IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 25th February 2021, 03:51 PM   #201
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,659
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Your reference doesn't address numbers related to covid at all as far as I can see. So... Are you claiming that this source, which is clearly not unbiased, somehow suggests that Trump's poor handling resulted in 30% to 50% more deaths than we otherwise would have experienced?

Our case fatality rates are actually pretty good.
http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visu...ies-normalized
You realize that a low case fatality rate makes the total deaths per capita look like a worse failure, right?

Given a low case fatality rate and comparable spread of infection, you would expect to see lower deaths per capita. The fact that our deaths per capita are higher than most countries ( We're number 7 or 8 when you you take out the micronations) that actually shows we've been REALLY bad at containing the spread.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 04:09 PM   #202
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,460
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Your reference doesn't address numbers related to covid at all as far as I can see. So... Are you claiming that this source, which is clearly not unbiased, somehow suggests that Trump's poor handling resulted in 30% to 50% more deaths than we otherwise would have experienced?

Our case fatality rates are actually pretty good.
http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visu...ies-normalized
Yes it does. It claims 40% of the covid deaths in the US would have been prevented by comparison to other industrialized nations and does control for obesity rates (the US having a greater obesity rate is highly exaggerated so it simply isn't the superstar handwave you and Zig think it is). Sorry it's such a large and well conducted study that the information isn't super easy to find. A lesson in saving the spot when you find it. Have an example news report on it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ll/4453762001/

(The Lancet study is not biased just because it correctly notes how worthless GOP policy is.)
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 04:09 PM   #203
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 15,356
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
You realize that a low case fatality rate makes the total deaths per capita look like a worse failure, right?

Given a low case fatality rate and comparable spread of infection, you would expect to see lower deaths per capita. The fact that our deaths per capita are higher than most countries ( We're number 7 or 8 when you you take out the micronations) that actually shows we've been REALLY bad at containing the spread.
Low case fatality rate also reflects the volume of testing per capita. A high volume of testing will result in a low CFR because more of the mild cases are caught and counted. That kind of close monitoring and counting also means that more deaths are attributed to COVID, because the deceased were tested and identified as having had COVID, rather than just being listed as deaths without testing.

Total deaths per capita is affected by a great many things, including population density, mobility of the population, climate (time spent outdoors or in well ventilated areas), and many others. Mask usage is certainly among them.

One thing that could have been done that would have had a more material impact on case transmission rates is contact tracing and isolation. But that requires some very close monitoring of all the people in the country and everyone they come into contact with. It can be very effective, it's a large part of how S. Korea kept their rates under control. But it's also something that most Americans would view as a massive invasion of privacy. I don't think it's something that any administration could have enacted in the US.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 04:21 PM   #204
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 15,356
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Yes it does. It claims 40% of the covid deaths in the US would have been prevented by comparison to other industrialized nations and does control for obesity rates (the US having a greater obesity rate is highly exaggerated so it simply isn't the superstar handwave you and Zig think it is). Sorry it's such a large and well conducted study that the information isn't super easy to find. A lesson in saving the spot when you find it. Have an example news report on it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ll/4453762001/

(The Lancet study is not biased just because it correctly notes how worthless GOP policy is.)
I'm not sure you actually read your own source...

Quote:
About 40% of the nation’s coronavirus deaths could have been prevented if the United States’ average death rate matched other industrialized nations, a new Lancet Commission report has found.

While the Lancet Commission on Public Policy and Health in the Trump Era faulted former President Donald Trump’s “inept and insufficient” response to COVID-19, its report said roots of the nation’s poor health outcomes are much deeper.

...

The report found U.S. life expectancy began trailing other industrialized nations four decades ago. In 2018, two years before the pandemic, the report said 461,000 fewer Americans would have died if U.S. mortality rates matched other Group of Seven nations: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom.
...

“The overriding thing that we need to do in our country is to decrease the huge and widening inequalities that have emerged in our nation,” Himmelstein said.

