> “They physically grabbed us, forced us out of the conference center, and now are telling us we can no longer attend this meeting,” Kelly told MedPage Today, which first reported the incident. “They’re taking our lanyards. It really has come to this in America. Censorship is real. America needs to stand up. Scientists, stand up. Physicians, stand up.”
It's become very evident from the outside that the best time to stand up was yesterday, and you might already be too far down the slope to be able to quickly recover for this. I really do feel for all Americans who just want to have a normal life with an average quality of life or above, but at one point the environment around you change so quickly that that stops being even a possibility in the future. If your life hasn't been affected yet, it will be shortly.
The best day to stand up against the ongoing censorship and repression might have been yesterday, but the second-best day to do so is today. You really need to start caring about this before it's way to late. One "no kings protest" every 6 months is not gonna do anything, what you need is wide solidarity across industries, and a real general strike across the country. The second you do this, you'll see that the many and poor can control the few and rich.
This might be reading too much in to minor drama at a diabetes conference. The gentleman in question could have gone to protest outside (and probably did).
The article linked doesn't even say what exactly they were protesting (beyond a rather vague "attacks on scientific research" which could mean a lot of things).
Their so-called "protest" was just distributing an article already published in the journal of the medical association to which this conference is attached, which probably discussed matters of interest for the attendance, like the future of research financing in this domain.
I can hardly think of a more peaceful form of protest, which only intended to make aware the participants about the content of the article. Those who were not interested presumably refused to take the article copy or did not read it.
Even on HN you can still see claims that USA is a "free" country where anyone can say anything about the government, without consequences. This example shows clearly that this claim is false.
I'm no doctor, but I suspect the conference organisers wanted the conference to focus on diabetes. Rather than exploring whether the USA is a "free" country where anyone can say anything about the government, without consequences.
One of science's most critical roles is to inform policymakers. And if they can't do that job effectively then it's right and just to point out the problems preventing it. Scientific conferences that fear critiques of the government chill new scientific publications.
It's not like they were handing out "Trump sleeps during press events" posters. You should read the article they distributed, it's very relevant to the conference attendees.
> suspect the conference organisers wanted the conference to focus on diabetes
The article they were distributing is pretty clearly about diabetes. If the actions it describes continues, significant efforts towards treating and even curing diabetes will be lost.
> Just a year ago, in these very pages, we highlighted the many threats the current U.S. administration posed to the health of our nation (1). Since then, there have been actions by the administration that have caused grave health consequences, and their current approach will continue to do so.
The article is not a long read [1]. It describes how current policy is dismantling and destroying the research infrastructure for diabetes, infrastructure which has started or has already borne significant fruit. It encapsulates a criticism of the administration, and it’s definitely scathing, but it’s far from a partisan rant.
For example: “This CD3-directed monoclonal antibody has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to prevent type 1 diabetes in people aged 8 years and older with stage 2 type 1 diabetes. As a result, we are a major step closer to a cure for type 1 diabetes. With the potential to prevent the disease, screening programs for type 1 diabetes are being initiated worldwide.
…
Two examples are the Human Islet Research Network (HIRN) and the Integrated Islet Distribution Program (IIDP). HIRN aims to advance our understanding of how β-cells are lost in human type 1 diabetes and to find inventive strategies to protect or replace β-cells in people with the disease.”
The funding for that research is being cut. If you have a loved one with, or at risk of getting, diabetes, this could be the difference between vastly different levels of quality of life and years of life versus death.
> This might be reading too much in to minor drama at a diabetes conference.
Indeed, my view and perspective is built by a culmination of recent events, not based on a single event. The widespread self-censorship Americans currently engage in (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48434091) is also a large part of it.
I don't have any "index of events" handy that could explain why I think the slope is so evident currently, but based on the ongoing journalistic suppression, individual self-censorship, centralization of control and power in governments and society together with lots of other smaller incidents like this one and others, makes it pretty clear to me at least.
“When Fascism came into power, most people were unprepared, both theoretically and practically. They were unable to believe that man could exhibit such propensities for evil, such lust for power, such disregard for the rights of the weak, or such yearning for submission. Only a few had been aware of the rumbling of the volcano preceding the outbreak.”
I think the parent is talking about the overall pattern and the extent to which our society is just rolling over for it.
Though I understand the mechanism of course. People have livelihoods, careers, kids, older parents to take care of. People don’t have enough slack to stand up, and demographics means there’s not enough youth.
