Current Events > So this Guardian thing is really throwing up a lot of red flags.

(+) Yeah! (+)

American "patriotism" never involves caring for your fellow citizens, it just promotes murdering people in other countries.
---

SJWs really made everyone racist huh.

---

Everything is some racist dog whistle now

It sounds dorky to me. Like some sort of silly wannabe Star Trek stuff. Nazi-like though? That's the stretch of stretches.

BobbyBrownLove posted...

Wait, its bad now to be pro american?

Yes.

---

Quicksilver posted...

I mean china is making moves into space and we need something to counter that. This is literally how people treated the air force back during the ww1 era they were like this is a joke who needs air planes this will never work. And now the air force is an essential part of the military. Not many forward thinkers around here.

You must be new.

---

I mean, this conversation is clearly not being had in good faith, but the funding opportunities in the US have not been great, and are increasingly shifting away from basic science and toward applied science. Government funding priorities clearly prefer the prospects of technology and medicine, not science.

---

Well what a surprise. What you actually meant was who spends the most money, which is invariably going to be the country that has the most money.
This was a colossal waste of time.

---

Racists are so corny

---

---

scar the 1 posted...

See, this is why I asked you to clearly define what you mean first, so we don't get stuck in this back and forth that will essentially boil down to different definitions of "a nation embracing science". The US spending the most money doesn't necessarily mean they're the ones who are embracing science the most. And here you're actually arguing that spending on rnd is a factor. A lot of that spending is from the govt.
Oh and aren't China developing a vaccine as well?

In my view, if you're going to argue that you are one of the few nations to embrace science (and to do so extensively), then you need to show that the people in power actually do "embrace" it. Discarding scientific results that aren't profitable does not really seem like embracing science to me. Spending billions of dollars on military development (i.e., classified results) is also something that I would consider runs contrary to embracing science. Even more contrary is, in my view, spending billions of dollars on FUD-based disinformation campaign with the express purpose of discrediting science.
Moreover, you're now pivoting and talking about "the west" rather than the US. How many countries do you include here? You said "few nations". How few?

Not to mention, you're talking about the climate research as "our" research, but that would include a lot of work from eastern countries like Russia/Soviet, China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, etc. And there are various developing countries making efforts to join the international scientific community, something that has been incredibly difficult for them due to poverty caused by imperialism. Are they somehow embracing science less because they literally can't spend as much (because "the west" took and are still taking their wealth)? The US are spending more than any other country in the world on active warfare, which quite literally prevents a lot of countries from contributing to science.

As far as climate monitoring goes, the US are currently acting in direct opposition to what the international scientific community wants. The country isn't embracing science so much as it is doing whatever it can to make sure private actors can make money on science.

Again we discover that you're actively trying to make this into an issue by deliberately refusing to explain what "a nation embracing science" actually means. I'm making the argument that when the people in power of a nation actively obstruct scientific efforts and deny scientific result, it's bullshit to say that that nation embraces science any more than other nations.

Ok, well, I'm taking about information literacy, not literacy. Those are two distinct, different things. If you don't even know the difference, then it seems like whatever opinion you have on the subject is pretty uninformed.
In my view, a country that embraces science would seek to make sure that information literacy is high among all its citizens. The US as a country does not do this. But again, this is pretty pointless as long as you're unwilling to even explain what you mean. At best you just have a weird definition of what you mean and then there's no arguing because of course, if you just use your own metric, you'll be correct. Who cares if the metric is useless, right?

Thanks for this - for some reason Clone thought I was your alt and refused to explain his position any further, putting me on ignore

Ruvan22 posted...

Thanks for this - for some reason Clone thought I was your alt and refused to explain his position any further, putting me on ignore

You're probably better off being ignored by him anyway :)

---

"Heritage and culture" aren't fascist buzzwords in the military and have nothing to do with anything beyond specifically military history.

To the people asking what Space Force does, it's mostly going to be responsible for handling the space operations that the Air Force and maybe Navy already did. Congress just didn't trust the Air Force to fund programs right with its budget. Other countries also have space forces of some kind sometimes.

That being said I hate this term "Guardian". I hate soldier worship but everyone in the DOD is supposed to be a "guardian" in the defense of the country, so fuck the idiots who came up with that.

---

Doesn't a lot of sci fi refer to their space forces as a navy? Star Wars and The Expanse immediately come to mind

treewojima posted...

Doesn't a lot of sci fi refer to their space forces as a navy? Star Wars and The Expanse immediately come to mind

Yes. There was actually an announcement about it earlier this year that the Space Force wouldn't be required to use Naval rank titles. A big part of that is probably that it has roots as a component of the Air Force so it would make sense they would just use Air Force ranks and promotion system and everything.

I'm curious if they'll stick to "Airman First Class, Senior Airman", etc. or if they'll literally try to use Guardian.

---

Hexenherz posted...

Yes. There was actually an announcement about it earlier this year that the Space Force wouldn't be required to use Naval rank titles. A big part of that is probably that it has roots as a component of the Air Force so it would make sense they would just use Air Force ranks and promotion system and everything.

I'm curious if they'll stick to "Airman First Class, Senior Airman", etc. or if they'll literally try to use Guardian.

I can't see this "Guardian" terminology lasting. It just sounds too cringey and out of place compared to the other branches.

CloneTheHero posted...

thats exactly what it means!?

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/

Genetically modified foods: 88 percent of scientists say theyre "generally safe" to eat; 37 percent of the public agrees.

Vaccines: 86 percent of scientists believe they should be required in childhood, compared to 68 percent of the public.

Climate change: 94 percent of scientists say its a very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem; 65 percent of the public agrees. 87 percent of scientists blame humans; 50 percent of the public does too.

Evolution: 98 percent of scientists say they believe humans evolved over time, compared to 65 percent of the public.

There were also large disparities on issues like whether its safe to eat foods grown with pesticides (scientists: 68 percent; public: 28 percent)

whether the worlds growing population will be a problem (scientists: 82 percent; public: 59 percent).

A third of Americans dont even believe in evolution or climate change as a serious issue. Americans dont embrace science, they actively argue against it if it goes against their own beliefs.

---