>>13701393>Live isn't fair, move on. Not worth debating this or even mentioning it.The Fallacy of Relative Privation - dismissing or ignoring an argument because there are bigger problems.
I'm not sure if this is a low effort troll, but that is retarded reasoning. So we shouldn't criticize or complain about any social issues or inconsistencies just because life isn't fair? Life isn't always fair but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying identify and fix any problems or issues that we can. In fact, by your own reasoning, we shouldn't be doing anything about any social issues, including stuff like systemic racism or police brutality. After all, life isn't fair. People complaining about these issues should just move on.
Of course, that is retarded reasoning. The world will never be perfect, and perhaps our impact wont be significant, but it's better to try and improve things than not.
Anyway, though, all of that is besides the point. I'm not trying to debate anything, I don't want to deplatform this woman or prevent her from doing interviews. First of all, those kinds of tactics are foreign to my value system. Secondly, I genuinely am not bothered by this woman or her work. Actually, I have been interested in applications of category theory to natural language semantics, ever since Bob Coecke's and Samson Abramsky's work on the subject. Nor do I consider it a great injustice that she is being given this platform to speak. All I am saying is that she is not receiving attention because her work has been super important and influential, but rather because she's a science communicator and her image appeals to liberals. Again, it's like Jacob Barnett, or Sam Harris, or Brett Weinstein. I'm actually a fan of Harris and Weinstein, and I also like this woman's work and her public speaking skills, but much like Harris, Weinstein, or Barnett, the attention she is receiving has more to do with politics, pop culture, and values, than with science.
