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

[Kim Christensen]

For example again, there were talks and demands, even from politicans and others in power during the covid mass hysteria that people who refused to take the vaccine should be denied hospital treatment or organ transplants etc. Literal life saving "cancellation".

Yet that never happened. No one was ever denied treatment.

I said "talks and demands", but yes, it has happened:
https://thewest.com.au/politics/federal-politics/covid-vaccines-unvaccinated-patients-not-priority-on-organ-transplant-waitlist-warns-ama-c-4877733

Quoting an article in a right leaning paper that's behind a paywall is kind of disingenuous.

[EEVblog]

For example again, there were talks and demands, even from politicans and others in power during the covid mass hysteria that people who refused to take the vaccine should be denied hospital treatment or organ transplants etc. Literal life saving "cancellation".

While I wouldn't ban, I would be ok with de-prioritizing those that engage in risky activity such as not getting vaccinated. When there are not enough hospital beds to go around, difficult choices have to be made, it's not an ideal situation but it is reality.

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.
In fact you can use your same argument to say that an unvaccinated person who has worked and paid their taxes should get health care prioritised over someone who was vaccinated but has not worked and just sponged off government welfare their entire life.

[james_s]

I do. Indulge me with one example. Replace X with a word of your choosing.

Are you out of your mind? I just.. I can't even comprehend how you get from A to B.
If I question whether there should be a law against posession of cocaine, that is absolutely NOT the same as advocating for possession of cocaine. Not even close. 

It is though. You are then saying that it is OK for people to possess cocaine and people shouldn't be punished for doing so. The fact that you cannot see that, is on you. Not me.

No it is not at all.

I think I see what is going on here. I think you fundamentally misunderstand what it means "to question" something. It does not mean you simply state that it is wrong, instead it means let's ask ourselves if this is right and then sit down and look over the data and evaluate it. Maybe in the end we decide it is in fact sensible, maybe it's sensible under certain circumstances, maybe we aren't really sure, or maybe after looking at the data it turns out that it's wrong.

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.

[james_s]

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.
In fact you can use your same argument to say that an unvaccinated person who has worked and paid their taxes should get health care prioritised over someone who was vaccinated but has not worked and just sponged off government welfare their entire life.

Keep in mind my view is skewed by the system we have here, in which the taxpayers DO NOT fund healthcare. I get my insurance through my employer, it is a part of my compensation, if I didn't have that I would have to pay for it, and the amount I would pay monthly depends on my lifestyle. I get a significant discount for stating that I do not consume tobacco. I get another significant discount for getting an annual physical. Under this system I think it is totally fair for insurance companies to charge substantially more for someone that is unvaccinated, or to prioritize care to those who are.

The problem of course is in the circumstance where we are resource constrained. Say there are 6 hospital beds and 10 people that need them, all of those 10 people paid into the system and are entitled to care, but not all of them can get it due to reality of available resources. What information do we consider when triaging them? Is it fair to let someone die who took all the best steps they could to reduce their risk, in order to provide treatment to someone that refused to get vaccinated and went out to gatherings thus greatly increasing their risk? 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?

[EEVblog]

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.

[Kim Christensen]

If someone advocated murder, theft, rape, etc is this something that our society should allow?

Advocate ≠ question.  We already have laws to punish those who "advocate" (say, exhort) others to break the law.

Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.

No, of course it is not!
For example, I can, and have, questioned whether Finland should have a death penalty for serial murderers, to find the reason why we don't (via comparison to countries that do have the death penalty).  (I am also quite interested in the history as to why certain countries have it in law, and why it is or is not still applied in practice.  It tells me what other people in other cultural contexts have perceived as fair and just.)
If it were to come to a vote, I will vote against capitol punishment in Finland, because of my personal view of the world.

Precisely my point. You questioned the law because you didn't agree with it.

