gatomontes99 Posted February 14 Report Posted February 14 7 minutes ago, Black Dog said: The government not allowing certain words to be used is the literal definition of censorship you putz. They aren't telling people they can't use those words. They are saying they won't fund or publish studies on those topics. Rule #5 Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
CdnFox Posted February 14 Report Posted February 14 1 hour ago, Radiorum said: A lot of research will be impacted by this, and it's naive to think otherwise. I don't think anyone disputes that. That doesn't make it censorship. We can have a discussion about whether or not the research in question is valuable but at the end of the day and if the consumer doesn't want to buy something then you have to accept that and see if anyone else wants to buy it. Saying that you don't want someone's product does not make it censorship Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Black Dog Posted February 14 Report Posted February 14 5 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: They aren't telling people they can't use those words. They are saying they won't fund or publish studies on those topics. In other words they are telling people they can't use those words if they want to get funded or published. Lol, you f*cking clown. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted February 14 Report Posted February 14 3 minutes ago, Black Dog said: In other words they are telling people they can't use those words if they want to get funded or published. Lol, you f*cking clown. More accurately "...they can't use those words if they want to get funded or published by the government." It isn't censorship. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Black Dog Posted February 14 Report Posted February 14 1 minute ago, gatomontes99 said: More accurately "...they can't use those words if they want to get funded or published by the government." It isn't censorship. It literally, definitionally, is. Quote
Radiorum Posted February 14 Author Report Posted February 14 9 minutes ago, CdnFox said: if the consumer doesn't want to buy something then you have to accept that and see if anyone else wants to buy it. Saying that you don't want someone's product does not make it censorship Hmm ... I don't buy this analogy that science is a "product." Science is the advance of knowledge, and to put limits on it is to put limits on the advancement of knowledge. Where ideology trumps science, to the point that science is rejected, only negative consequences for society can result. Quote
User Posted February 14 Report Posted February 14 19 minutes ago, Radiorum said: You conflate your prejudices with reality. How so? Quote
User Posted February 14 Report Posted February 14 4 minutes ago, Radiorum said: Hmm ... I don't buy this analogy that science is a "product." Science is the advance of knowledge, and to put limits on it is to put limits on the advancement of knowledge. Where ideology trumps science, to the point that science is rejected, only negative consequences for society can result. Time, money, and resources are limited. We are a nation 36 Trillion in debt with far too much wasteful spending. The tax payers money should be prioritized on things of more value to the advancement of knowledge, not leftwing woke crap that these grants have been turned into money laundering for. No one is stopping you and all your other leftist pals from donating directly to all these causes you care so much about. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted February 14 Report Posted February 14 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Black Dog said: It literally, definitionally, is. Only if you use rule #5. The government does not have to use an unlimited amount of funds and resources just because someone wants to publish a paper on trans infants. If the people that did that study can find a private institution to publish it, then they are free to do it. Censorship would be preventing the paper from being published any where and threatening government action if it was. That has not happened and will not happen. As of now, the government isn't paying for those topics. End of story. Edited February 14 by gatomontes99 1 Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Black Dog Posted February 14 Report Posted February 14 5 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: Only if you use rule #5. Not a real thing. Quote The government does not have to use an unlimited amount of funds and resources just because someone wants to publish a paper on trans infants. If the people that did that study can find a private institution to publish it, then they are free to do it. Censorship would be preventing the paper from being published any where and threatening government action if it was. That has not happened and will not happen. As of now, the government isn't paying for those topics. End of story. They are limiting the ideas that people are allowed to express because they include certain words or support certain ideas: that's censorship. Its' funny how here you're defining censorship in an extremely specific and narrow way, while elsewhere you're defining "concealing" in an extremely broad way. You define words according to how a given definition serves your ideology, which i'm pretty sure is exactly what you accuse others of doing in your dumbass rules. 1 Quote
gatomontes99 Posted February 14 Report Posted February 14 3 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Not a real thing. They are limiting the ideas that people are allowed to express because they include certain words or support certain ideas: that's censorship. No it isn't. Censorship Notice it says nothing about lack of sponsorship. The government isn't the only way to get published. It isn't censorship for the government to say they won't be publishing papers on these topics. It's discretion. 1 Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Nationalist Posted February 14 Report Posted February 14 On 2/13/2025 at 5:43 PM, Radiorum said: This is how censorship works in Trump's America. A list of about 100 words has been compiled (see the complete list at this link) – words that are flagged in papers submitted to the National Science Foundation for funding. If any of the words appear, the research will not be funded. Examples of offending words: Disability Diversity Equality Female (but not male) Gender Inclusivity Minority Racial/racism Trauma Victim Women (but not men) Huh...they're obviously searching for those key words in government systems in order to find waste. 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
Black Dog Posted February 14 Report Posted February 14 15 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: No it isn't. Censorship Notice it says nothing about lack of sponsorship. The government isn't the only way to get published. It isn't censorship for the government to say they won't be publishing papers on these topics. It's discretion. Censorship by another name is still censorship. Quote
ironstone Posted February 14 Report Posted February 14 (edited) 19 hours ago, robosmith said: Who was "censored" BY THE GOVERNMENT for that? Be SPECIFIC and PROVIDE EVIDENCE. And who was it that had or didn't have the expertise to determine "likelihood." I really don't see anything wrong with tamping down SPECULATION on a PUBLIC HEALTH MATTER when lives are on the line. Do you? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/zuckerberg-says-the-white-house-pressured-facebook-to-censor-some-covid-19-content-during-the-pandemic https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/facebook-lifts-ban-posts-claiming-covid-19-man/story?id=77931433 Edited February 14 by ironstone Quote "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell
