3 ms·

>The tell is your use of the words "misinformation" and "propaganda." People who tend to levy such claims also tend to share more of it you said it yourself. I

by trhway 5y ago

>The tell is your use of the words "misinformation" and "propaganda." People who tend to levy such claims also tend to share more of it you said it yourself. It is kind of ironically not surprising that you levied the above mentioned claim and actually posted the misinformation and propaganda yourself - see below. >No, you weren't. you really don't know, yet you're making with complete confidence such a completely false blatantly contradicting facts[0] statement just because it suits your narrative >A common false-flag ... and helps you to advance your agenda. Thus your post is a clear example of misinformation and propaganda. Not sure that you're doing it intentionally, probably you're just caught up in that mob hysteria. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8860543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8860543

mike_hearn 5y ago
It's very amusing you were actually able to show yourself laughing at anti-vaxers right here on HN, thus winning the argument against eganist completely. You should probably have called that out more clearly. I guessed what might be in the link but it would have been good to quote it.
- eganist 5y ago
  > It's very amusing you were actually able to show yourself laughing at anti-vaxers right here on HN, thus winning the argument against eganist completely. You should probably have called that out more clearly. I guessed what might be in the link but it would have been good to quote it. My guess is that what drew so much ire was the tone and presentation. Similar to "thus winning the argument against eganist completely" when it was less of an argument and more of an immune response to common patterns that proved in this case to be a false positive. But yes, simply going with quoting the past post, drawing attention to it very clearly in text ("Please see linked one example of a past post where I've declared my own pro-vaccine views"), and then using that past position to contextualize their current aversion would've been great for constructive engagement. Water under the bridge. Either way, sorry trhway; glad you're not anti-vax, but hoping to win you over to the mRNA side (though feel free to laugh at me on my way to the grave if I die of vaccine induced long term effects. I guess I'll have earned it at that point).
eganist 5y ago
Hey, I figure the downvotes were probably a consequence of tone, but your quoted post is a robust defense of your prior assertion about your position on vaccines. (in all honesty, I clicked the post a few times and wondered why you were linking it, but it only clicked after mike drew attention to it.) Anyway, I apologize for doubting. I still don't understand your position regarding the current batch of mRNA vaccines, but I can appreciate that you're not an anti-vaccine generalist.

by trhway 5y ago

mike_hearn 5y ago

It's very amusing you were actually able to show yourself laughing at anti-vaxers right here on HN, thus winning the argument against eganist completely. You should probably have called that out more clearly. I guessed what might be in the link but it would have been good to quote it.

eganist 5y ago
> It's very amusing you were actually able to show yourself laughing at anti-vaxers right here on HN, thus winning the argument against eganist completely. You should probably have called that out more clearly. I guessed what might be in the link but it would have been good to quote it. My guess is that what drew so much ire was the tone and presentation. Similar to "thus winning the argument against eganist completely" when it was less of an argument and more of an immune response to common patterns that proved in this case to be a false positive. But yes, simply going with quoting the past post, drawing attention to it very clearly in text ("Please see linked one example of a past post where I've declared my own pro-vaccine views"), and then using that past position to contextualize their current aversion would've been great for constructive engagement. Water under the bridge. Either way, sorry trhway; glad you're not anti-vax, but hoping to win you over to the mRNA side (though feel free to laugh at me on my way to the grave if I die of vaccine induced long term effects. I guess I'll have earned it at that point).

eganist 5y ago

Hey, I figure the downvotes were probably a consequence of tone, but your quoted post is a robust defense of your prior assertion about your position on vaccines. (in all honesty, I clicked the post a few times and wondered why you were linking it, but it only clicked after mike drew attention to it.) Anyway, I apologize for doubting. I still don't understand your position regarding the current batch of mRNA vaccines, but I can appreciate that you're not an anti-vaccine generalist.