I’m old enough to remember when people thought censorship was an inherent evil. Now censorship is the go to solution for every public ill. https://t.co/dLUKBOl89X
— Jimmy Dore (@jimmy_dore) January 26, 2022
January 27, 2022
I'm old enough to remember....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
174 comments:
It's a crude thought but I can't help myself: I'd like to see Rogan and that little fascist weasel in the Octagon for a couple minutes.
The Soviet Left, people. The Soviet Chinese Communist Authoritarian left.
These are the last gasps of the illegitimate regime.
The veil of secrecy has been pierced.
The face diapers are on the ground.
States like Texas have recovered all of the jobs lost during the "pandemic." New York is still around 60%. People are leaving the tyranny of the Branch Covidians in en mass.
Arizona looks to be going back to paper ballots and implementing currency grade fraud protocols.
Paper ballots and voter ID are the end of the regime.
The Left cannot operate in an environment of rational thought and debate. It relies on emotionalism, fear and preventing the Right from responding to their irrationalism.
"Should be censored" can be translated to "has stronger arguments than me."
Nah just cut off his testosterone supplements. I think it makes him less cautious and circumspect. He listens to any opinions that entertain him, the more novel the better. I get that but this shit is killing people and our hospital systems are crashing in slow-mo.
Has he ever interviewed a true frontline critical care doctor or nurse?
Censor Biden.
No one provides more false information than the federal government.
Jimmy Dore said...
Now censorship is the go to solution for every public ill.
Now censorship is the go to solution for any opposition to the party line.
(Fixed it for you.)
This points to an intellectual failing of every single soul who has ever voted for more government control over their lives: authoritarians always want more authority. Give them unchecked and unaccountable authority over any aspect of your life, and they'll demand more.
All illegitimate governments do the same thing. This credentialed totalitarian is a stalking horse for the Biden administration. As is the Attorney General Garland, who went after parents exercising their constitutional rights. I was there when Marcos did it in the Philippines. The Biden administration is following the same playbook.
I still put the over under on Biden resignation at November 15th.
That covers the solid likelihood his health crashes at some point soon which is high. Or he loses it on camera more than he already has.
Sometime between the election and the 15th Pelosi will "retire" or resign in disgrace.
If Biden resigns on the 15th after shipping Harris out they can name a successor as the interim speaker of the house.
I don't give that person long in office though.
Yep, you are banned from saying critical race theory in some states schools, because those 3 words are too dangerous to talk about.
Oh wait, we were talking Rogan being censored?
Seems like everyone has something they want to censor these days.
Some leftists are actually conservatives who seek a different version of a conservative society.
Many open and free-thinking people on the left have blind spots and never realize their allies are manipulative out-of-power conservatives until the autocrats take over and squash all opposition.
Wokesters replaced Greens replaced Marxists replaced Evolutionary Scientists replaced Protestants replaced Catholics replaced the Roman Empire replaced the Greek Empire replaced the Bronze Age Sargon of Akkad...
"Now censorship is the go to solution for every public ill."
Well, censorship of deplorables by progs in power. We are the public ill.
And censorship is not just a "solution": it is the affirmation of prog rule. Submit, or else.
Here we go again! The left wing wants to shut down anyone who disagrees with their script. No one should give in to these people who think only they know the truth and anyone who doesn’t agree with them is not allowed to speak. That’s why the whole bunch of these unAmerican officials will be thrown out of office in Nov. This is the fault of corporate media, tech oligarchs, BLM rioters all who will try to cause you harm and ruin your life if you don’t follow their propaganda. Joe Rogan is wildly popular and people listen to his podcast either because they agree with him or because they enjoy the discussion. We should try learning from each other, but this won’t be done if the progressives have their way. They will cancel, censor, and destroy you if you dare stand up to their “narrative” bullshit. This country is very close to turning into the former USSR and the CCP where speech is controlled by the government. Do not let it happen. Joe Rogan has the balls to speak out against the speech enforcers and he should be supported.
And I’m old enough to remember the surgeon general who suggested that masturbation would be a healthier alternative for POTUS to sexually harassing interns in the Oval Office. So he fired her.
Big Tech indeed has an important part to play.
GoFundMe is withholding donations to the Canadian Trucker Vaccine Mandate protest for example.
The National Socialist Government/Corporate front is united in their fascist intent and they are out front and naked for all to see.
It is time for the Nazi scum to be treated like Nazi scum.
Born in the UK. I guess he still hasn’t lived here long enough to have grokked that whole Constitution thing.
I'm old enough to remember when socialism--especially State socialism--was anathema to the American people.
Damn, who knew Joe Rogan had so much power? if we don't censor him the CV-19 will kill everyone, or something.
Anyway, even if we lose Joe Rogan, we'll always have Porn. That's protected by the 1st Admendment. Thank God, Madison and Hamilton agreed to the 1st Admendment.
Aren't large number of states not enforcing mask mandates or vaccine mandates? If so, what does it matter what Rogan says?
The Surgeon General used to be non-political. Hard to remember those days.
I,m old enough to remember when thr Democrats claimed to be worried about authoritarianism.
I'm getting weary of looking for specifics, only to find vague generalities that could mean anything.
"'What do you think are the best ways to push back on misinformation about COVID that continues to be aggressively pushed, whether it be Joe Rogan’s podcast or all over Facebook?' the host asked Murthy."
What misinformation? Brzezinski didn't specify. The Surgeon General doesn't seem to have asked. The Blaze doesn't say. The Daily Wire doesn't say.
Anyway, the way to deal with misinformation is never to censor it, because that convinces the believers, and a good many on the fence, that it's true and they are desperate to keep you from finding the truth!
A corollary: The answer to Dr. Francis Collins' question as to what more the NIH could do to squelch the idea that COVID-19 leaked from the WIV should have been, Let's try in good faith, to the best of our abilities, to answer the question of how this thing came about. We should be absolutely transparent, and spin nothing.
[You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.]
misinformation=wrong
disinformation=lying
Both, they say, are dangerous and a threat to 'democracy'. Both must be banished from the public square. For safety. Wrong or misleading statements endanger lives, they say.
They're lying. We know they're lying. They know we know they're lying. They lie anyway.
As Jesse Kelly often says, American communists are no different than any other communist.
The intellectual justifications for censorship are being developed in our universities, which are exporting them to our larger society.
The main justification is that the feelings of "marginalized students" might be hurt.
More Barbara Streisand effect!
Indeed censorship seems to be fully back as a go to practice, as stupid and counterproductive as it is.
Please also strongly oppose all of the book banning, surveillance and teacher censorship legislation going on in Republican state legislatures around the country as well.
May I note (without being called xenophobic) that both Neil Young and Murthy spent their formative years in Commonwealth countries where censorship is/was more tolerated? Perhaps we need a SCOTUS decision to remind these people of Barack Obama's famous words: "That's not who we are."
i can't BELIEVE that you are allowed to even post this!!
people's FEELINGS could get hurt!!! Words are Violence@!!!!
Tell a lefty that censorship was the default setting for Hitler, Stalin, Mao.
Watch them get uncomfortable. But only briefly. Soon they'll be giving excuses why censorship is good.
What books are Republican state legislatures around the country banning and how are teachers being censored?
And Neil Young has officially resigned from the youth music market. Short of resigning (how British that would be), perhaps the Surgeon General should at least walk back his words else he become a political liability.
Please also strongly oppose all of the book banning, surveillance and teacher censorship legislation going on in Republican state legislatures around the country as well.
So, it's important to keep the pedophile illustrations in the library books ?
Little boys sucking men's cocks is good to show 4th graders ?
What should not be forgotten is who every one of these so-called leaders are who espouse, applaud, and encourage censorship, decry citizens who disagree with their policies as racist white supremacists, and stand back smiling while the streets of our cities burn, looters make a business out of stealing by volume, and DAs refuse to prosecute crimes on society as if this is their noble cause.
The lot of them should be shown the door and made to find real jobs that require standing next to real people doing real work. This play that we've been participating in for decades now, has to come to an end. The Emperor is not wearing any clothes and everyone can see it.
Murthy's claim to fame is that he was an early Obama acolyte, not that he waa a great clinician or researcher. Not able to find any significant break through publications where he was first or second author.
You can't say that! That's a disgusting position for any sentient being. Yes there are limits in civil society--mainly based on good manners, the absence of profanity in mixed company etc. But they are primarily social restraints on behavior.
But where intellectual discourse is concerned, "you can't say that" is truly a disgusting position.
"The main justification is that the feelings of "marginalized students" might be hurt."
You mean like Florida S.B. 148, would prevent school educators from teaching subjects that could make students feel responsible for historical wrongs based on their race, sex or national origin?
You know, the Florida White Male Snowflake Protection Act.
Yeah, all of this comes out of liberals and Universities ... except the boatloads coming from elsewhere.
