[kspacewalk2]

I'm torn about your comment. On the one hand, the context is interesting. On the other hand, it's almost unrelated to the substance of this post of his. I suppose there's a general anti-mainstream-science bias propagating through national-conservative/far-right/alt-right circles, specifically about how the world of academia functions. However, the facts of this post about how a corner of academia functions ought to stand up or fall down independently of all that. 95-100% of this is facts (falsifiable, and maybe wrong, but stated as such), and a tiny percentage is opinion.

[fewgrehrehre]

Oh yeah, it's a fine post! Interesting read. But I don't think it's that silly to say that success for a person who espouses these views is success for the views themselves, and that a tone-shift might arise if gradually, more and more posts about inoffensive topics written by "Mr. Don't Worry About It ;)" make their way onto the front page.

[mold_aid]

I don't think it's strange at all to see this post, and the argument, in the context of Brunet's general antagonism towards academe. Certainly suggests that some arguments might be made in bad faith, or as performative gravy-train applications for the broader conservative news ecosystem.

[Pay08]

To be honest, the skepticism around non-STEM fields is completely deserved. It's a complete shithole.