940896
>I grew up being taught by teachers that la raza is a legitimate movement, the result of the mexican american was illegitimate because because, the pledge of allegiance is racist, health care is a right, guns are bad, hate speech is a legitimate concept, monopolies are bad, communism 'has never been tried', republicans are evil racists, and all the other leftist memes.
>I went to public school...
I don't believe you. I also went to public school too, you see, and the only one of those things that I ever heard is "monopolies are bad." Because monopolies are, in fact, bad. But please, justify how that's wrong.
Regardless, someone presenting a different opinion from yours is not a form of oppression. Again, you're no different from the SJWs.
>All of my experiences and all the arguments presented by them suggest/prove otherwise.
I did not say they were logical; you are not logical. You lack the self awareness to realize the flaws in your own argument.
>The shifting political demographics of youth are not in your favor.
I already discussed why that's bullshit.
>Yes.
You. You are incapable of self awareness.

>>8940906
>Citation please.
A few years ago, a BP oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, dumping tons of oil into the ocean. President Obama demanded BP fix the problem, they capped the well and cleaned up the slick. Had they gone with the "fuck off faggot, property rights" option, millions of people would now be living on the edge of a cauldron of toxic sludge, as the well would still be spewing oil. This is but one example.
>So the libertarianism that rejects the parts of ideological libertarianism that would cause it to fail, it doomed to fail because... ?
For the same reason the ideological parts fail.
>Wow... Completely irrelevant to reality.
Pretty much

>>8941300
And the owners of the coastal properties would have had their property rights violated and would have taken legal action against BP.

Before leftist statists ruined things, environmental harm was taken care of using property rights.

>>8941406
This, I don't understand where this absurd notion that property rights are only respected one way originates from.

>>8934730
>not reading Marx to thouroughly teat it apart from its foundations anytime some idiot brings him up

>>8941413
Commies who believe only the state should have property and own companies, under which circumstances we really would be living next to a giant toxic oil spill

> :^)

>>8941406
>Before leftist statists ruined things, environmental harm was taken care of using property rights.
when exactly was this mythical era of small government in which environmental concerns were adequately addressed and enforced by such lawsuits? I'm super curious to know.

because air and water pollution was rampant pretty recently in industrialized/urban areas, and the decline in such problems in America (cleaning up the Great Lakes, the reduction of smog in NYC and Los Angeles, etc.) just so happens to coincide with the environmentalist movement gaining ground. in LA specifically, the smog problem was fought back not by people suing over dirty air, but by the proactive enactment of strict emissions standards for cars. automakers didn't go out of business, nobody's rights got trampled, and the air got cleaned up. not bad for "leftist statists".

>>8941548
>when exactly was this mythical era of small government in which environmental concerns were adequately addressed and enforced by such lawsuits? I'm super curious to know.
Industrial revolution. https://youtu.be/awG_hyixGfI?t=219

>>8941650
>Industrial revolution
you mean when smog outbreaks were so severe in London that hundreds or thousands died of it over the course of mere days?
the issue was only ever resolved in the 1950s, when the big bad government established strict controls on the burning of coal.

>better to let people pollute others' property and then make the injured parties sue for damages than to just ban the pollution in the first place
libertarians unironically believe this

>>8941479
Marxists think that full communism is stateless

>>8941664
>you mean when smog outbreaks were so severe in London that deaths were attributed to it for some meme?
Yes.

>the issue was only ever resolved in the 1950s, when the big bad government established strict controls on the burning of coal.
Yes, after decades of property rights not being respected due to leftists, the leftists finally did something.
>libertarians unironically believe this
Yes. The only thing that should be banned is critical masses of fissionable material (gun design is for faggots and spontaneous fission is scary)

>>8941679
>enforcing property rights was able to prevent pollution problems during the industrial revolution
>also, the pollution problem during the industrial revolution was the fault of leftists
zero awareness apparently

>The only thing that should be banned is critical masses of fissionable material
why ban critical masses of fissile material, you filthy statist? why not just sue people if they misuse it and damage someone else's property?
>mfw someone accuses me of having a critical mass of fissile material but I just split it in half so it's not critical anymore and then I sue him for slander and he has to sell his house to pay me damages and then I shoot him for violating the NAP by being on my property

>>8941730
>you filthy statist?
I explained why. Spontaneous fission is scary.
If you own enough property such that it only impacts you or have permission from all property owners who it could impact, then it's fine.
But I thought that those qualifiers were so obvious as to not be necessary to state.

>why not just sue people if they misuse it and damage someone else's property?
The same reason why threats of violence violate NAP.


>mfw someone accuses me of having a critical mass of fissile material
There is next to no reason to have one.

>I just split it in half so it's not critical anymore
Problem solved.

>then I sue him for slander
You don't know what slander is, do you?

>he has to sell his house to pay me damages
But it wasn't slander. So then you get sued by the private court for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

>then I shoot him
He kills you for violating NAP.

>violating the NAP by being on my property
I knew you were a commie faggot. Stop trying to steal other people's property.


Also, in case you didn't know, things that are at critical mass tend to explode/'fizzle' rather quickly.
As in, it's a fucking meme. I'm basically saying the only thing that should be banned is lightning in a bottle.


None of my ancap pics are labeled, so have something ascetic.

>>8941746
>ascetic
It's deliberate

>>8936464
They want money and Trump is taking it. Don't like it get that fat asshole to hand out some sheckels

>>8941746
>If you own enough property such that it only impacts you or have permission from all property owners who it could impact, then it's fine.
so why use this standard only for fissile material? there are plenty of other things that are scary and could near-irreversibly contaminate large areas.
sounds like you're making an arbitrary distinction because you think nuclear reactions are scary but are having trouble reconciling that with your knee-jerk opposition to regulation.

