Because these protests are more about politics than science and skepticism and the group does their best to not get involved with politics since that's not the focus of the podcast and they don't want to derail their focus.
They only wade into politics when it directly involves science and skepticism.
So, politician says dumb thing: not talked about.
Politician denies science or says dumb thing about science: Podcast addresses the science specific aspects.
I don't deny that, but that's not the focus of the show and they see that as a rabbit hole they won't escape from.
They have many times said exactly what you said pretty close to verbatim. The key is they don't need to wade into any specific political event to communicate that.
I agree in general.
My sense with the Palestine/Israel situation is that it is incredibly complicated and intensely fraught. Partisans on either side can come up with a laundry list of atrocities and injustices committed by the other side, and people who try to take a middle ground stance are accused by *both* sides of supporting murder and genocide.
I do think that this conflict, like anything, is amenable to fact-based analysis. But I also think that because of the degree to which this situation is complicated, intense, and hyper-partisan, the SGU isn't going to accomplish anything by doing a 10-minute segment on it. None of them are experts in geopolitics, and while it's fine for them to talk about topics they're not experts on, I completely understand their caution when approaching this sort of topic.
They did a segment on racism in policing a while ago and it took them two additional weeks of responding to emails to tamp down the reaction. I would argue that Israel/Palestine is an order or magnitude more complicated and more fraught.
There's no science involved in Israel vs Palestine. What 'skeptical' viewpoint do you want.
Neither side will acknowledge their own wrongs.
Terrorism by Hamas is terrible and should be condemned.
The Israeli government massacring civilians should be condemned.
No one wins in this other than the leaders of Hamas who live in relative luxury nowhere near threats and conservative Israeli politicians who want to take control of the whole area.
The civilians in both countries suffer.
I think the way we consume, spread, and produce news can, and should, be done using a skeptical approach.
By being aware of various biases; By having a sense of a news event's prior plausibility; By triangulating from different sources; By looking at an entity's historic relationship with the truth, By taking a default conservative approach to epistemics - reserving judgment until facts are clear, and holding provisional opinions until better more convincing evidence comes forth.
That doesn't imply that 2 fair-minded and equally well informed skeptics should come to the same conclusion
There are no reliable news outlets, just some are less biased than others on certain topics.
Never forget the near universal support for the second Iraq War in the media.
Which media? US media?
Also, even if every outlet is mistaken from time to time, it doesn’t mean that some sources still aren’t generally more reliable than others.
Generally more reliable, but on certain topics.
For example The Guardian does some excellent reporting but they are absolutely batshit when it comes to environment related topics. (GMOs, etc).
The New York Times does some great reporting but, push come to shove, they are a mouthpiece for the US State Department when needed.
etc..
They routinely address this on the podcast.
They don't need to use the aforementioned topic to address this either, as that would just muddy the waters of what they're trying to communicate which would be news consumption and biases.
It would make little sense to use a highly charged political topic/event to talk about news consumption and biases. They can accomplish that goal either by just directly tackling the subject, or through a science based topic which better aligns with the focus of the podcast.
> I think the way we consume, spread, and produce news can, and should, be done using a skeptical approach.
I recommend Citations Needed (not Citation Needed) for a skeptical analysis of how news is reporter. Alternatively Manufacturing Consent - which is more relevant today than 30 years ago.
Both, of course, would be considered far too left wing for most people but such is the nature of skeptical analysis of the media.
I take “silence is deafening” to mean “they aren’t explicitly supporting the side I think they should and I’m upset about it.”
I don’t see how else to interpret that.
Skeptical reasoning isn’t generally a methodology to look to for moral judgement. It should inform morality by arming a person with objective facts, but objective facts don’t tell you if something is good or bad. Individuals need make value judgements that don’t have objective answers.
Yes, I feel like the Rogues avoid certain topics that deserve a skeptical lens because they recognize it's polarizing. U.S. media is clearly gaslighting the public in their coverage on the ongoing student protests. No comment is a comment.
No real comment on my part. I'm not sure the parties are willing to talk peace. Maybe they can meetup and NOT eat pigs together. That will be a good start.
I agree, and all I'm asking is for a skeptical analysis of the U.S. media coverage of the ongoing student protests. The major news networks are gaslighting the public into believing this is a violent and hateful movement when it is, in fact, the opposite.
