Censorship in Trump's America

[User]

3 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

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

It is the position of the Executive branch now to prioritize funding where it will create the most value and sinking $$$ into leftist garbage isn't it. 

3 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

This is just  blather

Congratulations, this was how you started this thread and you have now run away from even trying to defend your original garbage assertions. 

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Radiorum said:

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

Political science doesn't count.

Quote

When politics controls science, it does not bode well.

Wait, I thought you said that you didn't want to talk about covid...

Quote

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.

Not an assumption at all. An assumption is that you're guilty of whiteness, and slave ownership. 

It's an 'observation' to say that DEI workshops are based on assumptions, false narratives, and total BS. 

Quote

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

No, I got CNN and NPR links. 

If you have something, post it.

Quote

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

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

NIH? You mean "the people who funded GoF research in Wuhan to create a bat coronavirus that was transmissible among humans, and then said "Hey, look! A PANGOLIN!!!!!" when a bat coronavirus that was transmissible among humans suddenly appeared in Wuhan? That NIH? 

Quote

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

So CNN told you it's a myth and you came here saying "It's a myth" 🤣 

At DOGE they're publishing actual lists of actual departments being affected, and what they fund.

FYI that's is literally the exact opposite of "mythical". It's "factual". 

[Radiorum]

18 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

No, I got CNN and NPR links. 

If you have something, post it.

i didn't. These were at the top of  my list:

The incoming US president is expected to gut support for research on the environment and infectious diseases

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00052-z

Donald Trump signed a slew of executive orders that could reshape science at home and abroad. The orders ... are designed to shift policies and priorities on several scientific issues, including climate and public health

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-trumps-executive-orders-mean-for-science/

Trump seems intent on freezing out professional scientists, especially those with strong academic research backgrounds. Instead, he is stocking the leadership of federal agencies with technologists and loyalists

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-trumps-first-days-say-about-science-in-the-new-administration/

And from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

we have launched our Save Science, Save Lives campaign to organize the scientific community and supporters of science-based policymaking to speak out against and challenge efforts to destroy data, bury evidence, and keep scientists from doing their jobs. Just this week, we mobilized more than 50,000 scientists and science supporters to urge the 119^th Congress to protect science and federal scientists from the incoming administration in order to continue delivering public benefits.

https://blog.ucsusa.org/pallavi-phartiyal/the-trump-administration-playbook-likely-to-target-science-and-scientists-were-ready-to-fight-back/

27 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

So CNN told you it's a myth and you came here saying "It's a myth"

I get none of my information from CNN

[WestCanMan]

7 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

i didn't. These were at the top of  my list:

The incoming US president is expected to gut support for research on the environment and infectious diseases

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00052-z

Donald Trump signed a slew of executive orders that could reshape science at home and abroad. The orders ... are designed to shift policies and priorities on several scientific issues, including climate and public health

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-trumps-executive-orders-mean-for-science/

Trump seems intent on freezing out professional scientists, especially those with strong academic research backgrounds. Instead, he is stocking the leadership of federal agencies with technologists and loyalists

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-trumps-first-days-say-about-science-in-the-new-administration/

And from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

we have launched our Save Science, Save Lives campaign to organize the scientific community and supporters of science-based policymaking to speak out against and challenge efforts to destroy data, bury evidence, and keep scientists from doing their jobs. Just this week, we mobilized more than 50,000 scientists and science supporters to urge the 119^th Congress to protect science and federal scientists from the incoming administration in order to continue delivering public benefits.

https://blog.ucsusa.org/pallavi-phartiyal/the-trump-administration-playbook-likely-to-target-science-and-scientists-were-ready-to-fight-back/

I get none of my information from CNN

Here's the first thing I saw in your link:

• Soon after being sworn in as the 47th President of the United States on Monday, Donald Trump signed a slew of executive orders that could reshape science at home and abroad. The orders — which direct the actions of the federal government but cannot change existing laws — are designed to shift policies and priorities on several scientific issues, including climate and public health. They also aim to cut the government workforce, which includes scientists, and potentially reduce its authority.

I know that you're scared, but you're supposed to be scared. That article is designed to sound ominous.

So tell me what you think these phrases ACTUALLY mean:

1. that could reshape science at home and abroad
2. designed to shift policies and priorities on several scientific issues, including climate and public health
3. They also aim to cut the government workforce, which includes scientists
4. and potentially reduce its (the gov't workforce's) authority.

1. Does that mean it WILL reshape science at home and abroad? Does it mean that any upcoming changes are designed to be bad?

