By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Google Bans Censorship-Resistant Competitor, LBRY

JWeinCom said:
Slimebeast said:

It's scary that you seem to brush the whole thing off as just private companies having the freedom to act like they seem fit. It's already a classic response.

Cancel culture and censorship. There's two dimensions, a cultural element but also a political, judicial element. Public discourse can change the culture and attitudes in society, but there's also a legal battleground with the human right called freedom of speech that is regulated through The First Amendment and corresponding legislature in all Western liberal democracies.

Cancel culture refers to a cultural phenomenon, about a totalitarian mindset among a vocal minority. Mainly among the leftist intelligentia. We're now seeing the radical left pushing wokeness like a religion. An important tool of this is policing the language of other people in order to shame and control people. Often throughout history the left has had totalitarian tendencies to silence its opponents and impose restrictions on speech and on expression of free thought, but this has gone totally overboard in the last decade. Due to the explosive nature of internet, cancel mobs have a disproportionate amount of power against the individual.

I have no problem being criticised and I think I can speak for everyone on the right. That's not the problem. And I think you know this very well. The problem is that we have a culture of fear where dissenting opinions are disproportioanately punished by deplatforming, by losing your job, by people not wanting to associate with you because they in turn fear the consequences. By the opposition using it as an extremely powerful punishment. It's similar to how the religious power structures of the Middle ages, how people were ostraziced and silenced if they dared to speak up. It totally goes against our values of freedom and tolerance and it's unworthy of a modern democratic society.

If J.K. Rowling tweats about women who menstruate, it's wrong to demand her publisher to drop her. It's wrong to create such a hysterical atmosphere of hate that emotion-driven mobsters are able to pressure colleges to cancel invited speakers. It's wrong that people are being fired for making  insensitive jokes, or getting fired for criticising BLM. Such behaviour is legal, we know that, but it's also totally immoral and evil. It's a culture that censors and supresses freedom of speech.

This is deeply inhuman. We cannot allow a culture of fear. We will soon be living in a democracy by name only.

It's scary that the country who once embraced freedom of speech and was famous all over the world for it, has suddenly become the strongest force in the West to suppress diversity of opinion. Just a few decades ago we as Swedes saw America, that you venerate freedom of speech. You even allowed nazis to march openly because freedom of speech was so holy. Now it's the other way around, cancel culture is rapidly spreading from the US universities, Big Tech and HR departments to Sweden and Europe. US college after college is being taken over by the woke mob with critical race theory and intersectionality being enforced in all areas, from school bureaucracy, to the curriculum, to recruitment and hiring practices.

But there is also a possibility to change laws. The big tech internet companies now control freedom of speech to such an extent that they effectively make up a monopoly and their bias against voices on the right is infringing on our democracy, it's infringing on freedom of speech. We can regulate big tech if we want to, by forbidding Google, Facebook and Twitter to arbitrarily suppress certain opinions, mainly conservative voices. We can accomplish this legally by many ways if we want to, perhaps by changing their legal status as platforms and instead make them accountable as publishers, or force them to disclose the bias of their algorithms and require that they're unbiased, demand more hearings with their CEOs, or simply break up the companies. There is a lot we can do politically.

There is an opposition on the left, a part of the left that embraces liberalism and classic Western values, who are also deeply concerned by this. Who realizes that they have to cooperate with conservatives on the right to oppose wokeness, to oppose cancel culture and defend Western democracy. Look up Bret Weinstein and Evergreen college. These people are increasingly realizing that right now, Trump is the only sensible choice to combat this dangerous movement on the legal front. Biden is a good man but far too weak and too blind and gullible to be able to stand up against this woke crazyness.

Should I just repeat the same thing I said before? Because you keep bringing up the First Amendment and its guarantee of freedom of speech, and again neither has anything to do with what you just said. You just spewed out buzzwords that have nothing to do with the First Amendment. Just your opinions on what is moral to say or not to say, and I don't really care at all.

You then suggested that the government should regulate private enterprises and define what view points they can choose to platform or not platform. THAT is in violation of the First Amendment. If people don't like the restrictions these platforms place, they are free to go somewhere else. If it is not viable for any competing platform to emerge, then that's an anti-trust issue, wholly separate from the First Amendment.

And, no you can't speak for everyone on the right. Ffs.

