They are getting a little better about this; in Marvel, Reed Richards has made a fortune licensing tech. But not the good stuff. Nope. You're not ready for that.
It's not just the "too dangerous" aspect either... here's a sample line of heroic thinking:
"I could sell this tech and become a billionaire, because... damn! Look at this stuff!"
Or
"I would rather help people than personally profit from this. I'm going to wear tights."
Never mind that you would have only become a billionaire because you helped a fat lot of people in ways far more profound than if you rescued their wallet or cat. And never mind that if you felt the slightest bit of guilt at being karmically enriched by all the good that you're doing, you could buy your way out of it by donating the money back to a shit-ton of other people who would similarly be helped. Nah, the short term "socially conscious" thought wins out. Style over substance. Self-promotion in the form of bright colors and instant gratification.
Of course, this attitude is all too prevalent here on Earth-Prime as well, both in regard to "dangerous tech" and in the approach to helping society.
The Cyborg character is copyrighted by DC Comics. Used under Fair Use for political commentary and parody.
Rebecca Watson is the founder of The Skepchick Network. According to their website's About page, it is "a collection of smart and often sarcastic blogs focused on science and critical thinking."
I wish she'd focused a little harder before making this mistake:
It seems to me that Watson failed as soon as she wrote the title. Planned Parenthood is Not Selling Baby Parts, You Fucking Idiots isn't really a title that's crafted to help you win friends and influence people. And in the various titles and references and links, she can't quite decide where to put that word, "fucking", though it seems she's pretty sure it should be in there someplace.
But kudos to her for skipping all the difficult logic and getting straight to the ad hominem. If it weren't for the fact that people are actually on camera seriously discussing the sale of baby parts then whole "it's ridiculous, nothing to see here" thing might work. But that's really the only thing she's offering, other than "it's maliciously edited"
OK, fine... it is edited. This way you don't have to watch them walking down halls, standing behind white coats, riding elevators, discussing lunch, etc. It would seem very easy for her to take the full video (which actually are available... the latest one is over 2 hours long), find the out-of-context bits and show a couple of more minutes on each side to show how it's all very innocent.
But notably, she doesn't.
Instead she calls you names.
Look... of COURSE there are going to be investigations. Investigations are started when someone makes a credible charge to the authorities. That's how the world works. And the only fucking idiots are those who don't think that a credible charge is offered when you actually have people on camera saying they're doing the deed... oh, and you've got four of those videos.
The investigation may come to nothing. There may be nothing illegal going on. And if so... cool, nothing's going on, and that's that. But multiple people at Planned Parenthood said some very questionable things. And that face up there on that video... that's the Poster Child of the Go Look in the Fucking Mirror society if she thinks that calling people idiots will make an investigation go away, or should make anyone feel bad about calling for it.
--==//ooOoo\\==--
Keep in mind that the question of whether anything illegal has been done is entirely separate from the question of whether you think it should be illegal. Here's an example: illegal drugs are... you can say it... illegal. In my Libertarian heart, I don't think they should be. But they are... and that means, all personal wishes aside, if you do the drugs you're going to jail.
Similarly, in the case of Planned Parenthood, "BUT SCIENCE!!" doesn't offer a defense against tissue that's illegally obtained or transferred. That's not being pro-Science... it's being pro-Stupid, and you'd still go to jail. Separately, we can have a discussion about whether the law should be changed, and how.
--==//ooOoo\\==--
Furthermore -- and this is a discussion to be expanded at a later date -- I'm getting more than fed up with vigilante justice and blatant disregard of due process, of which this video is an example.
Political Correctness has focused our society on feelings above logic. It has resulted not only in Political Correctness, but the instant gratification of Internet Mob Justice that can ruin lives without proof, due process, or recourse of any kind. It has even skewed what it means to be skeptical to the point where Rebecca I-run-a-brain-trust Watson has chosen to leverage what critical thinking skills she has to publicly indulge in sophomoric name-calling.
In this video, Watson would attempt to convince you to skip all that due process, and investigation of substantiated claims, take her word for it that there's nothing untoward going on, and go straight to a dismissal.
Presumably, because you're a "fucking idiot", you won't see what she's doing there.
Journalists don't want the results of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to be posted on-line. They want the info, but they want it for themselves only, so they can control the public release of the the information that they received under the FOIA.
Anybody see the irony?
The journalists say that it will "suppress" requests. Well, no... not really. Not if you're interested in releasing the information. But if you want exclusive access to the information, it could be a problem.
The journalists say as much. Their problem is that they lose exclusivity over investigations that are built on multiple FOIA requests. They don't lose the ability to perform the investigations, nor do they lose the ability to report on them. But, as the information is now public, they lose the ability to withhold it themselves until they feel like publishing.
This is a problem for them because of the economics of journalism. Exclusives and scoops bring prestige and royalties for re-prints and moneymoneymoney. These are the same journalists who have neither an understanding of, nor a sympathy for, the economics of any other profession, bar none.
And frankly, I no longer have sympathy for the economics of their profession. The purpose of the Freedom of Information Act is to increase transparency. This is overwhelmingly information that should have been accessible in the first place. The one thing I have a problem with is that filing a request incurs a cost. It would be better if it didn't. But transparency is better than opacity; access is better than exclusion; and I am perfectly fine with taking this as an incremental improvement over the current state of affairs, leaving the price issue for a later date.
Frankly, the dinosaurs of the Press can learn to deal with their new environment, or they can move to Seattle and ask if you want fries with that. I hear they can make $15 an hour.