Nationalist Posted February 14 Report Posted February 14 16 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Censorship by another name is still censorship. NOW you're worried about censorship? Lol.... Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
robosmith Posted February 15 Report Posted February 15 36 minutes ago, ironstone said: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/zuckerberg-says-the-white-house-pressured-facebook-to-censor-some-covid-19-content-during-the-pandemic https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/facebook-lifts-ban-posts-claiming-covid-19-man/story?id=77931433 "Pressure" is NOT censorship. If the government tells you valid reasons to not allow SPECULATION about life and death matters, I welcome that cause it saves lives when experts don't have to compete with lDIOTS. Quote
User Posted February 15 Report Posted February 15 24 minutes ago, robosmith said: "Pressure" is NOT censorship. If the government tells you valid reasons to not allow SPECULATION about life and death matters, I welcome that cause it saves lives when experts don't have to compete with lDIOTS. Glad you agree there is no censorship going on here. A fresh change of pace from you. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted February 15 Report Posted February 15 2 hours ago, Black Dog said: Censorship by another name is still censorship. No. Censorship is censorship. Not sponsoring a study is not censorship. You are big time Rule 5ing. 1 Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
CdnFox Posted February 15 Report Posted February 15 3 hours ago, Black Dog said: In other words they are telling people they can't use those words if they want to get funded or published. Lol, you f*cking clown. Funded. Not published. They can be published without being funded by the government. And you just proved the point that this is not censorship. Despite your further claims to the contrary they can still publish their works they can still discuss any works they publish they are still free to conduct their own research. This is funding, and funding is not censorship. If the government passed a law saying nobody else was allowed to fund them that would be censorship but in this case the government simply choosing not to fund them is not censorship in any possible stretch of the word Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
CdnFox Posted February 15 Report Posted February 15 3 hours ago, Radiorum said: Hmm ... I don't buy this analogy that science is a "product." Science is the advance of knowledge, and to put limits on it is to put limits on the advancement of knowledge. There's no analogy here. It is a product. People are selling their time and energy in exchange for the knowledge and information they will collect. The customer has to find that a desirable exchange or there's no funding. If you believe what you said then why aren't they doing the research for free? Why aren't they donating their time and their money to do it? How dare they put limits on the advancement of knowledge!! They want to be paid. That makes this a job like any other. Which means they have to convince the purchaser that it is worth their time to hire them and that the work they are doing is valid and something that the purchaser wants. Quote Where ideology trumps science, to the point that science is rejected, only negative consequences for society can result. And rolling stones gather no moss, and neither a borrower nor A lender be, etc etc. Sounds great. But here's the bottom line, just because you think a specific subject is worth researching doesn't mean other people do or should. There is a limited amount of money to pay for research, there is a limited amount of research personnel, there is absolutely no reason in the universe at all for a government to fund research that it does not believe will have a benefit that applies to its mandate. If you want money to do work whether it's research, or building someone a deck, or doing someone's taxes, or taking out their gallbladder, you have to convince them that the results will be worth the money. It doesn't get any more simple than that, And if you believe otherwise then you should be funding these people out of your own pocket because how dare you not? Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
CdnFox Posted February 15 Report Posted February 15 22 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: No. Censorship is censorship. Not sponsoring a study is not censorship. You are big time Rule 5ing. Sorry @Black Dog but he is 100 percent correct and you've got zero room to argue here. You are attempting completely to distort what the word censorship means. This isn't even in the ballpark, it's not even a stretch. If I choose not to go spend my money to see a movie I'm not censoring the director or the actors. If I choose not to pay a company to come assess my home I'm not muzzling or censoring them. If it is censorship and evil to not let the work be done then why aren't these people doing it for free? If this isn't a commercial product why are they demanding to be paid for their time? Why aren't you funding it? Why aren't you putting up your hard-earned cash so that they can go do this research? How dare you censor these people!! You see how stupid it sounds. There's just no defense here in the slightest this isn't remotely close to censorship. There is a limited amount of resources, a certain number of proposals will be turned down every year, in fact the majority of them, and it has always been the case. The government is prioritizing where it's spending its money and that's just the way it is. You can argue that they should be researching different things or prioritizing differently but you can't for a moment pretend this is censorship 1 Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Legato Posted February 15 Report Posted February 15 4 hours ago, Radiorum said: Hmm ... I don't buy this analogy that science is a "product." Science is the advance of knowledge, and to put limits on it is to put limits on the advancement of knowledge. Where ideology trumps science, to the point that science is rejected, only negative consequences for society can result. What if some scientists wanted funding for a study on the effectiveness of Russian Roulette . 5 out of 6 would say it's safe. There would be no scientists left if funding was a free for all. 1 Quote
Black Dog Posted February 15 Report Posted February 15 16 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: No. Censorship is censorship. Not sponsoring a study is not censorship. Declining to sponsor a study not because of its goals or methodology but because it uses wrong words is absolutely censorship, you pea brained loser. Quote
User Posted February 15 Report Posted February 15 1 minute ago, Black Dog said: Declining to sponsor a study not because of its goals or methodology but because it uses wrong words is absolutely censorship, you pea brained loser. Absolutely is not censorship. Even then, they are using the words to target and find the studies because of their goals. Coward id1ot. Quote
CdnFox Posted February 15 Report Posted February 15 3 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Declining to sponsor a study not because of its goals or methodology but because it uses wrong words is absolutely censorship, you pea brained loser. It's not even a tiny bit censorship. And in fact all the research that is turned down (which is a lot) is turned down because of 'words'. So if a guy wants to make a movie called "big N*gger" and the studio says "sorry, we're not interested in a show like that, we find the phrase offensive" is that studio "censoring"? Those researchers are free to go raise money somewhere else and sell their idea, there is zero censorship. As you yourself said this is not about them not being able to do the study or publish the results this is ONLY about who's going to pay for it. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.