"If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!"

Let us assume for a second that Donald Trump is not the President, since that actually DOES create pretty severe First Amendment concerns. But lets say he's a private citizen who objects to players kneeling for the pledge of allegiance. Why is it wrong for him call for those players to be fired or suspended?

What are you talking about?

Can you try to help with staying on the subject please? A few posts above one post talked about a right-leaning magazine and some political themes which according to some posters were controversial:

"-Anti lockdown support
-Negative news towards Black Lives Matter
-Positive news towards Trump
-anti censoring enforced by leftists

'If you're tired of cancel culture and censorship subscribe to Reclaim The Net.'' 

And I commented how remarkable it is that a totalitarian mindset of cancel culture and censorship has taken hold of the USA, who historically has been so famous for freedom of speech. I didn't mention the First Amendment until you brought it up.

My point wasn't specifically about the First Amendment and I don't claim to be an expert on the constitution, but as it is teached to us here in Europe (up until recent years at least), American children are already from school ingrained to be tolerant about speech. America is always been brought up as the prime example of a society with freedom of thought and freedom of speech, that there's great tolerance to dissenting opinion unlike anywhere else, and how the American culture and spirit of classical liberalism has its roots and protection in the constitution. Law is not just law, law also forms a culture and national spirit.

In light of that background it's shocking as a European to witness the explosion in recent years of this hyper-sensitive atmosphere in so many American public institutions, thought police and witchhunts against people who hold dissenting opinions. I find it shocking that a magazine that opposes "censoring enforced by leftists" is seen as "extreme" and "onesided".



Around the Network
Moren said:
Slimebeast said:

It's scary that the country who once embraced freedom of speech and was famous all over the world for it, has suddenly become the strongest force in the West to suppress diversity of opinion. Just a few decades ago we as Swedes saw America, that you venerate freedom of speech. You even allowed nazis to march openly because freedom of speech was so holy. Now it's the other way around, cancel culture is rapidly spreading from the US universities, Big Tech and HR departments to Sweden and Europe. US college after college is being taken over by the woke mob with critical race theory and intersectionality being enforced in all areas, from school bureaucracy, to the curriculum, to recruitment and hiring practices.

But isn't it an objective and decisive truth that Nazis are bad, and that their speech should be completely suppressed and cancelled?

People should use any legal means at their disposal to silence them. Other countries take it a step further, and utilize the law to do so directly. I am not necessarily opposed to that, but would have to study more about how it works in European nations that employ such laws.

I know it wasn't addressed towards me, but I figured someone ought to answer it...

Slimebeast said:
JWeinCom said:

Should I just repeat the same thing I said before? Because you keep bringing up the First Amendment and its guarantee of freedom of speech, and again neither has anything to do with what you just said. You just spewed out buzzwords that have nothing to do with the First Amendment. Just your opinions on what is moral to say or not to say, and I don't really care at all.

You then suggested that the government should regulate private enterprises and define what view points they can choose to platform or not platform. THAT is in violation of the First Amendment. If people don't like the restrictions these platforms place, they are free to go somewhere else. If it is not viable for any competing platform to emerge, then that's an anti-trust issue, wholly separate from the First Amendment.

And, no you can't speak for everyone on the right. Ffs.

"If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!"

Let us assume for a second that Donald Trump is not the President, since that actually DOES create pretty severe First Amendment concerns. But lets say he's a private citizen who objects to players kneeling for the pledge of allegiance. Why is it wrong for him call for those players to be fired or suspended?

What are you talking about?

Can you try to help with staying on the subject please? A few posts above one post talked about a right-leaning magazine and some political themes which according to some posters were controversial:

"-Anti lockdown support
-Negative news towards Black Lives Matter
-Positive news towards Trump
-anti censoring enforced by leftists

'If you're tired of cancel culture and censorship subscribe to Reclaim The Net.'' 

And I commented how remarkable it is that a totalitarian mindset of cancel culture and censorship has taken hold of the USA, who historically has been so famous for freedom of speech. I didn't mention the First Amendment until you brought it up.

