> I’m honestly shocked every time I read something like this. My first reaction is: where did this go so wrong? “Scepticism is violence”? Scepticism once was science! And everything I learned points to that it should be so.
The keyword that has to be pointed out is "violence".
From what I've been able to gather, there is a growing body of people within academic circles that view any & all conflicts as violent & destructive, and that should therefore be banned at all costs. The exceptions to that rule are when it comes towards the destruction of modernist ideologies, as a consequence of the mass application of post-modernist thought into STEM fields.
Reductively, they're engaging in a "Rules for thee, not for me" when it comes to academic rigor & objectivism: From a post-modernist lens, such qualia must be rejected in order to promote inclusion into the academic space, & that anyone not willing to follow this doctrine are engaging in "problematic behavior" as a consequence of such line of thinking.
> But then I think that I maybe get something wrong. Maybe I miss something on a deep level. Because so many seem to embrace “this” whatever it is. I can’t understand it. Can anyone?
As stated above, "this" is the systematic weakening of academic objectivism & rigor in order to promote inclusion into fields that had high requirements in the past. From a post-modernist perspective, they must be destroyed for the greater good.