9 ms·

> “They physically grabbed us, forced us out of the conference center, and now are telling us we can no longer attend this meeting,” Kelly told MedPage Today, w

> “They physically grabbed us, forced us out of the conference center, and now are telling us we can no longer attend this meeting,” Kelly told MedPage Today, which first reported the incident. “They’re taking our lanyards. It really has come to this in America. Censorship is real. America needs to stand up. Scientists, stand up. Physicians, stand up.” It's become very evident from the outside that the best time to stand up was yesterday, and you might already be too far down the slope to be able to quickly recover for this. I really do feel for all Americans who just want to have a normal life with an average quality of life or above, but at one point the environment around you change so quickly that that stops being even a possibility in the future. If your life hasn't been affected yet, it will be shortly. The best day to stand up against the ongoing censorship and repression might have been yesterday, but the second-best day to do so is today. You really need to start caring about this before it's way to late. One "no kings protest" every 6 months is not gonna do anything, what you need is wide solidarity across industries, and a real general strike across the country. The second you do this, you'll see that the many and poor can control the few and rich.

quietsegfault 5mo ago
Many of us are protesting every day.
- embedding-shape 5mo ago
  By actually striking, or by waving a sign outside? Don't get me wrong, anything is better than nothing, and many small streams may form into one big river, eventually. But short of a general strike across impactful industries, I think the current wave of protests won't actually achieve anything. There is a reason "general strikes" are so feared by the political and wealthy class, and it's because there is no way for them to get rid of them without actually agreeing to some of the demands, otherwise the strikes actually impact their lives. Protesting by going out on the streets waving signs isn't gonna accomplish that, sadly.
  - sailfast 5mo ago
    When was the last general strike? And what would it ask for if it happened? I understand you’re a fan of the method and it can be impactful but that’s not a reason to state that protesting does not accomplish anything.
    - embedding-shape 5mo ago
      It's not that I'm a fan of the method, it is that it id historically the only non-violent way for a population at large to enact change, once the government stops listening to the people. Protesting is very effective when you have a government that listens, which clearly isn't the case here, then besides a bunch of violent options, you're basically left with general strikes.
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    > short of a general strike across impactful industries, I think the current wave of protests won't actually achieve anything If like another 5% of eligible voters committed to voting every election, minor or not, and committed to calling their electeds on one issue every quarter, we’d likely see a sea change. The threshold for laziness is very low, currently only 1 in 5 [1]. That’s both annoying and an opportunity. [1] https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-national-survey-shows-citizens-most-vocal-active-in-local-government.html#:~:text=Menu%20%5B%20%21%5Bgoverning-rev-2024.svg%5D%28https%3A//erepublic.brightspotcdn.com/36/b8/c9560d464d9d836ece5571e1dbe4/governing-rev-2024.svg%29,%5D%28https%3A//www.govtech.com/cpsai%29%20%5B%20%5D%28https%3A//www.govtech.com/em%29 https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-national-survey-shows-...
    - ThrowawayR2 5mo ago
      "Bigger turnout in 2024 would have benefited Trump, new survey finds" https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/26/2024-election-turnout-trum-00426544 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/26/2024-election-turno... The problem is not turnout. What the Democrats seem unable or unwilling to accept is that the American public doesn't agree with their platform and are also unable or unwilling to change their platform to something that voters will elect them for.
- Vaslo 5mo ago
  Many of us don’t care.
- eudamoniac 5mo ago
  Peaceful protest only makes sense as an implied alternative to violent protest.
emilfihlman 5mo ago
>“They were respectfully given the opportunity to cease this behavior and chose not to which is why they were escorted out.” I understand the want to protest, but you do know that misrepresentation doesn't help, right? Refusing to cease by an even organisers order will, yes, result in being escorted out forcefully by security.
- mcphage 5mo ago
  > given the opportunity to cease this behavior What behavior exactly were they being given an opportunity to cease?
  - 40four 5mo ago
    Ask the American Diabetes Association. Their conference, their rules. Do people really believe the ADA is a puppet of the administration?
    - throwaway173738 5mo ago
      No, they published their rules ahead of time. When you do that you can’t just go and make up new rules on the spot. That’s a central tenet of “the rule of law” that the rules are written down so we can interpret them.
    - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
      > Ask the American Diabetes Association. Their conference, their rules Now I’m actually curious for names. One of the people thrown out is an (the?) editor of the ADA’s journal. Who in the chain of command made this call?
- ModernMech 5mo ago
  That was the intended result. The story isn't that people were escorted out, it's that they knew they were going to be escorted out and proceeded anyway. That they felt the need to break the rules is the story, because... why did they feel so strongly? Maybe there's a reason behind it?
draw_down 5mo ago
[dead]
donkey_brains 5mo ago
I completely agree with what you are saying, but I have grown too cynical to believe it will ever happen. American capitalism has been very effective at ensuring 2 outcomes: - The population is kept just comfortable enough to become complacent, with easy access to intoxicants, brainrot media and fast food. Now there are even robots that can do our thinking for us. A large percentage of people are brainwashed into thinking that all change is bad because it will cause them to lose the paltry, ersatz freedom they have rather than gaining real liberty. - The labor pool is kept large enough that any of us could be replaced immediately with no significant loss to our employers. As the ISP mantra goes, “we have nothing to lose but our jobs”. Yes, we know that they couldn’t replace _all_ of us at once, but combine points 1 and 2 and you will start to understand why there is no appreciable labor movement in the United States.
