CDC: Unpublished manuscripts mentioning certain topics must be pulled or revised

What book? Sounds interesting.

And maybe that's fine because it isn't a signal of ideology like "pregnant person" is. Don't forget that if scientists were using these terms, they were likely already doing so because of political pressure, so it is good to stop it in cases where it's nothing to do with their research (eg. transgender parturients). Of course it doesn't mean this order isn't ham-fisted, but research is often polluted by politics because it helps get funding as well as researchers are pretty politically biased in some fields.

What’s wrong referring to the relevant sex characteristics? Why change language for the exceptional and small population? A man who gives birth is still the mother even if they take a social role of a father later in the child’s development.

From the article:

> This is leading to what Germans call “vorauseilender Gehorsam,” or “preemptive obedience,” as one non-CDC scientist commented.

And why is this term German? Do, perhaps, the Germans have unique experience and insight in this regard?

> After the German elections of 1932, which permitted Adolf Hitler to form a government, or the Czechoslovak elections of 1946, where communists were victorious, the next crucial step was anticipatory obedience. Because enough people in both cases voluntarily extended their services to the new leaders, Nazis and communists alike realized that they could move quickly toward a full regime change. The first heedless acts of conformity could not then be reversed. [1]

It’s become fashionable to accuse people who raise the spectre of fascism and authoritarianism of crying wolf. We are being told not to believe the evidence of our own eyes, like when Elon Musk performs the Nazi salute in front of the far right dignitaries assembled for the inauguration and we’re supposed to believe this is because he’s on the spectrum or some other nonsense. If you don’t want to go down the road that anticipatory obedience leads to, then you have to resist. It is that simple.

1: https://lithub.com/resist-authoritarianism-by-refusing-to-ob...

I remember my dad having to travel to Moscow during the Soviet times to get the censor's approval for the movie he was planning to shoot (that is on top of budget-related issues etc.) I was still very little then, but from what little I remember, it seemed like it always was a guessing game: how much do you have to add of glory to the proletariat in order to make the cut. Naturally, artists were turning their noses when they saw too much of the Soviet propaganda in a movie, so, they tried to put as little of it as possible, at the same time using all sorts of tricks to disguise the criticism of the system that required the censorship.

And while this kind of little struggle had its fun moments... overall, I don't think it was fun. Also, indeed the rules of what's allowed or disallowed would change based on current political events, and just like in 1984, everyone was supposed to acknowledge that the rules had always been the way they currently are. Which, in terms of long-term planning, would sometimes result in problems. Like, when someone was trying to placate the censorship by overemphasizing some political aspect at the time of submission, but the events developed so fast, that the official party line at the assessment time was the exact opposite of what it was at the submission time.

----

Oh, and just to give some examples of when the "proto-woke" (in Soviet times it was called the "decadent capitalist influence") had some tragic consequences.

The only acceptable painting style was Soviet Realism. Anything that had signs of deliberate distortion of color / perspective / size / anatomy etc. would be labeled "decadent capitalist" and perpetrators would be prosecuted.

So, another student in my dad's class came in drunk to a model drawing session. And instead of using a graphite pencil, used what was called a "chemical pencil", which is a kind of Indian-ink based pencil (it's practically impossible to erase). And, in a study of a head of a model, that student made several strokes that extended beyond where the area of the nose would've been, and so it looked like the model had whiskers...

That student was later taken away to the dean, and in short time was expelled.

Another student was expelled for wiping his paintbrush on the canvas (which he later planned to cover with some neutral background color, but was too late...) because he forgot to bring a piece of rug that one usually uses to wipe a brush before using a different paint.

That sounds like a fun anecdote, but those two had their lives ruined.

The weirdest thing is to watch the American right wing implement a Russian playbook. The people who made loudest noises about "commies" are now fawning over the Eastern Bloc.

What "illiberal left" benefits from this? Half of the reason we are at this point is the nonstop equivocation that goes on in our discourse.

Lay this at the feet of who caused it.

It's possible but somewhat rare. I've met religious research scientists before, but in general principles of faith and the scientific method are at odds with each other.

This is bad for science, if you mean the deletion of data. Moving away from centralized authorities may be net positive though, time will tell.

You're also touching on the problem of research as an industry. Papers should be published regardless of economic value, and research should be done for the sake of curiosity. Sometimes outcomes are useful or functional, but that shouldn't be the only, or even primary, driver.

That's the conventional argument for government funded research, but is it true? The AI space is a good example of very long term research, funded almost entirely by the private sector without any clear idea of how the results would be marketed, they publish and - the key part - the work actually replicates. Nor is the AI space unique. XEROX Parc was another famous example, Big Data/Cloud has come entirely out of private sector research. Not unique to computer science either: the research work that led to Ozempic was being funded by Novo Nordisk as far back as 1998.

