/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>476992 (OP)
>Our analysis suggests that scientific censorship is often driven by scientists, who are primarily motivated by self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups.


Doesn't sound like there's anything to worry about yet.

I thought I remember reading about doctors being fired during covid for asking questions about measures and vaccines, I'm surprised they don't bring that up.

>>476995
>Psypost
>I'm surprised they don't say anything that challenges the ruling class narrative
Lel

>>476995
>Doesn't sound like there's anything to worry about yet.
I don't know about that. It is still worrisome. It's drifting away from the original scientific project, where you had to prove your claims with evidence. You're basically making an argument that introducing bias is OK sometimes.

Already has. We haven't done "science" in a long time, and what approaches science has been stripped of anything real, outside of a few key areas that allow for the chokehold on humanity to be firmer. The last gasps of the scientific method croaked around the end of the 1960s, as they confirmed the young 'uns of that time were conditioned to accept literally anything put in front of them. Now, science in the genuine sense is so unseemly that you can't dare do it, and anything in technology for us is destroyed in front of our faces.

Questioning the idiotic process of the institutions doesn't change much. This is a clampdown within the institutions to weed out anyone who's not selected to rise, or who has ideas that we can do anything different. Any science that is too far removed from "utility" is already snuffed out, if not by policy, then by some mafia tactics. Meanwhile, Jeffrey Epstein will throw around lots of money and parties for eugenics shit.

Epstein's generous contributions, sadly, were relatively enlightened compared to what usually is called "science" these days. The guy did actually think about this question and how he could seed his superior DNA in all of the world's females with the wonders of technology. That's more scientific than the latest filth to make us all eugenist bugmen.

>>477036
>Meanwhile, Jeffrey Epstein will
Wasn't that guy murdered in prison, something to do with a pedo-island frequented by the wealthy and famous ?
How's he going to do anything in the meanwhile ?

>>477037
>The guy did actually think about this question and how he could seed his superior DNA
You almost had me with this bit.


DNA i

To be honest, science has always been under censorship. Look at how the church silenced scientific discussion back in the seventeenth century.

>>477040
Literally didn't happen. The disputes were entirely over religious matters - the scientists in question were men of religion making religious claims. This Galtonite narrative is a pure bastardization of history that does not stand up to any scrutiny, and it's an intelligence test to see how this piss poor education system has brainwashed the cattle. The dispute with Galileo largely revolved around insulting the Pope, and the Pope making him recant something that was already disputed knowledge as a pure flex, basically making an insanity and incompetence charge against Galileo. The church wasn't thinking "oh we must suppress the truth about astronomy!" and burned everyone who disagreed with cosmology because The Science was the center of everything. The central focus of the Galileo controversy was insults to the church, among other things. It's sort of like racking up shame and guilt of the accused for the prosecutor to look justified, which Galtonites revel in because they don't want any standard of cruel and unusual punishment, which their Satanic religion is all about. Contemporaneous writers discussed the heliocentric controversy without the Church caring that much. It basically came up only with a few rogue clerics brought up on seditious charges, like Giordano Bruno (he who claimed there was no center to the universe at all, and he was rejected because he didn't believe in The Science unlike Galileo's co-option by the Galtonites). The church just wanted to destroy Galileo's reputation, which they temporarily did, but it had little effect, and it's not like Galileo was particularly interested in Christianity. Most people aren't invested in that cult in the way you probably imagined. This is a church that held orgies in the Vatican - why do you think they are ideologues?

What this really is, is nothing but a hamfisted attempt to retroactively claim that the Galtonites' "Jehad" was justified, because they were attacking biological science and science generally to replace it with their filthy religion. That became inadmissible and unmentionable, even though a child can see through the Weismann experiment and the fake "debates" they staged to make people accept the eugenic creed and find their fag enablers.

>>477042
>>477043
Take your meds.

>>477042
Im familair with Galileo being a Catholic patron. Isaace Newton was a religious prude.
Hiwever The Catholic church at that time held all the advanced astronomical knowledge and woukdnt take kindly to plebiams indulging in it.


However, the Protestants hate scientific endeavors. Theyre actively anti-intellectual.

>>477049
Do you know why the geocentric model was protected? It was to keep astrologers in business. There were Greeks and people outside of Europe who would tell you correctly the Earth revolved around the Sun, but they had so little to go on. So far as there was a theological rationale, heliocentrism was conflated with Sun-worship and Luciferianism (and this is what the "religion of science" fags really sell). But, the Church did not have a thought police telling people that the sun revolved around the Earth. Galileo was forced to recant his writings for the reasons I specified, and claims about natural science were never theological matters for the Church. What was suspect were counter-claims to theology - and there was nothing in Christianity that changed because of a natural science fact, because the religion and doctrine did not pertain to that outside of possessing a theory of knowledge. That theory of knowledge by the way is implicit in today's university. The university is fundamentally operating with a cosmology inherited from a Christian view of the world.

The only "Christians" who are resolutely anti-scientific are, hilariously enough, the Unitarian Universalists - and they were nothing more than a front for Malthus and Galtonism, a diseased and retarded form of Christianity intended to degrade the brain.

Protestants didn't really get into natural science until eugenics and biology became political matters, and Protestants would be split between pro-eugenics forces that would dominate in the world to come, and an anti-eugenics faction that were the sheep herded to the slaughter. This event was latent in the very structure of Christianity and what it was - the ritual of spiritual cannibalism was intended to prepare the populace for depopulation, and that's what Christianity introduced when it became the state religion of Rome.

In case you bring up the Amish - the Amish objection to technology associated technology not with reason or intelligence, but with commerce, which was the common association for most of history and in practice the correct one. Their arguments against technology were entirely premised on the corrupting influence of commerce on society, rather than a belief that knowledge or reason were intrinsically "evil" as a substance. Their practices are not ideological but orthopraxy as they see it.