Elon Musk Thinks Cannibals Are Invading the United States – Futurism

In his latest racist outburst, multihyphenate billionaire Elon Musk joined other conservative pundits in accusing Haitian migrants of being "cannibals," arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to move to the US.

The news comes after political unrest in the island nation came to a head this week. On Monday, Haiti's prime minister Ariel Henry agreed to resign if other Caribbean nations were to form a transitional government on behalf of the country. The statement angered Haitians, triggering mass protests, with tires being burned in the streets.

Meanwhile, Musk took to his social media platform X to further unverified and sensationalist claims of cannibalism arising out of the conflict, as NBC reports.

Case in point, today, the mercurial CEO tweeted a link to a video that claimed to show evidence of cannibalism in Haiti in response to the report.

The video was promptly taken down by X, Axios reports, which stated that the video had violated its rules.

In other words, even Musk's own social media company isn't willing to support his increasingly racist anti-immigration posts.

Ever since Musk took over the company formerly known as Twitter, hate speech has flourished on the platform. The billionaire has spread his own share of misinformation as well, from bogus COVID-19 data to false information about the Israel-Gaza conflict.

Musk has also made plenty of his own racist remarks on his platform. In January, he argued that Black students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have lower IQs and therefore shouldn't become pilots ridiculous claims that were met with horror by civil rights groups.

Most recently, the billionaire took aim at the people of Haiti, playing into debunked tropes.

Over the weekend, Musk tweeted "cannibal gangs..." in response to a clip by right-wing commentator Matt Walsh about unrest in Haiti.

"Civilization is fragile," he wrote in response to another since-deleted video, which claimed to show footage of a "cannibal gang eating body parts."

This week, Musk joined right-wing commentator Ian Miles Cheong, who argued on X earlier this week that there were "cannibal gangs in Haiti who abduct and eat people."

"If wanting to screen immigrants for potential homicidal tendencies and cannibalism makes me 'right wing,' then I would gladly accept such a label!" an incensed Musk wrote in a reply to a separate post in which Cheong complained about the NBC report. "Failure to do so would put innocent Americans in [sic] mortal risk," he added, failing to provide any evidence for his outlandish claims.

As experts have since pointed out, the posts were likely the result of gang propaganda campaigns designed to stoke fear, as NBC reports. While it's still possible that the odd gang leaders are indeed capable of such ghoulish acts, generalizing these claims is not only misleading a State Department spokesperson told the broadcaster that it had received no credible reports of cannibalism but even clearly playing into racist tropes that date back to colonial times.

There's also the issue of basic human decency. Through no fault of its residents, Haiti is in crisis; instead of wondering how the country he immigrated to could help, Musk is punching down at the most extreme examples of social dysfunction he can find online.

"It is very disturbing that Elon Musk would repeat these absurdities that do, indeed, have a long history," Yale University professor of French and African diaspora studies Marlene Daut told NBC.

In short, it's yet another troubling sign of Musk's descent into extreme right-wing circles, while using his considerable following and social media network to further conspiracy theories and racist disinformation.

"A whole population is getting blamed for what some psycho gang members are doing," Washington-based lawyer and moderator of the subreddit r/Haiti, told NBC. "It is racist. It is dehumanizing."

More on Musk: Elon Musk Deletes Tweet Saying Ex-Wives Responsible for Collapse of Civilization

Here is the original post:

Elon Musk Thinks Cannibals Are Invading the United States - Futurism

Free Speech or Hate Speech? | GW Today | The George Washington University – GW Today

What are the free speech rights of university students? That was the first question posed by moderator Jeffrey Rosen, GW Law professor and president of the National Constitution Center, to a panel of George Washington University faculty experts on the First Amendment.

The webinar, Free Speech v. Hate Speech: First Amendment Scholars Discuss Where to Draw the Line in the Context of Higher Education, was held as part of the universitys plan for strengthening the GW community in challenging times, with the goal of fostering civil conversations about complex issues and emphasizing university policies.

The incoming inaugural Burchfield Professor of First Amendment and Free Speech Law, Mary-Rose Papandrea, began by noting that the First Amendment applies to public and not private universities, but private universities often look to the First Amendment principles for guidance. Under the First Amendment, she explained, some categories of speech receive no First Amendment protection, such as incitement of unlawful conduct, threats of violence, or giving material support to terrorists. But offensive speech and bad words are not carved out from the First Amendment. In a public university setting, however, there is some leeway for penalizing speech that would be otherwise protected. She suggested classrooms provide the best example of this.

