4 ms·
Why is there a need to present a fake "balanced" perspective on every such topic or person. At least on a forum like this it should be ok to call out pseudoscie
by hawk_ 2y ago
Why is there a need to present a fake "balanced" perspective on every such topic or person. At least on a forum like this it should be ok to call out pseudoscience and straight up quackery.
Also just because some information is gleaned from corporate media, doesn't make it wrong. Facts and analysis can stand on their own.
- lazyeye 2y agoRFK agrees with you. His book is so dense with references it makes for heavy (and often shocking) reading. But you wont know that if you get your information from corporate media.
- defrost 2y agoDensity of references isn't a metric of quality, particularly when, as a peer comment listed, so many are references to people "Just asking" about well established medical links (eg. the HIV|AIDS debate). Stephen C. Meyer's books on Intelligent Design are also dense with references. > But you wont know that if you get your information from corporate media. We should avoid books that are #1 on AMAZON, TWENTY WEEKS on the NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER LIST, and a WALL STREET JOURNAL, USA TODAY and PUBLISHERS WEEKLY NATIONAL BESTSELLER ? ( eg: https://www.amazon.com.au/Real-Anthony-Fauci-Democracy-Childrens-ebook/dp/B08X5YWRRP https://www.amazon.com.au/Real-Anthony-Fauci-Democracy-Child... )