Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website

[vk6zgo]

Ohh, I'm so terrified!

Maybe you have fuck-you money.  I don't.  It isn't fun to find out a fuckwit has blacklisted you just to gain brownie points from the silly activist group.

I was "Taking the piss" at your over the top "fear in the majority" comment.
Huge numbers of people are not incensed at every little thing, & hence do not feel fear of "speaking out" over some silly comment made by a self-described celebrity, because they have a lot more important things to worry about.

[Kim Christensen]

What I'm saying is that by falsely undermining a subject they are effectively delegitimizing it under the guise of skepticism.

I am saying that questioning a subject is not delegitimizing it, it is testing it.
Testing an idea, concept, belief, or model, is the only way to determine its worth.  Subjecting something to a test is not delegitimizing it.  Testing itself is a neutral act.
This, testability, is at the very core of the scientific method.  We have no better tool for examining things rationally, using our logical faculties.  (I myself recommend Popperian falsifiability approach, where you question most the things you trust or most hope are true.)
The only thing that gets damaged by testing is belief and ego.  I admit, I don't care if testing ideas and concepts, and asking questions, hurts some peoples egos or beliefs.  We got here by questioning.  If we stop now, and switch to relying on our emotions and instincts, we might just stop using tools and language, and become a nonsentient eusocial species.

I'm not talking about testing in the scientific sense at all. I agree with you there. (Scientific method)
Trump's famous interview where he muses about injecting disinfectant to cure COVID is a good example of what I'm talking about. Here is someone with a huge audience and power casting doubt on the very scientific method that you and I advocate for. It's a classic tactic of trying to make an unqualified, uninformed, & unscientific opinion (Trump's) equal to that of real scientific researchers. That's the kind of testing and questioning that I'm against.
And yes, scientists have opinions on a topics that are not yet fully resolved. But Trump's opinion is not equal, not even close, to that of an expert in the field of study being questioned.

[coppice]

I'm sure someone will argue that newspapers have been trained to preemptively pull authors who say stupid crap. But what about the agency of the newspapers here?

I honestly thought we discussed this already.

The majority just wants to live their lives in peace, and not risk anything because of something that does not impact their personal lives.

The true effect of cancellation or shunning is not that the target loses their livelihood, it is the fear it induces in the majority.  It is that fear that makes the majority keep quiet, not rock the boat.

Ohh, I'm so terrified!

Of course you are. You are Australian. Every Australian I've talked with about free speech agrees they aren't really free to express themselves while they are in Australia. I'm not saying that isn't also true for people from many other nations, but I've found Australians particularly bothered by this.

[Karel]

I've noticed there are some people in this world that see everything in binary, black & white, right and wrong and struggle with nuance, and thus it could make sense that questioning something would be interpreted the same as saying that it's wrong since it can't be anything in between. Perhaps you are one of those? I don't know.

Yes, many people suffer from this simplistic way of thinking:

"I mean well, therefore I do good, therefore I am good.
If you oppose me, you do not mean well & cannot be good."

The road to hell is paved with the best intentions.

[PlainName]

Huge numbers of people are not incensed at every little thing, & hence do not feel fear of "speaking out" over some silly comment made by a self-described celebrity, because they have a lot more important things to worry about.

Does it have to be huge numbers? Here on this forum I often don't make a comment (and often do, but...) because I know that will associate me with a particular view even if that isn't my view. It is very common for someone querying some point to be assumed to be 'that' side merely by raising that issue. And that's on this forum with mostly rational and intelligent members.

Being one of the crowd is important to us, apparently. And, perhaps more important, is not being outside the crowd. That's how influencers get to be celebs with huge numbers of followers and likes. And how cancelling works: just a couple of influencing people (whether they be tiktok celebs or experts with a contrary view that panders to one's own desires) can carry a crowd that's big enough to... well, cancel. The lack of a similar anti-cancel crowd just magnifies it.

[Zero999]

And communism is relevant to the discussion because he mentioned positive discrimination which is about ensuring equity for all and was practised by the USSR.

