Why do most scientists don't care about politics or are

>>7716047
They dont and they arent.
>>>/pol/

>>7716051
Good refutation!

OP's a colossal faggot but colleges ARE getting kind of crazy with safe-space and appropriation bullshit.

STEM professors at yale got called 'out of touch' and 'disjointed from reality' for showing support for the professor who said that people should be allowed to wear halloween costumes and free debate should be encouraged

>>7716051
But they are, just ask Neil Smoke deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye the Kekold Guy

>>7716047
being left-wing gets them government money. being right-wing gets them oil company money.

>>7716047
>most scientists don't care about politics or are just left wing because that whats cool now?I
[citation needed]

>>7716047
Listen, /b/, it's nice that you are shifting back to right wing again. But pop-scientists aren't real scientists and their opinions do not represent us any more than my personal opinion represent the imagined "scientific community".

We don't care about politics because politicians aren't the modern drivers of change. Engineers are (suck it econfags).

File: in six games.jpg (31KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x375px

If you're a marxist or a socialist then you're probably unaware of economics. I understand why hippies are into anarcho-communism, but you'd think that marxist intellectuals would understand consequentialism is shit-tier ethics. The only answer is anarcho-individualism and deontology.

>>7716101
>deontology
Shit tier ethics tbqh. Literally kindergarten level reasoning. A mature individual capable of critical thinking will embrace nihilism.

>>7716101
i basically agree with your philosophy but it feels really edgy to do so thank god i'm anonymous

>>7716103
>>7716106
I'm actually an apolitical moral nihilist, but I think that most people believe in moral goods. I'll take people who respect the individual over collectivists any day.

>>7716109
I meant
>over collectives

>>7716081
>STEM professors at yale got called 'out of touch' and 'disjointed from reality' for showing support for the professor who said that people should be allowed to wear halloween costumes and free debate should be encouraged

That has nothing to do with STEM, you fag.

>>7716124
Except it does, because public perception of STEM and STEM professors is necessary to secure things like funding and grants for research.

If everyone thinks STEM graduates are behind the times and evil cis-racists for not respecting everyone's triggers and microaggressions why would they give them millions in funding?

Our world is becoming more and more politicized, you think a politician won't fund some bullshit social survey over real hard science just for the approval rating of the 'progressive' crowd?

File: Scientist_public_political_ideologies.png (69KB, 477x212px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 477x212px

It's not really a new thing, and it has nothing to do with the SJW cultist phenomenon. Scientists are "liberal" or apolitical/other because conservatism is hostile to the scientific mindset in general.

>>7716132
It's slowly becoming apparent that the current phenomenon is shifting more and more towards anti-intellectual viewpoints to preserve personal emotions. Things like free debate and expression in colleges are being fought against because they're 'microaggressions' now.

The question and debate on people's minds should be if it'll stop there. What happens when a group of people start protesting and saying research itself is racist?

>>7716047
I agree that the scientific community should stay in touch with what is 'big' in politics but only to know who to get away from. And I think that they are. Effectively, the wife of the guy who got shout at by a monkey at Yale got away from Yale. If you are scientist you do not want to be associated with that shithole.

But in general scientists should not care about politics because they are just stupid. A bunch of self-interested people literally trying to make up job positions to make money they don't deserve.

File: Political Orientatation by Highest Degree Achieved.jpg (70KB, 662x611px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 662x611px

>>7716132
That particular study is misleading and biased because it includes all the daycare lib art crapfucks like political science, social scientists etc. which greatly outnumber real scientists.

Pic related can give you a better idea of the real picture, though no one has done a comprehensive study in the recent decade.

>>7716047
politics is for people with too much ego and free time

>>7716160
>males only
>1984

>>7716131
Because the funding agencies will do what they want and do not care about whiny college students. The only people who care about them are said whiny college students, conservative columnists who will write clickbait articles about them, and /pol/acks.

File: percent-bachelors-degrees-women-usa.png (186KB, 873x907px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 873x907px

>>7716167
Because there were barely any females in STEM back then so male is most relevant. The female one is roughly the same and there is no table for combined gender.

It's the only study available that actually has fucking science degrees, unlike the bullshit propoganda studies written by sociologists who think they are real scientists.

>>7716176
Except not.

Yale is one of the foremost colleges in the US and it's student body has been completely taken over by this. Two professors have left because of the conflict generated by one of them writing an email about fucking halloween costumes and free speech. It's obviously a problem.

>>7716131

No it doesn't, because everyone was laughing at them, not just STEM people, you fag.

>>7716188
>barely any
>percentage of females in field changed by at most 10% from 1984
k

>>7716207
>Fixating on irrelevant peripheral points

You fit in well with these politically active leftist fuckwit types.

>>7716192
Not him. But they obviously had the biggest laugh considering people they didn't like lost their jobs.

You can deny it all you want, but OP has a point, this crap is your new reality. Stupid people like this are taking over higher education and ruining it.

>>7716047

truth is most hard sciences attract more level-headed people. the soft sciences attract libtards

the problem, frankly, is the exacerbation of college attendance by dem programs (same thing that led to the housing market inflation/collapse). basically, there's more of a "market" right now for libtardation than there would be in a healthy, normally functioning economy. government is going broke; the housing bubble popped too. bubbles pop, that's what they're designed to do.

note the female/male split in sciences and then juxtapose that with the male/female split in the electorate (Obama won women by 14%; Romney won men by 8%)

>>7716189
They should just say "Fuck you, I'm not resigning" to the University, assuming they were forced to resign.