My point wasn't specifically about the First Amendment and I don't claim to be an expert on the constitution, but as it is teached to us here in Europe (up until recent years at least), American children are already from school ingrained to be tolerant about speech. America is always been brought up as the prime example of a society with freedom of thought and freedom of speech, that there's great tolerance to dissenting opinion unlike anywhere else, and how the American culture and spirit of classical liberalism has its roots and protection in the constitution. Law is not just law, law also forms a culture and national spirit.

In light of that background it's shocking as a European to witness the explosion in recent years of this hyper-sensitive atmosphere in so many American public institutions, thought police and witchhunts against people who hold dissenting opinions. I find it shocking that a magazine that opposes "censoring enforced by leftists" is seen as "extreme" and "onesided".

Yes, I absolutely can stay on topic and am doing so as best I can. If you think I am not, feel free to pose a direct question, and I will answer it. 

If you discuss America being founded about freedom of speech you are talking about the first amendment. Because that is what protects freedom of speech. The interpretation of that Amendment is what determines the boundaries of our freedom of speech. If you're talking about what freedom of speech means or should mean in America, you are talking about the first amendment. You cannot discuss one without the other.

Your school is wrong. There's nothing special about Americans. We react the same as anyone else to speech we don't like, on both sides of the spectrum. The difference is that it is illegal to criminalize speech about matters of public concern due to the first amendment. That's all. And even that's not an accurate portrayal of American history. For many years seditious libel, encouraging rebellion against the government, was illegal. Speaking against the draft was illegal. During the cold war people were blacklisted and ostracized for support of socialism. Teaching evolution was banned. There were laws against atheists holding public office, and there are still plenty of places in America where you will be ostracized for openly being an atheist. In some states, a non-violent sexual advance by a person of the same gender is still legal grounds for provocation to violence. In 13 US States (all red) it is illegal to defame beef (or other food products). People were lynched to silence them. American history is full of examples of vicious forms of social censorship, and a lot of it was and is from the right.

So, maybe you should learn a bit about the history of free speech in America before talking about the good ol' days where a man could speak his mind without fear. Cause that never existed. I wouldn't talk about freedom of speech in Sweden cause I know fuck all about that, and I stay in my lane. 

But, if you wish, fine. Let's discuss whether cancel culture is a good thing, independent of any law.

Allow me to respond to your comment. First off, it's not censorship as defined by law... but since you want to ignore the law since it disagrees with your personal values, if it condemned all calls for censorship, then that would not make it one sided. If it ignores calls for censorship when it's from one side, then it's one sided. Similarly if it only posts positive stories about Trump, that's one sided. Unless you'd like to take the position he's done nothing worthy of criticism.

Moreover, the site did not reach to Google for comment and relied solely on the position of one side of the story, reporting it as fact. It is one-sided in the most literal sense of the word.

So, back to my question about cancel culture. Which you said is the biggest threat to America or something like that. 

Do you believe that it is wrong to call for someone's private employer to fire them based on speech that you disagree with?

If so, then please, your opinion on this,

"If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!"

Do you support Donald Trump's right to call for athletes to be fired for speech he does not approve of? Yes or no question man. Typing 2 to 3 letters should not be hard.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 30 September 2020

Slimebeast said:
Immersiveunreality said:

That site you link to is extremely politically onesided.

At a first glance i see :

-Anti lockdown support
-Negative news towards Black Lives Matter
-Positive news towards Trump
-anti censoring enforced by leftists

''If you're tired of cancel culture and censorship subscribe to Reclaim The Net.''

What a joke, a good amount of people that flock to sites and youtube channels like this are part of cancel culture, so selective that they're unaware or ignorant of it.

It's sad what the US has become, if those views are regarded as "extremely politically onesided".

As a Swedish medical doctor I am very critical of lockdowns. We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself. It's sad how the covid pandemic became so politicized over there. Sweden never imposed hard lockdowns.

In my view, the whole basis for Black Lives Matter is extreme, to claim that the US is a systemically racist society that must be deconstructed, to demand that the police must be defunded. BLM is much more about revolution against an entire society than it's about racial justice.

Positive news about the president of the USA shouldn't be controversial! Trump has politically acomplished many great things. Trump tries to withdraw the US from foreign conflicts, he tries to correct the US support to questionable organizations and treaties (the UN, WHO, Nafta, NATO, the Paris Agreement), he has improved the US economy, he actively tries to confront cancel culture and the threat from big tech giants against Western democracy.

