Calling Bari Weiss "Center-Right" has got to be one of the more dishonest characterizations I've read. Or, you're going to need to claim that the Overton window has gone off the far-right deep-end such that the mere presence of a confounding social factor is enough to pull people from being "extreme" to being "Centrist."
I'd love to know what policy/opinion you think is "Moderate" from Bari Weiss, and which opinion piece of hers demonstrates it when compared to the sheer volume of Deep Conservatism she espouses in all of the rest of her work.
> It's worth noting, I guess, that she's also a lesbian...
This bit is solidly poisoning the well, because it gives you the ability to claim that any legitimate criticism about Bari Weiss Kowtowing to the current administration is because she's a lesbian, and not because she's legitimately censoring free speech like everyone claimed the news was doing before she started actually doing it.
There is a far cry between "Stereotypes are generally accurate" and "being able to make a specific measured claim on the basis of a stereotype."
You also don't actively prove this claim, which means that we may know that it's "more likely to be true than not" based on your shared information, but could still absolutely be false.
Which leads me to my question, "Why would you make a comment about the correctness of stereotypes, rather than just finding actual data about the stereotype in question?"
You have not disproved that the concepts are opposed in this instance. Which matters much more than whether or not "stereotypes might generally be true." Like, at best stereotypes are a distraction for the actual data we'd like to have discussions about.
> You have not disproved that the concepts are opposed in this instance.
Nor did I aim to. I only wanted to dispel the mistaken belief that stereotypes are mostly false in general. That you think I should have instead addressed some other point that in your opinion matter more is irrelevant - you are free to address it yourself.
The wider claim doesn't actually change anything about the discourse. You have not contributed to the discussion, because you've provided no additional information about whether or not the underlying claim is true. We are no closer to truth because of your comment. So you have not "dispelled the mistaken belief that stereotypes are mostly false in general" because we can't make an active assumption about this stereotype without directly proving it.
So... Their original point stands without direct evidence against it. As you have not provided direct evidence, your point is moot.
I think this reads to me as a way for you to couch your ignorance as criticism while learning nothing from reading a study like this. Why not do this for your own biases?
What metrics do you focus on while reading an article that result in you confirming your own preconceived ideas?
If you have to come at an article like this in a hostile way, then you're not learning anythign about it, you're just confirming your own biases. I think I would recommend that you focus all of these criticisms inward at your own biases in terms of what you react to and need to explain and see if it's explained in the paper above. Then see if you find yourself convinced by the scientific method that they undertook?
Otherwise you're prepping yourself to continue living in an echo chamber.
"bUT wE StILl DoN't KnoW tHe LOnG TeRM EffECts oF ThE VacCInES."
I swear these folks will be on their death beds 50 years in the future claiming this. There will be no amount of evidence or time that matters to them.
Someone can prove me wrong, and tell me exactly what evidence would convince them that the vaccines are safer than the alternative.
I interpret this as the comment saying "we won't know how this affected things until decades from now." Which can likely be attributed to existing vaccine skepticism and is unlikely to result in them changing their opinion in the next ever.
What I think a lot of people who are anti-vax miss is the risk of the vaccine compared to the risk of COVID. They feel like they're being asked something risky in a vacuum, when in fact, they're being asked for something with (as best as we can tell) limited risk against a backdrop of a dangerous virus that killed millions and caused a global pandemic.
Even if they could demonstrably prove the vaccine created a higher risk of outcomes for people who took it, the risk compared to getting COVID is de minimus, and the likelihood of getting COVID is high. I would be surprised if there was a significant population of people who had avoided it at this point.
That's a nice hypothetical. Do you have any examples of people getting censored for WHO changing their stance?
Like, we're getting pretty nuanced here pretty fast, it would be nice to discuss this against an actual example of how this was enforced rather than being upset about a hypothetical situation where we have no idea how it was enforced.
I'd love to know what policy/opinion you think is "Moderate" from Bari Weiss, and which opinion piece of hers demonstrates it when compared to the sheer volume of Deep Conservatism she espouses in all of the rest of her work.
> It's worth noting, I guess, that she's also a lesbian...
This bit is solidly poisoning the well, because it gives you the ability to claim that any legitimate criticism about Bari Weiss Kowtowing to the current administration is because she's a lesbian, and not because she's legitimately censoring free speech like everyone claimed the news was doing before she started actually doing it.
reply