Live Version: NPR presents ANOHNI
Live Version: NPR presents ANOHNI
Monday, August 13, 2018 by: Isabelle Z.
(Natural News) Not content to stop at banning videos, YouTube has decided to add “fact checks” and quotes to videos on topics that it feels are controversial, and the MMR vaccine is one of them.
Last month, the video sharing platform started placing a blurb of text beneath certain videos offering viewers a “scientific” explanation. For example, the text placed underneath some videos about climate change is taken from a Wikipedia entry on global warming and reads: ”Multiple lines of scientific evidence shows that the climate system is warming.” They’re also questioning sources, with a series of climate videos posted by the RT news site containing a description from Wikipedia about the publisher that says: ”RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government.”
The move comes after YouTube announced this spring that it will place descriptions taken from Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia alongside videos about topics that tend to attract conspiracy theories, such as the Oklahoma City bombing and the moon landing. Although YouTube has not shared a full list of topics that will be given this treatment, some of the topics identified in a post to its administrators include global warming, Dulce Base, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Kecksburg UFO incident, the 1980 Camarate air accident, and the MMR vaccine.
The company has not notified the users who originally uploaded the videos in question that they will bear these propaganda messages. It is not clear why YouTube is lumping the MMR vaccine’s proven link to autism in the same category as conspiracy theories, but given their track record, politics almost certainly played a big role.
Mother Nature’s micronutrient secret: Organic Broccoli Sprout Capsules now available, delivering 280mg of high-density nutrition, including the extraordinary “sulforaphane” and “glucosinolate” nutrients found only in cruciferous healing foods. Every lot laboratory tested. See availability here.
The Chief Marketing Officer of PragerU, Craig Strazzeri, said YouTube’s new policy, which has affected some PragerU videos, shows its political bias.
He said: “Despite claiming to be a public forum and a platform open to all, YouTube is clearly a left-wing organization. This is just another mistake in a long line of giant missteps that erodes America’s trust in Big Tech, much like what has already happened with the mainstream news media.”
Others have expressed surprise that these blurbs are showing up on videos that are about science rather than conspiracies. YouTube says that even more videos will receive the labels in the months to come and that it is using an algorithm rather than people to determine which videos will be given the blurbs.
Right now, they are only visible to viewers in the U.S., and they are expected to be rolled out gradually. YouTube will be keeping track of how often viewers click on the blurb, which will link back to the original source.
People are growing increasingly fed up with YouTube’s attempts to control the narrative and influence what people believe by silencing views that oppose their own. This month, they came under fire for banning right-wing host Alex Jones’s channel, which was just the latest in a long string of moves against videos on topics like vaccines, climate change, natural health and guns.
If you’re looking for a place to post or watch videos without YouTube insulting your intelligence or controlling what you read and share, the free-speech alternative REAL.video is the place to go. With more than 300 new channels joining the platform each day and 1.5 million minutes of video served each week, it provides a destination for people who value freedom to discuss all manner of topics that are unwelcome elsewhere. Best of all, there is no user tracking, shadow banning, or long ads to sit through. As great and fair alternatives like this gain in popularity, one can only hope that YouTube’s reach will shorten dramatically.
Sources for this article include:
I will address my personal experience with the only form of libertarianism that I’m intimately familiar with – namely American libertarianism as roughly defined by the LP platform – or in my case – what I consider (U.S.) constitutional libertarianism (hereinafter just ‘libertarianism’). As far as I know, this libertarianism has very little in common with anarchy – as the end goal of it is not absence of government.
Quite the contrary – it requires powerful government – but strictly limited to the functions of jealously protecting inalienable rights – those mentioned in the Declaration of Independence – and others flowing inexorably from them.
The question refers to intellectual honesty – which is a somewhat vague concept. I suggest a more useful concept is intellectual consistency – or coherence – meaning absence of contradiction.
A logical contradiction is the conjunction of a statement S and its denial not-S. In logic, it is a fundamental law- the law of non-contradiction- that a statement and its denial cannot both be true at the same time.
Libertarianism is an attempt to both construct a theory of the optimal conditions for the nature and existence of human beings as well as define and manifest a real-world political system to create and foster these optimal conditions.
