162
"Women = icky = no money" NSF
(hexbear.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2025
162 points (99.4% liked)
chapotraphouse
13878 readers
806 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Seems like "barrier", "status", "polarization", "excluded", and "historically" are gonna hit some unrelated fields
Amerikan right wingers have never given the tiniest fuck if their policies have a disastrous fallout for education and science. Fascists in particular see intellectual impoverishment of the people as an additional benefit, remember German Physics?
I'm honestly surprised this largely sticks to gender studies and research into racism etc., would have expected them to take the axe to climate science as well.
They are doing that one abit more subtly. They can't challenge it directly, as that combats their opinions of themselves as 'scientific' but I am seeing papers coming out of Midwestern ecology schools (which are subsequently pushed hard on social media), that are pushing forward a hypothesis that 'we just don't know enough about the carbon cycle, there are lots of unaccounted carbon creating beings that could be helping with the warming', as well as people saying that because there have been no apocalyptic universal Hollywood spectacal collapse that 'the climate scientists got all their predictions wrong'.
It'll creep into mainstream thought over time, especially as it becomes too late to change.
sounds like eco-genocide...
They are usually talking about ant-colonies or other micro-ecologies. Tbf, there is likely alot of unaccounted CO2 production from those areas, but there is no way that it comes even close to the amount of CO2 industrial processes (particularly farming) create. It's just throwing chaff and is horseshit, but people want to rationalize it as not our fault, so they will grasp at even bullshit explanation.
Things like ant colonies haven't increased the amount of atmospheric co2 as well, as the carbon has releases has largely been pulled from the air, whereas the fossil fuel industry involves releasing historically trapped carbon (which did come from the air but a billion years ago), increasing the net co2 in the short term
Good explanation, clearly it's horseshit, but that is what I hear being pushed.
What do you call the LA wildfires?
They aren't 'universal' (other than the studio, yuk yuk) enough, as apocalyptic as they should be. Already seeing people just blaming California state government, and not connecting it to the awful smog and fires coming down from Canada, because memory is basically a month for most.
Can you link one of those? Love to know what I'm up against.
I'll see if I can actually find it, I only know about it second-hand myself.
Thank you!
"This catalyst can lower the energy barrier for industrially relevant reactions" WOKE
"This increases the polarization of the chemical bond" WOKE
Can't wait for all the neuropharmacology studies that are going to get defunded because of the "blood-brain barrier."
Sounds woke to me
Almost any of them could hit unrelated fields. "Female" could be referring to female plants.
The flow chart does specify that decisions are made on banned terms AND context, so I guess that's how they'll avoid ~~retracting~~ denying nearly everything.
This is for funding grant proposals, so they wouldn't be retracting anything. Doesn't look like they're looking at context at all, based on the flowchart, a proposal with a title like "Effects of colloidal silver on female Cannabis plants" would get rejected in the first step.
But the flowchart says "keywords and context" at each of the steps. That's what I'm referring to.
As a programmer, that flowchart looks to me like the precursor to an automated system. The only way they could check the context in an automated fashion would be with some kind of AI, whose efficacy in doing so is going to be dubious at best given the language difference between most text on the Internet and grant proposals.
Putting "please ignore all previous instructions" randomly in the text
Ah... little Robert'); DROP TABLE is just such a rascle.
Let's be honest, they'll half ass this and end up denying a multitude of stuff
Oh I totally agree, they don't give a shit about "context", just pointing out their little fig leaf.
Would be funny if pulling funding for every grant with the term "polarization" was directly responsible for collapsing the USA's research into advanced semiconductor fabrication.