It is irrelevant. It's about as relevant saying an orange is round when discussing the shape of the Earth with a flatter.
Communism is about economics, not race, gender, discrimination, etc... And it's pretty funny that you tout the USSR as an example since there was plenty of ethnic discrimination under the old Russian regime. They definitely weren't striving for the woke version of racial or gender equality.

The USSR practised affirmative action and was probably one of the first countries to do so. Look up Korenizatsiia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiia?useskin=vector

This ended in 1937... Maybe you should have read more than just the first half of that Wiki link.

Oh, I've read quite a lot more than that about the Soviet Union and China, not just that link. The whole Soviet experiment can even be argued to be a form of affirmative action, but based on class, rather than ethnicity. I merely pointed out a policy they had which was. I could have picked China and is probably a better example, since it's still somewhat in effect today.

Marxism is not just about economics, it's also social philosophy. Advocating for equal outcome i.e. equity for all ethnicities races, sex/gender, classes etc. is Marxist, by definition of the word.

Then you should have used the correct word (Marxism) in the first place. Communism as practiced by the USSR was not the same as the Marxism envisioned by the German philosopher Karl. Russia was under communist rule for far longer than the short period of idealized Marxism that it started out as.

I did say Marxism. You were the one who brought up communism.

It's true that what was practised in the USSR and China is not what Marx envisioned, but is still the logical conclusion of following Marxist ideology. Humans are individualistic and nature. It's not possible to get everyone to own the means of production and redistribute wealth in equitable manner. Vested interests soon get in the way and the ideology soon becomes corrupted in order for those who gain power to maintain it. We're not an ant or bee colony.

What I'm saying is that by falsely undermining a subject they are effectively delegitimizing it under the guise of skepticism.

I am saying that questioning a subject is not delegitimizing it, it is testing it.
Testing an idea, concept, belief, or model, is the only way to determine its worth.  Subjecting something to a test is not delegitimizing it.  Testing itself is a neutral act.
This, testability, is at the very core of the scientific method.  We have no better tool for examining things rationally, using our logical faculties.  (I myself recommend Popperian falsifiability approach, where you question most the things you trust or most hope are true.)
The only thing that gets damaged by testing is belief and ego.  I admit, I don't care if testing ideas and concepts, and asking questions, hurts some peoples egos or beliefs.  We got here by questioning.  If we stop now, and switch to relying on our emotions and instincts, we might just stop using tools and language, and become a nonsentient eusocial species.

I'm not talking about testing in the scientific sense at all. I agree with you there. (Scientific method)
Trump's famous interview where he muses about injecting disinfectant to cure COVID is a good example of what I'm talking about. Here is someone with a huge audience and power casting doubt on the very scientific method that you and I advocate for. It's a classic tactic of trying to make an unqualified, uninformed, & unscientific opinion (Trump's) equal to that of real scientific researchers. That's the kind of testing and questioning that I'm against.
And yes, scientists have opinions on a topics that are not yet fully resolved. But Trump's opinion is not equal, not even close, to that of an expert in the field of study being questioned.

Trumps comments regarding antiseptic were absurd, but the whole pandemic has not been handled in a scientific manner. Some things pushed by the authorities had the same level of scientific evidence to support them, as those dismissed as dangerous or ineffective. I've completely lost trust in many public health authorities, especially in the UK, US, Canada, Australia etc. I now look towards Sweden and Denmark, who've been more sane.

Vaccines I think it's pretty clear that in general they are effective and that the risk is offset by the benefit, but I absolutely think we should continue to study intensely and I am open to any new information we discover, once again this is how science works, in fact the entire premise of science is based on constantly questioning, testing and trying to prove our theories wrong. That is literally one of the core components of the scientific method. Religion is settled, science is never settled.

The risk vs benefit analysis depends on the individual. Whilst some vaccines there's definitely a positive risk vs benefit analyses in children such as polio, others are less clear-cut.

