211–220 of 245 posts
I'm hoping the Streisand Effect will take hold, and this editorial becomes the most read article ever of that journal. I've posted this news on my FB (yes...) page. And I downloaded a PDF, in case the journal takes the editorial down.
> “They physically grabbed us, forced us out of the conference center, and now are telling us we can no longer attend this meeting,” Kelly told MedPage Today, which first reported the incident. “They’re taking our lanyards. It really has come to this in America. Censorship is real. America needs to stand up. Scientists, stand up. Physicians, stand up.” It's become very evident from the outside that the best time to s…
I completely agree with what you are saying, but I have grown too cynical to believe it will ever happen. American capitalism has been very effective at ensuring 2 outcomes: - The population is kept just comfortable enough to become complacent, with easy access to intoxicants, brainrot media and fast food. Now there are even robots that can do our thinking for us. A large percentage of people are brainwashed into thi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By actually striking, or by waving a sign outside? Don't get me wrong, anything is better than nothing, and many small streams may form into one big river, eventually. But short of a general strike across impactful industries, I think the current wave of protests won't actually achieve anything. There is a reason "general strikes" are so feared by the political and wealthy class, and it's because there is no way for…
One of the major union leaders in the US—I forget exactly who; it might've been the head of the Teamsters, but this was a while back, so I don't have the details—has, in fact, called for a general strike, as soon as it can be effectively organized. That's 2028. General strikes are not something you can just Make Happen. They're certainly not something you can reasonably scoff at an individual (one who's not the head…
Relying on "union leaders" or political leaders of parties isn't gonna get you anywhere. What you need is active action, something that hurts the people who are trying to hurt you and non-violent protests every 6 months doesn't hurt them one bit.
I agree that protests are important, but they also have their time and place. When the government actively listens, then it's a great way to enact reform. Once the government stops listening though, you need to up your tactics, otherwise you're playing it straight into their pocket.
> “They physically grabbed us, forced us out of the conference center, and now are telling us we can no longer attend this meeting,” Kelly told MedPage Today, which first reported the incident. “They’re taking our lanyards. It really has come to this in America. Censorship is real. America needs to stand up. Scientists, stand up. Physicians, stand up.” It's become very evident from the outside that the best time to s…
You’re pretending like the vast majority of people are being oppressed by some military government but easily forget that tens of millions of us support the president and aren’t intimidated whatsoever by anything people like you could do.
I wasn't, or at least I don't think I am. What did I write that gave you that impression? I mainly wrote about freedom of speech and censorship, and nothing of meat about the military really, but maybe I don't realize what I wrote sounds like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re pretending like the vast majority of people are being oppressed by some military government but easily forget that tens of millions of us support the president and aren’t intimidated whatsoever by anything people like you could do.
All oppressive regimes have die hard supporters. The f'ed up thing is that they may even become the majority. Hence voting cannot fix it.
Or maybe your ideas are just bad, and maybe the other side thinks your ideas are weak and doesn’t want any part of them.
How would you “fix it” without voting? And if it involves “force” why do you ever think we’d let you do that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What chills me the most, is the self-censorship Americans engage on social media today, everywhere online. It seems Americans today are afraid of talking clearly about general strikes, protesting, rape, sexual violence, censorship and more "taboo" topics, and I'm guessing it's because the platforms kind of shadow-ban people quickly for it. Growing up, I always heard Americans bragging about freedom of speech, and how…
The chilling effect on speech on social media platforms is because they are ad funded, nothing more. Advertisers have no desire to be associated with controversy. If someone wants unfettered speech, it has to be someplace for which they are willing to pay the hosting and moderation bills. " Private businesses don't owe you a platform for your speech " as the American left liked to say.
Maybe it's just the American way of doing ad-funded social media that is the problem?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All oppressive regimes have die hard supporters. The f'ed up thing is that they may even become the majority. Hence voting cannot fix it.
Yeah, it’s well known that oppressive regimes have 10s of millions of supporters. Or maybe your ideas are just bad, and maybe the other side thinks your ideas are weak and doesn’t want any part of them. How would you “fix it” without voting? And if it involves “force” why do you ever think we’d let you do that?
But once the regime is in place, over time a fraction of supporters start gaining benefits from it. Wealth, recognition, you name it. The regime controls resources of an entire country they can do it.
This core or supporters become the champions of the regime and will eradicate its competitors. Mentally or physically.
Example: try becoming an opposition party in Russia.
Historically if the erosion of institutions is already bad, there is no going back. Only external pressure (sanctions/wars) or civil war.
Elections work only if every group that has real power has agreed to yield it to institutions that will be elected. Either because they believe or because cumulatively the power they own is not enough to challenge the institutions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>“They were respectfully given the opportunity to cease this behavior and chose not to which is why they were escorted out.” I understand the want to protest, but you do know that misrepresentation doesn't help, right? Refusing to cease by an even organisers order will, yes, result in being escorted out forcefully by security.
> Refusing to cease by an even organisers order will, yes, result in being escorted out forcefully by security Sure. But if two groups of people are distributing articles published in the organisation’s own journal, with one of them containing elements of political speech, and the organization censors that one, it’s absolutely valid to ask if anyone in government directed that censorship. The core of the argument is…
It very badly damages credibility to misrepresent what happened. It doesn't further the cause, only damages it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>“They were respectfully given the opportunity to cease this behavior and chose not to which is why they were escorted out.” I understand the want to protest, but you do know that misrepresentation doesn't help, right? Refusing to cease by an even organisers order will, yes, result in being escorted out forcefully by security.
That was the intended result. The story isn't that people were escorted out, it's that they knew they were going to be escorted out and proceeded anyway. That they felt the need to break the rules is the story, because... why did they feel so strongly? Maybe there's a reason behind it?