>truth is most hard sciences attract more level-headed people. the soft sciences attract libtards
Exactly. Humanities departments at schools like Yale mostly serve as extended babysitting/finishing school for the children of the wealthy and powerful. This has little to no effect on the STEM departments.

The worst thing that will happen will probably be a greater push for more women in "CS", by which I mean "whatever will get women a nice job in Silicon Valley". For other scientists identity politics on campus is a joke.

>>7716047
>Why do most scientists don't care about politics or are just left wing because that whats cool now?
Most do care about politics and there have been lefty scientists for ages. Indeed, there were loads of left wing scientists persecuted during the McCarthy era, when being left wing was just about as far from acceptance as possible!

>>7716233
They weren't forced to resign - Yale even sent out a standing public offer if they wanted to come back to teach.

They got the fuck out because groups of students harassed and screamed threats at them in the middle of campus for this perceived crime and the university did jack shit

>>7716047
Also, freedom of speech and opposition to censorship are very liberal ideals and not the domain of the left wing. You don't understand politics, and misunderstanding of terminology is triggering me ;-)

>>7716242
I would've just quit the housemaster job rather than deal with these retards. Anyway, it's not like any of them are going to do anything other than whine loudly.

>>7716240
>Most do care about politics and there have been lefty scientists for ages. Indeed, there were loads of left wing scientists persecuted during the McCarthy era, when being left wing was just about as far from acceptance as possible!

What gets called "left" politics nowadays is basically racial nationalism for minorities.

>>7716245
But its strange how liberals want censorship and no freedom of speech

>>7716251
These people don't even have political positions, only narratives of racial oppression.

>>7716251
That's because "liberal" in today's colloquial speech doesn't actually correspond with the term's politological definition any more than "fascist" does.

File: 1402707598454.png (183KB, 477x318px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 477x318px

>>7716132
>>7716132

>Oppose GMOs
>Oppose nuclear fission/fusion power
>Believe vaccines give you autism
>Muh designer babies
>Rampant chemophobia

>Hurr reality has a liberal bias, Democrats are the party of science

>>7716047
Conservatives generally hate spending money on basic science. If you want expanded nsf and nih funding, you want democrats in control of science funding. You are welcome to disagree with liberal social policies, but a vote for the GOP is a vote for ignorance.

>>7716251
Modern politics has shifted the meaning of words like conservative and liberal. That's why you have to create new terms like SJW and neocon to more accurately describe their ideology.

>>7716269
>Oppose nuclear fusion power
eh m8? I didn't know any political party actually had a stance on fusion power yet.

And what kind of a fucking retard do you have to be to oppose fusion research anyway? Is it because it has the word "nuclear" in it?

File: Stinky.jpg (42KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 640x360px

>>7716047

Why don't you care enough about the English language not to speak it like a Goddamn moron?

>>7716282

https://jaycueaitch.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/greenpeace-on-fusion/

>>7716300
>>7716282

Should have included this one too.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/fusion_greenpeace_no/

>>7716282
>Is it because it has the word "nuclear" in it
Not him, but yes.

File: 2015.png (207KB, 853x478px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 853x478px

>>7716269
>reality has a liberal bias
Liberals are definitely the queens of smugness.

>>7716273
Uhm, no, Obama has bleed R&D dry. GOP spends a lot on defense research which gets pumped into everything from particle accelerators to space tech.

Voting for socialists will have most of your grant money heading towards poor people's health care.

>>7716132
Back when conservatism was the norm government spending on scientific research as at a record high.

But as the decades go the public has become more and more liberal and guess what, government spending on science has been going steadily down.

>inb4 correlation does not equal causation

I know but all I'm saying is that if you to your nearest gender studies major and ask her grade school tier trivia questions about science she will know shit about it. That is why there are feminists now that say that BIOLOGICAL sex is a social construct. Sexual identity is one thing but BIOLOGICAL sex? You gotta be kidding me.

If you wanna do your homework, you can find plenty of examples of how liberalism and liberals in general encourage ignorance.

*coming from a self-proclaimed liberal. I'm all for equal rights, abortion and all that jazz and even I see how the general liberal public is flawed.

>>7716188
What the hell is going on with computer science in that picture? It was almost 40% in the 80's. What happened? Was it that Personal Computers became a "Male Nerd" hobby?

>>7716345
>Back when conservatism was the norm

What are you even talking about?

>>7716273
Are you serious.

Look at how much federal research grants and spending has fallen in the past few years. People are resorting to crowdfunding actual research projects because of it.

>>7716351
Computer science basically used to mean being a data input clerk. Those degrees weren't related to what we would consider computer science now.

>>7716355
It's the thing about politicians.

Everytime they run a platform based on "fixing the economy" what they really mean is they're going suck R&D dry to fund short term Keynesian boosts.

Great for your immediate poll numbers. Disastrous for the long term future of humanity.

Scientist here.

I don't believe in political parties, I just pick whoever is less awful. In general, that tends to be a democrat though. If Republicans wanted me to vote for them all they have to be is reasonable.

>>7716354
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

>>7716251
>But its strange how liberals want censorship and no freedom of speech
It's strange how you've created a boogieman that doesn't exist.

>>7716425
Why are you voting if no one represents your interests?