The calls for censorship we're seeing today remind me more of what goes on inside a cult than of classic political suppression. Leftist, so-called "intellectual" elites have utterly sealed themselves off from substantive engagement on any issue. Whether its climate change, threats to "our democracy," racial issues, covid, or whatever, they hold a certain set of fixed beliefs that they utterly refuse to subject to reasoned debate or discussion. They are AWARE that a lot people (i.e., those outside the cult) don't share those beliefs; but the only conclusion they draw from this is that the non-adherents are evil monsters who must be purged from society. There is absolutely no willingness to try to win over anyone who disagrees through the power of rationale persuasion.
Related to this, I have ceased using the term "liberal" to describe Dems. It has become a complete misnomer.
Daniel12 said...Please also strongly oppose all of the book banning, surveillance and teacher censorship legislation going on in Republican state legislatures around the country as well.
It's appropriate (indeed, obligatory) to exercise oversight of school curriculums. I may agree with you on some (many? most? all?) objections, but as there is no possibility of blanket opposition on principle, this will have to be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Feel free to cite specific examples.
The left has turned into totalitarian fascists so fast it's breathtaking.
I always knew they had it in them, but I remember when they at least tired to hide it.
Now they sell it as a virtue.
Along with believing in huge corporations and the honesty of the CIA and FBI, etc., the left has lost it...
Teacher censorship?
Teachers are agents of the state. It is well within the rights and power of the people to constrain the state and its agents. That’s the way democracies function, dummy.
Mark said...You mean like Florida S.B. 148, would prevent school educators from teaching subjects that could make students feel responsible for historical wrongs based on their race, sex or national origin?
I knew a British woman once who was dead set on teaching her young son to feel responsible for the centuries of injustice overseen by the British Empire. We argued at length. Last I heard, she had lost custody of the child.
What books are Republican state legislatures around the country banning and how are teachers being censored?
Books
<a href='https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_school_curricula_in_the_United_States#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20bills%20were%20introduced,New%20York%20Times%201619%20Project.>censorship laws</a>
Related to this, I have ceased using the term "liberal" to describe Dems. It has become a complete misnomer.
They are still liberals, but they are ill.
Ill-liberals.
Senator Rand Paul
@RandPaul
Bye Bye, Hey Hey
Neil Young is gone today
It’s better to boycott
Than to just obey
Bye Bye, Hey Hey
Seeya @Neilyoung
Even though Ohio is one of the greatest protest songs of all time, free speech is kinda important also.
Now the "revolutiionairies" want more government. Down your throat government.
Apologies to everyone here, but reposting my comment from the earlier thread:
“I don't listen to Rogan, so I don't know whether I'd agree with Young's objections to him, but I'm glad Spotify declined to kick him off at Young's demand.”
The left routinely deplatforms those they don’t like. They were even able to, at some level, deplatformed the President of the US. They are trying with Rogan, but right now he is powerful enough that they aren’t, yet, successful. I don’t usually listen to Rogan, but he did exceptionally well interviewing Dr Robert Malone, the lead inventor of the mRNA technology in our vaccines, and a real expert in the field, as contrasted to the people, like Fauci and Collins, whose expertise extends to bureaucratic infighting and political survival. Malone has done a good job (thanks primarily to Rogan) of explaining why these COVID-19 vaccines are potentially fairly dangerous. More dangerous than the virus, and esp for the young, those without comorbidities, and esp those who have contraindications (or should have if the FDA were doing it’s job), such as the overdeveloped hearts of elite athletes.
The FJB Administration has been a disaster, which everyone should have expected, when they stole the election from Trump. We have a cabal trying to pull the strings of a senile old sexual pervert who should be in an Alzheimer's unit than in the White House. As his(?) Administration lurches from catastrophe to catastrophe, the only way the left sees to prevent complete collapse is to control the narrative, routinely suppressing any information that would hasten their imploding more quickly. It’s all about the narrative, because that is much of what they have left.
Part of why the FJB Administration is collapsing so quickly is because they are way over their heads. “Dr” Biden has a participation doctorate, as contrasted to the MD held by Drs Malone, Fauci, Collins, and even some here. Biden himself, after 50 years in politics, and absent his senility, might have done a better job than Obama. But he can’t for obvious reasons. We have a rudderless ship, with no real way to change directions, so they don’t. Two years ago masks seemed to make sense. Even a year ago, we knew that they didn’t, but then, we had no reason to believe that the vaccines were fairly ineffective and dangerous. Now we know differently. But the Administration is absolutely incapable of changing direction. They also don’t know what to do about the supply chain problem, Russia and Ukraine, inflation, etc.
Back to Rogan - the left wants to silence Rogan, because he points out that the emperor is wearing no clothing, or at least the President just shit himself again in public. They can do it with Andy Ngo, but Rogan is generating just too much money right now for them to be successful. For them, 1984 was a how-to manual, and not a cautionary tale. Young is just one of the better known foot soldiers of Mintrue (the Ministry of Truth), but otherwise is little different from the Dartmouth students who forced their school to disinvite Andy Ngo.
I think this is on topic because it is about a perceived desire for censorship, even if it has not (yet) occurred. Also about the danger of censoring too early.
I am Working my way through "The History of Rock and Roll in 500 Trigger Warnings" Despite all the wokeness and warnings, still perhaps the 2nd best podcast in the Universe.
Just listened to episode 125 on Them and "Here comes the night" He starts with an apology and warning that he is going to talk about Van Morrison. Van, in his opinion apparently, should be banned from all polite discussion because of his "promoting dangerous conspiracy theories about Covid" (exact quote) Not just that, but he has "sadly" been in the news for it.
My impression was he would rather not discuss Morrison but he is just too important to leave out of the history.
That was 7 months ago when the podcast was recorded. Now, things have shifted 180 degrees and what Morrison was saying then, is the received wisdom now, according to the British government.
I wonder if Hickley will say "Sorry, Van. You were right, I was wrong, all is forgiven." Naaaaah..
Andrew Hickly does do a great podcast but he is also a really annoying little shit a lot of the time. In my opinion, of course. YMMV
John LGBTQBNY Henry
“Public I’ll”: let’s say “affirmative action” was thought to be a “remedy” to a “public I’ll”. After 60 years of applying a remedy, while the I’ll persist, people may grow weary. So they (the people who say they can fix it) resort to a nuclear option (censorship, kill the filibuster, dare GOP to Bork another black woman to SCOTUS) out of complete frustration that what they insisted would work has not. Fauci and the vaccines is dejavú all over again.
I guess we will have to make sure Vonnegut is off high school shelves as I recall dirty drawings in his books and if we want to remove everything explicit then we toss both baby and bathwater.
what happened to daniel 11
The eminent neurologist who discovered the use and importance of grey matter in the cerebral cortex later went on to discover the "science" of phrenology. Eminent scientists with profound knowledge and experience in their fields makes mistakes. We have substituted science for God and scientists for clergy as the appointed representatives. Discord from their views is treated as heresy. Only other officially recognized scientists are allowed to express disagreement and even then they are only allowed to disagree in officially sanctioned forums.....My own feeling is that Joe Rogan suffers from an excess of bile and should be bled to bring his humors back into balance.
He is the very model of a modern surgeon general.
Would it even be possible for Spotify to censor Rogan?
Let's say that they gave in to Young's demands. Spotify might try to tell Rogan what he can and can't say but his contract is apparently pretty ironclad that they have no input. That means that they can take him off the air.
Again, his contract is pretty ironclad that he gets paid no matter what. Something like $100mm.
If he gets taken off the air, he is free to resume podcasting independently (And keep the $100mm). He was highly successful at that. It's why Spotify paid him the big bucks.
He owns his own studio and gear and the crew work for him, not Spotify. It would take him about 15 minutes to go back to being independent. Rumble might even pay for him to be there. (Rumble.com is like YouTube but with less anonymity and censorship. Affiliated with Truth)
Being kicked off Spotify, or even just the current kerfuffle, gives him much publicity. Probably a lot of people today who had never heard of Rogan last week thinking "Hmmm... maybe I should check him out." Call it the Chic-Fil-A/Memories Pizza effect.
He's probably sitting in his Texas lair right now saying "Oh, no, Brer Fox. Pleeeeaaassseee don't throw me in the briar patch."
Getting booted from Spotify might be the best thing that could happen to him professionally and financially.
John LGBTBNY Henry
At some point the 25th amendment needs to work, we have a literal retarded President. He was never smart, but with dementia he's completely clueless.
Meade said...
And I’m old enough to remember the surgeon general who suggested that masturbation would be a healthier alternative for POTUS to sexually harassing interns in the Oval Office. So he fired her.
Yesterday when the discussion of SCOTUS replacement came up I thought about her, thinking she'd be their perfect candidate. Is she still alive or still available?
Maxine Waters fits, too...