When I ask a student to tell me the holding of a case, I actually want the holding of the case, and there is a wrong answer, Papandrea said. And if the student doesnt give me the correct answer, that will result in a lower grade in the class. Outside in the town square you can engage in false speech, incorrect speech, or misrepresentations and cannot be, as a general matter, punished by the government.

Most of the tensions surrounding free speech on campuses today, she added, arise when universities attempt to regulate the speech of faculty and students outside of the classroom.

Universities are the quintessential marketplace of ideas, Papandrea said, and we should be really concerned when the university starts making viewpoint-based speech restrictions outside of the classroom.

First Amendment: Does everything go?

In the view of Mary Anne Franks, Eugene L. and Barbara A. Bernard Professor in Intellectual Property, Technology and Civil Rights Law, free speech issues are clouded by unequal power relations, often resulting in protection of reckless speech for the majority but not for minorities. Franks proposes an alternative paradigm encouraging what she describes as fearless speech.

If we really want to talk about free speech, we actually need to get away from the First AmendmentI mean the kind of popularized version of the First Amendment which says everything goes, and you can never have any kind of intervention, Franks said.

People operating under this misconception, she added, argue that any kind of devaluation or nonplatforming constitutes censorship. That idea, she said, is pernicious.

When we think about what the First Amendment actually does, its not really telling us anything about free speech, Franks said. Its telling us about what the government cant do in certain contexts. And thats really useful to know, because the government has a lot of power that no individual has and because the kinds of measures it can take against you include the loss of your liberty. But I dont know that its such a good model for us as a private university. How much are we like a government? What we could be doing instead, and what I think successful universities do when they want to be marketplaces of ideas or spaces for intellectual, robust debate, is set standards. What are the good ideas? Whether an idea is controversial or noncontroversial is not the point.

Instead, Franks said, ideas should be well informed and argued eloquently. She argues in favor of a conscious curation of the best ideas that reflect the universitys values, expressed as persuasively as possible without threats of force or ad hominem attacks.

What is the kind of speech that a university could uniquely try to foster? she asked. What kind of space could it foster to become a forum where really difficult ideas get aired out in a way that is physically safe but also sophisticated? Im suggesting that we move toward fearless speech and critiques of current power structures, that we take notice of the fact that reality is a certain way. There are certain sensitivities to race and gender and class that we really need to have on our radar, if we want to make sure that people within the university space can speak equally.

Free speech at a private university

Dawn Nunziato, Pedas Family Professor of IP and Technology Law, agreed that the First Amendment is not necessarily the right one for every context.

At a private university like GW, we have the autonomy and the freedom and the duty to decide what kind of community we want to be, Nunziato said, and within certain bounds, what types of speech we want to protect and to not protect. Our speech policies are not governed by the First Amendment. So we dont need to protect hate speech in the same way that the First Amendment protects hate speech. We could draw the line very differently. And there are reasons why we should, and we should be very thoughtful about how we draw the line. We may choose to value inclusivity and belonging over the unfettered marketplace of ideas.

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Nunziato noted, GW has a responsibility to provide an educational environment free of discrimination.

Robust discussion and respectful listening

The panels discussion touched on the recent congressional hearings at which the presidents of three elite universities were criticized for saying that whether speech could be considered hate speech depends on context.

After pointing out that she didnt view it as incorrect to say that the answer to questions of free speech v. hate speech can depend on context, Papandrea noted examples of speech that should be protected, such as an antisemitic line spoken by a character in a play meant to condemn antisemitism. The same line spoken by a student marching across campus could be viewed as creating a hostile environment.

Franks, too, was sympathetic to the trio of university presidents, who may have been reacting to the charge that universities are a woke paradise for snowflakes who require trigger warnings.

The most upsetting thing about the spectacle is not any of those presidents answers, Franks said. It was the fact that the spectacle was happening at alla real invocation and revitalization of a McCarthyesque kind of moment, with legislators who have made it clear that antisemitism and white supremacy are things that they either dont have a problem with or actively support. It was a really grotesque spectacle, she added, a bad faith attempt to attack diversity.

If we object to the First Amendments protection of vile speech in the public square, Nunziato said, we take that up with the Supreme Court, which defines the First Amendments protections. But whether vile speech should be restricted in the university environment is a different question, she added.