And cancel culture is the most dangerous movement that threatens Western liberal democracy. As a European, one would have imagined that censorship and cancel culture would have great difficulties taking root in the one nation in the world that was actually founded upon freedom of speech and liberty.

You ignored my point, i'm talking about disingenuous narrative found in the amount of content only leaning one way and not the seperate articles.To make an analogy i would give a Playstation magazine(that has deals with sony) for example, can the articles be right, yes but they tend to have a less neutral tone in favor of playstation so i do not trust them as much as i would trust a reviewer/outlet that writes for all consoles in a skeptical manner.

The kind of people that site clings to i have heard,read articles from, and i know where they stand and also do not think i'm here to blindly advocate for everything the left puts out,i take the same approach with leftist media.

Bolded : Stating that has no use in an online conversation and it even has little use in the corona conversation, you can elaborate us on your knowledge on the virus if you like?



JWeinCom said:
Moren said:

But isn't it an objective and decisive truth that Nazis are bad, and that their speech should be completely suppressed and cancelled?

People should use any legal means at their disposal to silence them. Other countries take it a step further, and utilize the law to do so directly. I am not necessarily opposed to that, but would have to study more about how it works in European nations that employ such laws.

I know it wasn't addressed towards me, but I figured someone ought to answer it...

Slimebeast said:

What are you talking about?

Can you try to help with staying on the subject please? A few posts above one post talked about a right-leaning magazine and some political themes which according to some posters were controversial:

"-Anti lockdown support
-Negative news towards Black Lives Matter
-Positive news towards Trump
-anti censoring enforced by leftists

'If you're tired of cancel culture and censorship subscribe to Reclaim The Net.'' 

And I commented how remarkable it is that a totalitarian mindset of cancel culture and censorship has taken hold of the USA, who historically has been so famous for freedom of speech. I didn't mention the First Amendment until you brought it up.

My point wasn't specifically about the First Amendment and I don't claim to be an expert on the constitution, but as it is teached to us here in Europe (up until recent years at least), American children are already from school ingrained to be tolerant about speech. America is always been brought up as the prime example of a society with freedom of thought and freedom of speech, that there's great tolerance to dissenting opinion unlike anywhere else, and how the American culture and spirit of classical liberalism has its roots and protection in the constitution. Law is not just law, law also forms a culture and national spirit.

In light of that background it's shocking as a European to witness the explosion in recent years of this hyper-sensitive atmosphere in so many American public institutions, thought police and witchhunts against people who hold dissenting opinions. I find it shocking that a magazine that opposes "censoring enforced by leftists" is seen as "extreme" and "onesided".

Yes, I absolutely can stay on topic and am doing so as best I can. If you think I am not, feel free to pose a direct question, and I will answer it. 

If you discuss America being founded about freedom of speech you are talking about the first amendment. Because that is what protects freedom of speech. The interpretation of that Amendment is what determines the boundaries of our freedom of speech. If you're talking about what freedom of speech means or should mean in America, you are talking about the first amendment. You cannot discuss one without the other.

Your school is wrong. There's nothing special about Americans. We react the same as anyone else to speech we don't like, on both sides of the spectrum. The difference is that it is illegal to criminalize speech about matters of public concern due to the first amendment. That's all. And even that's not an accurate portrayal of American history. For many years seditious libel, encouraging rebellion against the government, was illegal. Speaking against the draft was illegal. During the cold war people were blacklisted and ostracized for support of socialism. Teaching evolution was banned. There were laws against atheists holding public office, and there are still plenty of places in America where you will be ostracized for openly being an atheist. In some states, a non-violent sexual advance by a person of the same gender is still legal grounds for provocation to violence. In 13 US States (all red) it is illegal to defame beef (or other food products). People were lynched to silence them. American history is full of examples of vicious forms of social censorship, and a lot of it was and is from the right.

So, maybe you should learn a bit about the history of free speech in America before talking about the good ol' days where a man could speak his mind without fear. Cause that never existed. I wouldn't talk about freedom of speech in Sweden cause I know fuck all about that, and I stay in my lane. 

But, if you wish, fine. Let's discuss whether cancel culture is a good thing, independent of any law.