Indeed, questioning a subject as if you were a proponent for it, is an extremely important investigative and educational tool.
Ever heard of the Socratic method?
I practice it all the time, and not just in human-to-human communications.  When I do IT security, I 'don' the persona of the worst black hat I can imagine (and that version of NA is a true asshole) to find out the weak points, and how to defend the position I truly 'advocate' for.

But that's not what I'm talking about. You're not advocating for the blackhat, you're trying to understand the blackhat so you can defend against him. You're not saying that hacking should be legal and the internet should be a free for all.
Ever heard of the term "dog whistle"? It's these seemingly innocent phrases that have a double meaning.
Classic example is the old Mafia movie scene where the thug goes into a local shop and says, "Nice shop, it'd be a shame if something happened to it." while he waits for the shopkeeper to clue in and pay up.
This is basically what Adams is accused of doing. Using a "dog whistle" to signal to the rightwing crowd where he stands. Now, whether that was his actual intent I don't really know. (I personally wasn't familiar with the "It's Ok to be white" double meaning) But once the controversy came to light, he didn't deny it.
Trump did the same kind of stuff when asked what he thought about white supremacists. Instead of doing the logical thing and saying they were bad and he didn't agree with that ideology, he basically said they weren't all bad and must have their reasons.

[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!

[Kim Christensen]

It is though. You are then saying that it is OK for people to possess cocaine and people shouldn't be punished for doing so. The fact that you cannot see that, is on you. Not me.

No it is not at all.
I think I see what is going on here. I think you fundamentally misunderstand what it means "to question" something. It does not mean you simply state that it is wrong, instead it means let's ask ourselves if this is right and then sit down and look over the data and evaluate it. Maybe in the end we decide it is in fact sensible, maybe it's sensible under certain circumstances, maybe we aren't really sure, or maybe after looking at the data it turns out that it's wrong.
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.

No. What I'm saying is that by falsely undermining a subject they are effectively delegitimizing it under the guise of skepticism. Do you think that experts haven't already "sat down and looked over the data and evaluated it?" This is the typical "Oh we're just talking here; No harm no foul" that constantly comes from the "right". So I just don't buy the, "I'm just asking questions" excuse any more.
Climate change, vaccines, abortion, economics, etc are some areas where this is done constantly and always with an agenda.

[james_s]

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.

It's absolutely not binary, many factors must be taken into consideration, but the bottom line is in such a situation not everyone is going to get the care they need, hard decisions have to be made, vaccination status is only one of many factors, and arguably not the most important one, which in my opinion would be the likelihood of a person making a full recovery and/or the amount of healthy lifespan they likely have ahead of them after recovery. Second (again in my opinion) would be the extent of treatment they're likely to require. If someone could be estimated to be out of the hospital in a week it may make sense to prioritize them over someone likely to require 3 weeks of treatment, if it's even possible to estimate.

[james_s]

Precisely my point. You questioned the law because you didn't agree with it.

But what if he ultimately did agree with it? Again I don't think you understand what it means to question it. If something can't be question that means it is absolute, it is cast in stone, it is not up for discussion. That frankly is bullshit, nothing in the world is absolute, there are degrees to everything, there are circumstances, there are new ideas, new technologies, and new knowledge that comes into play.

Consider at one point in time it was believed that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun orbited around it. This was a fact beyond question and to question it was heresy which was severely punished. Galileo questioned that theory and and essentially got "cancelled" for doing so. Now of course we know that he was correct.

[Kim Christensen]

But what if he ultimately did agree with it? Again I don't think you understand what it means to question it.

I know exactly what it means to legitimately question something as I pointed out previously. That's not what's happening though.

Consider at one point in time it was believed that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun orbited around it. This was a fact beyond question and to question it was heresy which was severely punished. Galileo questioned that theory and and essentially got "cancelled" for doing so. Now of course we know that he was correct.

He didn't just question it. He provided legitimate proof for an alternate theory. That's the difference.

