Censorship in Trump's America

[CouchPotato]

On 2/14/2025 at 7:23 PM, Black Dog said:

Censorship by another name is still censorship.

 

No one's freedom of expression is being denied here.  My freedom of expression does not require that others must fund it. It only requires that no one interferes with it.

Edited February 16 by CouchPotato

[Radiorum]

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

hose researchers are free to go raise money somewhere else and sell their idea, there is zero censorship.

Conservatives are the first ones to cry foul when science is funded by special interests. They cite "big money" funding as the number one reason they do not trust the science. Then, they turn around and say government funding, which would be more impartial, should be halted, too. It just sounds like Conservatives are anti-science.

[Nationalist]

27 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

Conservatives are the first ones to cry foul when science is funded by special interests. They cite "big money" funding as the number one reason they do not trust the science. Then, they turn around and say government funding, which would be more impartial, should be halted, too. It just sounds like Conservatives are anti-science.

Not anti-science...anti-lies.

[Radiorum]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Not anti-science...anti-lies.

Trump and Musk are not cutting funding to scientific research for any lies, but for their own nefarious plan to take over the  government, using ideology as the pretext. They are indeed the liars.

[Nationalist]

29 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

Trump and Musk are not cutting funding to scientific research for any lies, but for their own nefarious plan to take over the  government, using ideology as the pretext. They are indeed the liars.

That is a lie.

[User]

2 hours ago, Radiorum said:

Conservatives are the first ones to cry foul when science is funded by special interests. They cite "big money" funding as the number one reason they do not trust the science. Then, they turn around and say government funding, which would be more impartial, should be halted, too. It just sounds like Conservatives are anti-science.

This is a pretty big strawman, but either way, a change of subject from your original bogus claims that this is censorship. 

This is how these discussions go with folks like you. Make outrageous claims, run away from them when you are wrong, make more claims.... 

 

1 hour ago, Radiorum said:

Trump and Musk are not cutting funding to scientific research for any lies, but for their own nefarious plan to take over the  government, using ideology as the pretext. They are indeed the liars.

What is this nefarious plan and how did you get a copy of it? 

[Radiorum]

Just now, User said:

This is a pretty big strawman, but either way, a change of subject from your original bogus claims that this is censorship. 

This is how these discussions go with folks like you. Make outrageous claims, run away from them when you are wrong, make more claims.... 

 

In other words, you have no valid counterpoint. 

[User]

18 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

In other words, you have no valid counterpoint. 

You never made a valid point to counter with anything other than calling it out for what it was. A strawman. 

[WestCanMan]

On 2/14/2025 at 2:21 PM, Radiorum said:

You conflate your prejudices with reality.

If you are genuinely concerned about the topic of censorship, then can you tell me how you feel about the fact that people were banned from social media for talking about the BSL4 lab in Wuhan? 

Isn't "forbidding the discussion of reasonable topics" the epitome of censorship? 

Back when that censorship happened, we were all under the impression that it was just because Fauci, aka "science incarnate", said that the virus had mutated in a pangolin or some other intermediary species and that was the end of it, but now we know that the other likely option - the BSL4 lab - came with a heaping side of Faucian culpability. 

 

Talk about that censorship now, radiorum. You want to appear to be an intelligent, open-minded person, so tell us: why we weren't allowed to know about the possible/likely Faucian origin of covid?

Why have leftists always ignored this most serious form of censorship...? "THE PEONS MUST ONLY BE EXPOSED TO OUR RIDICULOUS FABRICATION!"

Edited February 16 by WestCanMan

[Radiorum]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

If you are genuinely concerned about the topic of censorship, then can you tell me how you feel about the fact that people were banned from social media for talking about the BSL4 lab in Wuhan? 

There's no corollary between what is happening to scientific research in the US and whatever decisions were made my social media companies a few years ago. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Science strangled is science killed.

Besides, you should be very happy that big tech has come out firmly on the side of the Right, now.

 

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, Radiorum said:

There's no corollary between what is happening to scientific research in the US and whatever decisions were made my social media companies a few years ago. You're comparing apples and oranges.

No, this wasn't a small decision, hastily made by all of the social media giants, who all "randomly" came to the same conclusion, or who ended up at the wrong conclusion based on their strong adherence to scientific principles, common sense and integrity.

In case you missed it, all of the members of the MSM in Canada, the USA and Europe all 'randomly' came to the same unlikely conclusion as well...

So what did they have in common, aside from their poor judgement? 

They were all members of TNI before you ever heard of covid. 

They didn't follow the science, or use their own sniff tests to follow the news, they just did what they were told. 

