Reason Roundup

'Cancel Culture' at U.S. Colleges Not Getting Worse, Say Liberal Professors. Conservative Colleagues Disagree.

Plus: Georgia makes it a hate crime to damage police property, SCOTUS denies relief to prisoners, Trump escalates war on Chinese apps, study casts doubt on "diversity training," coronavirus in schools, and more…

|

Political science professors polled on academic freedom and campus censorship. How bad is "cancel culture" in academia? Not too big of a problem, say more liberal-leaning professors in a survey analysis published by Harvard's Pippa Norris, a professor of political science and director of the Electoral Integrity Project. Their conservative colleagues, however, disagree—at least in the U.S. and other affluent, post-industrial countries. Results skewed just the opposite in less wealthy and developed countries.

Media coverage and commentary suggest that academic freedom is diminishing, notes Norris. She wanted to know if "systematic empirical evidence" supported the narrative of "a pervasive 'cancel culture' taking hold of academic life in many countries."

To find out, Norris looked at data from the World of Political Science, 2019, whose respondents included 2,446 academics in 102 countries. This included 1,245 responses "from political scientists studying or working in 23 affluent post-industrial societies (including the U.S., Europe, and Australasia)."

Norris first delved into the political identities of these professors. "Survey data confirmed the left-wing skew in the discipline of political science," states the study, which also stressed that "the extent of the imbalance should not be exaggerated," since most people were closer to the center than the poles.

Worldwide, a majority of political scientists surveyed—58 percent—described themselves as moderately left and 27 percent called themselves moderately right. Fourteen percent claimed the far left mantle, while just two percent called themselves far right.

Things skewed more strongly left when confined to respondents studying or working in the United States:

Two-thirds of American political scientists (65%) saw themselves as moderate left on the ideological scale, which an additional small group (15%) located themselves as far left. By contrast, overall one fifth (20%) saw themselves as moderate right, but almost no respondents saw themselves as 'far right'.

Of course, an "ideological skew in higher education … does not necessarily imply growing intolerance for alternative values and beliefs, limiting intellectual debate and pluralism," as Norris points out. The next phase of the study was to examine "on the basis of their personal experiences, do many political scientists feel that restrictions on academic freedom of speech, pressures for ideological conformity, and politically correct speech have worsened in recent years?"

To answer this second question, Norris constructed a "Cancel Culture Index." Whether a respondent identified as left or right significantly and consistently "predicted scores on this index," she found—though "the effects varied in direction by the type of society under comparison."

In the U.S. and 23 comparable societies, "self-identified right-wing political scientists were most likely to report personal experience of a worsening cancel culture. By contrast, among those studying and working in universities and colleges in the 78 developing societies, it was the self-identified left-wing scholars who reported a worsening cancel culture."

Read the whole paper here, or check out Norris' highlights on Twitter.


FREE MARKETS

"Let's not mince words: This is the Mafia's business model," writes Julian Sanchez, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, of Trump's recent actions toward the app TikTok and its parent company ByteDance. More here.

Now, the Trump administration is signaling an escalation in its war on Chinese apps. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke Wednesday of wanting to get not just TikTok but also "WeChat and others" off of U.S. phones.


FREE MINDS

Does "diversity training" work? New research suggests no. Tel Aviv University sociologist Alexandra Kalev—who "used to think that diversity training was effective, that it felt like common sense"—and her research team analyzed findings on diversity training programs at 800 companies over 30 years.

"The effect of bias training is very weak if you look at the long run. A company is better off doing nothing than mandatory diversity training," Kalev told the BBC World Service program The Inquiry. Here's how it sums up Kalev and her team's findings:

Firstly, they found that this training normalises the message that implicit bias is everywhere and so we are all biased. "If I am interviewing black and white candidates it can be normal that I will feel more attracted or have a better gut feeling regarding the white candidates."

They also found that people react negatively to efforts to control them, and often they perceive diversity training as such. Kalev points out that they hear from trainers that people often respond to diversity training with anger and resistance.

"So basically force-feeding anti-bias breeds more bias," Kalev said.


COVID-19 BEHIND BARS

SCOTUS denies relief to prisoners trapped in dens of COVID-19. "The Supreme Court on Wednesday night said a California sheriff does not have to comply with a lower-court order requiring accommodations at a county jail experiencing a coronavirus outbreak," The Washington Post reports:

The court's vote was 5 to 4, with the court's liberals in dissent. It follows a pattern of the court staying out of the way of local and state officials who are dealing with the pandemic, and most often Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. holds the controlling vote.

As is the custom in such emergency requests, the majority did not explain the reasoning for allowing Orange County Sheriff Don Barnes out from a district court judge's order.


COVID-19 IN SCHOOLS

Several states where schools are starting to re-open for in-person classes are already seeing COVID-19 cases among students, though it's not clear if these infections were acquired in school. "Several students in the Corinth School District in Mississippi have been infected with COVID-19 a little over a week after in-person classes resumed," leading to more than 100 students being told to quarantine, reports CNN.

In Tennessee, where "nearly 50 school districts have started the school year as of Wednesday—the majority of them in-person," there have been "at least 14 confirmed COVID-19 cases connected to schools."

And at Thales Academy in Wake Forest, North Carolina, a system of eight private schools that Vice President Mike Pence applauded last week, some students and teachers are now being told to stay home after a fourth-grader came down with a case of COVID-19 (not thought to be caught at school).


PROTECTING & SERVING

Georgia makes it a hate crime to damage police property. Georgia is raising criminal penalties for people who intimidate or harm a police officer or damage any police property. "House Bill 838 creates a new crime: bias-motivated intimidation, which would apply to the death or serious bodily injury of a police officer, firefighter or emergency medical technician" as well as "any time someone causes more than $500 in damage to property owned by police, firefighters, or emergency medical technicians because of 'actual or perceived employment as a first responder,'" reports the Associated Press. "The crime is punishable by one to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. The measure says the sentence must be stacked atop any other criminal conviction and can't be served at the same time and that each violation must be a separate crime."


QUICK HITS

• Denying people access to basic sanitation measures… you know, for public health:

• What's going on with New York City's "traveler registration checkpoints"?

• Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have all pulled a video posted by President Donald Trump or his re-election campaign. The video "includes false claims that a group of people is immune from COVID-19, which is a violation of our policies around harmful COVID misinformation," a Facebook spokesperson said.

• A new study looks at COVID-19 transmission on commercial flights and offers some relatively reassuring statistics. Passengers "have about a 1/4300 chance of getting Covid-19 on a full 2-hour flight—that is, about 1 in 4,300 passengers will pick up the virus, on average," Bloomberg News writes. "The odds of getting the virus are about half that, 1/7,700, if airlines leave the middle seat empty. [The author] has posted his results as a not-yet-peer-reviewed preprint."

• New York City saw three straight days with no reported coronavirus deaths.

• COVID-19 testing is going down in the U.S. "An Associated Press analysis found that the number of tests per day slid 3.6% over the past two weeks to 750,000, with the count falling in 22 states."

• What happens when we can't socialize outside anymore?

• It's time to change the way we talk about and address domestic violence, The Atlantic suggests.

• U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) won Tuesday's Democratic primary election (as of yesterday morning, the race had not yet been called).

• The FBI raided YouTube star Jake Paul's California home yesterday.

• An Ohio county prosecutor admitted in federal court to trading legal services for meth.

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: August 6, 1792

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The FBI raided YouTube star Jake Paul’s California home yesterday.

    Smashed his follow button.

    1. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare HERE► Read More.

      1. ●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.jui..Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through

        instructions to get started……….==►► Money90

    2. Hello.

      “Of course, an “ideological skew in higher education … does not necessarily imply growing intolerance for alternative values and beliefs, limiting intellectual debate and pluralism,”

      /Bugs Bunny raised eyebrow skeptical look.

      1. Just because everyone thinks exactly the same thing and anyone who doesn’t has long since been fired, doesn’t mean colleges are intolerant.

        That is literally what they are saying.

        1. She didn’t even wade into the insular peer review systems that are also present. This would require understanding that a fixed peer review system is another way to kill counter thought.

          1. What would a “fixed peer review system” be? Ideological affirmative action?

            1. Jeff, we have established you’re an idiot. No need to continue proving it.

              https://newrepublic.com/article/135921/science-suffering-peer-reviews-big-problems

              There is also the issue of narrative bias where certain thoughts and ideas are heavily scrutinized while those that agree pass papers with cognitive bias allow group think an easier path.

              See the James Lindsay hoax papers as a broad example.

              I really don’t get how you have so much confidence when you seem so ignorant.

              1. I have to admit that until I read that article, I wasn’t sure what definition of “fixed” you were using in your earlier comment either. That is, I wasn’t sure if you meant “repaired” (although that one seemed unlikely), “static”, or “rigged outcome”.

                1. I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 to 85 per/h. Without a doubt, this is the easiest and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had.HFd I actually started 6 months ago and this has totally changed my life.

                  For more details visit………► Cash Mony System

              2. Citing to The New Republic was a nice touch.

              3. This one made me literally lol.

          2. As those three academics showed getting faux-intellectual woke gibberish published.

    3. they’re making a big deal about seizing “several high power rifles”. Not sure why exactly unless its for optics, as far as I know being a gun owner isn’t against the law (unlike rioting)

      1. as far as I know being a gun owner isn’t against the law

        Well, itwas California.

    4. ●▬▬▬▬PART TcIME JOBS▬▬▬▬▬●

      I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is what I do……
      ↓↓↓↓COPY THIS SITE↓↓↓↓

      HERE►USA Dollars.com

    5. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generated and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome. Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this link and vist tabs( Home, Media, Tech ) for more details thanks>>>>>>> Click For Full Detail.

  2. An Ohio county prosecutor admitted in federal court to trading legal services for meth.

    Take that, Florida.

    1. She broke bad.

    2. I miss Kamala’s principled fucking her way to the top.

      1. +1 Brown Willie

  3. New York City saw three straight days with no reported coronavirus deaths.

    Cuomo/de Blasio 2020

    1. Dead men tell no tales.

      1. But they do vote Democrat.

    2. Strange, this doesn’t match what JHU is tracking, which shows deaths daily in NYC.

  4. A new study looks at COVID-19 transmission on commercial flights and offers some relatively reassuring statistics.

    Why don’t they make the whole lockdown out of the black box material?

  5. COVID-19 testing is going down in the U.S.

    Why bother at this point.

    1. This is about where I’m at.

      Also, the media does not like this for exactly 1 reason: since testing is going down, so will positive test numbers, which they’re been unapologetically using as the centerpiece of their fear campaign. Now they’ll have to find some other metric to misrepresent to keep up the fear.

      Expect some new, heretofore unheard of metric (at least in the present context) in the very near future which “proves” that unless we maintain economic destruction and social chaos, everyone will die.

    2. poor Bailey stuck in a loop.

