I think this further proves the point tbh. It’s not that there truly isn’t anything of value created, but that nobel prizes do not correlate to the daily needs of people.
I would also say this study is guarenteed to show a democratic bias considering most nobel prizes are awarded to people who have doctorates… How many people with PhD’s make it through all that schooling without veering left in their beliefs?
Sidebar: My wife is Jewish, although she and her mother are right-leaning, I was always confused why so many of her family members lean left… some of whom lean FAR left. I just find it strange that the religion which was historically oppressed by far left values still has left-leaning ideologies.
The discoveries have helped humans a lot. Not all are as useful as some, but the discovery of penicillin resulted in a Nobel prize. Einstein won a Nobel prize. GPS wouldn’t work without understanding relativity (although relativity isn’t what he won the prize for).
What do you mean by this? I am not convinced for example that the Nazi’s were left leaning (in relation to American politics).
It was certainly authoritarian. Wiki (along with the other sources I checked) which you may not agree with seems to put them at “far-right”. I am not sure the nazis fit in either the left or right bucket in regards to American politics. They were very nationalistic which is more right, but anti-capitialists (mostly it seems in regards to Jewish capitalists) which is more left.
I think there is a lot of propaganda on the political leanings of the Nazis. Authoritarianism seems to be the standout feature of their party, which I think is the main thing contributing to the terrible things they did.
I think that’s more of a European conception of “far right” along with the political convenience of lumping your opponents in with the worst people in history. There’s nothing really like American conservatism there, so their political spectrum is limited to varying flavors of big-government totalitarianism. There’s also the historic hatred between Nazis and Communists that set the framework for them to be perceived as ideological opponents, when in fact they had quite a bit of overlap.
As for today, there’s more policy overlap between modern Democrats and Nazis than Republicans and Nazis.
Which Democratic candidate do you think is going to come out most in favor of free speech?
Historically speaking, it has ALWAYS been the Democrats. It still is, just by other mechanisms.
It is VERY telling that you require vague, slippery language to support your point and leave you room to argue semantics later on.
Why not simply say you like the idea of the largest social media companies, through which an increasingly large majority of Americans get their news, working in tandem with Democrats to censor information? That’s what the Democrats want and that’s what they’ve been getting.
Since we’re on the subject of Nazis already, Twitter is a private company the same way IG Farben was. Meaning, it wasn’t. It was a deeply corrupt public/private partnership wherein a political party who gained control of the government co-opted a private company to do their political bidding.
If the net result is censored speech in the public square, it’s no different in effect than the government limiting free speech through policy.
Like I said, which Democrat do you think is going to come out in favor of free speech?
Twitter, Instagram, Facebook… are not broadcasters. I don’t get your point?
Saying I am okay with private companies having freedom with the information they put out is mutually exclusive with what you said above. Why not represent my arguments fairly? Do you need a weaker version of them to be able to defeat them? We call that a strawman.
Which Republican is going to come out in support for 13th amendment? You see why that is a silly question, right? Why do Dems need to come out in support of something protected by the constitution for centuries?
What I described is what’s happening. The Democrats, today and in the years past, are partnered with private companies who have found themselves in direct control of the information consumed by most Americans. They are censoring what they don’t like on a staggering, globally-significant scale. Our news is heavily censored to benefit Democrat politicians. Right now. Today. You seem to be very in favor of this situation.
You can call that “private companies having freedom” if you want. I call it what it is, censorship.
Do you support private companies having freedom to pollute the water table? I’d consider that un-American.
Do you support private companies having freedom to sell your child lead-based snacks? I’d consider that un-American.
Do you support private companies having the freedom to operate unsafe vehicles on the roads? I’d consider that un-American.
If you don’t support the actions I listed above, why do you support private companies having the freedom to exercise censorship in the modern public square?
All of this is irrelevant. We are talking about free speech. The GoP in fact passed a bill allowing corporations the rights of an individual in regards to free speech. Other regulations control things like pollution, poisoning, and vehicle safety.
I can be in favor of a corporation (which by law, they have free speech rights of individuals) having the right to say something, even if I don’t agree with what they are saying.
If the right doesn’t like free speech coming from the left, I suggest they compete with them and speak louder. Start their own media platforms, to add to what they already have.
We are not just a religious group. We’re a racially-mixed ethnicity. Hence the terms “ethnically Jewish” or “biologically Jewish” which can actually be proven with popular ancestral DNA tests.
What far left leaning forces oppressed us? I actually once thought Stalin was targeting Jews after becoming exasperated with us, but then changed my mind.
So you’re very much in favor of preserving the current situation. Got it.
It is 100 percent relevant. We regulate private businesses to ensure their actions are in-line with the public interest. We do this all of the time for all kinds of reasons. Twitter, et al, are no different. They are subject to regulation, just like any other business. Preserving an environment for free speech to even be possible as technology advances seems like something that’s in the public interest to me.
Why not just say you really like the idea of the most powerful media companies in the world to have ever existed working in tandem with your favored political party to censor their political opponents?
You’re declaring you’re pro free speech while also insisting that the current situation, where certain viewpoints are heavily censored in deeply impactful ways, is ideal.
That’s like saying you’re an environmentalist while arguing that private companies have every right to dump whatever waste they want on their private property.
Yes, and currently the private businesses (that we have been discussing) are in compliance with the law enough to be allowed to continue operating.
Is it not possible to be pro free speech, while also being anti forced speech? That is what I am.
Under current law, I am to view Twitter, IG, Facebook, etc. as individuals in regards to free speech. Why should an individual be forced to say something that individual doesn’t like?
If we don’t want things like Twitter, IG, Facebook, to be seen as individuals in regards to free speech, we need to change laws that allows them those rights.
I can only speak for myself, but I would refrain from ad hominems. You’re welcome to share if you wish but I understand if you don’t
The Nazis, if we’re to abuse the term “oppressed” into also meaning “genocide”.
I knew this was a ‘thing’ but the extent of which I didn’t know enough to speak of. I thought of saying the “Jewish race” at first, but I didn’t want to mis-speak.
Under the current law, which you support, they aren’t. They also can’t be sued like broadcasters can, even though they are very much in the business of providing news information under the auspices of “their platform”.
I think you’ve made your position clear. You support the current situation, with rampant censorship across the technologies that didn’t exist when the Telecommunications Decency Act that regulates these businesses was drafted and voted on by guys born in the 1800’s.
No need to revisit any of that, it’s all working fine right now, you say.
News flash, you’re in favor of censoring your political opponents. Even if you don’t like describing it that way, that’s what’s happening now and you don’t want anything about it to change.
Meet the new Democrats, same as the old Democrats.
That’s fine and I accept the term, though you run the risk of people with poor self-control to respond with, “Jewish race? That’s what the Nazis said!” even though this is incongruent with the ability to see that some of us “look Jewish.” After all, someone cannot look like a member of a religious group unless they wear particular clothing or hairstyle.
I’ve heard people say that Nazis were leftists, usually because of the socialism in National Socialism though I cannot see much left in it. NS Germany was big on entrepreneurship, recognition of natural ability and race (not equality), hierarchy, private property, and personal self defense. Does this sound leftist to anyone? Not me.
