the University of Chicago's rejection of political correctness is actually a softening of extremism
How about an "arms limitation treaty" between the left and the right in the US? Both sides will give up most of their empirically unsupported, subjective, and intellectually dishonest tactics for muddying the waters and suppressing substantive debate. The left can give up trigger warnings while the right can stop denying climate science.
What we need in the US is a "Groupthink Potlatch." We should have a reality TV show alternative to the mainstream debates where two high profile contestants destroy their own side's intellectually dishonest bullshit. The winner is the one who gives away or destroys the most of their own side's intellectually dishonest bullshit.
Climate Science is actually an interesting intersection of these issues. "Safe space"-style rhetoric has been used to no platform people who deny global warming. The government does not fund research into any climate science that looks for an alternate explanation.
Unfortunately, the combination of these two things makes it nearly impossible to be a climate-scientist who disagrees with the herd. Even if you could overcome the massive cultural hurdle, you have society and the government to deal with as well.
Which makes me skeptical, but I still think that it's safest to heed the precautionary principle.
I'd love that. The problem is that it's really, really hard to criticize your own tribe. (People who made a habit of criticizing their tribe in the ancestral environment were killed off very quickly).
There are many on the right that agree that climate change is real. But they aren't just going to accept any and all legislation because of it. It's just that type of issue where the most ridiculous money wasting endeavors can be injected in the still of the night. Also not all regulations of industries improve them. Many hinder progress, many make it impossible to have competition in an area and some frankly are just based on incomplete science.
The other day I read an article where the headline said "Scientists explain why despite global warming, there is more ice in the antarctic." Then in the text it said "Scientists can't explain it."
So don't just think that things are conclusive because you've been reading articles. The "warmest july on record" isn't really all that impressive to me considering the record isn't that deep when it comes to the age of the earth.
How about an "arms limitation treaty" between the left and the right in the US? Both sides will give up most of their empirically unsupported, subjective, and intellectually dishonest tactics for muddying the waters and suppressing substantive debate. The left can give up trigger warnings while the right can stop denying climate science.
What we need in the US is a "Groupthink Potlatch." We should have a reality TV show alternative to the mainstream debates where two high profile contestants destroy their own side's intellectually dishonest bullshit. The winner is the one who gives away or destroys the most of their own side's intellectually dishonest bullshit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch
(Is that cultural appropriation? Heh.)