Somewhere around the majority of people employed in academia are absolutely useless.
I say this as an academic.
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
Somewhere around the majority of people employed in academia are absolutely useless.
I say this as an academic.
I wanted to pursue academia until I met academics. I realized it was all dick measuring contests and covert social signalling. To get ahead you to understand the unspoken and political rules. It was a very disheartening realization. I didn’t have the heart to stomach it so I ended up pursuing a different career path
I wanted to get into academia for the pursuit of knowledge/love of wisdom and all that jazz. But I noticed some of the same stuff as you.
Curiosity and inquiry were not the main priority. There's a lot of red tape, faux pas, hoops to jump through, and you end up needing to do a lot of kowtowing, self-aggrandizing, and following the established narrative. And if you didn't intuitively know the social norms of academic culture, you were basically shunned as a hopelessly backwards outsider.
Part of the problem is the commodification of education (specific to the US, I presume). Grant writing and acquiring funding shouldn't be an exercise in marketing yourself as a product, but it is. Universities shouldn't be run like a business, faculty shouldn't be treated like labor, students shouldn't be treated like customers, and degrees shouldn't be treated like products, but they are. It's a serious problem and it degrades the value of education.
Another part is the gatekeeping in the peer-review system. I understand the desire to keep the nonsense out, and there's a way to do that without filtering out novel ideas and unpopular opinions. People tend to think that's an anti-science dogwhistle, but that's not how I mean it. A truly scientific mindset should keep an open mind about things that are unconfirmed, but a lot of scientific journals commit the fallacy of negating the antecedent: "there is not enough evidence to establish this, so it must not be true." There's never enough evidence to establish a new hypothesis at first, but that doesn't mean we should discourage formulating new hypotheses. A lot of scientific breakthroughs were initially viewed as crackpot theories.
I'm not talking about "do essential oils cure meningitis," I'm talking about "can a Big Crunch result in a cyclical universe?" Or "Can taichi improve health outcomes by exercising the circulatory, respiratory, endocrine, and nervous systems?"
Stuff that there's already enough scientific groundwork to demonstrate the validity of, but are still likely to get you dismissed as a crackpot if you bring it up in an academic setting.
There's also a lot of office politics to navigate. Which is easy if you're from a traditionally disenfranchised minority group. As much as they'll argue to the contrary, women, LGBTQ+, and people of color are privileged within the ivory tower of academia. I've been to honors conferences where I was only one of a few white dudes, and likely the only one who was hetero, and yet I had to sit through a key note speaker about underrepresentation of minorities in academia. I felt like I was being gaslit.
But if you're a white man and you try to claim something like "ecosystems deserve recognition of intrinsic value just like humans do," everyone will jump down your throat as if you're trying to reduce minorities to the ontological position of animals, rather than trying to raise the environment up ontologically to the position of humanity. As if everything is a zero-sum game. They view everything through the paradigm of capitalistic systems, even when trying to deconstruct them through some lofty armchair exercise in mental masturbation.
But if you try discussing the merits of collaboration towards common goals over self-serving competition, they'll think you're trying to take something away from minorities. They think everything is some shaded attempt at a dogwhistle, so you either have to walk on eggshells or just stay silent. Unless you're mindlessly parroting the established narrative.
And if you're competing for grants or a research position and you want to study the intersections of social ecology, deep ecology, and the land ethic, they'll easily take the brown woman who wants to study media depictions over you. Even though the field is saturated with papers on how minorities are depicted in the media, yet hardly anyone writes about social ecology. You really have to stick to the favored topics, and if you diverge at all then you'd better have some serious connections or otherwise be well-established in your field already.
And if you raise the slightest structural critique of academia, everyone thinks you're some anti-intellectual, anti-science, worm-brained right-winger. Even if your critique is that the structures of academia themselves are anti-intellectual and in some cases anti-science.
Oh but you also have to be careful about mentioning intellectualism, or they might think you're elitist! God forbid an outsider believes intelligence should get you farther in academia than emotional appeals do...
It aint just academia.
