3 ms·

Despite having an account since 2018, they have only posted 5 submissions. 4 of them were posted in the past 3 weeks, and all have to do questioning the viabil

by RIMR 5y ago

Despite having an account since 2018, they have only posted 5 submissions. 4 of them were posted in the past 3 weeks, and all have to do questioning the viability of the vaccines. I know we want to have a space here to freely discuss things without being dismissed, but I also think enough of us have managed enough websites to understand that this account shouldn't be taken seriously. I'm not saying that they are a bot either. Their comments suggest otherwise. But this person has, after nearly three years on this site, decided that now is the time to start submitting articles to the front page, and all of them have been about the same politically controversial thing, so this person clearly has an agenda they are trying to push.

peteradio 5y ago
I admit that this has me fired up. But that is really the long and short of the explanation. You see "pushing agenda" I see "championing underrepresented not just opinion but facts in the face of government overreach and media blackout".
- RHSeeger 5y ago
  > not just opinion but facts You can even argue that they're not facts, that they're wrong... but the OP is coming from the viewpoint that they appear to be facts. And, as such, it seems the OP is posting in good faith.
RHSeeger 5y ago
If they are pushing/submitting based on actual facts and studies, then I don't see the problem. It seems like the overall argument is following a pattern of - A vaccination is currently a requirement for participating in society. - There are studies showing that having the virues is just as effective (or more) than a vaccination. - There are places where "having the vaccination" meets the requirement for participating in society. And, from there, discussing why the US doesn't also follow this logic. Now, I can't speak to the studies validity. And an argument can be made that it's harder to verify that someone has had the virus already or some such. Or one of any of a dozen other reasons "why not". But having a discussion of the "why not" seems perfectly reasonable.

by RIMR 5y ago

peteradio 5y ago

I admit that this has me fired up. But that is really the long and short of the explanation. You see "pushing agenda" I see "championing underrepresented not just opinion but facts in the face of government overreach and media blackout".

RHSeeger 5y ago
> not just opinion but facts You can even argue that they're not facts, that they're wrong... but the OP is coming from the viewpoint that they appear to be facts. And, as such, it seems the OP is posting in good faith.

RHSeeger 5y ago

If they are pushing/submitting based on actual facts and studies, then I don't see the problem. It seems like the overall argument is following a pattern of - A vaccination is currently a requirement for participating in society. - There are studies showing that having the virues is just as effective (or more) than a vaccination. - There are places where "having the vaccination" meets the requirement for participating in society. And, from there, discussing why the US doesn't also follow this logic. Now, I can't speak to the studies validity. And an argument can be made that it's harder to verify that someone has had the virus already or some such. Or one of any of a dozen other reasons "why not". But having a discussion of the "why not" seems perfectly reasonable.