      1. He might be forced to cover some of the positive hydroxychloroquine studies if this keeps up.

  6. What happens when we can’t socialize outside anymore?

    Winter is coming.

    1. And then cannibalism.

      1. Mmmmm Long Pig ….

  7. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare HERE► See Full Detail.

  8. Almost 20% of mail in ballots were considered undeliverable in the latest Las Vegas, Clark County elections. Yet this is the recipe Democrats are asking for the whole country to take part in for a federal election just a few months away.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/08/05/las-vegas-over-223k-mail-in-ballots-bounced-as-undeliverable-in-recent-primary-election/

    1. This is on top of the 84k ballots disqualified in NYC’s primary election.

      https://nypost.com/2020/08/05/84000-mail-in-ballots-disqualified-in-nyc-primary-election/

    2. Over the last decade 28 million ballots have gone missing in elections.

      https://publicinterestlegal.org/blog/report-28-million-mail-ballots-went-missing-in-past-decade/

      In a race that is expected to be won by a few percentage points in a few states… what confidence does anybody have with mail in voting? Especially the “Everyone gets a ballot” variety even when they don’t sign up. That is the type of election most prone to fraud. A simple bribe to a mail carrier could tip the election.

      1. A simple bribe to a mail carrier could tip the election.

        And of course your criticism of mail-in voting is based on paranoid fantasies.

        There ARE real concerns about mail-in voting. Like polling stations being overwhelmed with having to count so many votes (like in NY State) or ballots being mailed out incorrectly, or ballots being discarded for very trivial reasons like superficial differences in signatures. But no, you go straight to “MY MAILMAN IS A DEMOCRAT OPERATIVE” crapola. Maybe you can stop bitching about it for one moment and think of ways to make mail-in voting more secure. That is if you actually want a fair and secure election in the first place. Maybe all you want to do is shit on the electoral process no matter what.

        1. “…And of course your criticism of mail-in voting is based on paranoid fantasies…”

          28 million ballot missing is a fantasy?
          What you’re smoking, I don’t want; makes you stupid.

          1. chemjeff was clearly responding to “ A simple bribe to a mail carrier could tip the election.” So, why are you pretending he was addressing “ 28 million ballot missing”?

            1. So you’re defending Jeff missing 90% of my posts about undelivered ballots, missing ballots, etc and defending him focusing on one line? I canigerally counter his argument with the mail carrier that was just indicted. I can point to the recent Jersey election. I can also point to others.

              You decided to defend this? Lol.

              1. No, I’m criticizing Sevo for trying to get away with a dirty debating trick.

          2. What he’s drinking, snorting, injecting or inhaling has no effect on how stupid he is.

        2. Holy fucking shit are you stupid. My criticism is open and clear. It is literally stated in the 3 posts I made on the subject . no wonder you think 2+2=5.

          1. You are lying about your claims about me, because you’ve picked up the right-wing media habit that if you just repeat something often enough, that it will somehow become “close enough” to the truth. I never said 2 + 2 = 5, ever. You are a lying shithead as usual.

            And Jesse maybe you can offer any constructive suggestion AT ALL for how to conduct a secure mail-in voting system, since that is where we are headed. All you do is bitch and moan and offer paranoid delusions about bribing mailmen.

            1. You defended it multiple times yesterday not understanding 2 + 2 can never be 5 because the minimum base system to require that is 5. You’re an idiot Jeff.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist
                August.6.2020 at 10:34 am
                …I never said 2 + 2 = 5, ever. You are a lying shithead as usual.

                chemjeff radical individualist
                August.5.2020 at 9:48 am
                Actually, 2 + 2 = 11.

                chemjeff radical individualist
                August.5.2020 at 10:19 am
                Very good. Now maybe you can understand why 2 +2 is not always equal to 4…

                He projects upon you the status of ‘lying shithead’ when he incontrovertibly said ‘2+2 is not always equal to 4’ in defense of the position that 2+2=5. after he posted ‘2+2=11’.

                Jeffy’s behavior is the kind of shit that gets people banned from their peer group, which is probably why he hangs around this comment board despite the unpopularity of his opinions.

                1. Can you imagine knowing him IRL? I bet he gets a lot of “No, I never got that text”.

            2. I also like how you condition me to argue for a system I have no faith in because it offers too much potential for misconduct as multiple hands touch a ballot.

          2. Your stat is BS.

            “The EAC defines “unknown” ballots as those that “were not returned by voter, spoiled, returned as undeliverable, or otherwise unable to be tracked by your office.”

            You are counting ballots ‘not returned by voter’ as ‘missing’ and therefore a problem. Simply saying people didn’t return there ballots is like counting everybody who registers but doesn’t go to the polls as possible fraud.

            I’m just so shocked that a high % of people don’t return their mail-in ballot and that the % goes down in presidential election years and up in non-presidential election years. Sort of mirrors the way people vote in person, doesn’t it.

            1. WOW! I’m shocked! Did Jesse misrepresent vote-by-mail statistics to dramatize the problem as worse than it actually is? Did he count “undeliverable” ballots as equivalent to fraudulent ballots in order to act in service of the Trump Agenda to disqualify and discredit mail-in voting, to create enough chaos and confusion surrounding the election such that even if Trump loses, he will have sown enough doubt in the process that to enough people he will be vied as the “real winner” anyway?

              1. To be fair, JesseAz didn’t personally misrepresent the data. He found a conservative information source and repeated what they said because it fit his narrative.

                Wikipedia: “The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is an American conservative legal group based in Indianapolis, Indiana,[1] which is known for suing states and local governments to purge voters from election rolls.[2] The group has made false claims about the extent of voter fraud in the United States.[2][3][4] The organization has published the information of eligible voters online, including Social Security numbers, falsely accusing them of being fraudulent voters.[5]”

              2. you’re shocked? You didn’t read the paper. LOL. What he did was Google a criticism from a left wing think tank regarding the paper. He didn’t read the paper and just accepted the criticism of the paper.

                And you were even worse because you accepted his criticism of rote repetition of an unsorted criticism instead of reading the actual link.

                Lol. No wonder you think 2+2=5.

                1. unsourced*

                2. Your evidence that FireDrake googled for his criticism?

                    1. R Mac can moo, can you?

                  1. None, because I read stats for a living, I didn’t need to go to a left wing think tank. I’m sure the confirmation bias is strong enough that he’ll find a reason that doesn’t matter.

            2. Lol. The statistic is not BS. The paper describes their methodology.

              We literally have 3 recent elections where more than 20% of ballots were deemed invalid.

              It is amazing watching people throw put actual facts with simply a “nuh uh.”

          3. what else would you expect from someone who’s with the party of pedos and socialists?

            1. not much. Probably why hikes kids, because they understand basic math.

        3. But no, you go straight to “MY MAILMAN IS A DEMOCRAT OPERATIVE” crapola.

          cytotoxic makes an excellent point here. It is utter lunacy to think that a mail carrier or any of our fine and utterly beyond reproach election officials could EVER be bribed or manipulated and thereby influence the results of an all mail-in election. Of course our only concern should be to ensure that fraudulent ballots can still be harvested and counted. Everyone knows that the only way to really steal an election is to buy $150,000 worth of shitty Google-translated Facebook ads.

        4. The thing I’m curious about, Jeff,

          A simple bribe to a mail carrier could tip the election.

          Is that you went right to this–

          But no, you go straight to “MY MAILMAN IS A DEMOCRAT OPERATIVE” crapola.

          Only he didn’t.

          YOU did. You’re the one that took it as a given that it’d be Democrats cheating.

          Not Jesse.

        5. But no, you go straight to “MY MAILMAN IS A DEMOCRAT OPERATIVE” crapola.

          Uhm, he didn’t say anything about “democrat”. Projection, maybe?

  9. What’s going on with New York City’s “traveler registration checkpoints”?

    They’re not sending NYC their best and brightest.

    1. Some of them, I’m sure, are good people.

      1. At least the ones returning from the funeral for John Lewis.

      2. And some of the are from North Jersey.

  10. “SCOTUS denies relief to prisoners trapped in dens of COVID-19.”

    Ugh. The common sense thing to do is obviously to #EmptyThePrisons.

    1. They should give prisoners masks. They are super effective.

      1. Or join antifa.

    2. Aren’t prisons the ideal “lockdown” model?

      1. #JustStayHome #PrisonersDidNothingWrong

  11. L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti announces he is authorizing the city to shut off water and power to any houses or businesses that are hosting any parties or unauthorized large gatherings.

    The Rona isn’t spread by 5G, it’s the electricity!

    1. Government monopoly on life-essential services. What could go wrong?

    2. “the water’s turning the friggin frogs gay!” – Garcetti, probably

    3. COVID-19 is bad for your health. There’s a 0.5% chance (or so) that it will kill you.

      But not having running water is also bad for your health. There’s a 100% chance that not having water will kill you.

      The state Attorney General should be hauling the LA Mayor Garcetti off in irons and charging him with making terroristic threats.

  12. Well well well.
    “America’s Sheriff” is back from the dead.

    https://kjzz.org/content/1606946/republican-nomination-maricopa-county-sheriff-too-close-call

    1. Well, he’s 88 years old, so not for long, I’m hoping.

    2. Yes, but you believe 2+2=5.

      1. Such a great representation of the mass psychosis the left is going through

        1. Narratives and Feelz over Facts. You don’t have to educate yourself when you declare every truth to be your lived truth. It’s the lazy, fat person’s way out. See Jeff.

          1. Actually, you do have to constantly education yourself on the ever-changing progressive values. How else will you know the daily intersectionality score card, and which public figures to cancel?

        2. Mass psychosis huh? Why don’t you tell us again how PizzaGate is real, Nardz

      2. That’s Tulpa-level, Jesse. 1/10

        1. You defended it over a half dozen times yesterday.

          Constantly.

          You claimed 2+2=5 in both base 5 and base 6. You are an idiot.

          This is just more proof of your idiocy.

          Do you want to take back your assertion that 2+2=5? I mean it isn’t like it was actually an example of Nazi propaganda that James Lindsay purposefully seeded to get the post modern assholes to demonstrate their ignorance. But you actually defended that ignorance. And then you blamed it as being a “right wing” talking point.

          You literally defended 2+2=5 a half dozen times.

          1. No, I never said 2 + 2 = 5, in any base. You are lying, as usual. If you believe otherwise, then post where I ever said so.

            I pointed out that the mathematics that you learned is not as certain as real mathematics is.
            2 + 2 = 4 in a base 10 system. 2 + 2 equals other things in other bases.

            Why should base 10 be the normative system upon which we conduct our mathematics? Why not base 5 or base 60? THAT was the point that I was trying to get across. But that went past your feeble brain because, when you aren’t constantly shilling for Team Red, you are trying to score as many attack points as you can so as to remain in good standing with the mean grrlz club.