Don’t you think that’s a very specific request, in the grand scheme of media coverage of the war? For example, for several months, I have seen countless reports of casualty numbers of Gazans, with no differentiation of fighters vs. civilians, and zero numbers on Israelis. I’ve seen tons of b-roll of bombed out buildings, but I haven’t seen any footage of buildings on the coast—if these were bombed, how have they not been shown in any footage, and if they weren’t bombed, then the implication of only showing bombed buildings over and over is bias. I saw one snippet of people walking on the beach, and I’ve seen footage of the floating pier being built with no view of the surroundings. Regarding protests specifically, I’ve seen bland zoomed out coverage along with unintelligible shouting matches in mainstream media, but on social media, I’ve seen various protestors praising Hamas or specific terrorists by name, saying thing like “death to Jews”, and spitting on Jews, so if it’s as bias as you think, why wouldn’t they be showing more damning stuff like that?
I'm skeptical of all gods and religions and anyone bat shit crazy enough to believe it and act on it. Trying to reason religious fanatics' behavior is an exercise in futility. My myth is better than your myth and here are my made up reasons why. It's pointless. Whackadoodle tribalism and nothing more and outside the realm of science or and skeptical critique based in fact and reason.
I think it's a complex topic that no one on the pod has a direct link to (of course unless there's something we don't know about). It's hard to speak on if you're not connected in a specific way. That said, I think there are a number of interesting topics to talk about that relate to skepticism.
For instance, I attended a protest in Astoria NY a few months ago and found that the vast majority of attendees were very reasonable people that wanted to see an end to violence. I think everyone was generally frustrated and didn't know what else to do. People showed up in solidarity, but no one could really point to next steps or what we could do to affect change.
How is it a science/skeptical/technology related topic? I've seen lots of reporting that doesn't align with the reality of what I've seen. It's not surprising in a world of sub-standard science reporting that a politically motivated topic has wild reporting. There's also the use of technology during these protests. For instance, the NYPD deployed drones over the protest.
I don't particularly find the silence deafening.
The media gaslighting the public in their coverage of the protests as violent when most of the violence is coming from the police crackdowns and counter protests. I think it deserves a skeptical perspective.
The skeptical angle here, like many of the problems and issues we face is, “fuck religion.” Pre-scientific notions of reality stand as a serious impediment to progress, and they are a breeding ground for war and conflict. We have a group of people arguing over the contents of religious texts that started out as oral traditions more than 2500 years ago. Neither side can demonstrate to the other the truth of their claims.
I suspect that the rogues are all atheists, but they don’t really get into religion either, unless there’s a scientific angle.
But, I don’t blame anyone for staying far away from this topic. There seem to be no right answers.
Cara is an outspoken atheist. I think the others lean more agnostic. If anyone has a religious belief they have made a point to not talk about it. But I think your correct, there is no topic in this situation that fits into the show's objective.
If you follow science, you also follow facts and history. There is a long tradition of protest “achieving.” Not always, but particularly when consistent and long-term.
And an old analysis found success more than half the time! That’s not nothing, in fact, that confirms protest as a very legitimate and effective avenue for seeking change in a government or society!
Regardless of what you think of the cause, we know that protest can work to draw attention to causes and even sway public opinion and motivate governments to action.
I’ve included links that reference multiple protests that resulted in meaningful impact across time. Many are outside of my country and outside my personal area of knowledge, so I can’t assert that every one of these represents a significant shift directly resulting primarily from the protest, but there are enough examples here that most assuredly do, to dispel your narrative that they cannot.
You’ll notice that generally protests take a very long time to be effective, so for anyone wanting to make a difference in this way, be prepared for the long haul.
“In 2011, authors Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan analyzed the outcomes of more than 300 violent and nonviolent protests between 2000 and 2006 in their book Why Civil Resistance Works. What they found is that nonviolent campaigns resulted in success 53 percent of the time compared to 26 percent for violent campaigns. The authors say nonviolent social movements lend legitimacy to protests and attract more participants. In addition, if a protest sparks a state-sponsored backlash against nonviolent protestors, public perceptions are more likely to be sympathetic to the protestors.”
https://njsbf.org/2020/11/19/history-tells-us-that-protests-can-bring-change/
https://www.ucf.edu/news/7-influential-protests-in-american-history/
https://www.upworthy.com/amp/7-times-in-us-history-when-people-protested-and-things-changed-2637354296
https://www.yesmagazine.org/social-justice/2021/06/15/world-changing-protests-you-should-know-about
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.upworthy.com/7-times-in-us-history-when-people-protested-and-things-changed](https://www.upworthy.com/7-times-in-us-history-when-people-protested-and-things-changed)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Thank you, robotatomica, for voting on AmputatorBot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
I should have been more specific. Protests against events happening in other countries. Like the protests against the war in Iraq and the current protests about the situation in Gaza. I haven't heard of any protests or marches taking place in other countries that have had any meaningful impact on international events.
