This is the first edition of the avoicecryingforfreedom.com Blog. The goal of this blog is being developed to have a platform where various opinions on important subjects (and not so important subjets) can be examined in a civil dialogue. Some future blogs may just provide interesting information like the relationship of mathematics to music which may generate more discussion. The domain was chosen from “A voice crying out in the desert” so my references and opinions will often include spiritual and scientific inputs and my conclusions hopefully will be based on critical thinking. It should be fun, so let’s get started.
I chose the Cancel Culture as the first topic. Considering what is going on in the country it seemed like a good place to start. I knew the Cancel Culture was important to suppressing views in opposition to the existing acceptable culture but I did not realize how powerful and widespread it was. This is probably because I believed in open debate in this country and that conscious bias and loyalty to your tribe could be overcome in any honest discussion. It turns out that is only possible when both parties are seeing the same data. The cancel culture is designed to make sure that both parties do not see the same data.
Some background on conscious bias and loyalty to the tribe is probably helpful. Apriori bias is one of the two major obstacles when opposing parties disagree. The first is the conscious and sometimes unconscious bias that each of us have (although we are often reluctant to admit it). The second is a similar problem which I call the problem of the clans (tribes).
The problem of pre-existing bias is best addressed using the method presented by Steven Covey in his seminal book, “The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People”. He presents a drawing which is an optical illusion. Looked at in one way, it appears to be a drawing of a very old lady. Looked in another way, it appears to be a drawing of a very young lady. He also provided two additional sketches, one which emphasized the features of the old lady and the other that emphasized the features of the young lady. I have taught at the university level and have used these drawings in several classes in which there was a need to have an open mind if we were to have a meaningful class discussion. The method was to give half of the class the sketch which emphasized the features of the old lady and the other half the sketch which emphasized the features of the young lady. I would instruct the class not to share their sketch with anyone else and then would put up on the screen the actual optical illusion drawing. I would then say I have a few questions about observations in regard to the drawing but before I get to that I asked if they would give me a ballpark guess of the age of the lady in the drawing. Immediately I would get two widely different ranges; some saying 75-80 years old and others saying she was 25-30 years old. After allowing them a little time to try to convince the other side of the age I asked for a volunteer of a person who saw the lady as between 75-80. I would ask them to describe the features of the old lady. As that person did the ones who saw the young lady in the drawing were disagreeing. Then I would say to the volunteer, suppose the nose of the old lady was actually the chin of a young lady. As the volunteer and the rest of the class begin to look at the drawing in a different way from which they had been biased there were many “AHA” moments (perhaps today’s expression of OMG would be more appropriate!). I would then inform the class that within a few minutes by the biased sketches we were able to sufficiently bias members of the class to strongly disagree on the age of the lady, EVEN THOUGH EVERYONE WAS LOOKING AT EXACTLY THE SAME DATA! I would then remind them that all of us have developed biases through family influences, education, and the peers with whom we associate. Often these biases are not evident to us and are generally called unconscious biases. I reminded them also that until someone from the other point of view was able to present their position (the chin is actually the nose, etc.) we were unable to understand the other point of view. The important point here is that if we are to have a meaning discussion on differences of opinions, we cannot – unless we are willing to LISTEN to the other person’s point of view before we debate the issues. As we all know, listening is hard! Unfortunately this approach to resolving issues seems to be sorely lacking today.
Notice I have emphasized that everyone was looking at exactly the same data! This helped to get each opposing group to understand that they needed to LISTEN to the other point of view about the data before making a decision. However if they do not see the same data, then Stephen Covey’s point about bias becomes meaningless. This is exactly what the cancel culture does. They do not want the opposition to see the other person’s point of view. When this occurs each side believes that have the truth (facts) and believes strongly that the other side is wrong. This means there is no free speech and that is what happened in the 2020 Presidential Election which I will return to shorlty. The 2020 Election is one of the reasons I choice this topic. Keeping both parties from seeing the same evidence is the primary point of this blog and the reason avoicecryingforfreedom.com came into being.