            1. The thread is there Jeff. You lying sack of shit. You even said 2+2=6 in one post.

              The hilarious thing is you didn’t even use the actual rationalization post modernists use of round(2.4) + round(2.4) = round (2.4+2.4) => 2+2=5 which is a failure because rounding doesn’t own that property.

              But you are too intellectually lazy to even understand the idiocy you are defending so you looked even dumber.

            2. Why should base 10 be the normative system upon which we conduct our mathematics? Why not base 5 or base 60?

              And once again you’re too fucking stupid to not understand this is not the argument being presented. In order for 2+2=5 the lowest base would be 5, which means 2+2 will always be 4.

              You are too fucking stupid to even understand your own argument.

              The argument is not about what base numeric system we should use idiot.

              1. I don’t have a dog in this hunt, but the obvious reason why human’s use base 10 essentially across the board is because human’s have ten fingers.

                So obvious that it shouldn’t need to be said, but there it is.

  13. “The video “includes false claims that a group of people is immune from COVID-19, which is a violation of our policies around harmful COVID misinformation,” a Facebook spokesperson said.”

    Which is a flat out lie, deliberately changing the actual video.

    1. I actually agree on this one.

      To be clear, don’t agree with anyone who wants the government or courts to tell social media companies which user content they must or must not display.

  14. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have all pulled a video posted by President Donald Trump or his re-election campaign.

    Suddenly I want to see this video.

    1. *waves hand*

      You don’t need to see the actual video. Your betters have already determined that it contains wrongthink on your behalf. Move along, “citizen.”

    2. re the Trump assertion that young children are essentially immune to the china virus:

      From the cdc itself at
      https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

      Deaths of those age 14 and under: 45 total out of 142,146.

      Yeah that’s basically immunity. His statement was is no way misleading.

      1. how much you wanna bet all of those 45 either had preexisting issues like autoimmune problems or were marked dead by COVID because they got hit by a car or something while testing positive for the kung flu?

        1. California recently announced they had the FIRST minor to die from the virus. An inmate in juvenile detention center with a pre-existing condition. First and ONLY death for anyone under 18 in california. (This article may have been innaccurate because even I am surprised by that but that’s what it said)

    3. This was Big Tech’s endgame all along, they’ve been dying to censor him during the election. And we all know the Ds never mislead anyone.

      It’s time to start recognizing that you can’t give a Platform immunity if they insist on acting as a Publisher

      1. So much for libertarianism.

        1. They can be subject to libel suits, just like newspapers.

    4. It is Trump saying in an interview that children are “almost immune from this disease”. Technically, it is incorrect; children aren’t more immune, they just tend to have no symptoms.

      Still, he was in the ballpark of the truth, so I think they went too far in pulling the video.

      Again, don’t agree with anyone who thinks social media content should be controlled By the government.

      1. Sigh. You are so wrong. Studies in Europe have shown that children are not spreading it among their cohorts. That is not a lack of symptoms, that is a lack of transmission, i.e. immunity.

        You constantly write supposedly scientific bullshit that begs for correction. You are akin to a little girl raising your skirt over your head and then yelling ‘Don’t look at my panties!’

        1. 1) Lack of transmission is not immunity.
          2) I don’ t think I’ve ever posted a scientific study here. I rarely participate in discussions here about studies on COVID-19. You are probably thinking of someone else.

          1. 1) Lack of transmission is not immunity.

            Exposures that do not result in transmission are not immunity? My understanding is that the concepts of both immunization and herd immunity are predicated upon a lack of transmission despite exposure.

            I didn’t say you post scientific studies, I said you write supposedly scientific bullshit. The difference is significant, not pedantic. If your real point is that I can’t differentiate between you and the gang you white knight for, you are correct. It must be the masks that are confusing me.

            1. Maybe you are thinking of “group immunity”. “Immunity” is ability to resist infection when the virus is transmitted TO you.

              And your second paragraph is a confession you blindly accused me of “You constantly write supposedly scientific bullshit that begs for correction.” I don’t think I have ever posted any scientific study here, ever.

  15. Authoritarian governments will use any excuse they can to impose their will. From Garcetti in LA threatening to cut off power/electricity based purely on political motivations for those who dare cross him, to DeBlasio granting exemptions to favored entities like BLM, and now in London where Councils will use condemnation powers to destroy old housing to sell land to politically connected friends.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/08/04/councilscan-demolish-contaminated-buildings-new-powers-stop/

    1. Authoritarian governments will use any excuse they can to impose their will.

      Like declaring a bogus national emergency in order to bypass Congress’ power of the purse and build a stupid border wall?

      1. You believe 2+2=5. And you love cookies more than your risk posture against covid.

        1. Weak, Jesse. Very weak. You’re not even trying to defend Trump here.

          1. Shocking isn’t it. Maybe you’re TDS finally made you realize I don’t defend Trump. I attack the left for the quick descent into marxism. I attack post modernism. I attack the things that actually have a risk to this country. Meanwhile you defend all of those things.

            Corruption will always exist in government which is why I actually want to reduce its power overall. You seem to be fine with authoritarianism as you keep threatening other people with government action if they don’t reduce your risk in life.

            1. Oh bullshit Jesse. You are this place’s biggest Team Red shill. Any criticism of Trump is met with both-sides-ism or whataboutism or deflection or – rarely – an actual attempt at a defense of Trump on his merits. On this one you can’t even so now you are suddenly this brave libertarian. Oh fuck off.

              why I actually want to reduce its power overall.

              Except when it comes to throwing people in jail for burning flags, or government serving as some “fairness watchdog” on the Internet, or government spending bazillions on the military, or government surveilling every business to make sure they only hire the ‘correct’ people with the ‘correct’ papers, or government taxing every one who has the temerity to freely trade with countries deemed by the right wing as ‘bad’. Sure you really want to reduce the size of government alright.

              1. Again, you’re too stupid to understand base argumentation so you immediately assume anyone not constantly attacking trump as team red. Me pointing out idiotic over reactions that you and your socks push isn’t defending trump fucktard. It is pointing out your idiocy.

      2. Jeff seems to think building a border wall is equivalent to forcing hundreds of thousands of small businesses to close (and into bankruptcy), destroying the jobs of tens of millions of people, fining/arresting people for not wearing a mask, and imprisoning people in their homes “for the common good”

        1. Actually, Jeff seems to think that there’s authoritarian shitheads that inhabit both Team Red and Team Blue, and too many of the brave “libertarians” around here only seem to care about the authoritarians on Team Blue and turn a blind eye to the authoritarians on Team Red.

          1. You are team up you ignorant twat. You believe in government paternalism. You believe in open borders. You threaten people with government coercion if they don’t lower your health risks.

            1. Team blue *

            2. “You believe in open borders”

              Is this supposed to be a bad thing for a libertarian to believe in?

    1. Trump’s administration is full of lobbyists. Apparently the most ever. The exact opposite of “draining the swamp” but anyone with half a brain saw this coming. Jesus fucking christ. We need a special tax on these grifters and these Wall Street thieves. These crooks are radicalizing me. If I were Biden I would hunt these mfers down with the FBI the minute I took office.

      1. “…If I were Biden I would hunt these mfers down with the FBI the minute I took office…”

        Instead, his handlers will take the money; he’ll never know anything about it.

      2. “If I were Biden”

        If you were Biden, you’d spend most of your day wiping drool from your chin.

        1. when he smells his hourly batch of cookies he does anyways.

      3. Why wait for the inauguration? The FBI has demonstrated abilities to compile or create “intelligence” even before the election is over.

      4. If I were Biden I would hunt these mfers down with the FBI the minute I took office.

        Too bad the real Biden will just continue the grift.

        1. No, I think Trump’s epic abuse of the office has changed things.

          1. I think you mean the media’s decision to finally bother to report someone’s epic abuse of the office until their preferred candidate has their coronation at which they go back to pretending that everything is hunky dory and “scandal-free”.

      5. If I were Biden I would hunt these mfers down with the FBI the minute I took office.

        Why hunt them down when you can just summon them to a meeting and then shoot them through the door?

      6. Hunt them down…..for exercising the 1A….

      7. The same Biden that has a son “earning” money from a board position at a Ukraine company?

        If you were Biden, you’d be salivating at the chance to get your hands back on this kind of power.

      8. “We need a special tax…….”

        Haha. Left wing douchebags who think that even more of other people’s money should be seized by our bloated, wasteful government are my favorite type of resentful, disaffected clingers and culture war casualties.

  16. And it continues. Now that everyone has given up their freedoms due to a cold, the slow march to authoritarianism continues unabated from the left.

    Michigan has formally declared racism a disease and is now using said designation to require political indoctrination in the form of implicit bias training to all government workers.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/mich-gov-orders-state-employees-to-conduct-implicit-bias-training-declares-racism-a-public-health-crisis/

    1. California is passing AB 1460, which requires anyone wanting a degree from a Cal State university to take one of four ethnic studies classes. Of course, a smart student will just regurgitate what she has heard and get a passing grade, as has been the resort of so many for so many years. But I wonder, in this age of tweets and cancelling if that student were overheard expressing illegal views privately, would she then get a failing grade? For not having true beliefs?

      1. This has been going on for decades. The basic curriculum for UC and Cal State have included some kind of indoctrination class for a long time. And the basics of your major all include various SJW indoctrination content anyway.

        All the smart kids regurgitate and move on. The rest were hopeless to begin with.

        1. Skipping these classes for any reason other than approved protests will result in expulsion.

    2. Authoritarianism is a public health crisis. I will now use my emergency powers to stamp out this plague.

  17. The Supreme Court on Wednesday night said a California sheriff does not have to comply with a lower-court order requiring accommodations at a county jail experiencing a coronavirus outbreak…

    If the sheriff moves you to Rona Ward duty, you know you’re not well liked in the department.

    1. Yes, that is the side you openly support. You’re shocked that they begin infighting with each other? She wasn’t taken down by the right-wing, but by the left wing. Odd you skipped over the articles explaining that.

      1. I didn’t say she was taken down by the right wing, Jesse.

        1. At least you aren’t denying it is your side nor that you support it.

          1. chemjeff isn’t some defender of the left. It’s part of your dismissive debate “win points in front of the mean girls” tactics to just repeat lies about him over and over.

            1. chemjeff isn’t some defender of the left.
              Lolz.

    2. That cartoon remisd me of sinefeld
      “does the cartoonist offend you as someone who is white?”
      “no the cartoon offends me as someone who likes humor”

      1. Why not both?

        Progressives–putting the pure back in Puritan.

        1. VP wannabe Karen Bass approved of rioters burning down liquor stores, because of the demon rum.

  18. “So basically force-feeding anti-bias breeds more bias,” Kalev said.

    Wow. Who could have possibly seen that coming?

    1. Anyone with a capable, open mind?

      In other words, not most people and no partisan ideologues.

