> “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).
By actually striking, or by waving a sign outside?
Don't get me wrong, anything is better than nothing, and small streams lead to 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.
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.
".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.
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.
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
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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?"
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.”
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.
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).
Don't get me wrong, anything is better than nothing, and small streams lead to 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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
"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?"
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.
Which part did they violate?
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.