However before I go on I would like to mention another problem in having an honest exchange of ideas. There is a second obstacle to opposing groups to reach agreement and I want to mention that before going on. The second obstacle is what I call the problem of clans (tribes). Once I describe it you may know it by another name but the problem of clans will suffice. While serving in Vietnam I had an epiphany moment. I was with my ARVN Liaison officer, a young Vietnamese Lieutenant. I was a Marine Major at the time. We were going to enter a base other than where we were stationed and the guard would not let us in. I inquired as to why and he said he could let me in but not the Vietnamese Officer. The ARVN Officer was, of course, offended since after all this was his country. After some discussion I convinced the guard to let us both in. The ARVN Officer said he would have understood if I had agreed with the guard because “you have to take the side of your people”. This immediately had an impact on me. What he was saying that even if a person knew something was wrong, if it went against the culture or opinion of the “clan”, you must side with the clan or be ostracized and faced with the argument, “are you with US or THEM?” This gets in the way of seeking the real truth in many discussions today. Unfortunately most solutions are not either/or and taking that type of stand because you are part of a certain group (clan) can lead us away from the truth. Today our two party system seems to have this problem. We need to keep this obstacle in mind also when discussing important issues.
So what is the cancel culture? Perhaps an example will help. One of the most glaring examples of the cancel culture in recent years was how conservative views were not allowed on campuses. This was frequently covered in the news media. This is still true on many campuses. This is a real shock since universities used to be important arenas of free speech and where new ideas are discussed and debated and new knowledge is discovered. When it comes to conservative thinking and philosophies that no longer seems to exist and often conservative speakers are still aggressively excluded from speaking on campuses.
If opposing views are not discussed on college campus then where can they be discussed? Limiting free speech limit both our growth of knowledge and the growth of the students. This is particularly true when discussing something linked to science like climate change. When someone declares that “the science is decided” and no longer should be debated – beware! That is a sure sign that the cancel culture does not want you to see opposing views. In science that is particularly important. If we did not allow opposing views we would still be trying to calculate space travel using Newton’s Equations. Science is advancing (and changing) at a rapid pace and is leading to great discoveries. We must allow for free speech and energetic but civil debate in order to discover truth. Science is never final, we continue to discover, often through open debate, new ways to understand our environment through chaos theory, quantum physics, and other previously unknown processes.
So if discussing different theories and opinions is so important before making informed decisions why would anyone want to limit different opinions?
It appears the answer is power! The power to control what you can say, see, or hear. To be able to inforce a cancel culture takes a great deal of power. Who are these people or organizations? Well an example from generations ago was the Catholic Church. When Galileo discovered that the earth rotated around the sun (new knowledge) he had to recant under threat of excommunication because it differed with Church teachings (opinion?). So for a time that new knowledge was canceled.
But who are the modern practitioners of the cancel culture? Any group that controls electronic or print communications media has the power to become a practitioner of cancel culture. When editors can decide to print or broadcast news that favors their views and decide to not print or broadcast news that does not support their views they are practicing cancel culture. However there are some real reasons for canceling some information, particular in electronic form in social media. Terrorists have used social media to promote their hate and to try to recruit new terrorists. Also sexual perverts have used social media to pose as a someone else to trap others in meeting them, often with very bad results. Clearly these types of posts should be monitored and removed as soon as possible. Perhaps this is how the cancel culture began with a benevolent purpose but many quickly recognized the power of removing certain information and soon social media and others began removing posts simply because it did not align “with the culture of the organization”. Also they saw no need to even to define the values of their organizational culture. The result was allow what they liked and cancel what they did not like.
It should be pointed out that controlling which words or phrases are acceptable (political correct) is a form of the cancel culture. Words are very important, what we consistently hear and see definitely helps to form our opinions and create unconscious bias. For example, the phrase illegal immigrant is a correct description of a person who secretly enters the country. If you favor open borders you will probably state that that phrase is not acceptable, we should call them undocumented immigrants. If you are constantly exposed to the term undocumented immigrant you may begin to think that they really are not illegal. If you persist in using the term illegal immigrant they will attack you as being against immigration. This accusation need not be true but it is effective against those who resist those in power. Rather than having to defend the correctness of the statement illegal immigrant you become involved in defending your belief in the United States legal immigration process. When you resist they often use this tactic and will use other adjectives such as the racism term or any other “ism” that they think will stick. It is generally an effective way to keep resistance to cancel culture off balance.
