Then, a few years from now they will continue to ask why they need to continue to import their scientists from other countries.
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2025
664 points (98.4% liked)
science
19900 readers
1041 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, uhmm... I'm pretty sure - checks notes - yeah, that's actually the exact opposite of how science works... Thanks for playin, tho!
Worked out really great last time it was tried, didn't it?
What are you responding to here?
Who are you responding to here? 🤔
So, I guess just in case you're somehow genuinely unfamiliar with a nested comment structure (which, if so, you've got to explain your situation to me, because I honestly can't think of a probable scenario in which you aren't, yet it's 2025 and you also have both a device with internet access and the faculties to reply to me): That was what's known as a 'top-level comment', which means it wasn't a reply to anything, but instead a comment which can be responded to that gets listed alongside other comments which can also be responded to... Any responses to these - such as your question - get listed beneath (otherwise known as being 'nested' under) the original comment or post, where it can be replied to in turn. Collectively, this is known as a 'comment thread'.
Got it now? 👍
Wow...you must have no problem making friends lol
I'm just really confused by the people responding "that's not how science works, buddy!" when that's not at all the point of what Hitler did or the Trump Admin is doing. This entire interview is about funding cuts and political censorship, because the entire point is the Trump Admin exerting political and social control over the scientific establishment in the US. You responding to all this with "that's not how science works, buddy!" just misses the point.
Science is pretty much by definition supposed to be an objective measurement of the universe, uncolored and unaffected by political or idealogical bias (those would be your "political censorship" and "funding cuts" you mentioned, since you're apparently having trouble following along...) Since science should be objective, funding based on idealogical grounds or the political censorship of research is anathema to science, as it is by definition not objective. I'm not sure how I can make that any clearer.
I'm not sure what about any of this has to do with me making friends, but let me know how attempting to be condescending and thinking you're clever while completely missing a simple point works out for you... Cuz I may be autistic, but you're stupid, and I know which I'd rather be 🤣😂
If you don't think even the best science has inherent biases, I guess I don't know what else there is to talk about, even though this is way off track from the conversation.
Do you disagree that Hitler and the Nazi party destroyed the scientific establishment in Germany? It sounds like you think since the concept of science exists independently of nations or politics that governmental control of scientific institutions is inconsequential, which I couldn't disagree with more.
Calling people stupid and deriding them is also really not cool, fyi
It was more denigrating, than anything, if you wanna go down that road, precious. 😋 And you seemed more than pleased to open the door to insults, so... I dunno, don't dish it out if you can't take it, snowflake?
And if it was just an understanding issue, I would've simply said you were ignorant, but at this point either you're genuinely incapable of understanding or being purposefully obtuse. Both are pretty fucking stupid, so...
My friend, what from "What are you responding to here?" is me "opening the door to insults?" The way you spoke to me right out of the gate indicates you probably don't make friends very easily. That's an observation, not an insult.
The topic here is the negative impact the Trump Admin is having on science in the US. To say you've strayed from it would imply you were ever near it
Lysenkoism
Care to explain for the layperson?
I think it is comparing the Soviet's movement spearheaded by a biologist named Trofim Lysenko to the the current lobbying to destroy science's credibility. It was akin to the current lobbying against scientific integrity that started in the U.S. and bled everywhere else. People will immediately think of the hacks that move through the podcasts these days, I'm sure you can think of a few too. It's using a veil of pseudoscience to confuse the layman and advance the purpose of a few under another veil, one of an ideology. Lysenko was very much like the figures of today like that kermit the frog imitation that passes for scientific expert on the "dumbtube". I don't want to name these horrific hacks. They're already taking too much of the bandwidth as it is and for far too long. And I hate that most people that think they're too smart to fall for their crap, fall right into the next trap, which is to go argue and generate more visibility for them. These people never learned the old online code "Do Not Feed The Troll". We spotted them and let them starve. But I compared them more to Gremlins, because they multiply. The grifers spot the grift and chime in for the take.
I hope I didn't misinterpreted the comment you asked about. But Lysenkoism is a great shorthand to describe it all indeed.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Has someone told them about Lysenkoism?
Literally was coming here to find this. This is the party that's supposedly "against communism" yet here we are about to find out who the next Trofim Lysenko is going to be.
Stupid reality not saying "yes" when some fat wheezing whining dumbass says wrong shit constantly.