Was just watching Stranger s3 a while ago and watching Nancy get this treatment.
This isn’t even satire.
Ran into this all the time in my old job. Boss was a woman. We’re very experienced in an IT field, dealing with executives with little to no IT experience.
She’d bring me along in meetings to be her echo because you’d get guys who wouldn’t listen to her if a man didn’t confirm that she knew her shit.
That’s an excellent post, TribblesBestFriend. Perhaps one of the mods here would like to make it.
The worst thing is this actually happens, even ( or should I say especially? ) within the science communities. Which is the place where this absolutely shouldn’t be an issue, it should be the science that talks, but it isn’t. 😳
Back in the day, the scientific name for what is now called Down’s Syndrome was ‘mongoloid idiocy.’
Those who study science aren’t more rational than other people, except perhaps in a narrow area of expertise.
That’s kind of the problem, because they are well educated, and have learned the evidence based scientific method.
So they should be better, the fact that they aren’t, is a HUGE problem.The assumption here is that science is a sapient entity that auto rectifies the error of the practitioner when it is, at the end of the day, only a method of observation of the environment.
Every generation, people get complacent over something that the next generation has to figure out. Then, that generatiob over relies on one singular thing, and they grow complacent over that.
Religion, ideology, economics, etc… They all rhyme with the same story of being complacent, and then being put to blame when humanity starts trying to skirt around them.
I don’t think science and religion are comparable, the scientific method is way superior. You can’t pray to god to for actual knowledge, but the scientific method has given us reliable knowledge.
Yet, we have scientists that can be paid off by billionaires, and scientists that are more than willing of pursuing their egos at the cost of that very knowledge.
History shows how many times a person can be factually correct but equally condemned because they didn’t conform to the way of thought of the times.
Science also doesn’t necessarily share our understanding of right or wrong, let alone harm or benefit. Science is based on what we perceive at any given time, and how others after us come to correct or reframe it down the line.
It is incomparable to religion not because of superiority of science but because religion provides what science cannot, that is comfort and assurance and a framework for uncertainty. Without the foundation provided by religion, science goes wild and baseless as supposed intellectuals begin to fight over whose school of thought is correct.
God doesn’t provide you with direct knowledge, he provides you the avenue and opportunity to pursue reliable knowledge. Every law, including that of the universe, has a judicator that presides over it, and to believe it is mere chance that we exist is both baseless and unreliable by logic.
Should. But in my experience, those who are most learned are often the most arrogant and myopic views. They also tend to have the most fragile of egos and don’t do criticism well.
All you have to do is work at a university to know that having a PhD doesn’t mean you have general intelligence.
In my experience they have the reading comprehension of a toddler. And throw tantrums like one if they don’t get their way.
All you have to do is work at a university…
Imagine that. 🤭
You cant be a well rounded individual if you are specialized to hell. At least I imagine that is mostly true.
Look, it’s called a second, it’s just a part of parliamentary procedure, Mr. Daniels is just terrible at phrasing.
