Excellent video by Ryan Long. The answer is to start with this premise: There are real-life human beings on all sides of this horrific situation. Start from this position. Martin Buber's I-Thou. Then think slowly, not impulsively, with the assumption that the past doesn't strictly determine the future.
One more meme . . . Be a problem solver. Don't pick sides.
Julian Assange discusses the relationship between the free flow of information and war. Censorship is often a prerequisite for war.
Shellenberger to EU, Thierry Breton
Hi — sorry — but who exactly do you think you are to demand censorship of speech? In America, we don’t even let our own politicians censor speech, much less foreign ones. Please consider reading the First Amendment to our Constitution AND BACK THE HELL OFF.
I agree with Michael Shellenberger.
And I'm also concerned that this EU attempted interference with how we have conversations over here might be an attempted end-around by our own federal government, which was recently excoriated by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Missouri v Biden (from p. 61):
If just any relationship with the government sufficed to transform a private entity into a state actor, a large swath of private entities in America would suddenly be turned into state actors and be subject to a variety of constitutional constraints on their activities. So, we do not take our decision today lightly. But, the Supreme Court has rarely been faced with a coordinated campaign of this magnitude orchestrated by federal officials that jeopardized a fundamental aspect of American life. Therefore, the district court was correct in its assessment—“unrelenting pressure” from certain government officials likely “had the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens.” We see no error or abuse of discretion in that finding.
Matt Orfalea made this video to show news media hysteria, the over-exaggerations of the dangers of COVID, the unhinged commentators and "experts" claiming that they knew things that they didn't know. Now hosted on X (Twitter), it's an 11-minute demonstration of top-down bullshit driven by lies and power-mongering. This is what our country was subjected to. It's an incredible shameful reaction by a country that has our resources. And all of this propaganda was going in one direction: Get the vaccine! It's important for all of us to see this montage and reflect on how we will perform regarding the next pandemic. I am pessimistic.
Matt's video consists only of already-published video clips of of news commentators and "experts," leading to Youtube's decision (in May) to demonetize it because "it is not suitable for all advertisers." Welcome to America, 2023.
David Decosimo, an associate professor of theology and ethics at Boston University, writing at Wall Street Journal, "How Ibram X. Kendi Broke Boston University: The university totally committed itself to his ideology. It hasn’t backed off despite the scandal."
I wrote a letter to BU’s president that afternoon, stressing that beyond the problems with Mr. Kendi’s vision, the more fundamental issue concerned betraying the university’s research and teaching mission by making any ideology institutional orthodoxy. Nothing changed. Even now, BU is insisting it will “absolutely not” step back from its commitment to Mr. Kendi’s antiracism.
Mr. Kendi deserves some blame for the scandal, but the real culprit is institutional and cultural. It’s still unfolding and is far bigger than BU. In 2020, countless universities behaved as BU did. And to this day at universities everywhere, activist faculty and administrators are still quietly working to institutionalize Mr. Kendi’s vision. They have made embracing “diversity, equity and inclusion” a criterion for hiring and tenure, have rewritten disciplinary standards to privilege antiracist ideology, and are discerning ways to circumvent the Supreme Court’s affirmative-action ruling.
Most of those now attacking Mr. Kendi at BU don’t object to his vision. They embrace it. They don’t oppose its establishment in universities. That’s their goal. Their anger isn’t with his ideology’s intellectual and ethical poverty but with his personal failure to use the money and power given to him to institutionalize their vision across American universities, politics and culture.
Whether driven by moral hysteria, cynical careerism or fear of being labeled racist, this violation of scholarly ideals and liberal principles betrays the norms necessary for intellectual life and human flourishing. It courts disaster, at this moment especially, that universities can’t afford.
Consider also, Jonathan Haidt's argues "Why Universities Must Choose One Telos: Truth or Social Justice." An Excerpt:
What is the telos of university? The most obvious answer is “truth” — the word appears on so many university crests. But increasingly, many of America’s top universities are embracing social justice as their telos, or as a second and equal telos. But can any institution or profession have two teloses (or teloi)? What happens if they conflict? ...I am not saying that an individual student cannot pursue both goals. In the talk below I urge students to embrace truth as the only way that they can pursue activism that will effectively enhance social justice. But an institution such as a university must have one and only one highest and inviolable good. I am also not denying that many students encounter indignities, insults, and systemic obstacles because of their race, gender, or sexual identity. They do, and I favor some sort of norm setting or preparation for diversity for incoming students and faculty. But as I have argued elsewhere, many of the most common demands the protesters have made are likely to backfire and make experiences of marginalization more frequent and painful, not less. Why? Because they are not based on evidence of effectiveness; the demands are not constrained by an absolute commitment to truth.