I actually experienced some of this myself. While in a Facebook exchange with a friend on the subject of words and phrases, I commented that I thought “all lives matter” was a better choice than “Black lives matter”. He thought it was important to re-educate me and explained that all lives matter was not politically correct and therefore should not be used. In my earlier exchanges I believe I used the phrase, the P.C. police, but in my last response to him instead I used the term, liberal cabal instead of P.C. Police. That immediately got my response cancelled. The only word used by Facebook was it was edited (it never appeared on Facebook).. Edited is an interesting word as we will see when we later discuss Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I had to send him a private email for him to get my response. I have had other friends who were cancelled by Facebook for words or comments they used. Probably you have also.
However one of the most significant cancel culture events occurred just a few days before the 2020 Presidential Election. The New York Post published in their newspaper a story about Hunter Biden, the son of Joe Biden, and his dealings with foreign countries, notable China. The article implied there may have been influence peddling. The New York Post also attempted to post the story on their Twitter account but Twitter refused and cancelled their account. This was significant in two ways, one was it appeared to be a clear example of interfering or influencing a Presidential Election, and second, for the first time it clearly put the spotlight on how social media companies were handling what gets published. They appeared to be editing what should or should not be published. Previously Article 230 The Communications Decency Act protected them from liability since their claim was that they merely published everything other parties posted on their platform.
The allies of Twitter, other social media, the mainstream television channels, and print media closed ranks and refused to print or play the story. Their uniform reason was “there was no there, there”. With the exception of some cable networks and a few others, the story was buried (canceled). After the election a survey of a large number of Biden voters were asked if they had heard of the Hunter Biden scandal. Sixty percent said they had not and of that group almost 10% said they would not have voted for Biden if they had known. So the cancel culture had achieved its goal (influence the election). But it did not end there, because of the mentioned survey, The New York Post not backing down on its story, and the Senate hearing scheduled for Facebook and Twitter to appear to explain why they banned the story, the cancel culture realized that they must do more. Remember where there is continued resistance, they lie. This time they did not use an “ism”. What they did was to publish a letter from 40 former intelligence persons, including Brennan and Clapper (two intelligence leaders that had previously lied to Congress) that the Hunter Biden Scandal was Russian misinformation. As more information on the Biden scandal continued to surface, it was apparent that this letter was untrue.
On November 3, 2020 we had an election like no other. Using the coronavirus as an excuse to allow more people to shelter at home rather than go out to vote, many states changed their voting laws to allow ballots to mailed out to anyone on their voting rolls, which are generally known to be inaccurate.
By the evening of November 3rd, the tally showed the incumbent leading by several 100,000 votes, including the so called battle ground states. But because some states extended the deadline for mail in ballots it took additional days to count the ballots and the vote changed in favor of the challenger. This led to suspicion of fraud.
Once again the cancel culture closed ranks and in unison stated that the claims of fraud were unproven. This hindered the claims to find a venue to hear their evidence. However as many who observed what they believed was fraud and signed affidavits pressure mounted for the courts, oversight committees, and legislatures to hear the evidence. The cancel culture had to change its thesis to, yes there was fraud but not enough to change the outcome of the election. Surprisingly it is still difficult to get the evidence heard and apparently because of the concept of yes there was fraud but not enough to change the outcome of the election, many of the state electors have already given their votes to the challenger, Joe Biden. Giving the media the chance to call him President Elect and set in motion his plan to take office.
This mess is not resolved at the time of this writing. While more evidence such as the Dominion Voting machine which changed thousands of Trump votes to Biden, a video which plainly shows when the group running the voter station removed the press and observers, they broke out suitcases of ballots that were hidden and begin to count these ballots without observers or press, and other incidents which are captured on thousands of affidavits; there still has been not an official review of the evidence.
The real reason I have used primarily the Presidential Election is as an example of the danger of the cancel culture to our Republic.
Since you have seen how effective the cancel culture can be, it is logical that one my ask what can I do as an individual? Here are some things you can do.
First and foremost stay in the game! Our country was built on individual liberties and they are being threatened from within. This requires that individuals like yourself get involved in preserving our freedoms. You can make a difference. Bad people succeed when good people are silent. You now know their tactics so do not be discouraged when you are attacked when you stand up for what is right.
