Students can access "school banned books" outside of their school day. 

I've thought about this tactic for quite some time now. I honestly don't know why this took so long. It's such an obvious and perfect counter offensive. Now when will the zoologists start being vocal about all the other non-binary species on the plant to drive home the "In God's Image" or "God is perfect" trope?

I think the liberal crowd just see these things as obvious and not needing the bull horn the conservatives use.

https://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2022/03/large-majorities-voters-oppose-book-bans-and-have-confidence-libraries" rel="nofollow - https://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2022/03/large-majorities-voters-oppose-book-bans-and-have-confidence-libraries

Republicans are sociopathic criminal traitors, and they will pay for their crimes against humanity.

Fascists, all of them, and they are a dying breed.   Thank God.

Hi,

I've been in the West Coast too long, and not sure how things are in other spots, but my take is that a lot of folks in government are trying really hard to do whatever they want, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO DO IT WITH A PUBLILC VOTE! And to me, this is the great "disgrace" in politics in America right now ... completely ignoring the public sentiment ... and it will continue until we learn to make smarter choices for folks in government, and REMOVE the folks that think their this and that is better than the public.

The "public" is not always right, or wrong, but a Senate and House doing their own thing, just because they are mostly Republican and they know they could not get the same policies passed in an election ... those folks need to be removed!

  I was speaking to the article that JD posted... where a school planned on banning the Bible. I live in a country that supports Separation of Church and State. Read the "Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment" to the United State's constitution.  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black stated in  https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/330us1" rel="nofollow - Everson v. Board of Education  that “the First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state..."

 I am for banning Pornographic photos/illustrated porn from elementary schools.   If you want your kids to view porn photos...you can buy it for them,  Atavachron. However, I feel that 7 year-olds should not view porn provided by elementary schools.  

I'm against burning books.  Why did you accuse me of burning books, Atavachron?  I never said such thing.  Furthermore, I'm not a Fascist, Communist, Republican, Bolshevik, or Democrat.  

I am for peace and freedom of speech.  I am for all books being made available to the general public. That includes the Bible and porn.  I am anti-war.  If that's what you call a fascist, Atavachron...then I meet your personal definition.    Have a nice day, Atavachron.

Hi,

Pretty much my sentiments, but I have personal history with my Father having had his work "censored" by the government, and what the result of all that was, when it all came to an end ... all of a sudden there were 25 political parties, no one could agree on anything, and many went after each other with guns, knives, and rolling pins. A wonderful historical moment for a country that is a gross embarrassment to the human spirit all over.

Burning books, and locking them up, is not the problem ... the attitudes of the parents and their very own "indoctrination" is the problem ... and when a government does it to "show off its power" (hello Florida!!!) ... you know that something is not right, and sooner or later the Supreme Court needs to stand up and be counted, or be just another handful of fools in a sinking ship!

Well then I spoke too soon--   I should've said the pathetic, anti-human Right Wing movement in this country.

At this moment Jack Smith is serving justice, helping the country rise up, and cast off the  S I C K  A G E N D A  of the Right Wing and all their pathetic, misled supporters.

You have a nice day, too.

I apologize for the 'Fascist' remark directed at omphaloskepsis, it was unnecessary.

I would agree with that a lot of Republicans are sociopathic criminal traitors but not all.  I would hope that someday they will pay for their crimes against humanity. 

I would also have to say the same thing about a lot of Democrats as well.  For the past 3 years I feel like I’m living in some kind of matrix.  The anti-science, the misinformation, the censorship was and still is mostly perpetrated by the Democratic Party.  The Democrats have trampled all over the 1^st, 5^th and 7^th amendment.

As far as modern day book burning, this should never happen. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, wrote a letter to Amazon CEO to ban certain books she didn’t like.  Not that it should matter that she’s a Democrat, but it certainly should matter that she’s a US Senator.

Adults should have the right of choice to read or not to read what want. I get that there are a lot of questionable books out there, but who gets to decide which ones should be banned? The decision should be up the individual if they choose to read them or not.

The question of which books should be circulated among our school system should be evolving around an ongoing honest debate.

^ That is a weak argument.   Democrats anti-science?   Yeah I don't think so... and as far as Elizabeth Warren goes, I'm betting her move to have certain books removed in schools was rebuffed, as it should've been.

Be clear:  Republicans would rather burn the U.S. down than keep losing elections.   They are, both their politicians & their voters,  a n t i - d e m o c r a t i c.   

So---   if you want to equivocate Democrats with the Psychotic Fascist Party the GOP has become, you go ahead and do that.

