Social MIT becomes first elite university to eliminate diversity statements

Is eliminating diversity requirements positive for education?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
Almost every narrative that wokeism is based on is fictional and anti-science. Poverty causing violent crime, black people being unjustly killed by police at a higher rate than whites, women making less money being mostly to do with discrimination, and so on.

All fear based... Zero rational thinking involved.

Just create hysteria... Profit
 
All fear based... Zero rational thinking involved.

Just create hysteria... Profit

And yet you post more outrage porn from social media than just about any member of this forum. Who exactly are you talking about with descriptors such as 'fear based...hysteria...profit'?

It's people like you, who seemingly spends all day combing social media 'hysterical' memes and hyperbole, only to post it here and then complain about profitable fear mongering. Makes no sense unless you have absolutely zero self awareness.
 
I'm FAR from left, but anthropological climate change is as much a settled science as the theory of gravity is. You've been mislead by the wealthiest, most powerful industry on earth - big oil.

Even now they're changing tact and starting to promote how climate change is actually good for us, despite global crops failing, weather extremes increasing, and bio-diversity getting shredded.

You lot love to parrot how there's money in climate change, despite companies like Shell spending billions on lobbying in the senate over the last decade.

As with all things. FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Gravity is nowhere near whatever you're defining as "settled science".

We've been predicting the destruction of the planet at our hands since the moment we could write. This is all in-group/out-group games on something we can barely process. Settled science, rofl.
 
Gravity is nowhere near whatever you're defining as "settled science".

We've been predicting the destruction of the planet at our hands since the moment we could write. This is all in-group/out-group games on something we can barely process. Settled science, rofl.

If you don't think gravity is 'settled science', you should try jumping off a real tall building and seeing if the science is settled or not. You won't because you too will agree that the law of gravity is observable and predictable, regardless of how much we can or cannot explain how it operates entirely, although I believe Einstein's General Theory of Relativity does a pretty good job.
 
If you don't think gravity is 'settled science', you should try jumping off a real tall building and seeing if the science is settled or not. You won't because you too will agree that the law of gravity is observable and predictable, regardless of how much we can or cannot explain how it operates entirely, although I believe Einstein's General Theory of Relativity does a pretty good job.
Oh Im well aware of the phenomenon and its consequences. Comparing to climate science in almost any fashion is ludicrous.
 
I support this. do it @Natural Order and settle the gravity debate once and for all.
Observing a phenomenon and explaining it are two entirely different things! Calling something “settled science” is about as unscientific as a mind can be. Rofl
 
Oh Im well aware of the phenomenon and its consequences. Comparing to climate science in almost any fashion is ludicrous.

That's the thing though. We can observe and predict the effects of the climate, along with potential outcomes, while not being able to agree on all the specifics of why it's happening. Just as you will agree that jumping off a tall building will lead to certain outcomes, even though the theory on explaining gravity is just a theory.

I'm not some big climate doom guy, but I think it's only reasonable to believe that post Industrialization, what we are doing is not indefinitely sustainable.
 
That's the thing though. We can observe and predict the effects of the climate, along with potential outcomes, while not being able to agree on all the specifics of why it's happening. Just as you will agree that jumping off a tall building will lead to certain outcomes, even though the theory on explaining gravity is just a theory.

I'm not some big climate doom guy, but I think it's only reasonable to believe that post Industrialization, what we are doing is not indefinitely sustainable.

Yes but you're very aware that the variables likely involved in gravity are nothing like the variables in understanding climate science on such an insane piece of biology we haven't fully explored, nor even remotely understand.

There's no question we're contributing to elevated CO2. The problem is that the PPMs and temps don't correlate at all.

The other huge problem is that the earth is greener, hurricanes are less frequent, wildfires are less frequent, and none of the claims are coming true. In fact, the narrative is now shifting to suit this data....from frequency to "intensity".....

Physical pollution is where the brain should be but these clowns believe we're done in 50 years because of a few degrees. I'm more worried about the chemicals we're entrenched in.
 
The side that believes their Sexual predator ex-pres was sent by god
is somehow more pro-science? You are incredibly ignorant or just plain stupid. Either way, your statement is flat WRONG.
there are multiple core right wing ideologies and beliefs that are directly contradicted by scientific consensus.

- Denial of global warming, which is literally uncontested among climatologists.
- Belief in creationism, which no serious biologists endorse.
- Opposition to gay rights on the grounds that gay marriage and adoption is bad for children, despite multiple authoritative studies to the contrary.
- Support for North Carolina's HB2 and similar anti-transgender laws on the basis of protecting women, despite theres not many actual cases of assault in bathrooms by transgender people.
- Belief that vaccines cause autism, a position so discredited that the journal that originally published it rescinded the article.
- Belief that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, despite the total lack of concrete evidence and presence of documents to the contrary.

Meanwhile, among Libs, I cant think of any major policy or ideology points that are directly contradicted by science. there are some things like the gender wage gap or the efficacy of gun control, but its not even close. far-left craziness is far less dominant in the party mainstream than far-right craziness.

The orange rapist still thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax and vaccines cause autism.
Kremlin suck-dolls like MTJ and Boebert are still spreading conspiracy theories and misinformation with no repercussions.
The day a democratic president/Vice President/presidential nominee starts talking about auras and chakras then we can talk about how "both sides are bad".
"Science"
You-Keep-Using-That-Word-GiveMeSomeEnglish-1.gif
 
Yes but you're very aware that the variables likely involved in gravity are nothing like the variables in understanding climate science on such an insane piece of biology we haven't fully explored, nor even remotely understand.