Remember you are not alone, find support groups and other individuals that also want to defend our country’s hard fought freedoms. There appears to be an awakening in this country. Many more people think like you than perhaps you imagined. More books are coming out to support our cause for freedom, keep educating yourself. Here are two that were just published this year:
Not Free America: What your government doesn’t want you to know.
Not Free America is a call to all Americans to take back our constitutional freedoms and break free of “our abusive relationship with our government.” Mike Donovan’s groundbreaking work on behalf of personal liberties has made him an object of fascination on both the Right and the Left.
How To Destroy America in Three Easy Steps
A growing number of Americans want to tear down what it’s taken us 250 years to build—and they’ll start by canceling our shared history, ideals, and culture. This is another book that recognizes the danger of losing our God given freedoms.
Look for alternatives to existing media and print outlets. Since the election a relative unknown cable show, Newsmax, has gained tremendous viewers because as what was considered bias coverage by the other networks, including FOX during the election. If you feel like the channels you are viewing are practicing cancel culture by not covering certain news events, try Newsmax.
There are also alternates to the social media giants, One that is gaining in popularity is Parlor. Parlor likes to call itself the World’s Town Square .They claim you can speak freely and express yourself openly, without fear of being “deplatformed” for your views. Engage with real people, not bots. Parler is people and privacy-focused, and gives you the tools you need to curate your Parler experience
However a word of caution. Many of the competitors have been purchased by the giant social media companies. Thus eliminating these alternatives. But some recent lawsuits may keep that from happening.
40 states and the federal government sued Facebook (FB) in twin antitrust lawsuits, alleging that the social media giant has abused its dominance in the digital marketplace and engaged in anticompetitive behavior
The Federal Trade Commission, in particular, is seeking a permanent injunction in federal court that could, among other things, require the company to divest assets, including Instagram and WhatsApp, effectively breaking up Facebook as we know it. The states are also calling for the company to be broken up, if necessary.
“Personal social networking is central to the lives of millions of Americans,” said Ian Conner, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, in a statement. “Facebook’s actions to entrench and maintain its monopoly deny consumers the benefits of competition. Our aim is to roll back Facebook’s anticompetitive conduct and restore competition so that innovation and free competition can thrive.”
You could check to see if one of your states are involved in the lawsuit against Facebook and let them know you support them and want to be kept informed of the progress of the lawsuit.
The biggest practitioners of cancel culture are the social media giants like Facebook. So support the reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act by contacting your Congressmen and Senators and tell them it is important. This will not be easy. Facebook, Twitter, Google and other major players have for years have been heavily funding lobbies that work for them plus direct donations to Senate and Congressional candidates. They have a major amount of influence in government. But the reform is needed so that they can be held accountable if they only publish what they like and cancel what they dislike. A copy of a brief explanation of Section 230 follows this blog.
Well our country is facing a lot of problems. I have only addressed one here, the cancel culture. I have been told that the way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. This is the first bite. I have laid out the problem with the cancel culture and made you aware of their tactics and offered suggestions how you can combat it. Join us in the fight. The truth will set us free. Become a voice crying out for freedom.
Will Lannes
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
47 U.S.C. § 230, a Provision of the Communication Decency Act
Tucked inside the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 is one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet: Section 230.
This comes somewhat as a surprise, since the original purpose of the legislation was to restrict free speech on the Internet. The Internet community as a whole objected strongly to the Communications Decency Act, and with EFF’s help, the anti-free speech provisions were struck down by the Supreme Court. But thankfully, CDA 230 remains and in the years since has far outshone the rest of the law.
Section 230 says that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of “interactive computer service providers,” including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish.
This legal and policy framework has allowed for YouTube and Vimeo users to upload their own videos, Amazon and Yelp to offer countless user reviews, craigslist to host classified ads, and Facebook and Twitter to offer social networking to hundreds of millions of Internet users. Given the sheer size of user-generated websites (for example, Facebook alone has more than 1 billion users, and YouTube users upload 100 hours of video every minute), it would be infeasible for online intermediaries to prevent objectionable content from cropping up on their site. Rather than face potential liability for their users’ actions, most would likely not host any user content at all or would need to protect themselves by being actively engaged in censoring what we say, what we see, and what we do online. In short, CDA 230 is perhaps the most influential law to protect the kind of innovation that has allowed the Internet to thrive since 1996.