I don't think it's right to reward selfish behavior, four people in this hypothetical situation are gonna get the shaft, how do you decide who?

"selfish behaviour" is not an absolute thing. What one person can view as selfish another can view as being the opposite, and even have legit reason to back up that view of it not being selfish.
You are falling into the trap of thinking that things are binary, that's almost always never the case in anything.

The mandates never made any sense because the vaccine doesn't induce sterilising immunity and it's certainty doesn't reduce the spread enough to have a significant effect on the number of cases.

The idea everyone needed to have it is not based on any scientific evidence. There is no evidence to suggest it provides any additional protection against severe disease and death, after someone has already been exposed to the virus. Someone who's already had the virus, then recovered would be perfectly rational in refusing the vaccine, because there's no evidence of any benefit. They FDA might as well have just told everyone, who caught it, to take ivermectin. It has the same level of evidence to support it as vaccinating those with natural immunity.

[JohanH]

The whole Soviet experiment can even be argued to be a form of affirmative action, but based on class, rather than ethnicity.

The policy didn't last long. Korenizatsiia was forgotten in the later 1930's and every different ethnicity from white ethnic Russian speaking Russian was treated as non-equal. Even when they were "integrated" and started speaking Russian and eradicated their own culture, they were still treated as they were from the colonies, which they were (I've read what some Kazaks have written). But Russia has a good history of erasing and totally destroying other cultures. For instance, already in the 1700, Russians tried to commit genocide on the Circassian people. This continued in Soviet times and today's Russia still has these imperialistic and colonialist ideas. Just look at Georgia and Ukraine. I'm not saying other nations haven't done similar things. Just that the Soviet system didn't help, and today's Russia has learnt nothing from history (they deny it) and continues as usual, where at least western nations have learnt something and in many cases apologized for colonialism.

[coppice]

The whole Soviet experiment can even be argued to be a form of affirmative action, but based on class, rather than ethnicity.

The type of affirmative action being referenced here is essentially a war on competence. A disdain for competence was behind most of the mass bloodshed in the 20th century.

[Kim Christensen]

The mandates never made any sense because the vaccine doesn't induce sterilising immunity and it's certainty doesn't reduce the spread enough to have a significant effect on the number of cases.
The idea everyone needed to have it is not based on any scientific evidence. There is no evidence to suggest it provides any additional protection against severe disease and death, after someone has already been exposed to the virus. Someone who's already had the virus, then recovered would be perfectly rational in refusing the vaccine, because there's no evidence of any benefit. They FDA might as well have just told everyone, who caught it, to take ivermectin. It has the same level of evidence to support it as vaccinating those with natural immunity.

"Sterilising immunity" is almost impossible to prove because you have to demonstrate that an infection never occurred. All you can observe are symptoms. Some vaccines are more effective than others.
The idea everyone needed to have it was based on the scientific evidence available at the time.
Taking the vaccine after natural immunity has mostly worn off is effective and has been proven to work.

The risk vs benefit analysis depends on the individual.

True. And that's why in my country older people were prioritized when the vaccine was first rolled out.
But there is still a positive benefit vs risk for all adults, but it just isn't as large. So to refuse the vaccine as an adult is just foolishness, paranoia, or the inability to understand statistics.

[nctnico]

But Trump's opinion is not equal, not even close, to that of an expert in the field of study being questioned.

It kind of is. Science is truth by majority. The opinion of a single expert is worth just as much as the opinion of a total idiot. Without a reference (= a panel of experts backed by scientific data), you can't say which opinion is closest to the truth. Absolute truth doesn't even exist.

[Kim Christensen]

But Trump's opinion is not equal, not even close, to that of an expert in the field of study being questioned.

It kind of is. Science is truth by majority. The opinion of a single expert is worth just as much as the opinion of a total idiot. Without a reference (= a panel of experts backed by scientific data), you can't say which opinion is closest to the truth. Absolute truth doesn't even exist.