  19. The political prosecution against the McCloskey’s continues to become public. From the D.A. office meddling with evidence to now reports of the Police refusing to sign statements and relenting after multiple pressure attempts from the D.A.

    Please continue defending this one sarcasmic.

    https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2020/08/05/refused-to-sign-prosecution-docs/

  20. “They also found that people react negatively to efforts to control them, and often they perceive diversity training as such. Kalev points out that they hear from trainers that people often respond to diversity training with anger and resistance.”

    Where are these “people” who resist external controls, and can we get some to boost the US population character?

    1. we’ve got a few too many in Portland

  21. “Trump escalates war on Chinese apps”

    Totally indefensible. Russia, not China, attacked us in 2016. But Drumpf and his supporters seize on the #TrumpVirus’s alleged Chinese origins to paint that country as the villain.

    #LibertariansAgainstSinophobia
    #LibertariansForGettingToughWithRussia

  22. There is a strange trend from half of the “libertarians” on this site where they believe coercion and authoritarianism only comes at the hands of government. They claim that censorship is just fine and dandy if done at the behest of a corporation, even when said corporation has broad ownership of the media landscape. They seem to have completely ignored what fascism actually is. They turn a blind eye to open collusion between corporations with loud voices and much power under the guise “it isn’t the government doing it.” They ignore things like Soros openly gaining control of local D.A. offices in order to politically enforcing laws. They ignore Steyer offering free employees to friendly governments to push agendas in various AG offices. They ignore members of the EPA colluding with political groups in Sue and Settle programs. They ignore Obama directing settlement funds to friendly political non profits. They ignore the open collusion between democrats and major media outlets, especially social media outlets.

    Why this rant? Because another example of this just occurred yesterday with Twitter taking down a Trump Campaign account. (Along with Facebook pulling paid for ads from the same group). All over an opinion of kids not being at high risk from Covid (supported by most of the scientific community).

    The person Twitter sent out to send this message? Kamela Harris’ long time press secretary.

    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/08/06/twitter-staffer-who-announced-trump-censorship-used-to-work-for-kamala-harris-n758440

    1. “There is a strange trend from half of the “libertarians” on this site where they believe coercion and authoritarianism only comes at the hands of government. They claim that censorship is just fine and dandy if done at the behest of a corporation, even when said corporation has broad ownership of the media landscape.”

      I am not sure they “like” it. Just that they recognize that is isn’t illegal or unconstitutional. Imagine the alternative, where private individuals were forced to post stuff they didn’t agree with. Taken to a logical extreme, a hardware store owner would not be able to refuse to hang a campaign poster in their window, even if the owner disagreed with everything the campaign poster said.

      1. They are unwilling to even criticize it much less do anything about it. So, whether they “like it” or not is really irrelevant. They support the existence of it and will do nothing to change it. So, the result is the same either way.

        But I think a decent number of libertarians are just leftists who like pot and still at some level long for the security that central control gives them and as an expression of utter contempt they hold for most Americans. Being Libertarians, they are happy to see that firm hand on the tiller come from corporations.

        1. Okay. Let me put it this way: the first amendment also protects the right not to be COMPELLED to speak. If the government forces a entity (an individual, or group of individuals) to publish something they disagree with, then the government is in violation of the first amendment. This applies, equally, to everyone, whether the aforementioned hardware store, a privately-operated web page, or a corporation. Note: I wish people didn’t see the need to censor those who disagreed with them, but the alternative (compelled speech) is far worse.

          1. No one is compelling anyone to speak. No one says any web server has to host anyone. The issue is whether they should have that freedom but then be exempted from the responsibility of whatever content they have chosen to control.

            This is not a free speech issue. This is a property rights and responsibility issue. The social media companies are claiming the property right to censor what goes on their platforms but then have obtained a special exemption from liability and responsibility for that content. The issue is whether owning a social media platform is special such that you shouldn’t be treated as a publisher even though you claim the right to control all of the content on that platform just like a publisher does. Whatever your position on that question is, it has nothing to do with free speech. It is not a free speech issue when a private company refuses to publish something on their platform. Supports of section 230 immunity are always quick to point this out. And they are right. But the flip side of that is that it is not a free speech issue if the government decides to treat the platform as a publisher if it chooses to do that. Both issues are a question of the scope of property rights and the liability that comes with it.

            1. “This is not a free speech issue.’

              How is being forced to print something you don’t agree with, not a free speech issue? In my mind, there is, no fundamental difference between forcing a private company to post things they disagree with than forcing me to put a campaign sign in my front yard promoting a politician who I find reprehensible. Unless one thinks that “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” was a bad decision, or that “The Federalist” should be forced to publish articles by socialists is a good idea.

              1. How are they being forced to publish something?

                1. No. And according to JesseAz, that’s a problem.

                  1. again, sarcasmic lies about my contentions. Amusing.

                    You’ve gone full Jeff finally.

              2. How is being forced to print something you don’t agree with, not a free speech issue?

                That is a free speech issue. But as I explain above, no one is being forced to publish anything. Just because you are responsible for publishing it, doesn’t mean you have to publish it. And just because assuming the freedom of censoring what goes on your platform comes with the responsibility of being responsible for that content, doesn’t mean you are forced to do anything.

                Saying you are responsible for the content you choose to host is not forcing you to do anything. There is no compelled speech going on here. To claim that there is, is to claim that being deprived of a special exemption that has never been applied before or since to any other industry is somehow forcing that industry to do something. It is not.

                1. “Saying you are responsible for the content you choose to host is not forcing you to do anything.”

                  But having to constantly monitor every post by every weirdo out there, whether right or wrong, won’t, in any way tend to suppress speech, right?

                  A real life example. A local hardware store where I used to live had a bulletin board (literally a cork-board) where people could post things they wanted to trade or sell — from farm equipment to horses to home made jam. Naturally, some folks used to help sell their pot. .

                  He removed these ads when he ran across them. But, naturally, if they were posted on a Saturday night, they might be up there for a couple days before he returned to reopen the store. If selling pot was illegal, then was he liable for aiding and abetting a criminal enterprise? If pot was legal, can someone sue him in civil court?

                  Maybe it’s just the purist in me, but I don’t think the government has any business at all at being involved in any aspects of the free flow of information.

                  1. But having to constantly monitor every post by every weirdo out there, whether right or wrong, won’t, in any way tend to suppress speech, right?

                    Nobody here is arguing for this. We are asking if you choose to apply a rule you do so consistent and without prejudice.

                  2. But having to constantly monitor every post by every weirdo out there, whether right or wrong, won’t, in any way tend to suppress speech, right?

                    No. You just told me that private parties banning people from posting on their platform is not a free speech issue. So how could it be? Will it make it harder to run a social media platform? Sure, but since when is “it is hard” a justification for not being responsible?

                    A real life example. A local hardware store where I used to live had a bulletin board (literally a cork-board) where people could post things they wanted to trade or sell — from farm equipment to horses to home made jam. Naturally, some folks used to help sell their pot. .

                    He removed these ads when he ran across them. But, naturally, if they were posted on a Saturday night, they might be up there for a couple days before he returned to reopen the store. If selling pot was illegal, then was he liable for aiding and abetting a criminal enterprise? If pot was legal, can someone sue him in civil court?

                    Damn straight they could. And that has been true since people started putting up bulletin boards. We only decided it wasn’t true for large social media platforms with the passing of section 230.

                    Should he be responsible? That is a very debatable question. But before we have that debate, understand it has nothing to do with free speech. It is entirely a debate about what responsibilities come with running a bulletin board or platform that other people use.

                    As far as the substance of the debate, I would make two points. First, I think the size of the platform matters a lot. I have no problem with exempting the hardware store who runs a bulletin board from liability. Those things are a benefit and we shouldn’t force people to face liability for running them. So, I am just fine with giving any platform that has say fewer than 50,000 users or whatever number can be agreed to be reasonable, blanket 230 immunity. But, when you are talking about large platforms that have millions of users and have the resources to censor anything they like whenever they want and to defend any lawsuit, their case for being immune is a lot less. Moreover, the damage they can do to civil discourse by censoring is much greater.

                    Second point I would make is that any platform that agrees to only censor content that is illegal or clearly in violation of its terms of service, should get the immunity. There, they are not exercising full control the way a publisher does. But, if the large platforms want to engage in viewpoint discrimination and turn their platforms into vehicles for promoting one political view or another, then they should be treated like the publishers they are.

                    If you don’t like the evil deplorables posting on your giant social media platform, fine. You don’t have to host them. But when you do that, you assume the responsibility for everything that goes on your platform.

                2. The thing that is most hilarious about this argument is one side is arguing for extra favored legal protection for a sub class of entities while the other side is simply arguing for an even set of protection.

                  Albert and sarcasmic don’t understand they are arguing for a favored protection.

                  1. Well, actually, I am just arguing that the government shouldn’t be involved at all. Don’t worry. I don’t personally know a single person who agrees with me. This is something I am familiar with.

              3. so here is where you give away your arguments. If they have the choice in what to print they are publishers, not platforms.

                1. From my “purist” point of view, there should be no difference between a publisher or a platform, at least as far as the government is concerned. They have no business getting involved.

                  1. Then argue for everyone gets liability protection then and not simply argue for a subset of people to get them.

                    1. I have never run a business or owned a piece of land without a decent level of liability insurance. That being said, defamation is not easy to prove. And that is the only thing which comes to mind which should be actionable.

              4. Because the companies in question are playing both sides of the fence.

                On one hand, they’re saying, “we’re private companies, we’re allowed to toss people off our platform if we don’t like what they’re saying.” Which, if that was the only position they were taking, would be directly analogous to your hardware store example.

                But on the other hand, they also say, “we’re just neutral platforms, so we deserve to be immune from suit for the things we allow people to publish on our platform”.

                It seems so sufficiently obvious to me that these things cannot simultaneously be true that it’s difficult for me to even try and explain it. Which, I’ll admit, may well mean that I am wrong, because if it’s true I should be able to explain why.

                Can you at least see how these things might be in opposition to one another?

                1. “It seems so sufficiently obvious to me that these things cannot simultaneously be true that it’s difficult for me to even try and explain it. Which, I’ll admit, may well mean that I am wrong, because if it’s true I should be able to explain why.

                  Can you at least see how these things might be in opposition to one another?”

                  Good point, My answer would be not to patronize the entity involved. Twenty years from now, when mentioning “Facebook” generates little more a quizzical expression from anyone under the age of thirty or so, we can laugh about it.

            2. For me it is almost a purely contractual issue. These companies grew off of one set of contracts and then arbitrarily changed terms on those that agreed to previous contracts.

              The Patreon suit is the first lawsuit in Ving contractual terms to not be dismissed off the back of 230. Meagan Murphy had her claims dismissed on 230 despite the focus being on contracts.

