>>9243675>don't careI'm not your run-of-the-mill shitposter. I do care, I just care how it's discussed. If I didn't care, I wouldn't have responded at all. I lose nothing by not talking about the intelligence game on /sci/.
>because it isn't scienceThere's a science to politics and there's politics itself. I'm not going to pretend to engage you on that level. You'll talk politics in a way that makes sense to you and I'll talk about politics in a way I choose. If we can find a middle ground, some commonality that drives the dialogue forward, so be it.
Anyway, the post directly above your explains in exacting detail precisely why I'm not going to engage you today. The fact is you care too, and it's why you're responding. You're doing the standard /pol/ thing and trying to persuade me to engage, trying to hint that there are greater things on the line than I'm aware of and ultimately working towards your eventual dismissal of, "Well it's your fate, so your loss."
The problem with that is that I simply don't agree. We don't see eye-to-eye. Whereas you see scientists as replaceable and knowledge as a mere commodity that comes and goes as the times, I see every step in the development of life-altering technology as an irreplaceable good without peer. Even if genius is common enough to be replaceable, the good it spawns isn't. That won't come from anywhere else. It has to be done, or we end up with the rot you put at the forefront of your life.
And whereas you think the people who really changed the world worked for awareness and bringing justice to the people, I see politics as a game, a waste of time, and everyone who engages with it to be as relevant as all the others who once did. In other words, I see you as replaceable. And I think I can argue well for why I think that way and provide many more reasons for why politicians are all the same and all equally replaceable than you can for why you think scientists and researchers are.
But that's not what I'm about.