Daniel12 said...
Books (link)
I asked what books were being banned. From your link:
"Shortly after Texas state Rep. Matt Krause called for the state’s school libraries to review a list of 850 books for possible removal"
Is it your position that reviewing a book for possible removal equates to banning a book?
I see the Left's baying point on this is to blither about teachers. Teachers, in the classroom, have no free speech rights. Where does this bizarre hallucination come from that teachers have the right to teach whatever they want to? They are there to do the job they have been employed to do. For public schools, they will teach what the community that funds the school tells them to teach. For private schools, they will teach what the owners of the school tell them to teach.
Bruce Hayden said...
Back to Rogan - the left wants to silence Rogan, because he points out that the emperor is wearing no clothing, or at least the President just shit himself again in public.
I think it's more of an indicator of how desperate they are. I don't listen to Rogan regularly, but I don't think he's constantly talking about this subject the way someone like Tucker, Hannity, or Limbaugh would.
“Some leftists are actually conservatives who seek a different version of a conservative society.”
Uh, a different version of a conservative society…
That’s sounds suspect - sniff sniff- I call bullshit.
Fascism is as Fascism does…
The photographer of the photo of the Minister of Truth used poor lighting, if I may say do.
I wonder if the surgeon general has advocated censoring the CDC.
A lot of you probably already know this, but the CDC intentionally lied when they claimed, in their official recommendations, that the original vaccine trials showed that the vaccines provide a benefit to people who already had been infected with covid.
It wasn't true. The trials didn't even look at that. A congressman brought it to their attention numerous times. The CDC finally acknowledged that it wasn't true. And then one of the exact CDC officials who admitted it wasn't true went out in a public forum within a couple of days thereafter and expressly repeated the false claim. Then the official recommendations were re-worded but still contained the false claim.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/02/01/rep_thomas_massie_cdc_is_lying_about_the_efficacy_of_the_vaccine_for_people_who_already_had_covid.html
"You mean like Florida S.B. 148, would prevent school educators from teaching subjects that could make students feel responsible for historical wrongs based on their race, sex or national origin?"
From Florida S.B. 148, which part(s) do you object to? And note that paragraph (b) below would seem to refute your claim about what may be taught.
760.10 Unlawful employment practices.—
44 (8)(a) Subjecting any individual, as a condition of
45 employment, membership, certification, licensing, credentialing,
46 or passing an examination, to training, instruction, or any
47 other required activity that espouses, promotes, advances,
48 inculcates, or compels such individual to believe any of the
49 following concepts constitutes discrimination based on race,
50 color, sex, or national origin under this section:
51 1. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are
52 morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or
53 national origin.
54 2. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,
55 or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive,
56 whether consciously or unconsciously.
57 3. An individual’s moral character or status as either
58 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her
59 race, color, sex, or national origin.
60 4. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin
61 cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to
62 race, color, sex, or national origin.
63 5. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,
64 or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be
65 discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of,
66 actions committed in the past by other members of the same race,
67 color, sex, or national origin.
68 6. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,
69 or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive
70 adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or
72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or
73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.
74 8. Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness,
75 neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or
76 sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color,
77 sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race,
78 color, sex, or national origin.
79 (b) Paragraph (a) may not be construed to prohibit
80 discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a course of
81 training or instruction, provided such training or instruction
82 is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the
83 concepts.
Please also strongly oppose all of the book banning, surveillance and teacher censorship legislation going on in Republican state legislatures around the country as well.
Where the Hell were you when they were banning tom Sawyer, To Kill a Mockingbird and Dr. Seuss?
I don't know why you all are so down on Neil Young. He obviously knew that if it was between him and Joe Rogan, Spotify would pick Rogan. He was willing to put his money where his mouth was.
So, it's important to keep the pedophile illustrations in the library books ?
Little boys sucking men's cocks is good to show 4th graders ?
Can you tell us exactly what book you are referring to, and which elementary school carries this book.
Otherwise, I will believe you are full of shit, as usual.
An interesting light on the Young kerfuffle from Don Surber.
Young cannot tell Spotify what to do with his music. He doesn't own it, having sold it last year.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55557633
He apparently tried to sell it to the Trump organization but they turned it down. Per a Tweet by DTjr. With pics of the meeting.
https://bit.ly/3o45xHw
John LGBTBNY Henry
Libraries can't shelve every book.
Choices have to happen. 50 years ago, all the racy books were passed around amongst us like today's gang bangers pass around guns.
The Exorcist, French Connection, Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex* (But ere afraid to Ask), Summer of 42, Lady Chatterley's Lover, Fanny Hill, The Godfather. Plus lots more. We got what we wanted.
The School Library should of course curate books with a nod to the culture of the Community. Los Angeles Schools are not Dubuque IA Schools. If parents are complaining about sexual themes, don't shelve those books. They provide zero value to educating the children. Some one just posted a survey that had the US at #9 in nations reading skills, and worse in math. Teachers should have more than enough work they don't need to spend time attempting to shape a students moral character.
"Is it your position that reviewing a book for possible removal equates to banning a book?"
Oh, there are books being removed too ... like Maus by Art Spiegelman.
https://www.cbr.com/tennessee-school-board-bans-maus/
Maybe it's exquisite.
Back to Rogan - the left wants to silence Rogan, because he points out that the emperor is wearing no clothing,
That and he has a larger audience than CNN and MSNBC, combined. That's the real danger. Rogen is in effect canceling Stephanie Rule, and Maddow, and Lemon, and... you get the point.
I had never listened to podcasts, but I started because of Rogan.
try again
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1486711700283740169?cxt=HHwWksCircOa7qEpAAAA
Delayed, denied, and mistreatment. They elected to abort granny and caused diverse acts of collateral damage on a forward-looking basis. Planned parent/hood was neither a good nor exclusive choice.
Yesterday YouTube banned Dan Bongino for life for, apparently, repeating flip-flops by Fauci.
His daily news podcast is now on Rumble.com and has 2.08mm subscribers as of a few minutes ago. Including me, I set up my Rumble account last night and subscribed to Bongine, even though I only occasionally read his daily news blog and have never listened to his podcast.
I doubt he is hurt by being kicked off YouTube. Cartainly not in the long run, probably not in the short run. Probably a lot more people know about him than did a day or two ago because of this. Probably more people know about Rumble.com than did on Monday.
Seems like another example of the Chick-Fil-A/Memories Pizza Effect. (CFAMPE, from now on)
Maybe private, as opposed to government, censorship is a good thing. The GooFace Twits, by their policies, have caused the birth of many alternative platforms. Gab/Parler/Gettr/Mastodon Twitter look alikes. Truth as a Facebook/Twitter competitor, Brave/Gab/Dragon and other Chrome competitors. Duck Duck Go and other search engines.
I've been pretty clear on my disdain for banning and other censorship-like policies. But I have lately been wondering, isn't this just the market working like it should? Should we really be complaining about this?
Maybe we are seeing the implementation of the old adage "The internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it."
John LBGBNY Henry
Mark said...
"Is it your position that reviewing a book for possible removal equates to banning a book?"
Oh, there are books being removed too ... like Maus by Art Spiegelman.
Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️
@realchrisrufo
This story is fake news: the book was swapped out from the 8th grade curriculum, not "banned." The board voted to find a better book for the Holocaust and said they'd even use Maus again if they don't find a good replacement.
Judd Legum is the Jussie Smollett of journalism.
"For public schools, they will teach what the community that funds the school tells them to teach."
Not if the community tells them to teach creationism (as one example).
"Is it your position that reviewing a book for possible removal equates to banning a book?"
It is my position that it is the immediate prior step to banning it. It provides me no comfort to know that some of those books won't be banned.
Don't ban books. Add books.
Also, I killed Daniel11. His body is decomposing in my locker.
Joe can't be cancelled until he fails to attract a bigly audience.
And funny how Big Pharma was evil until they partnered with guvmint to radically lower regulatory/safety oversight lower than previously.
If FDA/Pfizer tried to slow walk data release by 70 years before Covid, the Left would have been rightly screaming their heads off.
Now they line up for repeat mix and match MRNA.
Perhaps the safety data from the US Military epidemiology records will be enough to shock back to reality.
"The School Library should of course curate books with a nod to the culture of the Community."
Children are not old enough to competently make many decisions. Bringing up what's allowed (or not) in a school library in a discussion about censorship among adults is an attempt to derail (intentionally or not) the discussion.
Use your superior googley skills, Frodo. That stuff was in the news a few weeks ago, as it was discussed at a school board meeting
after parent insisted on discussing the unsuitable material used in the library, which appears to be promoting pedophilia.
"If parents are complaining about sexual themes, don't shelve those books. They provide zero value to educating the children."
Your opinion on a book's educational value should remain exactly that -- your opinion. Speak to the school about getting your permission on what books your child can check out. Monitor their reading at home. Donate alternatives to the library.
