Don't Be a Sucker - 1947

I don't know about that, but I do know this. There is a gang of people that is promoting lies about Ivermectin (that it is not only effective against Roundworms but also COVID-19) and COVID-19 vaccines (that they are dangerous.) I am not sure that they expect to convince anybody, but I think the goal is for the people involved to be persecuted and rejected, complain they are being censored, and then become more bonded to the group. It is like how some cults force members into fruitless evangelism. My advice: ▶ this video

in “Ask HN: Question about mRNA Vaccines?” · View on HN

By putting people in 'groups' and having those who support him also enforce this idea that we're all in separate groups and need to look out for own little group--this is how fascism grows, this is how hitler took over Germany, this is how a new Hitler figure could take over America too... It's not outside the realm of possibility sure Germans in 1900 couldn't forsee the horrors of 1940. Here's a good video from 1947 explaining the whole thing: ▶ this video

in “Trump Strategic and Policy Forum, Which Included IBM and GM CEOs, Disbands” · View on HN

Hardly a new political phenomena, and policies with known predictable outcomes. ▶ this video One must sympathize with the good folks at AMCHAM that will have to clean up the mess. Have a wonderful day =)

in “U.S. will review social media for foreign student visa applications” · View on HN

Most academics have the option of studying abroad for awhile if desired. And yes, people should be worried. =3 ▶ this video

in “Study finds that budget cuts to public R&D would significantly hurt the economy” · View on HN

Narcissists love themselves more than anyone else, and would never deny the world of their joy in collateral misery. lol =3 "Don't Be a Sucker" (1947) ▶ this video

in “DOGE puts $1 spending limit on government employee credit cards” · View on HN

> You didn't actually answer my request for evidence, though I agree with the NYT that censorship is rooted in fear [1]. Evidence is aplenty of the benefits of open discourse. In real-world places where open discourse is encouraged, people and ideas thrive. Also, saying "you need to be protected from other people's words" is not a winning argument in the public sphere. People want to be trusted to make their own decisions about how to feel, not have the importance of speech dictated to them. It's really only a small minority who seek protection against certain viewpoints, and they too want to be able to express themselves. Unfortunately, censorship is also used against them , often with prejudice and without their knowledge [2]. History has shown how this has happened over and over, for example in "Don't Be a Sucker" (1947) [3]. If you choose to ignore it, that is your prerogative. History is evidence. > I think is the study we've been discussing Thanks for linking it, that's not the one I had in mind. To expand on my previous comment about how we should accept "ugly" forums, I think measuring toxicity is problematic. For one thing, it's a subjective measure. One man's trash is another's treasure. For example, here's an article from someone making a case in favor of Kiwi Farms [4]. But also, censorship can chill what people state publicly. I already shared Axios's write-up of a recent study that shows that these days, what people say publicly does not align with what they say

in “Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society” · View on HN