6 ms·

Do you doubt the legitimacy of people in the first video?

by forcry 5y ago

sorethescore 5y ago
Yes. 100% doubt.
- forcry 5y ago
  I see. Look, for me it does not add up. I mean, what is their end game? If the whole thing gains public support and popularity, which we have to assume their intention is, the people in the video can be easily followed up and their claims validated (I am pretty sure the opposition would love to do it, which would be also quite easy). Which will ultimately backfire on themselves, which make it unlikely to be their (at least the senator's) endgame.. So what is it? Also, why is there no fact check that "debunks" the whole thing?
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > Which will ultimately backfire on themselves, which make it unlikely to be their (at least the senator's) endgame.. Will it? Are you sure? US media is now so polarised that the various echo-chambers almost never intersect. The US right anti-covid train has been going for an appallingly long time, why would it stop now due to mere facts. There have been facts all long, that hasn't made a difference. To that topic or others that I could name. > Also, why is there no fact check that "debunks" the whole thing? Are you sure that there isn't? Have you looked? I linked to an article "debunking" the same character, upthread. I know their name and their position, but I do not follow all their antics: Circus clowns gonna circus clown. It's not on me to research a debunking of that specific performance.
    - forcry 5y ago
      >Will it? Are you sure? Pretty sure. Why do you think the opposition won't take care of it? >Are you sure that there isn't? It would help if you ignore the politician in it. I am taking about the actual people in the first video, who claim to have suffered AEFIs.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        > Why do you think the opposition won't take care of it? As I said above, recent track record. This is not a thing that we see happening, so why would it start happening now? Do you not think that the media spheres are disjoint, as I said above? > I am taking about the actual people in the first video, who claim to have suffered AEFIs. So then, are you sure that there isn't a fact check that "debunks" that? Have you looked?
        forcry 5y ago
        > This is not a thing that we see happening, I asked a specific question about opposition not interested in "debunking" the "dubious" claims of those people organized by the senator. You seem to be talking about some "anti-covid train". So may be it will help if you address my question. > Have you looked? https://www.wisn.com/article/sen-ron-johnson-holding-milwaukee-forum-on-adverse-vaccine-reaction-claims/36842208 https://www.wisn.com/article/sen-ron-johnson-holding-milwauk... Does not mention or doubt the legitimacy of the victims of AEFI.
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
Yeah. The original claim by parent commenter is "I know many people with long-term VACCINE complications". What that seems to translate to is "I regurgitate propaganda videos and claim that they're my first-hand knowledge" Which is pretty sad, TBH.
- forcry 5y ago
  > my first-hand knowledge Why do it need to be first hand knowledge, if it is legitimate? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28022905 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28022905
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    I did not say that it needs to be first hand knowledge, I said that they claimed first-hand knowledge. Why did they claim first-hand knowledge? because immediacy feels more convincing. A story in first person is more visceral. Why did they feel the need to "make it more convincing" like that? it's a tell.
    - forcry 5y ago
      > I said that they claimed first-hand knowledge. I don't think they did.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        I think that is the clear implication of "I know many people", not "I know of", but "I know". The phrasing is intended to give the feeling of immediacy.
        forcry 5y ago
        Oh, you are right. They did seem to claim it. But I am not sure how they can prove it in an online forum..

Do you doubt the legitimacy of people in the first video?

by forcry 5y ago

Do you doubt the legitimacy of people in the first video?

sorethescore 5y ago

Yes. 100% doubt.

forcry 5y ago
I see. Look, for me it does not add up. I mean, what is their end game? If the whole thing gains public support and popularity, which we have to assume their intention is, the people in the video can be easily followed up and their claims validated (I am pretty sure the opposition would love to do it, which would be also quite easy). Which will ultimately backfire on themselves, which make it unlikely to be their (at least the senator's) endgame.. So what is it? Also, why is there no fact check that "debunks" the whole thing?
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > Which will ultimately backfire on themselves, which make it unlikely to be their (at least the senator's) endgame.. Will it? Are you sure? US media is now so polarised that the various echo-chambers almost never intersect. The US right anti-covid train has been going for an appallingly long time, why would it stop now due to mere facts. There have been facts all long, that hasn't made a difference. To that topic or others that I could name. > Also, why is there no fact check that "debunks" the whole thing? Are you sure that there isn't? Have you looked? I linked to an article "debunking" the same character, upthread. I know their name and their position, but I do not follow all their antics: Circus clowns gonna circus clown. It's not on me to research a debunking of that specific performance.
  - forcry 5y ago
    >Will it? Are you sure? Pretty sure. Why do you think the opposition won't take care of it? >Are you sure that there isn't? It would help if you ignore the politician in it. I am taking about the actual people in the first video, who claim to have suffered AEFIs.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      > Why do you think the opposition won't take care of it? As I said above, recent track record. This is not a thing that we see happening, so why would it start happening now? Do you not think that the media spheres are disjoint, as I said above? > I am taking about the actual people in the first video, who claim to have suffered AEFIs. So then, are you sure that there isn't a fact check that "debunks" that? Have you looked?
      - forcry 5y ago
        > This is not a thing that we see happening, I asked a specific question about opposition not interested in "debunking" the "dubious" claims of those people organized by the senator. You seem to be talking about some "anti-covid train". So may be it will help if you address my question. > Have you looked? https://www.wisn.com/article/sen-ron-johnson-holding-milwaukee-forum-on-adverse-vaccine-reaction-claims/36842208 https://www.wisn.com/article/sen-ron-johnson-holding-milwauk... Does not mention or doubt the legitimacy of the victims of AEFI.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago

Yeah. The original claim by parent commenter is "I know many people with long-term VACCINE complications". What that seems to translate to is "I regurgitate propaganda videos and claim that they're my first-hand knowledge" Which is pretty sad, TBH.

forcry 5y ago
> my first-hand knowledge Why do it need to be first hand knowledge, if it is legitimate? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28022905 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28022905
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  I did not say that it needs to be first hand knowledge, I said that they claimed first-hand knowledge. Why did they claim first-hand knowledge? because immediacy feels more convincing. A story in first person is more visceral. Why did they feel the need to "make it more convincing" like that? it's a tell.
  - forcry 5y ago
    > I said that they claimed first-hand knowledge. I don't think they did.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      I think that is the clear implication of "I know many people", not "I know of", but "I know". The phrasing is intended to give the feeling of immediacy.
      - forcry 5y ago
        Oh, you are right. They did seem to claim it. But I am not sure how they can prove it in an online forum..