Miscellaneous Prats03 Nov 2009 04:55 pm
By Alex
On whatever Gate it is where Professor David Nutt got sacked.
From my observations on web messageboard conversations, scientists have been heavily censored from political participation in UK & the US.
This isn’t democracy as I understand it.
Edwina TS, High Wycombe, United Kingdom
Let’s just hope you finish your cutting-edge research before they shoot you in the back of the head.
59 Responses to “The Scientific Method”
First – yay!
Haven’t read the post though…
Aw, there’s still one person who believes everything they read on internet messageboards. How adorable.
I read that post myself, and i does seem to me that Edwina TS (thick sh*t?) doesn’t understand democracy at all.
From my limited understanding democracy is a political idea, i didnt think censoring someone means we are no longer in a democracy!
But what do i know my weiner is showing!
Plus… did you know that flu jabs are made by the same people WHO CONTROL THE WORLD’S MEDIA!
And that’s why they’re talking up the swine flu thing. They’ll probably make me autistic just for writing this.
I’m enjoying Ben Goldacre’s “NuttSack”.
Also, the name he’s made up for this affair is rather amusing.
Dirigible, can I have a link? Can’t find it (probably I’m just being an idiot).
Thank God Edwina believes the sort of dull loon *coughs*neilcraig*coughs* who loves to rant on the interwebs to everyone and no-one about their personal bizarre and unfounded political paranoias and agendas rather than just trying to think logically about the facts presented. Where would we be if everyone just formed an opinion based on fact and common sense?!
Wait, that was almost serious, let me try again: stupid fucking cow.
I wish the former US President would get involved somehow, as then I could formulate some sort of magnificently weak pun about Nutt-Bush city limits. Instead, I just had to present it like this.
Eyethangyew!
@dirigible – that deserves a badum-TSSSH!
“censored from political participation”? Does she mean ignored? Never occurred to me that being ignored amounted to censorship.
YOU BETTER BE GIVING THIS COMMENT YOUR FULL ATTENTION, ELSE YOU’RE A NAZI/FASCIST CENSOR.
Do you think the TS in Edwina stands for Total Slag? I think it does, thats a common last name in High Wycombe.
NAZI DRUGS CHEET CENSORS.
Muttgate surely?
… or possibly Nuttgate !
David Nutt has certainly been heavily censored. If it wasn’t for all the media interviews I personally wouldn’t have a clue what his views on cannabis are. Fucking Gordon Clown.
As if censorship really goes on. This controversy’s as bad as when ———- —- give a handjob to —— —- in the BBC canteen, and thats how he got his own show.
Nuttmunch had his say and he failed. I suggest you all stop smoking cannabis now because we all know that when the government says something is illegal, everybody stops doing it. If it’s Class B, they stop doing it even more. If you keep doing it then you are either a) a communist or b) a terrorist. Or c) a hippy.
God bless democracy and God bless Wandsworth Council.
I’ve always thought that scientists’ views were the cornerstone of any decent democracy. Never mind newspapers with political agendas, if some guy with glasses, a white lab coat and severe social deficiencies can’t bang on about what he thinks, we are heading for trouble. (Methinks).
Take note Neil, the white coat will do the trick, watch the votes roll in-you’ll get Edwina anyway.
It was either that or eat the canteen food. Which would have been totally demeaning.
I’ve read through this site many times, but I’ve never thought of you all as such a bunch of twats before. But then I can never tell if you’re being serious, so if you’re ever wrong, then obviously I’m just taking things to seriously… or maybe I’m not. Maybe once in your pointless, futile lives you should actually think outside of your own little spectrum of what is right. But no, that’s probably too much to ask of anybody.
When the Home Secretary stands up and says “you cannot have a chief adviser… campaigning against government decisions.” (Oh and Nutt wasn’t exactly campaigning was he? He was giving a sodding lecture.) What he’s basically saying is that people in top advisory positions cannot in anyway disagree with the government, and I hate to break it to you stupid cunts but that is not the way a democracy works, and stands directly against freedom of speech. It is fucking censorship, because now many other advisors may have to suppress their own opinions from fear of being sacked. That is a fucking fascist method of governing, no two ways about it, case fucking closed. If you tools are too blind to accept what is happening in the world, then that’s fine, but don’t sit up on a high horse and try to stand high and mighty when you’re as eyeball deep in pig-shit ignorence as anyone.