There's no question we're contributing to elevated CO2. The problem is that the PPMs and temps don't correlate at all.

The other huge problem is that the earth is greener, hurricanes are less frequent, wildfires are less frequent, and none of the claims are coming true. In fact, the narrative is now shifting to suit this data....from frequency to "intensity".....

Physical pollution is where the brain should be but these clowns believe we're done in 50 years because of a few degrees. I'm more worried about the chemicals we're entrenched in.

As I stated, I'm not much in to climate science so I can't comment with any certainty about specifics.

I do completely agree with your very last sentence though.

Speaking on that, I would also agree that a lot of the 'greener' planet organizations have shifted the pollution debate to regular consumers, such as me and you, when all the data seems to point to the majority of plastic and chemical pollution comes from commercial industry. It's the same with the CO2 debate. These organizations such as Greenpeace will have us believe that individual consumers are responsible for elevated levels of CO2 or plastic pollution, when the vast majority comes from cattle farming and commercial fishing. The amount of pollution coming from the cattle industry is more than the pollution of all transportation vehicles (cars, trucks, planes, rail) combined. It's no wonder that industry plants sit on the boards of most of these organizations, convincing us all that the problem is individuals when it is actually industry - akin to going in to the hospital and complaining about a stubbed toe while bleeding profusely from the head.
 
As I stated, I'm not much in to climate science so I can't comment with any certainty about specifics.

I do completely agree with your very last sentence though.

Speaking on that, I would also agree that a lot of the 'greener' planet organizations have shifted the pollution debate to regular consumers, such as me and you, when all the data seems to point to the majority of plastic and chemical pollution comes from commercial industry. It's the same with the CO2 debate. These organizations such as Greenpeace will have us believe that individual consumers are responsible for elevated levels of CO2 or plastic pollution, when the vast majority comes from cattle farming and commercial fishing. The amount of pollution coming from the cattle industry is more than the pollution of all transportation vehicles (cars, trucks, planes, rail) combined. It's no wonder that industry plants sit on the boards of most of these organizations, convincing us all that the problem is individuals when it is actually industry - akin to going in to the hospital and complaining about a stubbed toe while bleeding profusely from the head.
Well said here.
 
funny how you chuds pretend to care about science when its convenient. but you will dismiss science on climate change, Covid, Hormone therapy for transgender patients and when the science of an issue conflicts with the goals of the corporate donors.

The majority of Americans think your type are weirdos who hold irrational beliefs and make most of your decisions off of emotions.

In other words, you are low testosterone and Satan is your daddy.
 
Pretty sure pitty hires of the minorities isn't the issue, it's withholding funding for research initiatives for staff who may not hold the soy/woke beliefs the school want, even though it has nothing to do with their work.
 
I believe Einstein's General Theory of Relativity does a pretty good job.

I'd say it's a pretty damn good approximation - similar to the scientific 'theories' of evolution, electromagnetism, plate tectonics - given that it's shown to be observable and valid even on an intergalactic scale.
 
The side that believes their Sexual predator ex-pres was sent by god
is somehow more pro-science? You are incredibly ignorant or just plain stupid. Either way, your statement is flat WRONG.
there are multiple core right wing ideologies and beliefs that are directly contradicted by scientific consensus.

- Denial of global warming, which is literally uncontested among climatologists.
- Belief in creationism, which no serious biologists endorse.
- Opposition to gay rights on the grounds that gay marriage and adoption is bad for children, despite multiple authoritative studies to the contrary.
- Support for North Carolina's HB2 and similar anti-transgender laws on the basis of protecting women, despite theres not many actual cases of assault in bathrooms by transgender people.
- Belief that vaccines cause autism, a position so discredited that the journal that originally published it rescinded the article.
- Belief that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, despite the total lack of concrete evidence and presence of documents to the contrary.

Meanwhile, among Libs, I cant think of any major policy or ideology points that are directly contradicted by science. there are some things like the gender wage gap or the efficacy of gun control, but its not even close. far-left craziness is far less dominant in the party mainstream than far-right craziness.

The orange rapist still thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax and vaccines cause autism.
Kremlin suck-dolls like MTJ and Boebert are still spreading conspiracy theories and misinformation with no repercussions.
The day a democratic president/Vice President/presidential nominee starts talking about auras and chakras then we can talk about how "both sides are bad".
Dude doesn't even know what the word "science" means.

<Oku02>
 
I'm FAR from left, but anthropological climate change is as much a settled science as the theory of gravity is. You've been mislead by the wealthiest, most powerful industry on earth - big oil.

Even now they're changing tact and starting to promote how climate change is actually good for us, despite global crops failing, weather extremes increasing, and bio-diversity getting shredded.

You lot love to parrot how there's money in climate change, despite companies like Shell spending billions on lobbying in the senate over the last decade.

As with all things. FOLLOW THE MONEY.
You can always tell the smart Republicans from the dumb Republicans according to which ones start ranting about a so-called climate change hoax.
 
You can go read about it all you need big fella. "settled science" is the joke, rofl.

You're entirely bound by gravity and will be until you die as nothing will stop spinning and pinning.

It's settled.
 
Back
Top