6 ms·

The funny thing about this thread is that I have no idea where the Trump starts and the Harris ends. I have learned nothing about anyone's political stances fro

The funny thing about this thread is that I have no idea where the Trump starts and the Harris ends. I have learned nothing about anyone's political stances from this back and forth.

somewhat_drunk 2y ago
It's difficult to parse subsubzero's post after his edit, but he's saying Zuck believes Trump will win in 2024, so Zuck's spinning a narrative that he was forced to remove COVID misinformation, because COVID misinformation was largely a right-wing phenomenon. My response to him was to point out that Harris is strong and trending stronger, while Trump is weak, so the tea leaves are saying the opposite of what he thinks they're saying.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > because COVID misinformation was largely a right-wing phenomenon. That isn't really a fair assessment; it is true that large groups of people generate more wild theories but there was a lot of misinformation everywhere. Most of it inconsequential. But weighting by consequence it is hard to overlook things like: - "Plague of the unvaccinated" and the tide of misinformation saying that the vaccine would halt COVID. A lot of people believed that. They were wrong. And a lot of the blatant human rights violations through the COVID era were probably driven by that particular mistake. It wasn't a right-wing phenomenon. - "14 Days to Flatten the Curve", which turned out to be critical misinformation that derailed any debate over the wisdom of lockdowns. Certainly a forgivable move given the urgency and confusion in the first few months, but the fact that it was material and misinformation stands out in hindsight. - Dismissing a lot of legitimate studies related to Ivermectin. It turned out that they were showing that people who had parasites + COVID had a much better response to COVID if they took an anti-parasite drug so, y'know, fair enough but not that useful in the west. But there was a lot of misinformation that the studies themselves were fake that undermined trust that the responders were looking at evidence. That dismissal was also certainly not coming from the right wing.
  - somewhat_drunk 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - kortilla 2y ago
      You’re so blinded by partisan hatred you just equivocated information about ineffective lockdowns with calling COVID a hoax.
      - somewhat_drunk 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - throw10920 2y ago
      > No, those mistakes did not justify the downright biblical flood of COVID misinformation that emanated from the right. > The examples you've given are just right wing apologetics. > That particular delusion is entirely due to right wing misinformation This is blatantly violating the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), in addition to being logically invalid emotional attacks and fallacies that do nothing to actually respond to GP's points. Suggest against this - it absolutely destroys the credibility of the points that you do make, in addition to reducing the quality of HN.
      - somewhat_drunk 2y ago
        [flagged]
        throw10920 2y ago
        > the statements you've pointed out either do not violate HN's guidelines These statements: > No, those mistakes did not justify the downright biblical flood of COVID misinformation that emanated from the right. > The examples you've given are just right wing apologetics. > That particular delusion is entirely due to right wing misinformation Violate these parts of the guidelines: > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. > Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. There was virtually zero factual content to your comment. It almost pure partisan political activism. > None of what I've said is "logically invalid emotional attacks and fallacies." It seems like you don't understand the difference between an emotional plea and a factual statement. "the downright biblical flood of COVID misinformation that emanated from the right" is not a fact - it's an emotional plea, as are the other cited statements. It is impossible to find a citation for this statement because "biblical flood" isn't a technical term that you can back up with facts. "right wing apologetics" is another instance of something that you cannot prove because it does not have a factual status. > Do better. > Try to keep up. You should review the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Edit out swipes.
lelanthran 2y ago
> The funny thing about this thread is that I have no idea where the Trump starts and the Harris ends. I have learned nothing about anyone's political stances from this back and forth. Me neither. I think it's a very sophisticated two-way dog whistle. The ideologists on both sides can spot each other a mile away; the rest of us look from pig to man, and man to pig, and can not tell the difference.
- amy-petrik-214 2y ago
  for me the most salient difference, harris is gung ho on the environment. expect limited oil and high energy prices trump is the opposite - if nothing else he understands "cheap oil good"... doesn't really care either way about the environment, seeing as last EPA chief he appointed had a history of battling the EPA.
  - lelanthran 2y ago
    I was finding it difficult to determine the difference between the their supporters, not their policy differences.