The Warren thing was questioning Amazon's searching algorithms because a lot of "snake-oil salesmen" and rubbish conspiracy theory books on a particular health subject during the pandemic were appearing high in the results. She is, after all, big on consumer protections, and rightly so. But anyone with half a brain should know by now that Amazon's search algorithms are dreadful. 

Now that I mentioned what it's about (in vague terms), I suppose an admin should close this topic before the "v"-word rears it's ugly head.

Debate and questioning are integral to the scientific process. If you can’t question it, don’t call it science.  Call it anti-science, call it propaganda, call it indoctrination, call it religion but don’t call it science.  At the beginning of the pandemic the narrative was that covid originated from a bat.  Scientists that didn’t toe the line were targeted.  Their careers were literally on the line for doing their job; science.

Doctors couldn’t treat patients to the best of their abilities for fear of losing their livelihoods.  There were several repurposed drugs that showed effectiveness.  One drug in particular, Ivermectin, was demonized along with any doctor that wanted to prescribe it. A drug that exhibited 60-80% efficacy and is less toxic than Tylenol!

The censorship that was enacted on so called “disinformation” is a direct threat to democracy.  Ironically, a great deal of “disinformation” was proven to be true.   

Democracy cannot exist unless there is freedom of speech in public discourse!

I like what you quoted:

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy

What do you think of junior running for president?  For me, that’s one democrat I’ll back 100%. 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. see’s past the matrix.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/JfMhP5siqPYZ/" rel="nofollow - https://www.bitchute.com/video/JfMhP5siqPYZ/

There was an article somewhere that really spoke a lot about many of these things ... 

It was about the state of education in all the 50 states in America ... and it looked to me that the best educated, were mostly Democratic, and the least educated? Yep ... you got it!

Now you know why some Republicans are getting away with it ... taking advantage of their public and then you get that one guy inventing rules about education and doing the same thing ... and he thinks he is going to run for President!!!! And what is worse? The number of folks that voted for him, and others that might keep him running around an continue with the most uneducated of all rules about anything.

Cosmic Vibration

[/QUOTE]

Debate and questioning are integral to the scientific process. If you can’t question it, don’t call it science.  Call it anti-science, call it propaganda, call it indoctrination, call it religion but don’t call it science.  At the beginning of the pandemic the narrative was that covid originated from a bat.  Scientists that didn’t toe the line were targeted.  Their careers were literally on the line for doing their job; science.

Doctors couldn’t treat patients to the best of their abilities for fear of losing their livelihoods.  There were several repurposed drugs that showed effectiveness.  One drug in particular, Ivermectin, was demonized along with any doctor that wanted to prescribe it. A drug that exhibited 60-80% efficacy and is less toxic than Tylenol!

The censorship that was enacted on so called “disinformation” is a direct threat to democracy.  Ironically, a great deal of “disinformation” was proven to be true.   

Democracy cannot exist unless there is freedom of speech in public discourse!

I like what you quoted:

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy

What do you think of junior running for president?  For me, that’s one democrat I’ll back 100%. 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. see’s past the matrix.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/JfMhP5siqPYZ/" rel="nofollow - https://www.bitchute.com/video/JfMhP5siqPYZ/

Exactly, Cosmic Vibration.  Science hypothesis/theories should always be opened to debate.  Einstein's "General Theory of Relativity" questioned and replaced aspects of Isaac Newton's 200 year-old established theory of gravity.  I agree with everything you said.  

If Robert F. Kennedy Jr. runs for President... I'd vote for him over anyone else in the field.  

That said, I imagine the Democrat Party sabotages Kennedy they way they sabotaged Bernie in 2016.  

^ Pence and Romney aren't freakin' crazy.

I don’t agree, I’d be willing to bet that if Bobby was alive today he’d see past the matrix.

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy

That quote applicably describes how people can get caught up in the matrix and how they can begin to see through it.

You must have noticed how in the last 3 years free speech was suppressed.. and you should consider how dangerous it can be.  I’ll say it again.. Democracy cannot exist unless there is freedom of speech in public discourse.

You ought to have noticed how science was turning into a religion.  And how a charismatic cult leader emerged proclaiming, “I am science” – Pope Fauci

Debate and questioning are integral to the scientific process. If you can’t question it, don’t call it science.  Call it anti-science, call it propaganda, call it indoctrination, call it religion but don’t call it science.  At the beginning of the pandemic the narrative was that covid originated from a bat.  Scientists that didn’t toe the line were targeted.  Their careers were literally on the line for doing their job; science.

