political correctness gone mad

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

It's our racism that finds things that aren't science and holds them up "look, this isn't science", as if this somehow demonstrates no indigenous knowledge is science. That no capacity for scientific knowledge exists within a particular community.

Well then you'd need to define science.

I see science as the resulting knowedge gathered by using the scientific method. Test and prove. Test and prove again.

Is that too narrow of a definition for this?

Many applications of indigenous knowledge can't be empirically proven. Does it still get called science?

Chi flowing through meridians, spiritual healing mana of the tohunga.. You may as well get out the horoscopes and tarot cards now.

[Lightspeed]

Do you think it would be fair that any time we tried to explain our science to the Great Galactic Council members would always speak up for us and present psychology and horoscopes as representative of our bodies of knowledge?

Are you sure you know the full extent of Maori knowledge? Does anyone?

Or are indigenous communities somehow ignorant up until the moment they've been enlightened by the benevolent rigours of the Western scientific tradition?

[Ab]

Y'all are acting as if science is a body of knowledge. It isn't. Stop acting as if it is.

[fixed_truth]

Science is also about what questions are asked and who gets to ask them.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

Y'all are acting as if science is a body of knowledge. It isn't. Stop acting as if it is.

Who decided that?

Science can be thought of as both a body of knowledge (the things we have already discovered), and the process of acquiring new knowledge (through observation and experimentation—testing and hypothesising). Both knowledge and process are interdependent, since the knowledge acquired depends on the questions asked and the methods used to find the answers.

https://www.science.org.au/curious/p...e/what-science

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

Y'all are acting as if science is a body of knowledge. It isn't. Stop acting as if it is.

But people do act as if it is. And if my knowledge is scientific, then it's true, which means you have to do what I say. That's the place science holds in our culture.

Putting that aside the scientific method isn't this pure single thing, the process of finding what might be true has many different appearances, characteristics, as determined by the knowledge being sought. Your science, the work you're most familiar with may look very different than that of someone chasing very different knowledge.

[Ab]

The best thing about "scientific" knowledge is that the greatest accolades are reserved for those new voices who use the system to show that the thing that we thought was true is only PARTIALLY true. Or not true at all. It's a knowledge system that rewards newcomers for proving that their predecessors were wrong. Sometimes those rewards take a long time. But they come.

[Lightspeed]

I would expect a robust scientific method enables discoveries which rewards those able to apply such discoveries by allowing them to be more effective in their particular environment. Those producing such discoveries are by no means guaranteed any kind of personal benefit that corresponds with wider benefits their discoveries enable.

It's a very particular set of cultural values that places value on having your name recorded in books that students might learn from.

[Ab]

Here's an example of the sort of infantilist superstition that we're talking about.

A couple of months ago the scientific journal Nature published a paper following analysis of the water purity of some Antarctic ice-core samples. The TL;DR version is that starting about 700 years ago levels of atmospheric soot in the Antarctic ice tripled, and given the prevailing winds in southern latitudes the soot could really only have come from Tasmania, New Zealand, or the very bottom tip of South America. The directionality of the soot residue and the fact that homo sapiens coincidentally arrived in New Zealand 700-1000 years ago made the researchers really excited that humans might have been having environmental impacts on places that we thought were "untouched" for a lot longer than we thought. Because that's interesting.

This if course was offensive to New Zealand academics such as Sandy Morrison, acting dean of the Faculty of Māori and Indigenous Studies at the University of Waikato, who according to her bio is "an interdisciplinary researcher bringing Mātauranga Māori into many spaces".

The association of Māori with fire is longstanding. Mahuika goddess of fire gifted her fingernails of flames to enable us to have fire for warmth; fire for sustenance; fire to provide nutrients for the earth. We attribute and honour Mahuika. She is part of our whakapapa. Her mokopuna Māui attempted to reduce her power by tricking her into giving up all of her fingernails but she was able to outwit him, planting her flame into the trees so that fire would be freely available. Fire also defined our boundaries of authority as expressed in this whakataukī ‘ka wera hoki i te ahi, e mana ana anō’ meaning ‘while the fire burns, the mana is effective.’ We claimed occupation of our territories by the principle of ahi kaa, that is, we kept our home fires burning.

Through our Ātua, gods and goddesses, we developed deeply embedded practises and rituals and our relationship with fire was interdependent, reciprocal, beneficial and also very practical. Upon arrival to these lands, we relied on the aruhe or fernroot as part of our staple diet. We relied on the moa and other birdlife for food. Burning became part of our practises; regular burning allowed plants to regenerate and some of the minerals in the ash provided rich nutrients for the land. Regular burning facilitated hunting and access to hunting grounds. Such practises would be typical for any newcomers creating homes on unfamiliar lands to allow time to become acquainted with seasonal cycles, climatic conditions, finding the best places to lay out their plantations and hence their new settlements or kainga. No doubt some burning would not have been controlled as well as they may have planned, but this can be understood. It is not unlike any other peoples adjusting to new lands and new conditions.