>>7716101
>Anarcho-communism
What the fuck is that? How is that even a thing?
>anarchism
No central power
>communism
Centrally controlled economy

>>7716488
>How is that even a thing?
Because you don't know what words mean.

>>7716488
Anarcho-communism is basically living in communes or tribes. It's the ultimate hippy bullshit.

>>7716488
>What the fuck is that?
The community collectively owns the means of production.

Nigger, do you live in the eighties? You can type any word into the address bar of your browser and get a definition in less time than it takes you to scratch your balls.

>>7716510
Just sounds like a bullshit ideology to me

>>7716524
That's because it kinda is. Mostly because one commune having all the production facilities to enable it to live comfortably by modern standards is pure fantasy until we get shit like nano-scale fabrication.

watching american """discuss""" politics really is amazing

>>7716440
Because not voting is the same as allowing idiots to win. Not voting is not an option if you care at all about your life.
Also, they do represent my interests, just not all of them. I choose who is most closely aligned at the time. It's kind of stupid to just throw your hands up and not participate just because someone who doesn't have all the exact same thought you have isn't running. That's not helping anything.

>>7716488
>>anarchism
>No central power
This is false, in political terms, anarchism=/=chaos. Nor does it necessarily mean lack of central power.
In punk rock music and edgelord speak, you may be correct.

>>7716533
Watching non-Americans try to spell correctly really is amazing.

>>7716558
Anarchism, by definition, is the lack of authority.

>>7716650
Exactly. And anarcho-communism is voluntary communism.

File: god.jpg (14KB, 180x244px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 180x244px

>just because it's cool
Who? Meme "scientists" like Black Science Guy don't count.

Anyway pic related was the highest form of humanity.

File: Laughing Anakin.jpg (56KB, 342x342px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 342x342px

>>7716047
>women's studies,african-american studies and fat studies
>Scientists
Either way, over here in Yuro, many right-win parties cuts funding to universities and research.

>>7716355
Which party do you think is in control of the House and Senate right now? The reason spending has dropped off is because the Republicans in charge of drafting the budget are extreme right-wing nutjobs who honestly believe the government has no purpose but to protect the property of the ruling class. The president may be a democrat, but the GOP has vastly more governing power on a federal level right now than any liberal boogieman. Or they would, if they could agree with one another long enough to make policy.

>>7717298
>The reason spending has dropped off is because the Republicans in charge of drafting the budget are extreme right-wing nutjobs who honestly believe the government has no purpose but to protect the property of the ruling class
thank goodness, too

>>7716047
>left wing

They're moderate left / progressives. Few, if any, are far left postmodernist hippies you see on twitter. Stop grouping them all under the same label as "left wing". It's just as bad as grouping nazis and conservatives together with "right wing".

>>7716047
>muh rising of the left
>muh libruls
>muh political correctness oppressing me
>muh censorship
>muh free speech in academia
just fuck off back to /pol/, it's pretty evident from your poorly-written post that you don't belong here.

Stop trying to turn every board into a vehicle for your faggy little neo-reactionary crusade. Noone cares and everyone you know IRL thinks you're a fucking sperg for caring about this shit.

>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/

>>7716269
Now imagine how bad the Republicans are for Democrats to be considered the party of science.

>>7716047
Scientists will support whoever will give them funding

If you work at a National Lab in California or Chicago fuck yes you're voting Democrat. If you work somewhere like the Idaho National Lab you're going to be sitting on your hands doing jack shit because politicians don't want to give you any projects because your state didn't vote for them.

It's really not that hard.

>>7716047
I refuse to believe that baseless fear that people have of some ultra-liberal dystopia of cultural studies. It's just a rediculous, unfounded fear.

>>7717346
>It's just a rediculous, unfounded fear

Have you been on twitter lately?

File: back-to-pol.jpg (35KB, 490x290px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 490x290px

get thee back unto /pol/ whence thou camest

>>7716160
>That particular study is misleading and biased
>Posts study from 1984

>>7716047
Exactly because they dont care about politics and want to seem likeable. Although any mentally stable intelligent western human who has delved into politics is most likely true libertarian.

File: 1446905270326.jpg (74KB, 603x627px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 603x627px

>>7716047
Cu᠎cks.

>>7716222
>Debate forfeited

>>7716331
Scientists (or educated people in general) are respected in socialist countries. Scientists (along with the bureaucrats) were the upper echelon of Soviet society. They did not prioritise sports stars, actors, or musicians like Western culture does. Also, Obama is more of moderate globalist than an actual liberal. If he were a true liberal he would have actually closed Guantanamo like he said he would, put bankers on trial, given us single payer health care (not this subsidized system), not bail out failing corporations, not killed more civilians in drone strikes than any other president, not incarcerate more victimless criminals than any president. A real socialist would put funding in education and scientific research. QED.

File: 1450008119306.jpg (192KB, 543x836px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 543x836px

>>7716438
True!The world is wonderful!

File: 1450008725595.jpg (261KB, 1330x772px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 1330x772px

What could go wrong?

>>7717735
Fuck. That is so aggressive. Why do people accept this? Why isn't the government doing something about this?

>>7717731
refuse to believe this

>>7717735
I prayed to a christian god when I was that young and still grew out of it, I don't see the difference if it's just a different magic sky fairy.