But I guess seeing as you’re all so worldly and wise, you see past this nonsense.
i⋅ro⋅ny1 /ˈaɪrəni, ˈaɪər-/
Pronunciation [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]
–noun, plural -nies. 1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
2. Literature. a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b. (esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.
3. Socratic irony.
4. dramatic irony.
5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
6. the incongruity of this.
7. an objectively sardonic style of speech or writing.
8. an objectively or humorously sardonic utterance, disposition, quality, etc.
I have just realised that second-hand evidence of self-declared scientists posting on Internet message boards claiming to have been ignored (being ignored = being censored) is EXACTLY the same as the case of a government employed scientific advisor being sacked for criticising government policy. No difference whatsoever. None at all.
No, you’re just not down with the groupthink yet.
Repeat after me:
BBC.
BBC.
BBC.
Then click your balls together three times and you’ll end up on an internet message board, where the democratic process can be observed in all its empirical glory.
@Goldacre – I beat you to it, if I’m right.
Nutt Sack
On the other hand, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1224858/Yes-scientists-good-But-country-run-arrogant-gods-certainty-truly-hell-earth.html#comments
“The problem with a ‘scientific argument’, of course, is that it is not made in the real world, but ina laboratory by an unimaginative academic relying solely on empirical facts.’
It’s exactly this kind of scientific censorship that’s keeping Andy Kadir-Buxton out of Nature, and the other “respected” scientific journals.
Methinks
Swine does have the valid point. I use the definitve article purposefully. It is censorship and u ndemocratic, and no error. The counter-argument, “but I know what he said”, is pretty weak since the censorship is clearly intended towards everybody else who may be thinking of having the temerity to criticise the idiotic descisions of their lords and masters.
Government buys dog, then barks.
Idiots.
I think my irony meter’s broken.
I’m registering over 700 irons per sarcoid, cap’n.
By demonstrating that being fired by the government for being right about things gives you huge amounts of press coverage, embarrasses the government that just fired you and, to some degree at least, turns public opinion in favour of your conclusions?
Came across this octopus’ oojit (look, I’m running out of alliteration, k?) when reading the rest of the thread.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/profile.jspa?userID=13623325&edition=1&ttl=20091104184439
Farside Alien, oh how witty.
@Swine – you clearly don’t have the first fucking clue what any of the following means:
Censorship
Freedom of Speech
Democracy
Fascist
Particularly hilarious is your view that there’s something undemocratic about a government refusing to accept scientific advise because of fears it may go down badly with voters.
Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely agree that Johnson was wrong to sack Nutt and that the government is wrong to ignore the science on cannabis. I just don’t think you or Edwina TS help that case with your barmy nonsense.
Why is not having a hissy fit proof of blindness and ignorance? Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence; Just cos we haven’t given our considered opinion, you rushed to judgement and concluded we haven’t got one.
Tsk.
@ ThoughtGrenade
I read Farside Alien’s first couple of comments and I couldn’t really see your objection to him, (although he would do well to indicate it a little better when he’s quoting others). But then I read a little further (though I skipped some of his 15 comments on the postal strike).
I’m sorry for doubting you. He may not be a BNP supporter but he indeed is a loud-mouthed lemming’s labia.
Cheers.
@funny peculiar
I think you’ll find it’s spelled “absence”.
Q.E.D.
When I’m being serious, I don’t do it on chat boards on the foaming sea of madness that is the Internet.
As Nutt (and many other advisers, I gather) are unpaid, it’s not the end of the world for them to be sacked.
Nor are they being censored, otherwise we wouldn’t have heard of Nutt’s views, would we? Of course, the case is not wholly the governments fault, they’re facing an election that is likely to see them fucked worse than John Major fucked Edwina Currie, so they’re trying to pander to the voters, most of whom sadly could not recognise an objective fact if a man in a white coat and a clip board told them personally.
On this, I do, really, blame all the media, science is very badly presented by the Arts graduates.
Bugger, I’m being serious on the foaming sea on madness that is the Internet.
I’ll get me Large Hadron Collider.
