I applied for the wrong job for my placement year. Put down COMPSCI on the form (which, it turns out, is computational biology, which I knew nothing about) rather than ITSEC, which was the software dev side of things.

I only found out in the interview, when the first question was asked:

"So Almond, I'm a bit confused as to why you've applied to this role specifically given you've no biology background at all - could you fill us in?"

...errr...

I spewed some kind of crap on the spot about wanting to work in a field where I saw a direct & differing application of computing than I'd seen before, and thought my focus on the technical, rather than the scientific side of things might be an asset to them. This awkward exchange went on for a while - but somehow it seemed to work, because I was offered the job, and decided to take it - had a fantastic year there.

It's not a compsci paper if it doesn't start the intro with "Recent advances in [insert name of subfield] show that ..."

We're fucked.

I was having a debate on Reddit. A topic I brought up here already. Genetics and the mommies in my local baby group.

I was downvoted to hell for my conclusion those mommies cheated. Don't get me wrong, my conclusion was, they most likely cheated. I use high school genetics as heuristics, saying that its outcomes aligns with the question often enough to be a good decision maker.

A strategy manifested. Some people wrote long scientific correct arguments, just to block me the moment they sent it. For me it looks just like they deleted themselves and their account. I can still read it when logged out.

I just created a new account to reply to them. Went without a hitch, except that when I checked back in incognito, my replies weren't there. I assume they don't allow accounts that are too new. Reading from incognito, it was like they had the last word and I couldn't answer. The problem, they actually admitted to my points and built a straw men to the other points and I cannot point that out anymore.

I also thought, I should find a few people to hang out online with. So I started to play an MMO. After all, I am a daddy now, not so much time to find people. Only have nights. Besides the discords always being empty, all guilds I joined had the same thing in their rule set: "Do not discuss religion or politics."

Let me explain you something about democracy. It lives on debates. If you think you do not want to speak about your political opinions, then you're anti-democratic. Why are we allowed to vote? So, that everyone with a political opinion will find a decider. If we do not discuss, we are just at the mercy of advertisement. Most of us do not look deeply into topics, but some do. We trust them, because we know them. We have those smart people around it. Democracy is based upon "My neighbor has said and I trust him." That's how it works.

Forbidding political discourse, hiding downvoted opinions and using tricks, so the other party cannot reply in time or only with troubles is the death of democracy. That's how it ended. Because we're too butt hurt to even talk to each other, have the conversations. And I am sick of it.

And no, you cannot say, this is just a friendly group about knitting. The price of democracy is that all groups are political forums. And jobs. Everything. We do expect you to be adult enough to work with someone who has a different opinion from you. Who might even dislike you. Otherwise, the outcome is that all spaces where you would meet people that have different opinions are non-political and all political spaces are echo chambers in which you meet those people who are at best the staunchest warriors of a side instead of the normal person.

I bet two people of two different ideologies, who aren't deeply ingrained in it, have more in common than a person deeply ingrained and one that is not from the same ideology. But you wouldn't know that in today's echo chambers.

Hey everyone, I want to showcase today a master class in divisiveness.

The topic, the white house has just reacted to the "Elon is not elected" allegations. Explaining in a "civics lesson," that only the president is elected, the rest of his staff appointed. A good point, on the surface.

But also, a master class of divisiveness. From both sides.

May I introduce our characters: We have Smart Left (SL), Dumb Left (DL), Smart Right (SR), and Dumb Right (DR).

And me, Tray, your omniscient (read, unreliable) narrator.

Scene 1, act 1 - The left side:
SL enters stage, below him a crowd of DL.
SL: "Elon is not elected!"
Tray: "SL was not malicious, he did mean it. He knew how government works. It is but an ironic jab, pointing out his believe Elon having more influence over Trump than vice versa. Looking down at the DLs, they did not understand it."
DLs take up the chant: "Elon is not elected."

Act 1 Scene 2 - The right side.
DRs irritated about the accusation.
SR: "It is called an appointment."
Tray: "SR is aware what SL meant, however an explanation is warranted for DL. Yet, is it already misleading not to point out that SL knew? The original accusation remained unanswered. That doesn't mean it is correct, nor incorrect. It only means that it is most advantageous to not draw attention to it."
DRs chant: "Lefties need civic lesson."

Act 1 Scene 3 - The left side.
DLs: Outraged about being lectured at.
SL: "Of course we know about appointments, that is just a straw man attack."
Tray. "SL is aware that many of their own do need a civics lesson."
DLs chant: "Straw man Trump, straw man Trump."

Act 1 Scene 4 - The right side:
SR: "The accusation of straw manning is insulting. They make claims and do not stand to them."
Tray: "Also here a malicious act. They could explain their original target audience. But they do not want to give an inch, not admitting a point the other side made.
DRs chant: "Straw manning left. Straw manning left."

And that's the drama in 4 scenes. We are at scene 2 right now. But that's just a single act. The original accusation was not debated. Neither by L nor by R. The accusation was always dominated by the chants of those who carry the the prefix "D" in the name. "S" doesn't speak to "S." "S" only speaks to "D." Has to be, they have to react to the loudest.

It is in the nature of democracy. If all of our voices are worth the same, then bigger clusters of voices are more important. We should not assume that truthfulness and scientific rigor will prevail. After all, in human's evolutionary history, science and engineering was hampered by people and only developed to this degree because the environment positively selected for it. After all, being correct is a survival advantage. Democracy does not select for being correct, but for creating the biggest unity.