10 ms·

What are the 6 lies they told?

by waboremo 4y ago

blueyoda 4y ago
[flagged]
- waboremo 4y ago
  Ah I understand the problem, nuance is difficult in public. Most of these weren't unanimous arguments by doctors. Masks for example: it's true they are ineffective at preventing most things, you can't put on a mask and be free of disease from others, it's mostly to spread it from you. At the same time, some masks are more effective than others, when most people were buying up cloth masks they didn't want to discourage this by redirecting to more effective masks especially at a time where hospitals were struggling to get those needs met and they were at much higher risk. So you see how something like that, when edited through soundbites and malicious actors, suddenly becomes "they lied about masks"? Now reevaluate the rest of your beliefs about how they "lied" during that time.
  - stunk 4y ago
    [flagged]
- ryandrake 4y ago
  By this logic, Newton’s theory of gravity was a lie, and Newton was a liar, because it did not account for relativity. “This is what we think is true right now” is not a lie just because later, new information changes things.
  - orangepurple 4y ago
    Newton's laws held for 200 years and worked just fine for everybody's needs on earth
  - Karunamon 4y ago
    It is, however, a lie when you demonize and censor those who did so much as mildly disagree about any of it. "You are wrong according to what we know now" can be factual. "You are wrong and deserve to be silenced" is a damnable lie.
    - blueyoda 4y ago
      Exactly. They censored a Stanford doctor on Twitter just because he had a different opinion, which is incredibly concerning. It's no longer (and never was, in my opinion) about filtering misinformation - it's about controlling the narrative.
      - lern_too_spel 4y ago
        You have a strange definition of censorship — excluding somebody from the trending list. You are also speculating about the reason why. He made factually incorrect statements about the vaccine, in addition to stating his poorly reasoned opinions. https://mobile.twitter.com/19joho/status/1463540124407451659 https://mobile.twitter.com/19joho/status/1463540124407451659 Despite your perceived censorship, we all know the Christian fundamentalist Indian-American you're talking about.
        blueyoda 4y ago
        Shadowbanning is a type of censorship. Who defines what is factually incorrect? The lab leak theory was considered "debunked" until recently. Who has the monopoly over what is considered fact and what is considered fiction? I would rather have a platform where people can be wrong rather than one in which a select group of individuals decide what is "true" and what is "false". Likewise, I'm not sure why the ethnicity of the filtered person matters to you?
        lern_too_spel 4y ago
        > Shadow banning is a form of censorship. His followers still saw his tweets. This wasn't shadow banning. > Who defines what is factually incorrect? I posted an example. Are you going to argue that it is factually correct? If you're going to change the subject to the lab leak, you better post an example of somebody who Twitter "censored" for it. > I would rather have a platform where people can be wrong rather than one in which a select group of individuals decide what is "true" and what is "false". And I would rather have a platform that doesn't increase deaths by amplifying known misinformation, which is something that can easily be gamed by your enemies. This is different from people being wrong about the earth being flat or being wrong about evolution by natural selection, which your hero could post wrongly about and still get promoted. Your reductionist idea of "freedom" causes you to make ridiculous policy choices. It's like somebody saying, "I would rather allow people to buy and sell whatever they want to