It happens on the internet sometimes. Someone who’s not very good at thinking about stuff suddenly has a very important epiphany about a current affairs subject, and goes to an internet site to educate everyone the thicko masses; upon arriving he’s delighted to discover no-one is discussing his point and proudly points out what thickos they are for not having considered it, only to discover the reason it’s not being discussed is because it’s (a) bloody fucking obvious or (b) as wrong as a Miss Pre-teen America pageant hosted by Ian Huntley at Vanessa George’s nursery.
Of course over at HYS that doesn’t happen. All the thickos there are so happy to hear their own dumbfuck conceptions reinforced that they’ll happily chunter out thirty thousand variations on the same theme and think they’re changing the world.
“Nor are they being censored, otherwise we wouldn’t have heard of Nutt’s views, would we? ”
Just because he’s been censored with massive incompetence doesn’t mean he isn’t being censored…
“Of course over at HYS that doesn’t happen. All the thickos there are so happy to hear their own dumbfuck conceptions reinforced that they’ll happily chunter out thirty thousand variations on the same theme and think they’re changing the world.”
Ahahah.
Never mind.
Well bob, as a knowledgeable type you’ll be able to explain exactly which type of censorship it is that doesn’t stop you giving interviews in the national press; that officially acknowledges the facts of what you’ve been saying; that doesn’t even tell you not to say the things you’re saying. That’s not “incompetent censorship,” that’s “not censorship.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/nutt-n06.shtml
“Jacqui Smith, had warned Nutt not “to comment or initiate a public debate on the policy framework for drugs”
He was warned not to say something that was true, and was sacked as a result. Sounds very close to censorship to me.
I’ll go “LOL GORDON CLOWN LOL!!!” if it makes you any happier about this.
But that’s not preventing him saying it, that’s instructing him of the political consequences of saying it. Which is obviously in no way a healthy method of running a debate, but crucially it’s not censorship. You could call it realpolitik or policy by populist kneejerk doctrine but unless Nutt or the editors who published his statement find themselves under sanction by the government you cannot in any way describe it as censorship. Otherwise you might as well say someone sacked for stealing stationery was illegally discriminated against for their anarchist politics.
“But that’s not preventing him saying it, that’s instructing him of the political consequences of saying it.”
So how many angels can dance on a pinhead these days? This hair is getting pretty thin.
“it’s not censorship.”
It is so close to censorship that to say it isn’t is meaningless, and to compare the comment that was originally posted to the gibbering that is some of the others is pretty silly.
“You could call it realpolitik or policy by populist kneejerk doctrine ”
Well it’s certainly that.
“but unless Nutt or the editors who published his statement find themselves under sanction by the government you cannot in any way describe it as censorship.”
Being publicly sacked from a post and attacked in the press is not a form of sanction?
“Otherwise you might as well say someone sacked for stealing stationery was illegally discriminated against for their anarchist politics.”
Not really. That’s a truly rubbish comparison.
Professor Nutt was sacked for saying something that the government found embarrassing, despite it being A) true and B) within his remit to say it.
Oh for fuck’s sake. bob, shut up or I’ll put you in the naughty bin with Neil Craig and you can circlejerk to your hearts’ content about your utter failure to understand the concept of censorship.
“Oh for fuck’s sake. bob, shut up”
Yeah, we can’t have anyone disagreeing here, can we?
“circlejerk ”
There is a massive lack of self-awareness shown by quite a lot of people on this blog. In case that wasn’t clear, I’m talking about you.
“failure to understand the concept of censorship.”
Sadly I understand only too well.
Gosh, look at that. I warned you not to “comment or initiate a public debate on the” subject and yet I didn’t do anything to prevent you doing so. Anyone might say you hadn’t been censored.
Well you didn’t very publicly sack me in an attempt to shut me up.
Not much of a point made then really.
OK then, here we go: I officially appoint you SYB censorship advisor. It’s your job to explain what censorship is and isn’t. It’s a role that holds no power, has no pay and that I’m under no obligation to pay any attention to.
Actually I don’t like what you’re saying, so now I’m firing you from the job which had exactly the same benefits as were conferred to Prof Nutt.