>>7717749
The difference being that a nominally secular institution didn't force you to attend Westboro Baptist Church when you were a child and called you a racist if your parents refused.

>>7716132
>because conservatism is hostile to the scientific mindset in general.
Except it was conservative catholics who invented science in the first place
And this atheistic/secularist slant to "science" is a very recent thing

But I guess facts don't matter to scientists, who are mostly psychiatrists anyways.

>>7717747
>Why do people accept this?
What can they do about it? If the parents try argue their case they will be branded racists and likely fired from their jobs. There's a reason more and more people are starting to vote for right wing parties again and it's not because they are actually conservative. I mean christ the Swedish party leading in the polls right now are literal Nazis who citizenship to be based on a genetic test, you really think Swedes want that? No, they just don't want to pay to have half their country fill up with ghettos of people who hate the ethnic population paying for their living costs. It's because this PC religion has destroyed all rationalist discourse through fear, media manipulation and outright terrorism.

>>7717747
the government is the one mandating it because it's run by treasonous leftists

File: 1439354573929.png (43KB, 686x497px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 686x497px

>>7717758
Lol Sweden.

File: 1444481294531.png (664KB, 585x754px) Image search: [Google]

664KB, 585x754px

>>7717761
It's not as if other Western countries aren't doing the same anti-white shit though.

>>7717778
I bet they are from the Yakuza gang!

>>7716047
Right wing: More likely to cut funding, less likely to increase it. Far too anti-intellectual.
Left wing: Less likely to cut funding, more likely to increase it. Not seen as anti-intellectual.

Why the fuck would you vote against your own interests?

And aside from that, most scientists are either fairly left wing or centrist. Just from my experience, anyway. The craziest, most far-left ones have the loudest voices and the outliers keep quiet.

>>7716047
Cunts who post thumbnails should be shot. Fuck you.

>>7717796
Yeah, you can see from the pictures they're all Muslims, but that would be too racist for the Mirror to report so instead they're "Asians" which is a step up from their usual norm of refusing to give out any info unless it's a ethnic who committed the crimes in which half the article will be the words "white male".

>>7717778
>daily mirror
Hahaha nice try there mate

>>7717797
But that's not true.Just read the thread. I have no idea how someone who proclaims to be a free thinker is so easily manipulated by hipster media imagery.

>>7717797
But you dont need left or right.There was something done in 1933 which was as pro science as it can get but people are scared of talking about it because it hurts their feeling.

>>7717802
Dude, they literally talked to this in the house of commons once, it was a huge scandal when the labour MP responsible for it was reelected. I get that it's Britbong politics, but have you been living in a cave or something? Things like this aren't exactly rare.

>>7717747
Because the only people who aren't brainwashed by the fact that most Islamists are evil are other Muslims:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSPvnFDDQHk

Conservatism is too emotional. Gets in the way of logical thinking.

>>7717803
But that's the truth. Right wingers cut funding, left wingers bolster it, by nature. That goes for pretty much everything, it's not just hipster media imagery.

And aside from that, you know it to be true that right wingers are global warming "skeptics" and creationists all too often.

>>7717824
>But that's the truth. Right wingers cut funding, left wingers bolster it, by nature.
[citation needed[

Socialists policies drain scientific funding to put into welfare. The Democrats cut NASA funding.

>>7717830
>Socialists policies drain scientific funding to put into welfare.
What? Generally, they would try to fund both. They're not mutually exclusive.

And in looking at the numbers for NASA, it seems more like a gradual decline in funding rather than an outright cut. Not by any specific party, either.

>>7717824
>Right wingers cut funding, left wingers bolster it, by nature.
literally not true in the slightest
and you assume all "scientists" work for the government

>>7717836
>Generally, they would try to fund both
Except there aren't infinite resources, in hosing between feeding few hundred black orphan babies and funding your "stupid particle accelerator", they always choose the former.

The reason the majority of engineers and most informed applied scientists vote conservatively is because lower taxes allows them to reinvest in their own companies, ideas, and research.

Your mindset is very high-school hipster-esque with your attempted dichotomy perpetuated by media stereotypes of reddit science fanboys, it just doesn't reflect reality. I'm not trying to insult you, I was the same when I was younger.

No politician cares about science because it's something they can cut and no one will notice, things that give them better votes and polls are passing expensive health care bills and "improving the economy" in the short term by cutting R&D and reinvesting in other areas.

We don't have any friends on capitol hill. The democrats for example when they propose to cut "defense spending" what they are really cutting is the defense RESEARCH spending where the majority of our grants come from, not actual defense. They are not your friends. That's why we vote republican because at least the idiots steal less of our tax money to dump into their stupid sociological pet projects, so we can use our profits from tech companies for more research.

I was linked to this thread from /pol/ but it's just a bunch of autists arguing with each other.

It's like I never left.

>>7717863
>Except there aren't infinite resources, in *choosing between...

>>7717861
I do not. I also do not assume all doctors work for the government. However, I do know that all hospitals get grants and funding directly from it, and many would go bankrupt or drop anything unnecessary like research if they weren't.

The market does not naturally uphold anything it sees no immediate interest in.

Nice slippery slope fallacy OP. In the USA, science swings left only because the right is anti science and doesn't want to fund their programs unless it makes direct economic gain. A lot of science is long term though, so it sort of fundamentally disagrees with some of the anti-investment mindsets the right has adopted.

The left here is more inclined to see the value in academia, and so academia, and science, swings in favor of them.