whomever they want instead of having a select group decide what I can and can't buy and sell in what quantities to what people (including fertilizer and oxycodone)." There is a wide chasm between the extremes you're thinking about where reasonable people discuss actually workable policies. > Likewise, I'm not sure why the ethnicity of the filtered person matters to you? I gave it to identify him. The fact that he is Indian-American makes his Christian fundamentalism a larger criticism of his intelligence. He wasn't born into those beliefs. He arrived at those beliefs by way of poor reasoning.
- themitigating 4y ago
  "no link to myocarditis" (proved false, especially for young men" What is your definition of a lie? If there wasn't evidence of this when the statement was made then it's true.
  - operatingthetan 4y ago
    Right, there seems to be a great many people out there that don't understand the implications of retrospective analysis of trufthfulness.
  - VagueMag 4y ago
    The whole "there is no evidence, therefore the link doesn't exist" thing is an obvious grift. Simply never look for side effects (and attribute them to hysteria or anything else besides the shots when they do arise), and it's as though they never existed.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      Is that what happened ? According to whatever it says there's only been about 1000 cases and most recover. You remind me of current conspiracy theorists who now attribute any death via a health condition to the vaccine. Show me evidence they ignored reasonable warnings or didn't move fast enough?
      - blueyoda 4y ago
        If you're comfortable with that, that is fine, I respect everyone's decisions for their own health. But what about those who do not recover? No one has the right to coerce another person to receive an irreversible medical treatment. Masks can be taken off - nothing against them personally. But can one "un"-vaccinate themselves? And why are people forced to vaccinate when natural immunity has been proven to be at least, if not more effective, than vaccination (from a peer-reviewed study published in the Lancet)? The argument is not whether the vaccine is good or bad. It's about respecting people's right to a choice. Japan did not mandate the COVID vaccine and actively discouraged such an approach. Would you claim they are anti-science? It's also important to consider what the former President of Australia's Medical Association has stated regarding the COVID jab: "the true rate of adverse events is far higher than acknowledged due to underreporting and “threats” from medical regulators"
rnk 4y ago
These COVID antivaxers are irritating. Like the endless election stealing claims that never have any evidence. And those people are on hackernews too.
- dukeofdoom 4y ago
  No meaningful signature check was ever allowed to be done in the disputed states by any judge. So why should the other side trust the results. Let's put it this way, when a real person had to show up and vote in person, the Biden lead completely disappears.
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    The evidence is there as long as you don’t have to show it in court! Nobody has been able to show it in court. Because it’s not true.
    - chihuahua 4y ago
      It's Schroedinger evidence - it exists until you have to show it in court.
      - dukeofdoom 4y ago
        Schroedinger signatures! they're real, unless you look at them. That's why courts don't allow people to look at them.
        kennywinker 4y ago
        Yup nobody’s looked at them at all! Oh, wait… no, they’ve been audited and no fraud was found. Nevermind. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/532042-georgia-signature-audit-finds-no-fraud-in-presidential-election/ https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/532042-georgia-signatu...
        4y ago

