Commentary

Writers threatened with $300K fines

This entry was posted in Commentary News and tagged censorship liberty Russia on by

According to an article by Natylie Baldwin on antiwar.com, the United States Treasury Department has threatened writers with fines of more than $300,000 if they write for the Strategic Culture Foundation, a Russia-based online journal.

The writers, Daniel Lazare and Michael Averko, reportedly got letters from the Treasury Department, delivered by the FBI, claiming they were in violation of sanctions against SCF and could be subject to a “civil monetary penalty of up to the greater of $311,562 or twice the value of the underlying transaction.” They say that other writers have received similar letters.
(more…)

Some thoughts on J. K. Rowling 2

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged books cancel culture Rowling on by

This post may cost me some people whom I mistook for friends. If that happens, it’s painful, but there’s no point in living with an illusion. It’s more important to point out unjust positions within your circles than with those outside, because you have a much better chance of having an effect. The danger when you speak up is that the people in your circles may turn on you, but I expect the number of people who do that to me will be small and won’t include anyone I truly value.

J. K. Rowling has been the target of extreme hostility from quite a number of people, including some within my circles. They don’t give reasons; they just spit. Sometimes they call her “transphobic,” but that’s a three-syllable word and is apt to promote a second of thought while saying it. The word “terf” is much easier just to spew (or should that be S.P.E.W.?).
(more…)

Use the right statistic

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged statistics writing on by

Mark Twain talked about “lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Lying with statistics isn’t always intentional; sometimes a writer doesn’t understand their meaning or applicability.

Recently I saw a news article on the COVID-19 infection rate in northern New Hampshire. It reported a higher positivity rate than in previous weeks. That doesn’t tell us anything about whether infections are increasing or decreasing, though. If the positivity rate goes up, it could mean one of several things:

  1. More people are infected.
  2. More of the people who are infected are getting tested.
  3. Fewer people who aren’t infected are getting tested.

(more…)

Abusing the nominative 2

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged grammar writing on by

Alexander James Adams has a song which is quite nice yet makes me grate my teeth. Its refrain is “There’s only the music between you and I.” An occasional grammatical violation in a song is OK, but one that occurs in every verse is painful. There are plenty of good rhymes for “me.”

When a pronoun follows a preposition, it has to be in the accusative case, also called the objective case. “With me.” “To them.” “Behind her.” The favorite grammatical error of snobs is to use the nominative case instead.
(more…)

The black swan fallacy

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged logic research on by

A while ago I ran into a report of an alleged side effect of the COVID-19 vaccine. It was a “this happened to my cousin” story, so it’s low on credibility. Some news outlets, though, claimed it couldn’t be true because there was no previous report of this effect.

That’s not a valid refutation. The vaccines are fairly new, and it’s plausible that a few people could have side effects that weren’t previously recorded. The media argument amounted to “We never heard of it before, so it couldn’t have happened.”
(more…)

Don’t treat your readers like children

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged bowdlerization writing on by

In an alarming development, the US National Archives has slapped warnings of “harmful language” on the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. The source makes it especially disturbing; archivists should stand strongly against scaring people off from important documents.

Update: According to some sources, the National Archives stuck this warning label on all the documents in its online catalog, which is sloppy and makes the warning useless. As an analogy, if you rate all movies R, you might as well rate none of them R.
(more…)

Disagreement isn’t refutation

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged logic research writing on by

Websites with an agenda to promote will claim that someone has “refuted” a claim when all the person has done is express a contrary view, with or without supporting evidence.

Refuting a claim or argument means showing that it’s invalid. It doesn’t require proving that the contrary position is true, but it requires thoroughly knocking the props out from under a claim. Here are some ways to refute an assertion:
(more…)

Fighting dairy censorship

This entry was posted in Censorship Commentary and tagged censorship on by

It’s a curious and little-known fact that the dairy industry is a leading advocate of censorship. It demands the suppression of words such as “milk” and “butter” for non-dairy products, even where their meaning is clear and their use is well established. If the dairy lobby had its way, you wouldn’t find “peanut butter” or “soy milk” in stores. Its puppets include several members of Congress, and it’s especially powerful in Wisconsin, where it was long illegal to serve yellow margarine.

More surprisingly, the dairy lobby appears to have bought the California Department of Food and Agriculture. The CDFA sent a demand to Miyoko’s Creamery demanding that it stop using terms such as “cultured vegan butter.” Indeed, the government’s demands went far beyond that, saying that Miyoko’s couldn’t call its products “cruelty-free” or show a picture of a woman hugging a cow. The letter’s thinly disguised purpose was to hamper competition with the dairy industry.
(more…)

Judges assault First Amendment

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing Writing as business and tagged First Amendment law liberty on by

A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th circuit should seriously worry writers. It says that the government can ignore the First Amendment when it feels like it. In the case in question, the court acknowledged that website design work is “pure speech,” which means it’s protected by the First Amendment. “Appellants are forced to create websites — and thus, speech—that they would otherwise refuse.” But then it argued that the State of Colorado has a “compelling interest” in forcing a website designer to work for the plaintiff. It ruled that, in spite of the plain First Amendment violation, the designer can be forced to create speech.
(more…)