Neoliberalism encompasses within itself, a modernized, more palatable version of Spencer's Social Darwinism. The more modern keyword for it is "meritocracy." And it is a means by which neoliberalism perpetuates itself, by providing a logical, if not also moral, permission to be greedy, to treat the disadvantaged as undeserving and inferior, and elevate "success at any cost" to the position of prime directive. To those in power, it represents the most compelling source of moral authority since for them, it is totally self-serving.
@CrabApples Bodaciously Bitter Fruit's The application of Pareto distribution is based on the presumption that "better off" is appropriately measured by wealth. It's just one more bogus justification, along with meritocracy, in arguing why things are best the way they are. A better measure, for example, might be one where the distance from the wealth top to the wealth bottom is minimized, or where there are the fewest people at the bottom. But both Pareto and meritocracy are a craven attempt to apply both scientific and moral weight to a totally inequitable and immoral measure of societal success.
Really? He made a good argument. And we've already seen the "liberalizing" (really, neoliberalizing) of so many other sectors of society: journalism, politics, taxi drivers and hotels, even the private sphere has been destroyed - friendships, communities, dating, even commenting. Because everything must be converted into something that can be consumed. Because something only has value when it can be bought, sold and consumed. Why should science be any different? The process has already begun, where whole disciplines are being taken over by anti-science doctrine (gender studies anyone?). When people talk about "science" now, most of the time they're not referring to the scientific method, they're referring to pop-science: the latest tech gadget, predictions of a utopian tech future, their favorite celebrity scientist etc.. Facts and evidence mean nothing. Science now means whatever the market says it means. The market tells us that people want to consume "science" (whatever that word means now), therefore it must be true. Who knows where this will end. God help us all.
@@the81kid You're buying into what the right says (and neolibs say, for that matter): they want to claim there is no objective reality, which is transparent bullshit designed to fool you into believing there's nothing going on you need to know about.
Very interesting talk. Thank you for putting this up on RUclips.
Neoliberalism encompasses within itself, a modernized, more palatable version of Spencer's Social Darwinism. The more modern keyword for it is "meritocracy." And it is a means by which neoliberalism perpetuates itself, by providing a logical, if not also moral, permission to be greedy, to treat the disadvantaged as undeserving and inferior, and elevate "success at any cost" to the position of prime directive. To those in power, it represents the most compelling source of moral authority since for them, it is totally self-serving.
@CrabApples Bodaciously Bitter Fruit's The application of Pareto distribution is based on the presumption that "better off" is appropriately measured by wealth. It's just one more bogus justification, along with meritocracy, in arguing why things are best the way they are. A better measure, for example, might be one where the distance from the wealth top to the wealth bottom is minimized, or where there are the fewest people at the bottom. But both Pareto and meritocracy are a craven attempt to apply both scientific and moral weight to a totally inequitable and immoral measure of societal success.
damn.... whoa
It’d be nice if I could hear more than 60% of what he says
Headphones helped.
bot triggered at 1:21:00
The truth shall set you free. But not before it makes a lot of people very angry for threatening their worldview (aka "safe space").
or he’s from New York
My god, watching this when Pakistan is on the brink of default
5 minute intro? Seriously.
The criticism of open science really isn't very good.
Haruhi, there might be something off with the way you framed that statement, especially in the context of this video.
Really? He made a good argument. And we've already seen the "liberalizing" (really, neoliberalizing) of so many other sectors of society: journalism, politics, taxi drivers and hotels, even the private sphere has been destroyed - friendships, communities, dating, even commenting. Because everything must be converted into something that can be consumed. Because something only has value when it can be bought, sold and consumed. Why should science be any different? The process has already begun, where whole disciplines are being taken over by anti-science doctrine (gender studies anyone?). When people talk about "science" now, most of the time they're not referring to the scientific method, they're referring to pop-science: the latest tech gadget, predictions of a utopian tech future, their favorite celebrity scientist etc.. Facts and evidence mean nothing. Science now means whatever the market says it means. The market tells us that people want to consume "science" (whatever that word means now), therefore it must be true. Who knows where this will end. God help us all.
@@the81kid You're buying into what the right says (and neolibs say, for that matter): they want to claim there is no objective reality, which is transparent bullshit designed to fool you into believing there's nothing going on you need to know about.
@@bzolsen
How did you interpret that from my comment?? That's a huge leap.
Update: We're living in the age of neoliberal science right now, and have been for about 18 months.