The internationally authored paper by scientists who examined Antarctic ice core records to find that carbon emissions increased significantly from wildfires after Māori first arrived in Aotearoa is devoid of context, devoid of cultural understandings and is yet another example of what we have grown to expect from western science. It relies on measurements, modelling and silo thinking and the paper whether intentional or not, posits Māori as the ‘naughty’ offenders. Moreover, it reeks of scientific arrogance with its implicit assumption that somehow Māori have a lot to account for in terms of contributing to carbon emissions and destroying the pristine environment of the Southern Oceans and Antarctica.

#cringetopia

[Ab]

A male inmate who identified as a transgender woman after arrest groomed and raped an intellectually disabled female inmate after being transferred to a women's prison, a former correctional officer has stated.
…

Love was released earlier this year, and according to other inmates he immediately cut his hair and went back to using his male identity upon his release. His current whereabouts are unknown, and he has often been transient in the past.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...er-guard-says/

So glad this literally never happens

[fixed_truth]

Man attacks woman.

[Ab]

In response to a FOI request from a women’s rights group, the US Bureau of Prisons has revealed that almost 50% of trans-identified male inmates are in custody for sex offences, compared to just 11% of the general male population (and 4.7% of trans-identified female inmates).

Oops

https://4w.pub/50-of-trans-inmates-i...-sex-offences/

[Ab]

Yay women's sport

Transgender swimmer Lia Thomas was considered unbeatable by many in women's swimming, mainly because the now-female athlete spent three years swimming as a top-level biological male. However, the unrivaled Thomas met her match on Saturday at an Ivy League 100-meter freestyle with Yale and Dartmouth.

According to OutKick, Thomas was defeated in the 100-meter by Yale's own Isaac Henig, a female-to-male transgender swimmer.

https://thepostmillennial.com/yale-t...vy-league-race

Hold on, what? If Henig identifies as a man, why was he competing in the women's comp? Well, it turns out that he still technically qualified as a female because, well, that's what his body actually is. So they couldn't exclude him, and he decided to compete in the women's category because winning is winning, bitches. I guess you can swim faster when you've had your breasts removed.

[Ab]

I call on all decent-minded people to cancel their Spotify accounts because Spotify hosts the Joe Rogan Experience podcast and sometimes Joe Rogan's guests say words that do violence

[StN]

Originally Posted by Ab

I call on all decent-minded people to cancel their Spotify accounts because Spotify hosts the Joe Rogan Experience podcast and sometimes Joe Rogan's guests say things that do violence

I had heard about some of his trans comments, then heard an interview where he had a trans person on, and it didn't seem too inflammatory - perhaps he was misunderstood?

Then I heard one with a guy who claims to hold the patents on RNA tech and was all doom and gloom about the 'rona, and was leading anti-vax marches, and started encouraging everyone to join Trumps "Twitter killer".

Then I understood Mr Young's point of view given his background, and him getting Polio before he could get vax'd.

What really sold me on considering a move to Apple Music was bloody James Blunts ultimatum.

[smudge]

I thought we all moved to Apple Music ages ago because, like... sound quality?

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

I call on all decent-minded people to cancel their Spotify accounts because Spotify hosts the Joe Rogan Experience podcast and sometimes Joe Rogan's guests say words that do violence

I started considering the move away the day I was prompted to sign up for the Joe Rogan podcast. I hadn't heard of the deal, so I had a "wtf are you showing me this trash" moment.

Gus Johnson called it.

[fixed_truth]

I've no problem with people voting with their feet.

[Ab]

If there's one thing I know it's that we're #blessed to have people like Neil Young and Joni Mitchell and Harry Windsor telling us what's acceptable behaviour and what isn't. If they're calling for a boycott of Spotify, I know how where my dollars will be going.

[Ab]

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

If there's one thing I know it's that we're #blessed to have people like Neil Young and Joni Mitchell and Harry Windsor telling us what's acceptable behaviour and what isn't. If they're calling for a boycott of Spotify, I know how where my dollars will be going.

Is that how we make changes? The right set of people need to speak up/keep quiet?

[fixed_truth]

You'd think people are being forced to boycott Spotify.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Is that how we makechanges? The right set of people need to speak up/keep quiet?

[Lightspeed]

Pretty much the moment Spotify volunteered Rogan's podcast to me I knew my days using the platform were numbered.

You're telling me that response I had is somehow owned by US liberalism, whoever or whatever that is? I've somehow been involuntarily co-opted into that "they"?

Gus Johnson is US liberalism? I mean, he could be, I don't know him or them well enough. He did a whole "I treated my girlfriend wrong" video the other day. Is that all wrapped up in this?

[DrTiTus]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

You're telling me that response I had is somehow owned by US liberalism, whoever or whatever that is? I've somehow been involuntarily co-opted into that "they"?

Yes. If you were truly shocked you would have cancelled immediately, not waited until it became popular.

Personally, I'm keeping my Spotify subscription, because even though they promote Sam Smith to me, and I don't like Sam Smith, I know that I don't need to click the button that plays his music. I both get to enjoy the music I like, and avoid Sam Smith. But I'm old fashioned, so a modern day cancelling is perhaps just something I don't understand, and is necessary so that Joe Rogan still gets his $100M and you get to use a different platform. That'll teach him.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

Yes. If you were truly shocked you would have cancelled immediately, not waited until it became popular.

