alt Hacker NewsA reminder to anyone who finds themselves in this kind of situation, do not engage with the rhetoric of the enemy. You cannot win an argument where they set the rules. So here, where they question whether or not they were "protesting" distracts from the reality of a censorious organization that will weaponize regulations it controls without good faith. Instead you need a simple, memorable statement of condemnation which is repeated consistently and a clear action which those who hear it can take in response.
"This organization is controlled by Trump loyalists. They are not scientists. You do not owe them respect. Speak over them. Let no manipulation go unchallenged or derided."
Replies
I’d disagree with trying to make it political. If it’s just about funding, plenty of people are happy the grant spigot is being turned off.
Something that may resonate with a broader spectrum is how science requires debate and polite disagreement. Good ideas can survive being pressure tested. Compelling consensus has terrible long-term outcomes.
> do not engage with the rhetoric of the enemy. You cannot win an argument where they set the rules
Strongly disagree. If they went straight up partisan at the conference, I’d be sympathetic to the notion of throwing them out. Not every space needs to be a protest venue.
They didn’t do that. They distributed an article published in the organization’s own journal. They argue why what they did cannot reasonably be considered “protest” under the organisation’s rules, given it’s literally what the conference is for. Challenging the notion that their ejection was the ADA following its own rules is the difference between them breaking the rules and the ADA breaking its own rules to censor their speech. (To cut off an aside, no the ADA isn’t bound by the First Amendment. Yes, the government is, and if they’re corruptly influencing to yank these researchers from the conference, that’s a legal issue. But more broadly, the concept of free speech is broader than the First Amendment.)