This is what happens when you start banning accepted science and threatening to take people's kids away. They could have gotten away with a lot more with fewer academic casualties if they hadn't been so public and aggressive about everything.
It's too bad that everyone in Florida has to suffer a worse economy and educational system so a few politicians can enshrine themselves for life, but many of those Floridians are voting for it.
That the country is “systemically racist” and that “men can be women” are not scientific facts. These are increasingly less prominent interpretations of various observed phenomena, and especially for a lot of the gender stuff: just preferred philosophy or cultural mindset. Because these areas both have political policy recommendations, they are just politics by definition.
In short, this is a shortage of politically motivated academics who bias their research and teaching towards political ends rather than the truth. Purging the university of these kinds is a major win.
Now you can discuss that objective truth but dismissing it as politically motivated, saying, without any cause, that the people who left those positions “ bias their research and teaching away from truth, and finishing with stating that a (objectively politically motivated) purge is a “major win” is the height of lazy, brain-dead thinking that might benefit from a little bit more education and a little bit less red-meat politics.
I suggest re-reading my comment again, but without the “I’m completely triggered by any mention of gender online” glasses that you’re clearly wearing right now.
It sounds like your observations about how people interact socially are as clear as watching a ball travel through the air. Is that right?
Wrapping those "things" in "politics" doesn't detract from the objective truth of the "thing", whatever that may be. It's merely a lazy distraction that reframes the debate in a way that favours the person or entity positioning themselves against the "thing" (for whatever reason). Here are some examples:
> The planet isn't getting hotter. These "scientists" are just begging for grant money and so have to say the planet is warming else they won't have a job!
> The planet is getting warmer. These "politicians" are just begging for oil-industry money and so have to say the planet is not getting warmer else they won't have a job!
> men cannot be women, anyone who says otherwise is just a politically motivated idiot trying to tear down good honest family values and those who indoctrinate our students with this nonsense should be purged
> men can be women, anyone who says otherwise is just a hard-headed idiot who must vote republican/conservative/other-bad-party, is probably racist and is trying to bring us drag us back into the stone age where women didn't have the vote. anyone who indoctrinates their kids with this nonsense should be purged
None of these unfortunately common arguments are actually saying anything, or are really about the actual "thing" in question. Just like the original comment I was replying to. The "thing" is a segway to attack the person.
The original commenter doesn't understand the nuances of systematic racism or sex vs gender any more than the layman. But that's not what they are attacking. They are attacking a perceived, fictitious persona that they don't personally like, or have been indoctrinated to not like by others. And that's lazy as hell.
Something tells me you wouldn't have made the same post if the politics were the other way around.
Could you provide some citations showing how this is becoming less prominent over time?
> Because these areas both have political policy recommendations, they are just politics by definition.
That’s interesting, don’t you think? Wouldn’t that discount most practical research as “politics”?
This stands out in a good faith reading as a real problem that commonly occurs. However, the preceding words "this is a shortage of" suggest that it is known that these specific academics perpetrate this problem. Is there a way for one who is currently uninformed to become informed about this?
> Because these areas both have political policy recommendations, they are just politics by definition.
This sounds like a Political Person can choose to co-opt my opinion as part of their Platform and then tell me that my opinion is Political. No, it's just an opinion; not everything is Politics.