Allow me to respond to your comment. First off, it's not censorship as defined by law... but since you want to ignore the law since it disagrees with your personal values, if it condemned all calls for censorship, then that would not make it one sided. If it ignores calls for censorship when it's from one side, then it's one sided. Similarly if it only posts positive stories about Trump, that's one sided. Unless you'd like to take the position he's done nothing worthy of criticism.

Moreover, the site did not reach to Google for comment and relied solely on the position of one side of the story, reporting it as fact. It is one-sided in the most literal sense of the word.

So, back to my question about cancel culture. Which you said is the biggest threat to America or something like that. 

Do you believe that it is wrong to call for someone's private employer to fire them based on speech that you disagree with?

If so, then please, your opinion on this,

"If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!"

Do you support Donald Trump's right to call for athletes to be fired for speech he does not approve of? Yes or no question man. Typing 2 to 3 letters should not be hard.

I certainly agree with your line "American history is full of examples of vicious forms of social censorship, and a lot of it was and is from the right."

I'm aware of those examples. And it was wrong. McCarthyism was a deep historical injustice. The religious right has often been deeply intolerant and totalitarian in the past.

That's why it's worrying that so many on left today seem to deny that cancel culture even is a thing.

About Trump tweeting, calling NFL players to be fired because they disrespect the flag. It's not entirely comparable. Let me explain.

The problem with cancel culture is that you tend to attack a person in the hardest way possible, disproportionately. Often in indirect ways.

A prime example being a college professors perhaps tweets something or writes something that offends some people, but the punishment is that he loses his job. Even though he never did anything wrong at his job.

With the NFL players it's about their performance at their job. If there was a rule that said you cannot kneel, and yet some players kneeled, it wouldn't be wrong to call for some consequences, reasonable reprimands. Now firing them for it would be too severe and disproportionate, and second, I don't think there even exists a clear rule that players must stand up for the flag and national anthem.

So I do not support Trump's call to fire them.

But more typical for cancel culture would be if Trump urged people, his supporters and masses of activists to attack the NFL players in indirect ways in order to punish them.

Let's say there were activists who would contact the private sponsors of NFL players and demand they drop their sponsorship contracts with kneeling players, or that they would pressure celebrities, parties and PR events that these players mingled with, and demand that they disinvite the NFL players in question. Or that the mob would pressure and shame all the other NFL players who don't kneel and force them and shame them to dissociate themselves from the kneeling players. That's the form of really nasty cancel culture.

So I do not support what Trump is doing, but it's not a good example of modern cancel culture.



Immersiveunreality said:
Slimebeast said:

It's sad what the US has become, if those views are regarded as "extremely politically onesided".

As a Swedish medical doctor I am very critical of lockdowns. We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself. It's sad how the covid pandemic became so politicized over there. Sweden never imposed hard lockdowns.

In my view, the whole basis for Black Lives Matter is extreme, to claim that the US is a systemically racist society that must be deconstructed, to demand that the police must be defunded. BLM is much more about revolution against an entire society than it's about racial justice.

Positive news about the president of the USA shouldn't be controversial! Trump has politically acomplished many great things. Trump tries to withdraw the US from foreign conflicts, he tries to correct the US support to questionable organizations and treaties (the UN, WHO, Nafta, NATO, the Paris Agreement), he has improved the US economy, he actively tries to confront cancel culture and the threat from big tech giants against Western democracy.

And cancel culture is the most dangerous movement that threatens Western liberal democracy. As a European, one would have imagined that censorship and cancel culture would have great difficulties taking root in the one nation in the world that was actually founded upon freedom of speech and liberty.

You ignored my point, i'm talking about disingenuous narrative found in the amount of content only leaning one way and not the seperate articles.To make an analogy i would give a Playstation magazine(that has deals with sony) for example, can the articles be right, yes but they tend to have a less neutral tone in favor of playstation so i do not trust them as much as i would trust a reviewer/outlet that writes for all consoles in a skeptical manner.

The kind of people that site clings to i have heard,read articles from, and i know where they stand and also do not think i'm here to blindly advocate for everything the left puts out,i take the same approach with leftist media.

Bolded : Stating that has no use in an online conversation and it even has little use in the corona conversation, you can elaborate us on your knowledge on the virus if you like?

Okay, point taken.