2. So what if policies are shifting? And priorities? Their policy changes regarding public health were made very clear to you, and RFK has been very outspoken about making POSITIVE changes to America's food supply. FYI after Trump was elected, and before RFK could get into his MAHA role, the FDA suddenly decided to ban food dyes that were known to be toxic since the '90s. They started that process in December. Why then all of a sudden? It's been 30 years, Radiorum. Isn't it kinda random for it to suddenly happen now?

3. it INCLUDES scientists. So what? It doesn't even say that one scientist will lose their job, or their funding.

4. "potentially reduce its authority". Do you think that potentially means "for certain"? Do you know I could say that anying could potentially happen. There could potentially be a nuclear war tomorrow. An asteroid could potentially wipe us out next week. A leftist could potentially tell the truth this year. 

Do you think that's even a bad thing if their authority is reduced? What did the NIH and CDC do for you during covid, aside from create the virus? And chide the president for blocking non-Americans from flying in from China at the start of covid... and lie (or just be constantly wrong) about the jabs...

"They're safe and effective, you don't have to worry about covid, or giving it to granny. Weelllll, you'll get sick but no hospital for you. Ok, hospital but not ICU. OK, ICU. And uhhhh, yeah, it's injuring kids and killing people occasionally. But you won't die. Ok, old people with co-morbities will still die. Just like with the unvaxed. But everyone still has to take it."

 

Buddy, they could put Fauci up against the wall with a blindfold on - or without, IDGAF - and I'll volunteer to do the deed. 

[Radiorum]

@WestCanMan

So your whole argument is that maybe Trump and Musk are bluffing?

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Radiorum said:

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

It isn't the slightest bit subjective. Can you sell it or use it to generate significant revenue? No. Is private industry doing it because they see a commercial value in it? No. Will it be useful for making the lives better of the population in general rather than a specific interest group? No

Objectively therefore it has limited value and that absolutely does have a meaning in science.

Kid, if there's one thing that has become clear listening to you is you have absolutely no idea how science works, what science means, or how it is applied. So maybe stop making statements about things you have no knowledge of

 

Quote

You mean bend to Trump and Musk?

What I meant was what I said. And I see that not only could you not refute it you felt the need to try and change what I said because you couldn't cope with the fact that what I said was true

 

Quote

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

Part of what I'm talking about is capitalism and as we have seen in Canada for the last 10 years liberals do not support it

Quote

This is just  blather

It is the truth and once again you are unable to refute something so you just have a little personal hissy fit.

And this is something we see on the left quite a bit. When somebody on the right is wrong they can sometimes be angry about it or frustrated but they accept that they're wrong and one way or another they cope with it. When someone on the left is wrong they having a little emotional breakdown for some reason. They can't cope with it, they can't acknowledge it and they just sit there making stupid statements and banal sayings while they stew in their own cognitive dissonance. 

Sorry your reality doesn't match up with your echo chamber talking points. Learn to cope

[WestCanMan]

14 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

@WestCanMan

So your whole argument is that maybe Trump and Musk are bluffing?

No, and I'm sorry but the fact that that's what you gleaned from all that is just a function of your own confirmation bias, ignorance, and poor reading comprehension.

I'll put this in the simplest terms I can for you:

1. Trump and Elon said that they were creating DOGE to do some stuff
2. DOGE is doing the exact stuff that they said it would do
3. Every day DOGE is putting out the info on the ridiculous programs that are being partially or fully defunded, and the MSM never even attempts to defend those silly programs, they're just protesting that 'unelected' Musk is the one who's doing it. Well guess what: Musk was just as elected as Kamala Harris was, because Elon Musk and DOGE were a big part of Trump's campaign. He was very clear to American voters that Musk would be running the DOGE department, and he stood Elon up on stage and told voters that exact thing. Voters had the chance to nix that, and they decided that they wanted it, so now they have it. 
4. All of the above means that there's no bluffing, there's just what Trump and Musk said that they'd do. You just don't like it.

It's not my fault that the ominous insinuations of the deceitful leftard media sucked you in again. I'm just the messenger. Don't take it so personally, butthead. 

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Radiorum said:

 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.

It reveals that demonrats excessively fund "science", through the BS programs that DOGE is sticking a fork in, and then "science" in turn funds the dems.

"Here's the money. Now you have two jobs to do: 1) find some "science" that confirms our conclusions, 2) donate some of the taxpayers' money back to us." - DNC

[Radiorum]

22 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Can you sell it or use it to generate significant revenue? No. Is private industry doing it because they see a commercial value in it? No. Will it be useful for making the lives better of the population in general rather than a specific interest group? No

I don't see what any of these parameters have to do with subjectivity.

Anyway, looking at your last point. So, I guess you would say we should stop cancer research because it doesn't help the general population but only those with cancer?

(I have no other replies to the rest of your post because it is more blather.)

