Exactly.
It's funny that I'm the one being flamed as being gaslighting people by people who are the actual gaslighters.
- Like I'm the one using actual datas and scientific consensus ??
>>>>>"I'm the one denying reality or science"
- A put some context on the words of someone confusing communication and consensus in order to counter people implying that we shouldn't trust science or scientist ?
>>>>> "I'm distording reality and I gaslight by moving the goalpost"
- I'm explaining that we must fight for Gaza ?
>>>>> "I'm hypocrite and ignoring the problems linked to colonialism and capitalism" (even when I'm literally the only one constantly talking about it)
- I'm labelling people people of their toxic position in order to stop their behavior ?
>>>>> "I'm a toxic person who is insane"
- I'm calling out the BS missinformation of people based on actual political basis and field activists
>>>>> "I don't know anything and I don't understand what the left is"
It's really something this forum (those are all things that were actually said btw)
Even science and health is locked behind a paywall.
Indeed, that's why neutral science is problematic.
This is something that I explained in details around the first thousands of pages of this thread.
While the conclusions of science can be neutral. The process is not. It never is. It's full of biases and blindspot.
BUT
This is the best process we have. Hence, we must stick to it in the most ethical way possible. And this requiere for science to be political on top of being rigorous.
A simple exemple at the moment is the lack of women and the biases against women researchers in science. Well, to counter that, we need to push the other way. And this means being much more inclusive and aware of those biases when we are doing science.
This means political changes, economical changes, methodological changes even.