Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

Why is it that people can't wrap their head around the "Facts don't care about your feelings." slogan? I don't agree with everything that movement says, but that slogan means exactly what it's saying; the problem is what everyone like yourself adds to it. What you are adding has originated and lives in your mind, and you project it onto something that has nothing to do with your thought that you are projecting.

The slogan is directed at fragile liberals who would rather yell like a toddler at a town hall meeting than have an informed discussion centered around facts. You can try and broaden that statement all you want to pull in other topics, but that slogan says nothing about having a disregard for how facts are interpreted OR presented.

It goes without saying that facts can be subject to multiple interpretations. I think people need to be more honest about what you're really saying: you don't like conservatives and you distorted a basic phrase as you gaslit a group of people and accused that group of doing what you yourself just did.

I am saying that the statement “facts don’t care about your feelings” is a useless statement and it doesn’t make people who say it seem smart. People who say the slogan seemingly universally seem to think it makes them very smart. It doesn’t convey any information to anyone, all it is used for is for morons like Ben Shapiro to automatically dismiss people for being emotional.

You’re right, I don’t like conservatives very much, but I have seen left leaning people fetishizing stoicism and I think those people are dumb too.

ETA:

Also, slightly confused how I “gaslit” anyone. You can go through my post history and I am generally pretty happy to acknowledge I don’t like conservatives very much.

It didn’t take much prodding to make you show your entire hand. Might be time to look inwards.

Sorry, I think I'm missing something? I don't feel like any of my opinions were secret on pretty much anything?

> The slogan is directed at fragile liberals who would rather yell like a toddler at a town hall meeting than have an informed discussion centered around facts.

Who created chaos at school board meetings with yelling about trans kids and history books over the last couple of years? I have yet to hear anyone who isn't on the Right freak out about "what they're teaching our kids" the way that conservatives do.

Not the person you replied to, but what? The person you accused of being tricked into showing "their entire hand" was unashamed about their position and didn't try to hide it.

Conservatives also like pretending to be offended by the term "Happy Holidays" every year.

The difference in tone between their former and latter messages is obvious.

They went from a passive aggressive “I don’t understand this idiom” straight to an unhinged tirade of “conservatives are morons” without much provocation.

Of course you share that sentiment, like the overwhelming majority of people on this very left leaning message board, but I still find it funny when it comes out so explicitly.

I didn't say that I "didn't understand it", I said I get annoyed with it because I think it's a stupid statement. I stand by that.

"Unhinged tirade" seems like a bit stretch. I called Ben Shapiro a moron, a statement I also stand by, then I said that I don't like conservatives very much, which I also stand by, and that left-leaning people who fetishize stoicism are also dumb, so it's not really just about conservatives.

I'm genuinely confused how you got "conservatives are morons" out of that. Yes, Ben Shapiro is a moron, but I also called left-leaning people dumb.

What I'm trying to get at, and what you seem desperate to dismiss out of some strange partisanship, is that I think it's really dumb to dismiss emotions as part of an argument. I don't really care if it's a lefty or a conservative or a libertarian or communist or anything else I'm missing; emotions are important, and pretending that you're somehow "above" feeling emotional about a subject doesn't make you smart.

A sizable chunk of “banned” books were sexually inappropriate for school, and some even promoted pedophilia, so I have some serious concerns if you disagree with their removal.

> They went from a passive aggressive “I don’t understand this idiom” straight to an unhinged tirade of “conservatives are morons” without much provocation.

They never said that. Ironically, this is a perfect case of "facts don't care about your feelings" - even though you're upset, it doesn't change the fact that they never said that. It seems like your comments about needing self-reflection and complaining about "gaslighting" actually apply towards you instead.

Edit: regardless, this whole comment subthread is a useless waste of time and only serves as an airing of irrelevant grievances.

I'm sure some of those banned books are reasonable to be banned, though I do find it amusing that the people promoting these book bans are simultaneously insisting on putting the Bible in the classroom, a book that has a passage about a woman fantasizing about donkey dicks and horse cum. That's not a joke: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2023%3A...

If there's actually a book in that list that promotes pedophilia, it probably should be banned; which book are you referring to?

She was not fantasizing about bestiality, it very clearly states she “lusted after her paramours”. Paramours being adulterous lovers. And, if you even skimmed the rest of Ezekiel 23, you’d know it was describing her being a prostitute to many, many men. I will concede that this chapter, and the Jewish scriptures in general, tend to be rather excessive and would not be where I would start my children for Biblical teaching.

What list are you referring to? Perhaps I missed something, but I don’t see a list of banned books. However, regarding books promoting pedophilia, the worst example I am aware of (that isn’t Lolita, which I feel is a cop-out) is The Bluest Eye. I won’t link directly to the passage, however searching “Passages Challenged Bluest Eye” should lead you to a website with excerpts. They have not just one, but two characters who prey on the main character, and she is assaulted twice by her father in unnecessarily graphic scenes.

I know she wasn't fantasizing about bestiality, but she is still fantasizing about guys with dicks as large as donkeys and cumshots as large as horses; sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Regardless, most of the old testament is pretty child-unfriendly. Lots of passages about rape and violence with extremely questionable morality (including unambiguous endorsement of genocide), and I do not think it has any place in a classroom, even if we disregard separation of church and state (which we shouldn't).

I didn't mean a literal "list", though I realize it was bad wording on my part.

