4 ms·
The WHO lost a lot of credibility (deserved or not). They clearly either did not have a good grasp of the science and evidence while they were issuing their pro
by spankyspangler 5y ago
The WHO lost a lot of credibility (deserved or not). They clearly either did not have a good grasp of the science and evidence while they were issuing their proclamations, or they were attempting to steer reality away from certain problematic scenarios for certain interests that have corrupted the organization. Or both.
The bigger problem was not the WHO, it's very common for such organizations to be highly dysfunctional and corrupted. It was the slavish adherence to authority (aka boot licking), and piling on, bullying and hatefully attacking anybody who dared to question this corrupt authority. Everyone was getting in on the action, from mega corporations to the average "useful idiot" internet bully.
Unfortunately it's a big problem for some people who put politics above reality to cope with that idea, because WHO is on "their side", for various reasons.
- loopz 5y agoWHO, being an NGO, has no authority, governments do. States can either improve by cooperation, or become dysfunctional, but they are the authorities in this world.
- spankyspangler 5y agoThe subservient bootlickers were quite desperate to give it authority. And the WHO is already dysfunctional and corrupt.
- loopz 5y agoWho and what authority was given to WHO? Please explain your rationale. WHO is just an NGO, a reflection of multiple member states cooperating through it. Not all states are faithful or trustworthy.
- spankyspangler 5y agoWhat do you mean rationale? Entities have authority according to who and what they can influence and affect. It is false to say a state has absolute authority and the WHO has no authority. Those who listen to, act on advice from, censor and attack opposition to the WHO give it authority. This seems to be very upsetting to you for some reason.
- loopz 5y agoOn the contrary, and no need for hostile comments attempting to belittle other posters.
- spankyspangler 5y agoNo need for badgering, asking pointless questions nitpicking and adding nothing to the discussion. Which itself is a form of bullying and belittling. There is nothing wrong with my initial comment about the WHO's authority, it absolutely has a measure of authority. Why you would try to make up some definition of the word "authority" that nobody else uses, and then try to attack my comment with it is beyond me.
- loopz 5y agoWithout any pretext you came up with this projection: "This seems to be very upsetting to you for some reason." This is trying to play a psychological game with other posters. No point continuing any argument after that, as evidently you have no good intention of having a respectful and balanced discussion, as later posts clearly indicate. Just because we have different opinions, there's no need for such cheap tricks. Anyways, to finish my point of view: I have no crocodile tears to shed for authorities trying to scapegoat one of many NGO they are member of. Each country have their own experts, many of who serve for WHO from time to time, so have ample means to come up with new findings at any point in time. Such findings can of course always be shared with the international community, and with WHO. Collaboration is about what you contribute, not what you try to take away from it. You are entitled to your own opinion, but I don't find it coherent in any other regard than authorities not taking responsibility for their own decisions, actions, indecisions and inaction.
- spankyspangler 5y ago> Just because we have different opinions, there's no need for such cheap tricks. You shouldn't have been the one to start using them then.