True, but this thread is more about free speech, and the OP’s argument that there should be restrictions on the free speech of those who would criticize, condemn, or even ignore certain points of view.
I’ll agree entirely that the specifics of the book in question should be taken to another thread, but I was just pointing out that no examples of censorship have been made.
Well, if you’re going to liken a contemporary book to Hitler’s autobiography (thus invoking Godwin) then yes, I think it’s reasonable to expect that you have read it unless looking like a crockpot is your goal. I personally don’t go around slamming books unless I can point out the problematic parts and make a case for my position.
You believe the book is bad because you’re taking the word of reviewers that have told you the book is bad. Thanks for making this clear.
I expect to see fact-based arguments when I see strong opinions about subjects pertaining to medical ethics and treatment decisions. It is disturbing that so many laymen believe they have a better handle on the truth than actual medical experts who are saying the same thing Shrier seems to be saying.
The ongoing politicization of this issue is not only fueling interest in Shrier’s book. It is also intensifying the perception that there actually is a medical ethics problem.
Since absolutely no one here has said “having Amazon tell us what to think is actually better than having Murdoch telling us”, exactly what point do you think you’re making?
Cite please?
Please will you point out where I, or Glenn Greenwald, have argued for such restrictions?
Crockpot?
You seem to be arguing that not accepting ads or running reviews is wrong or a problem and should stop. I don’t see you actually making a positive argument at all. What are looking to happen? You don’t want to force anyone to do anything, you just want them to agree with you?
You haven’t presented any compelling arguments for why they should. Lets just exam the lack of reviews for a minute. Do you believe that every book should be reviewed on every platform? Since this is clearly impossible, what criteria do you find acceptable, and how would a) communicate this to the platforms and b) encourage compliance?
In your OP:
All other forms of “censorship” are people exercising their freedom of speech to criticize, condemn, or ignore POV’s that they disagree with. The only possible remedy that you could be seeking by making this argument is to compel private citizens and businesses to no longer criticize, condemn, or ignore POV’s that they disagree with.
If not that, then what remedy is it that you seek?
This is the description of the book on Amazon.
Until just a few years ago, gender dysphoria—severe discomfort in one’s biological sex—was vanishingly rare. It was typically found in less than .01 percent of the population, emerged in early childhood, and afflicted males almost exclusively.
But today whole groups of female friends in colleges, high schools, and even middle schools across the country are coming out as “transgender.” These are girls who had never experienced any discomfort in their biological sex until they heard a coming-out story from a speaker at a school assembly or discovered the internet community of trans “influencers.”
Unsuspecting parents are awakening to find their daughters in thrall to hip trans YouTube stars and “gender-affirming” educators and therapists who push life-changing interventions on young girls—including medically unnecessary double mastectomies and puberty blockers that can cause permanent infertility.
Abigail Shrier, a writer for the Wall Street Journal, has dug deep into the trans epidemic, talking to the girls, their agonized parents, and the counselors and doctors who enable gender transitions, as well as to “detransitioners”—young women who bitterly regret what they have done to themselves.
Coming out as transgender immediately boosts these girls’ social status, Shrier finds, but once they take the first steps of transition, it is not easy to walk back. She offers urgently needed advice about how parents can protect their daughters.
A generation of girls is at risk. Abigail Shrier’s essential book will help you understand what the trans craze is and how you can inoculate your child against it—or how to retrieve her from this dangerous path.
Now read the report from Sweden that I described earlier.. Here is a key part.
Swedish child psychiatrist, Sven Roman has compared the explosive growth in the number of cases of gender dysphoria to other psychiatric conditions, such as eating disorders and self-harm behaviour, that are known to spread with social contacts. He documents the process of discovery that the medical community went through to understand how to best treat these kinds of conditions. Over the past decade, he says research has proven that supportive psychotherapy can reduce or stop self-harm behaviour within 3 months. Of the avalanche of gender dysphoria cases being referred, he says:
Unlike the epidemic of self-harm behavior, (gender dysphoria) care providers are not exploring to find the right treatment. Instead, on a broad front, drastic treatment with high doses of sex hormones and breast and genital surgery is introduced. This despite the lack of any scientific evidence for these treatments for children, and probably not for young adults either.
It is not clear to me why this is an issue laymen are even arguing about. This should primarily be a debate occurring between medical professionals, rather than people with zero insight into the epidemiology of gender dysphoria or evidence-based treatment protocols. Watching people attack Shrier’s book is like watching people attack a book about the overprescribing of anti-depressants, truly.
in another thread.
The only possible remedy for people voting for Trump is ban him from the ballot?
