I dislike that no alternatives were proposed. It just is a angry discussion about problems in science. Not incorrect, just besides the point
-
-
Replying to @mtraghavan
It depends what you think the point is. I personally think it's very pertinent that left-wing sci-lovers are often anti-GMO.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
WRT the question about NIH, the steps are political not scientific sadly.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
And thus, we return to my prior point as politics is rhetoric and the rhetoric from the left/pro-sci folks is troubling/contradictory.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
I worry that left/pro-sci ppl are lost in a sea of contradictory virtue signalling while those who impose cuts present a unified front.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
So one major point of the article would be that the march was bad because there wasn't a clear goal. I can buy that.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mtraghavan @o_guest
Many protests have goals that are vague. One would hope their initiation spurs subsequent debate and refinement.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mtraghavan
I'm not sure I buy that. What protests are you thinking of other than this one?
#NoDAPL is explicit,#BlackLivesMatter
is explicit, etc.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest
Plenty of anti war protests are vague and often full of folks holding contradictory opinions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mtraghavan
And they don't work. We go to war pretty often.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Nevertheless "do not go to war" is explicit.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.