I'm sure I have a bunch, but for the fediverse I think the most controversial is that I think neopronouns are a bad idea. DISCLAIMER I support queer folks, and I also use neopronouns when requested (because there's zero reason to be a dick about it), but I think everybody would be better off without them.
The entire purpose of pronouns is to offer a quick, generic (i. e. non-individual) way of referring to people or objects without using their names. Using neopronouns which have to be communicated and learned first is the opposite of that. So in my view they're not really pronouns, just additional names one has to learn for a person.
I think the most sensible way of accommodating all genders is using whatever pronouns are present in the language (usually male and female, or a generic pronoun), plus a non-binary pronoun if needed, like singular they in English.
This has also been a really controversial take of mine. But I have an even more controversial opinion that if I'm not well aquanted or friends with you, using they/them to refer to you is not offensive. I can barely remember peoples names much less your specific pronouns
Being mtf or ftm trans is conforming to gender stereotypes with extra steps. Abolishing gender stereotypes and letting everyone express themselves however they want would be far better for society overall.
I don't mean that in a negative way and fully support respecting self identification because that has the best outcomes in the real world.
Nudity alone - without the intent to shock or arouse - shouldn't be taboo, criminal, or censored.
Plastic straw pollution doesn't have a measurable impact on the environment.
The entire thing about banning plastic straws comes from some high schooler using back-of-a-napkin math to guess how many straws are in the ocean in what was clearly a successful attempt at starting a science fair project the night before it was due. Some news station picked it up, and then a bunch of science-illiterates ran away with it.
You can't determine the impact of pollution by count. Straws are tiny and weigh almost nothing. If you skip buying one pair of sneakers in your life, then you've successfully reduced your plastic use by almost a lifetime of plastic straws.
Removing plastic straws is probably the single least impactful way to reduce plastic pollution. It's pure virtue signaling: it's about presenting an image of being environmentally conscious while doing effectively nothing to help the environment.
Yes, but I don't think this is particularly controversial, perhaps just not widely known.
I think it's more of the same strategy from polluters - privatise profits and socialise detriments.
If a government says to plastic producers "what can we do to help you minimise use of plastic" answers like "make straws and shopping bags illegal" are of course in their favor. They don't cost producers anything to implement, and they make consumers feel like they've already done the "hard work" of solving plastic waste.
Of course a much better approach would be to tax products that include any kind of plastic, as that would have a meaningful impact but would ultimately cost producers as they pivot to other materials.
Suicide should be a human right. You should have to prove that you're of sound mind and that you've considered and tried all other options. But once you've proven you're not manic, psychotic, intoxicated, being coerced, etc and no other option will reasonably bring you peace you should be able to do it and get help making sure you don't get stuck halfway or receive comfort care only until it's over. Also every psych unit I've worked requires suspension of a DNR which terrifies me for involuntary admits.
Following "if it isn't harmful, it's not a problem" as a guideline, incest isn't immoral if it doesn't involve large power imbalance (e.g.: parent and offspring) and doesn't produce offspring.
If the relationship, be it purely romantic or otherwise is mutually desired and fully consensual (usual requirements), then I don't see how it would be different from other non-standard relationships.
I hope that's plenty controversial.
If the two individuals aged for a significant part of their lives together, offsprings are not the only "harm".
Forming relationships with people that are different (as in, not relatives) helps avoid the bad parts of the family structure (the weird beliefs, opinions, behaviours, etc, that are taught within a family but are not accepted outside of it). Without that, you can end up with something that seems like "cultural inbreeding" where the weirdness persists and grows, until it reaches weird shit.
On a side note
Arguably a similar effect already happens in western countries thanks to xenophobia, and that's why you have people that care so much about transmitting their DNA and having their own biological kids as if it mattered. This is just the remnants of a deeply racist culture that believes that you need to preserve your family line, and with it, your DNA. If people were mixing more with other cultures and origins, this would seem much more absurd.
Some people shouldn't have kids, and some children probably shouldn't be born.
The US isn't the great Satan, they are quite contemporary satan. Russia, China and Iran are all imperialist, anti democratic and have even worse human rights violations.