COVID-19 has disproportionately affected people of color, with the death rates among Blacks increasing 50% compared with whites. Coronavirus deaths for people of color are 1.2 to 3.6 times higher than for whites; the disparities were especially high among middle-aged adults, possibly a sign of crowded living conditions and jobs that did not allow people to safely distance, the report said.
The report cites a multitude of factors, including the weakening of social safety nets that dates from Reagan's administration, wealth inequality, population density, and many other things in addition to Trump's poor response.

ETA: Of the countries noted, two of the seven have deaths per capita from COVID worse than the US.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 25th February 2021 at 04:23 PM.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 04:36 PM   #205
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,358
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I'm not sure you actually read your own source...



The report cites a multitude of factors, including the weakening of social safety nets that dates from Reagan's administration, wealth inequality, population density, and many other things in addition to Trump's poor response.

ETA: Of the countries noted, two of the seven have deaths per capita from COVID worse than the US.
And the report seems to go a tad afield here:

Quote:
The commissionís wish list goes beyond medical care to include progressives ideals such as the Green New Deal, criminal justice reform, repealing Trumpís 2017 tax cuts and increasing spending on social programs to the levels of six other industrialized nations.
How all of those would have reduced substantially the death rate from covid is perhaps left as an exercise for the reader?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 04:39 PM   #206
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,460
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I'm not sure you actually read your own source...



The report cites a multitude of factors, including the weakening of social safety nets that dates from Reagan's administration, wealth inequality, population density, and many other things in addition to Trump's poor response.

ETA: Of the countries noted, two of the seven have deaths per capita from COVID worse than the US.
And? Wait, if the GOP has been building on bad policy from Reagan on, it's not the fault of anyone still continuing those policies? What do you think you are saying here?

Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
And the report seems to go a tad afield here:



How all of those would have reduced substantially the death rate from covid is perhaps left as an exercise for the reader?
No, it is part of the paper. But yes, you do have to be a reader.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 04:45 PM   #207
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 14,861
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Compared to what pretty much any other administration would have done.
I don't think that's a reasonable stance, given what Trump had done to the Pandemic Task Force and plan long before Covid-19.
Those where Bush plans, refined by Obama, and removed and defunded by Trump precisely because they came from Obama.

Maybe we will see in a year when more information about what went wrong will become public knowledge, but it is very unlikely that it will be exculpatory to Trump.
__________________
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 04:45 PM   #208
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,659
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Low case fatality rate also reflects the volume of testing per capita. A high volume of testing will result in a low CFR because more of the mild cases are caught and counted.
We don't need to guess at testing levels from other numbers, testing is well tracked. We're okay to middling on testing, ranked lower than we are on tests.

Quote:
That kind of close monitoring and counting also means that more deaths are attributed to COVID, because the deceased were tested and identified as having had COVID, rather than just being listed as deaths without testing.
That's an unwarranted extrapolation. People who are dying are tested most places. People with extreme enough symptoms that they're about to sie of it are getting tested.

There's not much reason to think that US is at the top for diagnosing Covid as cause of death, in fact there's more reason to suspect the opposite.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 04:50 PM   #209
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 15,356
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
I don't think that's a reasonable stance, given what Trump had done to the Pandemic Task Force and plan long before Covid-19.
Those where Bush plans, refined by Obama, and removed and defunded by Trump precisely because they came from Obama.

Maybe we will see in a year when more information about what went wrong will become public knowledge, but it is very unlikely that it will be exculpatory to Trump.
I don't expect it to exculpate Trump. I just don't think the magnitude is as massive as it keeps getting made out to be.

Although this is also off topic for this conversation.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 08:22 PM   #210
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 17,175
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Between 3% and 5%
Seriously?

Given that USA death rate is so much higher than any other developed country where the messaging was correct, i.e. lockdown, socially distance, stay home and mask up, I would put it between 30% and 50%
__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms.
- Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project)
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 25th February 2021 at 10:20 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 08:47 PM   #211
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 4,959
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Ok, we can't trust the government to protect the public from press knowingly misinforming the public, we can't trust the press not to knowingly misinform the public, and we can't trust the public to be able to tell truth from lies. Where do we go from here?
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Indeed it is a difficult problem...