When the single expert is quoting peer reviewed studies and giving his opinion based on that, and the idiot is just making stuff up as he goes along, it's pretty obvious who you should listen to.

What you tout is the typical false equivalency that the "right" relies upon all the time.
As an example, I'm going to place WAY more weight on what Zero999 has to say about an electronics fault than I would on the opinion of someone who doesn't even know what ohms law is.

[PlainName]

the opinion of someone who doesn't even know what ohms law is

What is there to know? You turn it off and on again, and if that doesn't work you bang it with a hammer. I don't think Ohm covered that with his laws.

[VooDust]

Science is truth by majority.

And just how do you think this majority came to its conclusions? The scientific process, I'd say.

The opinion of a single expert is worth just as much as the opinion of a total idiot.

If I had to put you in one of the above categories I would lean towards the latter.

[SiliconWizard]

But Trump's opinion is not equal, not even close, to that of an expert in the field of study being questioned.

It kind of is. Science is truth by majority.

No. Science is not truth, science is a method.
The second you start defining science as an "accepted truth", you completely miss what science is.

[james_s]

Ohh, I'm so terrified!

Maybe you have fuck-you money.  I don't.  It isn't fun to find out a fuckwit has blacklisted you just to gain brownie points from the silly activist group.

I was "Taking the piss" at your over the top "fear in the majority" comment.
Huge numbers of people are not incensed at every little thing, & hence do not feel fear of "speaking out" over some silly comment made by a self-described celebrity, because they have a lot more important things to worry about.

It doesn't take huge numbers of people, it takes just a few, that's part of the problem. Pretty much no matter what you say risks somebody somewhere getting a bee in their bonnet over it. If not now then 20 years later when societal norms have shifted.

[Buriedcode]

..Remove the specific organ transplant thing and substitue for basic (no covid related) health issues. Once again, people and even politicans advocated for this "cancellation" of basic health rights. In that case it's absolutely trivial to argue that an unvaccinated person equally paid their taxes and is therefore completely entitled to the equal health care they paid for...

So an alcoholic who requires a liver transplant but refuses to give up drinking should have the same right to an organ as someone who does not engage in behavoir that will likely reduce the value of that organ?  Or a smoker?  Being unvaccinated isn't a "health issue" as that implies that it is some kind of disease, or something that is out of ones control - it is a choice, and one proven to improve health outcomes.

I am not suggesting that all unvaccinated people should have had all operations or treatments denied, but you specifically said organ transplants - where organs are in short supply, and all transplants carry with them a lifelong obligation to specific behavoir and habits (as well as lifelong immunosuppressants).  Vaccination is especially important for organ recipients because of this - the risk/benefit equation is very much skewed. The waiting lists for organs are long and must be prioritised to ensure the maximum benefit. Whilst there are myriad reasons for a person to move up/down the lists - actively refusing to fulfill an obligation that improves the outcome or increases the success of the operation will likely put you down the list.

In a society with a national health service, there is an obligation to provide the best "bang for your buck" - and that includes not wasting extremely valuable/scarce resources on those who refuse treaments on ideological grounds.  That isn't all treaments, just those that are the most expensive/valuable.

[EEVblog]

What I'm saying is that by falsely undermining a subject they are effectively delegitimizing it under the guise of skepticism.

I am saying that questioning a subject is not delegitimizing it, it is testing it.

Testing an idea, concept, belief, or model, is the only way to determine its worth.  Subjecting something to a test is not delegitimizing it.  Testing itself is a neutral act.

Interesting examples of this in our domain were the Electroboom vs Dr Lewin KVL debate. Mehdi didn't overturn the science, but damn it was an interesting practical vs theoretical debate.
The Veritasium transmission line debate was similar.
And Thunderf00t's research on why sodium explodes. That was as solid a known scientific concept as it gets, taught in science classes everywhere, but he turned that concept on it's head.

Looking back at covid, things that people are now apologising and backtracking for in droves were obvious if you didn't have your mob-mentaility blinkers on. Threatening and coercing people by mandate and fear was always the wrong approach.