>But it wasn't slander.
prove it. I don't see any critical masses of fissile material sitting around...

>things that are at critical mass tend to explode/'fizzle' rather quickly.
please don't try to explain nuclear physics if you don't know what you're talking about.

>>8941406
>And the owners of the coastal properties would have had their property rights violated and would have taken legal action against BP.
And what do you think that would accomplish? I'm going to make some extremely charitable assumptions that all the people who've now lost their livelihoods are somehow able to afford a protracted legal battle with one of the largest companies in the world. And we'll assume that pain and suffering damages are not relevant in your libertarian utopia because "muh feefees" have no value to the Right. Tourism on the Gulf Coast generates about 100 billion dollars in revenue each year. BP's gross revenue in 2016 was about 180 billion dollars, with an operating income of almost 3 billion. To make coastal business owners whole for one year, they would bankrupt themselves several times over. So BP is dead---hooray, the bastards got what they deserved, right? Except now there's no one to cap the well or clean up the mess, and millions of people now live in a toxic hellhole, and no one is accountable. You can't go after the CEO or shareholders, since it's an LLC, and it's not like they were violating regulations, because there are none in this minarchist wonderland. But hey, at least you only have to pay 10 cents in taxes, right?

>Before leftist statists ruined things, environmental harm was taken care of using property rights.
No, it wasn't.

>>8941413
Because that's how it works in real life, and there's no libertarian mechanism to fix it.

>>8941479
>if you're not a libertarian you're a communist!
Cold War is over, senpai. Calling people who disagree with you commies doesn't really work any more.

>>8941679
>Yes, after decades of property rights not being respected due to leftists, the leftists finally did something.
What are you even trying to convey here? You're verging on word salad.
>Yes. The only thing that should be banned is critical masses of fissionable material (gun design is for faggots and spontaneous fission is scary)
Why? The only arguments you can make against fissionable material are also applicable to fossil fuels and a host of other materials. There's actually a very strong argument to be made for legalizing fissionable material under your libertarian tent, since it would allow development of new energy sources. Or is this some good ol' fashioned cronism?

>tfw I'm a straight up nazi who is pro-eugenics
>tfw I believe normies should all be gassed or sterilized, leaving only a state run by intellectuals and aristocrats
>tfw get tagged as a lefty libcuck

>>8942168
but you don't understand!
if the government had made someone do something they didn't want to do, that would have been even WORSE! who cares about natural treasures, tourism, fisheries, or the livelihoods of millions when FREE WILL is at stake!
>this is what libertarians actually believe
>libertarianism: fighting for the right of amoral people to make stupid choices

>>8942234
Gotta make that money. Fuck everyone else.

>>8942232
It is so hard to get anywhere extreme on that chart. A lot of the questions are loaded or poorly written (as in they'll ask 2 questions in 1 question) as well, so you have to try to interpret what they meant by it. Even then, I'll barely get in the red when I try to be worse than Hitler when answering questions.

>>8941746
>Also, in case you didn't know, things that are at critical mass tend to explode/'fizzle' rather quickly.
Wow, such a clear insight. You clearly belong on this board.

>>8933827
>>8933845

1 out of 10 in STEM is foreign born.
prob 2-3 others of those ten want to go to grad school and participate in research-private or public

Their research will most likely be funded by grants either way with maybe some private backing in some positions.
You fuck with people's funding or threaten to prevent them from pursuing shit they've wanted to all of their life, of course you'll get that response.

>>8935622

>A bunch of people 250 years ago did some bad shit so now it's ok for everyone else to do it.


Wtf kind of logic is that? America was also founded by slave-owners, so is owning slaves ok because Thomas Jefferson did it?

Kys.

>>8944959
>>8944959
Both Mandela and the founders were "terrorists" only because they were fighting an oppressive regime. But I guess the founders and Mandela was an uppity niggers who needed to learn their place.

>>8944507
>choose economically non-viable career
>gets upset over having lived on borrowed time their whole life
wew lad.

>>8945499


It's not about learning your place, nice projection retard. It's about killing innocent bystanders to pursue your own political ends and desires for power.

It's also about creating an aristocratic regime where all important political offices are occupied by family members.


Maybe take a break from being an edgy kid deepthroating terrorists because 'muh freedom fighters' and actually read a few history books. You'll come off less ignorant.

>>8935045


Democratic anti-science is far more harmful.

Right wing 'anti science': a bunch of people who believe in creationism.

Left wing 'anti science': people not getting vaccinated.


Before you start moaning about 'muh climate change', why care about something that'll happen after you die? Like objectively speaking it shouldn't matter unless you have kids. Not to mention the issue seems blown out of proportion, worst case scenario: half the world's population in 50 years dies from hunger. It will trim down overpopulated regions like Africa/South America/South Asia etc.

>>8946708
>wahhhh people die in war
No fucking shit. Mandela was considered a terrorist because he was opposing a regime that was allied with the US and was alleged to have communist sympathies.

Also, you don't know what the words "projection" and "edgy" mean.

>>8948528


>Defends terrorism because 'war'
>Uses word like regime and oppressive

You are definitely an edgy teenager. Did you come to 4chan/sci to find epic memes of neil degrasse tyson and bill nye?

>>8948805
I never defended terrorism, and I'm sorry if polysyllabic words scare you. It would be nice if /pol/ knew how to lose an argument gracefully instead of devolving into delusional stream of consciousness ranting every single time.