.... Other times, I find myself no more enlightened than when I began.
As much as I hate a few posters' hot takes on "the rot" inevitably eroding this country I don't think that's such an unreasonable view based on the huge chunk of the US population's penchant for lies and conspiracy theories. But we need to uphold our free press, of course, including every nook and cranny of the most obscure social media. Looks bleak.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 09:43 PM   #212
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,519
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
I don't think that's a reasonable stance, given what Trump had done to the Pandemic Task Force and plan long before Covid-19.
Those where Bush plans, refined by Obama, and removed and defunded by Trump precisely because they came from Obama.

Maybe we will see in a year when more information about what went wrong will become public knowledge, but it is very unlikely that it will be exculpatory to Trump.
I would have never guessed that the guy whose total health care proposal is "better, cheaper, and now", and who was shocked to discover that it was a bit more complex than that, would have no real understanding of how to manage a health care/disease crisis.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 09:58 PM   #213
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 25,497
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
As much as I hate a few posters' hot takes on "the rot" inevitably eroding this country I don't think that's such an unreasonable view based on the huge chunk of the US population's penchant for lies and conspiracy theories. But we need to uphold our free press, of course, including every nook and cranny of the most obscure social media. Looks bleak.
I don't think the rot is inevitable, but I do think it's a real danger, and I do think something needs to be done.

At the heart of it is that people have to seek truth, and right now, I wouldn't say that most people do that on issues of politics or current events. They seek confirmation of their pre-existing views. i also don't think it is specifically a left/right thing. I think the right wing is more extreme about it, in that they practically demand loyalty oaths from both broadcasters and politicians. Fox News was declared insufficiently conservative when they actually dared to tell the truth about the election results. Politicians who have refused to vote the party line have been literally censured by the branches in their home governments. However, the left wing has their own version.

Somewhere, a media source has to spring up that either is neutral and trusted, which seems unlikely to ever happen, or that genuinely presents "both sides" of an issue.

I sometimes wonder if the US government could create a public affairs programming channel. Now, here comes the weird part. The content broadcast on the channel would be determined by individual members of Congress. In other words, "This hour's contents were chosen by John Smith, Representative of the 3rd District of Oregon.", and for that hour, it shows whatever Representative Smith thinks we need to know. Each Congressman gets X hours. Senators get Y hours. Maybe governors get some time. No one else gets, anything, at all.

Obviously, that isn't a non-partisan and unbiased view of things. it isn't supposed to be, but maybe the presence of overtly partisan sources would spark the existence of non-partisan fact checkers. Snopes might become the authority.

In a way, it would be the 21st century update of the Congressional Record. The primary purpose of that record when it was conceived in the days of the founding of the republic would be that it would record all business conducted, but an incredibly important part of that business were the speeches made supporting or opposing whatever was going on in Congress at the time. It was the way to pitch your persuasive speeches, which might then be picked up by the partisan newspapers.

Would it work? I doubt it. But soemthing has to work. Somehow, people have to be exposed to the other side, rather than a set of media outlets whose sole purpose is to keep their fans tuning in to buy soap.
__________________
Yes, yes. I know you are right. But would it hurt you to provide some information?
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 10:16 PM   #214
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,308
When members of Congress write you a letter on their letterhead as members of Congress, I think itís reasonable to assume that they are writing with at least some of the weight of the government behind them.
Further, itís reasonable to assume that itís an inquiry with some governmental motive, usually policy-making, behind it.

On their face, the content of the letters, the questions that they ask, is at least somewhat accusatory. The deeper implication is that at least these particular law makers may want to pursue government hearings or draft bills concerning what ethical and moral (and therefore legal) responsibilities these companies have to keep certain speech off their slate of offerings.

This seems obvious to me on its face. To say that letters from Congress donít have some higher purpose (crafting law) is preposterous.

I totally oppose the idea that the government can tell a media company, through legislation, what they are allowed to put on their programs or which channels they are allowed to carry. The government, in the context of Free Speech, is not the arbiter of Truth. As Zig said earlier, if we allow them to seize the role of arbiters of Truth, we are also giving them the power to determine what is Untruth.

