> What will be left when what you consider ideology is gone?

The scientific method, that is what you're left with. Even when the results of your study do not track with your feelings, your religion, your political opinions or any other irrelevant factors. I can give examples galore and I'm pretty sure you can come up with close to the same examples of where ideology trumped the scientific method by either not releasing studies, by simply falsifying or otherwise manipulating data so the results fit with the narrative and other interferences with the scientific method so as to use the cachet of the institution to amplify some desired narrative.

As far as I'm concerned there is no 'Science', what there is is people who use the scientific method to study some phenomenon in the search for more insight. People who know how to use this method and who apply it diligently, who publish their data and methods and outcomes and to the best of their ability try to interpret the results are 'doing science'. It can be bad science if they don't know what they're doing or if they're using bad methods but as long as they follow the tenets of the scientific method they're doing science. Their experiments can be repeated, their methods can be researched, their data can be inspected and others can apply their methods to their data to verify their results. Their conclusions can be questioned and discussed.

If the same people start with a given position and tailor their experiments and data and methods around that position to reach a pre-defined conclusion they are not doing science no matter how lofty an institution they happen to be employed by and how impressive their titles are. If one of these people says something which clearly does not stroke with the truth and starts throwing epithets at those who call him or her out on this that person is not a scientist but something else - a charlatan, an activist, a propagandist, a troll, anything but a scientist. A scientist, when confronted with clear and obvious refutation of his or her claims will retract or revise those claims and - if their character allows for this - thank those who pointed out the error in his or her way. That is how knowledge grows, by learning from our mistakes and by turning back when we happen to have entered a dead end.

In short, science does not have an ideology, it is the application of a method - the scientific method - which is orthogonal to ideology. You can take the most left-wing radical and the most convinced orthodox conservative person and have them do a study into ${subject}. If both of them strictly adhere to the scientific method and use valid method and valid research data there's a good chance they'll arrive at more or less the same conclusions. They may differ on their interpretation of what these conclusions mean when applied to society but the actual conclusions should be similar.

I think the reality of what has gone on has several faces which are all worth thinking about:

1. A group of people that want to be different without harming anyone and be left alone

2. A group of people demanding certain specific and new legal rights with respect to how they are different

3. A group of people advocating for new social and linguistic norms around said difference

3. A group of people socially shaming people who failed to respect said norms

4. A group of people socially shaming those who opposed new specific legal rights

5. A group of people vocally opposing said legal and social changes

6. A group of people advocating legal restrictions to prevent or punish said different life choices

7. A group of people fighting said restrictions

https://thecritic.co.uk/cancel-culture-in-academia/

If you honestly do not know what is meant by this term this article contains a good number of references to other articles and studies from which you should be able to form an idea of what is covered under the term gender ideology.

> Universities (especially private ones) are allowed to have ideological biases

Universities as private associations can have whatever biases they want. What they can't do is take public money earmarked for promoting debate and discovery and use it to promulgate a particular ideology, discriminate on the basis of immutable protected characteristics, or do other things contrary to public policy.

If they want the money from the public, they need to serve the public --- the whole public, not the part that agrees with administrators who mandate diversity statements for hiring.

> At least in the US, the health institutions merely flagged low-quality information to social media companies

There are public records of highly placed government officials emailing social media company leadership and demanding that specific posts be taken down. Not only is this state censorship in all but name, it's also unconstitutional under Vullo and other precedents.

Yes, the UK is worse. That doesn't make the behavior of the previous administration acceptable or consistent with American values.

Why are you trying to diagnose a person over the 'net? What makes you think some other person's life sucks? What makes you think that if some other person's life 'sucks' that is only caused by that person's own (in)actions or thoughts?

True, the ones you mentioned here come straight from the land of Fairy while the ones I mentioned all come from real life, warts and all. If anyone outside of the Dept. of Literature or that of Psychology were to struggle with the ideas you mentioned they'd be better of in either one of the mentioned departments or outside of academia.

But, key difference, the people pushing green sky or flat earth narrative don't get deplatformed, fired, yelled at or called Nazis.

I still haven't seen anyone attempt to do a cost-benefit on whether the COVID lockdowns were a net good. I do note we had a big social and economic disjunction and since then it has been pretty much nothing but war and trouble. The part where they were shutting up people with PhDs on YouTube through COVID was definitely a net loss though; the censors weren't anywhere near as qualified to decide what to talk about as the censored were in my experience.

Also in 1933, people saying 'not all narratives are equal' to diminish any outcry against what was happening.

I've had comments flagged for far less inflammatory framing than that comment! And they probably should have been flagged, they resulted in lots of bad discussion. In this thread it's a completely appropriate flagging because it's basically troll bait. People did engage with it in far higher level of thinking than it used, this time, but I think we would all have been better off without this digression.

It’s my understanding that the humanities doesn’t get much in government grants to begin with, but when the sciences have a finance problem, they cut the humanities for some reason.

> Governments and all of us would like to see cancer and Alzheimer disease cured.

i think an important question is "who is this "all of us" you speak of and who made you god to pronounce it"

you are making an arbitrary distinction because vibes, because it's a cause you care about. it's irrelevant. if you take money for Alzheimer's research, you owe the government one (because that money is extracted from the people in a way you could never have done yourself). if you take money from, say a 501c3, it's a completed transaction of services.

"live by the sword, die by the sword". even if it was a novel development it was entirely foreseeable.

by that argument coca cola can certainly hire goons to come get you.

how far do you want to take your strawman?

nobody claimed absolute immunity from everything that the government does anywhere. enjoy beating up your strawman.