              Likewise these entities receive billions in government funds. We expect colleges, as this roundup states, to be neutral or not accept dollars…. why expect less of these corporations?

              1. Contracts are contracts. And companies should be held liable for violating them Which, of course, begs the question: “Why does there need to be a contract for a social media page?”

                As far as receiving billions in government funds. Well, that, in itself, I find unacceptable. Buy hey, that’s cronyism.

          2. “the first amendment also protects the right not to be COMPELLED to speak”

            Unless it’s flu season and people want you to wear a mask

            1. So wear a face shield 🙂

          3. When the government begins forcing you to lost messages you disagree with then ill be just as outraged.

            But right now we are dealing with collusion censorship.

            Why ignore the now for the instance of a maybe?

            Collusion between government and private industry is still collusion whether you bury your head or not.

            1. “Collusion between government and private industry is still collusion whether you bury your head or not.”

              I find absolutely nothing to disagree with in the above statement. (note: I am not burying my head; at my age, I choose to be a “purist” knowing full-well that my philosophy has virtually no hope of ever becoming reality. I am old enough not to let that bother me. Have a good day, Jesse, Nice chatting with you..

    2. They claim that censorship is just fine and dandy if done at the behest of a corporation, even when said corporation has broad ownership of the media landscape.

      What is the alternative? Seriously. You and your buddies get all huffy when Reason doesn’t report the stuff you want them to report on. You want to sue Reason for ignoring what you feel to be important? If Facederp and Twatter delete stuff you don’t want to see deleted, then what? Use government force to bring it back? Come on dude. What is your solution? Criminal penalties for corporations that censor online content, or who don’t cover your sacred cow? Then you say we ignore fascism? Seems like you’re promoting it.

      1. No, the solution is to tell large media platforms that if they don’t want to censor content in a viewpoint neutral way consistent with their terms of service, they are going to be treated as publishers and be held responsible for that content they have chosen to control.

        They have every right to allow whatever content they like on their platform. But they have no right to be exempt from liability for that content.

        1. If the content was created by the company by company employees and went through an editing process, I would agree.

          But it’s not.

          1. Removing posts is editing

            1. There is a difference between editing before and after the content goes online. You do realize that you’d be banned from most platforms other than Reason because you’re an antagonistic asshole, right? You probably are. You should be thankful for libertarians. Dick.

              1. they are controlling a narrative for their platform just like a magazine editor does. They are not a platform.

          2. But it is only seen by the public because the platform allows it. Reason doesn’t create the content it publishes from non staff members. Newspapers don’t create the content of their letters to the editor pages. They are still held responsible for that content because they allowed it to be published on their platform.

            Social media companies got a special exemption from the normal liability risks that come with being a publisher. They were given that exemption on the assumption that they were not publishers but just companies who provided a platform for publishers; meaning they didn’t control what that content was the way a publisher does.

            Well, in the the last ten years, they have decided to exercise the same level of control that publishers do and assumed the right to ban any content from their platform they don’t like for any reason they want. That is their right as property owners. But, it deprives them of the justification for getting the immunity that came with 230. If they want to exercise the kind of complete and arbitrary control over what goes on their platforms the way publishers do, they should be treated like publishers.

            1. Interesting perspective. I’m going to have to think on this.

              1. This has been (one of) the (multi-pronged) argument(s) against section 230 for years.

                It was brought up repeatedly and was exceptionally pointed with regard to the gay wedding cake debacle where even plenty of “libertarians” indicated that because a baker makes generic cakes available to the public, he should be compelled to bake a gay wedding cake and only if he did one-off tailored orders on request or as part of some sort of exclusive club does he have the right to refuse a cake.

                The laughable thing is, the “They shouldn’t have to do anything they don’t want to do but if they breach a contract, slander someone, or even simply anger customers, they should be held appropriately responsible for those consequences.” was portrayed as the onerous/oppressive position by many of the same “libertarians”.

                1. I think that on the balance, 230 has been overall a net positive.

                  So I don’t think simply getting rid of it is the best answer.

                  But amending it to make it clearer what allows sites to qualify is probably a very good idea.

                  1. I think that on the balance, 230 has been overall a net positive.

                    And if the benefits of abrogating free speech outweighed the costs?

                    Being more generous, how would you possibly begin to support such a claim? More profits have been made under section 230 that wouldn’t have been? The internet is a better place and more functional after and because of section 230 than it was before? Life outside the internet is better and more functional than it was when the internet had no protection? We’ve had fewer civil disputes and more congressional hearings because of section 230?

                    If it’s so good, why don’t we write an equivalent for every industry? Why do bakers and artisans and TV stations and event planners have to live without a Congress writing a section that says they too can enjoy the 1A?

            2. John – I just wanted to take a moment to say thank you for your posts on this. I’m sure I still don’t fully grasp the finer points, but your examples and explanations have helped make sense of the topic. The last two or three years I’ve been reading about section 230, I would keep getting lost in the weeds.

            3. Sorry, coming in very late to this discussion.

              The key difference between social media and more traditional publishers is the time aspect between content creation and publishing. Magazines and newspapers have a defined time of publishing, while social media is instantaneous. So while Facebook may screen and delete posts that violate their terms, this happens after the content is “published.” So they are still potentially liable for the content during that period of time. Section 230 covers their liability during this period.

              Even if you argue that social media are publishers, they certainly aren’t publishers in the traditional sense of create then edit then publish. That content is created and published simultaneously is kind of the point of social media. If we had to wait for Reason to screen our posts the dialogue would suffer because of the temporal aspect.

              1. Just think of the racket that you and a friend could run if Twitter as we know it today were responsible for their content… if there were no section 230. I could defame you blatantly in a tweet, while you take a screen grab almost simultaneously. Then you could sue Twitter for the damages before they are able to take down the content. It all might happen in a matter of minutes, but Twitter would be liable simply because they decided they didn’t want to host some other content.

                So we would be in a world where either there is no instantaneous social media posting (because of the liability of a situation like above) or platforms would have to host all content. The latter might sound like it’s a world that would be better, and I generally agree that more speech is always better, but you have to consider how a platform that is forced to host speech from neo-Nazis might have a serious concern with ad revenue.

                I can tell you this almost for certain. You aren’t going to win any votes in future elections from moderates if you are the political party that is responsible for the demise of social media. Deplatforming will be the least of your concerns.

      2. Are you even capable of processing someone’s arguments without resorting to a strawman?

        1. Most of your original post was a strawman.

          1. Point out one strawman in my original post. I listed things I consider to be collusive.

            1. Every sentence with the word “ignore” in it.

    3. We’ve tried this before.

      At one time, newspapers and other outlets were required to at least give the pretense of offering a both-sides kind of view and have some kind of news program on offer (if you were a television station, anyway). It didn’t really go all that well in practice, as expected.

      Now, you can choose the ‘most pure’ version of politicized news and stick only with that version and never be exposed to a viewpoint outside your personal worldview.

      I’m not entirely sure it’s an improvement, but at the same time if that’s what the market wants who are we to say no. The question remains if it’s what the market wants, or what the owner wants though. Normally, we’d be suspicious of outlets that continually operate at a loss.

      That being said, with Twitter being an official communications outlet of the U.S. government after being essentially nationalized due to Trump’s Tweets one could make the argument they are now a common carrier and more subject to those rules than they are to a purely private entity.

      I had a problem with that at the time, and still do, but if that’s the route we’re going to take I don’t really see how or why it’s good for Twitter to be both a government controlled communications outlet and a private company. At some point, we’ll have to decide which one they really are. Twitter apparently doesn’t get to choose for themselves, even while I’m fairly sure they’d choose to be a celebrity gossip outlet like those ‘newspapers’ you see in supermarket checkout lines if they were ever given one.

      Amazing that Reason authors and celebrity gossip columnists use the same outlet (twitter) to do research for their stories though.

  23. Diversity training doest work? It’s not like it was a scam ment to bilk companies out of millions (billions?) of dollars! My world is shattered. Next they will tell me that the SPLC was only set up to scam white who feel guilty about being white.

    1. You expect Jesse Jackson to earn a living?

  24. “‘So basically force-feeding anti-bias breeds more bias,” Kalev said,”‘

    This is a surprise?

  25. So, what’s holding up the “stimulus” bill?

    The $600 extra unemployment benefit is getting a lot of press. Word has it that the Republicans have offered to split the difference with the Democrats and bring the extra benefit down to $400 from the $200 they were proposing. That’s not really a big deal.

    The real big deal is over the Democrats’ insistence on aid to the states. The Republicans are proposing $1 trillion in this bill, but the Democrats want $3.5 trillion–with $1 trillion of the difference in the form of aid to the states. The Democrats are trying to use the coronavirus as an excuse to save states with out of control pension obligations, like California, Illinois, and New York, at the expense of federal taxpayers everywhere else in the country. It is absolutely imperative that the Republicans do not relent on this.

    There will never be a time when these governments are so flush with cash that they decide to cut spending. The only, only, only time they will ever slash their spending (especially on their outrageously generous state employee pensions) is when all their tax revenue dries up during a recession. And that’s exactly where we are right now. This is fiscal conservatism in action. This is when we decide whether we want small government.

    The other thing the Democrats want to do is get rid of the $10,000 cap on the deduction for state income taxes that Trump and the Republicans implemented a few years ago. The ability to deduct state income taxes is another way that states like California and New York can effectively spend federal taxpayer money on their own residents. We might as well tax the hell out of our people–since it just comes out of the money that would go to the federal government anyway!

    “WASHINGTON—Rep. Tom Suozzi (D., N.Y.) knows his bid to repeal the $10,000 cap on state and local tax deductions is a long shot for inclusion in any final coronavirus-relief bill. He has seen the mockery from Republicans, who criticize Democrats for proposing a tax cut for the rich.

    But for Mr. Suozzi, restoring the tax break is urgent, central to New York’s ability to keep high-income residents from fleeing and to finance a progressive state government that can respond effectively to the pandemic.

    “We’re losing taxpayers when we need them most,” he said. “The people who can’t afford to move or just don’t want to move are the ones left behind holding the bag.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/blue-state-tax-break-becomes-a-flashpoint-in-coronavirus-relief-bill-11596619801

    Did it ever occur to the state of New York that they might cut spending instead?

    1. Does it occur to you that “red states” are biggest leeches? They contribute the least and take the most.

      1. Then cut the size of the federal government. I don’t think anyone here would object to that. As far as red states versus blue states, it is the blue states who demand this giant government. If it works out that they end up having to pay for that government and those who object to it get the benefit, so what? Maybe the blue states should get smarter and stop doing that? As it is, they must like it that way or they wouldn’t demand so much federal government. So basically, fuck off. You assholes wanted it this way.

        1. No, the Democrats should serve the Republicans their own medicine and draft the tax codes in such a way to punish states that elect Republicans.

