YouTube Censors Matt Orfalea’s Completely Truthful Video

Matt Taibbi writes:

Matt Orfalea didn't lie, alter clips, or remove key context. He made edits faithful to reality and just got a strike for it. Welcome to post-Trump America, where truth is a censorable offense.
This is our New Rule: Only Democrats can deny that elections are not legitimate.

See Taibbi's entire distressing article: "Election Denial" for Me, But Not for Thee: YouTube Censors TK-Produced Videos, Again, Despite Factual Accuracy."

Continue ReadingYouTube Censors Matt Orfalea’s Completely Truthful Video

California Attempts to Muzzle Doctors who Question the COVID Orthodoxy. The ACLU Brings Suit.

Without any doubt the ACLU will win this lawsuit for declaratory judgment. California passed a ridiculous law attempting to muzzle physicians who question the "contemporary scientific consensus" on how to treat COVID. Here's a quote from the lawsuit:

Rarely does a state legislature pass a bill that is so obviously unconstitutional. Even more rarely does a governor sign that bill into law. For the reasons put forth below, Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare AB 2098 unconstitutional and halt its enforcement before it goes into effect.

Continue ReadingCalifornia Attempts to Muzzle Doctors who Question the COVID Orthodoxy. The ACLU Brings Suit.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer Discusses the Importance of Getting Along with Others

Retired Justice Stephen Breyer was interviewed on the October 6, 2022 episode of the "We the People" podcast, hosted by Jeffrey Rosen. Justice Breyer retired from the U.S. Supreme Court in June, 2022. The discussion included the following on the importance of being civil:

[Stephen Breyer]: We discuss these cases, the nine of us around a table. And after we hear the case, within a day or two, we are sitting at the table. ... And we each talk in turn, nobody speaks twice until everybody speaks once. Okay, that's very helpful. Then after everybody has finished saying what they want, which usually takes three or four minutes for each person, we then discuss it back and forth. ... And then we write, we write opinions. And we write our reasons. And that's what we do in our job. So when we're doing our job, we do our job. And then, when we go to lunch, we talk about the latest basketball game, or what we've read in some kind of mystery story or so we're perfectly good friends. No reason not to be. No reason not to be. You don't have to disagree personally with people who disagree with on their ideas about politics. ... What's important is, you can disagree, but don't do it in a disagreeable way. Listen to people, talk to them, find out what they're thinking. And the benefit of that is they're much more likely to come along and understand what you're thinking too. So that's what I really learned, I think in the Senate, and it has stood me in good stead throughout the rest of my career.

[Moderator]: One of our students says that, how is it possible that you on the court, were able to be such good friends with Justice Thomas, when you disagree.

[Stephen Breyer]: I sat next to him for 28 years, and . . . he has a great sense of humor. I think he's a very decent person. I think he's an honest person, I think. And he knew what these cases were about, I promise you. And so we were friends, and we are friends, people who think we shouldn't be friends, in my opinion, are just wrong. Because you can be friends with people you really disagree with politically or professionally or in some other way. It's not just the same. It's true. I remember ... we're all having lunch upstairs. And just before that, we'd been in a conference. And we'd split five, four on two different cases. And I said to Rehnquist, who was the Chief Justice, and I said, you know, it's amazing here, we are actually having a fairly good time talking to each other, it's perfectly pleasant, and so forth. And just half an hour ago . . . He said, "I know, half an hour ago, each half of the court thought the other half was totally out of its mind." That's what it is. People can get along personally, and they do. And . . . deciding cases, we don't have to agree. And very often, we don't. We try to agree.

Continue ReadingRetired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer Discusses the Importance of Getting Along with Others

The Biggest Dangers of Tribes

What should you make of the fact that you are passionate about your position on an issue?

Is that passion justified by real world facts and a careful and conscious cost/benefit analysis? Or did unconsciously adopt your position as a result of becoming a member of a tribe? Did social pressures and desires nullify your intellectual defenses to bullshit, allowing rickety beliefs to find a welcoming space in your head? Did you aggressively attack your new position, making sure that it is solid? Or did it slip in like the trojan horse after your sentries became completely distracted by their cravings to be liked (and not disliked) by others? After all, because called "inappropriate" "misguided," "a tool for the [bad people]" or "racist" hurts, especially when done in public arenas. Those slings and arrows take a toll and they have put Americas institutions at great risk. It takes a special person to be able to shake off those accusations and stay true your need to hyper-scrutinize all issues, especially your own position on those issues.

It takes courage and strength to constantly attack your own ideas and it needs to be constant because truth-seeking is never-ending work. And it's not enough to try as hard as you can to be skeptical of your own ideas, because we are blind to the problems with our own thought process.

We know this for sure, based on the work of many scientists who have studied the confirmation bias, including Jonathan Haidt:

Morality binds and blinds. It binds us into ideological teams that fight each other as though the fate of the world depended on our side winning each battle. It blinds us to the fact that each team is composed of good people who have something important to say.

From The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.

You can't cure this problem alone. You need to expose yourself to viewpoints you find distasteful or even odious. That is the only solution because the confirmation bias is that strong. You cannot see the problem as long as you are clinging only to your favorite sources of information. You need quit being a coward and engage with people and ideas that challenge you. You need to visit websites and read books that you would rather not. That is your only chance to test your ideas, identify those that work and don't work. This need to constantly expose your thoughts to the marketplace of ideas was described with precision by John Stuart Mill (and see here). Recently, Jonathan Rauch has taken a deep dive on this challenge in his excellent book, The Constitution of Knowledge.

There will be many who read this who say "I'm not concerned because I am immune to both dumb things and the pressures of tribes." They are wrong to be complacent for two reasons.

Reason One: People think they are immune because they feel certain that they have things right. They feel this way even though ALL OF US change our opinions over time. We are guaranteed to change our views in the future just as we have in the past, but we don't remember how much we change over time.  We simply sit there smug and certain that we've got things figured out at each present moment. What is that feeling of certainty worth? Nothing, as explained by Robert Burton, in his book, On Being Certain.

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingThe Biggest Dangers of Tribes

Noam Chomsky Explains Freedom of Speech

Chomsky: "I do not think that the state has the right to determine historical truth and to punish because I'm not willing to give the state that right even if they happen . . ."

Unknown man: "Even if they deny that the gas chambers existed?"

Chomsky: "I'm saying if you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. I mean, Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech he liked, right? So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom speech, that means you're in favor of free speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of freedom of speech. There are two positions we can have on freedom of speech, and you can decide which position you want."

Chomsky: "With regard to my defense of the people who express utterly offensive views, I don't have the slightest doubt that every commissar says, "You're defending that person's views." No, I'm not. I'm defending his right to express them. The difference is crucial, and the difference has been understood outside of fascist circles since the 18th century."

Glenn Greenwald has focused on this issue repeatedly because many people who consider themselves to be "liberal" have abandoned free speech, now embracing the opposite, censorship of things they find offensive and things they don't like.  I agree with Greenwald. Many modern so-called liberals have dramatically changed positions on free speech as a stealth maneuver.  They won't admit that they formerly embraced wide-open free speech (the version described by Chomsky) and they won't explain why they turned their position upside down.

Continue ReadingNoam Chomsky Explains Freedom of Speech