Doctors couldn’t treat patients to the best of their abilities for fear of losing their livelihoods.  There were several repurposed drugs that showed effectiveness.  One drug in particular, Ivermectin, was demonized along with any doctor that wanted to prescribe it. A drug that exhibited 60-80% efficacy and is less toxic than Tylenol!

The censorship that was enacted on so called “disinformation” is a direct threat to democracy.  Ironically, a great deal of “disinformation” was proven to be true.   

Democracy cannot exist unless there is freedom of speech in public discourse!

I like what you quoted:

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy

What do you think of junior running for president?  For me, that’s one democrat I’ll back 100%. 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. see’s past the matrix.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/JfMhP5siqPYZ/" rel="nofollow - https://www.bitchute.com/video/JfMhP5siqPYZ/

Exactly, Cosmic Vibration.  Science hypothesis/theories should always be opened to debate.  Einstein's "General Theory of Relativity" questioned and replaced aspects of Isaac Newton's 200 year-old established theory of gravity.  I agree with everything you said.  

If Robert F. Kennedy Jr. runs for President... I'd vote for him over anyone else in the field.  

That said, I imagine the Democrat Party sabotages Kennedy they way they sabotaged Bernie in 2016.  

[/QUOTE]

I think some within the Democratic party will consider all forms of sabotage, including the unthinkable; again.

These are quite interesting statements. Regarding the second one ("a great deal of “disinformation” was proven to be true"), I guess this is more a hunch than based on (statistical) research. (What percentage of what was labelled as "disinformation" was proven not to be that, what percentage was proven exactly to be that; what authority labels something as disinformation and how much of that labelling is merely based on opinion, etc. etc.?)

Actually, a lot of disinformation emerges as a hunch taken as a fact. My hunch is that most of what was labelled as disinformation was exactly that (unless it was Trump & co. who labelled it).

The first and third statements are  - from my very European viewpoint - a typical US American stance, compared to the dominating European take on things (both regarding media and legislation). Now, my hunch is that it is even more a right wing/libertarian stance, than necessarily a general US American stance, but I'll leave that to you, USAns, to dicsuss that amongst you, because - as said - this is just my hunch and not based on facts.

That "democracy cannot exist unless there is freedom of speech in public discourse", and I understand that you mean absolute freedom, is exactly what makes the US democracy so weak and vulnerable. In my opinion, if it means to allow the freedom of deliberately misinforming the public, you are just undermining democracy.

In Europe, public discourse is much more regulated than in the US of A, and I'm very glad it is: media and politicians can get trialed before justice or before other regulatory institutions if they are deliberately misleading the public. That, in my view, is an important safeguard for democracy. (Note: in French we would use the word "garde-fou", literally meaning "keep/save from the mad"). What you call "censorship", we call that "regulation". It would be censorship if this regulation would go beyond the legislative and regulatory frameworks.

Another point from your posts, regarding the "matrix": you'll have to define what it is to give it some coherent meaning. To me, it is a film trilogy; otherwise it is just like God: it only exists if you believe in it.

^ Oh, dammit. 

I think I even made this mistake before. I must be in denial: how is it possible that after two mediocre sequels there is even a fourth installment? Tell me it's bad!

Oh, yes, definitely. But it is normal that rules and regulations get tested and sometimes stretched. The law is always one step (at least) behind the evolution of society. And, of course, legislation and regulation doesn't exclude lies and disinformation from existing, but they can be and are combated through legal means, which in Europe are much more developed than in the USA, where the sacrosanct freedom of speech is undermining democracy, in my opinion.

Here in France we have our own version of Rupert Murdoch, called Vincent Bolloré, who is trying to have his own Fox News-like disinformation channel, but he has been condemned several times to more or less important fines and is risking to loose his broadcasting license if he continues that way. I think a Democracy needs this kind of safeguards to ensure a decent living-together society and not the egoistic society (my own freedom is more important than the freedom of the community) that is prevalent in the USA.

There are many instants where the disinformation ended up being true. Here are three. 

1. Folks censored for claiming that Vaccines would NOT prevent Covid.   They were right. That's been proven.  Millions of people who got the vaccine also contracted Covid.  President Biden claimed you cannot get Covid if you get a vaccine. 

2. Folks censored for claiming that Masks would not prevent Covid.  They were right again.  Fauci flip-flopped on this issue several times. 

