Living outside the US and watching what's going on (ok, it's not just the US, but it is just a few countries) is like watching a friend's slow motion descent into madness. It's pitiful and sad, and I feel powerless to do anything about it.

At the same time, so long as I stay away from news and social media, I'm pretty much unaffected. Society in the various countries I've spent time in over the last few years (Ireland, Spain, Germany, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia are the main ones) seems much the same as ever.

Well if you ignore the change that is reflected in what we call the news and social media of course society would seem the same, but that doesn't mean it's not changing. I agree that face-to-face interactions haven't deteriorated and may even be better than in the past, but the challenge is their share of communication and social interaction has dramatically shrunk.

The biggest thing that has changed is that a comment from 15 years ago can be dredged up, taken out of context and used to brand someone unacceptable for employment forever. Of course, this is enforced selectively.

Right, but I've never heard of that happening except from US media.

I mean the overall health of society seems pretty much normal (corona excepted). Sure, people are talking more on social media than ten years ago. That doesn't seem to be a problem in an otherwise healthy society.

Most of the discourse motivating what's going on is in the English language, so perhaps that's a factor.

Is it a power-grab or an attempt by individuals to gain social status?

I think that it has all those trappings, but underneath is a deep addiction to anger, outrage and the rush of adrenaline that accompanies it.

There is also a sort of religiosity that your comment alludes to.

>Various thinkers have pointed out that leftism is a kind of religion. Leftism is not a religion in the strict sense because leftist doctrine does not postulate the existence of any supernatural being. But, for the leftist, leftism plays a psychological role much like that which religion plays for some people. The leftist NEEDS to believe in leftism; it plays a vital role in his psychological economy. His beliefs are not easily modified by logic or facts. He has a deep conviction that leftism is morally Right with a capital R, and that he has not only a right but a duty to impose leftist morality on everyone.

The Unabomber, really? There's something disturbingly smug about thinking that one side is emotional to the point of religious and another side is logical and factual. Maybe it's time for some humbling introspection.

If you're quoting that you should maybe note that "Leftism" there means effectively anything that the author dislikes (or fits with their current PC bugbears) regardless of whether it's driven from the left side of the political spectrum of not.

It's unclear which country and which side of the spectrum you're referring to.

This is why I like to use science as a guide (not a decision point), for then there is a chance to be self-correcting.

Yes science can be a good guide. The trouble is that some left-wing social movements explicitly reject science (and Enlightenment values in general) as a tool of the oppressor. There are certain things you're not allowed to say regardless of scientific evidence. For one example, look what happened to scientific critics of Lysenkoism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism#Effects

> left-wing social movements explicitly reject science (and Enlightenment values in general) as a tool of the oppressor

I have not seen this, at least on a large scale. Are there specific events you are referencing?

I don't think "not on a large scale" is a good argument. Small groups of people can be incredibly powerful. The people who founded our country could all fit in the same room together.

Yeah but the people who found the United States were in much more powerful positions than some college students, for example.

That argument is outdated by a decade or so. Sure, there's still some college students, but the ones from a decade ago now work in the big tech firms, NYT, etc.

e.g. basically all social science that investigates differences in ability/outcomes between genders or races is explicitly rejected by the left on the grounds that it's sexist/racist.

Like?

I think it's currently more the right wing rejecting science (climate research, epidemiology etc.) as a tool of the "deep state"...

Could be both. Both sides reject science wherever fits their goals :)

The left is certainly guilty of ignoring gun or crime statistics they don't want to hear, but it's totally disingenuous to compare them to folks in the hard right-wing camp, such as fundamentalist Christians or the hardcore climate deniers.

All I know is that both of them are perfectly willing to discredit and throw science to the wind if it doesn't fit their needs. I hope the science community realizes this before they let themselves be used as pawns by politicians.

That is also a problem, but stems from a different cause. The right wing accepts the validity of the scientific method, but claims that biased left-wing scientists have intentionally published skewed results in a few limited areas like anthropomorphic global climate change. I don't agree with this interpretation and I think that climate change is the most serious threat to human civilization. But in countering destructive extremist movements from both sides it's important to understand the basis of their ideologies rather than just labeling them as "anti-science".

I agree with your general point as to why some people are against science, but using an example from before the second world war to call out the left specifically is pretty off-base. An example from 1935-1940 in Soviet Russia has very little relevance to 2020 on an English-speaking forum.

Both sides of the spectrum have anti-scientific factions which are current: on the left there are deniers of gender differences and people who overstate the role of genetics in mental illness, on the right there are climate denyers, evolution deniers, people who think crime is prevented by more aggressive policing. Anti-vaxxers are fairly uniformly distributed across the political spectrum.

Why is this comment being downvoted?

It seems rather tangential and doesn't contribute anything. It is pretty clear which country is being referred to if we're staying on topic, just saying "I like to use science as a guide" is an almost empty statement. Which science? Psychology, sociology, physics? The scientific method? How? Do you mean reading the current literature? How are you applying it as a guide to the current topic under discussion? The comment they were replying to cited authors and relevant terminology which is a great contribution for people that want to read more on the subject. This comment just blurts out an opinion and then follows it up with what could be considered a thinly disguised jab. Hence the downvotes.

I think it is because I attempted to be neutral and post the mental model I like to use (other commenter asked if scientific method and recent research and understanding. Answer to both is yes.).