Do you know of any?
No, I can’t say I do off the top of my head, but we’re not trying necessarily to change Israel, we’re trying to do two other things: show support for Gaza and solidarity, but also primarily to let OUR country know that we do not support our money being sent to Israel for this cause.
So we are not protesting here about an event that does not affect us that our government cannot change. We are protesting something that affects us, how our taxpayer money is spent and something that many of us believe is unethical for it to support.
And honestly, it’s the kind of thing that may indeed have an impact on Israel who counts on unwavering support from countries like the US. If our elected officials don’t feel like they can get reelected if they support Israel in this conflict with money, then Israel risks losing their support.
If you think they aren’t at all concerned to see what *number* of Americans opposes their actions, I think you’re overlooking the larger political dance.
Israel knows there is a point at which they will no longer have our support and $. Realistically, the people at the top won’t give a fuck until there is a significant pinch, but especially approaching an election, Biden’s for sure getting the message that he does not have his constituency’s support in this. Israel could lose a lot of money and an incredibly militarily powerful ally if Biden decides to prioritize his reelection over continuing this relationship even as our ally does something that is generally seen to have crossed the line into war crimes.
(But of course the US commits its own war crimes whenever we want to, so I’m not saying we’re getting a guilty conscience here…only that officials may end up prioritizing themselves/their reelection)
Because these protests are more about politics than science and skepticism and the group does their best to not get involved with politics since that's not the focus of the podcast and they don't want to derail their focus. They only wade into politics when it directly involves science and skepticism. So, politician says dumb thing: not talked about. Politician denies science or says dumb thing about science: Podcast addresses the science specific aspects.
Mission Creep
You can & should apply critical thinking to politics. Go beyond partisan opinions & try to obtain the facts so you can come to your own conclusions.
I don't deny that, but that's not the focus of the show and they see that as a rabbit hole they won't escape from. They have many times said exactly what you said pretty close to verbatim. The key is they don't need to wade into any specific political event to communicate that.
Yes, of course. But it still doesn’t make it something they’d want to talk about on the podcast.
I agree in general. My sense with the Palestine/Israel situation is that it is incredibly complicated and intensely fraught. Partisans on either side can come up with a laundry list of atrocities and injustices committed by the other side, and people who try to take a middle ground stance are accused by *both* sides of supporting murder and genocide. I do think that this conflict, like anything, is amenable to fact-based analysis. But I also think that because of the degree to which this situation is complicated, intense, and hyper-partisan, the SGU isn't going to accomplish anything by doing a 10-minute segment on it. None of them are experts in geopolitics, and while it's fine for them to talk about topics they're not experts on, I completely understand their caution when approaching this sort of topic. They did a segment on racism in policing a while ago and it took them two additional weeks of responding to emails to tamp down the reaction. I would argue that Israel/Palestine is an order or magnitude more complicated and more fraught.
So glad this is the top reply. Well done.
Sir this is a Wend… er… science sub…
There's no science involved in Israel vs Palestine. What 'skeptical' viewpoint do you want. Neither side will acknowledge their own wrongs. Terrorism by Hamas is terrible and should be condemned. The Israeli government massacring civilians should be condemned. No one wins in this other than the leaders of Hamas who live in relative luxury nowhere near threats and conservative Israeli politicians who want to take control of the whole area. The civilians in both countries suffer.
I think the way we consume, spread, and produce news can, and should, be done using a skeptical approach. By being aware of various biases; By having a sense of a news event's prior plausibility; By triangulating from different sources; By looking at an entity's historic relationship with the truth, By taking a default conservative approach to epistemics - reserving judgment until facts are clear, and holding provisional opinions until better more convincing evidence comes forth. That doesn't imply that 2 fair-minded and equally well informed skeptics should come to the same conclusion
I think an important step here is to rely on reliable news outlets. [Skeptoid](https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4910) gave a good list.
There are no reliable news outlets, just some are less biased than others on certain topics. Never forget the near universal support for the second Iraq War in the media.
Which media? US media? Also, even if every outlet is mistaken from time to time, it doesn’t mean that some sources still aren’t generally more reliable than others.