- zackwu 5mo ago
  oh man, "we have nothing to lose but our jobs" really cracked me up in a sad way
- embedding-shape 5mo ago
  What chills me the most, is the self-censorship Americans engage on social media today, everywhere online. It seems Americans today are afraid of talking clearly about general strikes, protesting, rape, sexual violence, censorship and more "taboo" topics, and I'm guessing it's because the platforms kind of shadow-ban people quickly for it. Growing up, I always heard Americans bragging about freedom of speech, and how important it is. I'll admit I swallowed that wholesale as a young impressionable person in another country, and I still believe in it, just not the American freedom of speech flavor I suppose. But it's so sad to see the state of affairs compared to just ten years ago, where discussions could be freely held, even on mainstream social media, and people weren't afraid of talking about things with clear words. But the chilling effect is in full effect today, and I think it's having a large impact on how well (or not) the working class could actually mobilize. Because as soon as anyone mentions "general strike" on social media, they seem to disappear into a black hole and that stuff never shows up in people's feeds. Regardless of the size of the labor pool, if you can't organize people somehow, especially across a large country like the US, it's short of impossible to actually get any change in reality.
roenxi 5mo ago
This might be reading too much in to minor drama at a diabetes conference. The gentleman in question could have gone to protest outside (and probably did). The article linked doesn't even say what exactly they were protesting (beyond a rather vague "attacks on scientific research" which could mean a lot of things).
- embedding-shape 5mo ago
  > This might be reading too much in to minor drama at a diabetes conference. Indeed, my view and perspective is built by a culmination of recent events, not based on a single event. The widespread self-censorship Americans currently engage in (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48434091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48434091) is also a large part of it. I don't have any "index of events" handy that could explain why I think the slope is so evident currently, but based on the ongoing journalistic suppression, individual self-censorship, centralization of control and power in governments and society together with lots of other smaller incidents like this one and others, makes it pretty clear to me at least.
- adrian_b 5mo ago
  Their so-called "protest" was just distributing an article already published in the journal of the medical association to which this conference is attached, which probably discussed matters of interest for the attendance, like the future of research financing in this domain. I can hardly think of a more peaceful form of protest, which only intended to make aware the participants about the content of the article. Those who were not interested presumably refused to take the article copy or did not read it. Even on HN you can still see claims that USA is a "free" country where anyone can say anything about the government, without consequences. This example shows clearly that this claim is false.
  - roenxi 5mo ago
    I'm no doctor, but I suspect the conference organisers wanted the conference to focus on diabetes. Rather than exploring whether the USA is a "free" country where anyone can say anything about the government, without consequences.
sandworm101 5mo ago
>> If your life hasn't been affected yet, it will be shortly. If your life hasnt been affected yet, you arent paying attention. Or, it has been affected for the better because you are one of the many who generally support the movement.
like_any_other 5mo ago
[flagged]
- joemazerino 5mo ago
  One man's censorship is another man's social justice and equity policy.
  - throwaway173738 5mo ago
    No, it’s not. You shouldn’t have to muzzle your opposition to feel safe, or to threaten them with jailing to feel like your ideas are being heard. That speaks to some pretty deep seated insecurity if you feel that way.
    - trumpdong 5mo ago
      Does this advice apply in every case or does it have a restricted scope?
      - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
        > Does this advice apply in every case or does it have a restricted scope? In case you’re being serious, this has been debated in various liberal traditions since the conception liberalism was first born. In essence, the modern liberal tradition (modern as in post-Enlightenment, i.e. about the whole time America has existed) says you don’t censor anything except for forces seeking to censor (paradox of tolerance).
        trumpdong 5mo ago
        So now every force seeking to censor will just say its opposition is a force seeking to censor, and get them censored. Like how the Nazis claimed the Jews were the ones destroying Germany, then the Nazis destroyed Germany. How do you stop that?
Vaslo 5mo ago
You’re pretending like the vast majority of people are being oppressed by some military government but easily forget that tens of millions of us support the president and aren’t intimidated whatsoever by anything people like you could do.
- whatever1 5mo ago
  All oppressive regimes have die hard supporters. The f'ed up thing is that they may even become the majority. Hence voting cannot fix it.
  - Vaslo 5mo ago
    Yeah, it’s well known that oppressive regimes have 10s of millions of supporters. Or maybe your ideas are just bad, and maybe the other side thinks your ideas are weak and doesn’t want any part of them. How would you “fix it” without voting? And if it involves “force” why do you ever think we’d let you do that?
    - whatever1 5mo ago
      In the beginning the people who vote for them may or may not support the ideology. But once the regime is in place, over time a fraction of supporters start gaining benefits from it. Wealth, recognition, you name it. The regime controls resources of an entire country they can do it. This core or supporters become the champions of the regime and will eradicate its competitors. Mentally or physically. Example: try becoming an opposition party in Russia. Historically if the erosion of institutions is already bad, there is no going back. Only external pressure (sanctions/wars) or civil war. Elections work only if every group that has real power has agreed to yield it to institutions that will be elected. Either because they believe or because cumulatively the power they own is not enough to challenge the institutions.
- poly2it 5mo ago
  That's precisely the issue, the power dynamic needs to flip. The state of USA and more worryingly the direction it is in is horrifying.
sourcegrift 5mo ago
So much grandstanding based on a single persons account? You might do very well in HR