If it’s not this particular authoritarian soft-coup attempt it will be the next or the next, maybe even one with a different political flavor like hard authoritarian populist left. Eventually one will succeed and we will lose our republic and won’t realize what that means until it’s gone.
Talk to some of the people in Russia in prison for 10 years for social media posts, or… well… you can’t talk to the business leaders who lost their balance near windows.
I completely agree with what you are saying, but I have grown too cynical to believe it will ever happen. American capitalism has been very effective at ensuring 2 outcomes:
- The population is kept just comfortable enough to become complacent, with easy access to intoxicants, brainrot media and fast food. Now there are even robots that can do our thinking for us. A large percentage of people are brainwashed into thinking that all change is bad because it will cause them to lose the paltry, ersatz freedom they have rather than gaining real liberty.
- The labor pool is kept large enough that any of us could be replaced immediately with no significant loss to our employers. As the ISP mantra goes, “we have nothing to lose but our jobs”.
Yes, we know that they couldn’t replace _all_ of us at once, but combine points 1 and 2 and you will start to understand why there is no appreciable labor movement in the United States.
What chills me the most, is the self-censorship Americans engage on social media today, everywhere online. It seems Americans today are afraid of talking clearly about general strikes, protesting, rape, sexual violence, censorship and more "taboo" topics, and I'm guessing it's because the platforms kind of shadow-ban people quickly for it.
Growing up, I always heard Americans bragging about freedom of speech, and how important it is. I'll admit I swallowed that wholesale as a young impressionable person in another country, and I still believe in it, just not the American freedom of speech flavor I suppose. But it's so sad to see the state of affairs compared to just ten years ago, where discussions could be freely held, even on mainstream social media, and people weren't afraid of talking about things with clear words.
But the chilling effect is in full effect today, and I think it's having a large impact on how well (or not) the working class could actually mobilize. Because as soon as anyone mentions "general strike" on social media, they seem to disappear into a black hole and that stuff never shows up in people's feeds. Regardless of the size of the labor pool, if you can't organize people somehow, especially across a large country like the US, it's short of impossible to actually get any change in reality.
> Americans today are afraid of talking clearly about general strikes, protesting, rape, sexual violence, censorship
Americans are talking about protesting, rape, sexual violence, censorship all the time ... and I mean literally all sides - liberals, conservatives, leftists, feminists, MAGA ...
Using what words specifically? Besides HN, even people commenting on reddit tends to self-censor words like "r@pe" just because they've realized they get penalized if they talk about things too clearly, on other platforms. Same with general strikes, censorship and more, even on platforms where you don't get downranked automatically just because you used specific terms, people have now started self-censor in those ways.
Whenever you see something like this, it's because the platform has some kind of automoderation policy that is liable to delete/shadowban content containing the word. Typing that, then, is not self-censorship; it's the exact opposite, the defiance of external censorshop.
Using the example of someone typing “r@pe” to get around auto moderation is a pretty specific complaint, and not really an example of self censorship since that person clearly still got to say whatever they wanted to say.
At least online, there is a decent argument to be made that a good cohort of people have significantly lost the ability to self moderate.
> Refusing to cease by an even organisers order will, yes, result in being escorted out forcefully by security
Sure. But if two groups of people are distributing articles published in the organisation’s own journal, with one of them containing elements of political speech, and the organization censors that one, it’s absolutely valid to ask if anyone in government directed that censorship.
The core of the argument is they should not have been asked to cease distributing their article, that’s literally one of the purposes of an academic conference, plenty of other people were doing it in various ways. The ADA, in claiming it was enforcing its rules, was in fact not following them.
That was the intended result. The story isn't that people were escorted out, it's that they knew they were going to be escorted out and proceeded anyway. That they felt the need to break the rules is the story, because... why did they feel so strongly? Maybe there's a reason behind it?
By actually striking, or by waving a sign outside?
Don't get me wrong, anything is better than nothing, and many small streams may form into one big river, eventually. But short of a general strike across impactful industries, I think the current wave of protests won't actually achieve anything.
There is a reason "general strikes" are so feared by the political and wealthy class, and it's because there is no way for them to get rid of them without actually agreeing to some of the demands, otherwise the strikes actually impact their lives. Protesting by going out on the streets waving signs isn't gonna accomplish that, sadly.
