The American left has been drifting into authoritarianism

[Unseen]

Authoritarians to the Right of Me, Authoritarians to the Left

From the article:

Broadly, authoritarianism is the desire to impose one’s own worldview on others in one’s society by institutionalized coercion. Authoritarians, therefore, see punishment as an appropriate response when members of the group with which they identify (the United States, in this case) diverge too far from values that the authoritarian believes are best for society – even if the punished person has neither caused direct harm to another nor infringed another’s rights.

Has America’s left become, if not the party of jackboot oppression (the radical right’s approach), the party of social engineering?

[jakelafort]

The polarization and extremism in USA from both sides diminishes any semblance of integrity/authenticity.

I don’t know stats but i would be surprised if there are not way more independents for next election.

[—]

…such as occurs when the government compels a certain expression of that kindness or university authorities exclude from campus a speaker with a minority view

These two lines somewhat establish why the conversation feels irksome to me. When speaking in generalities, there is little wrong with what the author wrote here. But in practice, it’s so easy to equivocate that the words become mush.

If we look at all cases where people have demanded the exclusion of certain speakers, I certainly won’t agree with all of them. Simply because he’s a known reference point, I can think of two speaking engagements Jordan Peterson had after he exploded in popularity. One was at the National Art Gallery in Ottawa, and while I can’t remember the exact topic, it was something in the vein of the psychology of creativity. This was inside of his area of expertise, and despite the distastefulness of his remarks on human rights, that wasn’t what he was there to talk about. While I might not think him the best choice of speaker, I also don’t think the National Art Gallery should have been pressured to disinvite him.

The second engagement was a debate on Bill C-16 at UofT. And I don’t think he should have been invited. He has no relevant expertise and minimal insight into the issue. Unless he was there to represent the laity, it’s difficult to understand why he was included apart from the controversy and wave of populism surrounding him at the time.

Most institutions with the capacity to offer a platform have a limited ability to do so. Not everything can be taught. Not every lecture can be held. Not every viewpoint can be represented. Not every topic will fit with the aims of the institution. For instance, if someone was of the opinion that 1+1=3 and someone else was of the opinion that 1+1=4, would we give them a platform? They’d have to present a pretty compelling argument to be entertained. There are infinite views one could adopt on what 1+1 might equal, and we’re not going to advance mathematics very far if we endlessly explore each of them when none present a compelling alternative to the established answer of 2.

While that example may sound absurd, that’s the exact angle creationists tried in the 00s with “Teach the controversy!” They wanted creationism in the form of ‘intelligent design’ taught alongside evolution (or in place of it) and cried about how their freedom was being denied, and how the education system was being closed-minded or even dogmatic. And while “teach the controversy” largely failed, it did do damage in that it appealed to fear many had of appearing hypocritical in not platforming an idea despite the fact that it had no evidence or credibility.

In another case related to C-16 (I know I draw on this well a lot, but it’s just a part of Canadian history with which I am intimately acquainted), Meghan Murphy—founder of Feminist Current—was under fire for her anti-trans views. She was suspended from Twitter for violating their TOS. This was characterized by some as ‘silencing’ her, but Twitter can set its own TOS. Around the same time, she was set to speak at the Vancouver Central Library, and people protested the library. They said that Murphy had engaged in hate speech and the library shouldn’t have hosted her. The thing is, Murphy hadn’t engaged in anything Canadian Law recognizes as hate speech and it was highly unlikely she was going to do so here. Also, the library hadn’t invited her as a speaker. The event at which she was speaking had merely booked a room at the library. It’s a public space funded largely by tax dollars. They have an obligation to make it available to anyone who is going to use it lawfully and in accordance with library policy. So I really can’t agree with pressuring the library to cancel the room booking.

What I am getting at, in shorter terms, is each case has it’s own considerations, but we’ve become a society that seems to set that all aside. Everything gets drowned out in cries of ‘freedom’ and ‘authoritarianism’ but it’s often specious bullshit. Not everything gets a platform. Not every viewpoint will be represented in policy. Not everyone will personally agree on what constitutes equal protection. Instead of looking at the particulars of cases, we turn it into polemics soup way too fast.

