5 ms·

Tell that to this guy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34004500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34004500 He is acting like it's support of anti-vaxxe

by bena 4y ago

Tell that to this guy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34004500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34004500 He is acting like it's support of anti-vaxxer claims. And it is why these articles get shared. Because they contain a very slight, practically negligible affirmation of the smallest portion of their claims. And that, in their eyes, is enough to proclaim victory.

mrtksn 4y ago
If I'm going to read anti vaxxer content I need to be paid, I'm so done finding misrepresentations and statistical hackery in propaganda articles. They cherry pick data, resort in fallacies and all kinds of trickery. They give you a shocking graph where you can see that young people are dying en masse only to find out that this graph is achieved through visual or statistical BS. Hours spend to dig out lies, completely avoidable by avoiding that content.
- bena 4y ago
  I'm a little confused here. I'm not trying to convince you of the anti-vaxxer side. You said: > "I don't know why the HN comments are acting as if this is some kind of research supporting the anti vaxxer claims." To which I posted a link of a guy who is acting as if this is some kind of research supporting the anti-vaxxer claims. The comments were trying to head off the exact thing that happened. Because those users know the pattern. They know why this was posted. It was posted specifically as "vindication" for anti-vaxxers. Those comments to point out that this study does not in any way vindicate anti-vaxxers are needed and the people who made them were right to make those comments.
  - mrtksn 4y ago
    Oh I wasn't directing my comments to you. My apologies, I just tried to express my reluctance of looking at anti-vaxxer content. Even if this linked OP is just acting, I still find it very repulsive due to my previous experience. I wasn't referring to that comment anyway.
    - bena 4y ago
      All good then, I just didn't want you to think I was advocating for the anti-vaxxer position. So if that wasn't your intention, apologies to you as well. And I understand your reluctance. After the nth time, the eyes sort of glaze over as you get slapped with the same bad faith arguments supported by bad logic and supported by abused statistics.
emmelaich 4y ago
You're inferring a lot from a someone's brief summary of the paper under discussion. If you disagree with the summary, maybe address it? I despise anti-vaxxer lunatics, I still found that comment interesting.
- bena 4y ago
  It's not one comment. The guy has a string of them across multiple threads. And you are going to critique me for "inferring a lot" while ignoring his comment is not only sprinkled with evidence he's a conclusion looking for justification ("lethal jab-associated myocarditis"), but is nothing but inference itself. It's not interesting, it's just old.

by bena 4y ago

mrtksn 4y ago

If I'm going to read anti vaxxer content I need to be paid, I'm so done finding misrepresentations and statistical hackery in propaganda articles. They cherry pick data, resort in fallacies and all kinds of trickery. They give you a shocking graph where you can see that young people are dying en masse only to find out that this graph is achieved through visual or statistical BS. Hours spend to dig out lies, completely avoidable by avoiding that content.

bena 4y ago
I'm a little confused here. I'm not trying to convince you of the anti-vaxxer side. You said: > "I don't know why the HN comments are acting as if this is some kind of research supporting the anti vaxxer claims." To which I posted a link of a guy who is acting as if this is some kind of research supporting the anti-vaxxer claims. The comments were trying to head off the exact thing that happened. Because those users know the pattern. They know why this was posted. It was posted specifically as "vindication" for anti-vaxxers. Those comments to point out that this study does not in any way vindicate anti-vaxxers are needed and the people who made them were right to make those comments.
- mrtksn 4y ago
  Oh I wasn't directing my comments to you. My apologies, I just tried to express my reluctance of looking at anti-vaxxer content. Even if this linked OP is just acting, I still find it very repulsive due to my previous experience. I wasn't referring to that comment anyway.
  - bena 4y ago
    All good then, I just didn't want you to think I was advocating for the anti-vaxxer position. So if that wasn't your intention, apologies to you as well. And I understand your reluctance. After the nth time, the eyes sort of glaze over as you get slapped with the same bad faith arguments supported by bad logic and supported by abused statistics.

emmelaich 4y ago

You're inferring a lot from a someone's brief summary of the paper under discussion. If you disagree with the summary, maybe address it? I despise anti-vaxxer lunatics, I still found that comment interesting.

bena 4y ago
It's not one comment. The guy has a string of them across multiple threads. And you are going to critique me for "inferring a lot" while ignoring his comment is not only sprinkled with evidence he's a conclusion looking for justification ("lethal jab-associated myocarditis"), but is nothing but inference itself. It's not interesting, it's just old.