3 ms·

A few more came to mind: - Two senior members of the FDA resign as a result of the politically pressured decision to recommend boosters, despite a lack of a sa

A few more came to mind: - Two senior members of the FDA resign as a result of the politically pressured decision to recommend boosters, despite a lack of a safety profile and subsequent risk analyses having been laid out - Monoclonal antibodies were downplayed as a treatment for COVID during the Alpha and Delta waves, a time during which they were incredibly effective, and a surplus supply was available in every state...unbeknownst to the majority of the public. The pretense for not mentioning treatment options was that knowledge of a viable treatment might discourage vaccination. - Anthony Fauci lies, under oath, regarding the definition of gain-of-function research, whether it was being done in Wuhan, and whether or not the NIH had been involved in funding the research - Merriam-Webster changes the definition of "anti-vaxxer" to include people who are opposed to mandating vaccinations, a completely different concept altogether from people who are opposed to the use of vaccinations. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer - FDA pushes to allow Pfizer to release the safety data they gathered on the vaccine over a period of 75 years - At no point in the United States were any vaccine recommendations made at all tailored to the developing safety profiles which diverged in accordance with demographics (i.e. higher incidence of thrombocytopenia in women from adenovirus vaccines, higher incidence of myocarditis in young men from mRNA vaccines) - Booster recommendations left completely open ended for those who received adenovirus vaccines - Entire point of going with a novel mRNA platform was on the basis of being able to rapidly iterate to keep up with an evolving virus. We are about to see our first update to the vaccine, just now, with an already dated antigen targeted

hayst4ck 4y ago
I have to ask, do you think you are being convincing? I've heard most of these talking points, but don't find them as compelling as you do. That means it's probably not some information that you have that I don't, so more bullet points probably aren't going to be convincing. What is your mental model for why we seem to come to different conclusions from the same information?
- ralusek 4y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your question.
  - hayst4ck 4y ago
    You wrote a lot of bullet points. Was your motivation to convince me of something? I've written a lot of things in my life that felt righteous, so writing it felt good because I "knew" I was right and then I'd get social reward via upvotes which felt good, but I've also written things in an attempt to be convincing and that's a completely different style. So I'm legitimately wondering if you wrote the bullet points out of righteousness (for you), or was it done for the purpose of being convincing (for me)? I read your bullet points and my point of view is the same as it was before. So if you thought I didn't generally agree with you because I didn't have the information you had, that isn't the case. I already was aware of what you wrote in your bullet points. So if we both have the same information, why do you think we reach different conclusions with that information? Why do you think I don't reach the same conclusion that you have reached?
    - ralusek 4y ago
      First of all, your comments have all felt righteous and sanctimonious to me, so I find it weird that this is the angle you've decided to take with me...to accuse my motive. You are the one who is condescendingly telling me that I need to consider other people's positions as to why control of information might be beneficial, then inferring my motive and trying to get me to consider why I laid out these bullet points that you obviously already knew. Secondly, I have no idea what information you know. You say that you gained no new information from the bullet points I laid, so what was the point? Well, as I said, not only do I not know what you know, but it's important for the context of the conversation to iterate on examples about which I'm talking about. > So if we both have the same information, why do you think we reach different conclusions with that information Given that I'm aware that we have the exact same information, which, for the last time, how could I be? Well in that case, people coming to different conclusions with the same information happens more often than not. It typically comes from people having different frameworks through which they process information. As to the purpose of my "talking points," which is an extremely condescending way of dismissing a compilation of facts, as if I'm simply parroting a feed of propaganda I've been force fed...as to their purpose: they are examples of what I would consider to be institutional failures. Institutional failures, shows of bad faith, incompetence, and departures from the truth, all of which were done by the very same institutions I've argued should not have the authority to claim command over reality, as proposed by this legislation. That is my point: not only would I be skeptical of giving competent institutions authority over controlling the way the public exchanges information, but here are the examples of the way those very same institutions have missed the mark throughout the pandemic. If my point isn't clear enough for you to have come to the same conclusion as me, very well, it happens all the time. If you're actually interested in getting to the philosophy of why that is, which I don't actually think you are, and seem to have just fallen back on this psychoanalytical bullshit as a defense mechanism, then I'm perfectly happy to transition away from the topic at hand into that conversation.

hayst4ck 4y ago

I have to ask, do you think you are being convincing? I've heard most of these talking points, but don't find them as compelling as you do. That means it's probably not some information that you have that I don't, so more bullet points probably aren't going to be convincing. What is your mental model for why we seem to come to different conclusions from the same information?

ralusek 4y ago
I'm not sure I understand your question.
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  You wrote a lot of bullet points. Was your motivation to convince me of something? I've written a lot of things in my life that felt righteous, so writing it felt good because I "knew" I was right and then I'd get social reward via upvotes which felt good, but I've also written things in an attempt to be convincing and that's a completely different style. So I'm legitimately wondering if you wrote the bullet points out of righteousness (for you), or was it done for the purpose of being convincing (for me)? I read your bullet points and my point of view is the same as it was before. So if you thought I didn't generally agree with you because I didn't have the information you had, that isn't the case. I already was aware of what you wrote in your bullet points. So if we both have the same information, why do you think we reach different conclusions with that information? Why do you think I don't reach the same conclusion that you have reached?
  - ralusek 4y ago
    First of all, your comments have all felt righteous and sanctimonious to me, so I find it weird that this is the angle you've decided to take with me...to accuse my motive. You are the one who is condescendingly telling me that I need to consider other people's positions as to why control of information might be beneficial, then inferring my motive and trying to get me to consider why I laid out these bullet points that you obviously already knew. Secondly, I have no idea what information you know. You say that you gained no new information from the bullet points I laid, so what was the point? Well, as I said, not only do I not know what you know, but it's important for the context of the conversation to iterate on examples about which I'm talking about. > So if we both have the same information, why do you think we reach different conclusions with that information Given that I'm aware that we have the exact same information, which, for the last time, how could I be? Well in that case, people coming to different conclusions with the same information happens more often than not. It typically comes from people having different frameworks through which they process information. As to the purpose of my "talking points," which is an extremely condescending way of dismissing a compilation of facts, as if I'm simply parroting a feed of propaganda I've been force fed...as to their purpose: they are examples of what I would consider to be institutional failures. Institutional failures, shows of bad faith, incompetence, and departures from the truth, all of which were done by the very same institutions I've argued should not have the authority to claim command over reality, as proposed by this legislation. That is my point: not only would I be skeptical of giving competent institutions authority over controlling the way the public exchanges information, but here are the examples of the way those very same institutions have missed the mark throughout the pandemic. If my point isn't clear enough for you to have come to the same conclusion as me, very well, it happens all the time. If you're actually interested in getting to the philosophy of why that is, which I don't actually think you are, and seem to have just fallen back on this psychoanalytical bullshit as a defense mechanism, then I'm perfectly happy to transition away from the topic at hand into that conversation.