"Unnecessarily graphic" doesn't imply "promotes". I haven't read the book, and it might not be appropriate for a school library, but your description here doesn't seem to indicate that it's promoting pedophilia.

Of course concealing one’s true intent just enough to be able to later play dumb and deny motivations when called out is a decent strategy for online arguments, but it’s not foolproof.

Deciphering the commenter’s true meaning wasn’t super hard in this case. From claiming that a highly intelligent conservative pundit is a moron it’s easy to deduce that the person thinks less intelligent conservatives are also morons. They also explicitly said they “don’t like conservatives” which is a pretty silly statement to throw out there in general.

It’s also painfully obvious that the poster doesn’t understand the idiom “facts don’t care about your feelings” from them having now tripled down on trying to explain it or those who use it unsuccessfully.

The idiom’s intended message is as simple as it seems. It says that getting emotional about facts doesn’t change them. It’s not some deeply profound thing to say.

The point that this is too graphic for children stands, but this is a metaphor for Samaria and Jerusalem. This is stated explicitly in the text.

They didn't play dumb.

The "true meaning" you're finding is not accurate.

And they're talking about how the idiom actually gets used in practice.

> Of course concealing one’s true intent just enough to be able to later play dumb and deny motivations when called out is a decent strategy for online arguments, but it’s not foolproof.

I don't see how I "played dumb". I obviously know how to parse a sentence, and in the original comment that you're deliberately misreading, I said "raw facts don't care about your feelings", and then I explain that most discussions aren't really about raw facts but rather how they're interpreted.

> Deciphering the commenter’s true meaning wasn’t super hard in this case. From claiming that a highly intelligent conservative pundit is a moron it’s easy to deduce that the person thinks less intelligent conservatives are also morons.

How exactly is Ben Shapiro "highly intelligent"? Because he went to an Ivy League school? I can promise you that there's almost certainly a politician that you think is stupid that went to an Ivy League school, this isn't exactly a strong filter. Oh, is it because he talks really fast? I do that too, I guess I'm highly intelligent.

I don't think all conservatives are morons, and I don't think conservatives have a monopoly on being morons. I think the considerably-more-left-leaning The Young Turks, for example, are also pretty dumb. I have stated this multiple times now, and the fact that you're not responding to me directly is telling: I think pretending that you're somehow "above" your emotions is stupid. I think fetishizing the idea of divorcing "reason" from "emotion" is a dumb, even if I believed it were actually possible, which I'm not sure I do.

> They also explicitly said they “don’t like conservatives” which is a pretty silly statement to throw out there in general.

It's actually not silly to not like someone for their beliefs. That's dumb, of course if someone believes in something that I think is bad then I'm probably not going to like them very much. I don't really need to go into specifics for this, there's a lot of rhetoric that has caught on in conservative circles that I think is bad. You're obviously free to disagree with what statements are "bad" and that's fine; I'm sure there's rhetoric in more liberal circles that you think is bad.

People are entitled to free speech and to believe whatever they want, I wouldn't take that away from them even if I could, but they're not entitled to me liking them in spite of their beliefs. Life is much easier when you realize that you don't have to be everyone's friend.

> The idiom’s intended message is as simple as it seems. It says that getting emotional about facts doesn’t change them. It’s not some deeply profound thing to say.

I actually pointed this out in the original comment, and I'm arguing that that's not how the idiom is actually used. When I've seen it used (and admittedly I've obviously not seen every argument in which it is), it's always been used as some sort of "gotcha!" to act like an argument is less valid because the person making it is emotional.

Sure, I just was giving it as an example because I think it's a pretty funny bible verse out of context, and even a little funny in-context.

Still, the old testament in particular has pretty much every single theme that parents clutch their pearls at; Lot has incestuous sex with his daughters (and it's decidedly not condemned) [1], a man murdering his daughter because she's the first person to enter his house [2], prostitutes getting murdered, butchered, and mailed to her suitors [2].

If the old were accurately made into a movie, it would be right next to Se7en or Saw in categorization, certainly not appropriate for children.

I know that this stuff is probably wrapped in layers of metaphor and social context, that's fair enough, but I don't know why similar charity isn't awarded to books that aren't the bible.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lot_(biblical_person)

[2] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+11&versi...

[3] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+19&versi...

> but I don't know why similar charity isn't awarded to books that aren't the bible.

I‘m not sure what you‘re saying here, as the Bible is almost nationally “banned” from public school libraries due to the belief that so much as including it in a library is a literal violation of our country’s founding principles. If you mean why do parents who request books to be “banned” typically give charity to the Bible, while not giving the “banned” books the same charity, then in major part it’s because they are incomparable. The Bible is the book that has led us to where we are today; it led men to found nations, find unity with their fellows, and strive to create a better world. It is a book that has survived and thrived for over 2000 years, and is possibly as old as 8000 years. Additionally, if we wish to be less charitable, then it is because the Bible is the cornerstone of their worldview, just as many who decry “bans” find said books to be cornerstones of their worldview.

Finally, the majority of children are NOT exposed to the sections of the Old Testament you are quoting, or they have been redone (see Veggietales), and most parents, many who would request certain books be “banned”, would agree that those stories are not appropriate for children. The majority of biblical education is focused on the New Testament, which is historical and lacks many of the “colorful” descriptions that the Old Testament typically provides.

I was referring more specifically to the recent stuff in Oklahoma where they want to mandate that a Bible be placed in every public classroom. Constitutionality be dammed.

I might disagree with some of the finer points you laid out but I think I am more or less in broad agreement with what you said.