> short of a general strike across impactful industries, I think the current wave of protests won't actually achieve anything
If like another 5% of eligible voters committed to voting every election, minor or not, and committed to calling their electeds on one issue every quarter, we’d likely see a sea change.
The threshold for laziness is very low, currently only 1 in 5 [1]. That’s both annoying and an opportunity.
It's not that I'm a fan of the method, it is that it id historically the only non-violent way for a population at large to enact change, once the government stops listening to the people.
Protesting is very effective when you have a government that listens, which clearly isn't the case here, then besides a bunch of violent options, you're basically left with general strikes.
".Some questioned how handing out reprints of an editorial published in the ADA’s own journal, at the ADA’s own annual conference, could be construed as a violation of that code.."
Headline is weird. It's not a copyright thing, as I had assumed. It was because it was an editorial criticizing how the administration is running the NIH.
> > Some questioned how handing out reprints of an editorial published in the ADA’s own journal, at the ADA’s own annual conference, could be construed as a violation of that code.
You're not allowed to hand out your own articles you've published in the journal that the conference is about? One could start questioning what this conference is really about, if authors aren't allowed to provide a copy of their work to people they talk to... No one bats an eye about that almost every paper author shares their papers with you when you email them, but when you do so in person it's suddenly a problem?
>The scientists were not disruptive or disorderly in their conduct, based on the videos posted by MedPage Today, although the fact that they were handing out reprints just before an NIH representative was scheduled to speak might be construed as a form of protest. But it could just as easily be argued that such actions fall under valid scientific dissemination and discussion, the conference’s stated objective.
It was because the group made the mistake of inviting the federal appointee currently running NIH.
This would probably have been fine if this administration was not comprised of individuals that cannot abide any sort of pushback.
The protest would not have been needed without the official there - but their presence made the organizers so nervous that they tossed the editor in chief of their own journal.
The problem is how deep the federal dollars go into these systems that enable fear of pulling it. That is the mechanism of control. Our own tax dollars being weaponized.
Though there is a good case that breaking that rule is the best action. Getting kicked out probably did more for their cause then their protest. They just need the guts to publicly stand by.
Others have already quoted TFA, which rightly points that the distributing (by some of the coauthors) of an article published in the journal of a medical association, at the conference of the said medical association, a conference which has the claimed purpose of exchanging information between the members who attend the conference, can hardly be called a "protest" or a "violation of the code of conduct".
There are few cases where it is so clear cut that only the organizers have violated the code of conduct, and not those who were expelled from the conference.
An editorial published in the (reputable) journal Diabetes Care, which they handed out at a diabetes conference. I imagine if it wasn’t critical of the administration they would not have been told to stop, but this is Louisiana so
They were quietly, politely protesting, but protesting. If two identical conferences had a rule against protesting, but conference A had a plan to have zero tolerance for it, and conference B decided to play it by ear, evaluate based on the disruption and reasonableness and respond as the situation required ... I'd rather go to conference A. I'd feel the same way about a no smoking rule.
I'm hoping the Streisand Effect will take hold, and this editorial becomes the most read article ever of that journal. I've posted this news on my FB (yes...) page. And I downloaded a PDF, in case the journal takes the editorial down.
Well, there is one problem here: not everyone is interested in diabetes/nutrition. So the Streisand effect may kick in with regards to the ousted individuals, but I am not sure it will generate more interest in the topic/paper at hand. For instance, I am not particularly interested in diabetes per se; I'd be more interested in molecular medicine and what not. Either way the current administration is very hostile to science. It is kind of a sign of a dictatorship model. Trump wants to be the final authority. His cognitive decline is enormous though, it's like a broken stick that will remain broken.
Good point, so here's how I worded my FB post without even mentioning diabetes (URL truncated here because that's how FB displays them, but it works):
"Scientists were ejected from a meeting of the American Diabetes Associate for distributing printouts of an editorial that had appeared in the ADA journal. Here's the link: https://diabetesjournals.org/.../Misguided-Brushes-of-a.... The article highlights "the many threats the current U.S. administration pose[s] to the health of our nation". I recommend that you do read it: it is not technical, you don't need to have a degree in medicine or biology to read it.
What do people not understand about the First Amendment?"
> The Emperor was vexed, for he knew that the people were right; but he thought the procession must go on now! And the lords of the bedchamber took greater pains than ever, to appear holding up a train, although, in reality, there was no train to hold.
