If we want to combat misinformation we should be encouraging people to trust scientists
That sounds really grand on paper but in reality the societal definition of who a scientist is (and who is a credible scientist) is blurred to the point that you can piously disavow antivax conspiracy theories (some of them pushed by quack scientists with dubious qualifications) but also proclaim that even “shit science” should be freely released for all to see (with “race science” being mentioned in particular with you glibly disavowing knowledge of it) and you still haven’t provided a distinct measurable difference between the two.
You really seem to be more in favor of “race science” than antivax nonsense, and they are both nonsense.
Are you doing a blowhard long winded workaround way of calipers-free-but-still-racist “shitty” science under pious pretenses of it still being scientific enough to get attention?
Who is the arbiter of what compromises junk science, if not the scientific community?
Release all the science.
It’s clearly a losing battle within that community if you’re making excuses for “shitty” science getting attention that it both doesn’t deserve and that will actually harm people.
You’re conjuring up a false exaggerated position no one here took (“require many barriers to science”) and making dubious excuses for “shitty” science under pretense of “release all the science, shitty/false or otherwise” idealism.
EDIT: Fine. You quoted one person. That doesn’t justify making dubious excuses for “shitty” science under pretense of “release all the science, shitty/false or otherwise” idealism.
The media and the general population do not recognize any one single specific scientific organization as an authority to depend upon, so being smug about your claimed place in the ivory tower does nothing to stop people from getting false science from somewhere other than that ivory tower.
EDIT: And how exactly are those masses that you condescend to supposed to distinguish “shitty” science from outright false science? And why should “shitty” science things be given validity and attention (which may well include race science because you never said otherwise in this thread) while you somehow distinguish that away from antivax nonsense? They’re both nonsense but you seem to be making pious excuses for one kind of it.
Stating “post all the science” must feel good to say but it does nothing to stop the posting of false science calling itself science and many people going along with that. You yourself claimed (or feigned) ignorance of race science as false science, which shows just how insidious such things really are.
Imagining a fresh default computer with a new user just sitting down with no blockers of any kind and just wandering around is like imagining a baby sheep in a dark forest. sweat
let me pick one genocidal piece of shit to support so as to ensure I am not viewed as smug
Yes, you could at the least acknowledge depriving hundreds of thousands of people of food and water in the world’s largest operational concentration camp after decades of starving them slowly and sometimes shooting them is something worse than what the other side is doing, but the status quo suits you fine in your little happy bubble world. You got yours!
In my case, it was deliberate aggression because I had told him, in person and to his face, that those were protected native plants and I had a legal right to have them on my property.
But grillman “did me a favor” with a disgusting little smirk when I confronted him about it later. He even implied that I got nothing to prove what he did because I don’t have the surveillance state shit that he has on his side of the fence.
I went out of town for two weeks and he rode over and mowed my lawn.
This happened to me too. grillman are so violently obsessed with inch-high fuzzy green rectangles of obedience that they’ll sometimes invade your property to make more of them, overriding any of their own pretenses about the sanctity of private property in the process.