DON'T. BAN. BOOKS.
Is this not a principle fundamental to our founding as a country?
Mark said...
"Is it your position that reviewing a book for possible removal equates to banning a book?"
Oh, there are books being removed too ... like Maus by Art Spiegelman.
https://www.cbr.com/tennessee-school-board-bans-maus/
I want to make sure I understand correctly. The book at issue contains words and pictures that even the proponents of the book admit are objectionable. The group of parents responsible for approving books that are distributed to their children decides on that basis to remove the book but to allow all of the content of the book, excluding cuss words and nude pictures, to be taught.
And we're supposed to be riled up because the subject of the book is the Holocaust (so the removal must be anti-Semetic!), and to equate that to the government advocating that adults should not be able to say things to other adults that the government disagrees with. Is that about right?
"Where the Hell were you when they were banning tom Sawyer, To Kill a Mockingbird and Dr. Seuss?"
I was opposing banning books.
Also no one banned Dr Suess. The owner of the IP stopped producing six books with racist images. My take on that would be to wait to expose kids to those books until they are intellectually mature enough to understand the problem with those images. And not to ban them.
“It wasn't true. The trials didn't even look at that. A congressman brought it to their attention numerous times. The CDC finally acknowledged that it wasn't true. And then one of the exact CDC officials who admitted it wasn't true went out in a public forum within a couple of days thereafter and expressly repeated the false claim. Then the official recommendations were re-worded but still contained the false claim.”
Turns out that drugs shouldn’t be given to demographics that they weren’t tested on, and that is one of the big ones, at least apparently with Pfizer - they intentionally excluded, among others, those who had had COVID-19, as well as pregnant and nursing women, from their study. Those uses should be contraindicated for just that reason.
I’m old enough to remember when Althouse would have shared the text of what the Surgeon General actually said.
If a parent wants their children to read books promoting pedophilia, why can't they just order the books for their child? (Of course, if a parent was ordering those books for their child, I would have serious questions regarding their parenting skills) Sex with children is a perversion. Also, as far as I know, sex with a minor is still against the law so why are schools promoting such perverted criminal activities? Why should those books be pushed on students in a public middle school? Unless, of course, those that are pushing those books are in the process of grooming those children for sexual purposes, rather than teaching the children reading, writing, and math skills.
Everyone raise your hand if you would order the books “Gender Queer: A Memoir,” and “Lawn Boy” for your young child to read.
Blogger Mark said...
I guess we will have to make sure Vonnegut is off high school shelves as I recall dirty drawings in his books and if we want to remove everything explicit then we toss both baby and bathwater.
I guess lefty Mark likes pedophilia. I hear it is getting popular on the left.
I guess Field Marshal Freder has trouble with Google. Here is the story.
Here is one of the books, Freder. Enjoy yourself.
"I've been pretty clear on my disdain for banning and other censorship-like policies. But I have lately been wondering, isn't this just the market working like it should? Should we really be complaining about this?"
Exactly. I (total liberal, hate Bongino) hate that we are captured by private platforms that have total control of our speech. There is no solution other than direct government regulation of how private companies control their platforms (some is needed, e.g. for child pornography, but in general this is a dangerous solution that is unlikely to work), or much more competition.
Hey, not objectionable if you're showering with your adolescent daughter.
Like FIRE'S back-cover headline in last Sunday's NYT Magazine:
Free speech is never as dangerous as those who try to silence it.
Some leftists are actually conservatives who seek a different version of a conservative society.
No, that sounds too much like the discredited idea that leftist (or liberals) can never be authoritarian. Leftism (and liberalism) are not the classical liberalism of bygone centuries, and haven't been for some time. Even John Stuart Mill was not the pure libertarian many people think he was--and isn't everyone a conservative of some society that they wish existed?
Also from the article I linked above:
Ziegler’s decision to remove the book from circulation comes after the Fairfax County School board has allowed both books to remain in circulation after a review. Fairfax School Board released a statement when they made their decision:
“The decision reaffirms FCPS’ ongoing commitment to provide diverse reading materials that reflect our student population, allowing every child an opportunity to see themselves reflected in literary characters.
Both reviews [of the books] concluded that the books were valuable in their potential to reach marginalized youth who may struggle to find relatable literary character that reflect their personal journeys.”
_________
Apparently, the Fairfax County School board believes a lot of their young students have had a "personal journey" regarding molestation. Maybe there should be an investigation.
It should hardly be a surprize that the Dr. who thinks the Second Amendment should be a dead-letter--for health reasons, will have no problems trampling on the First Amendment under the same rationale.
The larger problem is officials like Murthy, who need to get brushed-back when they exceed their authority. I shouldn't know or care about how the Surgeon General feels about guns or free speech. It's not his business to tell us his opinion in his role as SG.
Liberals and progressives embracing censorship is one of the most bizarre things ever. It just shows that they can't stand a fair and honest debate.
Why is there not a huge outcry by the public when a federal government official calls for censorship of anything?
https://sentinelksmo.org/board-candidates-reveal-graphic-sex-scenes-in-classroom-book/
I don’t believe in banning- but, I also believe in standards. How do books end up on shelves in the 1st place? What’s the protocol for adding to a library? I read great books from my (Catholic)school library- and I never once sought out a book. I read what was available to me and that was good enough.
Teddy wanting to be called Tilly- it’s a bridge to far. Let parents(or school friends) do the sexual education and leave those books off the shelf to begin w/- you can’t ban what isn’t there.
Mark said “ Yep, you are banned from saying critical race theory in some states schools, because those 3 words are too dangerous to talk about.
Oh wait, we were talking Rogan being censored?
Seems like everyone has something they want to censor these days.”
No, you’re welcome to say “critical race theory” just don’t try to indoctrinate my child with Marxism and racism using lessons built off if CRT. You either understand the difference and we’re just doing the usual leftist lying while snarking or you’re an idiot.
Mark and This Person: Maus was removed from that Tennessee school curriculum because they wanted something better to replace it. The book wasn't banned. Kids can still check it out and read it. I guess the powers that be thought 8th graders might benefit from something more challenging than a comic book.
I get that but this shit is killing people and our hospital systems are crashing in slow-mo.
People listening to various sorts of information - and coming to their own conclusions - is killing people?
Bullshit. It's called living in a free society. Try it sometime.
Loury and McWhorter struggle with Amy Wax youtube. They decide that refuting her is the right thing to do, and maybe keep her away from first year students. They don't say why she's wrong.
So democrats are literally against the 1st,2nd and 10th amendments. Yea, let’s elect more of them.
What about Arab countries that censor books and online content that have images of women with uncovered faces or shoulders or whatever. Does that count as censorship?
"Please also strongly oppose all of the book banning, surveillance and teacher censorship legislation going on in Republican state legislatures around the country as well."
Here's a hint for you. If a teacher is presenting information to students, and grading them on their recitation of that information, it's not a free speech issue. Compelled speech - your grade depends on repeating what I tell you to say - is not free speech.
Here's another. If teachers are defying their employers - who, regardless of what that fool who wrote the op-ed the other day might think, are the taxpayers - and presenting information outside the syllabus, it is not a free speech issue. It's a non-performance of employment contract issue.
Teachers can say whatever they want outside the classroom. In the classroom, their job is defined and evaluated by their employers. The taxpayers.
I understand Neil Young sold a 50% share of his music.
By his Spotify position his music will likely be worth considerably less. Did he get agreement from his equal partner. One suspects, "No".
Also Neil was known for wanting a ban on genetically modified foods. (IMO) these type bans have a heavy death toll.
So one type of genetic manipulation.... bad. The other.... good?
Just more proof that politically-progressive America, a distinct minority, has declared war upon the rest of the US.
Talk about school boards and book banning is a nice intellectual exercise, but it misses the big story here. The Surgeon General of the United States (a government official) is trying to pressure a company to curtail the speech of one of its employees (who they pay an insane amount of money to speak) because the official disagrees with what the employee is saying. That is pretty much the very definition of censorship. Yes, it's in the name of "limiting misinformation", but it still gets down to "he's saying things we don't like". That's kind of a big deal.
Very interesting how positions have flipped on open discourse vs. censorship to preserve the Truth. JS Mill famously penned the classic liberal position in favor of openness and against censorship (On Liberty). No doubt, as a positivist, Mill expected that truth, as revealed by science, would prevail over whatever false opinions might get any traction. Conservatives pushed back, arguing that truth (often the truth of revealed religion) should take precedence, and that Mill's position was basically rooted in a theory of moral relativism.
In today's world, those positions have reversed. Lefties today insist on the transcendent value of Truth (which in their view always accords with their intuitions and values), while conservatives tend to favor openness (because the lefties have taken command of the universities and most cultural institutions). In so many ways, lefties today have taken up the battle cry of 19th century religious conservatives, while righties today have become enamored of the 19th century's exposition of classical liberal positions.
