4 ms·

> Humour me and tell me more about the powerful figures they are doing the bidding of. Let me give you a quote, you can guess who said it. Hint, he also had 3

> Humour me and tell me more about the powerful figures they are doing the bidding of. Let me give you a quote, you can guess who said it. Hint, he also had 3 different views on masks depending on what suited him: “ When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, “I can nudge this up a bit,” so I went to 80, 85.” It takes a special type of ignorance of human nature and history to think that questioning authority is not always something that is important, whether you agree with it or not. I have a lot more respect for liberals like glen greenwald to stand up to authority whoever they are, rather than sing about it for 30 years and then try and shut up someone who’s doing it currently. Btw there’s nothing childish about the 70s counter culture, good for them at the time. What they are doing now is childish and hypocritical.

kdtsh 5y ago
I’m stumped, tell me who said this quote. As for questioning authority: the notion that COVID is more harmful to the elderly than the young is generally true - but then a line is drawn through some alchemy from this to the notion that COVID is not dangerous for most young people, which regardless of how completely dubious a statement it is, still leads to a host of bad public outcomes. We know that vaccines reduce the incidence of infection and the the severity of infection, and also that masks effectively reduce the incidence of infection. There is a popular sentiment that these things are either generally wrong (or lies), or that they should only apply to people with underlying health conditions making them more susceptible to infection. I don’t agree with the people who claim the latter, but I can’t and wouldn’t say they are lying or being dishonest - it’s a perfectly valid opinion to hold (and after all, it’s not illegal or immoral to be wrong :-) ). It’s the former case which is much more concerning, when people deny or contort the facts to suit their own agenda. The concerns that people like Neil Young have is that bogus science from bogus professionals is being peddled to large audiences of platforms they share. It is their right to withdraw such association and, if they desire, to give an explanation for doing so. You have to really stretch the issue here to culture-war proportions to make this a matter of pro-government censorship etc.
- cloutchaser 5y ago
  Fauci. Here we have someone in a position of authority literally admitting to lying or adjusting figures based on public sentimen. That is not science. That is politics, and people are literally saying things Fauci and others say about the pandemic are unquestionable. Yet this guy is literally admitting to not telling the truth to manipulate the public. If I were you I would at least question why you didn’t know about this, and whether trusting public health officials and politicians (on any side) is the truthful and scientific way to live. And why these people want to censor, if they are so right.
  - kdtsh 5y ago
    I’m interested - pass on a source.
    - cloutchaser 5y ago
      Start here, actual journalists and actual "liberals": https://taibbi.substack.com https://taibbi.substack.com My quote was from here: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-folly-of-pandemic-censorship https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-folly-of-pandemic-censorsh... Also: https://greenwald.substack.com https://greenwald.substack.com
      - kdtsh 5y ago
        Your first link appears to be the mouthpiece for Matt Taibbi. I don’t know anything about him, and I appreciate independent investigative journalism, but I hope you expose yourself to more than his work. His substack clearly has an editorial stance towards COVID-19, which I think is generally a good indicator of a non-neutral position on the issue - maybe not ‘bias’ (sometimes you have a particular stance because you have assessed the facts and are generally correct), but if you question authority you should also question the veracity of the statements your independent sources make, especially in this day and age of social media grifters. I haven’t read Greenwald’s work for a long time, for no particular reason. I really can’t account for Fauci’s statement here - it doesn’t look very good from what I can see, but the context is buried in a NYT article which is behind a paywall for me. Still, it doesn’t directly inform my position here - you can be broadly in favour of particular government policies without being all around the implementation. I think that liberal veneration of Fauci has elevated him to this position where he’s considered a saint for moderates, which is gross - he’s a public health official, nothing more and nothing less; the obsession with a public hero of the people, especially one who is non-elected, is just wrong, and makes it especially awkward when people inevitably find out that they are imperfect people and imperfect at their job. That being said, I think Trump’s politicisation of the office of a particular public servant was much more significant and repulsive.

kdtsh 5y ago

I’m stumped, tell me who said this quote. As for questioning authority: the notion that COVID is more harmful to the elderly than the young is generally true - but then a line is drawn through some alchemy from this to the notion that COVID is not dangerous for most young people, which regardless of how completely dubious a statement it is, still leads to a host of bad public outcomes. We know that vaccines reduce the incidence of infection and the the severity of infection, and also that masks effectively reduce the incidence of infection. There is a popular sentiment that these things are either generally wrong (or lies), or that they should only apply to people with underlying health conditions making them more susceptible to infection. I don’t agree with the people who claim the latter, but I can’t and wouldn’t say they are lying or being dishonest - it’s a perfectly valid opinion to hold (and after all, it’s not illegal or immoral to be wrong :-) ). It’s the former case which is much more concerning, when people deny or contort the facts to suit their own agenda. The concerns that people like Neil Young have is that bogus science from bogus professionals is being peddled to large audiences of platforms they share. It is their right to withdraw such association and, if they desire, to give an explanation for doing so. You have to really stretch the issue here to culture-war proportions to make this a matter of pro-government censorship etc.

cloutchaser 5y ago
Fauci. Here we have someone in a position of authority literally admitting to lying or adjusting figures based on public sentimen. That is not science. That is politics, and people are literally saying things Fauci and others say about the pandemic are unquestionable. Yet this guy is literally admitting to not telling the truth to manipulate the public. If I were you I would at least question why you didn’t know about this, and whether trusting public health officials and politicians (on any side) is the truthful and scientific way to live. And why these people want to censor, if they are so right.
- kdtsh 5y ago
  I’m interested - pass on a source.
  - cloutchaser 5y ago
    Start here, actual journalists and actual "liberals": https://taibbi.substack.com https://taibbi.substack.com My quote was from here: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-folly-of-pandemic-censorship https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-folly-of-pandemic-censorsh... Also: https://greenwald.substack.com https://greenwald.substack.com
    - kdtsh 5y ago
      Your first link appears to be the mouthpiece for Matt Taibbi. I don’t know anything about him, and I appreciate independent investigative journalism, but I hope you expose yourself to more than his work. His substack clearly has an editorial stance towards COVID-19, which I think is generally a good indicator of a non-neutral position on the issue - maybe not ‘bias’ (sometimes you have a particular stance because you have assessed the facts and are generally correct), but if you question authority you should also question the veracity of the statements your independent sources make, especially in this day and age of social media grifters. I haven’t read Greenwald’s work for a long time, for no particular reason. I really can’t account for Fauci’s statement here - it doesn’t look very good from what I can see, but the context is buried in a NYT article which is behind a paywall for me. Still, it doesn’t directly inform my position here - you can be broadly in favour of particular government policies without being all around the implementation. I think that liberal veneration of Fauci has elevated him to this position where he’s considered a saint for moderates, which is gross - he’s a public health official, nothing more and nothing less; the obsession with a public hero of the people, especially one who is non-elected, is just wrong, and makes it especially awkward when people inevitably find out that they are imperfect people and imperfect at their job. That being said, I think Trump’s politicisation of the office of a particular public servant was much more significant and repulsive.