[james_s]

No. What I'm saying is that by falsely undermining a subject they are effectively delegitimizing it under the guise of skepticism. Do you think that experts haven't already "sat down and looked over the data and evaluated it?" This is the typical "Oh we're just talking here; No harm no foul" that constantly comes from the "right". So I just don't buy the, "I'm just asking questions" excuse any more.
Climate change, vaccines, abortion, economics, etc are some areas where this is done constantly and always with an agenda.

Which experts are those? Taking the cocaine example, are you actually saying that possession being illegal is absolutely beyond question, that it has been discussed and studied to the greatest extent possible, there is absolutely no other way of looking at it and that is final? Really?

I personally question whether possession being a crime is the best approach. You are saying that means I am advocating that people should all be encouraged to carry cocaine around which of course is absolute nonsense. I don't want that at all, cocaine is a dangerous drug, use can have serious consequences, but I am not convinced that throwing people in jail for possessing it is the most effective approach. I think that perhaps a combination of education and treatment, along with enforcing existing laws against distributing it, producing it, and being under the influence in public. You on the other hand are suggesting I should not be able to even suggest this, that the way we handle it is settled and that is that. This is a very rigid and inflexible outlook that is exactly the opposite of science.

Climate change, abortion, vaccines and economics are great examples of other things that are not settled at all, we should always be questioning, always studying and always trying to further our understanding.

I think it's obvious that humans activity has contributed to climate change, scientists are pretty much in agreement but there is still some debate over how much and what can be done about it, and it's worth remembering that these same scientists in the 70s were fretting that the earth was going to enter another ice age. We learned more and determined that was in fact not likely to happen and now it is pretty clear there is a warming trend and it's pretty clear why. It is naive though to think it is impossible that we will learn something new at some point in the future that will change the outlook. That's how science works.

Same deal with abortion, some people very strongly that it is murder and should be illegal, in their mind that is beyond question. I on the other hand question that approach, I am staunchly pro-choice, as well as anti-abortion. Paradox? Absolutely not. I believe there are things that can be done to reduce the number of abortions without making it illegal, that will have a better outcome for all involved. I think abortion should be legal, accessible, safe and rare. I support family planning, "free" taxpayer funded birth control and accurate sex education (not ideology, just simply the facts, risks and methods to mitigate the risks). Maybe it will turn out my ideas don't work, if that turns out the case then we change course when presented with new information, it's never settled and absolute.

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.

Economics I'm not going to discuss because Dave has made it clear he doesn't want that discussed here but there is absolutely room to question economic theories, there are many of them, many are in contradiction and their proponents all believe they are absolutely right and there is no room for questioning, but there absolutely is.

It is absolutely always ok to question something, always, period. Any theory that cannot stand up to questioning is a gigantic red flag. Free energy nuts have been questioning the laws of physics intently for far longer than the laws were defined in scientific terms, yet they are still holding up just fine because despite intense questioning, nobody has yet found a situation under which they do not hold up.

[james_s]

But what if he ultimately did agree with it? Again I don't think you understand what it means to question it.

I know exactly what it means to legitimately question something as I pointed out previously. That's not what's happening though.

Consider at one point in time it was believed that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun orbited around it. This was a fact beyond question and to question it was heresy which was severely punished. Galileo questioned that theory and and essentially got "cancelled" for doing so. Now of course we know that he was correct.

He didn't just question it. He provided legitimate proof for an alternate theory. That's the difference.

Then what is happening? You said it's not ok to question some things, but then you say that's not what's happening?


Legitimate to who? Today we know he was right but at the time many people didn't think his proof was legitimate. Are you so arrogant as to think that you are immune to believing something, anything, so firmly that you blow off legitimate proof that what you believe is false as some kind of conspiracy theory? You are totally and completely confident that everything you believe to be true is, and you are not interested in hearing any alternate theories that eventually come to light? And you believe this so strongly that you think anyone that does question your belief should be silenced? Think about that carefully.

[Nominal Animal]

Precisely my point. You questioned the law because you didn't agree with it.