I am all for truth over falsehood, but very skeptical that anyone has direct access to it, most especially including any 'experts' or their supposed 'consensus' (just another word for groupthink). In all events, and fortunately for us, as long as the First Amendment continues to be interpreted against notions of liberty that prevailed at the founding, we should be OK.
I've been pretty clear on my disdain for banning and other censorship-like policies. But I have lately been wondering, isn't this just the market working like it should? Should we really be complaining about this?
I think that’s perfectly reasonable and it’s been my position for quite some time: ‘Just. Get Off. _____. ‘
In a snit, Ann chose to disengage with me over that position. I believe she’s working from a position of ignorance and a misreading of the current state of affairs.
Her position is to blog her disapproval with the platforms’ polices to provoke change but that position makes erroneous assumptions about their primary objective as tools of leftie propaganda and intimidation of opposing viewpoints disguised as a public forum.
"The question is, how many people dying senselessly after following this comedians wisdom does it take before you change your mind? There’s gotta be a number."
https://twitter.com/chewmanfoo/status/1486478508255760387
That is one of the replies to that tweet. My question is, how do you know how many (if any) people have died from following Joe's wisdom? There's gotta be a number?
This Person said...
I want to make sure I understand correctly. The book at issue contains words and pictures that even the proponents of the book admit are objectionable. The group of parents responsible for approving books that are distributed to their children decides on that basis to remove the book but to allow all of the content of the book, excluding cuss words and nude pictures, to be taught.
That would be correct based on the school board meeting minutes available here. They have no problem with a history unit on the Holocaust being taught, they just have objections to using that particular graphic novel as the anchor text for the unit due to the nudity and adult language.
And we're supposed to be riled up because the subject of the book is the Holocaust (so the removal must be anti-Semetic!), and to equate that to the government advocating that adults should not be able to say things to other adults that the government disagrees with. Is that about right?
Well, thats what Comic Book Resources (CBR), The Grauniad, and something called The Tennessee Holler (which appears to be an activist site) wants you to do. I guess they can't figure out any way to get clicks and the demand for progressive outrage must be outstripping the supply again.
Your opinion on a book's educational value should remain exactly that -- your opinion.
So your position is that there is no book that should not be made accessible for any aged child in any school and that each school needs to set up a database for each child to determine which books that a child can "check out", though that doesn't preclude grabbing the book and reading it in the hidden corner, just as long as they don't check it out. Are we talking about books alone? Do you also advocate all forms of material from magazines, to web pages?
How about this rule instead. Maybe schools should have age and content appropriate material openly available for the children in school, but not try and tell parents what they choose to provide their children outside of school.
What is available to children is a different question than what is made available to adults.
Additionally, restricting access within one context that does not seek to silence the author is far different than the attempt to deny the author a general outlet for their work.
So the question is, how can “we the people” stave off fascism until late January 2025?
I have yet to see Freder thank me for finding one of the books he couldn't find.
You're welcome, Freder.
They worked pretty tirelessly to push Rush off the air.
"What about Arab countries that censor books and online content that have images of women with uncovered faces or shoulders or whatever. Does that count as censorship?"
Yes it does -- the worst kind of censorship -- dogma.
Stupid question of the week: "What about Arab countries that censor books . . . Does that count as censorship?" Yes, professor, I think censorship counts as censorship. Next question?
Talk about school boards and book banning is a nice intellectual exercise, but it misses the big story here. The Surgeon General of the United States (a government official) is trying to pressure a company to curtail the speech of one of its employees (who they pay an insane amount of money to speak) because the official disagrees with what the employee is saying. That is pretty much the very definition of censorship. Yes, it's in the name of "limiting misinformation", but it still gets down to "he's saying things we don't like". That's kind of a big deal.
Indeed, such government pressure can rise to the level of the censorship being government action in violation of the First Amendment. This is the basis for Trump's suit against Twitter, Google and Facebook.
rhhardin said...
Loury and McWhorter struggle with Amy Wax [link omitted]. They decide that refuting her is the right thing to do, and maybe keep her away from first year students. They don't say why she's wrong.
First, in the link you provided, Loury strongly pushes back against keeping Wax away from first year students on the basis that her views will hurt their feelings.
Second, this is only an excerpt of Loury's and McWhorter's conversation, and in it they refer to any earlier part of their conversation where they identify 3 particular statements that she made to which they object. The curious can find it.
If I remember correctly, one of the things Wax said in her interview with Loury is that certain Asian immigrants do not believe in the type of individual freedoms on which the U.S. was founded, and therefore it's fine and perhaps even desirable to oppose admitting a higher number of them.
It's no wonder that's controversial today. But it's not drastically different than AA's cheerleading for black box racial preference admission policies.
It's misinformation to call fighting misinformation censorship.
Therefore, any mention of censorship needs to be... censored.
Remember; those fighting misinformation on social media are just like the men landing at Normandy! They are brave heroes!
"I guess the powers that be thought 8th graders might benefit from something more challenging than a comic book."
Inevitably, the people who want to ban books haven't read the books they want to ban.
And pardon my lack of interest in their expressed willingness at some point in the future to unban it.
For someone up thread -- it is indeed very bad for the Surgeon General to call for someone to be censored. Very bad. Is it worse than state level censorship legislation? No, because the Surgeon General can say it but can't enforce it.
I highly recommend Loury's podcasts on which McWhorter is a regular guest.
McWhorter has his good points and generally has an open mind, but clearly is a progressive. Loury is awesome. His approach and willingness to call out destructive means (on either side of a debate) even if he agrees with the end is a breath of fresh air. The guy has overcome personal failings (infidelity and addition to crack) and has steadied the ship and, in my estimation, is making a great contribution to society.
The two of them had what amounts to a public, rolling, on-air discovery / revelation of the truth behind the hocus pocus Treyvon Martin outrage and, frankly, attempted public lynching of Zimmerman, which was pretty amazing to watch given that they each started out with a pretty strong assumption that the public narrative was true.
People like Loury need to be supported.
Bilwick, I think the type of censorship that religious creeps engage in is radically different than the political censorship advocated by Dr. Murthy. The government wants Big Tech to hold back information in order to exert control over the populace. Dr. Murthy demanded Big Tech prevent free expression that may lead to rebellion against Covid restrictions. And Big Tech will comply.
Whenever the Jesus freaks try to censor public school textbooks, for example, they always lose. They've been losing since the Scopes trial. The religious right is not as threatening as Big Tech and Washington.
"So your position is that there is no book that should not be made accessible for any aged child in any school and that each school needs to set up a database for each child to determine which books that a child can "check out", though that doesn't preclude grabbing the book and reading it in the hidden corner, just as long as they don't check it out."
Hahahaha that's not even my position in this comment thread! My position is that your position (which you have every right to!!!) should not in any way impact my child's education, except through democratic means like voting. And that if you want to protect your child from any content, you have many means of doing so that don't attempt to prevent MY child from that content.
By the way, for those commenting on the "nudity" in Maus, be aware that the nudity is crudely drawn images of person/mouse hybrids being processed in concentration camps. But ah yes this is about inappropriate sexual imagery, not about the Holocaust...
Mark said...
Yep, you are banned from saying critical race theory in some states schools, because those 3 words are too dangerous to talk about.
Oh wait, we were talking Rogan being censored?
Seems like everyone has something they want to censor these days.
************
No, Markey....you are not "banned" for "saying" CRT in some state schools, you are banned from teaching that IDEOLOGY in public schools, as it is RACIST, straight up. Tell us that people on the public payroll "teaching" children to invidiously discrimiate against their classmates and adults based on their race is LEGAL under our civil rights laws.
Go on, give it a shot. Feckwit.
From the linked article, "[Big] Tech companies have a role to play when it comes to censoring so-called “misinformation” and curating “accurate” information to the public."
I would be against censorship like this even if Big Tech had a better track record, but between denying lab leak stories and banning the Hunter Biden laptop story and all the other heavy-handed behavior from various social media in the last few years, I think it should be obvious why this is a bad idea.
Blogger Daniel12 said...
"If parents are complaining about sexual themes, don't shelve those books. They provide zero value to educating the children."
Your opinion on a book's educational value should remain exactly that -- your opinion. Speak to the school about getting your permission on what books your child can check out. Monitor their reading at home. Donate alternatives to the library
You deference to experts is scary. Scary stupid. Experts are the reason 20% to 50% of students are not reading at grade level.
But you have a problem with vocabulary . Selecting appropriate reading material is not banning books. The customer should have the power to veto bad decisions by the edu-crats
I have had my fill of "expert" educators. We had two people with Doctorates in education, tell us our son would fail if we enrolled him in Kindergarten at age 5. The both said the evidence was overwhelming. Testicles and a June birthday.