• CBC/Radio-Canada is joining an industry collaboration of major media and technology organizations to rapidly identify and stop the spread of harmful coronavirus disinformation.

  Starting today, partners in the Trusted News Initiative will alert each other to disinformation about coronavirus, including “imposter content” purporting to come from trusted sources. Such content will be reviewed promptly to ensure that disinformation is not republished. This will complement work already underway by CBC and Radio-Canada to expose mistruths and disinformation around the global pandemic. See the CBC's COVID-Check unit's work on false claims and conspiracy theories, and Radio-Canada’s Décrypteurs for more.

  The Trusted News Initiative partners are: BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, Facebook, Google/YouTube, Twitter, Microsoft, AFP, Reuters, Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), The Hindu, First Draft, and Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

  CBC/Radio-Canada announced its participation in the Trusted News Initiative in September 2019.

Does the censorship take on a bit of a new meaning when you realize that all of the social media and MSM in the western world were working together?

Who gets together to get their stories straight when they're telling the truth?

We were literally surrounded by MSM outlets and social media giants all over the world who were broadcasting all the same propaganda and censoring everything else. 

What you're talking about is a moon-cast shadow of "all of social media and MSM lying together". 

[User]

43 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

There's no corollary between what is happening to scientific research in the US and whatever decisions were made my social media companies a few years ago. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Exactly. 

What the left did was far more close to censorship than anything you have presented here. They are not even close. 

[Radiorum]

@WestCanMan

You're moving the goal posts. I didn't start this thread to talk about Covid.

And I can't see how anything you wrote justifies what is going on with science in the US right now.

 

 

[WestCanMan]

19 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

@WestCanMan

You're moving the goal posts. I didn't start this thread to talk about Covid.

You started this thread to talk about censorship in America, but the thread isn't even about censorship. You used the word incorrectly.

FYI Trump's not censoring any of those words, or topics, he's putting those words into a search bar to track down massive amounts of government waste and to eliminate discriminatory practices. 

In no way is anything that he's doing there unseemly, immoral, secretive, underhanded, or un-American. He got elected to do those things. He's "fulfilling an election promise" by doing that.

The Dems had their opportunity to defeat him in the last election if they wanted to save their racist, sexist drivel and they lost. Now they have to sit on the sidelines, or chant like drunken sailors, while the gov't goes to work. 

 

If you want to talk about "censorship in America", then I offered you an opportunity to talk about the most egregious example of censorship ever in the western world, even going back before Hitler was born, and it happened while you were an adult. 

Quote

And I can't see how anything you wrote justifies what is going on with science in the US right now.

It's "justified" because he got elected to do it. How much more justified can it get than that?

It's justified because he's doing it to end discrimination. That's just as justified as the item above.

It's justified because there's no need to justify anything that's not hurtful, immoral, illegal, and is done to actually save money and protect people from discrimination. 

Do you need to "justify" telling your kid not to rip the wings off of a dragonfly? No, you just do it because it's your kid, and that's how you want them to act, and you'd like them to have some empathy instead of being a psychopath. 

 

The topic of "censorship in America (and Canada)" already came up, and leftists were overwhelmingly in favour of it, and now they'd like to forget about it and accuse others of it. 

Sorry Radiorum, but I just hoisted you on your own petard. You can go now. 

[Radiorum]

9 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You started this thread to talk about censorship in America

I started this thread to comment on the attack on science in the US

 

9 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

he's putting those words into a search bar to track down massive amounts of government waste

How does the use of the word "women" indicate waste? That is one of the flagged words.

11 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

He's "fulfilling an election promise" by doing that.

I don't believe he was elected to decimate science. You'll have to back this statement up with evidence.

Sorry, I just don't believe that the US voted to lose their worldwide science leadership. To see their place in the scientific world eradicated. I don't think the US voted to destroy science in America.

[User]

54 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

You're moving the goal posts. I didn't start this thread to talk about Covid.

Then why have you also run away from the point of this thread?

 

2 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

How does the use of the word "women" indicate waste? That is one of the flagged words.

We have spent the last few years having to argue with folks like you about the meaning of woman because you have been trying to refine the term. 

So, it makes sense to flag that to see what kind of stupid garbage Biden's administration was funneling money to. 

 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Radiorum said:

Conservatives are the first ones to cry foul when science is funded by special interests.

I wouldn't say the first, I would say both sides are equally prone to slinging such stones if they perceive the group that did the funding to be biased in any way. The lefties are just as quick to decry a report funded by Big Oil. And fair enough, bias is always an issue even when it is government funding.