> Research usually doesn't end in something that's marketable

It usually does, even in academia. That's why they count citations. It's just that the thing that's marketed is either policy advocacy (marketed to governments) or the claims in and of themselves, marketed either to the general public in TED talk style advocacy or to other academics as work they can build on to get more grants. A lot of people don't recognize the existence of things like the profit motive, lobbying or marketing in government funded research, imagining that they don't exist, but they do. In some fields, it's common for lobbying to be like 50% or more of the word count.

There's a long tail of papers that research things that nearly nobody cares about, yet perhaps one day they might. These are the "we studied some obscure fish in the Amazon and found a cure for cancer" type stories that crop up from time to time. But such claims often don't quite work out, and the private sector is easily able to fund this sort of exploratory work too.

Sure, that seems to be what drives the two parties flipping and it seems to be happening now. While your team is in charge you like federal powers, when the other team is in charge you like state powers.

It is generally true, though, that one of the two parties is for decentralization at any given point in time.

I don’t know about “parties” but political movements absolutely are divided by centralization (or not). Collectivism is literally the centralization of wealth.

Once the Republicans start going after state's rights the parties really will have fully flipped.

Nothing wrong with that, it happens pretty often, but it is interesting to see play out in real time.

I don’t think states rights is defined by whether they receive money from the federal government.

Retraction of previous work for political reasons is a new thing.

Funder publishing requirements are actually one of the few contractual things my university usually refuses to accept.

Trump is not exactly young. President Biden also hoped for a next term.

Thanks. I think. Maybe we can move the statue of Einstein in DC north for a bit.

I was responding to the following

> I guess when it's your censors in power, big government is fine and dandy.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but my point was that scientific truth should under no circumstances be subject to political point of view. If you want to argue against scientific result you do so by producing a scientific argument.

Some people have unusual chromosomes, ie. Not women or men's, and they can still get pregnant. Other people transition but still have kids. Sex or gender; the language can apply just fine to anyone who gets pregnant and is appropriately vague. I am fairly certain the term isn't one of disrespect to women's rights or accomplishments.

very wrong!

I wonder for how long. I scroll down and read:

"How Do We Know Climate Change is Real?

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.

Earth-orbiting satellites and new technologies have helped scientists see the big picture ..."

I suppose there's a lot of both bright and brave people working there (extremely bright compared to the president)

That's why it's important for Musk to cut all government spending except his juicy contracts

You can be a competitor and a customer at the same time.

I would, because he’s not born in the USA and therefore cannot become president

Elon Musk cannot run for President of the United States because he is not a natural-born US citizen. He was born in Pretoria, South Africa, and the US Constitution requires presidential candidates to be natural-born citizens of the US.

Musk needs to find a different way to exert his will through his allies.

And no, he is very far for being that popular that anybody would find a way to waive the natural born citizen requirement. He is also not that popular and he doesn’t have the charisma of a president.

You don’t need to worry about him being a president. If you want to worry about him: he doesn’t need to become a president to have insane amount of power and influence over the US.

Given his current health, Trump isn't going to stay in charge more than four years though. He could keep the title but would end up as impotent puppet on life support (like Bouteflika was at the end of his reign over Algeria).

China supresses information because they fear the anger of the oppressed.

This censorship is much more petty. "My child hates me, and it can't be my fault. Let's call some modern progress ideology, and stomp all over it".

This isn't about repression, it's a show of force. Both for intimidation, and to gather admiration. Because it is cool if you can be above the law. It takes strength to be above the law, so we should respect it. Scary thing is, it seems to be working.

Yeah, it does seem like a tax hike.

It's not like shoe manufacturing is moving to the US. Shoes will just be more expensive.

(Until a deal is negotiated, which is probably what he is after)

>Sadly, I think you're being optimistic.

I wish. I'm currently looking into where long range gun rifle ranges are. About to start purchasing armor penetrating rounds. Basically try to form local "municipal militia" style groups. I'm fully expecting violence within a decade.

> The Democrats are not fighters

because they don't represent the people, they represent big corporations.

>One of the problems of outright refusal is that you'll end up being fired, and likely replaced by a Trumpdroid

We need resistance at all levels. Fire me? We sit in and chain the doors? Call the police? Police stand down and need to support the people. Police need to recognize they will also be on the chopping block.

It's all about who can enforce what. We are literally in a power battle. And it'll take every single one of us to ACT. Otherwise, we are fucked. Get comfortable with being uncomfortable.

You're not wrong. We've lost the plot on what value government provides. It should be about community. People having agency and coming together because we see our selves in our neighbors.

> Government has enormous power, and now that power is being used for evil and for darkness, and that's the problem.

This order is "power is being used for evil and for darkness"? Come on, cut it out with the hyperbole. It does no one any favors.

[flagged]

Yes, I think this also.

But at least we can think those people are passably decent and have some care for others.