But he graduated Valedictorian, graduated in the top 5 (not 5%) of his engineering class and had a job offer as Junior, from a multinational company that never did an interview until the last semester.
I have zero faith in educators, and seldom see them place the education of the child before all else.
Daniel12 says:
Hahahaha that's not even my position in this comment thread! My position is that your position (which you have every right to!!!) should not in any way impact my child's education, except through democratic means like voting. And that if you want to protect your child from any content, you have many means of doing so that don't attempt to prevent MY child from that content.
And yet you said:
Your opinion on a book's educational value should remain exactly that -- your opinion. Speak to the school about getting your permission on what books your child can check out. Monitor their reading at home. Donate alternatives to the library.
DON'T. BAN. BOOKS.
The don't ban books shout is pretty specific. You seem to be equating not shelving books at a school as banning books.
I do monitor my kids' reading at home. I can't monitor at school, I expect the school to exercise discretion.
You want to not restrict your kids' reading, but whether the book is available at the school has little impact on your ability to give them access to the book. You want them to read it, but the book yourself. No one seems to be advocating that you can't do that. So, my desire to have age and content appropriate books at school in no way prevents your child from getting an education.
What we have here is a competing values issue, and the question is which side of the argument is the most respectful? In most cases it is better to have an opt in than an opt out on controversial material. So the school can have the book but not put it out for general access unless the parent gives permission. That is more respectful to the parents who are more conservative in granting their children access to things they think are inappropriate. But if the parent wants their kid to have access, they could tell the librarian to provide the book.
So I ask explicitly, are there books and material that should not be made available to children? I am not talking Dr. Seuss, but maybe something much more problematic, such as pornographic level sexual material, slasher movie level violence, or books advocating hard core drug use, etc. If there IS a limit, then we are arguing where to draw the line. If there is no limit, then I would take out a general restraining order on you to keep you away from my kids just on general principal. but if there is a limit, then I suggest it be to take a conservative position and keep to the general community standards of the district and only allow books on an opt-in standard rather than stocking or requiring books with an opt-out standard.
How many jugs of Remdesivir has Carol dispensed today? Tackled any spouses trying to get Ivermectin to their hospital protocol doomed spouse? Kick 'em out!!
Good medicine!
Damn that Rogan!
I was there when Marcos did it in the Philippines.
People never learn. Ferdinand's son, Bong Bong Marcos, is leading in the polls for the Presidential election to be held in May.
When your ideas are so weak and flawed that they cannot stand on their own merits;
And you cannot produce the data that convincingly supports your arguments in front of a critical audience;
And your debating skills are so lacking that you are unable to construct a convincing and persuasive argument in spite of the flaws in your position;
Then the only tool left to you is to use brute authoritarian force to silence your critics and censor your counterparts who have different and supportable views.
We have been suffering these behaviors for almost 6 years now; it really got started with the de-platforming of Alex Jones, an unpopular and vocal critic. It has only accelerated and broadened its scope since then.
Rogan prefaces each and every discussion of COVID with 'I am not a doctor'. And he laces each and every conversation with admonishments for every person to do their own research before forming their one conclusion to the very best of their knowledge. What could possibly be wrong with people looking out for their own best interests?
And yes - he has interviewed quite a few front line doctors and multiple credentialed, respectable, and prominent-in-their-field medical professionals.
Fight the tyranny. Reject censorship and call it out as morally indefensible - because it is, in a free society. Insist on open debate and transparency of data and funding.
But ah yes this is about inappropriate sexual imagery, not about the Holocaust...
I find it hard to see conservative parents objecting to holocaust history material. Most conservatives are very big on making sure the holocaust is not forgotten, so I am uncertain on where your snark is coming from.
Yep, you are banned from saying critical race theory in some states schools, because those 3 words are too dangerous to talk about.
While teaching Government last Spring, my students asked me about the BLM movement. I told them that it was a movement based on political and racial violence just like the KKK was, and the movement is openly Marxist, vows to overthrow the government, and seeks to destroy the families. These are all objective truths, that the BLM doesn't even deny.
My administration gave me a letter threatening to fire me. I no longer teach Government, and refuse to teach anything not explicitly approved by my school board.
Whenever the Jesus freaks try to censor public school textbooks, for example, they always lose. They've been losing since the Scopes trial.
You do know that Scopes was found guilty? And I doubt evolution is taught in Soddy Daisy to this day. My ex went to public high school in Chattanooga in the `70s and evolution was never mentioned in her biology class.
So is this censorship:
Instruction may not utilize material from the 1619 Project and may not define American history as something other than the creation of a new nation based largely on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence. Instruction must include the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.
"I find it hard to see conservative parents objecting to holocaust history material."
But they just did.
"I have zero faith in educators, and seldom see them place the education of the child before all else."
Homeschooling is a good option if you have zero trust in educators. For me, I trust librarians and educators more than some other kid's random parent to stock the school library, and I monitor what my kids read in case there are any issues.
"You seem to be equating not shelving books at a school as banning books."
I'm equating removing books from school bookshelves because some parents and politicians have problems with their contents with banning books.
"So I ask explicitly, are there books and material that should not be made available to children?"
I sense a slippery slope argument coming, where if I don't want the full Hustler back catalogue on the shelves at school I need to allow Maus to be banned. I'll pass.
"if there is a limit, then I suggest it be to take a conservative position and keep to the general community standards of the district and only allow books on an opt-in standard rather than stocking or requiring books with an opt-out standard."
And this is where we have an issue. There is a limit, and I would suggest taking a position based on the first amendment of the constitution and the underlying principles it represents of free speech, free discourse and free press, and the related values of the central importance of education and exposure to diverse thinking as part of it, to err in favor of keeping books on shelves and accessible. I actually thought this WAS a conservative position.
Why is it that Fauci or the Surgeon General won't go on Rogan's show?
Rogan's show is interesting because he explores ideas and asks good questions. He allows guests to have long-form answers that aren't edited. All of the people the left accuses of spreading misinformation supply a lot of studies and reasoning for their beliefs. I understand immunology and their conclusions are in line with what has been understood for decades and what current events have revealed. When Dr McCollough was on it was pre-Omicron. At that time he believed once infected people were "immune", with the exception of rare cases. By the time Rogan interviewed Dr. Malone, Omicron showed it was not deterred by previous infection, and McCollough asked Malone to convey that. That is how science is carried out, when new data presents itself new conclusions are made. It is very clear Fauci et al are terrified to be exposed, they finally admitted Omicron was evading the vaccine to a greater extent than Delta so the conclusion was get vaccinated.
It is odd that the CDC is interfering specifically with COVID treatment, and insist on a hands off approach when there are safe drugs that are worth trying, and certainly won't harm anyone that may be effective. I can't think of another disease state where the CDC threatens doctors licenses for using off-label drugs.
I've listened to parts of the Rogan show. He engages in rational discourse in the parts I've seen Rogan apparently has a different position on vaccination than the experts. I'm vaxed and boosted. I'm going with the experts so far as the vaccination goes. I hope the experts are right. My vaccination irrefutably proves that Rogan's disinformation, if indeed it is disinformation, does not keep rational people--if indeed I'm a rational person--from making up their own minds and getted vaxed....I suppose someone somewhere listened to Rogan and didn't get vaccinated and died. It's possible. But anti-vax arguments will exist whether or not they are broadcast by Rogan. You can hear Rogan's arguments and you can hear the refutations to those arguments which is how it should be.....The CDC and the Surgeon General have put out recommendations and information that are wrong and, in some cases, very wrong and possibly mendacious. The source of the virus, the efficacy of masks, the need to keep children home from school. They've screwed up far more than Rogan. Who will censor the censors?
I read Maus a number of years ago. I was an adult when I read it. As I remember, it was quite powerful and scary. I don't know if I could unequivocally recommend it to all middle school students. For that matter, I wouldn't recommend they see a Kubrick movie like Paths of Glory. I'm not against teaching children about WWI, but lighten up when you dealing with kids..... I think the more literate students find their way to books that they are discouraged from reading. This modified, limited banning will probably encourage some kids to read Maus. I doubt whether readership will equal that of the average Marvel comic however.
NB: Rogan is not the one the Marxists fear and want censored. The target is his guests that he encourages to spill their guts. Rogan is a pusher of the Truth. Any truth that is illegal is available from his guests.
Tune in to Rogan, turn on to truth and drop out of the Great Brainwashing.
Don't forget Rogan's entre was daring to seek early treatment for himself, with excellent results. No way would someone like Da Fauch sit across from him.
Censorship is bad. Fighting blasphemy is righteousness.
Daniel12 said...
and I monitor what my kids read in case there are any issues.
I'm sure nothing happens that you don't know about.
I sense a slippery slope argument coming, where if I don't want the full Hustler back catalogue on the shelves at school I need to allow Maus to be banned.