But I didn't wait.

[DrTiTus]

Then you're grade A liberal.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

a modern day cancelling is perhaps just something I don't understand, and is necessary so that Joe Rogan still gets his $100M and you get to use a different platform. That'll teach him.

The more the net customer number drops the more Spotify will consider if keeping Rogan on or renewing his contact is the right financial decision.

The Spotify situation is interesting because if enough artists pulled their music it could affect users who don't care about Rogan.

[DrTiTus]

Joe Rogan himself weighs in on the controversy

[smudge]

I fail to understand why anyone would want to listen to the guy Aren't enough old men in the world desperate to be listened to?

[Savage]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

The more the net customer number drops the more Spotify will consider if keeping Rogan on or renewing his contact is the right financial decision.

The Spotify situation is interesting because if enough artists pulled their music it could affect users who don't care about Rogan.

Has there been a net drop though? What if all the drama over this whole thing has only served to attract more people not only to Spotify, but specifically to JRE? I'd be interested to see the details on his regular listener numbers before and after this blow up. I suspect the current complaints about the poor payments from Spotify is more likely to drive artists away than this situation.

I don't listen to JRE regularly, but have watched a handful of his more interesting sessions with people of interest to me. I'd recommend anyone to listen to his shows with Brian Cox, NdGT, Lex Fridman, amongst others. ​No one can deny the guy is intelligent, and selects excellent guests for his show; whether that selection is intentional to antagonise certain elements of the population or not remains up for debate.

Rogan himself has said (paraphrasing) "Don't listen to me, I'm a moron. Listen to the experts." This is exactly why he's invited people heavily involved their respective fields to cover a current item of global interest. I completely appreciate Neil Young's stance given his history with Polio and the various health challenges his family have faced (and continue to face), but I think his anger is misplaced.

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by Savage

Rogan himself has said (paraphrasing) "Don't listen to me, I'm a moron. Listen to the experts." This is exactly why he's invited people heavily involved their respective fields to cover a current item of global interest.

I listened to him once or twice and his whole approach is "listen to every viewpoint before making up my mind" which sounds reasonable at first glance until you see the result, which is that things that are completely proven wrong are given equal weight to legitimate ideas because he's not personally smart or knowledgeable enough to actually tell what is true.

Really, few people are. Determining truth from falsehood, it turns out, requires a lot of experimentation and an organized classification of existing data, the sum total of which we generally call "Science" - the most important part of which is the ruthlessness with which bad ideas are filtered out.

If your reaction to that system is just "nah, fam, I'll figure it out for myself", you are pitting your own intuition against the hard work of millions of very smart people who have already addressed most everything you could ask. Guess what, you're going to lose and your brain is going to be full of nonsense.

[Ab]

It's a panel show. Some guests are entertaining and articulate, some aren't. Some guests are knowledgeable experts, some aren't. Some are just not interesting to me. Some are just plain wrong. Sometimes I listen to the ones who are wrong just so I can disagree with them in my head and make sure my disagreements make sense.

I skip most episodes because most are just not interesting to me. But some episodes are right up there as "best listening I've done on the Internet".

[Lightspeed]

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria..._rogan_jordan/

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Ab

I skip most episodes because most are just not interesting to me. But some episodes are right up there as "best listening I've done on the Internet".

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

I listened to him once or twice and his whole approach is "listen to every viewpoint before making up my mind" which sounds reasonable at first glance until you see the result, which is that things that are completely proven wrong are given equal weight to legitimate ideas because he's not personally smart or knowledgeable enough to actually tell what is true.

Exactly. And that's fine if like Ab you're pretty good at identifying bullshit. But a lot of people aren't (eg covid) and that's where misinformation can be a big problem.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria..._rogan_jordan/

The reply from KiwiHellenist is fantastic

[Lightspeed]

But how many people now going around telling themselves that the bible was the first book and building all kinds of wacky significance around that?

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria..._rogan_jordan/

see, that's not crazy at all to me, interpreted a certain way. Peterson says some wacky stuff but his bag is the Western intellectual tradition and in that sense yes the Bible was the first book. It was the first mass-produced major work of literature printed in Europe. After the Protestant Reformation it was in every non-Jewish non-Catholic household in the West. It was a book you literally had to have if you didn't want to suffer eternal damnation (or being burned at the stake, before eternal damnation). Nothing else. Just that book.

So, as far as Western culture is concerned, yes for most people and for quite a while there was literally one book, the Bible, and for almost all of those people it was the first book they had ever seen let alone possessed.

It's like saying, in an interview, "Star Wars brought sci-fi to cinema audiences". Well yeah in a certain sense for a certain audience that's true. And then some film sperg will make a big reddit post about Fritz Lang and the Lumiere brothers and a bunch of other spergs will point and laugh and pat each other on the back about their rightness and the wrongness of the OP even though it was a perfectly sensible comment.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by Ab

It was the first mass-produced major work of literature printed in Europe.

What stan told you that? Because it's not true.

Even changing it to "First mass-produced major work of literature printed in Europe on a movable type press" is a disputed statement.