What are the 6 lies they told?

blueyoda 4y ago

[flagged]

waboremo 4y ago
Ah I understand the problem, nuance is difficult in public. Most of these weren't unanimous arguments by doctors. Masks for example: it's true they are ineffective at preventing most things, you can't put on a mask and be free of disease from others, it's mostly to spread it from you. At the same time, some masks are more effective than others, when most people were buying up cloth masks they didn't want to discourage this by redirecting to more effective masks especially at a time where hospitals were struggling to get those needs met and they were at much higher risk. So you see how something like that, when edited through soundbites and malicious actors, suddenly becomes "they lied about masks"? Now reevaluate the rest of your beliefs about how they "lied" during that time.
- stunk 4y ago
  [flagged]
ryandrake 4y ago
By this logic, Newton’s theory of gravity was a lie, and Newton was a liar, because it did not account for relativity. “This is what we think is true right now” is not a lie just because later, new information changes things.
- orangepurple 4y ago
  Newton's laws held for 200 years and worked just fine for everybody's needs on earth
- Karunamon 4y ago
  It is, however, a lie when you demonize and censor those who did so much as mildly disagree about any of it. "You are wrong according to what we know now" can be factual. "You are wrong and deserve to be silenced" is a damnable lie.
  - blueyoda 4y ago
    Exactly. They censored a Stanford doctor on Twitter just because he had a different opinion, which is incredibly concerning. It's no longer (and never was, in my opinion) about filtering misinformation - it's about controlling the narrative.
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      You have a strange definition of censorship — excluding somebody from the trending list. You are also speculating about the reason why. He made factually incorrect statements about the vaccine, in addition to stating his poorly reasoned opinions. https://mobile.twitter.com/19joho/status/1463540124407451659 https://mobile.twitter.com/19joho/status/1463540124407451659 Despite your perceived censorship, we all know the Christian fundamentalist Indian-American you're talking about.
      - blueyoda 4y ago
        Shadowbanning is a type of censorship. Who defines what is factually incorrect? The lab leak theory was considered "debunked" until recently. Who has the monopoly over what is considered fact and what is considered fiction? I would rather have a platform where people can be wrong rather than one in which a select group of individuals decide what is "true" and what is "false". Likewise, I'm not sure why the ethnicity of the filtered person matters to you?
        lern_too_spel 4y ago
        > Shadow banning is a form of censorship. His followers still saw his tweets. This wasn't shadow banning. > Who defines what is factually incorrect? I posted an example. Are you going to argue that it is factually correct? If you're going to change the subject to the lab leak, you better post an example of somebody who Twitter "censored" for it. > I would rather have a platform where people can be wrong rather than one in which a select group of individuals decide what is "true" and what is "false". And I would rather have a platform that doesn't increase deaths by amplifying known misinformation, which is something that can easily be gamed by your enemies. This is different from people being wrong about the earth being flat or being wrong about evolution by natural selection, which your hero could post wrongly about and still get promoted. Your reductionist idea of "freedom" causes you to make ridiculous policy choices. It's like somebody saying, "I would rather allow people to buy and sell whatever they want to whomever they want instead of having a select group decide what I can and can't buy and sell in what quantities to what people (including fertilizer and oxycodone)." There is a wide chasm between the extremes you're thinking about where reasonable people discuss actually workable policies. > Likewise, I'm not sure why the ethnicity of the filtered person matters to you? I gave it to identify him. The fact that he is Indian-American makes his Christian fundamentalism a larger criticism of his intelligence. He wasn't born into those beliefs. He arrived at those beliefs by way of poor reasoning.
themitigating 4y ago
"no link to myocarditis" (proved false, especially for young men" What is your definition of a lie? If there wasn't evidence of this when the statement was made then it's true.
- operatingthetan 4y ago
  Right, there seems to be a great many people out there that don't understand the implications of retrospective analysis of trufthfulness.
- VagueMag 4y ago
  The whole "there is no evidence, therefore the link doesn't exist" thing is an obvious grift. Simply never look for side effects (and attribute them to hysteria or anything else besides the shots when they do arise), and it's as though they never existed.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Is that what happened ? According to whatever it says there's only been about 1000 cases and most recover. You remind me of current conspiracy theorists who now attribute any death via a health condition to the vaccine. Show me evidence they ignored reasonable warnings or didn't move fast enough?
    - blueyoda 4y ago
      If you're comfortable with that, that is fine, I respect everyone's decisions for their own health. But what about those who do not recover? No one has the right to coerce another person to receive an irreversible medical treatment. Masks can be taken off - nothing against them personally. But can one "un"-vaccinate themselves? And why are people forced to vaccinate when natural immunity has been proven to be at least, if not more effective, than vaccination (from a peer-reviewed study published in the Lancet)? The argument is not whether the vaccine is good or bad. It's about respecting people's right to a choice. Japan did not mandate the COVID vaccine and actively discouraged such an approach. Would you claim they are anti-science? It's also important to consider what the former President of Australia's Medical Association has stated regarding the COVID jab: "the true rate of adverse events is far higher than acknowledged due to underreporting and “threats” from medical regulators"

rnk 4y ago

These COVID antivaxers are irritating. Like the endless election stealing claims that never have any evidence. And those people are on hackernews too.

dukeofdoom 4y ago
No meaningful signature check was ever allowed to be done in the disputed states by any judge. So why should the other side trust the results. Let's put it this way, when a real person had to show up and vote in person, the Biden lead completely disappears.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  The evidence is there as long as you don’t have to show it in court! Nobody has been able to show it in court. Because it’s not true.
  - chihuahua 4y ago
    It's Schroedinger evidence - it exists until you have to show it in court.
    - dukeofdoom 4y ago
      Schroedinger signatures! they're real, unless you look at them. That's why courts don't allow people to look at them.
      - kennywinker 4y ago
        Yup nobody’s looked at them at all! Oh, wait… no, they’ve been audited and no fraud was found. Nevermind. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/532042-georgia-signature-audit-finds-no-fraud-in-presidential-election/ https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/532042-georgia-signatu...
        4y ago