Right now, with the truckers convoy(s) up here in Canada, we’re seeing an utter disaster of communication. While I don’t think fruitful conversation was ever going to come out of this sloppy demonstration/ occupation, we’ve just made such a fucking mess of it all waxing romantic about ‘freedom’ and ‘tyranny’, and getting people all riled up because they don’t know the first fucking thing about how their country functions ordinarily and what authorities it’s always had and what rights people have always had in our lifetimes. It’s just a hot pile of garbage in which we’re all oppressing ourselves with our own imaginations.

[Unseen]

@Autumn

“…such as occurs when the government compels a certain expression of that kindness or university authorities exclude from campus a speaker with a minority view”

These two lines somewhat establish why the conversation feels irksome to me. When speaking in generalities, there is little wrong with what the author wrote here. But in practice, it’s so easy to equivocate that the words become mush.

If we look at all cases where people have demanded the exclusion of certain speakers, I certainly won’t agree with all of them. Simply because he’s a known reference point, I can think of two speaking engagements Jordan Peterson had after he exploded in popularity. One was at the National Art Gallery in Ottawa, and while I can’t remember the exact topic, it was something in the vein of the psychology of creativity. This was inside of his area of expertise, and despite the distastefulness of his remarks on human rights, that wasn’t what he was there to talk about. While I might not think him the best choice of speaker, I also don’t think the National Art Gallery should have been pressured to disinvite him.
The second engagement was a debate on Bill C-16 at UofT. And I don’t think he should have been invited. He has no relevant expertise and minimal insight into the issue. Unless he was there to represent the laity, it’s difficult to understand why he was included apart from the controversy and wave of populism surrounding him at the time.

Surely his views would be more relevant than say those of celebrity chef Michael Smith or comedian Jim Carrey(?). And you say this without even knowing what he might say, which I find troubling. It sounds like you’d exclude him because “I don’t know what he’ll say.”

Sometimes, speakers are excluded from a discussion because they know what they’ll probably say. Example: It’s hard for Camille Paglia to get a college speaking gig because she’s what you might call an “alt-feminist,” and the mainstream feminists can’t have her going around touting distinct and different gender roles and other, as they view it, dangerous propaganda. I don’t know if that’s happened to her in Canada, but it’s definitely happened here in the U.S., which is easily googleable.

I think perhaps the main problem with Paglia is that she’s extremely well-educated, unusually articulate, and is a great debater who doesn’t suffer fools gladly. People who cross her path tend to be sent off licking their near-fatal wounds.

In other words, they were afraid she might gain some converts.

Most institutions with the capacity to offer a platform have a limited ability to do so. Not everything can be taught. Not every lecture can be held. Not every viewpoint can be represented. Not every topic will fit with the aims of the institution. For instance, if someone was of the opinion that 1+1=3 and someone else was of the opinion that 1+1=4, would we give them a platform? They’d have to present a pretty compelling argument to be entertained. There are infinite views one could adopt on what 1+1 might equal, and we’re not going to advance mathematics very far if we endlessly explore each of them when none present a compelling alternative to the established answer of 2.

I’m betting they might get a speaking gig as a curiosity along with a flat earth proponent.

While that example may sound absurd, that’s the exact angle creationists tried in the 00s with “Teach the controversy!” They wanted creationism in the form of ‘intelligent design’ taught alongside evolution (or in place of it) and cried about how their freedom was being denied, and how the education system was being closed-minded or even dogmatic. And while “teach the controversy” largely failed, it did do damage in that it appealed to fear many had of appearing hypocritical in not platforming an idea despite the fact that it had no evidence or credibility.

Perhaps not in classrooms, but as a gig in a speakers series what would be wrong with letting them do their spiel and then have to run the gauntlet of questions asked by professors and intelligent students in a no-hole-barred Q&A afterward?

