I think it's clear from your other comments cited here that you're exactly who I'm talking about: a gullible soldier of the culture war who has perfected the art of wasting endless quantities of time arguing online.
I think it's clear from your other comments cited here that you're exactly who I'm talking about: a gullible soldier of the culture war who has perfected the art of wasting endless quantities of time arguing online.
How is it “low-effort” to ask you to address a point raised in the article itself? The article talks about “decades” of complaints that the NSF isn’t focusing enough on applications. You’re the one who dismisses that in a low-effort way by saying “many people have many complaints.” I’m simply asking you to engage with the points in the article itself.
The fact that there’s been “decades” of complaints suggests it’s not some modern “culture war” issue. You’re the one who seems to be trying to shoehorn it into the culture war, instead of addressing the actual issue: the proper balance between fundamental research and applications.
The tactics of discourse you employ are tired and show no signs of improving. You've unfortunately lost the courtesy of a further response from me.
They don't have backing evidence and don't need it because they aren't starting from a position rooted in facts or logic, they start from a position rooted in feelings like "gender being a social construct makes me feel weird" and work backwards to whatever position they stake out.
The best move is always to aggressively call them out for what they are - gullible rubes at best and sociopathic liars at worst - and to not even bother engaging with the muck they sling.