As terrible as the implications of that are — millions dead, incalculable suffering and loss; all caused by scientific misjudgement — at least it tells us how to make ourselves safer going forward: we should stop doing the thing that creates that danger.
People like Bret Weinstein would be first in line to condemn people for "ignorant anti-science fear-mongering" if it came from the wrong side of the political aisle, so the odds that he would be consistently on the front lines pushing scientists to "stop doing the thing that creates the danger" whenever the potential for danger exists approaches zero.
To do so would be to adopt a conservative or even reactionary mindset towards science, which would seem to run counter to his "actual liberal" mindset towards social and political "progress" that depends on it.
I’m sorry, did his emails and speeches about the evergreen incidents not sate you? The fact he supported the retarded day of absence until it came for him speaks leagues of his views. He is a crybaby who continuously whines about a problem he was supportive of until he was put on trial.
Bret Weinstein is a great guy, but he's hopelessly left wing (same as his brother actually who admits he has TDS)
Brett moved to Portland in 2018 by choice that's how left wing he is.
Generally, he is left-wing but reasonable. His one unreasonable opinion in the past few years was when he supported the second, even more absurd impeachment, of Trump.
Let's see him tell governments to place any restrictions on birth control or abortion in an attempt to stem the tide of the rise of the two-income household, collapsing birth and marriage rates, rising marriage ages, higher divorce rates, etc...
When people on the right speak about the disastrous effects that say forced racial integration had on certain communities, does he say we should "stop doing the thing that creates the danger" and let communities self-segregate if that's what they want to do? Or does he call them "racist"?
The "scientific consensus" of at least the past 60 years has been supportive of leftist causes and as such "scientists" of past generations made claims regarding things like racial integration, immigration, drug decriminalization, law enforcement techniques, sentencing guidelines, birth control, abortion, etc... and their ability to improve race relations, eliminate performance gaps, improve social stability and harmony, reduce harm, reduce crime, etc... that haven't lived up to the hype. They also downplayed the risks associated with implementing these policies.
When the right says "hey you experts told us this 'integration' thing would be good, but now all our inner-city schools suck", does Bret say "that was a scientific miscalculation, and we should stop requiring integrated schools"?
When the right says "hey you experts told us abortion would be 'legal, safe, and rare' and it's definitely the first two but isn't isn't 'rare'", does Bret say "that was a scientific miscalculation, and we should make abortion illegal"
When the right says "hey you experts told us that long sentences for criminals don't work, but now we have a lot of people who ought to be in prison out on the street", does Bret say "that was a scientific miscalculation, and we should have harsher sentences for crime and bring back the death penalty"
When the right says "hey you experts said it was important to teach children the basic biological facts behind sex in schools, and now my first-grader is learning about dildos and fetishes", does Bret say "that was a scientific miscalculation, and sex ed should be a matter between parents and child".
I'm not old enough to have witnessed the debate on integrated schools, but I remember the other three; and "scientific experts" going on TV to tell us how important these policies were was a major part of the "discussion" surrounding them.
People like Bret Weinstein would be first in line to condemn people for "ignorant anti-science fear-mongering" if it came from the wrong side of the political aisle, so the odds that he would be consistently on the front lines pushing scientists to "stop doing the thing that creates the danger" whenever the potential for danger exists approaches zero.
To do so would be to adopt a conservative or even reactionary mindset towards science, which would seem to run counter to his "actual liberal" mindset towards social and political "progress" that depends on it.
I too am very angry about this opinion of Bret Weinstein's that you just made up.
Bret Weinstein is a far leftist who was chased out by a problem he helped create.
Proof that he 'helped create' this?
I’m sorry, did his emails and speeches about the evergreen incidents not sate you? The fact he supported the retarded day of absence until it came for him speaks leagues of his views. He is a crybaby who continuously whines about a problem he was supportive of until he was put on trial.
Bret Weinstein is a great guy, but he's hopelessly left wing (same as his brother actually who admits he has TDS) Brett moved to Portland in 2018 by choice that's how left wing he is.
Generally, he is left-wing but reasonable. His one unreasonable opinion in the past few years was when he supported the second, even more absurd impeachment, of Trump.
No such thing.
What are you basing that on?
Let's see him tell governments to place any restrictions on birth control or abortion in an attempt to stem the tide of the rise of the two-income household, collapsing birth and marriage rates, rising marriage ages, higher divorce rates, etc...
You have no idea what you’re talking about. He speaks out against that very thing almost every chance he gets.
When people on the right speak about the disastrous effects that say forced racial integration had on certain communities, does he say we should "stop doing the thing that creates the danger" and let communities self-segregate if that's what they want to do? Or does he call them "racist"?
What the heck are you talking about? What does any of that have to do with science or anything you said in your previous comment?
The "scientific consensus" of at least the past 60 years has been supportive of leftist causes and as such "scientists" of past generations made claims regarding things like racial integration, immigration, drug decriminalization, law enforcement techniques, sentencing guidelines, birth control, abortion, etc... and their ability to improve race relations, eliminate performance gaps, improve social stability and harmony, reduce harm, reduce crime, etc... that haven't lived up to the hype. They also downplayed the risks associated with implementing these policies.
When the right says "hey you experts told us this 'integration' thing would be good, but now all our inner-city schools suck", does Bret say "that was a scientific miscalculation, and we should stop requiring integrated schools"?
When the right says "hey you experts told us abortion would be 'legal, safe, and rare' and it's definitely the first two but isn't isn't 'rare'", does Bret say "that was a scientific miscalculation, and we should make abortion illegal"
When the right says "hey you experts told us that long sentences for criminals don't work, but now we have a lot of people who ought to be in prison out on the street", does Bret say "that was a scientific miscalculation, and we should have harsher sentences for crime and bring back the death penalty"
When the right says "hey you experts said it was important to teach children the basic biological facts behind sex in schools, and now my first-grader is learning about dildos and fetishes", does Bret say "that was a scientific miscalculation, and sex ed should be a matter between parents and child".
I'm not old enough to have witnessed the debate on integrated schools, but I remember the other three; and "scientific experts" going on TV to tell us how important these policies were was a major part of the "discussion" surrounding them.