In another case related to C-16 (I know I draw on this well a lot, but it’s just a part of Canadian history with which I am intimately acquainted), Meghan Murphy—founder of Feminist Current—was under fire for her anti-trans views. She was suspended from Twitter for violating their TOS. This was characterized by some as ‘silencing’ her, but Twitter can set its own TOS. Around the same time, she was set to speak at the Vancouver Central Library, and people protested the library. They said that Murphy had engaged in hate speech and the library shouldn’t have hosted her. The thing is, Murphy hadn’t engaged in anything Canadian Law recognizes as hate speech and it was highly unlikely she was going to do so here. Also, the library hadn’t invited her as a speaker. The event at which she was speaking had merely booked a room at the library. It’s a public space funded largely by tax dollars. They have an obligation to make it available to anyone who is going to use it lawfully and in accordance with library policy. So I really can’t agree with pressuring the library to cancel the room booking.

I’m a little familiar with that woman’s point of view if not this speaking engagement and the hubbub around it, and she isn’t a hateful person, though she may be in the distorted sense that anyone who doesn’t toe the the main LGBTQ+ policy line is regularly depicted as “(fill in the blank)phobic.” Surely, she should be heard and then have to answer questions, as in the above example.

What I am getting at, in shorter terms, is each case has it’s own considerations, but we’ve become a society that seems to set that all aside. Everything gets drowned out in cries of ‘freedom’ and ‘authoritarianism’ but it’s often specious bullshit. Not everything gets a platform. Not every viewpoint will be represented in policy. Not everyone will personally agree on what constitutes equal protection. Instead of looking at the particulars of cases, we turn it into polemics soup way too fast.

I agree overall as long as the views being shunted off into ignominy aren’t likely to be opinions that are on point, even if they are probably wrong. Of course, there isn’t time to hear every single view, especially when decisions are urgent, but then who gets to make that choice? And it is a choice.

Right now, with the truckers convoy(s) up here in Canada, we’re seeing an utter disaster of communication. While I don’t think fruitful conversation was ever going to come out of this sloppy demonstration/ occupation, we’ve just made such a fucking mess of it all waxing romantic about ‘freedom’ and ‘tyranny’, and getting people all riled up because they don’t know the first fucking thing about how their country functions ordinarily and what authorities it’s always had and what rights people have always had in our lifetimes. It’s just a hot pile of garbage in which we’re all oppressing ourselves with our own imaginations.

Well, if Canadians want to let a small segment of the population run the show using coercive tactics, they should go for it. I certainly hope that anything similar get thunderously quashed right from the start. I view it as an insurrection, should it happen, almost equivalent to the January 6 storming of the Capitol Bldg.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by Unseen.

[jakelafort]

Autumn i give you an A Plus for that. Not that my opinion means much…

[—]

Unseen wrote:

Surely his views would be more relevant than say those of celebrity chef Michael Smith or comedian Jim Carrey(?).

Not really. He had no relevant credential not in terms of lived experience, practical experience, technical expertise, or theoretical knowledge. There is little, if anything, to separate out his credentials from Jim Carrey’s on this topic.

And you say this without even knowing what he might say, which I find troubling.

He’d already spoken at length publicly on the matter and demonstrated a lack of understanding of even factual matters pertaining to the legislation.

It sounds like you’d exclude him because “I don’t know what he’ll say.”

No, it does’t sound like that. That’s a bizarre fabrication on your part. Whether I knew what he’d say or not, he lacked understanding of the subject matter and had no relevant qualification. We’re not talking about a talk show, but rather an academic forum where one might expect a certain level of academic relevance to who is invited.

Most institutions with the capacity to offer a platform have a limited ability to do so. Not everything can be taught. Not every lecture can be held. Not every viewpoint can be represented. Not every topic will fit with the aims of the institution. For instance, if someone was of the opinion that 1+1=3 and someone else was of the opinion that 1+1=4, would we give them a platform? They’d have to present a pretty compelling argument to be entertained. There are infinite views one could adopt on what 1+1 might equal, and we’re not going to advance mathematics very far if we endlessly explore each of them when none present a compelling alternative to the established answer of 2.

