5 ms·

Questions for the guy would be: - did the title had to be THAT inflammatory (did it have to say "JUNK", did it have to make the link to the CDC reaction to it

by xwolfi 5y ago

Questions for the guy would be: - did the title had to be THAT inflammatory (did it have to say "JUNK", did it have to make the link to the CDC reaction to it rather than the main point) - was Facebook the right place to share such important insight, rather than a research paper, or even a letter to the CDC - is it the right reaction, in a sensitive period with sensitive misinformation, to further inflame the whole thing saying that not only masks are junks for schools (at least his title makes you think so on facebook), that now it's even fact checkers that are wrong... I don't know why this guy can't solve problems and just create new ones, but damn he's wasting a lot of people's time and produce very little value outside of more anger, more doubt and more division :D

mannanj 5y ago
Not the OP, but my reasoning for all your points. 1- All posts are competing for attention. You live in a society where if you don't get someones attention right away, you're speaking to a wall. 2- The CDC is overworked, behind on response, has a clear agenda, and would likely not do anything. Often making a public outcry or outrage is the best way to reach this bigger slower beaurocratic agencies. Unless you're saying you know someone on the inside and could actually contribute to having a discussion with the right person? Or are you just saying you're good at providing "solutions" without any ability to actually help? 3- Sounds like you are making an opinion that the OP made the wrong reaction, that is your opinion, not something based on fact. Opinions about right/wrong are by their definition opinions, not fact, to be paraded as talking points by "fact" checkers. His discussion did not waste my time. I for one like to be challenged. But if you don't like going to a place where you have your opinions challenged or strengthened, then maybe you should go to a place with opinions more like yours. I would argue you complaining about someone posting an opinion article online and calling it divisive, is the mere definition of an attack that is divisive. Your post reads divisive and passive-aggressive angry to me (you literally read the entire post and then complained about it wasting time).
- xwolfi 5y ago
  I dont disagree with your point entirely: it's important to discuss perspectives. But I disagree he's challenging opinions, he's triggering emotions. It's not wrong when it's on the latest movie, but maybe he could understand he's talking about health policies for children at school, maybe that could be done with care to avoid blanket statements at risk of deviating the debate from: should they or not wear the damn thing, to: is the CDC a bunch of elitist incompetents wasting our tax money, something I think is uncalled for. And imagine the damage if he manages to convince there are no fact, that fact checking is impossible and that anyone is entitled to publishing wide reaching random idiocies under the blanket of a sacro saint right to be an idiot :D

by xwolfi 5y ago

mannanj 5y ago

Not the OP, but my reasoning for all your points. 1- All posts are competing for attention. You live in a society where if you don't get someones attention right away, you're speaking to a wall. 2- The CDC is overworked, behind on response, has a clear agenda, and would likely not do anything. Often making a public outcry or outrage is the best way to reach this bigger slower beaurocratic agencies. Unless you're saying you know someone on the inside and could actually contribute to having a discussion with the right person? Or are you just saying you're good at providing "solutions" without any ability to actually help? 3- Sounds like you are making an opinion that the OP made the wrong reaction, that is your opinion, not something based on fact. Opinions about right/wrong are by their definition opinions, not fact, to be paraded as talking points by "fact" checkers. His discussion did not waste my time. I for one like to be challenged. But if you don't like going to a place where you have your opinions challenged or strengthened, then maybe you should go to a place with opinions more like yours. I would argue you complaining about someone posting an opinion article online and calling it divisive, is the mere definition of an attack that is divisive. Your post reads divisive and passive-aggressive angry to me (you literally read the entire post and then complained about it wasting time).

xwolfi 5y ago
I dont disagree with your point entirely: it's important to discuss perspectives. But I disagree he's challenging opinions, he's triggering emotions. It's not wrong when it's on the latest movie, but maybe he could understand he's talking about health policies for children at school, maybe that could be done with care to avoid blanket statements at risk of deviating the debate from: should they or not wear the damn thing, to: is the CDC a bunch of elitist incompetents wasting our tax money, something I think is uncalled for. And imagine the damage if he manages to convince there are no fact, that fact checking is impossible and that anyone is entitled to publishing wide reaching random idiocies under the blanket of a sacro saint right to be an idiot :D