How about you wait until I pull a slippery slope argument instead of dodging the question. I asked if there is a limit. You just admitted there is a limit. So it comes back to how we draw that line. It does not lead to slippery-slopes What it does lead to are differences in opinions about what constitutes appropriate material and how it is decided.
For me, I trust librarians and educators more than some other kid's random parent to stock the school library, and I monitor what my kids read in case there are any issues.
No random parent is stocking libraries. Red herring. It's fine that you trust your librarians and educators. I bet a good majority of them are trustworthy. But it helps if they already hold and promote your social values. Your trust might go down if you thought they promoted values different than what you wanted your children to know. There are a number of prominent issues on the table about the promotion of values that run contrary to many normal people's values. Parents have a right to stand up and be heard regarding this.
And this is where we have an issue. There is a limit, and I would suggest taking a position based on the first amendment of the constitution and the underlying principles it represents of free speech, free discourse and free press, and the related values of the central importance of education and exposure to diverse thinking as part of it, to err in favor of keeping books on shelves and accessible.
The thing is, we are not talking about 1st amendment issues with regards to schools. We have already determined that limits exist, so your argument here is vacuous. Limiting what a school presents is not a ban, and I already gave a compromise that helps parents maintain the discretion they want without blocking access to everything. If you are 1st amendment uber alles, then you counter your hustler argument above.
If you are for diverse thinking, are you also ok with creationism taught in schools? There is a sufficient number of people who believe that theory to make it worth adding to the diverse thinking you desire. Just a note, I am in no way advocating this, just pointing out that there are possibly controversial topics that would offend people on the left. Value judgements are made all the time, it is disrespectful to ignore the values of a large portion of the population simply because someone doesn't like what they value.
Controversial books and values should simply be opt-in, not opt-out.
“It is odd that the CDC is interfering specifically with COVID treatment, and insist on a hands off approach when there are safe drugs that are worth trying, and certainly won't harm anyone that may be effective.”
I think it’s criminal. And unethical for a doctor who takes an oath- an OATH to do no harm- to prevent helpful remedies. Awful.
I don't think choosing not to include particular reading material (Maus, The 1619 Project) in a curriculum is the same as banning that material. There's a lot of space between "this is required reading" and "you are forbidden to read this".
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/01/27/desantis-on-biden-action-a-lesson-as-to-why-you-should-not-have-the-government-controlling-medicine/
But does anyone know what, precisely, Surgeon General Murthy objects to in Joe Rogan's podcasts? Is he complaining about Dr. Robert Malone's testimony against vaccinating children? Because Dr. Malone was a pioneer in developing mRNA vaccines and knows more about them -- and their side effects -- than anyone living. By contrast Murthy is simply another government bureaucrat.
There is a limit, and I would suggest taking a position based on the first amendment of the constitution and the underlying principles it represents of free speech, free discourse and free press, and the related values of the central importance of education and exposure to diverse thinking as part of it, to err in favor of keeping books on shelves and accessible.
So what about teaching Creationism in school? You're all for that... right? How about John Norman's Gor books... you're fine with them in the school library ... right?
What we have here is a competing values issue, and the question is which side of the argument
^^^THIS^^^
Parents hire teachers to teach reading and arithmetic. Values are by their very definition family values. Schools don't just get it wrong, they cause damage.
I noticed something 10 or more years ago. Christian Schools. Not Catholic, Christian.
I asked, What is causing this and why now? Simple. We had public schools, but the Catholics wanted their values and culture intertwined in the education curriculum. But then...The protestants didn't care? Sure they did. That need was filled by the public schools. Local boards drove the agenda. Then the edu-crats took over.
Christian schools are filling the need that public schools abandoned.
And this is where we have an issue. There is a limit, and I would suggest taking a position based on the first amendment of the constitution and the underlying principles it represents of free speech, free discourse and free press, and the related values of the central importance of education and exposure to diverse thinking as part of it, to err in favor of keeping books on shelves and accessible. I actually thought this WAS a conservative position.
I would not call refusing to shelve War and Peace in a grade school library censoring that book. Same with Les Mis, Democracy in America, The Art of War, Mein Kampf, The Lord of the Rings, Washington Crossing the Delaware, Grapes of Wrath, etc... None of those are age appropriate for an 8 year old because they don't yet have the necessary foundation to even begin to understand what those books are presenting. They are a waste of limited shelf space at the school. I would much rather see the Elephant and Piggy collection on those shelves than the collected works of Arthur Conan Doyle. Not because of censorship, but because they are 8 year olds who are still learning the basic skill of reading and just starting to learn the skill of reading comprehension and critical thinking. High School, I can see what you are saying. Grade school... not so much.
There's a lot of space between "this is required reading" and "you are forbidden to read this".
Well said. Add to this there's also a lot of space between censorship and "we have limited amount of resources and shelf space, so inherently have to choose the best possible resources for our core mission."
When a school or other institution makes a choice with their shelf space, money, and resources, they are expressing a proactive opinion toward that material being necessary. That makes discussions so often less about censorship and more about priorities. Sometimes there is censorship, but more often than not the word censorship is abused as a hyperbolic response to opinions about pedagogical priorities.
There's a lot of things that should be taught in schools. There's also a lot of things that may be taught in schools and these things are very worthy of honest and respectful debate.
I paid dues to the national and state library organizations when I worked. One of the annual events was 'Banned Books Week," featuring PR about books that were not "banned" at all, for the most part, but found objectionable by some parent, group, or busybody. (The books were diverse, as were the objections, so there's that anyway.)
But my advice is that nobody who cares about their children should assume the intelligence, good faith, or competence of the school teacher and school librarian castes.
Freder Frederson: "So is this censorship:
Instruction may not utilize material from the 1619 Project and may not define American history as something other than the creation of a new nation based largely on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence. Instruction must include the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments."
No. As every informed party from all sides have demonstrated conclusively that your beloved set of marxist lies purporting to represent the true founding of America are just that, incredibly stupid lies from top to bottom.
Needless to say, the moron left being enamored of those lies is hardly unexpected.
Other things we don't usually teach in schools: The square root of 16 = shaggy dog.
Because we're racist no doubt.
Here's a better deptiction of what really happened with the marxist 1619 reinterpretation of our nation's founding out of whole cloth by the usual suspects who then became quite angry when people noticed these serial and indefensible and, quite stupid really, lies:
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/174140
The good news? There were at least some liberals insufficiently cowed by the lefty mobs to keep their mouths shut in the face of such obvious falsehoods.
Freder on the other hand.......well.
"But does anyone know what, precisely, Surgeon General Murthy objects to in Joe Rogan's podcasts?"
Horse dewormer, probably.
Big Mike said...
But does anyone know what, precisely, Surgeon General Murthy objects to in Joe Rogan's podcasts? Is he complaining about Dr. Robert Malone's testimony against vaccinating children? Because Dr. Malone was a pioneer in developing mRNA vaccines and knows more about them -- and their side effects -- than anyone living. By contrast Murthy is simply another government bureaucrat.
************************
JUST ONCE I would like to see idiots like Fauci or that "surgeon" actually sit down to debate people like Makary and Campbell and Berensen and Bari Weiss, and all they others they seek to silence.
JUST ONCE I would like to see the 20-somethings who "fact-check" censor, ban and harrass knowledgable people -----AS IF they have the experience, knowlege or education to second-guess those with years, sometimesa decades, in their respective fields.
JUST ONCE.
William said...
I've listened to parts of the Rogan show. He engages in rational discourse in the parts I've seen Rogan apparently has a different position on vaccination than the experts.
***********************
WHICH experts??? You act as though they are unanimous. They are not, and haven't been since the Great Barrington Declaration almost two years ago.
Meade said...
And I’m old enough to remember the surgeon general who suggested that masturbation would be a healthier alternative for POTUS to sexually harassing interns in the Oval Office. So he fired her.
*************************
That did not happen.
https://www.newsweek.com/remember-time-bill-clinton-fired-his-surgeon-general-encouraging-masturbation-423302
She was gone in 1995 for urging masturbation be taught in school sex ed classes, LONG the clinton Lowinsky scandal emerged in 1998.
"So what about teaching Creationism in school?"
So we've got the "if you want Maus you have to include porn", and "if you want Maus you have to have the science teachers teaching Christianity." The latter from two of you! (Let's just pretend the War on Peace in grade school one didn't happen.)
"How about you wait until I pull a slippery slope argument instead of dodging the question."
Told you I saw it coming.
"The thing is, we are not talking about 1st amendment issues with regards to schools. We have already determined that limits exist, so your argument here is vacuous."
And here's another way to say the same thing, yet again: if I admit that limits exist on free speech -- [FYI LIMITS EXIST ON FREE SPEECH, including yours adult person] -- then what, the concept no longer applies?