Almost all of these don't apply to diabetes science. Its just the unfortunate nature of the average populace collapsing the complicated nature of scientific work and real human issues into problems that affect "science". Also, bad actors that want to twist the uncertainity of certain scientific areas into fake news.
It is literally people who want to deny uncomfortable realities that are attacking and destroying it now. The ideological anti reality issue is in the side of Trump voters.
Also, funny enough, people who were correctly predicting what conservatives will do were called out of touch by people like you. Quite a few of them were actually social scientists and yes they have seen it.
Right, science, while not perfect (being a human endeavor), is our best mechanism for getting closer to the truth. Sure, fraud happens (occasionally). Not all "results" are a step forward. But the system is inherently self correcting. The problem is the politicization of science funding when scientific results don't fit into a dogma driven view of the world.
Then why now did they get the momentum? Why not the last 75 years? What has changed.. where is the falsifyability and prediction power in that story? There has to be better social science out there beyond "The inevitable victorymarch to a startrek future progressed nicely when suddenly facism returned".. that just sounds like someone who lost the plot completely and is in open denial about a species maybe to disabled to wield any future advances safely, without a period of realistic reflection first.
The causal loop you mentioned makes social science hard, but I’d argue that falsification and hypothesis-driven research can still work. Otherwise all the behavioral targeting Meta and Google and co are doing would not work.
So what? I pay taxes too, and I want social scientists to be paid using tax dollars for the work they do, which I find valuable. There's plenty I take issue with my taxes being paid for but I just put up with it because we live in a society where my priorities aren't the only ones. Why can't you take that approach with social scientists?
I have no idea what you are babbling about. Sure, the evolution of the climate is recorded in the geological record. Climate scientists largely understand why these geological timescale events happened. What we are now undergoing is orders-of-magnitude faster than any geologically recorded event. Except for catastrophic events like meteorite impacts and mega-vulcanism there has never been such a rapid change. And climate scientists understand why. Look in the mirror. It is us.
A reminder to anyone who finds themselves in this kind of situation, do not engage with the rhetoric of the enemy. You cannot win an argument where they set the rules. So here, where they question whether or not they were "protesting" distracts from the reality of a censorious organization that will weaponize regulations it controls without good faith. Instead you need a simple, memorable statement of condemnation which is repeated consistently and a clear action which those who hear it can take in response.
"This organization is controlled by Trump loyalists. They are not scientists. You do not owe them respect. Speak over them. Let no manipulation go unchallenged or derided."
> do not engage with the rhetoric of the enemy. You cannot win an argument where they set the rules
Strongly disagree. If they went straight up partisan at the conference, I’d be sympathetic to the notion of throwing them out. Not every space needs to be a protest venue.
They didn’t do that. They distributed an article published in the organization’s own journal. They argue why what they did cannot reasonably be considered “protest” under the organisation’s rules, given it’s literally what the conference is for. Challenging the notion that their ejection was the ADA following its own rules is the difference between them breaking the rules and the ADA breaking its own rules to censor their speech. (To cut off an aside, no the ADA isn’t bound by the First Amendment. Yes, the government is, and if they’re corruptly influencing to yank these researchers from the conference, that’s a legal issue. But more broadly, the concept of free speech is broader than the First Amendment.)
I’d disagree with trying to make it political. If it’s just about funding, plenty of people are happy the grant spigot is being turned off.
Something that may resonate with a broader spectrum is how science requires debate and polite disagreement. Good ideas can survive being pressure tested. Compelling consensus has terrible long-term outcomes.
All this proves to me is the current US admin. is intent on turning China into the number 1 scientific research country.
At this rate, English could be replaced by Mandarin as the main international language of commerce. The only thing that could hold it back is the writing system.
If China could convert its writing to use the Latin alphabet I think that could happen with the US now on the path of destroying its research institutions.
> Their crime: handing out copies of an editorial, published in the journal Diabetes Care on April 29, sharply criticizing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on scientific research.
So the ADA is looking for funding and support from <current government>, and some attendees thought it a good idea to attack <current government>, despite already agreeing to the code of conduct:
> The ADA confirmed to MedPage Today that five registered scientists had been removed from the meeting, claiming the scientists had violated the organization’s code of conduct for conferences.
If they have violated the code of conduct, they cannot now claim to be surprised and shocked that they were kicked out. I can fully understand why the ADA would not want to be brought into disrepute with <current government>.
When you look to make a statement, you should always fully understand the cost and how it could play out. These were not children and they are responsible for their actions.