The funny thing about this thread is that I have no idea where the Trump starts and the Harris ends. I have learned nothing about anyone's political stances from this back and forth.

somewhat_drunk 2y ago

It's difficult to parse subsubzero's post after his edit, but he's saying Zuck believes Trump will win in 2024, so Zuck's spinning a narrative that he was forced to remove COVID misinformation, because COVID misinformation was largely a right-wing phenomenon. My response to him was to point out that Harris is strong and trending stronger, while Trump is weak, so the tea leaves are saying the opposite of what he thinks they're saying.

roenxi 2y ago
> because COVID misinformation was largely a right-wing phenomenon. That isn't really a fair assessment; it is true that large groups of people generate more wild theories but there was a lot of misinformation everywhere. Most of it inconsequential. But weighting by consequence it is hard to overlook things like: - "Plague of the unvaccinated" and the tide of misinformation saying that the vaccine would halt COVID. A lot of people believed that. They were wrong. And a lot of the blatant human rights violations through the COVID era were probably driven by that particular mistake. It wasn't a right-wing phenomenon. - "14 Days to Flatten the Curve", which turned out to be critical misinformation that derailed any debate over the wisdom of lockdowns. Certainly a forgivable move given the urgency and confusion in the first few months, but the fact that it was material and misinformation stands out in hindsight. - Dismissing a lot of legitimate studies related to Ivermectin. It turned out that they were showing that people who had parasites + COVID had a much better response to COVID if they took an anti-parasite drug so, y'know, fair enough but not that useful in the west. But there was a lot of misinformation that the studies themselves were fake that undermined trust that the responders were looking at evidence. That dismissal was also certainly not coming from the right wing.
- somewhat_drunk 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - kortilla 2y ago
    You’re so blinded by partisan hatred you just equivocated information about ineffective lockdowns with calling COVID a hoax.
    - somewhat_drunk 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - throw10920 2y ago
    > No, those mistakes did not justify the downright biblical flood of COVID misinformation that emanated from the right. > The examples you've given are just right wing apologetics. > That particular delusion is entirely due to right wing misinformation This is blatantly violating the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), in addition to being logically invalid emotional attacks and fallacies that do nothing to actually respond to GP's points. Suggest against this - it absolutely destroys the credibility of the points that you do make, in addition to reducing the quality of HN.
    - somewhat_drunk 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - throw10920 2y ago
        > the statements you've pointed out either do not violate HN's guidelines These statements: > No, those mistakes did not justify the downright biblical flood of COVID misinformation that emanated from the right. > The examples you've given are just right wing apologetics. > That particular delusion is entirely due to right wing misinformation Violate these parts of the guidelines: > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. > Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. There was virtually zero factual content to your comment. It almost pure partisan political activism. > None of what I've said is "logically invalid emotional attacks and fallacies." It seems like you don't understand the difference between an emotional plea and a factual statement. "the downright biblical flood of COVID misinformation that emanated from the right" is not a fact - it's an emotional plea, as are the other cited statements. It is impossible to find a citation for this statement because "biblical flood" isn't a technical term that you can back up with facts. "right wing apologetics" is another instance of something that you cannot prove because it does not have a factual status. > Do better. > Try to keep up. You should review the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Edit out swipes.

lelanthran 2y ago

> The funny thing about this thread is that I have no idea where the Trump starts and the Harris ends. I have learned nothing about anyone's political stances from this back and forth. Me neither. I think it's a very sophisticated two-way dog whistle. The ideologists on both sides can spot each other a mile away; the rest of us look from pig to man, and man to pig, and can not tell the difference.

amy-petrik-214 2y ago
for me the most salient difference, harris is gung ho on the environment. expect limited oil and high energy prices trump is the opposite - if nothing else he understands "cheap oil good"... doesn't really care either way about the environment, seeing as last EPA chief he appointed had a history of battling the EPA.
- lelanthran 2y ago
  I was finding it difficult to determine the difference between the their supporters, not their policy differences.