In regards to corona virus, my point was that being critical towards lockdown strategies shouldn't be seen as controversial. In particular looking at it as a Swede, since Sweden chose a very mild lockdown strategy and as a doctor since I have some insight.

I'm not claiming your average M.D is an expert of the corona virus, but through my job I get an angle on the pandemic that perhaps many ordinary citizens don't. I get a sense of how dangerous it is, a sense of risk. I work with risk assessment every day. If you get a lump on your stomach and you present it to me, it's my job to evaluate the risk and decide how likely it is dangerous or not and weather there is reason to go forward with further examination and if it's worth it. I try to decide how much risk is acceptable, both to me and to the patient.

From my perspective, corona virus is not that much more deadly than the seasonal flu. It just happens to affect so many people at the same time instead of being spread over several seasons. This will make it look more dangerous than it is.

There are also direct negative health effects from the covid hysteria. I see how people hesitate to seek healthcare for other serious diseases in fear of contracting covid, or in fear of burdening a strained health care system during a pandemic, which results in increased suffering and even death.

I'm amazed at how extreme the measures against covid have been all over the world with economical costs that are horrendously disproportionate to the lives saved.

In the economics of health care, every saved human life has a measured cost/expense. And with covid, we have accepted costs that are perhaps up to ten times higher for each saved life than what is usual practice in health care.



Around the Network

not approve of? Yes or no question man Typing 2 to 3 letters should not be hard.

I certainly agree with your line "American history is full of examples of vicious forms of social censorship, and a lot of it was and is from the right."

I'm aware of those examples. And it was wrong. McCarthyism was a deep historical injustice. The religious right has often been deeply intolerant and totalitarian in the past.

That's why it's worrying that so many on left today seem to deny that cancel culture even is a thing.

About Trump tweeting, calling NFL players to be fired because they disrespect the flag. It's not entirely comparable. Let me explain.

The problem with cancel culture is that you tend to attack a person in the hardest way possible, disproportionately. Often in indirect ways.

A prime example being a college professors perhaps tweets something or writes something that offends some people, but the punishment is that he loses his job. Even though he never did anything wrong at his job.

With the NFL players it's about their performance at their job. If there was a rule that said you cannot kneel, and yet some players kneeled, it wouldn't be wrong to call for some consequences, reasonable reprimands. Now firing them for it would be too severe and disproportionate, and second, I don't think there even exists a clear rule that players must stand up for the flag and national anthem.

So I do not support Trump's call to fire them.

But more typical for cancel culture would be if Trump urged people, his supporters and masses of activists to attack the NFL players in indirect ways in order to punish them.

Let's say there were activists who would contact the private sponsors of NFL players and demand they drop their sponsorship contracts with kneeling players, or that they would pressure celebrities, parties and PR events that these players mingled with, and demand that they disinvite the NFL players in question. Or that the mob would pressure and shame all the other NFL players who don't kneel and force them and shame them to dissociate themselves from the kneeling players. That's the form of really nasty cancel culture.

So I do not support what Trump is doing, but it's not a good example of modern cancel culture.

There is absolutely no rule that players have to stand for the national anthem. Which you know... so I don't know why you even entertained the possibility. Such a rule would be a clear violation of the first amendment.

So, players exercise speech a person doesn't approve of. They call for them to be fired, regardless of how well they perform their actual job, which you admit is severe and disproportionate. Yet this is not an example of cancel culture?

By that definition can any individual be a part of cancel culture on their own? If so, give an example.



Slimebeast said:
Immersiveunreality said:

You ignored my point, i'm talking about disingenuous narrative found in the amount of content only leaning one way and not the seperate articles.To make an analogy i would give a Playstation magazine(that has deals with sony) for example, can the articles be right, yes but they tend to have a less neutral tone in favor of playstation so i do not trust them as much as i would trust a reviewer/outlet that writes for all consoles in a skeptical manner.

The kind of people that site clings to i have heard,read articles from, and i know where they stand and also do not think i'm here to blindly advocate for everything the left puts out,i take the same approach with leftist media.

Bolded : Stating that has no use in an online conversation and it even has little use in the corona conversation, you can elaborate us on your knowledge on the virus if you like?

Okay, point taken.

In regards to corona virus, my point was that being critical towards lockdown strategies shouldn't be seen as controversial. In particular looking at it as a Swede, since Sweden chose a very mild lockdown strategy and as a doctor since I have some insight.

