|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 15 2024 11:50 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2024 11:20 Magic Powers wrote:
Naming a scientist who arguably made a small but significant number of mistakes such as Fauci and claiming he poses as much of a threat as Joe Rogan is comical. Fauci has made mistakes regarding the pandemic, while Rogan has actively and repeatedly pushed very dangerous lies and misinformation for several years. This is just not a fitting comparison. I truly do not understand this take. Who has more potential to cause harm : An authority in a field providing medical advice to an entire nation from a national platform, or a former comic with a podcast? If what BJ claims is accurate, it's OBVIOUSLY more harmful in a general sense than any "whoa, bro" Joe Rogan could do, both to the health of people encouraged not to mask, and the general sense of faith people have in science. To be clear, I understand in that situation where the fear of the medical systems collapsing justifies prioritizing masks for medical staff, but that doesn't make BJ wrong for pointing to it as an example. At the end of the day, I'm less interested in who we should blame for sharing wrongthink and more interested in why people embrace wrongthink and what, if anything, should be done about it.
Can you name the obviously more harmful things Fauci has done if it's in fact so obvious?
|
On October 15 2024 12:16 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2024 11:50 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 15 2024 11:20 Magic Powers wrote:
Naming a scientist who arguably made a small but significant number of mistakes such as Fauci and claiming he poses as much of a threat as Joe Rogan is comical. Fauci has made mistakes regarding the pandemic, while Rogan has actively and repeatedly pushed very dangerous lies and misinformation for several years. This is just not a fitting comparison. I truly do not understand this take. Who has more potential to cause harm : An authority in a field providing medical advice to an entire nation from a national platform, or a former comic with a podcast? If what BJ claims is accurate, it's OBVIOUSLY more harmful in a general sense than any "whoa, bro" Joe Rogan could do, both to the health of people encouraged not to mask, and the general sense of faith people have in science. To be clear, I understand in that situation where the fear of the medical systems collapsing justifies prioritizing masks for medical staff, but that doesn't make BJ wrong for pointing to it as an example. At the end of the day, I'm less interested in who we should blame for sharing wrongthink and more interested in why people embrace wrongthink and what, if anything, should be done about it. Can you name the obviously more harmful things Fauci has done if it's in fact so obvious?
Huh? Read what I wrote.
If what BJ claims is accurate, a scientist lying to the general public for professional reasons is dangerous, harmful, and uneithical.
You're asking me to source these multiple things Fauci has done when I never mentioned multiple. I only referenced one, with the condition of its truthfulness.
|
On October 15 2024 12:35 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2024 12:16 Magic Powers wrote:On October 15 2024 11:50 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 15 2024 11:20 Magic Powers wrote:
Naming a scientist who arguably made a small but significant number of mistakes such as Fauci and claiming he poses as much of a threat as Joe Rogan is comical. Fauci has made mistakes regarding the pandemic, while Rogan has actively and repeatedly pushed very dangerous lies and misinformation for several years. This is just not a fitting comparison. I truly do not understand this take. Who has more potential to cause harm : An authority in a field providing medical advice to an entire nation from a national platform, or a former comic with a podcast? If what BJ claims is accurate, it's OBVIOUSLY more harmful in a general sense than any "whoa, bro" Joe Rogan could do, both to the health of people encouraged not to mask, and the general sense of faith people have in science. To be clear, I understand in that situation where the fear of the medical systems collapsing justifies prioritizing masks for medical staff, but that doesn't make BJ wrong for pointing to it as an example. At the end of the day, I'm less interested in who we should blame for sharing wrongthink and more interested in why people embrace wrongthink and what, if anything, should be done about it. Can you name the obviously more harmful things Fauci has done if it's in fact so obvious? Huh? Read what I wrote. If what BJ claims is accurate, a scientist lying to the general public for professional reasons is dangerous, harmful, and uneithical. You're asking me to source these multiple things Fauci has done when I never mentioned multiple. I only referenced one, with the condition of its truthfulness.
I'll ask again: what exactly did Fauci do? I'm not denying that he did something that he shouldn't have done, I'm asking you to provide the actual example. Not just "he lied". Provide the actual example so we can determine how harmful it was.
