5 ms·

I’ve been pro science all my life but heavy censorship on coronavirus made me change my mind, perhaps blame is on the censorers a bit, no? If it is truly scien

I’ve been pro science all my life but heavy censorship on coronavirus made me change my mind, perhaps blame is on the censorers a bit, no? If it is truly science, why censor the ideas of others?

maxehmookau 6y ago
Something about a lie making it half way across the world before the truth can get its boots on. We, as a general population, have proven that completely uncensored speech gives way too much weight to ideas that have no merit.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > We, as a general population, have proven that completely uncensored speech gives way too much weight to ideas that have no merit. That sounds like it'll get pretty scary once you start following the road.
- brigandish 6y ago
  Quite the opposite. We proved that the imposition of “acceptable” information and censorship to protect it holds back societies, and can see that those with greater freedoms do better economically and otherwise.
  - maxehmookau 6y ago
    [citation needed] That's a pretty bold statement. I'm pro free speech, but believe it should have limits in a civilized society. I don't know what the answer is, or where the line should be but entirely unrestricted free speech isn't the infalable utopia that the US is conditioned to believe.
    - brigandish 6y ago
      Shall we begin with some egregious examples and go from there? How is Nazi Germany doing? Or East Germany? Soviet Russia? Clearly there's an impossible hump of correlation/causation, but that doesn't mean we can't show at least part of the data set to be true - that you are far more likely to fail or be a horrible place to live. > entirely unrestricted free speech isn't the infalable utopia that the US is conditioned to believe It wouldn't be a utopia, it would just be better than the alternative, like most liberties. Utopianism is a vision that is associated with a lack of freedom and collectivism (large scale collectivism necessarily entails curtailed freedom), not with enhanced liberty. > I'm pro free speech, but believe it should have limits in a civilized society To be civilised implies two things, primarily: - greater learning - better manners That you can learn more where information is unrestricted should need no explanation. As to manners, what better sign of good manners and civility can there be when you may say whatever you like without fear of punishment and yet you remain civil? Hence, a more civilised society has less limits on what you can say and imbues its citizens with greater responsibility to practise that speech well.
      - maxehmookau 6y ago
        I agree with pretty much everything you say. However your last sentence is where the problem lies. > and imbues its citizens with greater responsibility to practise that speech well. Name me a western country that does this. Until it does, and until that type of education (critical and logical reasoning) is embedded in the fabric of our societies sensible limits on free speech (such as hate speech) are probably a reasonable compromise.
        brigandish 6y ago
        > Name me a western country that does this. The more freedom "given", the more this is done, so the answer is all of them to greater or lesser degrees. > until that type of education (critical and logical reasoning) is embedded in the fabric of our societies Free speech is the embedding of critical thinking - do you see more critical thinking in societies riven with censorship and the suppression of speech? Are there less lies in societies that supress speech? There could be the same amount but there's definitely not less - why bother to suppress it in the first place if there's not a lie to protect? > sensible limits on free speech (such as hate speech) are probably a reasonable compromise. That's as close to a classic begging the question as you can get. The "sensible limits" and "reasonable compromise" are the same thing, and you're yet to show that hate speech is: a) harmful to society b) able to be defined any better than any dictator in history has managed
- cpursley 6y ago
  I agree, which is why we should just go ahead and hand over all truth to technocrats and all decision making to beurocrats, as only they have our best interest in mind.
- nerdponx 6y ago
  Except governments actively pushed lies about Covid too.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
You can't be 'pro' objective truths; science is not a faith you can believe in or not. That's the problem here. It's the defenders of science that are also in the wrong, because why do you feel like you have to defend things like that?
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  Mr. CEO of big oil company, our scientists say oil is causing global warming and going to destroy the world by 2070. Mr. CEO: Oh really? I never knew, I'll stop drilling immediately! Mr. CEO to assistant: Fire these people and bury this study. ^ This scenario is why we need to "defend" science, because money/power doesn't align with the narrative. Sometimes science recommends fixes that are just too costly for society to accept as "is this the only way" ... the only way to ensure less mass casualties? Yes, max profits? No. ... Lockdowns were the same because $$ > lives.
Roark66 6y ago
Exactly. It pissed me off to no end when at the beginning of the pandemic the health minister of my country mindlessly parroted WHO in their initial "masks do not help" stance. How can anyone treat what we are being told seriously when instead of telling us the truth (masks help, but please don't hoard them because we need them for first responders) they choose to lie in the simplest things. Same thing with real numbers of people that suffer issues after receiving covid vaccines. The only countries I know of that are truthful in this is UK (their yellow card scheme) and USA(VAERS database). Anyone can see that in UK there were around 500 deaths that occurred shortly after vaccination (20 mln people vaccinated) and in US around 1000 last time I checked (for 60mln vaccinated). Anyone can search those databases and compare incidence of for example vascular issues, stroke, or anaphylaxis to their "natural" incidence in the population. However, in my country where we have 5mln people vaccinated half of people are fearing "death by vaccine" because "few cases of stroke" are linked to the vaccine. Coincidently there is no open database of issues. Clearly politicians think people are too stupid to be told the truth that the likelyhood of "death by vaccine" is extremely low as compared with "death by covid" in pretty much all age groups. Instead of presenting real numbers they claim "there is no risk" in taking the vaccine. Additionally people stopped believing the bullshit they hear after hearing multiple "experts" telling us various versions of: "uv will kill covid so it'll end by the summer"(then brasil had huge outbreak), "children do not get ill", "children do not pass the disease to adults", "you can't get infected outside or if you keep 2 meters distance" "no need for masks at work if you can maintain 2m distance". Then a year later: "we're closing nurseries and schools because despite teachers being vaccinated we see high numbers of children spreading covid to their families" and "40% of covid transmission happens at workplaces despite adherence to measures put in place". One doesn't need to be a genius to understand those were lies of convenience and wishful thinking. I seriously hope politicians in charge will be brought to justice after this pandemic ends.
- andi999 6y ago
  Well the last paragraph is (I think) due to medicines approach if you do not have evidence you claim it is not happening (or you say 'there is no evidence...'). And sometimes this just means there was no data.
ssijak 6y ago
Science community did not censor anything, tech companies did, and that has nothing to do with science.