I’m betting they might get a speaking gig as a curiosity along with a flat earth proponent.

To what end? Entertainment? And what of the person who argues 1+1=4 and then the person who argues 1+1=5, and then the person who wants us to revisit 1+1=4 again because—in spite of presenting no new argument—they personally feel slighted by rejection of their views? At what point to we recognize something as not fruitful until such time as new argument is presented?

This isn’t about whether or not one could contrive some reason to host them. We could host presentations where we just watch grass grow. The point is, not all cases where we apply due discrimination represent authoritarianism or other forms of political oppression.

While that example may sound absurd, that’s the exact angle creationists tried in the 00s with “Teach the controversy!” They wanted creationism in the form of ‘intelligent design’ taught alongside evolution (or in place of it) and cried about how their freedom was being denied, and how the education system was being closed-minded or even dogmatic. And while “teach the controversy” largely failed, it did do damage in that it appealed to fear many had of appearing hypocritical in not platforming an idea despite the fact that it had no evidence or credibility.

Perhaps not in classrooms, but as a gig in a speakers series what would be wrong with letting them do their spiel and then have to run the gauntlet of questions asked by professors and intelligent students in a no-hole-barred Q&A afterward?

Why? It was recycled dog shit. What level of intellectual honesty to we have to fuck to death to pretend it was something novel? By all means, I have no desire to prevent students from engaging with creationism or intelligent design, and if that’s somehow in their world religions course, fine. But given their chance to make their pitch over and over and over and over and over, at what point do we say enough? It’s time to move on—creationism isn’t going to be taught in science classrooms, neither is evolution going to be removed; not until someone presents some damn compelling evidence.

In another case related to C-16 (I know I draw on this well a lot, but it’s just a part of Canadian history with which I am intimately acquainted), Meghan Murphy—founder of Feminist Current…

I’m a little familiar with that woman’s point of view if not this speaking engagement and the hubbub around it, and she isn’t a hateful person, though she may be in the distorted sense that anyone who doesn’t toe the the main LGBTQ+ policy line is regularly depicted as “(fill in the blank)phobic.” Surely, she should be heard and then have to answer questions, as in the above example.

In the above example it was hardly anyone’s business. The group organizing the event could do it however they want including completely eliminating questions and barring any dissenting points of view if that’s what they wanted. It was their meeting. Whether or not Murphy is a hateful person is immaterial. I am not sure why you brought that up. Hate speech—perhaps a poorly termed concept—doesn’t rely on a specific emotional state.

I agree overall as long as the views being shunted off into ignominy aren’t likely to be opinions that are on point, even if they are probably wrong. Of course, there isn’t time to hear every single view, especially when decisions are urgent, but then who gets to make that choice? And it is a choice.

These choices are routinely made as a matter of necessity when we’re talking about schools or venues with invited speakers, or political committee hearings. I’m not that concerned with who gets to make the choice and more concerned with how the choice is made. Do the criteria make sense? Are they applied equitably as needed?

Well, if Canadians want to let a small segment of the population run the show using coercive tactics, they should go for it. I certainly hope that anything similar get thunderously quashed right from the start. I view it as an insurrection, should it happen, almost equivalent to the January 6 storming of the Capitol Bldg.

It’s not an insurrection, neither are they running the show. What they’re driving is the narrative and having the military shut them down through force won’t matter because the war started before the first trucker hit the ignition. This is a politically engineered movement relying on pulling centrist Canadians to the poles in an us versus them battle. ‘Freedom’ and ‘authoritarianism/ totalitarianism/ fascism’ are words that are being bandied about nonsensically. That’s the whole point. Not about whether Peterson, or Murphy, or you or I or anyone should or should not have spoken at any given event, but that some degree of filtering will happen by necessity and vapidly shouting ‘freedom’ like you’re Mel Gibson in blue face paint and a bad accent ain’t got nothing to do with it much of the time.

