It's truly amazing to see the character of the type of people who think they alone know the truth. That universities were involved in (short of controlling) censorship (and yes it was censorship, not the cope of "counter speak") is appalling.
Diresta's argument that censorship is a form of free speech is twisted. Limiting speech is the absolute opposite of expanding speech.
Where Diresta is again wrong is she absolutely fails to understand human nature. "labels" are a slippery slope. Once you label some opinions as wrong think, the NATURE of us social animals is that humans will freak and deem that speech absolute enemy speech and take any endless measures to squash those wrong think opinions. Soft mandates lead to hard mandates. So the "labelling" must be kept to an EXTREMELY EXCEPTIONAL limit.
In my peer group of feminists, 1000s of women were deplatformed. That's well beyond exceptions, it's systematic, no less systematic than dissenting opinions in SCV2 became systematic.
Homo sapiens is a hysterical species, just like scattering grazers. You either feed that hysterical behaviour or chose not to.
The very precept that social media companies must bend to the entirety of countries views on speech and truth, rather than only the country they primarily operate in is ludicrous. Of course corporate owners will bend to some countries's demands and not others is to be expected, but it's been stated here that such companies must be global in nature is ludicrous.
It’s not “confusion” when the funding is uncovered.
Are you not reading the reports about that? Without following the money, this entire debate is baseless. Are you aware of gov’t contracts for the myriad of agencies involved in censorship? Are you aware of the accuracy of the content of what’s been pulled, defunded, deplatformed, demonetized, shadow-banned? There are currently forever bans in place for certain speakers for one particular tweet or podcast that somebody didn’t like for no stated reasons. DiResta should be indicted for threatening our democracy.
I agree with Cohn on the first two; I don’t agree on Gow. What Gow was doing had nothing to do with academic freedom. Of course he cannot be criminally prosecuted by the government for his First Amendment-protected choices, but to claim that Gow’s firing has anything to do with academic freedom is simply spurious.
Tenure protects academic freedom, it is not a total shield from all consequences of one’s actions and choices. Gow did far more than just opine on a subject, he engaged in what can reasonably be characterized as unprofessional behavior for a faculty member.
Further, he is/was selling the porn videos online for $4.99; are you suggesting he can’t be fired for that? That is not just “free speech”; it’s done for commercial purposes
Whether the firing is wise or not (I probably wouldn’t have fired him from his teaching position), claims that it threatens academic freedom or violates First Amendment rights are overblown, at best.
1:09:00 "objective knowledge" is a terribly naïve concept. I used to be a Wikipedia editor in the French language and had to quit, because even on a simple obvious thing like the "grapefruit", The French and French Canadians hold a different truth. If something so simple as a grapefruit can not be held true between two countries of same languages, what hope is there for "objective truth" in more complex realms.
Homo sapiens, with its extended life percentage of child years, are the least rational of all large mammals. We are an extremely social species and are driven by narratives not facts. As a militant atheist and lone wolf, this reality has been a major frustration my entire life. I laugh at people who believe in "objective truth". All "truths" must be weighed by quantity of evidence on ALL sides. Because that's the how the ridiculously social human brain functions.
Diresta is herself an agent of misinformation! She's nothing more than a meme spreader. She has no clue how half the kids in North America suffer from ridiculous numbers of health problems, and SHE is not an arbiter of limitations of discussion on this topic.
Just on the matter of vaccine hesitancy, I get my Tetanus shot every decade, and received several vaccines for various international travel. So until 2008, I never had a millimetre of vaccine hesitancy. I am not a taker of flu shots, but I actually let myself be coerced by an employer one winter, and allowed a nurse to give me a flu shot in December 2008, and went on to be sick for 3 months within a few weeks later. So I said: "fuk this flu shot, should have never done it". But on that December day, I was completely able to say NO. I simply had never given that debate any thought. The idea that governments imposed an experimental prophylaxis was 100% insanity. And yes, when you mandate and censor and speak down to, you create rebellion.
Take Canada as an example. The fully voluntary acceptance of the SCV2 shot was around 80%. The mandates upped that to 85% (ballparks) but created massive loss in social trust, all for a measly 5 points. The censorious attitude (Canada's Liberal Prime Minister accused us non takers of all sorts of things, I'm simply a biologist, feminist, environmentalist, leftist, absolutely nothing of our PMs words) caused much more harm to our society than good.
The concept of "harm" pushed by Diresta is ludicrous. She is not scientifically qualified to have ANY CLUE about what is "harmful". With regards to SCV2 and ALL colds, the way to reduce harm is HEALTH, not NPIs or experimental genetic prophylaxis. Diresta is allowed to be "extremely pro-vaccine", but it is ludicrous that pharma shills and germophobes have any say at all in such matters and decision making. It's really an embarrassment. I really can't imagine the justification to have her on.
Thank you for elucidating the censorial view. Very interesting.
It's truly amazing to see the character of the type of people who think they alone know the truth. That universities were involved in (short of controlling) censorship (and yes it was censorship, not the cope of "counter speak") is appalling.