quietsegfault 5mo ago

Many of us are protesting every day.

embedding-shape 5mo ago
By actually striking, or by waving a sign outside? Don't get me wrong, anything is better than nothing, and many small streams may form into one big river, eventually. But short of a general strike across impactful industries, I think the current wave of protests won't actually achieve anything. There is a reason "general strikes" are so feared by the political and wealthy class, and it's because there is no way for them to get rid of them without actually agreeing to some of the demands, otherwise the strikes actually impact their lives. Protesting by going out on the streets waving signs isn't gonna accomplish that, sadly.
- sailfast 5mo ago
  When was the last general strike? And what would it ask for if it happened? I understand you’re a fan of the method and it can be impactful but that’s not a reason to state that protesting does not accomplish anything.
  - embedding-shape 5mo ago
    It's not that I'm a fan of the method, it is that it id historically the only non-violent way for a population at large to enact change, once the government stops listening to the people. Protesting is very effective when you have a government that listens, which clearly isn't the case here, then besides a bunch of violent options, you're basically left with general strikes.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  > short of a general strike across impactful industries, I think the current wave of protests won't actually achieve anything If like another 5% of eligible voters committed to voting every election, minor or not, and committed to calling their electeds on one issue every quarter, we’d likely see a sea change. The threshold for laziness is very low, currently only 1 in 5 [1]. That’s both annoying and an opportunity. [1] https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-national-survey-shows-citizens-most-vocal-active-in-local-government.html#:~:text=Menu%20%5B%20%21%5Bgoverning-rev-2024.svg%5D%28https%3A//erepublic.brightspotcdn.com/36/b8/c9560d464d9d836ece5571e1dbe4/governing-rev-2024.svg%29,%5D%28https%3A//www.govtech.com/cpsai%29%20%5B%20%5D%28https%3A//www.govtech.com/em%29 https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-national-survey-shows-...
  - ThrowawayR2 5mo ago
    "Bigger turnout in 2024 would have benefited Trump, new survey finds" https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/26/2024-election-turnout-trum-00426544 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/26/2024-election-turno... The problem is not turnout. What the Democrats seem unable or unwilling to accept is that the American public doesn't agree with their platform and are also unable or unwilling to change their platform to something that voters will elect them for.
Vaslo 5mo ago
Many of us don’t care.
eudamoniac 5mo ago
Peaceful protest only makes sense as an implied alternative to violent protest.