          1. They have already done that. It is called politics. As it is, the federal government doesn’t owe you a tax break for paying local taxes. They are two separate entities. If it hurts to much to pay the federal and the state taxes, stop supporting so much local taxes. Again, the blue states want their taxes high. They vote for politicians promising to do that. So, what is their bitch when they get that?

            1. I know the Republicans changed the tax code at the expense of higher earners who live in states with higher state taxes. I’d like to undo that and also go the other direction so that no matter where you moved your tax liability would be relatively the same. No more of this red state grifting.

              1. I am sure you would. And that is your right. But, we all have things we want. Your wants are no better or worse than anyone else’s.

                1. I agree.

              2. no they didn’t. The equalized the federal tax rates across states.

              3. You sure do seem to have a lot of resentment for people that you think ought to be paying more taxes.

                You ugly.

          2. Do you even realize the position you just took? One political party should intentionally and explicitly make laws that financially punish voters for choosing the opposite party. I’m not misconstruing or taking you out of context. That is literally what you just said.

            “No, the Democrats should serve the Republicans their own medicine and draft the tax codes in such a way to punish states that elect Republicans.”

            If you’re incapable of thinking through the obvious consequences of you policy proposals before you speak, I don’t see why anyone should take you seriously. Why don’t you do a Google search of “single-party states” (which is exactly what such a proposal would create) and do a few hundred hours of catching up on history and get back to me about why what you’re proposing is obviously reprehensible.

      2. “Does it occur to you that “red states” are biggest leeches? They contribute the least and take the most.”

        States don’t pay income taxes, individuals do–and it doesn’t matter what state they reside in. They’re all taxed on an individual basis at the same marginal rate.

        Because more individuals reside in California, more income tends to come from California in absolute terms than comes from other states with lower populations, but so what? Neither California nor any other state pays taxes to the federal government.

        1. That’ll be a good point to make if Republicans try to allege the federal tax code discriminates against their constituents. I’m thinking making the federal income tax dependent on state income tax. The less you pay in state income the more you pay in federal income and vice versa.

          1. When we talk about the cap on state income tax deductions, do you not understand what that means?

            1. It was a federal tax provision that allowed an individual to deduct money they paid in state tax from their federal taxes. I’m saying do it the other way. Make so that the less you pay in state taxes the more you pay in federal taxes. The idea is level the playing field across the states. Keep these grifters states from using federal money to keep their state taxes low.

              1. That would just state incentive to raise their rates to the maximum allowable amount. If people are going to pay a total of let’s say $10,000 in total tax between federal and state and the states can dictate whether they get $2,000 of it or $10,000 of it, which do you suppose they’ll choose?

                Maybe spit-balling policy isn’t your strength. Maybe you should go back to your Lincoln Logs or your Lite-Brite and let the adults speak.

          2. How about the less you pay in state the less you pay in federal? Why should the residence of a state get screwed by the fed if their state can manage its money well?

            1. Well that would accomplish the opposite of what I’m aiming. I’m trying to capture these rich mfers who bail out on blue states.

              1. I’m trying to capture these rich mfers who bail out on blue states.

                Because you think their money is owed to blue states.

                1. The money must be black.

              2. I’m trying to capture these rich mfers who bail out on blue states.

                Y’know, I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen a better setup for a Commentariat classic line than this.

                “FUCK OFF, SLAVER!”

              3. “I’m trying to capture these rich mfers who bail out on blue states.”

                Neither other people, nor their property, nor their rights exist for your benefit or for the benefit of state government.

            2. The issue is that people in Texas, where they don’t have a state income tax, are effectively underwriting the spending and taxes of states like California and New York.

              If you can deduct all your state income taxes, then the states can crank their tax rates up to whatever you would pay the federal government and it not make any difference–to residents in the state.

              If you live in Texas and you’re making up for all the funding the federal government doesn’t get from California and New York because they have an income tax and it’s really high, then you’re effectively paying for the taxes and spending in California and New York with your federal taxes.

              It should be noted, too, that you also have no representation in Albany or Sacramento. This is a means by which the Democrats in Albany and Sacramento can effectively spend the tax dollars of people in other states like Texas–without an representation.

              No taxation without representation!

              1. Yeah but it’s not like residents of Texas are actually paying any more in federal taxes. The spending is being financed by deficit spending.

                1. Federal tax rates are higher than they need to be to generate the same amount of tax revenue.

                  The federal deficit would be higher if we were diverting federal tax revenue to states through such federal income tax deductions.

                  Why pretend otherwise?

                  Yes, they are paying more in federal taxes in Texas than they would be otherwise.

                  1. It the nihilist/post-modern trap. He doesn’t give a shit about red and blue states as long as more people pay in.

                    He’s factually wrong from the get go. Red states may pay less and get more *per capita*, but blue states absolutely get more. But, setting factual correctness aside and focusing more on the stupidity of the trap: Would he (or you) feel better if 1/4 blue, 3/4 red states paid 25% less than 3/4 red, 1/4 blue states? What if a state is 50/50? What about the majority of voters who aren’t determined one way or the other? What if a state is red in the midterms and blue in the general election or red on a national level but blue on a state level? And, as you pointed out, all of this completely ignores the Federal Government taking billions from a red state and giving it to a corporation based in a blue state as part of a contract thereby taking directly from one state and effectively giving to another while avoiding the icky “subsidy” label.

                    He’s bullshiting you. He said it above, he’s simply going after the rich because he’s sure they owe somebody somewhere some money.

                    1. His initial thesis is undone by simple rational thought. Someone moving from New York to Florida after retirement makes Florida a leach using his base assertion

          3. There you go again.

            What is wrong with you?

      3. Do you support income redistribution? If so, then fuck off about money going from blue to red states.

        Higher income households pay more net taxes, and are disproportionately in blue states. Lower income households get more federal benefits and are more common in red states (including retired people who fled blue states to escape higher state taxes).

        1. These grifter red states can afford low state taxes because they make it up with federal subsidies.

          1. As if California isn’t up to their necks in Federal subsidies and are still hundreds of billions in the red in unfunded liabilities that they have every intention of paying with more Federal subsidies.

            There’s something you need to get through that head of yours that I can only assume is about 99% skull. ALL POLITICS IS A GRIFT. Your team is not honest or forthright. Nor do they care about helping people. It’s all telling you what you want to hear to win a popularity/fund-raising contest to make their friends rich by stealing from you through taxes and inflation so they can have a prestigious job and go to all the best cocktail parties. Blue states like NY and CA have had decades of absolutely zero resistance to do whatever they want short of what the constitution won’t allow (and that barely stops them anymore) and yet that is where income inequality, social unrest and homelessness all reign supreme.

            You want justice? Stop believing that the state can be on your side. The state purely at it’s conceptual level is a recipe for oligarchy.

      4. States don’t contribute to the Federal Government, dipshit.

        OTOH, an individual making $350k in FL or TN shouldn’t pay $10k more in Federal Tax than someone making $350k in CA or NY

        Does that blow past the Mendacious Talking Point Regurg Switch in your peabrain?

      5. The left is still pushing this freshman paper narrative that is quickly debunked once Medicare, social security, and defense are removed?

      6. Red state taxes pay for blue state tax deductions

      7. Does it occur to you that “red states” are biggest leeches? They contribute the least and take the most.

        Prove it, fucktard. But, you have to exclude all monies for actual interstate projects like roads, dams, parks, etc. which are paid to states to build and maintain, but mostly used by residents of other states.

        I have a feeling Wyoming residents don’t get to keep any of the sweet, sweet pork that flows into the state coffers to maintain multiple interstate road systems.

    2. Meanwhile, get a load of this: California’s top marginal tax rate is 13.3%. They’re considering a bill right now in Sacramento that would add surtaxes on millionaires that would bring their effective tax rate up to 54%.

      “The proposal would raise taxes on California millionaires, and result in a top tax rate of nearly 54% for federal and state taxes for the highest earners.

      The plan follows proposals in New York state to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for a widening budget deficit.

      —-CNBC, July 30, 2020

      https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/30/tax-hike-on-california-millionaires-would-create-54percent-tax-rate.html

      If the cap on state income tax deductions is suspended or goes away, California and New York will almost certainly start taxing the hell out of their states’ entrepreneurs–and the real victims of those taxes will be residents in other states, whose tax dollars will be used to finance the operations of the federal government in lieu of the income taxes deducted from federal taxes in California and New York state.

      You think it’s outrageous that California squanders so much money on a bullet train to nowhere? Well, if you don’t live in California, and the federal deduction for state income taxes is no longer capped at $10,000 a year, then the joke will be on you–since you’re the one that will really pay for it. You think it’s outrageous that California, Illinois, and New York state have out of control unfunded pension obligations? Well federal taxpayers in Florida, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas, and other states will be the ones paying for those obligations if the Democrats get their $1 trillion aid to states package through and they’re able to get rid of the cap on income tax deductions.

      1. and whenever they say “a tax on millionaires” it somehow always gets the middle class too. strange that.

        1. considering that in some place if you own a house, easy $500k and maybe a business property another easy $500k you are automatically a millionaire even though your not really

      2. In unrelated news, California has now solved it’s problem of having millionaires. Also unrelated, all other states see inexplicable surge in the number of millionaire residents.

    3. Did it ever occur to the state of New York that they might cut spending instead?

      No. No it did not.

    4. Bailouts of states and cities: bad.
      More tax deductions: good.

  26. Several states where schools are starting to re-open for in-person classes are already seeing COVID-19 cases among students…

    DeVos killing students on her way out the door!

  27. House Bill 838 creates a new crime: bias-motivated intimidation, which would apply to the death or serious bodily injury of a police officer…

    Protect our most vulnerable citizens.

  28. “The Winter Will Be Worse
    When socializing outside gets harder in much of the U.S., daily life will get more dismal, and the virus might spread even further.”

    Alternate title: Why Sweden was right.

    Someone is gonna have to tell the pant shitters coronaviruses stick around all year round and this may very well be the case here. It’s not like the flu that disappears and reappears.

    In other words, true leaders and enlightened minds explain to the population we need to learn to live with it.

    Instead we get doubling down of bad policies and fear mongering (see Cuomo omfg the kids will die!).

    Dr. Tegnell’s position from the onset was just about the most courageous in all this. He didn’t fool himself or his country.

  29. Imagine if the entire nation knew every single instance a kid got a cold when school starts.

    1. Pithy and correct.

    2. is there an X-Men for that/?

  30. “Several states where schools are starting to re-open for in-person classes are already seeing COVID-19 cases among students,”

    OF COURSE there will be increases. WE LOCKED DOWN and closed schools. The virus is still swirling and in need of hosts. If you want it to spread you want it to burn through the healthy.

    Jesus, I’m an ignorant moron and understand this.

    We really need to stop fixating on the fricken cases as if the world is ending.

    MOVE FORWARD and face this down with true strength.

