Look at the comments, you'll see that people are more than willing to take it upon themselves to ostracize independent thinkers and skeptics.
Look at the article and how it's been upvoted on HN because of the premise of how evil and ridiculous it is.
Why do you believe "independent thinkers and skeptics" should be allowed to disagree with the status quo, but that disagreeing with them is tantamount to censorship and restricting speech?
>Look at the article and how it's been upvoted on HN because of the premise of how evil and ridiculous it is.
Yes. People believe it's ridiculous... and meanwhile plenty of skeptics believe mainstream science is ridiculous.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't support criticism and not expect criticism in return.
Disagreeing and debunking is fine. Deplatforming isn't. Trying to garner emotional sentiment against people without rational argument is a bit beyond the line. Throwing around headlines to create emotional associations is a bit beyond the line. Discussing the facts is good.
and meanwhile plenty of skeptics believe mainstream science is ridiculous.
There are some far left progressives who would deny all evolutionary biology in order to completely deny biological sex differences, primarily on ideological grounds. I find that just as bad as denying evolution on ideological grounds.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't support criticism and not expect criticism in return.
Criticism is fine. Engaging in that in good faith is supporting Free Speech. Deplatforming and tactics for silencing argument aren't fine. Those go against the spirit of Free Speech.
No-one can stop Thiel from funding whoever he likes; they would just like to be sure that it doesn't go unnoticed that this journal reads more like "Peter Thiel's Journal Of Collected Contrarianism That He Personally Paid For Due To Some Probably Totally Legitimate Reason" and less like "Inference: International Review of Science.”
Even if we could, we shouldn't. It's important that everyone feels they have a voice. Even people who are wrong should get to participate in society and have rights.
No-one can stop Thiel from funding whoever he likes; they would just like to be sure that it doesn't go unnoticed that this journal reads more like "Peter Thiel's Journal Of Collected Contrarianism That He Personally Paid For Due To Some Probably Totally Legitimate Reason"
That's fine. Un-personing to silence isn't.
That is very apt.
Thiel's thumb on the scale is something that should be disclosed, but I don't think anyone is calling for censorship.
Likewise, we don't want to encourage the habit of not thinking, not reading, and just going by emotional name association. To quote one of Frank Miller's more popular characters, "These of the tools of the enemy. We do not need them. We will not use them."
In theory we should never have the habit of not thinking/ not reading... it's worthy. But with finite resources - and being mindful of the prospect of swallowing stuff that's just out there to shift the window of acceptable dialogue - you might do well to be selective. If you were reading about racial justice in the USA, you might read both left/liberal/libertarian/conservative thinkers, but would you feel the need to make sure you give perspective from Stormfront a good evaluation too?
When I first got to the Bay Area, I met a Thiel fellow. It was interesting, let me say that. Don't think I don't roll my eyes at some of what Peter Thiel spends his money on. That said, contrarians need to be able to have a voice. This is the only way they might eventually be convinced.
If you were reading about racial justice in the USA, you might read both left/liberal/libertarian/conservative thinkers, but would you feel the need to make sure you give perspective from Stormfront a good evaluation too?
I'd prefer not to read the last source. The few times I've tried, I've only lasted about 2 paragraphs and half a minute. However, understanding why the extreme fringe thinks as they do, and how they fit into the larger historical perspective is important. Extremists get a foothold when experts stop explaining, when discourse breaks down, and silencing is practiced instead. Extremists especially should get freedom of speech. It's quite instructive how both far extremes manage to resemble each other.