6 ms·

I still remember that so many people cheered when legitimate doctors and scientists were banned from Twitter or Facebook, just for questioning either the lockdo

I still remember that so many people cheered when legitimate doctors and scientists were banned from Twitter or Facebook, just for questioning either the lockdown or the effectiveness or risks of the vaccines. The doctors may not be correct, but shouldn't we allow people to question science? Our government can do what it does because the people embolden them.

sirspacey 2y ago
This is the proof that the religion of “I believe in science” is not a friend to creating a culture of science appreciation It’s been the struggle for scientific progress, the breakthroughs are the exception not the rule and the reason is the culture of belief around the science of the time The lesson I’ve most learned from science is that the questions are more interesting than the answer and the answers we have are a way to ask new questions
- Log_out_ 2y ago
  If it feels bad it may contain trace amounts of truth. If it feels bad all of the time for everyone, but puts food on all tables,regardless of beliefsystem,its actually science
- hintymad 2y ago
  I find "I believe in science" as delivered on social platforms and the mainstream media hysterical in the past few years. I mean, how do we even know if "science" is right without questioning? I can understand that people believe that they are on the right side of the history during the Covid era, for lockdowns, for the efficacy of the vaccines (For those who get angry, I took vaccines by the way, so it's not about my personal assessment here) and etc. But is it by default we are on the right side? Like Government "helped" people believe that Lysenkoism was on the right side of the history? Like people should not challenge social Darwinism or eugenics? Like Chinese people believed that the yield of rice patty could be 100x higher because a top JPL scientist said so and the government "helped" them understand? Like authorities challenged Darwin for his evolution theory? Like people would rather lock up Galileo because his heliocentric model was just plainly wrong? Like Ignaz Semmelweis was obvious crazy to propose the hand hygiene in hospitals? Like Wegener's continental drift was just batshit crazy theory? Like Bolzmann deserved to be shunned from the academic society for his outrageous statistical mechanics? Like those who believed in the existence of irrationals should be drowned by Pythagorean? Since when science can't be challenged, even when the challenge can be outrageously wrong?
  - consteval 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - LunaSea 2y ago
    Questioning science is and should be encouraged when it comes from other scientists seeking in specialized publications and conferences. The public at large however is not informed enough to have a legitimate opinion.
    - hintymad 2y ago
      https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115286/documents/HHRG-118-GO00-20230208-SD011.pdf https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115286/documents/... Jay was banned for merely retweeting a peer-reviewed paper that questions the efficacy of lockdown (maybe the last straw, I don't know). Some people in Twitter were apparently very righteous.
iamacyborg 2y ago
The challenge is trying to determine who’s legitimately trying to question the science vs who’s a crank.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  If censorship is too "challenging" to do right then maybe you should knock it off.
  - stevenAthompson 2y ago
    Censorship is something governments do. What you're discussing is a business decision Facebook made. They deemed it to be in the best interests of their shareholders not to amplify those peoples opinions. Zuck now regrets that decision, but it was still his decision.
    - philwelch 2y ago
      It was a business decision made at the direction of the government.
      - stevenAthompson 2y ago
        You might be right. The article says they were "pressured", it doesn't seem to to say how that pressure was applied. To me, it reads as though compliance was not mandated, just requested. Without more info, I suppose it could be taken either way.
        philwelch 2y ago
        Any request from the government can be characterized as pressure.
        SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
        Further, there is already precedent that this is in fact, a first amendment violation. The Biden Harris government is guilty of censorship via a third party.
matwood 2y ago
The good and bad of the internet is that everyone appears the same. You might be an expert in X and I should listen to you. And right next to you may be a troll or someone trying to sow discord who twists your legitimate opinion just a bit to influence me. How can I tell the difference?
marcosdumay 2y ago
I didn't see a lot of people banned for questioning. Most people were banned for authoritatively affirming things. (But then, that "a lot" is there for a reason. There has been some bad behavior from the platform too.)
- cruffle_duffle 2y ago
  You clearly were not on “the other side” of the mainstream Covid narrative. There absolutely was plenty of banning going on.
cruffle_duffle 2y ago
I will never, ever forgive or forget the absolute amount of censorship and tolerance for punishing “wrongthink” during the lockdown years. Ever. It completely shattered my faith in the government and “Science”. God forbid anybody show any intellectual curiosity if it went against the doomer dogma. And the worst part is the people with the “wrong think” were right. Covid didn’t have a “4% kill rate”. It almost certainly came from a lab. The vaccine was not always safe and definitely wasn’t effective. Lockdowns didn’t work and neither did masks. Closing school for two years and keeping kids locked inside on iPads will fuck them up for the rest of their lives. And saying any of that resulted in being banned, accused of “dangerous thought”, and being yelled at by society.
- aCoreyJ 2y ago
  I don't think saying any of that resulted in being banned because I saw it constantly. Also you are still wrong about most of that. The vaccine is certainly safe and effective, masks definitely help, lockdowns definitely helped the overrun hospitals. Yes there were adverse effects in some of these policies unfortunately.
  - alex1138 2y ago
    I beg to differ. https://rumble.com/v21dicq-dr.-peter-mccullough-and-dr.-aseem-malhotra-discuss-the-extraordinary-harm-.html https://rumble.com/v21dicq-dr.-peter-mccullough-and-dr.-asee... https://rumble.com/v2nxfvq-international-covid-summit-iii-part-1-european-parliament-brussels.html https://rumble.com/v2nxfvq-international-covid-summit-iii-pa...
  - cruffle_duffle 2y ago
    Doesn’t even matter if I’m right or wrong about it working. There was no assessment to if the costs outweighed the benefits. Ever. Because even if you are right does not make it okay to do any of what was done. There were plenty of things besides a myopic fixation on one single problem to the exclusion of literally everything else. It takes an extreme amount of privilege to look back and say we should have done any of that. … it was unethical, immoral, authoritarian and plain evil. I don’t care if any of it “worked” because even if it did the costs vastly outweigh any of the “working” bit. The fact it requires a lot of contortion to show any effect at all should give a reasonable person a concerned pause. Any idiot off the street should be able to clearly see the effects of masks and lockdowns without reading a bunch of statistics first. This is clearly not the case at all…. And again, doesn’t matter if “it worked” because “it worked” only holds true in the most myopic, sheltered, privileged world view possible. For any view that sees the world through a lens besides Covid, what we did was clearly insane.
intended 2y ago
People cheer these things on because they are tired of the other view point and don’t care to question solidarity during a global pandemic. People question science all the time. Heck we all have people who tell us about this herb or diet that will fix things, or how plastic is deadly. In addition the platforms removed this content, not the govt. And the platforms would 100% do it again, since we are discussing this topic with the benefit of hindsight. Misinfo evidence shows that once misinfo is absorbed and accepted, people defend it. If the data shows that those scientists and doctors were wrong - people would ignore the data and reiterate their talking points.