I'm not claiming your average M.D is an expert of the corona virus, but through my job I get an angle on the pandemic that perhaps many ordinary citizens don't. I get a sense of how dangerous it is, a sense of risk. I work with risk assessment every day. If you get a lump on your stomach and you present it to me, it's my job to evaluate the risk and decide how likely it is dangerous or not and weather there is reason to go forward with further examination and if it's worth it. I try to decide how much risk is acceptable, both to me and to the patient.

From my perspective, corona virus is not that much more deadly than the seasonal flu. It just happens to affect so many people at the same time instead of being spread over several seasons. This will make it look more dangerous than it is.

There are also direct negative health effects from the covid hysteria. I see how people hesitate to seek healthcare for other serious diseases in fear of contracting covid, or in fear of burdening a strained health care system during a pandemic, which results in increased suffering and even death.

I'm amazed at how extreme the measures against covid have been all over the world with economical costs that are horrendously disproportionate to the lives saved.

In the economics of health care, every saved human life has a measured cost/expense. And with covid, we have accepted costs that are perhaps up to ten times higher for each saved life than what is usual practice in health care.

And you say you're a practicing medical doctor? Do your patients know you view them this way?



JWeinCom said:

I certainly agree with your line "American history is full of examples of vicious forms of social censorship, and a lot of it was and is from the right."

I'm aware of those examples. And it was wrong. McCarthyism was a deep historical injustice. The religious right has often been deeply intolerant and totalitarian in the past.

That's why it's worrying that so many on left today seem to deny that cancel culture even is a thing.

About Trump tweeting, calling NFL players to be fired because they disrespect the flag. It's not entirely comparable. Let me explain.

The problem with cancel culture is that you tend to attack a person in the hardest way possible, disproportionately. Often in indirect ways.

A prime example being a college professors perhaps tweets something or writes something that offends some people, but the punishment is that he loses his job. Even though he never did anything wrong at his job.

With the NFL players it's about their performance at their job. If there was a rule that said you cannot kneel, and yet some players kneeled, it wouldn't be wrong to call for some consequences, reasonable reprimands. Now firing them for it would be too severe and disproportionate, and second, I don't think there even exists a clear rule that players must stand up for the flag and national anthem.

So I do not support Trump's call to fire them.

But more typical for cancel culture would be if Trump urged people, his supporters and masses of activists to attack the NFL players in indirect ways in order to punish them.

Let's say there were activists who would contact the private sponsors of NFL players and demand they drop their sponsorship contracts with kneeling players, or that they would pressure celebrities, parties and PR events that these players mingled with, and demand that they disinvite the NFL players in question. Or that the mob would pressure and shame all the other NFL players who don't kneel and force them and shame them to dissociate themselves from the kneeling players. That's the form of really nasty cancel culture.

So I do not support what Trump is doing, but it's not a good example of modern cancel culture.

There is absolutely no rule that players have to stand for the national anthem. Which you know... so I don't know why you even entertained the possibility. Such a rule would be a clear violation of the first amendment.

So, players exercise speech a person doesn't approve of. They call for them to be fired, regardless of how well they perform their actual job, which you admit is severe and disproportionate. Yet this is not an example of cancel culture?

By that definition can any individual be a part of cancel culture on their own? If so, give an example.

 

Rule or rule.  I didn't mean a rule that would violete the law. But everything is not so black or white.

I didn't think there was a rule because when the NFL BLM debate was at its peak, I heard in the newspapers there wasn't. But I entertained the possibility that there possibly would be something more than just informal tradition. Perhaps something written on paper. This can't be uncommon in the sports world. "Before players enter the field in FIFA World Cup games they are to stand in a line with the teams separated from each other". I could imagine there exists things like that, but I am just guessing.

I said "it's not a good example of modern cancel culture". Yes, you could say it's clearly an attempt to cancel another person wrongfully, but it's not typical for the modern phenomenon of cancel culture. It's isolated ramblings by Trump more than it's an elemental part of a coordinated campaign.

Also there is a different motivation, a different psychology. Trump and most right wingers aren't driven by an urge to silence and marginalize the opposition. I instinctively feel there is a great difference, but I haven't analyzed the actual difference in depth so I can't explain the full extent to why there's a difference.