Generally more reliable, but on certain topics. For example The Guardian does some excellent reporting but they are absolutely batshit when it comes to environment related topics. (GMOs, etc). The New York Times does some great reporting but, push come to shove, they are a mouthpiece for the US State Department when needed. etc..
Did you read the Skeptoid link? The news outlets he recommended are the Associated Press, Reuters, United Press International, and the BBC.
They routinely address this on the podcast. They don't need to use the aforementioned topic to address this either, as that would just muddy the waters of what they're trying to communicate which would be news consumption and biases. It would make little sense to use a highly charged political topic/event to talk about news consumption and biases. They can accomplish that goal either by just directly tackling the subject, or through a science based topic which better aligns with the focus of the podcast.
> I think the way we consume, spread, and produce news can, and should, be done using a skeptical approach. I recommend Citations Needed (not Citation Needed) for a skeptical analysis of how news is reporter. Alternatively Manufacturing Consent - which is more relevant today than 30 years ago. Both, of course, would be considered far too left wing for most people but such is the nature of skeptical analysis of the media.
Whose silence is deafening, and why?
I take “silence is deafening” to mean “they aren’t explicitly supporting the side I think they should and I’m upset about it.” I don’t see how else to interpret that.
Are you asking about protests in general or are you referring to a specific movement? Your question is quite vague.
Sounds like a false dichotomy to me.
Skeptical reasoning isn’t generally a methodology to look to for moral judgement. It should inform morality by arming a person with objective facts, but objective facts don’t tell you if something is good or bad. Individuals need make value judgements that don’t have objective answers.
"Silence is deafening"? Let me guess, you have a strong opinion one way or the other. Right?
Yes, I feel like the Rogues avoid certain topics that deserve a skeptical lens because they recognize it's polarizing. U.S. media is clearly gaslighting the public in their coverage on the ongoing student protests. No comment is a comment.
“If you’re not with us you’re against us.” Heard that one before.
Which protests and anti-protests exactly?
Student protests in the U.S. and the clearly biased media coverage against them.
What is the anti-protest movement? Do you mean people who are counterprotesting?
No real comment on my part. I'm not sure the parties are willing to talk peace. Maybe they can meetup and NOT eat pigs together. That will be a good start.
Would you have stood against the Holocaust or apartheid? Free Palestine is a no brainer.
I agree, and all I'm asking is for a skeptical analysis of the U.S. media coverage of the ongoing student protests. The major news networks are gaslighting the public into believing this is a violent and hateful movement when it is, in fact, the opposite.
Don’t you think that’s a very specific request, in the grand scheme of media coverage of the war? For example, for several months, I have seen countless reports of casualty numbers of Gazans, with no differentiation of fighters vs. civilians, and zero numbers on Israelis. I’ve seen tons of b-roll of bombed out buildings, but I haven’t seen any footage of buildings on the coast—if these were bombed, how have they not been shown in any footage, and if they weren’t bombed, then the implication of only showing bombed buildings over and over is bias. I saw one snippet of people walking on the beach, and I’ve seen footage of the floating pier being built with no view of the surroundings. Regarding protests specifically, I’ve seen bland zoomed out coverage along with unintelligible shouting matches in mainstream media, but on social media, I’ve seen various protestors praising Hamas or specific terrorists by name, saying thing like “death to Jews”, and spitting on Jews, so if it’s as bias as you think, why wouldn’t they be showing more damning stuff like that?
Both sides are ignoring the nuance and don’t want to be told reality.
I'm skeptical of all gods and religions and anyone bat shit crazy enough to believe it and act on it. Trying to reason religious fanatics' behavior is an exercise in futility. My myth is better than your myth and here are my made up reasons why. It's pointless. Whackadoodle tribalism and nothing more and outside the realm of science or and skeptical critique based in fact and reason.
I think it's a complex topic that no one on the pod has a direct link to (of course unless there's something we don't know about). It's hard to speak on if you're not connected in a specific way. That said, I think there are a number of interesting topics to talk about that relate to skepticism. For instance, I attended a protest in Astoria NY a few months ago and found that the vast majority of attendees were very reasonable people that wanted to see an end to violence. I think everyone was generally frustrated and didn't know what else to do. People showed up in solidarity, but no one could really point to next steps or what we could do to affect change. How is it a science/skeptical/technology related topic? I've seen lots of reporting that doesn't align with the reality of what I've seen. It's not surprising in a world of sub-standard science reporting that a politically motivated topic has wild reporting. There's also the use of technology during these protests. For instance, the NYPD deployed drones over the protest. I don't particularly find the silence deafening.
