4 ms·

>“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,

>“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 4mo ago
> given the opportunity to cease this behavior What behavior exactly were they being given an opportunity to cease?
- 40four 4mo ago
  Ask the American Diabetes Association. Their conference, their rules. Do people really believe the ADA is a puppet of the administration?
  - throwaway173738 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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?
- emilfihlman 4mo ago
  It reduces their credibility if they misrepresent the story.
JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
> Refusing to cease by an even organisers order will, yes, result in being escorted out forcefully by security Sure. But if two groups of people are distributing articles published in the organisation’s own journal, with one of them containing elements of political speech, and the organization censors that one, it’s absolutely valid to ask if anyone in government directed that censorship. The core of the argument is they should not have been asked to cease distributing their article, that’s literally one of the purposes of an academic conference, plenty of other people were doing it in various ways. The ADA, in claiming it was enforcing its rules, was in fact not following them.
- emilfihlman 4mo ago
  Yes I agree that it's quite silly, of course if we assume they acted in a reasonable way (which I can't say for certain if the security had to result to forcefully ejecting them). It very badly damages credibility to misrepresent what happened. It doesn't further the cause, only damages it.

mcphage 4mo ago

> given the opportunity to cease this behavior What behavior exactly were they being given an opportunity to cease?

40four 4mo ago
Ask the American Diabetes Association. Their conference, their rules. Do people really believe the ADA is a puppet of the administration?
- throwaway173738 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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?

emilfihlman 4mo ago
It reduces their credibility if they misrepresent the story.

JumpCrisscross 4mo ago

> Refusing to cease by an even organisers order will, yes, result in being escorted out forcefully by security Sure. But if two groups of people are distributing articles published in the organisation’s own journal, with one of them containing elements of political speech, and the organization censors that one, it’s absolutely valid to ask if anyone in government directed that censorship. The core of the argument is they should not have been asked to cease distributing their article, that’s literally one of the purposes of an academic conference, plenty of other people were doing it in various ways. The ADA, in claiming it was enforcing its rules, was in fact not following them.

emilfihlman 4mo ago
Yes I agree that it's quite silly, of course if we assume they acted in a reasonable way (which I can't say for certain if the security had to result to forcefully ejecting them). It very badly damages credibility to misrepresent what happened. It doesn't further the cause, only damages it.