I'm approaching this subject from a place of ignorance. A cursory Google of Shanna Swan, and a glance through her Wiki page, don't suggest a relationship to "far-right rabbit holes", just a lot of coverage of her work on left-leaning sites such as GQ, The Guardian, NYTimes, etc.. I also tend to observe that many (especially older) far-right folk are very pro-petrochemical, whereas she appears to be strongly the opposite.
I guess I'm just having trouble squaring your comment away; can you elaborate/clarify your caution as it applies to Swan?
Theories about "decline of maleness", great replacement theory, "decline of western civilization", are all very linked to this sort of stuff. Granted, that is very possibly not a goal of Swan's work, but these are the type of people who often cite it.
Swan's work is dubious on other scientific grounds, however. [0]
Hence the point of my second comment - not incorrect per se, but not really any evidence suggesting that it is correct, on a number of different fronts.
The point of the first part of my comment was to answer the question posed.
What? The person directly asked how this research might be used by people on the "far right," I was merely responding.
This is lazy reasoning - you're imputing on me arguments that I didn't make and even if I had made them, they wouldn't impact the veracity of the other claim I was making.
Ah, yeah, I'd forgot about those areas having strong right-wing links. Appreciate the link and the perspective, thank you. :)
Edit: I don't care about my comment score, but what about thanking someone for their response and providing perspective is worth downvoting? Asking in the interest of continuing to foster discussion.
The thanking part will generally get a downvote: it's polite in a normal conversation, but it's just clutter. An upvote is sufficient. The real issue (imo) is this:
> Ah, yeah, I'd forgot about those areas having strong right-wing links.
This is taken to mean that, if there is an idea or conclusion that 'right-wing' people agree with, it is therefore wrong. And you not only think that, but you're thanking someone for reminding you to not actually look at the information objectively, but dismiss it out of hand because the _wrong people_ think it.
I guess I'm just having trouble squaring your comment away; can you elaborate/clarify your caution as it applies to Swan?