Both of these objectives require coherence – a lack of contradiction – from beginning to end. They require building a model or theory based on verifiable objective reality and observation from direct human experience – and from that reality using reason and strict logic to draw conclusions – including formulation of underlying fundamental principles – and then test those conclusions and principles with subsequent empirical data and more logic and over a significant and relevant expanse of time.
Acceptance of contradiction at any point in this process will likely prove extremely detrimental – most especially in attempts to create or manifest political solutions – which by definition involve the use of force or the threat of the use of force.
In the political arena in the U.S. only libertarians seem to understand this necessity for strict elimination of contradictions – and for which they are widely criticized and ridiculed by participants on all sides of the political spectrum.
This is in part because elimination of contradiction is not intuitive – nor is it always emotionally comfortable – nor does it result in outcomes that accord with the political or popular correctness de jure.
In order to derive a set of principles – which themselves lack contradiction – and then construct a non-contradictory theory of human action from those principles – especially in the political and legal arena – requires the willingness and ability to completely separate one’s intellectual and cognitive process from one’s emotional attachments. This separation or detachment requires volition, training, practice, determination and massive effort.
Most people in my experience – even though they may be attempting to be ‘honest’ with themselves and others – are not capable of such detachment – even momentarily. Nor do they recognize when their cognitive functioning is being compromised by their emotional, cultural, religious, familial or other attachments. And this of course is assuming a baseline attempt at honesty – which assumption for the political class as a whole is completely unwarranted.
Thus the result is that contradictions are ubiquitous – as are their acceptance. In fact, most people can no longer even detect or comprehend contradictions – even blatant ones. There is in fact widespread cognitive dysfunction or malfunction in this regard.
For practicing libertarians, the process of detecting, defining and challenging contradictions is axiomatic and reflexive – it is almost by definition libertarian.
I’ll illustrate and end with one of dozens of modern examples I could provide – the issue of same-sex marriage contrasted with the state enforced minimum wage.
Many of those on the left hold the position that same-sex couples have a right to recognition of their marriage in equality with traditional married couples and that employers and employees may be forced by the state to pay or accept wage rates determined by legislative fiat.
Many of those on the right claim the state can determine which consenting adults may have a legally recognized marriage but employers and employees have a right to determine their own wage rates.
Both positions are blatant contradictions. The issue is the principle of self-ownership and the right to peacefully and voluntarily dispose of one’s property – which includes one’s mind and body – and the right to enter into contracts with their mind and body. Marriage is a contract – so is employment.
Libertarians therefore require a total of merely 10 to 20 seconds of consideration to determine the issue of same-sex marriage and the politically enforced minimum wage. The former is completely protected under the right to contract and the latter is completely unwarranted under the identical right to contract.
Protecting a business owner’s right to determine a wage rate – and an employee’s right to determine the rate at which they will accept – is identical to protecting the right of a same-sex couple to have legally recognized marriage contract.
If politically and legally you advocate for one position – then consistently and coherently you must also advocate for the other. Your personal preferences or attachments are completely irrelevant – as are the unprovable, idiotic and contradictory theories of the in vogue so-called social justice and economic fairness ‘ether’. [My note: They are so contradictorily ephemeral as to not deserve recognition as ‘movements’ – hence they are merely more akin to a nebulous gaseous substance of the atmosphere – i.e. ether]
What apparently neither those on the left or right comprehend is in both cases their acceptance of contradiction not only destroys the credibility of their position – it provides their political opponents precisely the principled rationale for the latter to insist on the very policies and positions the former object to.
This is the utter insanity of modern politics and why to many observers, libertarian consistency is both intellectually and emotionally incomprehensible – seemingly arising from a parallel unknown alien universe.
The wanton abandonment and disregard for principle – enabled by acceptance of contradictions – is also why the prospect of the magnificent political system of a constitutional republic we inherited has degenerated into a pathetic mobocracy. We now surrender the last vestiges of our actual political and economic freedoms to voting mobs and their enablers in the political class – all of which are either delusional or conniving – that get decide which arbitrarily defined identity groups shall be awarded newly minted pseudo-rights and their legal and political protection.
I will contend that at the heart of this degeneration of our political system is in fact the willingness to accept contradictions – or now more than ever – the widespread inability to even cognitively recognize them.
Yes, constitutional libertarians strive to be impeccably intellectually honest – meaning consistent and coherent – almost above all else.