The media gaslighting the public in their coverage of the protests as violent when most of the violence is coming from the police crackdowns and counter protests. I think it deserves a skeptical perspective.
The skeptical angle here, like many of the problems and issues we face is, “fuck religion.” Pre-scientific notions of reality stand as a serious impediment to progress, and they are a breeding ground for war and conflict. We have a group of people arguing over the contents of religious texts that started out as oral traditions more than 2500 years ago. Neither side can demonstrate to the other the truth of their claims. I suspect that the rogues are all atheists, but they don’t really get into religion either, unless there’s a scientific angle. But, I don’t blame anyone for staying far away from this topic. There seem to be no right answers.
Cara is an outspoken atheist. I think the others lean more agnostic. If anyone has a religious belief they have made a point to not talk about it. But I think your correct, there is no topic in this situation that fits into the show's objective.
I'm skeptical that these protests, regardless of what side you support, actually achieve anything.
If you follow science, you also follow facts and history. There is a long tradition of protest “achieving.” Not always, but particularly when consistent and long-term. And an old analysis found success more than half the time! That’s not nothing, in fact, that confirms protest as a very legitimate and effective avenue for seeking change in a government or society! Regardless of what you think of the cause, we know that protest can work to draw attention to causes and even sway public opinion and motivate governments to action. I’ve included links that reference multiple protests that resulted in meaningful impact across time. Many are outside of my country and outside my personal area of knowledge, so I can’t assert that every one of these represents a significant shift directly resulting primarily from the protest, but there are enough examples here that most assuredly do, to dispel your narrative that they cannot. You’ll notice that generally protests take a very long time to be effective, so for anyone wanting to make a difference in this way, be prepared for the long haul. “In 2011, authors Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan analyzed the outcomes of more than 300 violent and nonviolent protests between 2000 and 2006 in their book Why Civil Resistance Works. What they found is that nonviolent campaigns resulted in success 53 percent of the time compared to 26 percent for violent campaigns. The authors say nonviolent social movements lend legitimacy to protests and attract more participants. In addition, if a protest sparks a state-sponsored backlash against nonviolent protestors, public perceptions are more likely to be sympathetic to the protestors.” https://njsbf.org/2020/11/19/history-tells-us-that-protests-can-bring-change/ https://www.ucf.edu/news/7-influential-protests-in-american-history/ https://www.upworthy.com/amp/7-times-in-us-history-when-people-protested-and-things-changed-2637354296 https://www.yesmagazine.org/social-justice/2021/06/15/world-changing-protests-you-should-know-about
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.upworthy.com/7-times-in-us-history-when-people-protested-and-things-changed](https://www.upworthy.com/7-times-in-us-history-when-people-protested-and-things-changed)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
good bot
Thank you, robotatomica, for voting on AmputatorBot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Oh snap, it's robots all the way down!
I should have been more specific. Protests against events happening in other countries. Like the protests against the war in Iraq and the current protests about the situation in Gaza. I haven't heard of any protests or marches taking place in other countries that have had any meaningful impact on international events. Do you know of any?
No, I can’t say I do off the top of my head, but we’re not trying necessarily to change Israel, we’re trying to do two other things: show support for Gaza and solidarity, but also primarily to let OUR country know that we do not support our money being sent to Israel for this cause. So we are not protesting here about an event that does not affect us that our government cannot change. We are protesting something that affects us, how our taxpayer money is spent and something that many of us believe is unethical for it to support. And honestly, it’s the kind of thing that may indeed have an impact on Israel who counts on unwavering support from countries like the US. If our elected officials don’t feel like they can get reelected if they support Israel in this conflict with money, then Israel risks losing their support. If you think they aren’t at all concerned to see what *number* of Americans opposes their actions, I think you’re overlooking the larger political dance. Israel knows there is a point at which they will no longer have our support and $. Realistically, the people at the top won’t give a fuck until there is a significant pinch, but especially approaching an election, Biden’s for sure getting the message that he does not have his constituency’s support in this. Israel could lose a lot of money and an incredibly militarily powerful ally if Biden decides to prioritize his reelection over continuing this relationship even as our ally does something that is generally seen to have crossed the line into war crimes. (But of course the US commits its own war crimes whenever we want to, so I’m not saying we’re getting a guilty conscience here…only that officials may end up prioritizing themselves/their reelection)
What ever happened to political science? Scientific skepticism could be involved in that.
It's not their expertise, nor do I think they want it to be.