3 ms·

I'm talking about the simple crap. Like, does Ivermectin work at stopping COVID19? Answer: no. It never did, it never had a chance. It was studied first by the

I'm talking about the simple crap. Like, does Ivermectin work at stopping COVID19? Answer: no. It never did, it never had a chance. It was studied first by the RECOVERY Trials and Dexamethasone was the first cheap ($20ish) drug found to be useful. All the bullshit with Ivermectin after RECOVERY trials was just that: bullshit and misinformation. Come on dude, its not so hard to see the misinformation littering our discussion space. And your avoidance of the _OBVIOUS_ problems to seed your argument is proof that you're in this for internet points rather than truthful discussion. There's obvious misinformation, and obvious untruths at play here. And people who want to pretend and muddy the waters. And I'm beginning to think you're one of those muddying the waters dishonest discussion people given how you're misleading this conversation. -------------- There's a set of honest discussion points that are in our culture. There's a set of dishonest, misinformation, misleading trolls in our culture. Are you honestly trying to deny this 2nd group of people's existence? That's all I'm trying to point out.

randomdata 3y ago
> Like, does Ivermectin work? Answer: no. And what if you told me it did? What would change? The answer is nothing. Not getting wrapped up in what is true also means not getting wrapped up in what is false. It cuts both ways. Honestly, I don't know what these non-sequiturs are trying to serve. They have nothing to do with the discussion taking place. It seems like you just want to go on some weird political rant or to express your emotions in some strange way. A discussion has no place for either of those things.
- dragontamer 3y ago
  Misinformation exists online. Trolls are creating misinformation and using it for political gain. That's my point. Because these trolls see political benefits in misleading people, they'll continue to do so, and continue to grow in power as they mislead large segments of the population. ------------ Truthful discussion is the only thing that can combat it. And *simple truths exist*. Despite your attempts at proving otherwise. This is important because when we talk about our online discussion spaces, like Reddit, Wikipedia, or Twitter, I'm evaluating them on how easy it is for the misinformation-trolls to win and bully themselves into an advantageous position, and how easy it is for the Truth to be gleaned (or at least, a community of truth-seekers to be developed).
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > Trolls are creating misinformation and using it for political gain. That's my point. Yes, I understand that is your point. Just as I could make it my point that the sky is blue. But why would we want to make these points? These non-sequiturs add nothing of value.
    - dragontamer 3y ago
      Because Reddit and Twitter are havens of misinformation (especially more recently as moderators are protesting / refusing to do as much of a job they did before). And other websites have higher levels of trust with me. You know. The point of the discussion? The entire crux of Twitter and Reddit is about discussions, and IMO, truth-seeking is one of the most important roles discussion plays. How well a webpage, or other system, functions in regards to truth-seeking is a high priority for me.
      - randomdata 3y ago
        Well, yeah, Reddit is a comedy website. It's not supposed to be truthful in any meaningful sense. It's there for when you want a laugh. The CEO even admits to editing other people's comments when they are deemed not funny enough. Like I stated in another post, I only really ever see weather forecasts on Twitter, from people who have allegedly dedicated their lives to meteorology and not just some "pretty weather girl" like you find in more common weather channels. I have found them to be as truthful as forecasting the weather can be, and are open about the limitations of their models. They don't always get it right, but that is entirely understandable. We don't understand the truths of weather. Nor do we need to because not worrying about the truth has allowed us to focus on what is actually important. So, I don't know, Wikipedia's weather forecasts have been far less reliable in experience. That's not really its thing. I see no reason to trust either because it doesn't matter what the truth is – the weather will come the same either way – but if I had a gun to my back forcing me to choose, Twitter would win. But, realistically, they're not meaningfully compared. They offer a completely different service.
        3y ago

randomdata 3y ago

> Like, does Ivermectin work? Answer: no. And what if you told me it did? What would change? The answer is nothing. Not getting wrapped up in what is true also means not getting wrapped up in what is false. It cuts both ways. Honestly, I don't know what these non-sequiturs are trying to serve. They have nothing to do with the discussion taking place. It seems like you just want to go on some weird political rant or to express your emotions in some strange way. A discussion has no place for either of those things.

dragontamer 3y ago
Misinformation exists online. Trolls are creating misinformation and using it for political gain. That's my point. Because these trolls see political benefits in misleading people, they'll continue to do so, and continue to grow in power as they mislead large segments of the population. ------------ Truthful discussion is the only thing that can combat it. And *simple truths exist*. Despite your attempts at proving otherwise. This is important because when we talk about our online discussion spaces, like Reddit, Wikipedia, or Twitter, I'm evaluating them on how easy it is for the misinformation-trolls to win and bully themselves into an advantageous position, and how easy it is for the Truth to be gleaned (or at least, a community of truth-seekers to be developed).
- randomdata 3y ago
  > Trolls are creating misinformation and using it for political gain. That's my point. Yes, I understand that is your point. Just as I could make it my point that the sky is blue. But why would we want to make these points? These non-sequiturs add nothing of value.
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    Because Reddit and Twitter are havens of misinformation (especially more recently as moderators are protesting / refusing to do as much of a job they did before). And other websites have higher levels of trust with me. You know. The point of the discussion? The entire crux of Twitter and Reddit is about discussions, and IMO, truth-seeking is one of the most important roles discussion plays. How well a webpage, or other system, functions in regards to truth-seeking is a high priority for me.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      Well, yeah, Reddit is a comedy website. It's not supposed to be truthful in any meaningful sense. It's there for when you want a laugh. The CEO even admits to editing other people's comments when they are deemed not funny enough. Like I stated in another post, I only really ever see weather forecasts on Twitter, from people who have allegedly dedicated their lives to meteorology and not just some "pretty weather girl" like you find in more common weather channels. I have found them to be as truthful as forecasting the weather can be, and are open about the limitations of their models. They don't always get it right, but that is entirely understandable. We don't understand the truths of weather. Nor do we need to because not worrying about the truth has allowed us to focus on what is actually important. So, I don't know, Wikipedia's weather forecasts have been far less reliable in experience. That's not really its thing. I see no reason to trust either because it doesn't matter what the truth is – the weather will come the same either way – but if I had a gun to my back forcing me to choose, Twitter would win. But, realistically, they're not meaningfully compared. They offer a completely different service.
      - 3y ago