    1. That MIGHT work with a population of rational, brave, independent people–and without a government of power-hungry nannies.

      But with what we have now? No chance.

    2. OF COURSE there will be increases. WE LOCKED DOWN and closed schools. The virus is still swirling and in need of hosts. If you want it to spread you want it to burn through the healthy.

      Even if we didn’t lock down, this is the nature of disease and statistical noise. We eliminated measles three decades ago and the vaccine is phenomenally effective, widely tolerated, and extremely well adopted/implemented. We still see outbreaks.

    3. And the flu is far deadlier to children than COVID-19 is. (The opposite is true for elderly teachers though.)

      But schools haven’t been shut down for the flu in over 100 years.

  31. “So basically force-feeding anti-bias breeds more bias,”

    /face palm.

    We needed a study to state the duh?

    1. ^exactly. Everyone who has ever had to sit through one of these ‘trainings’ knows it mostly engenders good jokes later.

  32. Covid -19 is less dangerous to kids than almost anything else on this planet.

    This is one of the most important and relevant facts impacting public policy today.

    It would be nice if Reason could mention it.

    1. If it doesn’t involve open borders, praising Antifa, or Orange Man Bad, reason isn’t interested.

      1. It is revealing and damning what Reason does not report. Across the board.

        1. Speaking of the Senate hearings this week…

          1. Some bombshells about an attempted overthrow of the 2016 election. Crickets at Reason.

    2. My fear, and I think I can speak with some authority here, is we’re going to waste energy on Covid when it’s influenza that poses the bigger threat to children come flu season.

      So far, daycares have been open since June and little to no cases.

      /crosses fingers.

      Not because we’re fear it. We fear the hysterical reactions of parents and officials more.

      1. the increased attention to the wuhan virus will help mitigate spread of flu as well. so that’s good at least.

  33. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/developed-countries-ban-mail-in-voting-us-would-be-laughing-stock-report

    Developed countries ban mail in voting. The US would be a laughing stock to embrace it. I believe “Banana Republic” has been the goal of the Democratic party since at least 2000.

    1. “Liberals and progressives often try to model the U.S. on Western European countries in many ways, but you never hear them arguing that we should adopt their voting rules. There is a reason for that. Banning mail-in voting or requiring people to use photo IDs to obtain a mail-in ballot is quite common in developed countries, especially in Europe,” he said in the report.’

      This is true. Except they made an exception with Sweden during Da Rona hysteria.

  34. BREAKING: L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti announces he is authorizing the city to shut off water and power to any houses or businesses that are hosting any parties or unauthorized large gatherings.

    Christ, what an asshole.

    1. The power and water companies should just refuse to comply and tell him to fuck off.

      1. I think he’s their boss.

      2. Why? It’s a better approach then using cops.

        1. BREAKING: L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti announces he is authorizing the city to shut off water and power to any houses or businesses that are hosting any parties or unauthorized large gatherings. It will begin Friday night, and LAPD will respond, then contact DWP to cut it off

          Emphasis added

          First off, no it isn’t. And secondly, it’s not an either/ or. Idiot.

          1. Well the cops shouldn’t arrest anyone and just gather the necessary info to support the nonviolent response.

            1. Give us your address. I am going to make a phone call and see if I can get cops to show up at your house as a ‘nonviolent response’ for your insensitivity to my white fragility.

      3. Problem is, we see some Californians being the biggest mask cultists and act accordingly attacking people for not wearing them.

        So they probably applaud this measure and ‘thank’ Garcetti for ‘protecting them’.

        People are that stupid and weak.

        1. Californians have been wearing masks religiously for 3 or 4 months.
          We had a COVID case spike after the mass-protest super-spreader event like everyone else.

          1. 4th of July celebrations?

    2. Malice.

      Low IQ people only understand low IQ solutions.

    3. So landlord’s still aren’t allowed to cut off power or water, but the government can? Yep that double standard sounds about right

  35. Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job. Click For Full Details.

  36. What’s going on with New York City’s “traveler registration checkpoints”?

    Targeting Jews for holding a funeral for a rabbi wasn’t quite Nazi* enough for Mayor Willhelm. Now he’s adding “pepiere bitte” to the act.

    *Yes, I went there. And no, I don’t give a fuck.

  37. More bad economic news.

    Reason.com’s benefactor Charles Koch only earned $1,270,000,000 yesterday.

    That means he’s still down over $6 billion this year and is barely in the global top 20. It’s so unfair that Bezos and Gates and Zuckerberg and Ballmer and Page and Musk and Brin and Ellison and the Waltons are prospering just because their businesses can apparently work without open borders.

    #OpenTheBordersToHelpCharlesKoch
    #50BillionIsntEnough

    1. (yawn)

  38. They also found that people react negatively to efforts to control them…

    WHAT?

    1. Also, people aren’t wearing enough hats.

      1. People aren’t eating enough bats?

    2. Have these people ever been to the water cooler?

  39. How bad is “cancel culture” in academia? Not too big of a problem, say more liberal-leaning professors…

    LOL

    1. let’s try this for a some other things.

      “how bad are public schools doing with their primary mission to educate children? not too bad say public school administrators who design the metrics by which they measure themselves…”

      “how bad is anti-semitism in 1930’s Germany? not too big of a problem say many gentiles in power…”

      “how bad is westward expansion for the survivability of native american tribes? not too big of a problem says Andrew Jackson….”

      “how bad is the US drug war doing? not too bad say mexico’s billionaire cartel leaders…”

  40. Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job. Click Here For Details.

  41. The necessary referendum to replace the Minneapolis police department has been taken off the ballot by the city’s Charter Commission.

    “A move to disband the Minneapolis Police Department in the wake of George Floyd’s killing faced an uncertain future Wednesday after a commission blocked the city council from putting a necessary initiative on the November ballot.

    The proposal would replace the police department with a new public safety agency, but the Minneapolis Charter Commission voted 10 to 5 to delay consideration of a ballot measure to eliminate the city charter requirement that the city maintains a certain number of police officers per capita.

    —-Washington Post

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/05/plan-disband-minneapolis-police-department-halted-city-commission-vote/

    If there had been a vote on whether to get rid of the police on the ballot in November, I suspect relatively conservative people turning up to vote against it might have made Minnesota go for Trump in November. When sending this article to the President, I bet Trump’s campaign manager included e a sad face with the link.

    : (

    1. Sounds like the Charter Commission Is being responsible and saying they cannot put a proposal with insufficient details on the ballot.

      But, hey, feel free to speculate that the REAL reason is Democrats manipulating the Presidential election.

    2. A commission can block the city council?

      I hope we have a commission in Seattle. Those fuckers are straight up insane.

      1. Depends on how the government is structured.

  42. Today is the anniversary of the A-bombing of Hiroshima.
    Just wondered on to a new book: “Hell to Pay”, Giangreco, Naval Institute Press.
    Stimson (who later deplored the use of nukes) commissioned two studies predicting casualties for the invasion; both figured US casualties of up to 1M for the campaign, 250K-500K deaths. Japanese proportionately higher, and since the Japanese didn’t surrender, their casualties would be well over 90% dead.
    Members of the Japanese military were considering that it might well take 20M Japanese ‘casualties’ to force the Allies to the bargaining table.
    I’ve yet to have anyone propose a more humane option to ending WWII; thank you Oppie, Tibbets, Truman and the lot of you.

    1. On August 6, we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima.

      The Japanese staff immediately sent out a plane to figure out why all the bases in the area had suddenly gone silent.

      After they had a chance to survey the area, President Truman broadcast a message that there was plenty more where that came from if they didn’t surrender.

      They chose not to surrender.

      We dropped the bomb on Nagasaki three days later on August 9.

      At the very least, Nagasaki should be blamed on the Japanese Imperial staff. They saw what we did in Hiroshima, they knew we were about to do it again, and they decided to do nothing to stop it.

      My argument is that if the emperor and his staff wouldn’t surrender until after both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been destroyed, then that should indicate that they effectively accepted the destruction of Hiroshima as an acceptable cost of not surrendering, too–just like they did with Nagasaki.

      1. The Japanese culture at that time was fucked up. Pointlessly dying was considered to be an honor. And what greater honor then eating a nuke for your Dear Leader. Sometimes you have no choice but to kill people.

        1. They were starting to surrender in larger numbers at Okinawa. Even the Japanese will was starting to crack. Even still, it is horrifying to contemplate how many Japanese civilians would have fought to the death and been killed during an invasion. Dropping the Atomic Bomb was the only option.

          They other thing people never mention is imagine what would have happened if Truman had refused to use the bomb and then invaded Japan. Let’s say it went better than expected and the US only took a quarter of the million casualties that MacArthur estimated it would take. That would be 250,000 casualties. Can you imagine the response of the public when it found out that the war lasted a year or more longer and the US took 250,000 more casualties when it had a bomb that could have ended the whole thing without invading but Truman refused to use it because he felt it would be inhumane to the Japanese? I think the public might have hanged Truman when that came out. And I am not sure there Democratic Party would have survived such a revelation. The political ramification of that would have been unimaginable. People would have totally lost faith in the government such that I think a revolution or a coup might have been the result. Truman would have been insane not to use the bomb.

          1. “They were starting to surrender in larger numbers at Okinawa…”

            Recent research says the surrenders were most all Okinawans pressed into Japanese service.

          2. General MacArthur was angry they used the bomb because he wanted the glory of commanding the invasion. they specifically did not tell MacArthur about the bomb to keep him from speeding up the invasion. MacArthur was an asshole and glad he was removed from command in Korea

            1. He was. But, I don’t think his estimate of a million US casualties had their been an invasion was unreasonable or far off.

              1. I don’t think he was worried or cared about the death toll.

                1. I think he did. MacArthur was guilty of a lot of things but being uncaring about casualties was not one of them. He took more care to limit casualties among his own people than any commander in the war.

                  1. Various Generals got reps for their ‘economical’ use of troops. Mac, for all his faults, really tried to keep the doggies alive.
                    “Light’n” Collins, OTOH…

            2. “MacArthur was an asshole and glad he was removed from command in Korea”

              Some jobs require a special kind of asshole: fighter pilots, quarterback, commercial real estate developer, and World War II era general are probably all on the list.

      2. If I am remembering correctly, the Emperor actually wanted to surrender after Hiroshima, and insisted on it after Nagasaki. So I think this one is actually all on the military leaders there.

      3. Even after the second bomb several generals refused to surrender and there was a short unsuccessful coupe.

        Side note my step dad was POW in Japan during the bombing. They understood what was happening and after the second bombing all the guards disappeared.

    2. The Navy and Air Force could have starved out the islands of Japan with minimal Allied casualties. But tens of millions of Japanese would have starved as a consequence. Those Japanese living today should maybe be grateful the A-bombs ended the war with far, far fewer Japanese deaths.