[—]

jakelafort wrote:

Autumn i give you an A Plus for that. Not that my opinion means much…

As long as the opinion is going in my favour, I won’t need to authoritarianize you.

[Unseen]

@Autumn

…Whether I knew what he’d say or not, he lacked understanding of the subject matter and had no relevant qualification. We’re not talking about a talk show, but rather an academic forum where one might expect a certain level of academic relevance to who is invited.

A person shouldn’t need a qualification to speak as long as they are willing to suffer the slings and arrows of a Q&A session. Being unqualified is no obstacle to being correct in the end. Einstein was a humble patent clerk when he went to scientific conferences to present his counterintuitive theories. Were his “lack of command of the facts” the real reason for excluding him or desire to avoid a clash of values?

This isn’t about whether or not one could contrive some reason to host them. We could host presentations where we just watch grass grow. The point is, not all cases where we apply due discrimination represent authoritarianism or other forms of political oppression.

The reason to host a speaker outside the context of a course has to be because they are of interest to the audience. That the speaker’s views are not of interest to the organizers should be irrelevant. That the speaker is being banned because the hosts disagree with them is among the worst reasons not to provide a forum for them. Particularly troubling is where a speaker is scheduled but some faction among the student body doesn’t want people to hear them.

But given their chance to make their pitch over and over and over and over and over, at what point do we say enough? It’s time to move on—creationism isn’t going to be taught in science classrooms, neither is evolution going to be removed; not until someone presents some damn compelling evidence.

You say enough once they have been so thoroughly rebuffed and debunked in Q&A that they run away with their tail betwixt their legs.

Hate speech—perhaps a poorly termed concept—doesn’t rely on a specific emotional state.

That’s just ridiculous. Hate is a psychological state of mind that can infuse utterances. This woman has shown no sign of that.

These choices are routinely made as a matter of necessity when we’re talking about schools or venues with invited speakers, or political committee hearings. I’m not that concerned with who gets to make the choice and more concerned with how the choice is made. Do the criteria make sense? Are they applied equitably as needed?

So, if I understand your position correctly, you don’t want speakers with no command of the facts but you don’t apply the same standard to those who choose who speaks and who does not(?).

[Unseen]

Peter Hitchens (Christopher’s brother)—a Christian convert, apparently—has some surprising views on leftism.

Radical lefists just like radical rightists assume they are qualified to lecture and harangue The Great Unwashed.

[—]

Unseen wrote:

@autumn

A person shouldn’t need a qualification to speak as long as they are willing to suffer the slings and arrows of a Q&A session.

Who said they should need a qualification to speak? It makes little sense that he’d be invited to an academic forum on a topic where he was a layperson with no relevant insight. It’s not ‘authoritarianism’ should someone suggest he is not suitable for the panel. Peterson had been spreading misinformation on the topic and that was known. It is not authoritarianism to suggest that he specifically should not be on the panel.

That the speaker is being banned because the hosts disagree with them is among the worst reasons not to provide a forum for them. Particularly troubling is where a speaker is scheduled but some faction among the student body doesn’t want people to hear them.

Who is being banned because the host ‘disagrees’? Do we have to pretend we live in a universe where facts don’t exist and where a university is so wrong that they shouldn’t want to disseminate or provide a forum for counterfactual content? If you want to take this into the weeds, I’m not going to follow you.

Hate speech—perhaps a poorly termed concept—doesn’t rely on a specific emotional state.

That’s just ridiculous. Hate is a psychological state of mind that can infuse utterances. This woman has shown no sign of that.

What are you talking about? Hate speech is a defined term in many jurisdictions. One of the criticisms against the library accommodating Murphy at the time was that she was engaging in hate speech. That would be grounds for not allowing her to use the library space for their event if it were true. In Canada, the relevant statutes would be under Hate Propaganda and Incitement of Hatred, under the criminal code, and in BC it would be Discriminatory Publication under the BC Human Rights Code.