Diresta's argument that censorship is a form of free speech is twisted. Limiting speech is the absolute opposite of expanding speech.
Where Diresta is again wrong is she absolutely fails to understand human nature. "labels" are a slippery slope. Once you label some opinions as wrong think, the NATURE of us social animals is that humans will freak and deem that speech absolute enemy speech and take any endless measures to squash those wrong think opinions. Soft mandates lead to hard mandates. So the "labelling" must be kept to an EXTREMELY EXCEPTIONAL limit.
In my peer group of feminists, 1000s of women were deplatformed. That's well beyond exceptions, it's systematic, no less systematic than dissenting opinions in SCV2 became systematic.
Homo sapiens is a hysterical species, just like scattering grazers. You either feed that hysterical behaviour or chose not to.
The very precept that social media companies must bend to the entirety of countries views on speech and truth, rather than only the country they primarily operate in is ludicrous. Of course corporate owners will bend to some countries's demands and not others is to be expected, but it's been stated here that such companies must be global in nature is ludicrous.
It’s not “confusion” when the funding is uncovered.
Are you not reading the reports about that? Without following the money, this entire debate is baseless. Are you aware of gov’t contracts for the myriad of agencies involved in censorship? Are you aware of the accuracy of the content of what’s been pulled, defunded, deplatformed, demonetized, shadow-banned? There are currently forever bans in place for certain speakers for one particular tweet or podcast that somebody didn’t like for no stated reasons. DiResta should be indicted for threatening our democracy.
One of these things is not like the others.
I agree with Cohn on the first two; I don’t agree on Gow. What Gow was doing had nothing to do with academic freedom. Of course he cannot be criminally prosecuted by the government for his First Amendment-protected choices, but to claim that Gow’s firing has anything to do with academic freedom is simply spurious.
Tenure protects academic freedom, it is not a total shield from all consequences of one’s actions and choices. Gow did far more than just opine on a subject, he engaged in what can reasonably be characterized as unprofessional behavior for a faculty member.
Further, he is/was selling the porn videos online for $4.99; are you suggesting he can’t be fired for that? That is not just “free speech”; it’s done for commercial purposes
dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13028115…
Whether the firing is wise or not (I probably wouldn’t have fired him from his teaching position), claims that it threatens academic freedom or violates First Amendment rights are overblown, at best.
1:09:00 "objective knowledge" is a terribly naïve concept. I used to be a Wikipedia editor in the French language and had to quit, because even on a simple obvious thing like the "grapefruit", The French and French Canadians hold a different truth. If something so simple as a grapefruit can not be held true between two countries of same languages, what hope is there for "objective truth" in more complex realms.
Homo sapiens, with its extended life percentage of child years, are the least rational of all large mammals. We are an extremely social species and are driven by narratives not facts. As a militant atheist and lone wolf, this reality has been a major frustration my entire life. I laugh at people who believe in "objective truth". All "truths" must be weighed by quantity of evidence on ALL sides. Because that's the how the ridiculously social human brain functions.
1:07:00 Diresta complains of "propaganda",
EVERYTHING from governments is propaganda
EVERYTHING from corporations is propaganda
Universities should be invested in questions
Diresta is herself an agent of misinformation! She's nothing more than a meme spreader. She has no clue how half the kids in North America suffer from ridiculous numbers of health problems, and SHE is not an arbiter of limitations of discussion on this topic.
54:00 Absolutely no, universities have zero business wasting money monitoring social media.
Just on the matter of vaccine hesitancy, I get my Tetanus shot every decade, and received several vaccines for various international travel. So until 2008, I never had a millimetre of vaccine hesitancy. I am not a taker of flu shots, but I actually let myself be coerced by an employer one winter, and allowed a nurse to give me a flu shot in December 2008, and went on to be sick for 3 months within a few weeks later. So I said: "fuk this flu shot, should have never done it". But on that December day, I was completely able to say NO. I simply had never given that debate any thought. The idea that governments imposed an experimental prophylaxis was 100% insanity. And yes, when you mandate and censor and speak down to, you create rebellion.
Take Canada as an example. The fully voluntary acceptance of the SCV2 shot was around 80%. The mandates upped that to 85% (ballparks) but created massive loss in social trust, all for a measly 5 points. The censorious attitude (Canada's Liberal Prime Minister accused us non takers of all sorts of things, I'm simply a biologist, feminist, environmentalist, leftist, absolutely nothing of our PMs words) caused much more harm to our society than good.
You guys missed the bigger/biggest deplatforming victims: women/feminists talking about SEX.
The concept of "harm" pushed by Diresta is ludicrous. She is not scientifically qualified to have ANY CLUE about what is "harmful". With regards to SCV2 and ALL colds, the way to reduce harm is HEALTH, not NPIs or experimental genetic prophylaxis. Diresta is allowed to be "extremely pro-vaccine", but it is ludicrous that pharma shills and germophobes have any say at all in such matters and decision making. It's really an embarrassment. I really can't imagine the justification to have her on.
sorry to nitpick, but that glass wall is really annoying