It's become very evident from the outside that the best time to stand up was yesterday, and you might already be too far down the slope to be able to quickly recover for this. I really do feel for all Americans who just want to have a normal life with an average quality of life or above, but at one point the environment around you change so quickly that that stops being even a possibility in the future. If your life hasn't been affected yet, it will be shortly.
The best day to stand up against the ongoing censorship and repression might have been yesterday, but the second-best day to do so is today. You really need to start caring about this before it's way to late. One "no kings protest" every 6 months is not gonna do anything, what you need is wide solidarity across industries, and a real general strike across the country. The second you do this, you'll see that the many and poor can control the few and rich.
- The population is kept just comfortable enough to become complacent, with easy access to intoxicants, brainrot media and fast food. Now there are even robots that can do our thinking for us. A large percentage of people are brainwashed into thinking that all change is bad because it will cause them to lose the paltry, ersatz freedom they have rather than gaining real liberty.
- The labor pool is kept large enough that any of us could be replaced immediately with no significant loss to our employers. As the ISP mantra goes, “we have nothing to lose but our jobs”.
Yes, we know that they couldn’t replace _all_ of us at once, but combine points 1 and 2 and you will start to understand why there is no appreciable labor movement in the United States.
Growing up, I always heard Americans bragging about freedom of speech, and how important it is. I'll admit I swallowed that wholesale as a young impressionable person in another country, and I still believe in it, just not the American freedom of speech flavor I suppose. But it's so sad to see the state of affairs compared to just ten years ago, where discussions could be freely held, even on mainstream social media, and people weren't afraid of talking about things with clear words.
But the chilling effect is in full effect today, and I think it's having a large impact on how well (or not) the working class could actually mobilize. Because as soon as anyone mentions "general strike" on social media, they seem to disappear into a black hole and that stuff never shows up in people's feeds. Regardless of the size of the labor pool, if you can't organize people somehow, especially across a large country like the US, it's short of impossible to actually get any change in reality.
If you look around the world, this is effectively the natural state of affairs: India, South Africa, Nigeria, Russia... they all have the same pattern. The US and the West was the outlier in the '50-'90 because we had a lot of wealth redistribution AND free markets. Then the boomers were like, fuck that, we want to all be rich... and they mostly are, but everyone else is fucked.
Government is hard, you need people to give a shit. We decided we don't care somewhere along the way.
The article linked doesn't even say what exactly they were protesting (beyond a rather vague "attacks on scientific research" which could mean a lot of things).
I can hardly think of a more peaceful form of protest, which only intended to make aware the participants about the content of the article. Those who were not interested presumably refused to take the article copy or did not read it.
Even on HN you can still see claims that USA is a "free" country where anyone can say anything about the government, without consequences. This example shows clearly that this claim is false.
Indeed, my view and perspective is built by a culmination of recent events, not based on a single event. The widespread self-censorship Americans currently engage in (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48434091) is also a large part of it.
I don't have any "index of events" handy that could explain why I think the slope is so evident currently, but based on the ongoing journalistic suppression, individual self-censorship, centralization of control and power in governments and society together with lots of other smaller incidents like this one and others, makes it pretty clear to me at least.
By letting NIH political operatives in, the ADA made the conference itself a political event.
> The article linked doesn't even say what exactly they were protesting (beyond a rather vague "attacks on scientific research" which could mean a lot of things).
It does mean a lot of things, and the Trump administration is doing roughly all of them. Sorry about your lack of basic knowledge of current events.
— Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom
If your life hasnt been affected yet, you arent paying attention. Or, it has been affected for the better because you are one of the many who generally support the movement.
I wasn't, or at least I don't think I am. What did I write that gave you that impression? I mainly wrote about freedom of speech and censorship, and nothing of meat about the military really, but maybe I don't realize what I wrote sounds like.
Don't get me wrong, anything is better than nothing, and many small streams may form into one big river, eventually. But short of a general strike across impactful industries, I think the current wave of protests won't actually achieve anything.
There is a reason "general strikes" are so feared by the political and wealthy class, and it's because there is no way for them to get rid of them without actually agreeing to some of the demands, otherwise the strikes actually impact their lives. Protesting by going out on the streets waving signs isn't gonna accomplish that, sadly.
I understand the want to protest, but you do know that misrepresentation doesn't help, right?
Refusing to cease by an even organisers order will, yes, result in being escorted out forcefully by security.
Sure. But if two groups of people are distributing articles published in the organisation’s own journal, with one of them containing elements of political speech, and the organization censors that one, it’s absolutely valid to ask if anyone in government directed that censorship.
The core of the argument is they should not have been asked to cease distributing their article, that’s literally one of the purposes of an academic conference, plenty of other people were doing it in various ways. The ADA, in claiming it was enforcing its rules, was in fact not following them.
What behavior exactly were they being given an opportunity to cease?
This would probably have been fine if this administration was not comprised of individuals that cannot abide any sort of pushback.
The protest would not have been needed without the official there - but their presence made the organizers so nervous that they tossed the editor in chief of their own journal.
