4 ms·
This is exactly why instead of censoring podcasts like Bret Weinstein when he brings on guests to discuss ivermectin, other experts should engage in debate with
by epicureanideal 5y ago
This is exactly why instead of censoring podcasts like Bret Weinstein when he brings on guests to discuss ivermectin, other experts should engage in debate with him.
When people who are credible scientists (like many of his guests) get censored it can reasonably look suspicious.
I'm not saying he's correct, I'm just saying the right answer is debate.
A person who is willing to have a calm, 3 hour discussion on a topic is not the kind of person who needs to be censored.
- jacquesm 5y agoNo, the other experts are at work, and don't have time to debate every person out there who has a following. This pandemic is not yet over and guys like Weinstein are all noise and no signal. Keep enough Weinsteins engaged and progress on this front (real progress, not imaginary progress) will grind to a halt.
- epicureanideal 5y agoThat’s a valid perspective, but aren’t there thousands of professors and scientists, maybe tens of thousands who could potentially respond? And isn’t it valuable to have someone respond? Isn’t there value in educating the public so conspiracy theories don’t spread? (And preventing the theories from being discussed just makes them more firmly held, whereas debate doesn’t have that effect.)
- effie 5y agoOther experts are at work... so let the youtube with no science credentials or credibility judge and censor vocal scientists instead? How is that a desirable process?