You don't have to pick a side, these are all asshats, some more than other though.
As a Chinese American I facepalm every time some other (usually white) American say they "rather live in China"
Bro y'all addicted to porn so much you wont last a day when they upgrade their firewalls and your VPN stops working 🤣
I lived in China for years. I think half the idiots who say this shit don’t even realize the internet is censored there. Like good luck with porn, YouTube, Reddit, Facebook, and the entire western internet. And yes the Chinese govt can stop your VPN from working when they feel like it, usually during national holidays or when big events happen.
Everyone (including kids and teens) should have full bodily autonomy. This includes how they express gender. Parents should not be allowed to circumcise/mutilate their kids' genitals for reasons that aren't medically necessary, nor should they be allowed to lay their hands on their kids in a violent way (and yes, that includes "only" spanking). Parents who hit/spank their kids should be charged with assault and child abuse.
Kids and teens having basic rights might not be controversial here, but in the rural area that I'm from, it certainly is.
Where do you draw the line? Not being combative, just curious. Like my toddler should not have bodily autonomy. I don't think a 5 year old would handle that responsibility well either. At what age do you get it, or does it increase gradually?
I try to let my toddler choose who they hug, or let them pick their clothes when I can, but they are very dumb. They don't understand the consequences of not wearing shoes, or insisting on a jacket on a hot day. They should have little to no autonomy over their diet or it would just be 15 bananas and constant constipation.
I am ON BOARD for discontinuing the barbaric genital mutilation that is the norm in my country, but do you let a teen get a breast augmentation or a nose job just because their high school peers are bullies? Your teen's (and young adult's) brain isn't done cooking. Where's the line for body modification expression? Even just evidence of ear piercings don't go away fully for decades.
What are the basic rights kids and teens should have? (And sorry to hear you live in a community where physical abuse is normalized)
Religious indoctrination is child abuse.
Sending your kids to places of worship or a religious school, or telling them "this is our religion", is child abuse.
This includes christofascists and oppressed minorities.
People have gotten way too comfortable with censoring speech. I understand the fight against intolerance and propaganda and how hopeless that fight can feel, but we've sometimes taken things too far and that's only going to hurt us in the end. The left is not going to be the one that will take these compromises to the limit. We will be the most hurt by every bit of erosion we allowed to happen.
Specifically, I'm referring to efforts to get right wing platforms taken down not by being banned by a Facebook or Twitter or something, but by attacking the infrastructure on which a right wing website it run (such as attempts to get Truth social shut down by going after AWS, ISPs and other basic Internet infrastructure). It's a similar approach as is sometimes done when they target payment processors and trying to shame them into banning these platforms from processing payments.
These types of attacks on speech should never be allowed no matter if it's the left or the right. We can ban people from our private business or gathering place, but we shouldn't be able to stop them from creating their own. And no, basic Internet infrastructure shouldn't get to play the 'private business' card. They are effectively the roads, utilities and other generic infrastructure of the digital age.
Those attacks are no different from the right's constant attacks on abortion clinics by attempting to subject them to needless and pointless regulations meant for full hospitals. Or as if we'd allowed a water company to start selectively shutting off water to places they don't like.
We need more protections for the neutrality of infrastructure (both physical and digital) and keep the fights firmly restricted to end user platforms. Lest we find that someday our enemies have taken these tactics and beat us with them with far greater ruthlessness than we'd ever use.
Apartments and big cities are hell. People shouldn't be shoved together like sardines.
You're probably exactly right for the places you're thinking of, but neither of those things have to be hell. Apartments originally were spacious places like the home-sized ones, the justification for their existence being that you get to live in the city centre rather than that being the only selling point.
If you want to see good examples of big cities with nice levels of public space, look at urban design in south korea and china
Not a serious one, but my hot take is that helping people move is fun!
Alot of people complain about it, but think about it. You get to spend quality time with friends or family, get a little exercise, teamwork, and usually at the end of the day you get to share a well-earned meal together
Vegans shouldn't have pets. If the ethos of veganism is consent for the things others give then it should be thought of as slavery for them to own any, especially if they feed a carnivorous animal a vegan food alternative.
