3 ms·

That’s a reference to the early Covid 19 investigations/reporting. https://x.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?lang=en https://x.com/WHO/status/12170432294277

by dpark 5mo ago

That’s a reference to the early Covid 19 investigations/reporting. https://x.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?lang=en https://x.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?lang=en

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
Ooooh, got it.
mindslight 5mo ago
People always bring this up as if there is some collective responsibility for they themselves having believed an obviously politically motivated narrative. Like personally I'd just take some responsibility, admit I was suckered, and try to do better in the future. But rather with the context of how it's brought up, it's clear they're just still at it buying into new nonsense political narratives. "Can't get fooled again"
- dpark 5mo ago
  You could interpret this kind of statement as a hardline “never trust anything the government says” stance. You could also interpret it as espousing healthy skepticism. You can’t tell which it is from a one line comment, so it’s not at all clear the person who said this is buying into any particular political narrative.
  - mindslight 5mo ago
    I'd call it unhealthy skepticism. Someone who is operating at the level where they might have blindly trusted what the WHO says does not need a push that merely makes them more skeptical of the WHO while remaining hopelessly non-skeptical of all the other manipulators sending narratives their way.
    - dpark 5mo ago
      > while remaining hopelessly non-skeptical of all the other manipulators You insist on assuming based on a one-line comment that the person is a gullible sheeple. And maybe they are, but I fail to see how you have established this.
      - mindslight 5mo ago
        It's the exact same one line comment made by lots of other people advocating a particularly malevolent political movement, so yes this is the reasonable inference (your inflammatory description notwithstanding). If OP intended some nuanced point, they didn't do the work to expound upon it. And while I certainly have sympathy for how intellectual libertarian discussion points get colonized by populist authoritarian movements, the dynamic is what it is.
        rob_c 5mo ago
        > some nuanced point it's not nuanced to point out a very large statement which at the time was very VERY anti-trumpian and pro ultra-left, lest not forget "hug a tourist", "lets change the popular naming conventions to technical" and, "oh crap too late now human to human is higher than anything we've seen before" which is basically all memory holed now
        mindslight 5mo ago
        [flagged]
        rob_c 5mo ago
        > the anti-mask wackos Well thank you for your service to stupidity. The only measure of worth was actual social distancing which was quickly admonished by the pointless mask arguments as nauseum. No, there is no science good to bad to back up things which are broken by common sense, virii spread in Japan at the same rate as the west after accounting for population densities. (faster without the correction as you'd expect) So let's just move on. Please, oh please, do not start with some form of "the masses seek to be ruled". The only, only end of that game is to justify totalitarianism which is often what those arguing the point are stupid enough to believe they are arguing against. If you're going to make an argument for they need lead then yes. And we need both control in the dining water. But we'll never see my version of an idealised advancing civilisation because of "mah feels", "personal experiences" and such drivel. You may not be used to hearing this but if I was to be grading you you'd get a pass for a coherent sentence but a fail for correctness and coherency, in short. You are wrong.
    - rob_c 5mo ago
      It's healthy to remain sceptical of all information, pointing out a very widely blindly trusted organisation has serious problems which means this trust and faith placed in it is blind is NOT "an enemy of my enemy" situation. That leads to sectarianism. The WHO can both simultaneously be responsible for many good things and have very bad leadership doing more harm than good in other areas. But pointing out that dichotomy of the truth is beyond the conversational chattering class I fear.
- rob_c 5mo ago
  no, I bring it up as a perfect example on how the w.h.o. came to a political solution despite masses of evidence to the contrary. every. single. time.

by dpark 5mo ago

That’s a reference to the early Covid 19 investigations/reporting. https://x.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?lang=en https://x.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?lang=en

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago

Ooooh, got it.

mindslight 5mo ago

People always bring this up as if there is some collective responsibility for they themselves having believed an obviously politically motivated narrative. Like personally I'd just take some responsibility, admit I was suckered, and try to do better in the future. But rather with the context of how it's brought up, it's clear they're just still at it buying into new nonsense political narratives. "Can't get fooled again"

dpark 5mo ago
You could interpret this kind of statement as a hardline “never trust anything the government says” stance. You could also interpret it as espousing healthy skepticism. You can’t tell which it is from a one line comment, so it’s not at all clear the person who said this is buying into any particular political narrative.
- mindslight 5mo ago
  I'd call it unhealthy skepticism. Someone who is operating at the level where they might have blindly trusted what the WHO says does not need a push that merely makes them more skeptical of the WHO while remaining hopelessly non-skeptical of all the other manipulators sending narratives their way.
  - dpark 5mo ago
    > while remaining hopelessly non-skeptical of all the other manipulators You insist on assuming based on a one-line comment that the person is a gullible sheeple. And maybe they are, but I fail to see how you have established this.
    - mindslight 5mo ago
      It's the exact same one line comment made by lots of other people advocating a particularly malevolent political movement, so yes this is the reasonable inference (your inflammatory description notwithstanding). If OP intended some nuanced point, they didn't do the work to expound upon it. And while I certainly have sympathy for how intellectual libertarian discussion points get colonized by populist authoritarian movements, the dynamic is what it is.
      - rob_c 5mo ago
        > some nuanced point it's not nuanced to point out a very large statement which at the time was very VERY anti-trumpian and pro ultra-left, lest not forget "hug a tourist", "lets change the popular naming conventions to technical" and, "oh crap too late now human to human is higher than anything we've seen before" which is basically all memory holed now
        mindslight 5mo ago
        [flagged]
        rob_c 5mo ago
        > the anti-mask wackos Well thank you for your service to stupidity. The only measure of worth was actual social distancing which was quickly admonished by the pointless mask arguments as nauseum. No, there is no science good to bad to back up things which are broken by common sense, virii spread in Japan at the same rate as the west after accounting for population densities. (faster without the correction as you'd expect) So let's just move on. Please, oh please, do not start with some form of "the masses seek to be ruled". The only, only end of that game is to justify totalitarianism which is often what those arguing the point are stupid enough to believe they are arguing against. If you're going to make an argument for they need lead then yes. And we need both control in the dining water. But we'll never see my version of an idealised advancing civilisation because of "mah feels", "personal experiences" and such drivel. You may not be used to hearing this but if I was to be grading you you'd get a pass for a coherent sentence but a fail for correctness and coherency, in short. You are wrong.
  - rob_c 5mo ago
    It's healthy to remain sceptical of all information, pointing out a very widely blindly trusted organisation has serious problems which means this trust and faith placed in it is blind is NOT "an enemy of my enemy" situation. That leads to sectarianism. The WHO can both simultaneously be responsible for many good things and have very bad leadership doing more harm than good in other areas. But pointing out that dichotomy of the truth is beyond the conversational chattering class I fear.
rob_c 5mo ago
no, I bring it up as a perfect example on how the w.h.o. came to a political solution despite masses of evidence to the contrary. every. single. time.