These choices are routinely made as a matter of necessity when we’re talking about schools or venues with invited speakers, or political committee hearings. I’m not that concerned with who gets to make the choice and more concerned with how the choice is made. Do the criteria make sense? Are they applied equitably as needed?

So, if I understand your position correctly, you don’t want speakers with no command of the facts but you don’t apply the same standard to those who choose who speaks and who does not(?).

I have no clue what you are talking about at this point in time.

• Not every forum platforms everyone. They can’t.
• There are methods of discerning what does and does not get platformed with the resources available.
• Not gaining a platform isn’t intrinsically due to ‘authoritarianism’. I have provided examples.
• The tendency to conflate not platforming a speaker for coherent and sensible reasons with ‘authoritarianism’ has become a political tactic to pressuring various fora and venues to give platform where they otherwise might not have done for sensible reasons.
• Hosting a contentious speakers also isn’t intrinsically playing party to ‘oppression’. I have provided examples.
• The tendency to conflate hosting a contentious speaker with ‘oppression’ has become a political tool for pressuring various fora and venues to deny platform when they other wise might not have done so ordinarily.
• While there can be valid reasons to object to censorious policy or to deplatform speakers, the over reliance on these tactics and the tendency cry wolf constantly is degrading public discourse, very likely to the detriment of all the people stressing themselves out over the polarization that’s turning friends and families on one another, and to the benefit of political opportunists (or in some cases instigators) who can capitalize off the drama.

[Unseen]

@Autumn

Who said they should need a qualification to speak? It makes little sense that he’d be invited to an academic forum on a topic where he was a layperson with no relevant insight. It’s not ‘authoritarianism’ should someone suggest he is not suitable for the panel. Peterson had been spreading misinformation on the topic and that was known. It is not authoritarianism to suggest that he specifically should not be on the panel.

You yourself said that in the past he had demonstrated no mastery of the relevant facts, which is a qualification it seems to me. Not to you, though? Do tell! If someone can keep him off, they must have the authority to do so, no?

Who is being banned because the host ‘disagrees’? Do we have to pretend we live in a universe where facts don’t exist and where a university is so wrong that they shouldn’t want to disseminate or provide a forum for counterfactual content? If you want to take this into the weeds, I’m not going to follow you.

I’m old-fashioned. When I was in college, we could have Nazis or socialists, Northern Irish defenders of the IRA or pro-Palestinians speak (Palestine were The Bad Guys in the 60’s and 70’s). The came, they talked, they took questions. It was exciting. Not your thing, I gather.

What are you talking about? Hate speech is a defined term in many jurisdictions. One of the criticisms against the library accommodating Murphy at the time was that she was engaging in hate speech. That would be grounds for not allowing her to use the library space for their event if it were true. In Canada, the relevant statutes would be under Hate Propaganda and Incitement of Hatred, under the criminal code, and in BC it would be Discriminatory Publication under the BC Human Rights Code.

It sounds to me like they are using a definition of “hate speech” that has no connection to actual hate, which is an emotion, making any definition that leaves intent out simply and bizarrely irrelevant and totally disconnected from how we use language. This makes “hate speech” what is called in the law, “a term of art” like “an act of God.” Ignore the words, go by the definition.

I have no clue what you are talking about at this point in time.

Oh, come on. I think any competent and reasonably well-educated English speaker knows exactly what I meant.

In other words, when you say ” I’m not that concerned with who gets to make the choice” of who gets to speak, to you it might as well be done by someone consulting the I Ching rather than someone who is competent regarding the issues at hand, whereas you want people who get invited to definitely be competent with the facts (as YOU see them, not the person doing the choosing). That’s just gobbledegook.

[—]

Unseen wrote:

@autumn

You yourself said that in the past he had demonstrated no mastery of the relevant facts, which is a qualification it seems to me. Not to you, though? Do tell! If someone can keep him off, they must have the authority to do so, no?