> When you look to make a statement, you should always fully understand the cost and how it could play out. These were not children and they are responsible for their actions.
Huh. A while back on here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42390479) you were complaining that Alex Jones was getting too many consequences for his statements. Was he a child? Why the change in tune?
<current government>, isn't really your <typical government>. Protest is warranted. And I'm sure that these serious people felt that their actions were justified. I'm glad they did it, and I'm glad I have read about it.
As a fellow scientist, I support what the organization did.
We are scientists, and I don’t want to go to a real scientific conference (this is a medicine conference after all, not some circle jerk social sciences meeting, where all need to state at every opportunity they are against the Bad Orange Men, or risk losing all funding) and have these political stunts forcing some group thinking.
If they really wanted to distribute flyers, they would do it outside the premises at the entrance to the building. But not, they felt they had to shove it down everyone’s throats while others were trying to work.
> they would do it outside the premises at the entrance to the building
If they were distributing fliers, sure. They weren’t. They were distributing an article published in the conference organizer’s own journal. That’s what academics do at conferences!
> risk losing all funding
They’ve already lost the funding. That’s what is being pointed out. OMB is using accounting shenanigans to circumvent the will of the Congress to cut funding to diabetes research, including, based on the article, some pretty serious and nonpartisan stuff.
The Trump administration, thanks to RFK, is doing some of the best things possible to fix many stupid things in the USA health and food system.
If you'd be following how bad the science was in eg nutritional science, advice given to diabetics etc... you'd understand why the would want to kick those people out: with good reason. Incomptence and corruption.
Tomorrow Robert Kennedy will announce that diabetes is fake news,does not exist and can become cured by taking ivermectin and avoiding seed oils and Tylenol....
The next day Trump will have the 173rd Airborne kidnap the entire editorial board of the American Diabetic Association and will get them good plated with fake gilt from Temu.
These kind of behaviour should trigger the dismantling of the whole ADA organisation, then to be rebuilt on proper grounds.
As usual i’m not surprised these fascist behaviours (“you’d better align with us and publicly pledge allegiance to us or else”) comes from the left. They’re the real fascist.
Trump and his cronies try to repurpose everything they slurp up into
a propaganda tool. Recently Hegseth babbled about how Europe will
perish because of immigration. Today five people were evicted from a
conference about science. Their crime? Not supporting Trump.
Something is fundamentally broken in the USA. It's like Neo-Russia, or
rather handled like that by those cronies.
> handing out copies of an editorial, published in the journal Diabetes Care on April 29, sharply criticizing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on scientific research.
Lotta comments talking about Trump but they were ejected by academic conference organizers for violating a code of conduct.
I think codes of conduct for fine but evidently many people here feel they can violate free speech which is interesting because when they were criticized on that basis amid their widespread adoption several years ago people branded the critics knuckle dragging misogynists.
And when Apple started responding to Democratic political pressure to eg ban Parler (which happened) this was seen as not a free speech issue because it was an action between private parties. Like this one.
I happen to think free speech is imperiled by everyone with power - dems, republicans, academic administrators police departments App Store operators etc to infinity. But a lot of people seem to be selective in their outrage. That doesn’t work. It’s either a human right and matter of principle and beneficial to support or it isn’t.
If you’re upset about this I hope you’re also riled about France going after Elon Musk for the political opinions on X. And Neil Young demanding Joe Rogan be ejected from Spotify.
As TFA explains and other posters have also mentioned, they did not violate any code of conduct. Only the organizers have violated the code of conduct.
A conference for the members of a medical association has the stated purpose of providing a venue for the exchange of information between the members. When the authors of an article published in the journal of the said medical association distribute free copies of that article to their colleagues who attend the conference, they do exactly the thing for which the conference is organized.
Only a shameless liar can claim that such an action is a "violation of the code of conduct".
> All attendees will conduct themselves in a professional and respectful manner, free from any form of discrimination, harassment, or intimidation,” the code of conduct states. “Inappropriate conduct, including but not limited to harassment; threatening or unwelcome physical or verbal actions; or disorderly or disruptive conduct such as protesting, will not be tolerated.”
It's become very evident from the outside that the best time to stand up was yesterday, and you might already be too far down the slope to be able to quickly recover for this. I really do feel for all Americans who just want to have a normal life with an average quality of life or above, but at one point the environment around you change so quickly that that stops being even a possibility in the future. If your life hasn't been affected yet, it will be shortly.
