Please understand that the goal of these policies is to weaken scientific research in the US. The people who push this stuff acknowledge openly that they oppose science, experts, and accurate information. This isn't a misunderstanding or a fumble.

▲

kingleopold 43 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Please understand that so many high IQ tech and science people support this, they voted and decided.

▲

SamoyedFurFluff 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Why did many high IQ tech and science people vote for their own defunding? I’m not asking out of anger I genuinely don’t get it. Culture war issues like, idk, people becoming more brown by default in America, or a trans teenager participating in a game, they’re… they don’t seem as important as ensuring well funded science??

	▲	etc-hosts 22 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		current administration is guided by the looniest of the loons Claremont Institute, who truly believe that any dollar not spent on border defense or offensive military capability is wasted.
	▲	nemomarx 21 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Lots of voters didn't believe Trump would do the things he campaigned on. "I'll defund research" can be interpreted as "probably that other research, the stuff I don't like or think is useless" by some.

▲

fnordpiglet 25 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Many is a misnomer for “some.” The current administration won by a plurality, 49%, not even a majority. This was 32% of possible voters. Of people with a PhD, approximately 30% voted for Trump. Of Trump voters 1% had a PhD.

This is still many people, but only in that “many” is more than a “few.” It’s not the case that most people voted for Trump, or even most voters. Or even most phds who voted. 70% of phds who voted didn’t vote for Trump.

This is why they are facing political retribution. He is creating suffering for revenge, the national interest be damned. Trump is more interested in the credulous, easily manipulated, low knowledge and easily conned masses. Many high IQ tech and science people are them, but not most. There are probably a few that aren’t easily manipulated and are instead just self serving sociopaths buying influence and contracts - but compared to the scale of the nation, this is indeed a few.

	▲	gpm 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		30% doesn't seem anywhere near as low as it should be though... I'd say that qualifies as "so many". That said I question both your and grandparents choice to look at only people who chose to vote. 68% of people who could have voted against this did not - either actively supporting it with a vote or deciding that they didn't give a fuck if it happened by not voting. Every potential voter either knew or ought to have known the result of this election result...

▲

Nextgrid an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can anyone explain the reasoning behind it? I can understand (not saying I approve) targeted opposition to specific scientific claims to favor commercial interests (climate change denial to favor oil & gas, etc), but wouldn't a general anti-science movement make the country less competitive in the long run and directly hurt industries like pharma/etc?

	▲	gpm an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Punishing apparent ideological enemies is a long standing mechanism for fascists and dictators - and scientists in the US qualify. It's an attempt to make people fear standing against them. Destroying sources of truth is a long standing goal for those who want people to act against their own interest, and scientists are a source of truth. It's shrinking the pie so that the republican leadership can capture a much bigger slice of it.

▲

spwa4 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

... who are unfortunately backed by a large part of the US population who have elected them on exactly that promise, for various reasons. From fear of vaccines to having various other nations freeride on US research.

That so many people think like this is the underlying problem.

▲

carbocation 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The public overwhelmingly supports NIH-funded research. https://www.aacr.org/about-the-aacr/newsroom/news-releases/n...

	▲	cogman10 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The issue, I think, is a large number of people don't realize the NIH or NIS exists or know what they do. I think most people support them once the realize exactly what they are doing. How could you not when "They research treatments for diseases" is basically all they do.

▲

bonoboTP an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

gr_norm an hour ago | parent [-]

> The Great Cause diverts all the money to itself.

Be very specific about exactly what you mean here, with links to reputable sources. You're making extraordinarily strong accusations; vagueness does not suffice to convince.

▲

mindslight an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Dignity is the fundamental problem that they're bemoaning. When scientists and other intellectual positions are funded beyond scraps and subsistence wages, they start to ask questions about societal power structures. When they're afforded political voices, they start applying their critiques to how their own institutions are run - rather than keeping their heads down as busy worker bees for the business vectoralists. And critiques/conclusions where they've gone cloyingly overboard then serve as convenient straw men that demonstrate how "out of touch" they are from "the real world".

▲

bonoboTP an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

gr_norm an hour ago | parent [-]

Then be ignored. Your subjective feelings bear nothing on the question of science funding.

	▲	an hour ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]