I'm sure we could find it out together, but you are not interested in this. You seem more interested in downplaying the phenomenon of cancel culture, deplatforming and the attacks on free speech commited by progressives.

I think it's a bit surreal when people deny it, and there's a few here on VGC in recent years who dismiss it right off the bat similar to you.

I think it's lame that whenever worried people either on the right or left call attention to cancel culture and censorship, you have a phalanx on the left that simply dismisses the whole thing by claiming that cancel culture is just as big of a problem on the right, and point out that Big tech are private companies who have the legal right to decide what is and what isn't allowed on their platforms. But it isn't the same.

To me this is the most important political subject of our time, the biggest threat to our liberal democracy.

Have you heard about Bret Weinstein and Evergreen college? Your stance on that would help me understand how you view this phenomenon.



Raven said:
Slimebeast said:

Okay, point taken.

In regards to corona virus, my point was that being critical towards lockdown strategies shouldn't be seen as controversial. In particular looking at it as a Swede, since Sweden chose a very mild lockdown strategy and as a doctor since I have some insight.

I'm not claiming your average M.D is an expert of the corona virus, but through my job I get an angle on the pandemic that perhaps many ordinary citizens don't. I get a sense of how dangerous it is, a sense of risk. I work with risk assessment every day. If you get a lump on your stomach and you present it to me, it's my job to evaluate the risk and decide how likely it is dangerous or not and weather there is reason to go forward with further examination and if it's worth it. I try to decide how much risk is acceptable, both to me and to the patient.

From my perspective, corona virus is not that much more deadly than the seasonal flu. It just happens to affect so many people at the same time instead of being spread over several seasons. This will make it look more dangerous than it is.

There are also direct negative health effects from the covid hysteria. I see how people hesitate to seek healthcare for other serious diseases in fear of contracting covid, or in fear of burdening a strained health care system during a pandemic, which results in increased suffering and even death.

I'm amazed at how extreme the measures against covid have been all over the world with economical costs that are horrendously disproportionate to the lives saved.

In the economics of health care, every saved human life has a measured cost/expense. And with covid, we have accepted costs that are perhaps up to ten times higher for each saved life than what is usual practice in health care.

And you say you're a practicing medical doctor? Do your patients know you view them this way?

It's not primarily me. The health system at the top views healthcare and cost-benefit this way. I was taught that in Sweden, very roughly speaking, each year of prolonged life expectancy for one patient is worth perhaps $200,000 in healthcare costs. It's a higher number when it comes to young people and a bit less with the elderly. So if there's a brand new cancer drug that costs say $300,000 for one treatment, but on average only extends 6 months of a patients remaining lifetime, that drug most likely won't be approved in Sweden.

But we who are personnel on the ground are not made aware about costs very much at all, because it's important that we don't become fixated with costs, and it's important that we treat everyone equally. There's a delicate balance. But certainly most doctors are aware of different costs of medicines, blood samples, different xrays etc.



Slimebeast said:
Raven said:

And you say you're a practicing medical doctor? Do your patients know you view them this way?

It's not primarily me. The health system at the top views healthcare and cost-benefit this way. I was taught that in Sweden, very roughly speaking, each year of prolonged life expectancy for one patient is worth perhaps $200,000 in healthcare costs. It's a higher number when it comes to young people and a bit less with the elderly. So if there's a brand new cancer drug that costs say $300,000 for one treatment, but on average only extends 6 months of a patients remaining lifetime, that drug most likely won't be approved in Sweden.

But we who are personnel on the ground are not made aware about costs very much at all, because it's important that we don't become fixated with costs, and it's important that we treat everyone equally. There's a delicate balance. But certainly most doctors are aware of different costs of medicines, blood samples, different xrays etc.

Sadly medicines cost that much, i understand that investors need their shares and research need to be payed but there should be better ways to make certain medicines cheaper, productioncosts are mostly cheap but everything after that need to have an enormous chunk of profit for certain medicines. (i believe in goverment intervention to force the prices of medicines down)

Good that healthcare exists to take a bunch of those costs away for patients but healthcare is also abused to maximize the original costs,the healthsystem at the top is simply pure capitalism and i do not agree with it at that extent but ofcourse the Europe systems do still belong to the better ones.