Reminder that this is a shitty attempt at a /pol/ raid >>>/pol/58291225

>>7717873
>thread made a day later is somehow a "raid" attempt

>>7717878
>come here and red pill /sci/
>not a "raid"

>>7717880
>implaying that is made from the same person
>barely 5 posts
are you ok?

>>7717863
>Except there aren't infinite resources, in hosing between feeding few hundred black orphan babies and funding your "stupid particle accelerator" they always choose the former.
You don't need to pick one or the other. And they generally try to fund both, if possible. The only example you've given me is false, regarding NASA.
>Your mindset is very high-school hipster-esque with your attempted dichotomy perpetuated by media stereotypes of reddit science fanboys,
Says he who claims we must either choose between a bunch of black babies or a particle accelerator. They would pick both given the chance, and even then, you're making my generalization so ridiculously case specific. A case that would never happen, either.
>it just doesn't reflect reality. I'm not trying to insult you, I was the same when I was younger.
"pshh, nothing personnel...kid"
>No politician cares about science because it's something they can cut and no one will notice,
I'm not claiming one side is better than the other in any way, but generally, democrats will vote to spend more, republican will vote to spend less. That carries on to scientific research whether or not we debate the topic.
>We don't have any friends on capitol hill. The democrats for example when they propose to cut "defense spending" what they are really cutting is the defense RESEARCH spending
And the problem in this case is?
>That's why we vote republican because at least the idiots steal less of our tax money to dump into their stupid sociological pet projects, so we can use our profits from tech companies for more research.
So we get bigger iphones. Whoo hoo.

>>7717880
Why are you not addressing the fact that thread was made a day later?

I don't want /pol/ faggots here anymore than you -supposedly- do, but you are arguing very much like a typical political activist fuckwit.

This is obviously not a raid. Half the population votes right wing parties. It's probable that someone like OP would make a thread like this.

>>7717885
>are you ok?
Are you?

>>7717872
There's two simple ways of disproving everything you just said.
1) Who's the pro-war party?
2) Who pays the most for pseudo-science gender studies "scientists"

>>7716047
>>7716047
Most scientists are politically irresponsible, that's how it goes. They do science and they're busy doing it, that's all.

If anything, they are against the poisonous liberal logic. I can't find the link right now where liberals bitched at STEM professors for not supporting their bullshit narrative.

>>7717873
Plz report /pol/fags at >>>/pol/58291225
Report OP
End politics shitstorms on /sci/
End /pol/kuck shilling

>>7716047
>>7716051
>>7716054
>>7716081
>>7716082>>7716088
>>7716089
>>7716092
>>7716101
>>7716103
>>7716106
>>7716109
>>7716112
>>7716124
>>7716131
>>7716132
>>7716148
>>7716156
>>7716160
>>7716162
>>7716167
>>7716189
>>7716192
>>7716207
>>7716222
>>7716224
>>7716225

>>7717886
>You don't need to pick one or the other
It's obviously a balance, but you obviously do have to favour one or the other.

> The only example you've given me is false, regarding NASA.
By your own admission it was true. You said democrats increased funding. I said that's BS. You're delusional, they cut it. Now you're shifting goal posts because you saw you were wrong. I never claimed that anyone increased funding, just that democrats cut just as if not more than republicans, but have a nett effect of hampering technological progress due to raising tax and spending it on socio-beuaracratic nonsense.

>They would pick both given the chance,
And you really think republicans wouldn't? Are you really THAT brainwashed?

>A case that would never happen, either.
Expect we don't live in a post scarcity society and you in fact do need to make a choice.

>And the problem in this case is?
The fact that they're cutting spending, including energy research spending which come from a lot of dod grants, is important to me and the scientific community.

>So we get bigger iphones. Whoo hoo.
I'm doing fundamental research and my grant is funded by a private company. Try being less of an asshole who thinks companies are faceless evil entities.

>>7717900
>Plz
Please report SRS shills
Report >>7717900
End SJW politics shitstorms on /sci/
End SJW shilling

>these smug liberals
At least religious conservatives are outright with their disproval of science.
On the other hand, Democrats claim to be the party of science while at the same time rejecting any scientific research that might "offend someone".
Just really goes to show that the only true scientific party are independence. And Liberals who love "science" are just popsci memers.

>>7717900
>HELP MODS THEY ARE SAYING THINGS I DON'T AGREE WITH
How very unscientific of you, popsci memer.
Shouldn't you be watch the latest Numberphile video, and talking about how many holes are in a coffee cup compared to a hula hoop

>>7717901
>It's obviously a balance, but you obviously do have to favour one or the other.
No, you don't.
>By your own admission it was true. You said democrats increased funding. I said that's BS.
Great. They do increase it, generally. In the case for NASA, neither party is at fault specifically.
>You're delusional, they cut it. Now you're shifting goal posts because you saw you were wrong.
No. I said left wingers bolster funding and right wingers cut it. The point stands. Except perhaps you would still like to deny a generalization that is normally true and scream more about NASA.
>And you really think republicans wouldn't? Are you really THAT brainwashed?
No, I know that they wouldn't, and I think you do too.
>Expect we don't live in a post scarcity society and you in fact do need to make a choice.
But you don't. I mean, really, there's no single choice we have to make here. It's not either or.
>I'm doing fundamental research and my grant is funded by a private company. Try being less of an asshole who thinks companies are faceless evil entities.
Really? Care to enlighten?

btw, I don't think companies are faceless evil entities, I just don't think you can expect a private moon landing (or an equivalent to the leap made in the 1960s) from them any time soon

>>7717930
>No, you don't.
Yes, you do.