emilfihlman 5mo ago

>“They were respectfully given the opportunity to cease this behavior and chose not to which is why they were escorted out.” I understand the want to protest, but you do know that misrepresentation doesn't help, right? Refusing to cease by an even organisers order will, yes, result in being escorted out forcefully by security.

mcphage 5mo ago
> given the opportunity to cease this behavior What behavior exactly were they being given an opportunity to cease?
- 40four 5mo ago
  Ask the American Diabetes Association. Their conference, their rules. Do people really believe the ADA is a puppet of the administration?
  - throwaway173738 5mo ago
    No, they published their rules ahead of time. When you do that you can’t just go and make up new rules on the spot. That’s a central tenet of “the rule of law” that the rules are written down so we can interpret them.
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    > Ask the American Diabetes Association. Their conference, their rules Now I’m actually curious for names. One of the people thrown out is an (the?) editor of the ADA’s journal. Who in the chain of command made this call?
ModernMech 5mo ago
That was the intended result. The story isn't that people were escorted out, it's that they knew they were going to be escorted out and proceeded anyway. That they felt the need to break the rules is the story, because... why did they feel so strongly? Maybe there's a reason behind it?

draw_down 5mo ago

[dead]

donkey_brains 5mo ago

I completely agree with what you are saying, but I have grown too cynical to believe it will ever happen. American capitalism has been very effective at ensuring 2 outcomes: - The population is kept just comfortable enough to become complacent, with easy access to intoxicants, brainrot media and fast food. Now there are even robots that can do our thinking for us. A large percentage of people are brainwashed into thinking that all change is bad because it will cause them to lose the paltry, ersatz freedom they have rather than gaining real liberty. - The labor pool is kept large enough that any of us could be replaced immediately with no significant loss to our employers. As the ISP mantra goes, “we have nothing to lose but our jobs”. Yes, we know that they couldn’t replace _all_ of us at once, but combine points 1 and 2 and you will start to understand why there is no appreciable labor movement in the United States.

zackwu 5mo ago
oh man, "we have nothing to lose but our jobs" really cracked me up in a sad way
embedding-shape 5mo ago
What chills me the most, is the self-censorship Americans engage on social media today, everywhere online. It seems Americans today are afraid of talking clearly about general strikes, protesting, rape, sexual violence, censorship and more "taboo" topics, and I'm guessing it's because the platforms kind of shadow-ban people quickly for it. Growing up, I always heard Americans bragging about freedom of speech, and how important it is. I'll admit I swallowed that wholesale as a young impressionable person in another country, and I still believe in it, just not the American freedom of speech flavor I suppose. But it's so sad to see the state of affairs compared to just ten years ago, where discussions could be freely held, even on mainstream social media, and people weren't afraid of talking about things with clear words. But the chilling effect is in full effect today, and I think it's having a large impact on how well (or not) the working class could actually mobilize. Because as soon as anyone mentions "general strike" on social media, they seem to disappear into a black hole and that stuff never shows up in people's feeds. Regardless of the size of the labor pool, if you can't organize people somehow, especially across a large country like the US, it's short of impossible to actually get any change in reality.