Balancing robust, sometimes caustic and heated discussion on issues of public importance against the legal obligations that we have to protect our community members from discriminatory harassment, Nunziato said, is an important part of what we do as a university.

Being part of a university community, Nunziato said, presents a unique opportunity to interact more thoughtfully than people do on social media.

Our University Yard and the quad are spaces where there may be protesters and counter-protesters, but we can be there together, Nunziato said, and engage in speech and counterspeech, unlike in some of the online environments where we have egregious problems of information silos and people going down rabbit holes. In the university environment, were all on our phones and on social media, but were also in spaces where we can engage with one another. Maybe were raising our voices, but we can listen to one another. One of the principles in our code of conduct is that members of the university community are urged to hear all sides of controversial issues.

In closing remarks, Rosen quoted Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who argued that the correct remedy for harmful speech is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression.

The concluding webinar, Rosen said, was a model of the kind of robust discussion and respectful listening that Brandeis advocated.

See the original post here:

Free Speech or Hate Speech? | GW Today | The George Washington University - GW Today

‘Wonder’ nanotech material that will change the world declared safe Earth.com – Earth.com

In an era where technological advancements are rapidly transforming lives, scientists have made a significant stride in nanotechnology, focusing on graphene a material renowned for its exceptional properties and vast potential in various applications.

This revolutionary nanomaterial, celebrated for being the thinnest, strongest, and most flexible material known, is now being developed with a keen eye on human health safety.

Recent research reveals that controlled inhalation of a specific form of graphene, known as graphene oxide, does not present short-term health risks to lung or cardiovascular functions.

This finding comes from the first-ever controlled exposure clinical trial involving human participants, emphasizing the materials safety under specific conditions.

Graphene oxide, a water-compatible form of graphene, was used in this pioneering study to ensure ultra-purity and compatibility for potential medical applications.

The study, a collaborative effort by researchers from the Universities of Edinburgh and Manchester, signifies a critical step in understanding graphenes interaction with the human body.

Despite the promising results, the researchers advocate for further investigations to explore the effects of higher doses or prolonged exposure to graphene, considering its incredibly fine structure.

Graphenes allure as a wonder material stems from its discovery in 2004 and its potential to revolutionize industries ranging from electronics to water purification.

Its application in developing targeted therapies for cancer and other health conditions, as well as its use in implantable devices and sensors, underscores the need for rigorous safety assessments before clinical use.

The research involved 14 volunteers who were exposed to graphene oxide under meticulously controlled conditions.

Participants breathed in the material through a mask while cycling within a mobile exposure chamber, ensuring precise monitoring of any health effects.

The study meticulously measured impacts on lung function, blood pressure, blood clotting, and inflammation markers, with follow-up tests conducted to compare responses to different sizes of graphene oxide and clean air.

Remarkably, the study found no significant adverse effects on lung function or blood pressure, with only a minimal suggestion of impact on blood clotting a finding that underscores the need for careful material design in nanotechnology applications.

Dr. Mark Miller, from the University of Edinburgh, emphasized the importance of ensuring the safe manufacture of nanomaterials like graphene to harness their full potential safely.

Nanomaterials such as graphene hold such great promise, but we must ensure they are manufactured in a way that is safe before they can be used more widely in our lives, explained Dr. Miller.

Being able to explore the safety of this unique material in human volunteers is a huge step forward in our understanding of how graphene could affect the body. With careful design we can safely make the most of nanotechnology.

Similarly, Professor Kostas Kostarelos of the University of Manchester and the Catalan Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (ICN2) in Barcelona highlighted the decade-long journey to this research milestone.

He reflected on the comprehensive approach combining materials science, biology, and clinical expertise.

This is the first-ever controlled study involving healthy people to demonstrate that very pure forms of graphene oxide of a specific size distribution and surface character can be further developed in a way that would minimize the risk to human health, said Kostarelos.

It has taken us more than 10 years to develop the knowledge to carry out this research, from a materials and biological science point of view, but also from the clinical capacity to carry out such controlled studies safely by assembling some of the worlds leading experts in this field.

The British Heart Foundations Professor Bryan Williams lauded the studys implications for the development of new medical devices and treatments, expressing anticipation for future studies that could pave the way for the safe use of nanomaterials in life-saving applications.