      1. Plus we got Godzilla movies out of it.

      2. Both this book and Frank’s “Downfall” make it clear that there were thousands and thousands of ‘collateral’ deaths per month on the Asian littoral, not to mention the fate of Alied POWS in the event of a blockade.

    3. A strongly-worded letter and more economic sanctions? (No, wait…)

      1. Maybe a pallet full of cash that’s totally not in exchange for captives/POWs.

  43. I love this. Encapsulates the state of right-wing thinking on the coronavirus right now.

    CNN: I’ve got 5 peer reviewed studies that show hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work.
    Navarro: Oh yeah? Well I’ve got my buddy Scott Adams that says otherwise! Guess that makes us equal!

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/peter-navarro-cites-dilbert-cartoonist-to-prove-experts-wrong-on-hydroxy

    1. CNN? Hahahahahahahahaha.

      1. So you think they just made up Navarro’s quotes? They manufactured a video of him saying that? Are you claiming a DEEP FAKE?

        I would like to see your evidence of that. Extraordinary claims demands overwhelming proofs.

        1. The studies don’t mean what Navarro is claiming. The drug doesn’t always work. Specifically, if it is given to patient after they are already critical and or without also including zinc. All of the studies that found it didn’t work either gave the drug to patients after they were very ill and or didn’t give zinc along with it.

          Meanwhile, studies which gave the drug along with zinc to people immediately after they tested positive or were showing symptoms show very good results.

          https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study

          Here is an example of a study that found the drug worked.

          In a large-scale retrospective analysis of 2,541 patients hospitalized between March 10 and May 2, 2020 across the system’s six hospitals, the study found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died compared to 26.4% not treated with hydroxychloroquine. None of the patients had documented serious heart abnormalities; however, patients were monitored for a heart condition routinely pointed to as a reason to avoid the drug as a treatment for COVID-19.

          The study was published today in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the peer-reviewed, open-access online publication of the International Society of Infectious Diseases (ISID.org).

          Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine at Henry Ford met specific protocol criteria as outlined by the hospital system’s Division of Infectious Diseases. The vast majority received the drug soon after admission; 82% within 24 hours and 91% within 48 hours of admission. All patients in the study were 18 or over with a median age of 64 years; 51% were men and 56% African American.

          Navaro is not telling the full truth here. Yeah, there are studies that say it doesn’t work. And those studies are valid. But they don’t mean it doesn’t work at all. They mean it doesn’t work when you wait to long to give it to people.

          God fucking forbid the truth be more complicated than dumb asses like you and Navaro want it to be so that it fits your partisan dreams.

          1. It isnt worth it at this point with the TDS crew. They will ignore all actual science and solely focus on the near end studies. They will ignore the huge study done on India. They will ignore all the European hospitals using it.

            Why pay attention to science when they can point to Navarro instead?

            1. And they will ignore the differences between the successful trials and the failures that show that the failed trials are not wrong but just show the circumstances where the drug doesn’t work and do not disprove the studies that say it does under different circumstances. Yet, somehow it is everyone else who is the “science denier”.

              Notice how they all ran away when I posted pointing this out.

              1. And they will ignore the differences between the successful trials and the failures

                They ignored it for gun control, mass welfare, light rail, every blighted inner city, so … why not?

    2. Your comment encapsulates the state of left-wing thinking.

      “It’s up to experts and talking heads to decide if we can use a drug or not!”

      Just let people take the drug if they think the studies support the idea.

    3. Scott Adams is a big step up from the doctor who thinks demons rape men in the middle of the night.

  44. I’m sure this clip will be making the rounds at Reason HQ:

    Rand Paul: Republicans should apologize to Obama for pretending to be fiscally conservative for 8 years

    https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1291108701726810113

    1. Waiting for Trumpistas to mansplain how Trump is actually the most fiscally conservative president in history, and besides which the deficit doesn’t matter.

      Oh, who said the latter? That’s right, Dick Cheney. The problem is not Trump so much as that conservatives got stuck into stupid Team Sports mentality where their side is incapable of doing wrong. The moment Cheney said that the party should have metaphorically pounded his face into the sand.

      Trump is merely the harvest we have sown.

      1. “…Trumpistas…”

        Why do brain-damaged TDS victims spend all their time making up nicknames which embarrass 1st grade kids?
        Easy; the kids are more intelligent.

      2. Waiting for TDS crew to understand how spending originates. Let’s see who is first.

    2. Paul should blame his own house first, namely McConnell and the other fake fiscal conservatives. Well maybe second after the other House.

    3. “That’s just tongue-in-cheek”

      Good, because I’d rather have them rein in the current spending now rather than apologize to Obama for opposing his spending.

  45. “Let’s not mince words: This is the Mafia’s business model,”

    AKA “free market libertarianism to the Trumptard Peanuts here.

    1. Free markets mean more than legalized child porn, you fucking pervert.

    2. As a fucking lefty ignoramus, please tell us again how O-care was ‘market-based’; you’re always good at making an amusing ass of yourself.

    3. How many times does the state have to tell you? They have a monopoly on enacting the Mafia’s business model!

    4. “I couldn’t decide what was more appalling…….”

      I have a feeling this outrage enthusiast spends a lot of time pondering what to whine about on any given day.

      “Everything is so terrible and unfair!!!!!!!”

      Haha.

  46. ‘ What’s going on with New York City’s “traveler registration checkpoints”?’

    I wish I had planned a trip to NYC, just so I could cancel it.

  47. > Georgia makes it a hate crime to damage police property.

    See, this is what happens when you make “hate” into a crime. It’s definition expands into whatever those making the rules find convenient.

    Libertarians warning leftists of this back when they first started pushing hate crime legislation decades ago. Well guess what, now the same word is being used against leftists. Property damage is property damage is property damage, and the motivation behind does not matter. Killing a Black man is evil regardless of the motivations behind it. Burning down a police station is evil regardless of the motivations behind it. Judge and sentence the act, not the motivation.

    The whole concept of “hate crime” needs to be consigned to the dumpster of history.

    1. but it won’t be.

    2. And we libertarians should also warn about the problems of making it a crime for a social media website to be “unfair”.

      1. That’s a gross misrepresentation of anything I have ever seen anyone here say.

        I have never seen anyone here suggest criminalizing such things.

        They have suggested taking away a specially granted privilege of immunity from suit when the companies in question act in a way that is not in accordance with the law that granted that privilege.

        That is not the same thing.

        1. Well, then, you have no problem with what I said because I’m not talking about you.

  48. “So basically force-feeding anti-bias breeds more bias,” Kalev said.

    LOL! I didn’t know I was a racist until they told me that I was.

    1. this perfectly sums up the anti-racism philosophy in it’s entirety.

      “You’re racist”
      “No I’m not”
      “That just shows how racist you are. Now on to chapter 2…”

  49. Not too big of a problem, say more liberal-leaning professors in a survey analysis published by Harvard’s Pippa Norris, a professor of political science and director of the Electoral Integrity Project. Their conservative colleagues, however, disagree—at least in the U.S. and other affluent, post-industrial countries.

    Dr. Mike Adams was unavailable for comment.

  50. New York City saw three straight days with no reported coronavirus deaths.

    Because there’s nobody left?

    1. Because the all clammed up rather than be sent to the nursing homes.

      1. in reality this is the best and safest choice.

      2. hilarious.

      3. DeBlasio’s concentration camps. It an even be proven scientifically!

  51. “Jake Paul has propelled to fame as a brash social media villain. And he loves it.”

    According to brash, equally self-falaciating traditional media villian CNN.

    1. If corporate media could be distilled and personified as a living, breathing person, this guy is exactly what I would picture. A completely un-self aware narcissist living in a giant decadent mansion and LARPing at protests, throwing super hip parties and living a life completely above the rules of the peasants.

  52. “Let’s not mince words: This is the Mafia’s business model,” writes Julian Sanchez, senior fellow at the Cato Institute”

    Was he talking about BLM protesters in Louisville? No? Why not? Why are you not covering the extortion racket?

  53. ENB reporting by Twitter and quoting Julian Sanchez.

    Normal day here, but what a dumpster fire Reason has become.

    1. This is exactly what she is supposed to do in the morning roundup: post some links to conversation starters and promote other Reason content. If you want real journalism, read the print magazine.

      1. I’ll bet your mommy said you were smart…

  54. >>Georgia makes it a hate crime to damage police property

    my great-grampa used to buy beat up cruisers at auction was a blast driving all over rural Oklahoma in a Plymouth Fury 440 Interceptor

  55. >>and most often Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. holds the controlling vote.

    help! help! I’m being repressed!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8ukak8P2vY

  56. Liberal professors don’t see that cancel culture is getting worse and diversity training backfires. In other news today, scientists publish papers showing that water is wet and puppies are cute.

    1. The science of puppies being cute is being perverted to support the supremacy of dogs in relation to friendship with man. As such, it is inherently evil and all lines of inquiry must be banned.

      -my cat

      1. #catlivesmatter

  57. When they came for the conservative professors I said nothing.
    When they came for the liberal professors I said “Holy sh*t, that’s me!

    1. When they came for the socialist professors, you know that the revolution was complete and the people that helped pave the way for it became a liability.

      1. Yes those that lead the revolution are the first ones executed by those behind scenes pulling the string.
        The revolutionaries have already proven themselves to be dangerous.
        See: Joe Stalin, the guy did nothing, but executed everyone that did lead the actual fight in the revolution.

  58. 1,000,000 Liberal professors say it’s not a problem, 2 conservative professors disagree, but remain anonymous so they don’t lose their jobs.

  59. Saw that the song The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down was a new target.

    The song was released by The Band in 1969. Written by Robbie Robertson and sung by Levon Helm, drummer and vocalist. Covered by many including Johnnie Cash, and made most popular by Joan Baez, It is musical art. One of the treasures.

    The subject matter is the civil war and it is from the perspective of a working class white southern farm worker dragged into it and what he endured. It does not celebrate anything. It is a sad tragic ballad. The horror of war just bleeds through it. With every chord and every double tap on that snare drum it does.

    Robbie, as he was later quoted just wanted to write something that Levon could sing better than anyone. He did that.

  60. Every month start earning more cash from $20,000 to $24,000 by working very simple j0b 0nline from home. I have earned last month $23159 from this by just doing this 0nline w0rk for maximum 3 to 4 hrs a day using my laptop. This home j0b is just awesome and regular earning from this are much times better than other regular 9 to 5 desk j0b. Now every person on this earth can get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow instructions on the given web page….Click For Full Details.

  61. STAY HOME AND STARTING WORK AT HOME EASILY… MORE AND MORE EARNING DAILY BY JUST FOLLOW THESE STEPS, I am a student and i work daily on this site and earn money..HERE? <a HERE? Read More

  62. The only surprise is they found a conservative professor to poll. In related news, thieves don’t think the crime rate is high and fish don’t think water is wet.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.