Hacker News Reader

Comment by TaurenHunter | Hacker News Reader

Here is what the article author failed to understand:

If a grant for harvesting energy from radio frequency/WiFi mentions any woke point such as "promote equitable outcomes for ..."

...then its approval was tainted by wokeness - it doesn't matter that the main goal of the project itself isn't woke. It means grant money didn't go to another project that might be even more important but didn't pass the wokeness criteria because it didn't add those "kneel to Zod" keywords.

You can say it was a "false positive" and throw a tantrum but can't deny that the process was vitiated. Its approval didn't follow the strict goal of advancing science because of that shadow.

View on HN

First, the dataset we're discussing doesn't prove what you're suggesting. We'd need to look at a much larger dataset that includes awarded grants without this language as well as proposals that failed to receive grants to see if this is really the case.

Second, is this a problem? Should all government grants have a strict goal of advancing science? Doesn't the government have a interest in spending money in ways that promote equitable outcomes?

So when Congress tells you a grant must do X and write in it that you will do A, B, and C to achieve X and the grant is reviewed by independent experts who don’t give a shit about X it’s automatically bad science?

>It means grant money didn't go to another project that might be even more important but didn't pass the wokeness criteria because it didn't add those "kneel to Zod" keywords.

I think that's something that needs to be proven. The grant process is far more complex than just "included a sentence", they're evaluated by experts too.

Meanwhile the solution is to ctrl-f for "things that might mean what I don't like". The solution is more arbitrary, unscientific, and "kneel to Zod" than even the described problem.

Also none of this accounts for the possibility that a study might include words like "minority" and actually be of value, but under this kind of ctrl-f style cuts ... it could never be studied. So what are we talking about?

Required words bad, banned words good?

>I think that's something that needs to be proven.

No, the burden of proof is on the opposite side. You don't take money from the people and from other projects, to throw at woke projects. There has to be some clean up, even more so since the government spending levels are at a crucial point.

And who is doing the Ctrl F cut? Has it happened already?

There wasn't any cut yet. Ctrl F would be the very first step in reexamining the entire set - of which the author of the article only looked at a 100.

The fact is that these complaints are against transparency and responsibility in this process, which is incoming and much needed.

Naw I think the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

The process of awarding grants is available for people to look at. Your claim is not.

I want to ask as respectfully as possible if you read the article?

These are vague claims made by a politician, he is not demonizing these grants because he wants them to continue ... the intent here is not a mystery.

I'm all for removing any strange inclusion type requirements, but maybe see what happens after you do that for a while?

But let's be honest, Cruz and the current administration don't care about that, they want people scared and to make cuts. "Woke" does that for them.

The burden is absolutely on you to justify all that woke waste (that was promoted by other politicians that you favor) when the country is at a critical crossroad regarding unsustainable spending.

And that tactic of calling others names ("you're anti-science, anti-vaxx, anti-this, anti-that") is overused. Thankfully, no one outside your bubble is buying it anymore.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com