Should the government have the power to say, ďall religious channels are banned from the airwaves?Ē Even as an atheist, I would say the answer is no. Should they be able to say, ďanti-vaccine information is banned from the airwaves?Ē Even as a champion of science, I say the answer is no. Because how long will it be until they say, ďClimate science is banned from the airwaves?Ē If we give them the power to determine the Truth and the government is one day run by anti-science whack jobs (and we all know how very possible that is) thatís a very possible outcome.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 12:02 AM   #215
dann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,908
Let them eat bleach

New and improved versions:

Voltaire: I Don't Disapprove of Your Lies, And I Will Defend to the Death of My Opponents Your Right to Spread Them
Orwell, 1984: War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Truth is tyranny.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that lying is as important to present-day Republicans as being able to own assault rifles.
In the name of atheism and science.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 01:02 AM   #216
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 28,585
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
When members of Congress write you a letter on their letterhead as members of Congress, I think itís reasonable to assume that they are writing with at least some of the weight of the government behind them.
Further, itís reasonable to assume that itís an inquiry with some governmental motive, usually policy-making, behind it.

On their face, the content of the letters, the questions that they ask, is at least somewhat accusatory. The deeper implication is that at least these particular law makers may want to pursue government hearings or draft bills concerning what ethical and moral (and therefore legal) responsibilities these companies have to keep certain speech off their slate of offerings.

This seems obvious to me on its face. To say that letters from Congress donít have some higher purpose (crafting law) is preposterous.

I totally oppose the idea that the government can tell a media company, through legislation, what they are allowed to put on their programs or which channels they are allowed to carry. The government, in the context of Free Speech, is not the arbiter of Truth. As Zig said earlier, if we allow them to seize the role of arbiters of Truth, we are also giving them the power to determine what is Untruth.

Should the government have the power to say, ďall religious channels are banned from the airwaves?Ē Even as an atheist, I would say the answer is no. Should they be able to say, ďanti-vaccine information is banned from the airwaves?Ē Even as a champion of science, I say the answer is no. Because how long will it be until they say, ďClimate science is banned from the airwaves?Ē If we give them the power to determine the Truth and the government is one day run by anti-science whack jobs (and we all know how very possible that is) thatís a very possible outcome.
And yet we are faced with a huge dilemma today and that is Goebbels/Hitler/Trump big lie. A major political party and large media outlets are promoting disinformation that threatens not only our democracy, but our lives. America continues to face an existential crisis.

The gaslighting of Americans has reached epidemic proportions. We cannot solve the epidemic if people won't get the vaccine.

I use to think how stupid it was that in countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan were refusing to get vaccines for polio because of distrust spread by the Mullahs and others. And here today modern America is facing the same problem.

Are we going to let hundreds of thousands (maybe more) of people die because we can make common sense decisions?
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 01:09 AM   #217
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 25,497
I thought about how to fix the disinformation problem, and even my off the cuff idea of a government provided news and information service, and realized the flaw in the whole concept. It's the same problem that faces electoral reform, and why any change to election laws is very difficult. At it's heart, this system really is an electoral reform problem. We need the American people to be better informed so that they can make better decisions at the ballot box.

So, having identified that there is a deficiency, we need government to step in and do something about it. Government has to step in and provide correct information to mitigate the flow of disinformation.

So....who does that help? No matter what solution is proposed, people will be able to look at the proposal and see that it helps one party or the other. So, either way, there will be huge opposition to it. Well, maybe it will at least help the majority party, so they can vote it in. If the current majority doesn't want to, we can wait until the other party gets the majority. However, regardless of which side wants it, they don't have a motivation to provide an unbiased source. They have power, so they'll manipulate it toward their side when they have the power to do so.

And that's the smaller problem. The bigger problem is that we want reform of something because the people aren't making good choices. Who has to approve the reform? The people we chose. More specifically, the people who successfully used the status quo to get into power. So we have a politician, and we're telling him, "Fix this system, so that next time, we make better choices." Last time, we chose him. We want him to fix it so that next time, we do better.