The best day to stand up against the ongoing censorship and repression might have been yesterday, but the second-best day to do so is today. You really need to start caring about this before it's way to late. One "no kings protest" every 6 months is not gonna do anything, what you need is wide solidarity across industries, and a real general strike across the country. The second you do this, you'll see that the many and poor can control the few and rich.
The article linked doesn't even say what exactly they were protesting (beyond a rather vague "attacks on scientific research" which could mean a lot of things).
I can hardly think of a more peaceful form of protest, which only intended to make aware the participants about the content of the article. Those who were not interested presumably refused to take the article copy or did not read it.
Even on HN you can still see claims that USA is a "free" country where anyone can say anything about the government, without consequences. This example shows clearly that this claim is false.
It's not like they were handing out "Trump sleeps during press events" posters. You should read the article they distributed, it's very relevant to the conference attendees.
The article they were distributing is pretty clearly about diabetes. If the actions it describes continues, significant efforts towards treating and even curing diabetes will be lost.
It sounds to me like criticism of the government.
The article is not a long read [1]. It describes how current policy is dismantling and destroying the research infrastructure for diabetes, infrastructure which has started or has already borne significant fruit. It encapsulates a criticism of the administration, and it’s definitely scathing, but it’s far from a partisan rant.
For example: “This CD3-directed monoclonal antibody has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to prevent type 1 diabetes in people aged 8 years and older with stage 2 type 1 diabetes. As a result, we are a major step closer to a cure for type 1 diabetes. With the potential to prevent the disease, screening programs for type 1 diabetes are being initiated worldwide.
…
Two examples are the Human Islet Research Network (HIRN) and the Integrated Islet Distribution Program (IIDP). HIRN aims to advance our understanding of how β-cells are lost in human type 1 diabetes and to find inventive strategies to protect or replace β-cells in people with the disease.”
The funding for that research is being cut. If you have a loved one with, or at risk of getting, diabetes, this could be the difference between vastly different levels of quality of life and years of life versus death.
[1] https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/49/6/901/164764/Mi...
Indeed, my view and perspective is built by a culmination of recent events, not based on a single event. The widespread self-censorship Americans currently engage in (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48434091) is also a large part of it.
I don't have any "index of events" handy that could explain why I think the slope is so evident currently, but based on the ongoing journalistic suppression, individual self-censorship, centralization of control and power in governments and society together with lots of other smaller incidents like this one and others, makes it pretty clear to me at least.
— Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom
Though I understand the mechanism of course. People have livelihoods, careers, kids, older parents to take care of. People don’t have enough slack to stand up, and demographics means there’s not enough youth.
If it’s not this particular authoritarian soft-coup attempt it will be the next or the next, maybe even one with a different political flavor like hard authoritarian populist left. Eventually one will succeed and we will lose our republic and won’t realize what that means until it’s gone.
Talk to some of the people in Russia in prison for 10 years for social media posts, or… well… you can’t talk to the business leaders who lost their balance near windows.
- The population is kept just comfortable enough to become complacent, with easy access to intoxicants, brainrot media and fast food. Now there are even robots that can do our thinking for us. A large percentage of people are brainwashed into thinking that all change is bad because it will cause them to lose the paltry, ersatz freedom they have rather than gaining real liberty.
- The labor pool is kept large enough that any of us could be replaced immediately with no significant loss to our employers. As the ISP mantra goes, “we have nothing to lose but our jobs”.
Yes, we know that they couldn’t replace _all_ of us at once, but combine points 1 and 2 and you will start to understand why there is no appreciable labor movement in the United States.
Growing up, I always heard Americans bragging about freedom of speech, and how important it is. I'll admit I swallowed that wholesale as a young impressionable person in another country, and I still believe in it, just not the American freedom of speech flavor I suppose. But it's so sad to see the state of affairs compared to just ten years ago, where discussions could be freely held, even on mainstream social media, and people weren't afraid of talking about things with clear words.
But the chilling effect is in full effect today, and I think it's having a large impact on how well (or not) the working class could actually mobilize. Because as soon as anyone mentions "general strike" on social media, they seem to disappear into a black hole and that stuff never shows up in people's feeds. Regardless of the size of the labor pool, if you can't organize people somehow, especially across a large country like the US, it's short of impossible to actually get any change in reality.
Americans are talking about protesting, rape, sexual violence, censorship all the time ... and I mean literally all sides - liberals, conservatives, leftists, feminists, MAGA ...