No.  I questioned the law to examine it.  Whether I actually agree with the law, is irrelevant.

By "question", I do mean "to challenge", "to cast doubt on".  To undermine it to my fullest ability, without holding back; to test its mettle.

[vk6zgo]

For example again, there were talks and demands, even from politicans and others in power during the covid mass hysteria that people who refused to take the vaccine should be denied hospital treatment or organ transplants etc. Literal life saving "cancellation".

Yet that never happened. No one was ever denied treatment.

I said "talks and demands", but yes, it has happened:
https://thewest.com.au/politics/federal-politics/covid-vaccines-unvaccinated-patients-not-priority-on-organ-transplant-waitlist-warns-ama-c-4877733

That was never an official position, it was a claim by the AMA, who are the "Doctor's Union", & have their own agenda.
In the real world, such decisions were made by the Specialist who would perform the operation.

In that regard, a major consideration would be that transplant patents are the very definition of "vulnerable people".
Treating them in hospitals which have substantial numbers of Covid 19 patients is exposing them to worse risks than delaying their treatment until, hopefully the number of Covid cases fell a lot.

A kidney patient, for instance, can survive a long time on Dialysis, but if they contracted Covid following their transplant, their likelihood of recovery would be low in any case, & very slim for an unvaccinated person.

Even for fairly routine examinations of much lower risk, operations were put back months.
My fully vaccinated wife was scheduled to have a procedure done, & it was delayed in the latter years of the Pandemic.

Another point is that Covid patients required a lot of staff to treat them, so that surgical staff could be, & were, called upon to do that work as well as their normal occupations.
They couldn't be in two places at the same time.

Doctors are more than ordinarily cautious in any case--when I had my left knee replacement well before Covid appeared on the horizon, I was found to have group A Streptococcus bacteria in my nose (yep, they stuck a long swab up my nose just like the Covid test).

I had to insert antibacterial cream into my nose every day, & shower using an antibacterial bodywash.
Had I still had the bacteria present after a week of doing this, I would have almost certainly had my operation delayed.

Of course, those who think that Covid was "just a sniffle" would probably "pooh hoo" Strep as well, as Type II Necrotizing Fasciitis only effects a few people.

[EEVblog]

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.

Yet that is precisely what happened during the covid hysteria. People were deplatformed, cancelled, lost their jobs etc etc for even dare trying to question "the science".
Now it's all blown up in everyones face who supported those canellations, huge backflips everywhere.

Back to Adams, he said today that he's had more invites on shows than ever. So apart from his syndication financial "cancelling", he's doing phenomenally well. The tide turned very quickly on that one by the looks of it.

[Kim Christensen]

But what if he ultimately did agree with it? Again I don't think you understand what it means to question it.

I know exactly what it means to legitimately question something as I pointed out previously. That's not what's happening though.

Consider at one point in time it was believed that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun orbited around it. This was a fact beyond question and to question it was heresy which was severely punished. Galileo questioned that theory and and essentially got "cancelled" for doing so. Now of course we know that he was correct.

He didn't just question it. He provided legitimate proof for an alternate theory. That's the difference.

Then what is happening? You said it's not ok to question some things, but then you say that's not what's happening?

No, I never said that you couldn't question. I said that by questioning you are making a statement that you do not trust or might disagree with the subject at hand.
It's why holocaust deniers are so vehemently attacked. Because they use the "question" as a weapon to cast doubt on historical facts.

Are you so arrogant as to think that you are immune to believing something, anything, so firmly that you blow off legitimate proof that what you believe is false as some kind of conspiracy theory? You are totally and completely confident that everything you believe to be true is, and you are not interested in hearing any alternate theories that eventually come to light? And you believe this so strongly that you think anyone that does question your belief should be silenced? Think about that carefully.

No. I just have a very sensitive bullshit detector. It is especially alert when the party asking the "question" stands to gain from doubt being sown about the subject at hand.