I’ve been pro science all my life but heavy censorship on coronavirus made me change my mind, perhaps blame is on the censorers a bit, no? If it is truly science, why censor the ideas of others?

maxehmookau 6y ago

Something about a lie making it half way across the world before the truth can get its boots on. We, as a general population, have proven that completely uncensored speech gives way too much weight to ideas that have no merit.

luckylion 6y ago
> We, as a general population, have proven that completely uncensored speech gives way too much weight to ideas that have no merit. That sounds like it'll get pretty scary once you start following the road.
brigandish 6y ago
Quite the opposite. We proved that the imposition of “acceptable” information and censorship to protect it holds back societies, and can see that those with greater freedoms do better economically and otherwise.
- maxehmookau 6y ago
  [citation needed] That's a pretty bold statement. I'm pro free speech, but believe it should have limits in a civilized society. I don't know what the answer is, or where the line should be but entirely unrestricted free speech isn't the infalable utopia that the US is conditioned to believe.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    Shall we begin with some egregious examples and go from there? How is Nazi Germany doing? Or East Germany? Soviet Russia? Clearly there's an impossible hump of correlation/causation, but that doesn't mean we can't show at least part of the data set to be true - that you are far more likely to fail or be a horrible place to live. > entirely unrestricted free speech isn't the infalable utopia that the US is conditioned to believe It wouldn't be a utopia, it would just be better than the alternative, like most liberties. Utopianism is a vision that is associated with a lack of freedom and collectivism (large scale collectivism necessarily entails curtailed freedom), not with enhanced liberty. > I'm pro free speech, but believe it should have limits in a civilized society To be civilised implies two things, primarily: - greater learning - better manners That you can learn more where information is unrestricted should need no explanation. As to manners, what better sign of good manners and civility can there be when you may say whatever you like without fear of punishment and yet you remain civil? Hence, a more civilised society has less limits on what you can say and imbues its citizens with greater responsibility to practise that speech well.
    - maxehmookau 6y ago
      I agree with pretty much everything you say. However your last sentence is where the problem lies. > and imbues its citizens with greater responsibility to practise that speech well. Name me a western country that does this. Until it does, and until that type of education (critical and logical reasoning) is embedded in the fabric of our societies sensible limits on free speech (such as hate speech) are probably a reasonable compromise.
      - brigandish 6y ago
        > Name me a western country that does this. The more freedom "given", the more this is done, so the answer is all of them to greater or lesser degrees. > until that type of education (critical and logical reasoning) is embedded in the fabric of our societies Free speech is the embedding of critical thinking - do you see more critical thinking in societies riven with censorship and the suppression of speech? Are there less lies in societies that supress speech? There could be the same amount but there's definitely not less - why bother to suppress it in the first place if there's not a lie to protect? > sensible limits on free speech (such as hate speech) are probably a reasonable compromise. That's as close to a classic begging the question as you can get. The "sensible limits" and "reasonable compromise" are the same thing, and you're yet to show that hate speech is: a) harmful to society b) able to be defined any better than any dictator in history has managed
cpursley 6y ago
I agree, which is why we should just go ahead and hand over all truth to technocrats and all decision making to beurocrats, as only they have our best interest in mind.
nerdponx 6y ago
Except governments actively pushed lies about Covid too.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

