3 ms·

Huh? That's not at all what I said. When I posted that, half the comments section were comments like this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27454154 ht

• waterhouse 5y ago
  That comment says "But that wouldn't contribute with the propaganda of the current mainstream narrative, would it?", where "that" appears to refer to "non-necessity of C19 vaccination for previously infected". I agree with that comment—that there is a mainstream narrative that says those who've already recovered from COVID still need a vaccine as much as anyone else, and that this narrative is propaganda in terms of its truth value and in terms of how it originated and was spread around—and I also think COVID isn't a hoax and that vaccines are good. It harms rational discussion and thinking, when you take one claim and attribute additional claims the author didn't make and denigrate the author for the latter. It pushes the discussion towards a "declare allegiance to one side, attack others who appear to be on the other side" fight, and away from exploration of any nuanced position other than the two extremes—when such exploration should be one of the attractions of a site like this.