I guess I mean presented in a more codified, formalized manner. Biden’s executive order on DIE is essentially another communist manifesto with neo-Marxist lexicon and definitions. I can find a link to Democrat related pedophilia by looking at the website of a non-profit called The Florence Project. They use a symbol recognized by the FBI as a pedophile symbol and have an interestingly odd photograph of a man pushing a child on a swing. To me, QAnon is nonsense pushed by people who would prefer to hide the truth with exaggeration via nonsense Twitter. It’s not anymore real than any other crazy thing out there. QAnon doesn’t exist in the realm of research. It’s noise.
The difference is that the critical theory nonsense left has captured institutional leadership, so, yeah, not going to disagree that you see it all the time. But Q is thriving quasi-underground in plain sight (if you know where to look).
Heh. Totally agree. But this is a mirror image of renaming buildings and honors because the old guys (almost always guys) did/believed/advanced some bad stuff. Gould's definition is, imho, exquisite, even though, I completley agree that, when it came to work involving people, he was a case study in science-infused propaganda. But its *still* an exquisite definition. Interestingly, it emerged from his engagement in the evolutional/creation science wars, on which he was on excellent scientific footing, rather than his work on humans, which was a mixed bag.
Totally agree with all that; it was what I was referring to earlier. It is a problem for all of us. I waded into the culture wars ass-backwards. My initial interest was just social sci validity, but kept seeing it first biased, then, worse, corrupted, by political agendas; and the worse that got, the more I leaned in to fighting it. Time passed. I blogged for Psych Today. My writing got better. I am no Pinker or deBoer or McWhorter, but I do sometimes have strong rhetorical flourishes. Problem is, that's like an amoral ring of power. And Nietzche was right, you fight monsters, you risk becoming one. I think I have mostly resisted that, but who the f knows? Anyway, I do think something like that happened to Gould. The other thing to keep in mind is that someone can be biased but still mostly right about most things, or even mostly wrong but right about some things. I do think Gould nailed how to think about what a scientific fact is, regardless of how far he later descended into an abyss of propaganda and activism camouflaged as science.
“Go to Twitter” is where the divergence occurs.
I guess I mean presented in a more codified, formalized manner. Biden’s executive order on DIE is essentially another communist manifesto with neo-Marxist lexicon and definitions. I can find a link to Democrat related pedophilia by looking at the website of a non-profit called The Florence Project. They use a symbol recognized by the FBI as a pedophile symbol and have an interestingly odd photograph of a man pushing a child on a swing. To me, QAnon is nonsense pushed by people who would prefer to hide the truth with exaggeration via nonsense Twitter. It’s not anymore real than any other crazy thing out there. QAnon doesn’t exist in the realm of research. It’s noise.
I see QAnon referenced constantly yet I have never actually come across whatever it is. I can however encounter critical theory nonsense all day long.
Oh, its easily findable. Go to Twitter. Then search the hashtag: #WWG1WGA. ("where we go 1, we go all"). Or see this report:
https://networkcontagion.us/reports/the-qanon-conspiracy-destroying-families-dividing-communities-undermining-democracy/
(including more searchable hashtags).
The difference is that the critical theory nonsense left has captured institutional leadership, so, yeah, not going to disagree that you see it all the time. But Q is thriving quasi-underground in plain sight (if you know where to look).
Heh. Totally agree. But this is a mirror image of renaming buildings and honors because the old guys (almost always guys) did/believed/advanced some bad stuff. Gould's definition is, imho, exquisite, even though, I completley agree that, when it came to work involving people, he was a case study in science-infused propaganda. But its *still* an exquisite definition. Interestingly, it emerged from his engagement in the evolutional/creation science wars, on which he was on excellent scientific footing, rather than his work on humans, which was a mixed bag.
Totally agree with all that; it was what I was referring to earlier. It is a problem for all of us. I waded into the culture wars ass-backwards. My initial interest was just social sci validity, but kept seeing it first biased, then, worse, corrupted, by political agendas; and the worse that got, the more I leaned in to fighting it. Time passed. I blogged for Psych Today. My writing got better. I am no Pinker or deBoer or McWhorter, but I do sometimes have strong rhetorical flourishes. Problem is, that's like an amoral ring of power. And Nietzche was right, you fight monsters, you risk becoming one. I think I have mostly resisted that, but who the f knows? Anyway, I do think something like that happened to Gould. The other thing to keep in mind is that someone can be biased but still mostly right about most things, or even mostly wrong but right about some things. I do think Gould nailed how to think about what a scientific fact is, regardless of how far he later descended into an abyss of propaganda and activism camouflaged as science.