Whenever you see something like this, it's because the platform has some kind of automoderation policy that is liable to delete/shadowban content containing the word. Typing that, then, is not self-censorship; it's the exact opposite, the defiance of external censorshop.
That's just because reddit is almost entirely children and bots/shills. Yes, a platform full of children is going to be childish.
At least online, there is a decent argument to be made that a good cohort of people have significantly lost the ability to self moderate.
I understand the want to protest, but you do know that misrepresentation doesn't help, right?
Refusing to cease by an even organisers order will, yes, result in being escorted out forcefully by security.
Sure. But if two groups of people are distributing articles published in the organisation’s own journal, with one of them containing elements of political speech, and the organization censors that one, it’s absolutely valid to ask if anyone in government directed that censorship.
The core of the argument is they should not have been asked to cease distributing their article, that’s literally one of the purposes of an academic conference, plenty of other people were doing it in various ways. The ADA, in claiming it was enforcing its rules, was in fact not following them.
What behavior exactly were they being given an opportunity to cease?
Don't get me wrong, anything is better than nothing, and many small streams may form into one big river, eventually. But short of a general strike across impactful industries, I think the current wave of protests won't actually achieve anything.
There is a reason "general strikes" are so feared by the political and wealthy class, and it's because there is no way for them to get rid of them without actually agreeing to some of the demands, otherwise the strikes actually impact their lives. Protesting by going out on the streets waving signs isn't gonna accomplish that, sadly.
If like another 5% of eligible voters committed to voting every election, minor or not, and committed to calling their electeds on one issue every quarter, we’d likely see a sea change.
The threshold for laziness is very low, currently only 1 in 5 [1]. That’s both annoying and an opportunity.
[1] https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-national-survey-shows-...
I understand you’re a fan of the method and it can be impactful but that’s not a reason to state that protesting does not accomplish anything.
Protesting is very effective when you have a government that listens, which clearly isn't the case here, then besides a bunch of violent options, you're basically left with general strikes.
The God Emperor is not to be questioned.
> > Some questioned how handing out reprints of an editorial published in the ADA’s own journal, at the ADA’s own annual conference, could be construed as a violation of that code.
>The scientists were not disruptive or disorderly in their conduct, based on the videos posted by MedPage Today, although the fact that they were handing out reprints just before an NIH representative was scheduled to speak might be construed as a form of protest. But it could just as easily be argued that such actions fall under valid scientific dissemination and discussion, the conference’s stated objective.
This would probably have been fine if this administration was not comprised of individuals that cannot abide any sort of pushback.
The protest would not have been needed without the official there - but their presence made the organizers so nervous that they tossed the editor in chief of their own journal.
The problem is how deep the federal dollars go into these systems that enable fear of pulling it. That is the mechanism of control. Our own tax dollars being weaponized.
Though there is a good case that breaking that rule is the best action. Getting kicked out probably did more for their cause then their protest. They just need the guts to publicly stand by.
There are few cases where it is so clear cut that only the organizers have violated the code of conduct, and not those who were expelled from the conference.
"Scientists were ejected from a meeting of the American Diabetes Associate for distributing printouts of an editorial that had appeared in the ADA journal. Here's the link: https://diabetesjournals.org/.../Misguided-Brushes-of-a.... The article highlights "the many threats the current U.S. administration pose[s] to the health of our nation". I recommend that you do read it: it is not technical, you don't need to have a degree in medicine or biology to read it. What do people not understand about the First Amendment?"
> The Emperor was vexed, for he knew that the people were right; but he thought the procession must go on now! And the lords of the bedchamber took greater pains than ever, to appear holding up a train, although, in reality, there was no train to hold.
From https://americanliterature.com/author/hans-christian-anderse...
As an outsider, it’s not clear to me who you are referring to as tribalist regressors here.
Would you mind clarifying?
It is literally people who want to deny uncomfortable realities that are attacking and destroying it now. The ideological anti reality issue is in the side of Trump voters.
Also, funny enough, people who were correctly predicting what conservatives will do were called out of touch by people like you. Quite a few of them were actually social scientists and yes they have seen it.
It’s the social science academics living off the public purse I take issue with.
Maybe we should instil panic and fear in the junior school kids. Yeah, that’ll help!
Maybe we should be teaching the kids that white people are evil and rich white people just want to destroy the environment.