What I mostly want is for things not to happen: people to not denounce books they haven’t read based on second hand opinions, Amazon to not refuse to run ads, Target to not pull books from their shelves because of pressure from small groups of activists. I want people to put free speech and free exchange of ideas above promoting their personal beliefs.
Ummm, no. I’m not sure I follow your analogy here.
Okay, so you don’t want any of those groups to have free speech.
So, people may not express their personal beliefs?
Man oh man. How many times, in how many ways do I have to say I don’t want to stop people doing anything, ban anything, whatever? I support the Nazis right to free speech, and I support Target’s right to stock what books they want. But I’d like Target not to remove books because they are controversial, and I’d damn sure prefer people not be Nazis.
When we discuss Trump voters, people seem to understand that it is possible for people to change their minds. And yet when we discuss free speech, cancel culture etc, somehow the only options mentioned are laws. I’m not talking about laws! I’m talking about people’s beliefs and attitudes. These also can change, and be more or less good for society. I see a change which is bad for society. I don’t really know what the solution is, but maybe someone else has an idea.
You support Target’s right to stock what books they want, but you don’t support their right to not stock what books they don’t want.
IMHO your opinion is clear to everyone but you.
Oh well, in that case, I wish people would expose themselves to different ideas and be MUCH better at critical thinking. I wish that everyone contributing to the marketplace of ideas was an honest actor and presenting high-quality information in good faith. If that were the case, free speech would be a complete non-issue.
Unfortunately, we live in reality, where confirmation bias is the order of the day, and critical thinking is more-or-less non-existent (oddly, the people who often claim to be critical or free thinkers almost always aren’t). In the real world, we have a significant problem with lies, propaganda and disinformation becoming the fixation and truth for certain social bubbles. So any thoughts on what can be done in the real world?
Is it okay for Target to not stock and/or promote/review pro-Nazi books, in your opinion?
Supporting the right to do something is not the same as supporting doing that thing. Do you understand the distinction or not?
Unlike most people on this board, I do observe much of the sentiment expressed by Glen Greenwald increasingly prevalent among left-wing people on the internet, but I wonder if it’s necessarily a change in attitude towards free speech, or simply a result of overall shifting tides of what is currently considered “acceptable” free speech. I think what people like @iiandyiiii have stated is quite possibly the most common worldview among people - they are not against corporate censorship as a general principle, they only like to see it used for what they see as good, as opposed to what they see as evil. Eg. it’s a bad thing for organizations to censor someone’s views because, say, they are a trans activist, but it’s a good thing if they are censoring a white supremacist. So what is more likely, @DemonTree, is that left-wing people never really did support the idea of “all speech should be free from censorship, whether it is government or corporate” any more in the past; rather there are fewer circumstances where they feel the need to bring up free speech because the views they advocate for are now mainstream instead of fringe viewpoints. I think the flawed assumption is that there are a large number of people who actually believe that “true” free speech (ie. that private organizations should refrain from censorship) is a good thing - it’s pretty clear for example that most people in this thread have no problem with corporate or cultural censorship.
That being said, for the specific article that you posted, I find the article to be highly misleading - while it is true that Chase Strangio (the ACLU lawyer) posted a tweet that stated that " stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on", he stated in a message to Glen Greenwald that it was meant to be a cheeky response to an opinion writer and later deleted that tweet, which seems to be a recognition that it could be misconstrued as somehow supporting censorship of the book. The full message can be found here. Strangio emphasized that he would never advocate for an entity to ban a book, but that he felt the ideas in the book were dangerous. Saying that you think certain ideas are dangerous is not a form of censorship, I think you would agree?
From what I can see, there isn’t a clear line between what is and isn’t advocating for censorship - I think most would agree saying “this book is dangerous garbage and nobody should bother wasting their hard earned dollars on it” isn’t advocating for censorship, but is that statement really that different from “this book is dangerous garbage and nobody should waste their time reading it”, or “this book is dangerous garbage and no publisher should waste any effort on publishing it”? Only something as far as “this book is dangerous garbage and should be illegal” would most people start to agree that the person is advocating for censorship.
TLDR:
-I don’t think the left really cared much about limiting corporate censorship as a general concept in the past (neither do people on the right, IMO), most average people are only concerned about specific ideas being censored
-The ACLU is one of the few groups that DO care about limiting corporate censorship
-Glen Greenwald’s article doesn’t convince me at all that the ACLU has weakened their stance on that; one deleted tweet taken out of context is the flimsiest evidence possible
Yes. Low and slow.
What?
I’ll go with Slow and Low.