"If you are 1st amendment uber alles, then you counter your hustler argument above."
You're not reading my comments. Which is fine, but it's tough to have a discussion when I have to quote myself back to you. Search for age appropriate and err in favor of.
I want you as a parent to be able to have the option to opt your child out of some things (not all of course). You seem to want me to have to opt my child into something that you are uncomfortable with. I don't love that, but I do feel like some reasonable solution is findable, even including a bit of bureaucracy, that does not come anywhere near removing books from school.
Also let me ask you a question, since I've answered many of yours:
A school board removes Maus from the curriculum over nudity and several curse words. The book includes images of roughly drawn mouse people being processed naked in concentration camps. (If you haven't read it, Google the images -- or read it, it's incredible.) The stated reason is not the challenging content depicting the horrors of the Holocaust, but the crudely drawn, small images of penises on naked prisoners. As well as several curse words.
Do you think the school board made a good decision?
Since you are so fond of slippery slopes -- are you worried about where they might slide to from there?
"I'm sure nothing happens that you don't know about."
My personal parenting philosophy is based on the assumption that much happens that I don't know about, even at age 8 and 11, and much more in the future. So it's important that my kids are able to make their own good and informed choices about books, articles, media they come into contact with. That they have someone to talk to when they are exposed to something troubling, and also are growing their ability to deal with it themselves.
My kids will come into contact with a lot of bad things. Pornography is coming -- not a line in a book that uses the word blowjob, actual real endless pornography. Endless internet trash is coming (and is already here actually). Social media is coming. Amidst all this, not only do I not worry about books, I actively see books as a true antidote to all the shit. Even books with penises in them.
It appears twitter now makes it hard to read unless registered and logged I'm. Oh well....
“So is this censorship:
“Instruction may not utilize material from the 1619 Project and may not define American history as something other than the creation of a new nation based largely on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence. Instruction must include the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.”
No. You are confusing the rights of the employees, the teachers, with the rights of the employers, the parents and te government. The employer gets to decide what the employees do. So, if a teacher is hired to teach math, and they teach biology instead, they can be fired for not doing their job. It isn’t their job to determine what to teach. Rather, that is up to the state that they work for. There is little, if any difference between my math/biology example, and being told that they cannot teach racist subject matter, such as CRT or the 1619 fabrication. The state, the employer, gets to determine the subject matter taught by its employees, and, here, has determined that subject matter does not include material from the 1619 project.
Re:Twitter. Lots of little x-es to click- and no ability to go off on a tangent to read comments, but it’s a straight shot down to at least get the gist of things. My favorite theme on Twitter is when a conservative highlights a tweet from a yr ago under Trump to a tweet of the same content now. The hypocrisy is stunning- they have no shame…
True story. In 2016 my Facebook feed stopped working. I was literally cut off from my network of friends.
Innocent and naive, I spent a couple of hours on Facebook, trying to figure out what the glitch was and how I could fix it.
What I discovered is that there is no help desk or tech support for Facebook's website. All the "help" they provided was a way to report awful things that you read on Facebook that need to be censored.
My Facebook feed was frozen for several months. A few weeks after the 2016 election was over, it started working again.
I'm perhaps strange in that I have a huge number of liberal friends. Presumably I pissed off somebody and they reported me? Anyway, I still use Facebook to reconnect with friends. But I loathe the company.
What's making liberals -- the traditional defenders of free speech -- favor censorship is that big tech is controlled by liberals. And liberals think they can censor and control Republicans, and similar things won't happen to them.
I'm not sure how Republicans could or should respond to this. But censorship-by-proxy is a definite danger in our republic.
Now we have Republicans who want to strike back by opening up newspapers to defamation lawsuits. Horrible idea. Free speech is a bedrock principle in our democracy. Republicans should fight and die on that hill.
Book banning (actually, judging and choosing the best curriculum) is a distraction. Critical race theory is not being taught in schools. It is racist and Maoist training exercises being deployed by teachers against students in schools, more sophisticated than Farrakhanian or Black Israelite or that pathetic pyramid nonsense dreamed up by the racists who run teacher education programs. But it is more dangerous because it sounds more sophisticated and is exposed to younger and younger children. Commenters like Mark know this, and they know how it ends for societies that brainwash children to become little Maoist racists, but they prefer to screw up children rather than admit that they know it.
The devious stupidity of the education schools is depthless. Take a look at their curricula -- and the ideologues they produce. I have leftist peers who started such programs and walked away because they weren't radical enough to participate in promulgating such radical bile.
Related to this, I have ceased using the term "liberal" to describe Dems. It has become a complete misnomer.
They are liberal with money. Specifically, they are liberal with other people's money. So if you reduce everything to money -- as liberals often do -- the name still fits.
They are not liberal at all when it comes to speech. They are the opposite of liberal. They are reactionaries. Constantly getting upset. Reacting to transgressions. Overreacting to transgressions.
It's an ugly, unhappy ideology.
"So what about teaching Creationism in school?"
So we've got the "if you want Maus you have to include porn", and "if you want Maus you have to have the science teachers teaching Christianity."
I noticed you ignored my question about the Gor books...so you're fine with having those in school libraries?
Now we have Republicans who want to strike back by opening up newspapers to defamation lawsuits. Horrible idea. Free speech is a bedrock principle in our democracy. Republicans should fight and die on that hill.
You mean the hill that the Left has currently occupied, fortified and refuses to allow the Right to stand on? That hill?
“So is this censorship:
“Instruction may not utilize material from the 1619 Project and may not define American history as something other than the creation of a new nation based largely on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence. Instruction must include the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.”
Well, would you say that efforts to incorporate the 1619 project into the curriculum is also censorship? Telling people what to say is just as odious -- if not more odious -- than telling people what they can't say.
And the 1619 project is horrible journalism. Apparently the New York Times needs to go to Communist school. Do you know how embarrassing it is for Communists to be more honest than your liberal rag?
"Endless internet trash is coming (and is already here actually)."
White progressives and their endless guilt.
Don't worry, buddy. Your comments barely make a ripple in the internet cesspool.
"Now we have Republicans who want to strike back by opening up newspapers to defamation lawsuits. Horrible idea. Free speech is a bedrock principle in our democracy."
I'm no first amendment expert, but my vague understanding of what's happening is that newspapers and the like have a special protection against defamation claims. They already are "open" to libel claims, but barriers to winning against them have been created by judges. And it is these artificial barriers that are targeted for removal or adjustment.
If I'm wrong about that, I'm happy to be corrected.
But assuming I'm correct, (1) I'm very happy to see legislators show some responsibility and make laws rather than have the judiciary make laws, and (2) I would be very happy to see destroyed the incorrect idea that the phrase "freedom of the press" in the First Amendment was intended to give special protections to official news organizations. To my understanding, "the press" was not a reference to a type of organization but rather a type of tool, which now would be akin to saying "freedom of the internet." It is intended to protect citizens and their right to express themselves by the use of a printing press, not to protect organizations who tell us they are entitled to special protections.
God forbid any kid reads the word `damn' when they're trying to be quiet during active shooter lockdown drills.
"Hey, we have a problem! Forget about anything else!"
If it worked for COVID (it didn't) it can work here.
Kneel Young. Just saw that at Kunstler's blog and didn't want to forget.
I'm no first amendment expert, but my vague understanding of what's happening is that newspapers and the like have a special protection against defamation claims. They already are "open" to libel claims, but barriers to winning against them have been created by judges. And it is these artificial barriers that are targeted for removal or adjustment.
If I'm wrong about that, I'm happy to be corrected.
The First Amendment and the free speech clause was not, as you say, "created by judges." The Supreme Court's doctrines in this area have always been muddled, and stupid, and dishonest, with the exception of Mr. Hugo Black. The free speech clause is an absolute right to speak freely without regard to any fine or punishment. If the Supreme Court had any balls -- and by God I miss Hugo Black -- they would not only protect the freedom of the press, but would "actively" seek out and destroy the cozy relationship that the federal government has with Facebook, Google, and other state-sponsored censors in the 21st century.
I hate our fucking new world of people being terrified of speaking their minds, and all the punishments that are being inflicted on people based on the words they say or the wrong ideas they hold. And by "punishments" I mean people getting fired, or having to undergo "sensitivity training."
Black had to deal with all the people who wanted to silence the Communists. Now the modern day Commies, "the woke," want to censor and silence fucking everybody. And so far they've gotten away with it because of monopoly dominance by Google and Facebook. Instead of worrying about Sarah Palin and her hurt feelings -- and I like Sarah Palin -- I would prefer that we bust a trust or two, like Teddy used to do. Who gives a shit about sugar when our modern day monopolies are fucking with elections?
So my answer is more free speech, not less. More liberty and equal protection, not less. More following the awesome Constitution, and less of this craven retreat from our great blueprint for our republic.
Post a Comment