[james_s]

No, I never said that you couldn't question. I said that by questioning you are making a statement that you do not trust or might disagree with the subject at hand.
It's why holocaust deniers are so vehemently attacked. Because they use the "question" as a weapon to cast doubt on historical facts.

No, that's not what you said. You said "Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X."

I presented at least a couple of examples where that is most certainly not the case.

"Making a statement that I do not trust or might disagree with the subject at hand"

Yes I might disagree, or I might not, and I might trust, to some degree but not completely. It is arrogant and foolish to trust completely, I've been burned in the past by blindly trusting what someone says, so now I tend to trust to a degree and then verify based on how much trust there is. It is not binary, almost nothing is binary. If somebody tells me their account of an event and something sounds a bit off I might question it and explore alternate possibilities but that doesn't mean I don't believe them, I just understand that perception and memory is not as absolute as we like to think.

I think we have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the holocaust happened, I mean there's kind of actual, physical evidence, a LOT of it, that a person can go see to this day,. That's a pretty extreme example  that I don't think is really related to anything else being discussed here. It's not a scientific theory, it's not something we are still studying, it's not something that there has ever been any credible alternate theories, it's an actual event that millions of people witnessed first hand and documented, to fake it would have been an absolutely monumental undertaking like nothing mankind has ever seen, and to what end? It's not necessary to attack the people questioning it, simply present the evidence that it happened, which is plentiful and unambiguous to the rest of the world and the *vast* majority of people will accept it because it is extremely compelling. If somebody really doesn't believe it happened then you certainly won't change their mind by attacking and trying to silence them, they will dig in their heals and you will reinforce their beliefs and make them believe you trying to silence them means they are onto something, that's just psychology. Holocaust deniers can scream their theories until they're blue in the face and no reasonable person will believe them.

[fourfathom]

Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.

Do you honestly believe this?  So many counter-examples come to mind that I'm not going to bother giving one.  But I can if you really need one.

I do. Indulge me with one example. Replace X with a word of your choosing.

I think others have already made the point, but sure, here goes:

I question a law that bans [marijuana use].  I hardly advocate for marijuana use (I've seen too many people waste their lives by being wasted), but I am also not generally in favor of prohibition laws.  How can you not see this?  It's just basic logic.

[Kim Christensen]

It's not necessary to attack the people questioning it, simply present the evidence that it happened, which is plentiful and unambiguous to the rest of the world and the *vast* majority of people will accept it because it is extremely compelling. If somebody really doesn't believe it happened then you certainly won't change their mind by attacking and trying to silence them, they will dig in their heals and you will reinforce their beliefs and make them believe you trying to silence them means they are onto something, that's just psychology.

They shouldn't be surprised when they are attacked though.

If you asked your wife if she had been unfaithful, it would have an effect on your relationship. Most likely only temporary for a single instance. But if you repeatedly asked this question over and over it would eventually break the relationship.
This is what's happening in society on a macro level when individuals with a social media megaphone constantly question sensitive topics. It about sending a message and not really a question at all.

That's what I meant when I said, "Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X."

[fourfathom]

This is what's happening in society on a macro level when individuals with a social media megaphone constantly question sensitive topics. It about sending a message and not really a question at all.

That's what I meant when I said, "Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X."

Then rephrase your statement.

And do you really think that we should just shut up when sensitive topics affect us (or those around us)?  Here in the USA, in the elementary and high school grades we are seeing advanced placement, and even some basic courses being eliminated or dumbed-down because of "equity".  This is an extremely sensitive topic, but people are vigorously questioning these policies.  Others vigorously defend them.  People's children and grandchildren are being affected -- should the parents just quietly accept it?

[PlainName]

Back to Adams, he said today that he's had more invites on shows than ever. So apart from his syndication financial "cancelling", he's doing phenomenally well. The tide turned very quickly on that one by the looks of it.

Gosh, wish I could be cancelled like that! Who do I have to piss off? 

[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.

[Nominal Animal]

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.

[coppice]

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.

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
John Stuart Mill