The discovery that this type of graphene can be developed safely, with minimal short term side effects, could open the door to the development of new devices, treatment innovations and monitoring techniques, Williams said.

We look forward to seeing larger studies over a longer timeframe to better understand how we can safely use nanomaterials like graphene to make leaps in delivering lifesaving drugs to patients.

In summary, this exciting and long overdue study on graphene, particularly its oxide form, marks a significant milestone in the journey towards harnessing nanotechnologys full potential while prioritizing human health.

Researchers have demonstrated that controlled exposure to graphene oxide poses no immediate threat to lung or cardiovascular health, laying a foundation for future innovations in various fields, from medicine to environmental technologies.

This research reassures the public and scientific community about the safety of emerging nanomaterials and encourages continued exploration and development, ensuring that the incredible promise of graphene can be realized safely and effectively.

As we venture further into the realm of nanotechnology, this study serves as a pivotal reminder of the importance of meticulous research and responsible application in unlocking the transformative power of materials like graphene.

The full study was published in the journal Nature Nanotechnology.

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates.

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

More here:

'Wonder' nanotech material that will change the world declared safe Earth.com - Earth.com

Civil Rights Groups Slam Comments By Elon Musk Claiming Diversity Efforts Make Flying Less Safe – Essence

Elon Musks comments on efforts by United Airlines and Boeing to diversify their workforces have drawn swift criticism from major civil rights organizations.

Musk claimed, without evidence, that the efforts of those airlines to hire nonwhite pilots and factory workers have made air travel less safe.

Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League, called Musks statements abhorrent and pathetic. Morial pointed out that Tesla, where Musk is CEO, is facing a lawsuit from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for alleged abuse of Black employees, including racial slurs and nooses found in the workplace.

Musks company not only refused to investigate complaints or take any steps to end the abuse, it viciously retaliated against employees who complained or opposed the abuse, Morial told NBC News, citing allegations from the suit. The only thing anyone needs to hear from Musk about diversity in the workplace is an apology, he said.

NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson responded to Musk on X, stating that the real danger comes from Musks own social media site, accusing it of providing a platform for hate speech and white supremacist conspiracy theories. Johnson emphasized the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion (commonly referred to as DEI) for cultivating a more inclusive society.

Reminder to @elonmusk: providing a home for the proliferation of hate speech and white supremacist conspiracy theories kills people. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion cultivate a more inclusive society, Johnsonwrote.

They are not the same. We are not the same, he added.

Musks comments on airline safety came after a panel blew off a Boeing jet while in flight. Musk began discussing the topic on X in response to a user who speculated that the IQ scores of United Airlines pilots from Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) were somehow lower than the average IQ of Air Force pilots.

He criticized programs promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, suggesting that it would take a plane crash with hundreds of casualties to change such policies.

Do you want to fly in an airplane where they prioritized DEI hiring over your safety? That is actually happening, Musk wrote.

Its important to note that commercial aviation is the safest it has ever been, with a record low number of accidents and fatalities in 2023, according to Dutch air-safety groupTo70. However, near-collisions at US airports remain a source of concern,reports NBC News.

According to the news outlet, neither United nor Boeing have commented on Musks claims.

More here:

Civil Rights Groups Slam Comments By Elon Musk Claiming Diversity Efforts Make Flying Less Safe - Essence

Liberal education is vital to state’s universities — George Savage – Madison.com

In the Dec. 2 State Journal article Rothman: Liberal arts safe, Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman walks back parts of an email he had sent to chancellors that suggested shifting away from liberal arts programs.

I am pleased that Rothman now says he supports the liberal arts, but I wish he had gone further. I wish he would use his position to publicly advocate for liberal education.

Not long ago, system President Kevin Reilly did just that. Under his leadership, the system accomplished at least three significant things: a system-wide liberal education initiative, an annual student essay competition on topics related to liberal education, and a statewide conference (titled Only Connect) that explored the implementation of liberal education pedagogy.

For starters, I wish Rothman would use his bully pulpit to correct a few common misconceptions:

The word "liberal" has nothing to do with its political meaning. It comes from the Latin liber, meaning to free. Political conservatives can (and should) support liberal education. Also, a liberal education is actually a practical education.

Beyond its personal benefits, which are many, liberal education aims to form good citizens who can think critically.

See more here:

Liberal education is vital to state's universities -- George Savage - Madison.com