What are you talking about? I was talking about being invited to be part of an academic panel. You changed that to ‘qualification to speak’.

I’m old-fashioned. When I was in college, we could have Nazis or socialists, Northern Irish defenders of the IRA or pro-Palestinians speak (Palestine were The Bad Guys in the 60’s and 70’s). The came, they talked, they took questions. It was exciting. Not your thing, I gather.

Why do you insist on making pointless assumptions?

Oh, come on. I think any competent and reasonably well-educated English speaker knows exactly what I meant. In other words, when you say

What I don’t understand is why your responses aren’t responses to arguments I’ve made.

”I’m not that concerned with who gets to make the choice” of who gets to speak, to you it might as well be done by someone consulting the I Ching rather than someone who is competent regarding the issues at hand

It should be done by the selection method that results in the selection criteria most likely to produce the best results.

whereas you want people who get invited to definitely be competent with the facts (as YOU see them, not the person doing the choosing). That’s just gobbledegook.

On an academic panel should the invited speakers be competent with facts? Yes, generally. In the case of the C-16 discussion, definitely. I could present an argument at length as to why, but I fail to see what purpose that would serve. The more I type the more silly assumptions you like to slide in.

And it’s not facts as I see them. There are not facts for me and facts for Peterson. There are matters which are subjective, or which don’t have settled answers, but there are also objective facts.

[Unseen]

@Autumn

Ok, setting aside anymore she-said/I-say type argumentation, just be clear on some points:

1) If someone has the authority to decide who speaks, and a necessary criterion is that the speaker should have an adequate grasp of the subject matter to qualify, doesn’t it make sense that the authority making that decision have at least that much of a grasp of the subject matter?

2) “It should be done by the selection method that results in the selection criteria most likely to produce the best results.” That sounds like it came out of The Department of Redundancy Department: “The best way to choose speakers should be the way that chooses the best speakers.”

3) There are no “objective facts” (a tautology) in the Covid discussion. Take ivermectin, for example, which the mainstream/leftist media insists on calling a “horse dewormer.” While not approved for human use to treat Covid, it is a legitimate treatment for other human ailments. Don’t believe me, just do some googling. Joe Rogan, for one, advocated for investigating it to treat Covid and took it himself, and for that sin this largely leftist guy who voted for Bernie has been branded a right-wing kook in the same mainstream/leftist media. The CDC’s stance on Covid treatments and prevention is constantly changing. First, it was don’t use masks, then it was use almost any cloth thing to cover your nose and mouth (even a bandana), then it became you really, really need to wear a medical-grade face mask (you know, like the ones nurses wear), and now they are pushing N95 masks, but not just any N95’s. Where are the objective mask facts? Even when it comes to Covid infection and death rates. There are different ways to measure infections ranging from reported infections to the more accurate but still squishy readings taken from wastewater. I’m sure there are other metrics, and none of them giving the same exact result. As for deaths, there are different metrics. For example, you can take reported deaths, or you can use the so-called  “excess deaths” metric and  get different results. So, how does one distinguish between the experts, the open-minded folks, and the crackpots in this area? And when it comes to what to do indoors…let’s not even. Why all the confusion? “The data is constantly changing.” So, with no objective facts,  what authority has expertise adequate to decide who doesn’t get to present their point of view?

[TheEncogitationer]

Fellow Unbelievers,

Ah, a great reason to watch The Suoer Bowl, or at least during commercial breaks and the Half-Time Show! This will be one of the commercials, courtesy of The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE):

Good to know some people still support freedom of expression and that Dudedom knows no national borders! 👍👍

And this is what is said about the Half-Time Show:

DEVILISH SHOW Super Bowl Halftime Show slammed as ‘satanic’ as star-studded rap show set to feature Snoop Dogg, Dr Dre, and Eminem
https://www.the-sun.com/sport/4648471/super-bowl-halftime-show-slammed-as-satanic/

‘Course, that’s just me. A few years back, I went to the theater to see The Golden Compass just to see if William Donahue’s Catholic League would be there protesting and just for the possible spite! 😁👹

• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by TheEncogitationer.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by TheEncogitationer. Reason: Exercising editorship, not self-censorship

[—]

Unseen wrote:

1) If someone has the authority to decide who speaks, and a necessary criterion is that the speaker should have an adequate grasp of the subject matter to qualify, doesn’t it make sense that the authority making that decision have at least that much of a grasp of the subject matter?