The problem is how deep the federal dollars go into these systems that enable fear of pulling it. That is the mechanism of control. Our own tax dollars being weaponized.
The problem is no state AG suing to stop OMB and HHS from illegally re-appropriating funds directed by the Congress for diabetes research. Like, the multi-year funding shenanigan called out in the article is literally accounting fuckery.
> > Some questioned how handing out reprints of an editorial published in the ADA’s own journal, at the ADA’s own annual conference, could be construed as a violation of that code.
Though there is a good case that breaking that rule is the best action. Getting kicked out probably did more for their cause then their protest. They just need the guts to publicly stand by.
There are few cases where it is so clear cut that only the organizers have violated the code of conduct, and not those who were expelled from the conference.
"This organization is controlled by Trump loyalists. They are not scientists. You do not owe them respect. Speak over them. Let no manipulation go unchallenged or derided."
Strongly disagree. If they went straight up partisan at the conference, I’d be sympathetic to the notion of throwing them out. Not every space needs to be a protest venue.
They didn’t do that. They distributed an article published in the organization’s own journal. They argue why what they did cannot reasonably be considered “protest” under the organisation’s rules, given it’s literally what the conference is for. Challenging the notion that their ejection was the ADA following its own rules is the difference between them breaking the rules and the ADA breaking its own rules to censor their speech. (To cut off an aside, no the ADA isn’t bound by the First Amendment. Yes, the government is, and if they’re corruptly influencing to yank these researchers from the conference, that’s a legal issue. But more broadly, the concept of free speech is broader than the First Amendment.)
Because the fascists made it so.
Anywhere you try to declare an apolitical space is just a place where silence is serving the oppressor.
Something that may resonate with a broader spectrum is how science requires debate and polite disagreement. Good ideas can survive being pressure tested. Compelling consensus has terrible long-term outcomes.
"Scientists were ejected from a meeting of the American Diabetes Associate for distributing printouts of an editorial that had appeared in the ADA journal. Here's the link: https://diabetesjournals.org/.../Misguided-Brushes-of-a.... The article highlights "the many threats the current U.S. administration pose[s] to the health of our nation". I recommend that you do read it: it is not technical, you don't need to have a degree in medicine or biology to read it. What do people not understand about the First Amendment?"
I believe that the time for counting signs of dictatorship had gone already. The signs were counted all before Trump was elected. For example: https://acoup.blog/2024/10/25/new-acquisitions-1933-and-the-...
Now it is funny to look for signs enabling us to decide whether Trump presidency is a personal enrichment or a vanity project. It seems that it is both, but I can't decide what is more important to him.
- the organizers are doing what they think is best for the attendees, and what the majority of attendees want
And, you should consider: "what if everyone did that?"
I gather they had a paper they thought was important, but was not accepted to the conference (so they had no formal chance to present it). What would happen if everyone who's paper was rejected could just wander around passing it out and pitching it to random passerby's? I think almost everyone who attends conferences would not want that.
I wonder what other options they considered. Did the conference have a less formal forum, like workshops or something? Could the topic be discussed there? A poster session?
Literally every academic conference.
> but was not accepted to the conference (so they had no formal chance to present it)
One, source for it not being accepted to the conference? It was accepted to the conference organizer’s journal.
Two, again, literally every academic conference. Folks handing out their papers, including preprints not published at the organizer’s journal, is ridiculously common.
> Could the topic be discussed there?
Again, literally just handing out their article.
If they wanted to be political in a scientific conference, they could have done so by handing the opinion piece outside the venue at the entrance. Whoever wanted to get into their politics could do it, and whoever wanted to be left alone and be there for the science could do it as well.
It's extremely disrespectful to be pressuring the other people in the conference with their ideology.
Doesn’t this just mean not practicing? Broadly speaking, that per se seems fine.
How? Researchers handing out a journal from the conference organizer’s own journal is now protesting and banned at conferences?
The “protestors” include the editor of the journal. They knew what the rules were and they followed them. If Conference A gets to yank research because a non-science MBA at the journal thinks it could hurt their stock price, and Conference B doesn’t allow that, which conference do you think will do more important work?
There’s a word for countries where speaking literal, objective, scientific truth is framed as protesting and therefore objectionable.
The God Emperor is not to be questioned.
> The Emperor was vexed, for he knew that the people were right; but he thought the procession must go on now! And the lords of the bedchamber took greater pains than ever, to appear holding up a train, although, in reality, there was no train to hold.
From https://americanliterature.com/author/hans-christian-anderse...
At this rate, English could be replaced by Mandarin as the main international language of commerce. The only thing that could hold it back is the writing system.
If China could convert its writing to use the Latin alphabet I think that could happen with the US now on the path of destroying its research institutions.
Something is fundamentally broken in the USA. It's like Neo-Russia, or rather handled like that by those cronies.
These kind of behaviour should trigger the dismantling of the whole ADA organisation, then to be rebuilt on proper grounds.
As usual i’m not surprised these fascist behaviours (“you’d better align with us and publicly pledge allegiance to us or else”) comes from the left. They’re the real fascist.
