[elfexec]

Aren't a lot of topics already taboo in science/academia? I'd say cancel culture has been in science for a while now. Afterall it is part of academia.

Didn't a female brown university professor's study on transgenders get "canceled" because it offended some people not too long ago?

Didn't Bret Weinstein, a biology professor, at some college in oregon get "canceled" not too long ago?

Didn't Jordan Peterson get "canceled" not too long ago?

Academia and journalists have been canceling people for a while now. Was WSJ asleep for the past decade?

[n4r9]

Not sure about the first example, but Bret Weinstein was fired because his behaviour didn't reflect his employer's values, not because of the science he was doing. I also don't think Peterson is having particular difficulty doing scientific work, nor is the actual research he does "taboo".

[elfexec]

> Not sure about the first example

If you are that well versed in the lives of weinstein and peterson, you most definitely are aware the first. But being as woke as you are, you probably can't admit it to yourself.

> but Bret Weinstein was fired because his behaviour didn't reflect his employer's values, not because of the science he was doing

Weinstein wasn't fired, he resigned after getting a settlement from his university since the university couldn't provide for his safety from racist mobs.

> I also don't think Peterson is having particular difficulty doing scientific work, nor is the actual research he does "taboo".

You don't think? I suspect Peterson would disagree. You sure his research into political correctness, authoritarianism, identity politics, evils of postmodernism, etc aren't "taboo"? If it wasn't taboo, jordan peterson wouldn't be so well known. He'd be just another no-name professor somewhere in canada.

Instead of saying racism, hate and cancel culture is bad, you are defending racism, hate and cancel culture. Which may get support and upvotes in echo chambers online, but is laughed at in the real world. Reality will ultimately trump fantasy.

[n4r9]

(That's a pretty condescending and presumptuous post.)

I wouldn't say I'm "well-versed" in this but I have read around the case of Weinstein and have looked into what Peterson has to say about things here and there.

The question, it seems to me, is whether particular avenues of science are being stifled, or whether scientists are being stifled because of the nature of their scientific research.

Weinstein was pressured out because of his opinions on a matter separate to his scientific research. This sort of thing has happened before and it will happen again. I'm not defending it, I'm just saying it's not a case of science itself being stifled.

Jordan Peterson's diatribes on things like political correctness and postmodernism might be informed by his knowledge of psychology but unless I'm mistaken they don't in themselves constitute scientific research.

He has an extensive record of published papers that you can find on google scholar. As far as I can tell he doesn't have major issues getting funding, publishing papers or obtaining academic positions in pursuit of his actual scientific research, but I'm happy to be shown wrong here.