sirspacey 2y ago

This is the proof that the religion of “I believe in science” is not a friend to creating a culture of science appreciation It’s been the struggle for scientific progress, the breakthroughs are the exception not the rule and the reason is the culture of belief around the science of the time The lesson I’ve most learned from science is that the questions are more interesting than the answer and the answers we have are a way to ask new questions

Log_out_ 2y ago
If it feels bad it may contain trace amounts of truth. If it feels bad all of the time for everyone, but puts food on all tables,regardless of beliefsystem,its actually science
hintymad 2y ago
I find "I believe in science" as delivered on social platforms and the mainstream media hysterical in the past few years. I mean, how do we even know if "science" is right without questioning? I can understand that people believe that they are on the right side of the history during the Covid era, for lockdowns, for the efficacy of the vaccines (For those who get angry, I took vaccines by the way, so it's not about my personal assessment here) and etc. But is it by default we are on the right side? Like Government "helped" people believe that Lysenkoism was on the right side of the history? Like people should not challenge social Darwinism or eugenics? Like Chinese people believed that the yield of rice patty could be 100x higher because a top JPL scientist said so and the government "helped" them understand? Like authorities challenged Darwin for his evolution theory? Like people would rather lock up Galileo because his heliocentric model was just plainly wrong? Like Ignaz Semmelweis was obvious crazy to propose the hand hygiene in hospitals? Like Wegener's continental drift was just batshit crazy theory? Like Bolzmann deserved to be shunned from the academic society for his outrageous statistical mechanics? Like those who believed in the existence of irrationals should be drowned by Pythagorean? Since when science can't be challenged, even when the challenge can be outrageously wrong?
- consteval 2y ago
  [flagged]
- LunaSea 2y ago
  Questioning science is and should be encouraged when it comes from other scientists seeking in specialized publications and conferences. The public at large however is not informed enough to have a legitimate opinion.
  - hintymad 2y ago
    https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115286/documents/HHRG-118-GO00-20230208-SD011.pdf https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115286/documents/... Jay was banned for merely retweeting a peer-reviewed paper that questions the efficacy of lockdown (maybe the last straw, I don't know). Some people in Twitter were apparently very righteous.

