>This will end at some point and that even beside the fact that electric car in reality create more pollution in vast majority of the world more than modern engines.
Is this thread being linked to by some Tesla short seller blog of what?
Surely this kind of misinformation isn’t organic to HN.
In my experience “SJWs” have their own religion and overwhelmingly seek out moderator positions on subreddits, forums, positions on the school paper’s editorial team, etc etc as their ideology fails when faced with the free flow of information. You can see this in just about any internet community, the only ones that are “left wing” are the ones that enforce strict moderation rules. Anything open course corrects right very fast.
The “Warrior” in SJW comes from their perpetual fight to ban, shadowban, moderate, de-rank, and delist opposing views.
You can deflect by suggesting these people are simply authoritarian, and not true social justice/left wing advocates. I would challenge you to investigate everything from reddit’s super mods to Wikipedia’s editor cartels. You’ll find they systematically infiltrate open communities and once in positions of power purge opposing views from leadership and begin to enforce ideological conformity. The people doing this are exclusively left wing soc jus types.
Outside of the internet I’ve seen this behavior in academia as well. It’s pretty amazing how downright fascist some of them will get when they think they’re in like company.
Do we need to start linking famous peoples tweets to show that your position is false?
Plenty of people jump on the “that’s racism” bandwagon. If they can’t attack the math they attack the author and make wild accusations about their intent.
Truth is treason in an empire of lies, and socially most would rather live with comfortable lies.
Do you have a citation for that? It’s not what we’re talking about – no one is being criticized for actual science – but the coverage I saw didn’t support that claim at all.
A citation? I shudder at the idea of lending an air of academic gravitas to Bill Maher's Real Time, but yes it's clear that jumping on the “that’s racism” bandwagon, as the gp put it, is exactly what Affleck did.
He was so angered by the statement, "We have been sold this meme of Islamophobia, where every criticism of the doctrine of Islam get conflated as bigotry against Muslims as people. It is intellectually ridiculous." that he went on the offensive and said, "That's gross, it's racist. It's like saying you're a 'shifty Jew.' You guys are saying: 'If you want to be liberals, believe in liberal principles, like freedom of speech"
Whatever your opinion about the acceptability of criticizing Islam over violence, sexism or treatment of homosexuals, it's clear that some people do equate that criticism with racism.
Ideological intolerance can often make people blind to nuanced positions, such as being open to a group of people but not all of their traditional beliefs.
> " no one is being criticized for actual science"
Take a look at what evolutionary psychologists and biologists have been facing over the past decade. The criticism coming form people who have little experience in their fields, but intense political and social beliefs, has been intense.
Re:Affleck, again, that’s not the claim being discussed. Nobody is being criticized for scientific study – this is just a bunch of rich elite men talking about politics.
That said, it also doesn’t match the claims you’re making. Affleck wasn’t saying that no bad had ever happened with Islam, but rather that it wasn’t good to make such broad claims about a huge and diverse population — note that each of the things mentioned are also true of Christians but we are far less likely to treat such blanket statements about them as useful or accurate.
> Take a look at what evolutionary psychologists and biologists have been facing over the past decade.
I’m well aware of that and you’re misrepresenting it. They’re not being criticized for actual science but for unsupported claims which aren’t supported by the scientific evidence but are conveniently close to existing political beliefs.
> note that each of the things mentioned are also true of Christians but we are far less likely to treat such blanket statements about them as useful or accurate.
The "rich elite man" Affleck was yelling at for criticizing Islam wrote two full books criticising Christianity earlier in his career and received very little blowback for them. In fact, those books are what made him a "rich elite man", as you put it.
>> Take a look at what evolutionary psychologists and biologists have been facing over the past decade.
> I’m well aware of that and you’re misrepresenting it.
How can you both be well aware of what I was thinking and that I was misrepresnting? I didn't even reference a specific incident! You've both mentally filled in an example and invented some misrepresentation you believe I've made about it.