roenxi 5mo ago

This might be reading too much in to minor drama at a diabetes conference. The gentleman in question could have gone to protest outside (and probably did). The article linked doesn't even say what exactly they were protesting (beyond a rather vague "attacks on scientific research" which could mean a lot of things).

embedding-shape 5mo ago
> This might be reading too much in to minor drama at a diabetes conference. Indeed, my view and perspective is built by a culmination of recent events, not based on a single event. The widespread self-censorship Americans currently engage in (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48434091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48434091) is also a large part of it. I don't have any "index of events" handy that could explain why I think the slope is so evident currently, but based on the ongoing journalistic suppression, individual self-censorship, centralization of control and power in governments and society together with lots of other smaller incidents like this one and others, makes it pretty clear to me at least.
adrian_b 5mo ago
Their so-called "protest" was just distributing an article already published in the journal of the medical association to which this conference is attached, which probably discussed matters of interest for the attendance, like the future of research financing in this domain. I can hardly think of a more peaceful form of protest, which only intended to make aware the participants about the content of the article. Those who were not interested presumably refused to take the article copy or did not read it. Even on HN you can still see claims that USA is a "free" country where anyone can say anything about the government, without consequences. This example shows clearly that this claim is false.
- roenxi 5mo ago
  I'm no doctor, but I suspect the conference organisers wanted the conference to focus on diabetes. Rather than exploring whether the USA is a "free" country where anyone can say anything about the government, without consequences.

sandworm101 5mo ago

>> If your life hasn't been affected yet, it will be shortly. If your life hasnt been affected yet, you arent paying attention. Or, it has been affected for the better because you are one of the many who generally support the movement.

like_any_other 5mo ago

[flagged]

joemazerino 5mo ago
One man's censorship is another man's social justice and equity policy.
- throwaway173738 5mo ago
  No, it’s not. You shouldn’t have to muzzle your opposition to feel safe, or to threaten them with jailing to feel like your ideas are being heard. That speaks to some pretty deep seated insecurity if you feel that way.
  - trumpdong 5mo ago
    Does this advice apply in every case or does it have a restricted scope?
    - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
      > Does this advice apply in every case or does it have a restricted scope? In case you’re being serious, this has been debated in various liberal traditions since the conception liberalism was first born. In essence, the modern liberal tradition (modern as in post-Enlightenment, i.e. about the whole time America has existed) says you don’t censor anything except for forces seeking to censor (paradox of tolerance).
      - trumpdong 5mo ago
        So now every force seeking to censor will just say its opposition is a force seeking to censor, and get them censored. Like how the Nazis claimed the Jews were the ones destroying Germany, then the Nazis destroyed Germany. How do you stop that?

Vaslo 5mo ago

You’re pretending like the vast majority of people are being oppressed by some military government but easily forget that tens of millions of us support the president and aren’t intimidated whatsoever by anything people like you could do.

whatever1 5mo ago
All oppressive regimes have die hard supporters. The f'ed up thing is that they may even become the majority. Hence voting cannot fix it.
- Vaslo 5mo ago
  Yeah, it’s well known that oppressive regimes have 10s of millions of supporters. Or maybe your ideas are just bad, and maybe the other side thinks your ideas are weak and doesn’t want any part of them. How would you “fix it” without voting? And if it involves “force” why do you ever think we’d let you do that?
  - whatever1 5mo ago
    In the beginning the people who vote for them may or may not support the ideology. But once the regime is in place, over time a fraction of supporters start gaining benefits from it. Wealth, recognition, you name it. The regime controls resources of an entire country they can do it. This core or supporters become the champions of the regime and will eradicate its competitors. Mentally or physically. Example: try becoming an opposition party in Russia. Historically if the erosion of institutions is already bad, there is no going back. Only external pressure (sanctions/wars) or civil war. Elections work only if every group that has real power has agreed to yield it to institutions that will be elected. Either because they believe or because cumulatively the power they own is not enough to challenge the institutions.
poly2it 5mo ago
That's precisely the issue, the power dynamic needs to flip. The state of USA and more worryingly the direction it is in is horrifying.

sourcegrift 5mo ago

So much grandstanding based on a single persons account? You might do very well in HR