[Radiorum]

21 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Every day DOGE is putting out the info on the ridiculous programs that are being partially or fully defunded

According to DOGE! It's beyond me why you trust them.

21 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Musk was just as elected as Kamala Harris was, because Elon Musk and DOGE were a big part of Trump's campaign.

Alrighty, then! Let's give him the country!

 

[Deluge]

On 2/13/2025 at 3:43 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)

 

This is funny as hell. LOL! 

On 2/13/2025 at 4:19 PM, Aristides said:

The transition to a dictatorship is well underway.

You a$$holes better flee to the ME where's it's more supportive and understanding. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Radiorum said:

I don't see what any of these parameters have to do with subjectivity.

Their objectively measurable. Something that is objective is not subjective.

Quote

Anyway, looking at your last point. So, I guess you would say we should stop cancer research because it doesn't help the general population but only those with cancer?

100% of people may get cancer. 100% of people will not suddenly turn into lesbian dance artists.

 

Quote

(I have no other replies to the rest of your post because it is more blather.)

Which is quickly becoming your way of admitting defeat.

You can't address the points, you realize they're true but you don't want them to be, so you come up with a phony phrase and excuse to run and hide and stick your head in the sand.

I get it. For you and your kind dealing with facts can be a very emotionally difficult challenge. Feel better.

[Radiorum]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

You can't address the points, you realize they're true but you don't want them to be, so you come up with a phony phrase and excuse to run and hide and stick your head in the sand.

That wasn't it. You spout nonsense about your philosophy of the left, which is not philosophy at all but an attempt at the upper hand without interest in the issues. There, now you owe me five cents.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

That wasn't it.

Of course that was it it's becoming a habit with you.

The cat refute the points, you can't cope with the points, therefore you admit defeat and go stick your head in the sand to take your ball and go home.

Quote

You spout nonsense 

If it's nonsense refuting it would be extremely easy. But as with all of the issues you skip over you simply can't

And if you could you would have addressed the other points and simply ignored that one. But that's not what's happening here. What's happening here is you realize that I'm correct but that doesn't work with your echo chamber vision of the world and you're finding it upsetting so you make a banana point about something you can't refute and simply fail to address the rest

This is observation. I'm sure you'll either run away or fail to address any of this again and it's way too much to hope that you would actually address the issues at hand.

You have a good evening kiddo. Better luck next time

[Radiorum]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The cat refute the points

The lack of refutation lies with you. I feel pretty solid in my position.

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

fail to address any of this again

You have a habit of making about the poster instead of the post. Your position is weak.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Radiorum said:

The lack of refutation lies with you. I feel pretty solid in my position.

 

I did refute it. And then you had your little meltdown and stuck your head in the sand.

Those who can't listen to others or address contrary points of view often feel very solid in their positions. Pretending that only one answer exists is a common way that people convince themselves that they're on the right track  

Quote

You have a habit of making about the poster instead of the post. Your position is weak.

The position is solid and you didn't refute it. Your behavior is childish and I pointed it out. Those are two separate things and both of them are true. And you were unable to address either.

For example, we both know that objective measurements are not subjective yet you completely pretended you had no idea why anybody could think of objective measurements is anything but subjective. That's just childish. Instead what you should have done is address the fact that there are objective reasons to believe that this research is of limited value.

But you can't because that flies in the face of your position which was weak to begin with and you're having trouble coping with that.

Let me get you back on track. This is in no way shape or form censorship. The information and research that they are refusing to fund is of low value by objective standards and it is absolutely their job to determine what is and isn't worth spending the limited funds available on when it comes to research and prioritizing. You have not shown that this information is valuable, you've not shown that this information cannot receive private funding and be conducted in that fashion, norview address the fact that they absolutely can raise their money elsewhere and do the research if they do believe it as value and other people believe that as well.

Cope with it

[gatomontes99]

On 2/15/2025 at 9:48 AM, 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.

 

No it isn't. No one is owed government promotion. Cmon man. Use your brain not your feelings. 

[WestCanMan]

15 hours ago, Radiorum said:

According to DOGE! It's beyond me why you trust them.

Do I "trust them"? Not really. I hate the US gov't now. Do I think that they're telling the truth about gov't waste? 

Ask yourself some simple questions, Radiorum...

Do leftists hate Doge?

Do leftists want to discredit DOGE?

Of course.

So why don't leftists just take the simple, easy step of showing people that DOGE is lying, instead of just crying about Elon?

• "Elon wasn't elected 😭"
• "Elon has too much access to information 😭"
• "Elon is the president 😭"

[User]

This whole thread is a joke. 

@Radiorum, are you even American?

Canada is actually up there enacting all sorts of "hate speech" laws and Europeans are getting arrested by armed police units showing up at their homes for posting memes. 