If you have one dollar and you need to divide how to split it, you can't pump 95 cents into welfare and saying aren't favouring welfare over R&D; especially when another party promises put 60 cents into science and only 40 cents into welfare. Your policy absolutely favours welfare and other socialism schemes.

This is really not a difficult concept to understand. Resources are finite. Even at a 100% tax rate the government has finite money to spend.

>No. I said left wingers bolster funding and right wingers cut it. The point stands.
No, the point does not stand, the centre point has been refuted by my counter argument was that NASA's funding was cut which is true and you have shown zero proof that there is a nett increase in funding and you won't find any because it's bullshit. They invest in popular in popular meme research like green and environmental science which looks nice to the press while cutting most R&D elsewhere, like fundamental research and NASA.

>I mean, really, there's no single choice we have to make here. It's not either or.
I never said either or in absolutes, I said you can make a choice to favour one or the other.

>>7717955
>especially when another party promises put 60 cents into science and only 40 cents into welfare.
Which is certainly not the case for republicans.
>Your policy absolutely favours welfare and other socialism schemes.
Even if they preferred welfare over funding research, it's more funding for research than you will get with the alternative.
>This is really not a difficult concept to understand. Resources are finite. Even at a 100% tax rate the government has finite money to spend.
But divvying up how you spend does not mean you must go with only one or the other, which is what it sounded like you were saying before.
>No, the point does not stand, the centre point has been refuted by my counter argument was that NASA's funding was cut which is true
Yes, it is true. But this is beside the point. The better party at the end of the day is democrat with respect to how they spend on this issue. Neither is allowing for enough funding, for certain, we can only want for more, but democrats are what you want to be in office at the end of the day if you want a chance to have anything.
>and you have shown zero proof that there is a nett increase in funding and you won't find any because it's bullshit.
Seriously?
>They invest in popular in popular meme research like green and environmental science
Meme research >>> Grossly overspending on the military
>which looks nice to the press while cutting most R&D elsewhere, like fundamental research and NASA.
like NASA is what you mean
>I never said either or in absolutes, I said you can make a choice to favour one or the other.
But, anon, you can "favor" them equally :^)

>>7716425
Please don't pretend Democrats are in any way, shape, or form, reasonable in current year.

File: Party-support-by-education-level.png (14KB, 420x714px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 420x714px

Why would any rational person vote republican? The party is literally for overly-religious people afraid of the government taking away their guns.

>Wants to make abortion illegal because of "ethical" (religious) reasons despite benefits to society
>Believes a flat tax is actually "fair" or in some way "best for the country" (best for the rich)
>Doesn't support homosexual marriage (once again for religious reasons)

They are right on a few issues to a small extent (for example; border control should be much better but deporting everyone is retarded).

>>7717900
>HELP MY FEELINGS ARE BEING HURT BY PEOPLE FROM A GROUP I DON'T LIKE

If anything, you strongly support the case they're making of needing to redpill /sci/

>>7718083
>Why would any rational people support x?
>Here's an ill-willed simplification of their policies in the worst possible sounding way

Liberals are the worst. I used to think just like you, was under the impression that republicans were old white religious people who didn't know shit. But I stopped being an indoctrinated faggot and actually read about stuff and looked for sources on claims, and lo and behold, liberals are lying, corrupt pieces of shit 99 times out of 100 whose main goal is to get the moral highground so their enemies look like the bad guys.

Are you really surprised that more college kids are liberal? Have you seen how retarded campus are in the US? The missou shit is just one example of a very strong trend of degeneracy in US colleges (still not in STEM THANK GOD, but they're mad STEM professors don't support their shitty narrative, I can't find the link about that right now)

>>7718014
compared to republicans, yea they are

the fuck

>>7716425
>Democrats
>Reasonable

"Why should we do X? It's 2015!" is not being reasonable. Advocating for censorship and racist policies that favour certain groups because of shitty irrelevant reasons isn't being reasonable. Pushing debunked, intentionally wrong statistics to fund policies that don't benefit anyone but make them seem morally sound isn't being reasonable.

File: one.png (189KB, 852x593px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 852x593px

>I am a scientist
>I support modern liberalism

1/5

File: two.png (198KB, 439x436px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 439x436px

>I study STEM
>I support cultural marxism

2/5

File: three.png (55KB, 650x280px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 650x280px

>I value logic and mathematics
>I support censorship and pushing false statistics

3/5

File: four.jpg (25KB, 534x160px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 534x160px

>I am politically responsible
>I support whoever sounds like a good guy and don't research claims made

4/5

File: five.jpg (52KB, 638x638px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 638x638px

>I work for the world to be better though science, math and engineering
>I support splitting people into groups and fostering confrontation between them

5/5

>>7718105
Literally fucking how

Dems are pushing for gun control, which is a violation of 2A, their hysterical moronic base wants speech control on top of that, they want to legalize our 10+ million illegals, and bring in even more which will further crush the middle class, want to tax businesses and individuals even more when the economy is shit, bring in more refugees and Muslims despite presenting an obvious risk to both life, culture, and liberty, and are running a socialist and fucking Hillary Clinton, who would shoot you 3 times in the head if it would further her career, for president. Oh and black lives matter, which is why we need to keep up the policies that have been destroying blacks and poor people since the 60's, because #YOLO.

