3 ms·

The fact it is sitting at [dead] has nothing to do with my comment and the length of her time here on HN bears no relevance to this discussion. I fail to see wh

by orf 8y ago

The fact it is sitting at [dead] has nothing to do with my comment and the length of her time here on HN bears no relevance to this discussion. I fail to see why you can latch onto that fallacy and try to beat me with it as if it is my fault that her comment has been flagged. If it helps you sleep at night I have vouched for her comment as I don't think it should be flagged. If you would take the time to re-read my original comment, which was replying to a comment which has since been edited to be a bit more explicit about it's message, you would find that I'm simply questioning first what anti-vax groups have to do with the original post (or really her original comment at all) because vaxxines have nothing to do with her apparent on-base drinkwater poisoning, and also why her journey should make us feel bad about them being demonetized. Nobody is labelling her as "other" and moving on. I would say that you are pretty quick to judge my comment and to lambaste me for the ills you perceive, which is a bit ironic given the content of your message.

DoreenMichele 8y ago
I didn't bother to reply to your original comment because I agree with mindslight's criticisms of it. I will reply here. Thank you for vouching for my comment. Seems your condition is very different from that of a newborn baby with an under developed and fragile immune system I'm going to guess you have no idea what my condition is, or didn't when you left that remark. I'm quite open about my diagnosis, while trying to not state the diagnosis too frequently because that tends to be drama, yet it is easily found if one wishes to find it. The assumption that my condition is very different from that of a newborn baby with an under developed and fragile immune system is very much in error. I have a genetic disorder that causes me to have a permanently impaired immune system. Standard treatment for it involves lots of vaccines and other strong drugs. I have gradually gotten better in part because I concluded that such a harsh approach may win the battle, but lose the war because the body is the battlefield. So when you bombard it perpetually with strong medications, you leave it a shelled out husk. Then doctors take credit for winning the latest battle against your latest infection by prescribing you such harsh drugs. When you die young, they don't take the blame for that (never mind the multi-page foldout warning you of possible harmful side effects for such drugs, especially when used frequently over a long period of time). Instead, they blame it on your genes when it comes to people like me. I fundamentally disagree with this current foundational tenet of Western medicine.
mindslight 8y ago
> the length of her time here on HN bears no relevance to this discussion It's directly germane to my larger point about the results of eschewing personal standing. > lambaste me for the ills you perceive, which is a bit ironic given the content of your message From your earlier comment: > So yes, we can absolutely be happy they are being demonitized The difference is that you are starting to go on the group-offensive, celebrating the winning against one flavor of Youtube nutter. The original comment did tangentially bring up anti-vax, yes. But my point is we should aim to tolerate that, as it's tangential. Focusing on that single aspect then either results into re-arguing whether the censorship is good (which can only go more meta, because obviously the immediate anti-vax phenomenon itself is bad), or simply left to sit and form a tacit consensus that censorship is worthwhile. (I apologize for having focused on you by virtue of you being the only commenter, and good on you for vouching - directly opposing the main symptom).
- whorleater 8y ago
  >The original comment did tangentially bring up anti-vax the literal original comment brought up how demonetization of anti-vaccination youtubers is a "first they came for me" slippery slope, what definition of "tangential" are you operating on?

by orf 8y ago

DoreenMichele 8y ago

I didn't bother to reply to your original comment because I agree with mindslight's criticisms of it. I will reply here. Thank you for vouching for my comment. Seems your condition is very different from that of a newborn baby with an under developed and fragile immune system I'm going to guess you have no idea what my condition is, or didn't when you left that remark. I'm quite open about my diagnosis, while trying to not state the diagnosis too frequently because that tends to be drama, yet it is easily found if one wishes to find it. The assumption that my condition is very different from that of a newborn baby with an under developed and fragile immune system is very much in error. I have a genetic disorder that causes me to have a permanently impaired immune system. Standard treatment for it involves lots of vaccines and other strong drugs. I have gradually gotten better in part because I concluded that such a harsh approach may win the battle, but lose the war because the body is the battlefield. So when you bombard it perpetually with strong medications, you leave it a shelled out husk. Then doctors take credit for winning the latest battle against your latest infection by prescribing you such harsh drugs. When you die young, they don't take the blame for that (never mind the multi-page foldout warning you of possible harmful side effects for such drugs, especially when used frequently over a long period of time). Instead, they blame it on your genes when it comes to people like me. I fundamentally disagree with this current foundational tenet of Western medicine.

mindslight 8y ago

> the length of her time here on HN bears no relevance to this discussion It's directly germane to my larger point about the results of eschewing personal standing. > lambaste me for the ills you perceive, which is a bit ironic given the content of your message From your earlier comment: > So yes, we can absolutely be happy they are being demonitized The difference is that you are starting to go on the group-offensive, celebrating the winning against one flavor of Youtube nutter. The original comment did tangentially bring up anti-vax, yes. But my point is we should aim to tolerate that, as it's tangential. Focusing on that single aspect then either results into re-arguing whether the censorship is good (which can only go more meta, because obviously the immediate anti-vax phenomenon itself is bad), or simply left to sit and form a tacit consensus that censorship is worthwhile. (I apologize for having focused on you by virtue of you being the only commenter, and good on you for vouching - directly opposing the main symptom).

whorleater 8y ago
>The original comment did tangentially bring up anti-vax the literal original comment brought up how demonetization of anti-vaccination youtubers is a "first they came for me" slippery slope, what definition of "tangential" are you operating on?