 

5 hours ago, Radiorum said:

Then, they turn around and say government funding, which would be more impartial, should be halted, too. It just sounds like Conservatives are anti-science

Government funding is every bit as biased. The government tends to fund research that supports its policies or enforces its belief system that it's selling. Why do you think there were so many papers on lesbians etc etc under the previous administration? Why do you think there will be none under this administration?

And further, even when the gov't isn't bias the people from the gov't in charge of allocating the money very often are.  There has been much talk about how left leaning achademics have refused to fund any research that might contradict the narrative on climate change for example, even if that isn't a gov't instruction. 

All research is questionable. The peer review process is better than nothing but almost useless. All you can do is begin to look at bodies at work and look at the research itself and have a discussion about it.

But regardless, there's nothing anti-science about saying I as a taxpayer and not interested in funding Research into lesbian dance theory. I don't see that as being a research topic that will benefit the nation in such a way as to justify a public expenditure.

And you are being disingenuous when you make your claim that just because they are saying they don't want to find these subjects that funding itself will go down. Different research will be done, not necessarily less research.

And there is no group more anti-science than the left these days. The left wing religiously ignore science that doesn't support its point often to the point of Ridiculousness. So before you go throwing any stones you might want to get out of that glass house of yours

 

Edited February 16 by CdnFox

[WestCanMan]

40 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

I started this thread to comment on the attack on science in the US

1) Censorship in Trump's America

2) 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)

 

Can you point to "science" on that list? 

Also, when you said "the research will not be funded", that was a lie. The existence of those words doesn't automatically end funding. It just raises a red flag.

Quote

How does the use of the word "women" indicate waste? That is one of the flagged words.

The word women obviously does not inherently indicate waste. 

The use of most of the terms on that list doesn't automatically indicate waste. 

The use of those words indicates that there's a good chance that a highly subjective "study" was done with the aim of arriving at a desired conclusion, and said study might be a waste of money and/or could be used to discriminate against Americans. 

Quote

I don't believe he was elected to decimate science. You'll have to back this statement up with evidence.

I don't believe that you've made a connection between the things that you're talking about and censorship. 

I don't believe that you've made a connection between the things that you're talking about and science. 

We're well into page 3 here, on the 4th day of this thread being here, and where's your evidence of censorship or the decimation of science? 

 

My evidence? TRUMP GOT ELECTED TO ELIMINATE GOVERNMENT WASTE AND END DEI DISCRIMINATION. That's my evidence.

So he flagged words that are regularly used in DEI drivel pages and now they're looking at the pages which contain those words to see if studies need to be eliminated to either end discriminatory practices or prevent waste.

Quote

Sorry, I just don't believe that the US voted to lose their worldwide science leadership.

And they never did vote that way. If you think that the items on that list somehow indicate that there's likely a lot of serious science going on then wherever you are, science is not. 

Quote

I don't think the US voted to destroy science in America.

Americans voted to put the science back in science, and to take discriminatory DEI drivel out of hiring spaces.

I know that you don't like it, but the majority of people are against you, and your posts indicate a vast ignorance of what science actually is. 

Edited February 16 by WestCanMan

[Radiorum]

@CdnFox - you are pointing out a few trees but missing the forest. (And I call your trees into question - "lesbian dance theory" - really, what a way to muddle the issue.)

there is chaos going on at many science agencies right now.

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The government tends to fund research that supports its policies or enforces its belief system that it's selling.

 And it just so happens that the left is progressive and the right reactionary.

the right wants to bring us back to the dark ages.

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And there is no group more anti-science than the left these days. The left wing religiously ignore science that doesn't support its point often to the point of Ridiculousness.

The Right does not use science to support its positions. rather, they use narrow-minded ideology.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Radiorum said:

Trump and Musk are not cutting funding to scientific research for any lies,

They are cutting funding to research which supports a political agenda rather than provides needed research. Lesbian dance theory research does not benefit America as a whole nor is it necessary. And they're not cutting funding at all they're saying that what funding there is will not go to that particular topic.

And while it might be a stretch to say that that's supporting lies it absolutely is not a stretch to say it is supporting propaganda and a political agenda rather than honest research. They're absolutely right to say we're not interested in that anymore

[Radiorum]

20 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Can you point to "science" on that list? 

If you don't see it, I can't point it out to you.

21 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The existence of those words doesn't automatically end funding. It just raises a red flag.

When politics controls science, it does not bode well.

22 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The use of those words indicates that there's a good chance that a highly subjective "study" was done with the aim of arriving at a desired conclusion, and said study might be a waste of money and/or could be used to discriminate against Americans. 

You are including some unfounded assumptions here. "Highly subjective study" - an assumption. "arriving at a desired conclusion" - an assumption. So, not worth the breath it took to utter them.