iamacyborg 2y ago

The challenge is trying to determine who’s legitimately trying to question the science vs who’s a crank.

lupusreal 2y ago
If censorship is too "challenging" to do right then maybe you should knock it off.
- stevenAthompson 2y ago
  Censorship is something governments do. What you're discussing is a business decision Facebook made. They deemed it to be in the best interests of their shareholders not to amplify those peoples opinions. Zuck now regrets that decision, but it was still his decision.
  - philwelch 2y ago
    It was a business decision made at the direction of the government.
    - stevenAthompson 2y ago
      You might be right. The article says they were "pressured", it doesn't seem to to say how that pressure was applied. To me, it reads as though compliance was not mandated, just requested. Without more info, I suppose it could be taken either way.
      - philwelch 2y ago
        Any request from the government can be characterized as pressure.
        SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
        Further, there is already precedent that this is in fact, a first amendment violation. The Biden Harris government is guilty of censorship via a third party.

matwood 2y ago

The good and bad of the internet is that everyone appears the same. You might be an expert in X and I should listen to you. And right next to you may be a troll or someone trying to sow discord who twists your legitimate opinion just a bit to influence me. How can I tell the difference?

marcosdumay 2y ago

I didn't see a lot of people banned for questioning. Most people were banned for authoritatively affirming things. (But then, that "a lot" is there for a reason. There has been some bad behavior from the platform too.)

cruffle_duffle 2y ago
You clearly were not on “the other side” of the mainstream Covid narrative. There absolutely was plenty of banning going on.

cruffle_duffle 2y ago

I will never, ever forgive or forget the absolute amount of censorship and tolerance for punishing “wrongthink” during the lockdown years. Ever. It completely shattered my faith in the government and “Science”. God forbid anybody show any intellectual curiosity if it went against the doomer dogma. And the worst part is the people with the “wrong think” were right. Covid didn’t have a “4% kill rate”. It almost certainly came from a lab. The vaccine was not always safe and definitely wasn’t effective. Lockdowns didn’t work and neither did masks. Closing school for two years and keeping kids locked inside on iPads will fuck them up for the rest of their lives. And saying any of that resulted in being banned, accused of “dangerous thought”, and being yelled at by society.

aCoreyJ 2y ago
I don't think saying any of that resulted in being banned because I saw it constantly. Also you are still wrong about most of that. The vaccine is certainly safe and effective, masks definitely help, lockdowns definitely helped the overrun hospitals. Yes there were adverse effects in some of these policies unfortunately.
- alex1138 2y ago
  I beg to differ. https://rumble.com/v21dicq-dr.-peter-mccullough-and-dr.-aseem-malhotra-discuss-the-extraordinary-harm-.html https://rumble.com/v21dicq-dr.-peter-mccullough-and-dr.-asee... https://rumble.com/v2nxfvq-international-covid-summit-iii-part-1-european-parliament-brussels.html https://rumble.com/v2nxfvq-international-covid-summit-iii-pa...
- cruffle_duffle 2y ago
  Doesn’t even matter if I’m right or wrong about it working. There was no assessment to if the costs outweighed the benefits. Ever. Because even if you are right does not make it okay to do any of what was done. There were plenty of things besides a myopic fixation on one single problem to the exclusion of literally everything else. It takes an extreme amount of privilege to look back and say we should have done any of that. … it was unethical, immoral, authoritarian and plain evil. I don’t care if any of it “worked” because even if it did the costs vastly outweigh any of the “working” bit. The fact it requires a lot of contortion to show any effect at all should give a reasonable person a concerned pause. Any idiot off the street should be able to clearly see the effects of masks and lockdowns without reading a bunch of statistics first. This is clearly not the case at all…. And again, doesn’t matter if “it worked” because “it worked” only holds true in the most myopic, sheltered, privileged world view possible. For any view that sees the world through a lens besides Covid, what we did was clearly insane.

intended 2y ago

People cheer these things on because they are tired of the other view point and don’t care to question solidarity during a global pandemic. People question science all the time. Heck we all have people who tell us about this herb or diet that will fix things, or how plastic is deadly. In addition the platforms removed this content, not the govt. And the platforms would 100% do it again, since we are discussing this topic with the benefit of hindsight. Misinfo evidence shows that once misinfo is absorbed and accepted, people defend it. If the data shows that those scientists and doctors were wrong - people would ignore the data and reiterate their talking points.