[Kim Christensen]

Looking back at covid, things that people are now apologising and backtracking for in droves were obvious if you didn't have your mob-mentaility blinkers on. Threatening and coercing people by mandate and fear was always the wrong approach.

What things are medical experts and scientists apologizing for in droves? Who are these apologists?

[vk6zgo]

I'm sure someone will argue that newspapers have been trained to preemptively pull authors who say stupid crap. But what about the agency of the newspapers here?

I honestly thought we discussed this already.

The majority just wants to live their lives in peace, and not risk anything because of something that does not impact their personal lives.

The true effect of cancellation or shunning is not that the target loses their livelihood, it is the fear it induces in the majority.  It is that fear that makes the majority keep quiet, not rock the boat.

Ohh, I'm so terrified!

Of course you are. You are Australian. Every Australian I've talked with about free speech agrees they aren't really free to express themselves while they are in Australia. I'm not saying that isn't also true for people from many other nations, but I've found Australians particularly bothered by this.

You must really talk to a lot of weirdos.

[KaneTW]

What I'm saying is that by falsely undermining a subject they are effectively delegitimizing it under the guise of skepticism.

I am saying that questioning a subject is not delegitimizing it, it is testing it.

Testing an idea, concept, belief, or model, is the only way to determine its worth.  Subjecting something to a test is not delegitimizing it.  Testing itself is a neutral act.

This, testability, is at the very core of the scientific method.  We have no better tool for examining things rationally, using our logical faculties.  (I myself recommend Popperian falsifiability approach, where you question most the things you trust or most hope are true.)

The only thing that gets damaged by testing is belief and ego.  I admit, I don't care if testing ideas and concepts, and asking questions, hurts some peoples egos or beliefs.  We got here by questioning.  If we stop now, and switch to relying on our emotions and instincts, we might just stop using tools and language, and become a nonsentient eusocial species.

I had a discussion with a friend a while ago and he put it pretty well (paraphrased):
'Millenials always want to be on "the right side" and never on "the wrong side" so they don't feel insecure. They don't want things to be better, they just don't want to be wrong.'

The modern person is so afraid of being wrong that the act of questioning itself is anathema.

[Wallace Gasiewicz]

I am greatly disappointed in the "scientific" community
I have two advanced degrees and did work in research for a short time.
It does not seem that they are adhering to the scientific method. Which is really logic.
The scientific method is limited by our knowledge, which changes as we discover more things, so the conclusions can change.

Also, the statistical results they show are not valid much of the time, many times the wrong statistical approach is taken.

Besides that they are back walking many things that they told us to believe and follow under penalty of law.
Even just disagreeing with them could have serious repercussions, both socially and financially.
Now they are disagreeing with what they themselves put out there as ultimate "truth"
If there was any reasonable cause for "cancellation" .......

I really do not trust anyone anymore on the veracity of their conclusions.
It is really unfortunate. These folks are supposed to be there to inform us, not give us false information and false conclusions.
The validity of "science" and the current practice of medicine is being questioned more and more by the regular people.
You can fool most of the people most of the time and some of the people all of the time but you cannot fool all the people all of the time.
All it takes is a couple of obvious lies from the spokes people to make us seriously doubt their sincerity.

[james_s]

I had a discussion with a friend a while ago and he put it pretty well (paraphrased):
'Millenials always want to be on "the right side" and never on "the wrong side" so they don't feel insecure. They don't want things to be better, they just don't want to be wrong.'

The modern person is so afraid of being wrong that the act of questioning itself is anathema.

Why is this I wonder? Surely it must be something about one's upbringing that causes this trait. Is it the way so many people grow up completely sheltered from injury and argument? I have a serious worry that social media creates huge echo chambers exactly tailored to a person's views and opinions. This causes people to feel that whatever their views are represent the majority and that anyone who disagrees or sees things differently is a fringe outlier.