"This organization is controlled by Trump loyalists. They are not scientists. You do not owe them respect. Speak over them. Let no manipulation go unchallenged or derided."
Strongly disagree. If they went straight up partisan at the conference, I’d be sympathetic to the notion of throwing them out. Not every space needs to be a protest venue.
They didn’t do that. They distributed an article published in the organization’s own journal. They argue why what they did cannot reasonably be considered “protest” under the organisation’s rules, given it’s literally what the conference is for. Challenging the notion that their ejection was the ADA following its own rules is the difference between them breaking the rules and the ADA breaking its own rules to censor their speech. (To cut off an aside, no the ADA isn’t bound by the First Amendment. Yes, the government is, and if they’re corruptly influencing to yank these researchers from the conference, that’s a legal issue. But more broadly, the concept of free speech is broader than the First Amendment.)
Something that may resonate with a broader spectrum is how science requires debate and polite disagreement. Good ideas can survive being pressure tested. Compelling consensus has terrible long-term outcomes.
At this rate, English could be replaced by Mandarin as the main international language of commerce. The only thing that could hold it back is the writing system.
If China could convert its writing to use the Latin alphabet I think that could happen with the US now on the path of destroying its research institutions.
So the ADA is looking for funding and support from <current government>, and some attendees thought it a good idea to attack <current government>, despite already agreeing to the code of conduct:
> The ADA confirmed to MedPage Today that five registered scientists had been removed from the meeting, claiming the scientists had violated the organization’s code of conduct for conferences.
If they have violated the code of conduct, they cannot now claim to be surprised and shocked that they were kicked out. I can fully understand why the ADA would not want to be brought into disrepute with <current government>.
When you look to make a statement, you should always fully understand the cost and how it could play out. These were not children and they are responsible for their actions.
Huh. A while back on here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42390479) you were complaining that Alex Jones was getting too many consequences for his statements. Was he a child? Why the change in tune?
We are scientists, and I don’t want to go to a real scientific conference (this is a medicine conference after all, not some circle jerk social sciences meeting, where all need to state at every opportunity they are against the Bad Orange Men, or risk losing all funding) and have these political stunts forcing some group thinking.
If they really wanted to distribute flyers, they would do it outside the premises at the entrance to the building. But not, they felt they had to shove it down everyone’s throats while others were trying to work.
If they were distributing fliers, sure. They weren’t. They were distributing an article published in the conference organizer’s own journal. That’s what academics do at conferences!
> risk losing all funding
They’ve already lost the funding. That’s what is being pointed out. OMB is using accounting shenanigans to circumvent the will of the Congress to cut funding to diabetes research, including, based on the article, some pretty serious and nonpartisan stuff.
If you'd be following how bad the science was in eg nutritional science, advice given to diabetics etc... you'd understand why the would want to kick those people out: with good reason. Incomptence and corruption.
The next day Trump will have the 173rd Airborne kidnap the entire editorial board of the American Diabetic Association and will get them good plated with fake gilt from Temu.
These kind of behaviour should trigger the dismantling of the whole ADA organisation, then to be rebuilt on proper grounds.
As usual i’m not surprised these fascist behaviours (“you’d better align with us and publicly pledge allegiance to us or else”) comes from the left. They’re the real fascist.
Something is fundamentally broken in the USA. It's like Neo-Russia, or rather handled like that by those cronies.
I think codes of conduct for fine but evidently many people here feel they can violate free speech which is interesting because when they were criticized on that basis amid their widespread adoption several years ago people branded the critics knuckle dragging misogynists.
And when Apple started responding to Democratic political pressure to eg ban Parler (which happened) this was seen as not a free speech issue because it was an action between private parties. Like this one.
I happen to think free speech is imperiled by everyone with power - dems, republicans, academic administrators police departments App Store operators etc to infinity. But a lot of people seem to be selective in their outrage. That doesn’t work. It’s either a human right and matter of principle and beneficial to support or it isn’t.
If you’re upset about this I hope you’re also riled about France going after Elon Musk for the political opinions on X. And Neil Young demanding Joe Rogan be ejected from Spotify.
A conference for the members of a medical association has the stated purpose of providing a venue for the exchange of information between the members. When the authors of an article published in the journal of the said medical association distribute free copies of that article to their colleagues who attend the conference, they do exactly the thing for which the conference is organized.
Only a shameless liar can claim that such an action is a "violation of the code of conduct".
Which part did they violate?