“At least that much grasp”? As the speaker? No. Enough competency to make a sound selection? Sure.

2) “It should be done by the selection method that results in the selection criteria most likely to produce the best results.” That sounds like it came out of The Department of Redundancy Department: “The best way to choose speakers should be the way that chooses the best speakers.”

You were the one that needed this clarified.

3)…“objective facts” (a tautology)…

Again, something that needed to be clarified FOR YOU because you say nonsense like ” the facts (as YOU see them, not the person doing the choosing)” with some implication that I’m operating on an interpretive dance version of facts rather than, y’know, facts.

For example, you can take reported deaths, or you can use the so-called  “excess deaths” metric and  get different results.

They measure different things, so that’s an objective fact. For a start, one could begin by learning what data/ projections/ models state, the limitations on accuracy, complicating variables. At a basic level, it doesn’t require a degree in virology or medicine or any advanced field.

Not everything in the conversation can be settled by objective facts. There are plenty of unknowns. There are plenty of cases where we’re operating on best available information to date. There are plenty of subjective factors to consider. However, if a purported covid expert claimed that the disease was cause by bacteria, getting such a basic fact wrong may send up a red flag. If they claimed that covid wasn’t real and was a global conspiracy, one might expect some considerable evidence before lending and credence to the claim.

If someone says that teen suspected suicide attempts had jumped dramatically since the onset of covid response measures, data would support that quite well. If they said that this was a cause for concern, that would be subjective, but highly tenable—I would guess most people would agree. If they said it was because of lockdowns and that ending lockdowns would resolve the issue, that would be a plausible explanation, but it’s one of many plausible explanations, and one might expect them to make a more compelling argument than a mere correlation. If they said that teens were dying at alarming rates and that the government was ‘murdering’ them with lockdowns, that might be counterfactual and warrant skepticism until some sort of evidence could be produced; certainly it can’t be taken strictly literally.

No one has perfect answers and that’s seldom been the case. But it’s not like we have no means of navigating between what is more reliable or less reliable; more likely to be accurate or less likely to be accurate (etc.). We are not adrift in an inormation void.

Joe Rogan, for one, advocated for investigating it to treat Covid and took it himself, and for that sin this largely leftist guy who voted for Bernie has been branded a right-wing kook in the same mainstream/leftist media.

“Sin” “leftist media” blah blah blah. Joe Rogan has had a lot of PR problems for a lot of reasons and this extends back before Covid. I don’t know if, let’s say in 2018, people were frequently calling him alt-right, but certainly articles were written about him for his relationship to the alt-right, and his promotion of certain ideas and speakers popular in the so-called ‘alt-right’. Whether that is fair or not, that’s the legacy that has been building up around him for years. So no, let’s not indulge this hyperbolic bullshit that he was suddenly “branded a right-wing kook” for the “sin” of advocating for and ingesting Ivermectin.

It is true Ivermectin has uses beyond deworming horses, and to my knowledge, there is research being done to other uses beyond its anti-parasitic properties. But it’s also a big jump from there to the idea that it’s useful to treat covid based on anecdote and a lack of evidence that it’s not. Criticisms against irresponsibly presenting it as potential treatment make sense. Even Merck, the producer of STROMECTOL® (ivermectin), doesn’t support this usage despite standing to gain if it were true (although also standing to get sued if it weren’t).

Merck Statement on Ivermectin use During the COVID-19 Pandemic

[Author]

Posts