3 ms·
I thought these were examples > Simply asking specific questions about health, about diseases, about diet, about social media addiction, about controversial to
by mannanj 3mo ago
I thought these were examples
> Simply asking specific questions about health, about diseases, about diet, about social media addiction, about controversial topics like politics, etc release hostility from a handful of people. These people engage with ill will and not friendliness. And it is assumed by them that the asker (me usually) meant unwell
Specific instantiation: during COVID after vaccines had rolled out, I asked my social network on Facebook who had experience with Ivermectin. I have used it successfully myself, and even my vaccinated parents used it successfully when their recommended treatments and advice was not successful for managing pain and symptoms. I got a lot of hostile and ridicule and mockery along with being called a murderer, by people I knew, simply by asking questions. I wasn't recommending to take it. I received people making lots of assumptions about my vaccine status simply because I was asking questions, people lumping me in with conspiracy theorists and being anti-science and more.
Edit: I showed lots of curiosity and inquiry into what was said, though there wasn't an opportunity to engage in what was an agenda of prejudice and hostility that wasn't open in return and not willing to deviate from what the engager believes to be true.
- triceratops 3mo ago> I have used it successfully myself To de-worm yourself? Awesome, always good to be worm free. > I got a lot of hostile and ridicule and mockery I don't condone hostility. But if you were a friend of mine and you claimed you cured Covid using ivermectin I would definitely mock you. Sorry bro. > what was an agenda of prejudice [against ivermectin for Covid] Why do you think it was prejudice and not, y'know, post-judice? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-y... What's a simpler explanation? "Ivermectin is really effective against Covid but the drug companies just want to make money so they're suppressing the truth" OR "Ivermectin is really effective against worms. Being worm-free is helpful in fighting Covid. If you don't already have worms it won't help you with Covid" Did you have an open mind to both these explanations? Do they both seem plausible to you? If you reject explanation 2 outright, maybe you're the one who's close-minded and hostile to new ideas? If you agree both are plausible explanations, what was your framework to decide which one was true?