12 January 2020 #MAGAanalysis #EO13959
Did We Declare War Against China In November?
I was tagged on a video that's going round this morning. It's got our new, very strange friend Simon Parks, Charlie Ward, and a gal, don't know her last name, named Danielle.
More from Pasquale "Pat" Scopelliti
More from World
A few thoughts on this sad development 👇👇
20 academics criticizing an paper is fine; good science, really
10000+ hate mail for studying schools in Sweden is insane
Anonymous docs/ prof (hiding in faceless accts) on twitter smearing researchers is insane
[thread] https://t.co/QYldLD3WO0
In April 2020, @jflier and I saw this coming
We saw increasingly heated and personal attacks against scientists merely for having a range of views on COVID19 (PS there is no playbook/ right ans)
Tying science to naked politics was also bad idea, we
Yet, repeatedly that is what happened. Twitter 'experts' displayed an absolute intolerance to other views
Folks who disagreed weren't just wrong, they were malicious actors spreading "disinformation"
Really? Someone worked for 25 years as faculty to suddenly spread lies?
Disinformation has been so misused that it has lost meaning.
I recently saw an ID doc & lab researcher in the UK be accused of spreading "disinformation"
hahah, get outta here, you are trying to say "i disagree" but your keyboard is broken
Personal attacks have become so bad that I have seen a lab researcher accuse a doctor of wanting to engage in inappropriate relationships with patients due to diverging views on vaccine messaging
Seriously? It was a low point even for twitter
20 academics criticizing an paper is fine; good science, really
10000+ hate mail for studying schools in Sweden is insane
Anonymous docs/ prof (hiding in faceless accts) on twitter smearing researchers is insane
[thread] https://t.co/QYldLD3WO0
Together with @ernkrans, I am interviewed in @bmj_latest: "We need to ensure that our researchers understand the concept and value of academic freedom and the responsibility that comes with it"https://t.co/AFjtbSfgjr
— Ole Petter Ottersen (@ottersenolep) February 18, 2021
In April 2020, @jflier and I saw this coming
We saw increasingly heated and personal attacks against scientists merely for having a range of views on COVID19 (PS there is no playbook/ right ans)
Tying science to naked politics was also bad idea, we
Yet, repeatedly that is what happened. Twitter 'experts' displayed an absolute intolerance to other views
Folks who disagreed weren't just wrong, they were malicious actors spreading "disinformation"
Really? Someone worked for 25 years as faculty to suddenly spread lies?
Disinformation has been so misused that it has lost meaning.
I recently saw an ID doc & lab researcher in the UK be accused of spreading "disinformation"
hahah, get outta here, you are trying to say "i disagree" but your keyboard is broken
Personal attacks have become so bad that I have seen a lab researcher accuse a doctor of wanting to engage in inappropriate relationships with patients due to diverging views on vaccine messaging
Seriously? It was a low point even for twitter
You May Also Like
The YouTube algorithm that I helped build in 2011 still recommends the flat earth theory by the *hundreds of millions*. This investigation by @RawStory shows some of the real-life consequences of this badly designed AI.
This spring at SxSW, @SusanWojcicki promised "Wikipedia snippets" on debated videos. But they didn't put them on flat earth videos, and instead @YouTube is promoting merchandising such as "NASA lies - Never Trust a Snake". 2/
A few example of flat earth videos that were promoted by YouTube #today:
https://t.co/TumQiX2tlj 3/
https://t.co/uAORIJ5BYX 4/
https://t.co/yOGZ0pLfHG 5/
Flat Earth conference attendees explain how they have been brainwashed by YouTube and Infowarshttps://t.co/gqZwGXPOoc
— Raw Story (@RawStory) November 18, 2018
This spring at SxSW, @SusanWojcicki promised "Wikipedia snippets" on debated videos. But they didn't put them on flat earth videos, and instead @YouTube is promoting merchandising such as "NASA lies - Never Trust a Snake". 2/
A few example of flat earth videos that were promoted by YouTube #today:
https://t.co/TumQiX2tlj 3/
https://t.co/uAORIJ5BYX 4/
https://t.co/yOGZ0pLfHG 5/
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?