And you are on here talking about American censorship because Trump isn't going to use tax payer $$$ for shitty leftist research garbage?

 

[Radiorum]

21 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Do leftists hate Doge?

It's not about hate. People who criticize the actions of Trump and Musk and DOGE have a real and valid concern that what we are witnessing is a coup designed to engender regime change in the US.

if it was waste they wanted to rout out, why did they first fire all the Inspector-generals whose job it is to find waste?

Because that was never their intention. They want to make the Executive  branch above the law, as Trump's and Musk's attacks on any judges who rule their actions illegal make clear.

25 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

So why don't leftists just take the simple, easy step of showing people that DOGE is lying, instead of just crying about Elon?

Musk's lies are well documented, but the MAGA crowd are so blinded by the propaganda Trump and Musk spew.

And yes, DOGE is a hoax, too

Elon Musk is a newbie to government, but I’ll pay him the compliment of assuming that he’s studied the federal ledger in enough detail already to have grasped the truth of Riedl’s points. If so, he must know that DOGE’s work is futile—as a fiscal project, except on a very modest scale. Trying to put a meaningful dent in overspending by gutting outfits like USAID is like trying to pay off one’s student loans by scaling back on lattes at Starbucks. The math won’t math.

But DOGE isn’t a fiscal project. It’s an ideological project. And from that standpoint, it’s been pretty successful.

 

[Radiorum]

19 minutes ago, User said:

use tax payer $$$ for shitty leftist research garbage?

 

the question of scientific autonomy and public oversight is an important one. 

Restrictions on scientific autonomy should only come into play to make sure the science causes no harm.

Restrictions should not be put on science for ideological reasons.

[gatomontes99]

Let this thread stand as the perfect example of hypocrisy. On one hand, liberals like Margaret Brennan are blaming free speech for the Holocaust and on the other they are claiming Trump is censoring people for not paying them for their thoughts.

But they don't care that they are hypocrites. Please understand this. They don't care. All they care about is control and they don't care if they are hypocrites or are seen as hypocrites. As long as the argument they make is perceived as gaining power and control, they will make it.

When they say Trump is censoring scientists and lack of censorship caused the Holocaust, they don't mean Trump is doing the right thing and they believe both can exist in the same world as intellectually acceptable.

[User]

Just now, Radiorum said:

the question of scientific autonomy and public oversight is an important one. 

Restrictions on scientific autonomy should only come into play to make sure the science causes no harm.

Restrictions should not be put on science for ideological reasons.

No one is restricting science. You are free to fund these studies all you want to. Why don't you write them a check if you find them so valuable?

Are you even American? 

 

[Radiorum]

38 minutes ago, User said:

No one is restricting science. You are free to fund these studies all you want to. Why don't you write them a check if you find them so valuable?

You just don't get it.

The US is forfeiting their leadership role in the world of science. I wonder who will assume it now.

… research funding being slashed, staff being told to quit and key programmes being withdrawn,

for example:

Quote

 

Trump has signed dozens of executive orders. One ordered the closure of the US Agency for International Development, which has supported medical and other missions worldwide for more than six decades. 

Trump administration has asked the National Science Foundation (NSF), which funds much US basic and applied research, to lay off between a quarter and a half of its staff in the next two months.

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) … half its staff could be sacked and its budget slashed by 30%.

As for the long-term impact of these changes, James Gates – a theoretical physicist at the University of Maryland and a past president of the US National Society of Black Physicists – is blunt. “My country is in for a 50-year period of a new dark ages,” he told an audience at the Royal College of Art in London, UK, on 7 February.

 

US science in chaos as impact of Trump’s executive orders sinks in

[CdnFox]

39 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

the question of scientific autonomy and public oversight is an important one. 

Do you know what autonomy means? Autonomy means they are independent. I absolutely agree, make them autonomous. They can raise their own funding and research whatever they want.

What you're talking about isn't autonomy.

And why is public oversight important? They can do whatever private research they want and present their findings and their methodology to the world to be reviewed. What oversight do you need?

Once again you picked a fight because you have feelings not because it makes sense. He's research groups are welcome to start up a not for profit that seeks donation and publish the list of what they'd like to research and people can put their money in if they want and fund it. Absolutely nothing is stopping that. It's like PBS, they go to the public they raise the money they stay separate from the government with only a small amount of cash coming from the taxpayer.

Yes, everybody knows that the liberals would like to have everybody else's money to research whatever far left woke ideology that they would like to research and they're very very mad that the tap is being turned off. But that's what happens. Nobody's interested in researching lesbian dance theory anymore at the public expense, if you want to raise money privately to do that research absolutely nobody will stop you.