It doesn't seem like they have much incentive. In general, any electoral reform is very difficult because the people who have to pass it are the people who successfully used the status quo system to achieve power. Why would they want to replace the method they used to rise to the top?

ETA: Any solution, therefore, has to come from the private sector, but at least large companies in the private sector don't have much incentive to do things differently, either. They got large by doing things the same.
__________________
Yes, yes. I know you are right. But would it hurt you to provide some information?

Last edited by Meadmaker; 26th February 2021 at 01:12 AM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 03:05 AM   #218
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,181
I think you guys in the US need to stop looking at things in black and white. Free speech is necessary in a democracy. Freedom to lie to attack said democracy is detriment to democracy. The answer is to allow free speech but to punish it in certain circumstances - like you already do with libel laws.

You may object and say that a future authoritarian government could abuse this to censor legitimate criticism, and the answer to that is that 1, they would do so anyway and 2, the risk of a future authoritarian government is massively increased if you do not act against the massive amount of misinformation dominating one side of American politics.

The penalty for spreading life-threatening misinformation or undermining democracy should only be applied when the guilty party has sufficient reach. That means media organizations and public figures operating as media through social media. This should be monitored by a non-partisan government group consisting of public servants, non-elected positions.

For normal people, hate speech should be penalized. That means Nazi grandma spreading anti-semitic memes on facebook would be liable for punishment. This applies for publishing (including via social media), or otherwise spreading to a larger audience, hatred against protected classes.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 03:39 AM   #219
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,628
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Yes it does. It claims 40% of the covid deaths in the US would have been prevented by comparison to other industrialized nations and does control for obesity rates (the US having a greater obesity rate is highly exaggerated so it simply isn't the superstar handwave you and Zig think it is). Sorry it's such a large and well conducted study that the information isn't super easy to find. A lesson in saving the spot when you find it. Have an example news report on it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ll/4453762001/

(The Lancet study is not biased just because it correctly notes how worthless GOP policy is.)
That's not a study. It's political advocacy. Even the news report you reference notes that the authors are pushing an agenda. Have you even read the abstract? It's just a blame Trump masturbatory exercise, not a "well conducted study". And if you DID read the abstract and thought that sounded objective, then just wow.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 03:41 AM   #220
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,628
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
I think you guys in the US need to stop looking at things in black and white. Free speech is necessary in a democracy. Freedom to lie to attack said democracy is detriment to democracy. The answer is to allow free speech but to punish it in certain circumstances - like you already do with libel laws.
Yes, we already do. That's sort of the point: we don't need to go further.

Quote:
For normal people, hate speech should be penalized.
No. There is no safe way to categorize what counts as hate speech which isn't subject to serious overreach.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 03:52 AM   #221
dann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,908
It is unimportant that there is no safe way to spread hate speech, so protecting lying and hate speech - and lying is essential to hate speech - goes before all safety concerns of the victims of hate speech.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 05:22 AM   #222
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,628
Originally Posted by dann View Post
It is unimportant that there is no safe way to spread hate speech
There is no way to even define hate speech which doesn't ultimately boil down to speech you really don't like.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 05:40 AM   #223
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 14,861
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
There is no way to even define hate speech which doesn't ultimately boil down to speech you really don't like.
I don't think "boil down" is the right expression: it's not like it's less hate speech just because I don't like it.
It can be 100% of both.
__________________
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 06:06 AM   #224
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,181
Many countries manage to define hate speech just fine in order to legislate against it. Is this another example of "American Exceptionalism"?
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 06:10 AM   #225
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,258
I wouldn't say anything is inherently different about the US, but it is a way in which I would prefer to be different than countries that restrict such speech.

I honestly believe the potential cost to be worse than the potential damage. Catastrophe need not ensue in countries trying it, in order for me to still think so.
__________________

gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 06:13 AM   #226
Distracted1
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 5,612
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Many countries manage to define hate speech just fine in order to legislate against it. Is this another example of "American Exceptionalism"?
Which Country's example should we follow when legislating against types of speech?
North Korea? China? The Phillipines? They seem to be doing "just fine" punishing speech that is disagreeable, no?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 06:15 AM   #227
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,181
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
I wouldn't say anything is inherently different about the US, but it is a way in which I would prefer to be different than countries that restrict such speech.

