So far in this thread I've pointed out a disparity in a headline, to which people tried to reinvent mathematics.
I got no issue here.
You accused me of trying to "get people" and told me I was missing the point of all the research that wouldn't "get done".
I asked what research wouldn't be done and got crickets.
That's why I explained that grants cancelled is directly linked to work that at that point isn't getting done. If you like, I can pull a list of grants/funding that was cancelled as I'm sure that's at least somewhat available.
I've posted about government bloat, something everyone in the country has been SHOCKED by... since whatever their age is minus about fifteen years (more mathematics)... more crickets.
This characterization has little to no basis in reality. Complaining about govt bloat predates damn near everyone on this board. EVERYONE has posted about govt bloat at some point during their time here.
I've posted about actual scientists saying "too many people involved" is detrimental to research... more crickets.
Pit shifted the argument to funding, I showed we were funding DEI at astronomical amounts, he shifted the conversation to funding education.
You'll have to forgive me for not wading into the back-and-forth you got going with Pit in all of these threads. I'm just not going to do it for many of the same reasons you state when you say you're stepping away from the board. Sorta along those lines, it's become en vogue to take one-off examples, or a cherry-picked sampling of opinions, and even strawmen arguments from a Twitter talking head and stretch those far beyond should be able to make the argument. If you want to point out a relative handful of DEI projects to make a statement about sweeping funding/grant cuts across NIH, FDA, etc. then you go ahead and do you... I have neither the time nor the willingness to call out every bad (IMO) argument on here.
So why don't you go ahead and tell me which of my talking points you've addressed during this "conversation" now that you've told me I'm a snowflake and too hard to communicate with?
When I respond to specific points within someone's post, I quote. When I'm responding to the gist of a post, I reply. When I'm going through and addressing a post, point by point, I do what I'm doing here.
The problem in DT land is that "unpopular opinions" aren't embraced for their content. They're shouted down by a cast of some and then "picked apart" by others. Then you're a "snowflake" when you call a spade a spade.
The problem with DT land is there are less and less people that are able to debate tough subjects without flying off the handle. I include myself in this... I'm not trying to say I've never done the same. Unpopular opinions are embraced by some... via debate.
The problem in DT land is that "unpopular opinions" aren't embraced for their content. They're shouted down by a cast of some and then "picked apart" by others. Then you're a "snowflake" when you call a spade a spade.
Pound salt, dude. You guys can have your circle jerk back and all agree on how Trump is ruining science.
You obviously have ZERO interest in any of the nuance, facts that don't fit your agenda, or adult conversation about all the contributing factors.
You can be a victim or you can be a bully... not both. You complain about the state of debate and then close a post like this. I'll say this, if someone puts you and Pit on ignore and goes back through these threads, about half the threads are "You are ignoring this user" with large blocks of you and him just exchanging jabs with little to no actual discourse. If you two want to do your little dance with him in each thread that's fine but I'm not going to take you seriously when you pull the "adult conversation" card. Feel free to get the last word in, but just know that I am, in fact, going to pound salt.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