Please fucking tell me how they're in any way rational when confronted with the reality of the world and country.

File: 1449616329009.jpg (110KB, 1440x1425px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1440x1425px

>>7718083
This country wouldn't exist without the private ownership of military arms.

Abortion is literally literally LITERALLY ending a potential life, at best, so please don't pretend that you're somehow able to take any sort of moral or societal high ground on this issue.

Flat tax would actually work if you canned the other gorillion taxes.

Marriage is a religious institution that the government has no business being involved in at all. If gays want to live together then nobody fucking cares, but to force the church and religious people to wed them is a clear and present violation of their own religious liberties to not partake in your idiocy.

I don't need you pinheads up in my business or taxing fucking everything and anything you can think of, much less justifying the murder of babies while crying about niggers shooting each other over drug deals gone wrong.

>>7718140
>muh guns

The longest period this year between incidents of gun violence involving more than four victims hasn't been longer than eight days.

How is pushing for gun control in this situation not reasonable?

>>7718095
Have you browse /pol/ for one second? I know that the board is pretty extreme but there is still a large portion of republicans that actually in the stupid nonsense spouted on that board.

My main point of my post was that the republican stance on a lot of issues is deeply connected with christian belief and the economic policy is designed to benefit the already rich and powerful. Religion has its place, but its place should not be at the mantle of social policy, affecting the lives of the non-practitioners. I cannot think of a single way that the Republican party being in charge would benefit a semi-poor asian student who likes to study Mathematics, as well as anyone whom I know and love, at all.

The ideal party would not cater to irrational thought and religious belief, and would definitely not promote inequality with retarded "flat tax" policies. This is where the republican party fails.

>>7718162
Because gun homicides are down 50% since 1990, while ownership is up, and gun laws are less restrictive than ever?

The states/towns with extremely high ownership of guns have very low incidents of gun homicide, while cities/states with strict controls have much higher levels of gun homicide.

I don't know what twisted view of reality you need to ever rationalize the removal of the power of the people to keep and bear arms, but it's not this one.

>>7718162
Your hypothesis that gun control will reduce violence and shootings is just that, a hypothesis. It remains to be tested or argued for/against, which you haven't bothered to do. It simply "sounds good" so you go with it.

The fact of the matter is, if you look at actual statistics and data, gun control does not reduce violence. It costs a lot to implement, and people will still get illegal guns (like they already mostly do) and resort to other weapons (like mass stabbings happen in some gun control countries).

Here's a blog I like and several posts on the topic. You'll notice the style is obviously mocking, filled with memes and shit like 4chan, but the statistics and sources used in many of them are very sound.

http://dontneedfeminism2.tumblr.com/search/gun+control

File: 1449896867973.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>7718166
Whichever party is pushing the middle class platform at the moment is the one that bests serves the interests of anyone that isn't upper class, and right now it looks like that's going to be the Republicans this upcoming election, given that either Trump or Cruz is most likely to win the nomination on their middle/lower class empowerment platform.

>>7718166
>I cannot think of a single way that the Republican party being in charge would benefit a semi-poor asian student who likes to study Mathematics

Abolishing "affirmative action" and the inflation of grades/scores from students of certain races with the reduction of grades/scores of asians in the name of "equality", along with barring them from prospects / aid directed specifically to other gender / races.

I've been browsing /pol/ a bit lately. It has shitty idiots like any other board (or any other place in the world) but the general, positive trend is a hatred for degeneracy and a desire to be righteous. And that's a very noble ideal, no matter how misled some of the people following it might be.

>>7718169
australia

>>7718175
But anon, how can we ever end discrimination based on race if we can't discriminate based on race? That's racist!

>>7718178
Banning guns didn't do anything to their homicide rate, which was in a downtrend prior to the ban.

Homicides were going down, then they banned guns, ignored every year prior to the ban, and declared it a success because the homicide rate dropped. Genius.

>>7718178
australia is mentioned there several times, did you read it and are you supporting it or are you disagreeing?

>>7718168
That doesn't change the fact that this year has been a record year for mass shootings. Unless you're comfortable with this trend, it's something that requires legislative action to address. And there are multiple precedents from around the world that show negative correlation between mass shootings and strict gun control. Australia pushed for ball-strangling gun control after Port Arthur and there hasn't been a single incident since.

Also:
>>7718152
>Marriage is a religious institution
Marriage is a legal institution which offers legal protection as well as incentives for both parties of the union. Are you saying you want to dismantle that and have it hold significance in society only as a religious ritual?

>to force the church and religious people to wed them
Jesus Christ you're ingorant. Nobody's forcing churches to wed same-sex couples. You can get married outside of a church.

>>7718192
>if you get rid of guns, there aren't any guns

australia's violence had been going down already and continues in the same trend.
specifically, gun violence has sharply gone down and violence with other weapons has sharply gone up. are you going to ban knives next?

>>7718166
>I cannot think of a single way that the Republican party being in charge would benefit a semi-poor asian student who likes to study Mathematics, as well as anyone whom I know and love, at all.
Hmm I wonder...maybe by abolishing Affirmative action which subtracts from their SAT scores and gives them a disadvantage in being accepted to certain Universities, since there are so many Asians in university already that exceed their "quota".
From just that, it seems like it benefits poor asian students a lot.