[Nominal Animal]

Trump's famous interview where he muses about injecting disinfectant to cure COVID is a good example of what I'm talking about. Here is someone with a huge audience and power casting doubt on the very scientific method that you and I advocate for. It's a classic tactic of trying to make an unqualified, uninformed, & unscientific opinion (Trump's) equal to that of real scientific researchers. That's the kind of testing and questioning that I'm against.

I understand, but still disagree.

He was still "musing" or "asking questions", not suggesting people actually do so.  "It would be interesting to check that.  It sounds interesting to me." (Followed by a shrug.  I just reviewed the YT video.)

I do the same all the time, in physics subjects –– regardless of my own current understanding in the matter –– and everywhere else.  Things like capital punishment: since it hasn't been a law in two centuries, why even bring it up?  Because discussing the subject clears it for everyone (except those whose emotions are hurt by the discussion).  It would be nice if the truly evil people would just go away –– which is the underlying reason people advocate for capital punishment –– but the fact is, such things work differently in real life.  Truly examining it, questioning whether it would work or not, and what the real life effects would be, is what reveals such.

In Finnish politics, quite a few "social justice" laws have been enacted recently.  Their true effects have not been investigated or even discussed, exactly because the vocal minority and the politicians who rely on them for their agitation and support have silenced the discussion as "racist" and "sexist" and "transphobic".  It does not matter to me whether I agree or disagree with the laws myself; I wholeheartedly object to the lack of serious questioning and discussion.  This isn't rational, it's purely emotive; and history tells us this will backfire.

And yes, scientists have opinions on a topics that are not yet fully resolved.

When one quarter to three quarters of accepted peer-reviewed publications end up being retracted or unreproducible or heavily revised, I'm not sure scientists' opinions should be considered to have much more weight; especially if they control any kind of research funding.  Money talks, and publishing is necessary for continued grants.

[Nominal Animal]

Ohh, I'm so terrified!

Maybe you have fuck-you money.  I don't.  It isn't fun to find out a fuckwit has blacklisted you just to gain brownie points from the silly activist group.

I was "Taking the piss" at your over the top "fear in the majority" comment.
Huge numbers of people are not incensed at every little thing, & hence do not feel fear of "speaking out" over some silly comment made by a self-described celebrity, because they have a lot more important things to worry about.

Well, I can tell you the situation is definitely not that in the academia, or any field related to research (because researchers social connections to people in academia).

Sure, if I switched to potato farming anywhere in Finland, my own neighbors would consider me as a "leftie", even if right now in academia I'd be "right-wing", or worse, "alt-right".  (I left academia.  I like potatoes, specifically Puikula and Annabella varieties.  Could eat them every day, and have for years.)

I don't know about electrical engineering and that sort of a businesses, or manufacturing and design of products; I just don't have the experience to have any kind of an opinion.  But I think in those fields as well, there'd be no offense taken at anything I might say or question, even if I was drugged up or drunk.

So, yes, I do see why you think it was over the top.  In some circumstances, locales, contexts, it is; in others, it isn't.  It depends on who you need to interact with to go on with your own life.  A couple of college/university-age kids among the families is easy to deal with, they're still growing up (even at mid-twenties; at least I was).  But when you have to deal with politically-driven adults (and their plans that really affect your life), and people just out of Uni, it's a different thing.  Here in Helsinki, this context definitely applies.  In a small town or village anywhere in Finland with less than say 5000 people, definitely not.

[BrianHG]

Looking back at covid, things that people are now apologising and backtracking for in droves were obvious if you didn't have your mob-mentaility blinkers on. Threatening and coercing people by mandate and fear was always the wrong approach.

What things are medical experts and scientists apologizing for in droves? Who are these apologists?

Yes, I want to know too.
And poor/bad reporting/reporters/government propaganda and bad media misrepresenting the actual true words of the true medical professionals and scientists do not count.
(If you cant tell your source of new is garbage and incomplete, in today's world, this is on you.  I do not count their voices.)