You can't be 'pro' objective truths; science is not a faith you can believe in or not. That's the problem here. It's the defenders of science that are also in the wrong, because why do you feel like you have to defend things like that?

gremlinsinc 6y ago
Mr. CEO of big oil company, our scientists say oil is causing global warming and going to destroy the world by 2070. Mr. CEO: Oh really? I never knew, I'll stop drilling immediately! Mr. CEO to assistant: Fire these people and bury this study. ^ This scenario is why we need to "defend" science, because money/power doesn't align with the narrative. Sometimes science recommends fixes that are just too costly for society to accept as "is this the only way" ... the only way to ensure less mass casualties? Yes, max profits? No. ... Lockdowns were the same because $$ > lives.

Roark66 6y ago

Exactly. It pissed me off to no end when at the beginning of the pandemic the health minister of my country mindlessly parroted WHO in their initial "masks do not help" stance. How can anyone treat what we are being told seriously when instead of telling us the truth (masks help, but please don't hoard them because we need them for first responders) they choose to lie in the simplest things. Same thing with real numbers of people that suffer issues after receiving covid vaccines. The only countries I know of that are truthful in this is UK (their yellow card scheme) and USA(VAERS database). Anyone can see that in UK there were around 500 deaths that occurred shortly after vaccination (20 mln people vaccinated) and in US around 1000 last time I checked (for 60mln vaccinated). Anyone can search those databases and compare incidence of for example vascular issues, stroke, or anaphylaxis to their "natural" incidence in the population. However, in my country where we have 5mln people vaccinated half of people are fearing "death by vaccine" because "few cases of stroke" are linked to the vaccine. Coincidently there is no open database of issues. Clearly politicians think people are too stupid to be told the truth that the likelyhood of "death by vaccine" is extremely low as compared with "death by covid" in pretty much all age groups. Instead of presenting real numbers they claim "there is no risk" in taking the vaccine. Additionally people stopped believing the bullshit they hear after hearing multiple "experts" telling us various versions of: "uv will kill covid so it'll end by the summer"(then brasil had huge outbreak), "children do not get ill", "children do not pass the disease to adults", "you can't get infected outside or if you keep 2 meters distance" "no need for masks at work if you can maintain 2m distance". Then a year later: "we're closing nurseries and schools because despite teachers being vaccinated we see high numbers of children spreading covid to their families" and "40% of covid transmission happens at workplaces despite adherence to measures put in place". One doesn't need to be a genius to understand those were lies of convenience and wishful thinking. I seriously hope politicians in charge will be brought to justice after this pandemic ends.

andi999 6y ago
Well the last paragraph is (I think) due to medicines approach if you do not have evidence you claim it is not happening (or you say 'there is no evidence...'). And sometimes this just means there was no data.

ssijak 6y ago

Science community did not censor anything, tech companies did, and that has nothing to do with science.