>>7718192
>That doesn't change the fact that this year has been a record year for mass shootings.
Cool now lets see.
Which first world country had the biggest mass shooting this year. Now what is their policy on gun possession?

>>7718204
I'd say transmuting gun violence into knife violence is still a positive development, simply because of the higher degree of empowerment guns offer.

You'd be very hard pressed to kill the same amount of people with a knife as you would with an assault rifle.

File: 1445901288997.png (18KB, 245x267px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 245x267px

>>7718192
>mass shootings

Oh so we're not talking about gun homicide rates anymore? Well since there's a negative correlation for gun ownership and gun homicides, then the natural conclusion would be to own more guns, right?

>Marriage is a legal institution
No it isn't, it's a religious institution that the state adopted and then forced their own rules upon.

>>7718226
Super, and now the people are totally powerless against their government or a tyrannical majority.

Oh, oops, it turns out that there are more guns in Australia now than before the gun ban, because everyone just bought new guns or hid their old ones.

>>7718240
Is he on the way to his AIDS treatment?

>>7718233
>the overthrowal of tyranny narrative
Oh for fuck's sake.

Those who would lord over you figured out a way to enforce their interests without resorting to force a long time ago. Your guns don't mean shit.

I'm not surprised that liberals want to get rid of guns so much.
Think of the other Nations that had strict gun control and gun registries
>Nazi Germany: later used their registry to round up Jews with guns
>Soviet Russia: No guns to anyone
>Communist China: No guns to anyone
>Modern Day UK: no guns to anyone
Anything in common? Yes, oppressive authoritarian shitholes
Now, liberals say they hate fascists, but you have to remember one thing...Fascist doesn't mean authoritarian. Liberals are fine with being Authoritarian and are fine with people being killed if they don't agree with them (see the multitude of liberals who say they would kill Donald Trump if they could).

File: 1449276248628.gif (2MB, 400x203px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x203px

>>7718257
>The elite learned how to trick the public for the last 50 years, which means they figured it out forever because the world never changes
>That means you should give up your guns because like, what's totally the point, and junk?

Sound logic, I'm glad that the 2-3 dozen people who run the world figured out a fool proof system they can run for as long as time exists, so why even bother with self defense? I mean, it's 2015, every other civilized nation gave up their arms, and they're doing great, and will always be great from now on.

Nothing will ever change, and we have the future planned out just perfectly, so why even bother with those silly guns?

File: 1430392268920.jpg (35KB, 499x374px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 499x374px

>>7718267
People don't even understand what words mean anymore, just the emotion they place behind those words, like calling Trump a fascist despite his platform being individualistic and nationalist, while ignoring Obama and Hillary's actual fascist proposals and platforms of collectivist diktat as their wannabe Red Guards in universities try to crush any dissenting speech or opinions, as their mirror forces over in Yurop are steadily burning the continent to the ground since nobody is allowed to speak up for their own self interest, lest it be branded "hate speech", and said offenders shunned from society and employment.

It's really a sickness, tbqh family.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a10_1449917221
People change so fast

>>7717872
Agreed. I'm a fairly libertarian person (in b4 fedoratip.jpg) but the ideology that the modern American right has is "if it doesn't make a profit within the next quarter, it's useless" which is just plain cancerous to science and it's easy to see why a lot of otherwise conservative people (STEM professionals) would find themselves voting fairly left in light of this.

When will the American right make an actual racialist (anti-black and hispanic) party that dosen't come with the baggage of Evangelicial Christianity and anti-intellectualism?

>>7718268
>it's 2015
It's time to go back to /pol/ friend.

>>7718274
Well, considering that the country is on track to be 21 trillion dollarydoos in debt, fiscal conservatism sounds pretty okay to me right now.

File: 1448151184750.png (273KB, 517x500px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 517x500px

>>7718281
>It's not 2015

>>7718257
>Those who would lord over you figured out a way to enforce their interests without resorting to force a long time ago
>long time ago
what...do you not realize that WWII was less than 80 years ago? Do you not realize that the Cold War ended less than 30 years ago?
Do you not realize how long Humanity has existed?
Are you really trying to say 30 and 80 years has been a long time?
Here's a legitimate question, are you retarded?

>>7718272
I hope the man and dogs were alright

>>7718288
Liberals don't care about wasting money, (unless the Republicans do it then it's unacceptable)

File: laughing.png (362KB, 620x670px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 620x670px

>>7716101
>deontology

>>7717758
>here's a reason more and more people are starting to vote for right wing parties again
It has been at least 10-15 years of people saying this and nothing ever changed.

Why do /sci/ citizens care to dabble into politics so much? It seems like an infinite endless loop; analogously its like passing a pacifier from left to right interchangable, but one side is deemed to feel more upset about it. Maybe people care about it so they don't want to get fucked over, perhaps its the case that most groups of people want different things...

When I read Terence Tao blogs, he doesn't mention much stuff about politics/religions, and he is very well committed to his work in mathematics. I like how he strays away from religion and politics than those self proclaimed intellectual IQ geniuses.

Growing up, I've only cared about runescape, maths (test scores motivate me), and hentai I knew as a ex muslim at the brim age of 12; that religion is some bullshit fairy tale seeing a lot of the worldly problems not getting fixed when in need anyways.