I see your point but I think "belief in science" was already politicized by the other side before this happened.
I think there are many ways to work on that; effective methods not likely to include the further-polarizing: marching
-
-
Why did you pull your original post? After all, marching does direct the discourse away from scientific discourse to tribalism.
-
No time to keep up with the responses
-
Following up after reading twitter some more this eve, it's also possible that my original view was privileged. eghttps://twitter.com/lirael_abhorsen/status/855875222813253633 …
-
"Privileged" is a catch-all accusation not particularly useful for discussing science&politics. What do you mean, specifically?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I mean, who was supposed to be made to feel what, about science, after this? What was the goal of the march?
-
I'd argue the point was to increase the visibility of science-grounded voters as a viable block and energize that block.
-
I'd go along with that as a possibility; I still think it's probably exclusionary and net bad for science
-
Also, both lexically and visibly, it might make it more difficult to say the science is out on science issues.
-
I'm just thinking out loud. My gut feeling is that visibility helps things, but I have no idea if there's a causal gain.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.