24 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I don't believe that you've made a connection between the things that you're talking about and censorship. 

I don't believe that you've made a connection between the things that you're talking about and science. 

We're well into page 3 here, on the 4th day of this thread being here, and where's your evidence of censorship or the decimation of science? 

Google "Trump's policy guts science' and you will get a long list of evidence

You'll see that it means massive cuts to science and medicine

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5468112/

But, it will probably mean increased funding to AI, because Musk wants his xAI company to run the government

34 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

TRUMP GOT ELECTED TO ELIMINATE GOVERNMENT WASTE AND END DEI DISCRIMINATION

 

But this is a myth that Trump and Musk have sold you

36 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Americans voted to put the science back in science, and to take discriminatory DEI drivel out of hiring spaces.

Lol, maybe we should just stick with photosynthesis.

 

 

[Radiorum]

32 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They are cutting funding to research which supports a political agenda

The relationship between politics and science is an interesting one. I suppose we can say that all scientists have a particular political ideology. it is well known that scientists donate more to the Democrat party than the Republican party.

What does this reveal? Not a dark plot, but rather a recognition that the Democrat party is more progressive, and science by its very nature is progressive, too. It's a natural fit.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

@CdnFox - you are pointing out a few trees but missing the forest. (And I call your trees into question - "lesbian dance theory" - really, what a way to muddle the issue.)

It's a common phrase to mean woke left research that is not of any real value. I'm sure you'll get over it  

3 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

there is chaos going on at many science agencies right now.

Good. There is great value in shaking that established tree every now and then and forcing them to rethink recalibrate and reorganize. Those groups are every bit as susceptible to becoming stale and corrupt as any other and every now and then you've got to kick over the anthill and let them rebuild. 

1 hour ago, Radiorum said:

 And it just so happens that the left is progressive and the right reactionary.

the right wants to bring us back to the dark ages.

Sorry but that's just your echo chamber propaganda talking. The left isn't Progressive. The left is ideology driven and claims that everything it wants to do is Progressive even when it is regressive. It's your way of saying you're the good guys and all others are the bad guys, but it's meaningless. 

Every major advancement in our culture had come from the right.  Most of our technology which has freed people from having to work in agriculture (until recently in human history 80 - 90 percent of the jobs were focused just on providing food) and gave them the time to pursue other activities. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system including socialism by an order of magnitude. 

The right is anything but reactionary. The right is what builds things. The right is what invents things. The right is responsible for more equality than anything the left has ever done. The right promotes meritocracy which is the strongest and most permanent cure for racism and sexism there is. 

1 hour ago, Radiorum said:

The Right does not use science to support its positions. rather, they use narrow-minded ideology.

the right constantly uses science to support its positions.

Again your feelings on this are not based on facts but rather are based on hatred and bigotry which is really all the left is worried about these days

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Radiorum said:

The relationship between politics and science is an interesting one. I suppose we can say that all scientists have a particular political ideology. it is well known that scientists donate more to the Democrat party than the Republican party.

 

Sure. Academics in general these days are more left-leaning than right leaning although that has fluctuated over history. But today that is the case. So if you were raised in an environment which hammers home far left thinking day and night obviously a higher percentage is going to lean to the left.

There's also a practical consideration. Republicans are more likely to think that if research is worth doing the private sector will pay for it and if it's not worth doing why are we asking the public to pay for it? Obviously they recognize that there are some research that should be done even though it may not have commercial value today but the democrats are more likely to be a little wasteful in that respect and obviously the more money available for research the better as far as they're concerned.

1 hour ago, Radiorum said:

What does this reveal? Not a dark plot, but rather a recognition that the Democrat party is more progressive, and science by its very nature is progressive, too. It's a natural fit.

No that's stupid. And amusingly and somewhat ironically very unscientific  

 

[Radiorum]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

woke left research that is not of any real value.

this is a subjective position of the right that has no meaning to science

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

There is great value in shaking that established tree every now and then and forcing them to rethink recalibrate and reorganize. Those groups are every bit as susceptible to becoming stale and corrupt as any other and every now and then you've got to kick over the anthill and let them rebuild. 

You mean bend to Trump and Musk?

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Every major advancement in our culture had come from the right.  Most of our technology which has freed people from having to work in agriculture (until recently in human history 80 - 90 percent of the jobs were focused just on providing food) and gave them the time to pursue other activities. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system including socialism by an order of magnitude. 

You are talking about capitalism. You can support capitalism and be a liberal

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

The right is anything but reactionary. The right is what builds things. The right is what invents things. The right is responsible for more equality than anything the left has ever done. The right promotes meritocracy which is the strongest and most permanent cure for racism and sexism there is. 

This is just  blather