The Free Press's commitment to publish a true diversity of voices and perspectives is weaponized against them once again. I'm sorry their editorials aren't 100% pearl-clutching hysterics, but we have plenty of that already. Anybody who reads more than a few cherry-picked examples knows that they've called out Trump plenty, including on free speech. And because they don't do it reflexively like everyone else, it actually means something when they do.
fair commentary, Ms. Young! I've always been on the side of F.I.R.E . in BOTH instances and I am glad you give them their credit and their due, along with the Harper's Letter signatories! Mr Rufo I smelled out very early on was a wolf in sheep's clothing and frankly, he shortly thereafter starter admitting to it, saying he was an "activist". As soon as I heard the ill "Activist" label (remember kids! A is for activism) Rufo immediately exposed himself.
The moral of this story? If you open your mouth to speak -- no matter which side of the mouth you plan to use (left or right) -- you'll have a "Target" on your back.
Ms. Young fails to mention some elephants in the room. The Trump administration has mostly ( nearly entirely) violated free speech principles in service of Israel's wars. The most egregious examples of censorship and punishment for speech are all against "anti-semitic" speech, ie criticizing Israel's actions in Gaza, calling it a genocide etc.
I would like to know what other significant examples of censorship the Trump admin is guilty of that are not related to Israel and the Palestinian cause. Cracking down on universities and their ridiculous DEI programs is not anti free speech. The only academics who have really gotten in trouble is those who are supporting the Palestinians.
Lets not forget that the Biden admin censored speech of university scientists( Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford, among others) who questioned covid policies! ( That case went to SCOTUS, Missouri v Biden).
But it's all turned out well in the end as Bhattacharya has got his own back by suppressing a report that analysed the benefits/downsides of the Covid vaccines and judged them to be overwhelmingly positive.
There are literally dozens, maybe hundreds, of poorly designed studies that show the covid vaccine to be wonderful. I cant imagine why Bhattacharya would "suppress" yet another one. There are a smaller number ( because its career threatening) of well designed and rigorous studies which show that the risk/benefit for most people under the age of 55 is not favorable. That is why Denmark stopped offering the covid vaccine to anyone under 55. ( They did that quite early on because they saw a signal- they have the best electronic health records in the world, everyone is on it. They didnt say much publicly though. I wonder why.)
So, possibly hundreds of poorly designed studies that show vaccine efficacy and a much smaller number, that are of course rigorously put together, showing its lack of efficacy? That's a rather unusual state of affairs in any field of science (speaking as a scientist) and sounds more like a selective interpretation of reality. One thing scientists cannot do is keep a secret - they are all desperate to communicate what they've found, so conspiracy theories involving scientists are nigh on impossible.
And to draw conclusions from Denmark not saying much about their change in vaccination policy by adding "I wonder why" is the entry point for conspiracy theorists. If there is no information, it's best to form a hypothesis while keeping an open mind, then try to prove your hypothesis wrong (that's the scientific method).
Maryanne Demasi, an excellent science journalist just wrote a whole piece about the Bhattacharya "suppressing a study" affair. She explains it much better than I can.
Ah yes, Maryanne Demasi, the "excellent science journalist" who rejects science and claims that statins don't work and cell phones are melting our brains. Tin foil hats for all!
The Free Press's commitment to publish a true diversity of voices and perspectives is weaponized against them once again. I'm sorry their editorials aren't 100% pearl-clutching hysterics, but we have plenty of that already. Anybody who reads more than a few cherry-picked examples knows that they've called out Trump plenty, including on free speech. And because they don't do it reflexively like everyone else, it actually means something when they do.
fair commentary, Ms. Young! I've always been on the side of F.I.R.E . in BOTH instances and I am glad you give them their credit and their due, along with the Harper's Letter signatories! Mr Rufo I smelled out very early on was a wolf in sheep's clothing and frankly, he shortly thereafter starter admitting to it, saying he was an "activist". As soon as I heard the ill "Activist" label (remember kids! A is for activism) Rufo immediately exposed himself.
Wonderful piece, Cathy!
The moral of this story? If you open your mouth to speak -- no matter which side of the mouth you plan to use (left or right) -- you'll have a "Target" on your back.
Politics is, indeed, a dirty business!
Bari Weiss was CARICATURED as right wing/pro Trump? ROFLOL
So, are we to conclude that "whataboutism" is alive and well on both sides of the political spectrum?
Ms. Young fails to mention some elephants in the room. The Trump administration has mostly ( nearly entirely) violated free speech principles in service of Israel's wars. The most egregious examples of censorship and punishment for speech are all against "anti-semitic" speech, ie criticizing Israel's actions in Gaza, calling it a genocide etc.
I would like to know what other significant examples of censorship the Trump admin is guilty of that are not related to Israel and the Palestinian cause. Cracking down on universities and their ridiculous DEI programs is not anti free speech. The only academics who have really gotten in trouble is those who are supporting the Palestinians.
Lets not forget that the Biden admin censored speech of university scientists( Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford, among others) who questioned covid policies! ( That case went to SCOTUS, Missouri v Biden).
But it's all turned out well in the end as Bhattacharya has got his own back by suppressing a report that analysed the benefits/downsides of the Covid vaccines and judged them to be overwhelmingly positive.
There are literally dozens, maybe hundreds, of poorly designed studies that show the covid vaccine to be wonderful. I cant imagine why Bhattacharya would "suppress" yet another one. There are a smaller number ( because its career threatening) of well designed and rigorous studies which show that the risk/benefit for most people under the age of 55 is not favorable. That is why Denmark stopped offering the covid vaccine to anyone under 55. ( They did that quite early on because they saw a signal- they have the best electronic health records in the world, everyone is on it. They didnt say much publicly though. I wonder why.)
So, possibly hundreds of poorly designed studies that show vaccine efficacy and a much smaller number, that are of course rigorously put together, showing its lack of efficacy? That's a rather unusual state of affairs in any field of science (speaking as a scientist) and sounds more like a selective interpretation of reality. One thing scientists cannot do is keep a secret - they are all desperate to communicate what they've found, so conspiracy theories involving scientists are nigh on impossible.
And to draw conclusions from Denmark not saying much about their change in vaccination policy by adding "I wonder why" is the entry point for conspiracy theorists. If there is no information, it's best to form a hypothesis while keeping an open mind, then try to prove your hypothesis wrong (that's the scientific method).
Maryanne Demasi, an excellent science journalist just wrote a whole piece about the Bhattacharya "suppressing a study" affair. She explains it much better than I can.
https://substack.com/@maryannedemasi/note/c-251350565
Ah yes, Maryanne Demasi, the "excellent science journalist" who rejects science and claims that statins don't work and cell phones are melting our brains. Tin foil hats for all!
Both you and she are quacks.