I honestly believe the potential cost to be worse than the potential damage. Catastrophe need not ensue in countries trying it, in order for me to still think so.
The catastrophe is occuring in the US and your position on "free speech" is mainly to blame.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 06:18 AM   #228
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,258
I think there are ways to tackle what we are seeing without fundamental change in free speech protections.

For example, I support social media companies being choosy in what they allow users to amplify.
__________________

gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 06:21 AM   #229
Distracted1
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 5,612
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
The catastrophe is occuring in the US and your position on "free speech" is mainly to blame.
For certain values of "catastrophe".
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 08:01 AM   #230
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,628
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
I don't think "boil down" is the right expression: it's not like it's less hate speech just because I don't like it.
It can be 100% of both.
You have that backwards: it's not LESS hate speech because you don't like it, it's ONLY hate speech because you don't like it. There is no other criteria which can actually define what constitutes hate speech.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 08:04 AM   #231
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,628
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Many countries manage to define hate speech just fine
No, they do not. They attempt to define it, but it's always subjectively evaluated and selectively enforced. It's not "just fine". Those laws get abused. The best that can be said for them is that the current level of abuse doesn't pass whatever threshold your tolerance is set at, but that's not good enough for me.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 08:04 AM   #232
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 14,861
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You have that backwards: it's not LESS hate speech because you don't like it, it's ONLY hate speech because you don't like it. There is no other criteria which can actually define what constitutes hate speech.
that is incorrect, pretty obviously.
What the KKK shouted wasn't hate speech because civil rights advocates didn't like it.
__________________
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so

Last edited by The Great Zaganza; 26th February 2021 at 08:05 AM.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 08:10 AM   #233
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 20,430
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That's not a study. It's political advocacy. Even the news report you reference notes that the authors are pushing an agenda. Have you even read the abstract? It's just a blame Trump masturbatory exercise, not a "well conducted study". And if you DID read the abstract and thought that sounded objective, then just wow.
I read the abstract off your recommendation.

That is objective.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 08:13 AM   #234
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,628
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
that is incorrect, pretty obviously.
What the KKK shouted wasn't hate speech because civil rights advocates didn't like it.
You haven't presented a definition. Nor does one even exist under US law.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 08:15 AM   #235
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,628
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I read the abstract off your recommendation.

That is objective.
"This report by the Lancet Commission on Public Policy and Health in the Trump Era assesses the repercussions of President Donald Trump's health-related policies and examines the failures and social schisms that enabled his election."

Yeah, no. That's not only not objective, that's not even public health.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 08:24 AM   #236
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 20,430
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
"This report by the Lancet Commission on Public Policy and Health in the Trump Era assesses the repercussions of President Donald Trump's health-related policies and examines the failures and social schisms that enabled his election."

Yeah, no. That's not only not objective, that's not even public health.
It isnt subjective to label failures as failures and social schisms as social schisms. If they express an opinion about those failures being good or bad (which they probably don't later) that would be subjective.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 08:26 AM   #237
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,628
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
It isnt subjective to label failures as failures and social schisms as social schisms. If they express an opinion about those failures being good or bad (which they probably don't later) that would be subjective.
I can't tell if you're truly that naive or just dishonest.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 08:27 AM   #238
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 20,430
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I can't tell if you're truly that naive or just dishonest.
That is meant to say probably do later. That was a typo.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 08:37 AM   #239
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,659
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Which Country's example should we follow when legislating against types of speech?
North Korea? China? The Phillipines? They seem to be doing "just fine" punishing speech that is disagreeable, no?
Germany maybe?

Plenty of thriving countries in the developed world have more restrictions on speech than the US.

For any broad area of policy you don't like, you could probly name a group of countries that implement some variation in an oppressive or harmful way. That's cherry picking.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2021, 08:51 AM   #240
dann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,908
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
There is no way to even define hate speech which doesn't ultimately boil down to speech you really don't like.

What is hate speech? (UN)
Quote:
In the context of this document, the term hate speech is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:50 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.