Oh and I’ll also issue a D-Notice to the press, because if I was in government and I was trying to censor some issue, that’s the mechanism I would use because it’s actually censorship.
“Oh and I’ll also issue a D-Notice to the press,”
Only if it were a case of national security. Otherwise there’d be no way anyone would follow it.
Let me ask you this, what do you think Johnson’s motives for sacking Nutt were? Sending a message that the government listen to the tabloids and not science and shutting him up in the future seem to me to be the most obvious ones to me. The motivation of the second being to censor…
This really isn’t the most important aspect of all this though, and to be honest I’m a bit disappointed that this was thought to be the most deranged thing that was said on the subject, especially as someone got a letter in the print edition of the Telegraph calling for the death penalty to be applied to 3 million people…
bob, you’ve been fired. Stop talking. This is me censoring you. Stop it. Don’t keep talking about the subject. You were fired. You can’t talk about these things any more. THIS IS CENSORSHIP DAMMIT!
Don’t listen to bob, everyone. I fired him because he wouldn’t say I wanted him to. So when he stands up there with his integrity intact, remember that it’s ME that’s the good guy for censoring him and HIM that’s the bad guy for sticking to his guns. Don’t offer him any new scientific positions, or judge me badly at the next set of elections or anything.
Now that’s what I call a sanction.
So you don’t have any view on what Johnson’s aims were in doing this?
All you’re doing is demonstrating that it was incompetent censorship…
No, I’m demonstrating that the sanction was so shit as to not be a sanction at all.
I’m demonstrating that like the government, I have a mechanism that could stop you commenting on the subject but I’m not using it.
I’m demonstrating that the “sanction” ended up making Prof Nutt look better and the government look worse, which would be a pretty powerful motive to censor for a party which is already tanking in the polls – and yet they did the opposite.
And I’m demonstrating that by drawing such attention to the affair, the government has pretty much assured Prof Nutt will be the go-to pundit for drugs issues in this country for the next decade. And if Johnson didn’t realise that would be the outcome, then his competency at censorship would be the last of my worries and I’d be wondering how he hasn’t managed to get strychnine reclassified as a vitamin by now.
What was Johnson’s intention?
To stop Nutt making statement’s that were embarrassing to the government?
If not, then what?
“his competency at censorship would be the last of my worries”
Well he’s been massively incompetent here, as the shitstorm has confirmed.
As I say, a semantic argument over whether this counts as censorship really is the smallest part of all this.
No, because no cabinet minister could be naive enough to assume that the hostile papers wouldn’t have jumped all over the story and delivered Nutt a platform. His intention, knowing that Nutt would publicise his findings with or without government support, was to try and undercut his statement before he made it and thereby send a clear message to the press that they were going to go with knee-jerk policy making.
He’s been incompetent with the way he’s handled the press campaign, but the only intention was to remove Nutt’s (perceived and non-existent) authority to speak for government policy.
bob,
Don’t take this personally, but you’re a fool. You are so desperate to accuse a government you dislike of “OMG CENSORSHIP” that you have totally distorted what that is. For your reference: censorship is when something is suppressed and not widely heard. Not when it IS heard, and the speaker gets sacked from a non-paying job.
“He’s been incompetent with the way he’s handled the press campaign, but the only intention was to remove Nutt’s (perceived and non-existent) authority to speak for government policy.”
Hmm. You’re probably right here.
It’s certainly been terribly handled in an attempt to placate what would laughably be called newspapers, that would never be on a labour governemnt’s
side anyway.
“Don’t take this personally, but you’re a fool.”
Well Ed, don’t take this personally, but you’re a rude twat incapable of holding a reasoned conversation.
“You are so desperate to accuse a government you dislike ”
Well I’m hardly alone in that.
““OMG CENSORSHIP””
Yes, that’s right. GORDON CLOWN ETC.
“For your reference: censorship is when something is suppressed and not widely heard.”
For your reference you can attempt to censor something and fail, something that is increasingly likely to happen what with the internet and that.
I’ve been arguing intentions here, and I’m willing to admit that I may have been wrong here, to a certain extent anyway.
Really though, as I’ve said several times, this argument over semantics is the least important part of all this, and I’m surprised the comment above was singled out when you consider the sea of idiotic bile that has been spewed out on this subject.