Quo Vadis GOP?

[The Minsky Moment]

I think that so utterly and completed misses the point, which has already been stated multiple times.  It's not about people saying stupid things, it's about a dynamic where people exercise the power of the twitter mob to cow structures with real power into doing the suppression of free speech for them, successfully enough that on multiple subjects there is no longer a truthful debate due to resulting self-censorship. 

Yes you've said this multiple times but with no evidence to support that this is in anyway a real and widespread problem in the United States.

[The Larch]

on multiple subjects there is no longer a truthful debate due to resulting self-censorship

In which subjects?

[DGuller]

Yes you've said this multiple times but with no evidence to support that this is in anyway a real and widespread problem in the United States.

Okay, fine, argue against my position by saying there is no evidence for it.  Don't argue against my position by ignoring the position I'm stating and instead arguing against a strawman no one is arguing against.  At least the former path has a chance of going somewhere, whereas the latter path is just another tactic to stifle effective discussion.

[DGuller]

on multiple subjects there is no longer a truthful debate due to resulting self-censorship

In which subjects?

Social justice subjects, and other subjects that tie into social justice subjects.  If you ask me to explain in detail what it is that I'm self-censoring myself about, I'm going to decline answering that, but I assure you it's not virulent racism or anything of the kind.

[The Larch]

on multiple subjects there is no longer a truthful debate due to resulting self-censorship

In which subjects?

Social justice subjects, and other subjects that tie into social justice subjects.  If you ask me to explain in detail what it is that I'm self-censoring myself about, I'm going to decline answering that, but I assure you it's not virulent racism or anything of the kind.

Not very explanatory...

Can you mention something in particular? A particular topic or argument that you think is not being made or brought up?

[DGuller]

Not very explanatory...

Can you mention something in particular? A particular topic or argument that you think is not being made or brought up?

I understand that it is frustrating to have a discussion where one person goes "I'm not comfortable discussing the details".  Believe me, it's even more frustrating to not be comfortable discussing the details.

[The Minsky Moment]

Okay, fine, argue against my position by saying there is no evidence for it. 

Such as

I know you (and others e.g. Berkut) have said this before, but as I see it the chilling effect isn't measured at all.  It's just stated through assertion.  My own impression from interacting with the corporate world is that laddism is still quite alive and well and considerable more prevalent than the attitudes of Garden Court Chambers.  But that's just more argument by anecdote.

If you look at "elite" US universities today, the notion that conservatives are cowed and silenced just doesn't hold water . . .

?

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think what he was saying required an example.  How do you even support with specific examples an assertion that protections of free speech from the government coupled with cancel culture still leads to no free speech in society?  That's a reasoning-based argument:  you either feel free for your words to match your thinking, in which case society can openly discuss how to solve problems, or you're not, regardless of what entity makes you say things different to what you're thinking.  Do you really need specific examples to see how this environment leads to suboptimal decision-making?

The problem is that his visual aid doesn't distinguish between PC censorship and societal norms.  I assume there are people in the world who really want to say "I hate niggers" or "I hate fags."  Suppressing or punishing that speech is not what I would characterize as PC censorship.

[Razgovory]

Not very explanatory...

Can you mention something in particular? A particular topic or argument that you think is not being made or brought up?

I understand that it is frustrating to have a discussion where one person goes "I'm not comfortable discussing the details".  Believe me, it's even more frustrating to not be comfortable discussing the details.

C'mon DG, Lay it on us.  Don't make us guess.

[Jacob]

That's a good observation, Yi. I think you can turn it around and say that the issue is that what the social norms are (or what they should be) is highly contested right now - perhaps more so than usual.

[Admiral Yi]

C'mon DG, Lay it on us.  Don't make us guess.

I'm pretty curious too.

DG, do you want to PM me so you get a first hearing with a sympathetic audience? I promise not to cancel you.

[Razgovory]

I hate the Icelandic.  I don't care if it gets me canceled.

[DGuller]

C'mon DG, Lay it on us.  Don't make us guess.

I'm pretty curious too.

DG, do you want to PM me so you get a first hearing with a sympathetic audience? I promise not to cancel you.

It's nothing all that interesting or even exceedingly controversial, I promise you.  I realize that by saying "I don't want to talk about it" I made it sound like I have some bombshell to share that would surely get me canceled, but I really just wanted to make a point that I'm not comfortable having a detailed discussion anymore on some subjects, at least not in public and not in writing.  At least in private verbal conversation I can't be taken out of context, and also in private conversations the other person is free from having to put on a performance and thus can discuss things productively.

[The Larch]

Let's change the subject back to more Florida shenanigans.

Florida Bill Would Require That Bloggers Who Write About Ron DeSantis And Other Officials To Register With State Or Face Fines

A Florida lawmaker has proposed a bill that would require bloggers who write about Governor Ron DeSantis or other elected officials to register with the state of face fines.

The legislation, proposed by State Sen. Jason Brodeur, a Republican, also would require that the bloggers disclose how much they are being paid for their posts.

Brodeur did not immediately return a request for comment.

Under the terms of the bill — read it here — "if a blogger posts to a blog about an elected state officer and receives, or will receive, compensation for that post, the blogger must register with the appropriate office" within "5 days after the first post by the blogger which mentions an elected state officer."

It also requires that bloggers file monthly reports if a post is added to the blog. The reports must disclose the "individual or entity" that provided compensation for the blog post, the amount of compensation, the date of blog posts, and the website and website address. Fines are set at $25 per day per report for each day late, not to exceed $2,500.

The bill applies to bloggers who write about the governor, lieutenant governor, a cabinet officer or any member of the state legislature.

The bill defines a blogger as "a website or webpage that hosts any blogger and is frequently updated with opinion, commentary, or business content." It excludes "the website of a newspaper or any similar publication." Registration would have to be made to the Department of Legislative Services or the Commission on Ethics.

Brodeur also has proposed legislation to make it easier for plaintiffs to sue for defamation. Under the proposal, public figures in many cases would be able to prove defamation by showing negligence, rather than the current higher threshold of showing that a publication acted in malice or reckless disregard for the truth. Under the bill, anonymous sourced material would largely be presumed to be false. DeSantis held a roundtable last month in which he attacked the news media, while he reportedly is championing efforts to weaken journalists' protections. Any of the new laws would likely face a First Amendment challenge, but the idea would be to get a case to the Supreme Court and ultimately overturn nearly 60 years of precedent.

[crazy canuck]

So a social media star talks about a lot about pop psychology, creates some odd charts which describe his own theories of how social psychology works, backed up by no evidence but a lot of assertions, and that is supposed to be somehow persuasive.

To the gullible I suppose.

While I normally abhor puns, you passed up a really good one

I thought it was close enough.