Sunny weather fucking sucks. Overcast is by far the best weather. You don't have to deal with sun in your eyes, or glare or feeling like your skin is burning after 30 minutes of standing outside. You can still see everything just fine.
I got to live in San Francisco for a few years and going outside to 10 C cloudy, foggy or overcast weather (almost) everyday was amazing. It was literally the most perfect weather I have ever experienced and the only thing I miss about that city.
This is a tricky subject to approach, since it can be reduced to a really hurtful or even misogynist slogan, but I'd like to see more physical comedy in media involving women. Think running into walls, smacked by a spinning plank, or depending on the cartoon believability of the media, crushed by a falling piano.
I started a longer writeup of why that's "important" to me but before I bend over backwards to defend it I'm curious what others think.
Apparently saying new Star Trek is trash writing is enough to get banned from certain instances.
People get mad at me for thinking it's morally better to adopt than to jump through hoops to concieve your own child. There are actual children already alive who need a home. It's wasteful to bring new people into the world when there are already children in need. If you can't love someone else's child as much as your own, you shouldn't be a parent. I'm not saying nobody should have their own children ever. If you get pregnant and you want children, by all means, keep it. I just object to going to great lengths to conceive your own child when you could give a home to someone in need.
"Money" isn't needed and there are enough resources available on earth so no one goes without.
You should not expect your native culture to follow you when you move abroad.
Adapt or leave.
It's controversial in countries like Australia...
We need to standardise English, and we need to accept the US won in spelling.
Conversely, the US needs to accept they lost the metric/imperial war and start changing their shit to be less stupid.
What the fuck is 90 ~~stone~~? How long is 2.5 miles? Pounds = lbs? How? (Okay US doesn't use stone)
Don't get me started on the "19 hamburgers is equal to 5 eagles" memes.
Also, everyone needs to accept the ISO date format.
YYYY-MM-DD
You're objectively wrong if you think any other format is comparable.
Also also, you can keep using feet and inches for your own height as long as you're between 5-6 feet.
Otherwise I get confused.
There is no moral way to raise a cat.
Either they live inside and live an entire life in a few thousand square feet at best for 16-20 years, or you let them outside to hunt and they kill tons of wildlife and are exposed to becoming roadkill/coyote food etc.
My personal dodge is to adopt old cats that have already been indoctrinated into inside life and who could never be let out anyway.
Euthanasia should be legal and encouraged for people with terminal diseases like dementia. Suicide should be legally available to all citizens too
You should always look in the oven before turning it on.
Seems simple to me. Before making the oven hot, make sure there's nothing in there you don't want to get hot (and that the racks are in the right place.) Takes maybe a second.
But a lot of people seem to find the idea that they (or anyone in their household) would ever leave something in the oven, when not cooking, to be deeply offensive.
Aight I got one, I believe the elderly are less valid than the young and should have a lot of their privileges taken away. No voting once you hit retirement, no more driving, they should be entirely at the mercy of public infrastructure and if it's not good enough for them then too bad. They had their entire life to build a better future and look where we are now. The senior vote has practically enabled fascism and they deserve more hatred for the way they think and behave. Especially since they are dependent on the young to bring in enough taxes to pay for their pension.
Anyways, let's see who this upsets most 😅
I have no issue with chatgpt. Or any other LLM based platform. I use it and many other llms in my daily life. They're solid applications that provide real world problem solving.
Stupid people exist.
I mean this actively: stupid people aren't theoretical brings who exist outside this discussion we are having here. Many people in this thread qualify. There's regular stupid, which is just most people. That's the benign kind of stupid which maybe is indicative of a lack of training or bad circumstances for learning in earlier life. You can also find double down stupid in this thread. The flat earth conspiracy, "consciousness" mysticism, and can barely craft a sentence kind of stupid.
The general public is even worse.
People are all willing to admit that stupid exists, but most won't point the finger. Close your eyes and point and you'll hit someone, bless their hearts.
Cold drinks that have to be cold to be good, are bad.
If you want your drink to be good, it has to be competitively good at room temperature, first.