3. People claimed Hunter Laptop was the real deal.  The Government claimed Hunter's laptop was a Russian disinformation operation and not real   The government lied and the folks who claimed Hunter Laptop was real...were right. Even the FBI admits it now. Hunter Biden admits it.  See Elon Musk Twitter File releases for more proof of Censorship of people who went against approved narrative. 

I could name many other instances where disinformation was not disinformation. The scary thing? The attacks on disinformation were actually the disinformation. 

Scientific statements were only ever about probabilities. It was always clear that being vaccinated and wearing a mask wouldn't make it impossible to contract Covid. It would only ever make sense to claim that they would reduce the probability that you get it (and that, if you get it, it would on average be weaker).

I find it hard to believe that anybody would be censored for saying what to any scientist would be crystal clear. For sure not in Europe. (The "crystal clear" here meaning that only probability statements could be made; of course some people would challenge that the probability would even drop, but that's another discussion.)

This is exactly what I was not asking for: (statistical) research is not about just giving a couple of examples, as you did here. Three - disputable - examples (and I don't doubt you have a couple of others) out of the probably hundreds of thousands of disinformation occurrences is a rather weak sample to base a hypothesis on, but it seems to suffice to you. Remember that Trump alone made more than 30.000 false or misleading statements during his four year reign (and this is https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/24/trumps-false-or-misleading-claims-total-30573-over-four-years/" rel="nofollow - fact-checked ).

Giving examples is not the same as giving research results. This makes your conclusion rather void.

This thread has devolved into yet another Covid right vs left arguments. My original point was to show that turnabout is fair play and it was time the liberals used the conservative's tactics in their own favour instead of just whining about the inequality and overt favouritism the extreme religious conservatives are afforded .

Any admin is welcome to shut this thread down anytime.

^ I also don't agree---  people fight, they clash, they discuss, turn away, and come back for more.   Nothing wrong with this thread... and if Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, he is  f i n i s h e d , and will suffer the greatest defeat in American Presidential history.  

Why do conservatives keep nominating sociopathic criminals as their leaders ?

 

I'll be sure to s.p.e.l.l. it out next time.

I'm very curious to know if there is any substantial research on the disinformation claims (those hundreds of thousands) and veracity of them and again you come with just a couple of examples and claims - and yes, I consider them very disputable, but that is besides the point I was making and not the subject here. Giving examples is not scientific research. Statistics are not based on just a couple of examples, but on - more or less thorough and thus more or less disputable - research methods. As long as statements as those I reacted to are not referenced by some - preferably thorough - research, then they have no validity whatsoever and are just nourishing the disinformation we are suffering from.

And sincerely, Cindy (and others), I'm much more curious to know your opinion (not facts) about these thoughts of mine:

suitkees wrote: The first and third statements are  - from my very European viewpoint - a typical US American stance, compared to the dominating European take on things (both regarding media and legislation). Now, my hunch is that it is even more a right wing/libertarian stance, than necessarily a general US American stance, but I'll leave that to you, USAns, to dicsuss that amongst you, because - as said - this is just my hunch and not based on facts. That "democracy cannot exist unless there is freedom of speech in public discourse", and I understand that you mean absolute freedom, is exactly what makes the US democracy so weak and vulnerable. In my opinion, if it means to allow the freedom of deliberately misinforming the public, you are just undermining democracy. In Europe, public discourse is much more regulated than in the US of A, and I'm very glad it is: media and politicians can get trialed before justice or before other regulatory institutions if they are deliberately misleading the public. That, in my view, is an important safeguard for democracy. (Note: in French we would use the word "garde-fou", literally meaning "keep/save from the mad"). What you call "censorship", we call that "regulation". It would be censorship if this regulation would go beyond the legislative and regulatory frameworks.

omphaloskepsis wrote: Disinformation and lies are protected under the first amendment. That's my point.

Thank you. This touches the core of what I wanted to discuss. As I stated above, I think that this - "disinformation and lies are protected under the first amendment" - is exactly what undermines democracy. I gave my opinion on that and what are - in my view - the necessary safeguards of democracy above. Would you care to elaborate on your point of view, and eventually on our European safeguards? (and this is a sincere curiosity to better understand the reasoning behind your thinking on these issues!)

Yes indeed, thank you for the clarity & honesty.  Disinformation and lies are protected (and probably should be)   And this does go to the core of the matter (as suitkees astutely points out):  if you were to ask every American if they believe in Free Speech I think at least 90% would say 'Yes'.   So where is the impasse ?   Is it purely political/ideological  ---  or is it a more complex, deeper matter of miscommunication, misperception, and utter misunderstanding for how half the country sees things ?