I have had a lifelong scepticism of scientism - rather than science. I prefer to put my own thoughts out into the ether as I've generally found any individual can curate links to pseudo-science to back up their world view. When I do include research in my articles it tends to be statistical research collected by national bodies (race isn't related to mass shooting as an example) - or I quote directly from factcheck.org - ie I try to keep my sources minimal and when I do use them I try to keep them as bias free as possible.
We have debated this before, when you presented an informal observation by someone at the Geena Davis Institute as a statistical reality. You presented it as a prima-facie fact, though I can't remember what it was you asserted. I went and researched your sources and found them lacking. Not everyone does due diligence and presenting scientistic data as fact is a curse of the modern digital age. Plenty of articles written about how the world is flat contain lots of links to research and evidence.... doesn't make it so. Often links and comprehensive 'sources' are little more than an exercise in academic confirmation bias.
Once again, not going to confirm whether I'm a whiny white guy or not as we've been there many times before - but my rebuttal for you is this. If Steve and I agree we say the same thing (which we do) and you applaud only for his articles and not for mine... do you secretly agree with my ideas too? Do you just object to hearing it from someone who isn't observably BIPOC? Are you playing the player and not the ball? Can't you see why Steve and I see that as problematic? If I'm an angry whiny white guy and can have my ideas dismissed on the style and inferred identity alone - can't we dismiss Steve as Tim Scott lite?
If I include links in my articles (which isn't often) they tend to be links to Steve's works. Steve tends to write for a BIPOC and liberal audience. I tend to write for a politically and racially mixed audience. When I'm attacked by liberals for being a 'whiny white guy in disguise' (you aren't the only one who believes this) then I pass them over to Steve. People who believe skin colour is indicative of validity to speak struggle to vocalise their arguments there.
You probably aren't finding my arguments with white guys and conservatives - but they are there if you know where to look.
There are a lot less vocal Conservative voices on the platform. George is one such voice, he's a good writer and a fun opponent to debate. He has a tendency to skew media evidence in his favour and cites many sources - he also uses hyperbole the same way as many on the left. I follow him and politely disagree with him on a regular basis. I may be the only lefty who does read and comment on his work without righteous anger and dismissal - that's got to be worth something.
