4 ms·

However, the markers of government and media manipulation are largely commonsense. - Is there good evidence for the other side? - If so, how does the m

However, the markers of government and media manipulation are largely commonsense. - Is there good evidence for the other side? - If so, how does the mainstream press react to that? - Are people trying to get others to not even look? Lots of people will mistake conspiracy nut trash for good evidence. However, this is always the case, even for initial claims, not just counterclaims. That certainly does not mean that people shouldn't look and ask questions. If someone knows they're on the side of the truth, wherever the evidence might lead, then there's no reason to try and scare people away. If someone knows they have truth on their side, they can afford to let people ask questions. If someone is sincerely on the side of truth, they don't have to use tactics, like tarring and name-calling to discredit people who are wrong. The facts themselves will do that. How the authorities react to questions, and to what degree they will try to avoid them, are themselves valuable indicators! It's very true that the average science consumer is a lot like the average driver. There are lots of very bad ones out there. But it's only in an open society, where questions are encouraged, and where asking questions is acknowledged as speaking truth to power, where the truth will come out. Remember when the semantic equivalent of "shut up and go along" was the very opposite of virtuous intellectualism? (And not mislabeled as intellectualism!) Remember when we were proud of our freedom, of our societies where open inquiry was allowed and not suppressed? The dream of the philosophe remains alive, and shall not die.

thaumaturgy 6y ago
Can you please stop this? In this thread, you're creating the very problem you're complaining about. You've posted a lot of assertions across several comments in this thread. You've raised government and media boogeymen and criticized everyone's emotional response and lack of focus on science, all without a single citation of your own. You're not even discussing the article at hand, just posting a lot of both-sides rhetoric and platitudes that will be popular because everyone that reads it will think you're talking about other people.
- stcredzero 6y ago
  You've posted a lot of assertions across several comments in this thread. You've raised government and media boogeymen and criticized everyone's emotional response and lack of focus on science, all without a single citation of your own. Sure. Now go and look up a dozen scientific journal articles on Hydroxychloroquine, then see if I'm pushing a false narrative about government and media pushing narratives, or if that's a pretty reasonable one. I'm fine with letting the numbers speak for themselves. You're not even discussing the article at hand, just posting a lot of both-sides rhetoric and platitudes that will be popular because everyone that reads it will think you're talking about other people. This both-sides stuff is actually true. Also, if everyone realizes I could just as well be talking about the other side, then they take that thinking a step further, then the philosophes win. Those who are so biased, that they can't see this, are probably unreachable anyways. If just one person changes their mind because of actually looking at something they didn't see, or saw in a different way, we all win. I think that's very relevant. In the long arc of history with regards to the truth, "sides" are irrelevant. (Seriously, how is getting HN readers to ask some questions and do their own research a bad thing? That's kind of head scratchy.)

thaumaturgy 6y ago

Can you please stop this? In this thread, you're creating the very problem you're complaining about. You've posted a lot of assertions across several comments in this thread. You've raised government and media boogeymen and criticized everyone's emotional response and lack of focus on science, all without a single citation of your own. You're not even discussing the article at hand, just posting a lot of both-sides rhetoric and platitudes that will be popular because everyone that reads it will think you're talking about other people.

stcredzero 6y ago
You've posted a lot of assertions across several comments in this thread. You've raised government and media boogeymen and criticized everyone's emotional response and lack of focus on science, all without a single citation of your own. Sure. Now go and look up a dozen scientific journal articles on Hydroxychloroquine, then see if I'm pushing a false narrative about government and media pushing narratives, or if that's a pretty reasonable one. I'm fine with letting the numbers speak for themselves. You're not even discussing the article at hand, just posting a lot of both-sides rhetoric and platitudes that will be popular because everyone that reads it will think you're talking about other people. This both-sides stuff is actually true. Also, if everyone realizes I could just as well be talking about the other side, then they take that thinking a step further, then the philosophes win. Those who are so biased, that they can't see this, are probably unreachable anyways. If just one person changes their mind because of actually looking at something they didn't see, or saw in a different way, we all win. I think that's very relevant. In the long arc of history with regards to the truth, "sides" are irrelevant. (Seriously, how is getting HN readers to ask some questions and do their own research a bad thing? That's kind of head scratchy.)