Btw it's unusually late for me, so I'll go to bed and respond after I get up.
|
On October 15 2024 12:37 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2024 12:35 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 15 2024 12:16 Magic Powers wrote:On October 15 2024 11:50 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 15 2024 11:20 Magic Powers wrote:
Naming a scientist who arguably made a small but significant number of mistakes such as Fauci and claiming he poses as much of a threat as Joe Rogan is comical. Fauci has made mistakes regarding the pandemic, while Rogan has actively and repeatedly pushed very dangerous lies and misinformation for several years. This is just not a fitting comparison. I truly do not understand this take. Who has more potential to cause harm : An authority in a field providing medical advice to an entire nation from a national platform, or a former comic with a podcast? If what BJ claims is accurate, it's OBVIOUSLY more harmful in a general sense than any "whoa, bro" Joe Rogan could do, both to the health of people encouraged not to mask, and the general sense of faith people have in science. To be clear, I understand in that situation where the fear of the medical systems collapsing justifies prioritizing masks for medical staff, but that doesn't make BJ wrong for pointing to it as an example. At the end of the day, I'm less interested in who we should blame for sharing wrongthink and more interested in why people embrace wrongthink and what, if anything, should be done about it. Can you name the obviously more harmful things Fauci has done if it's in fact so obvious? Huh? Read what I wrote. If what BJ claims is accurate, a scientist lying to the general public for professional reasons is dangerous, harmful, and uneithical. You're asking me to source these multiple things Fauci has done when I never mentioned multiple. I only referenced one, with the condition of its truthfulness. I'll ask again: what exactly did Fauci do? I'm not denying that he did something that he shouldn't have done, I'm asking you to provide the actual example. Not just "he lied". Provide the actual example so we can determine how harmful it was. Btw it's unusually late for me, so I'll go to bed and respond after I get up.
You're better off asking yourself that.
On October 15 2024 11:20 Magic Powers wrote:
Naming a scientist who arguably made a small but significant number of mistakes such as Fauci and claiming he poses as much of a threat as Joe Rogan is comical. Fauci has made mistakes regarding the pandemic, ...
I haven't cited any claim outside "If what BJ said is true", so I don't know what 'the actual example' is referring to. Are you asking BJ to cite his claim directly through me, or asking me to cite BJ's claim? If so, I don't care to. Discussing Fauci specifically isn't important to me.
A scientist acting in a professional capacity on a large platform knowingly lying to the general public has vastly more potential to harm than a former comic acting in a casual capacity hosting 'alternative theories' or whatever you want to call it. That's what I'm trying to say.
|
On October 15 2024 09:31 Sermokala wrote:
Who was the president during that time? It would be crazy if we didn't have a comment about that from the guy who was in charge and was breifed about the policy of his administration. The government actually doing its job and doing whats best for the people shakes peoples confidence in the government to act in the publics best interest. If Fauci did something wrong that guy in charge of the administration whos so proud of firing people should have probably fired that person. The concept of Santa going over BJ's head isn't a surprise but is concerning.
Yes people should be praised for lying to the public during an emergency in order to prioritise peoples lives. You don't tell people there is a bomb in a building before evacuating said building. You are shamed for spreading misinformation not because its bad in it of itself you are shamed for doing it without a good reason. Joe Rogan is a problem because he makes money off of the misinformation he platforms and infects the public with.
“We should believe what the government tells us even if they are known to intentionally lie to us because those lies are for our own good.” You sound like a propagandist’s wet dream.
Unfortunately, despite my help, you are unable to understand that “the end justifies the means” doesn’t apply here because the end of lying to people is that they distrust you any more. You can’t lie to people about masks and then expect them to trust you about vaccines. Not everyone thinks liars are as praiseworthy as you do.
Edit: also can’t wait til Kamala wins this election so people come up with a better response than “But Trump…!”
|
On October 15 2024 12:35 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2024 12:16 Magic Powers wrote:On October 15 2024 11:50 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 15 2024 11:20 Magic Powers wrote:
Naming a scientist who arguably made a small but significant number of mistakes such as Fauci and claiming he poses as much of a threat as Joe Rogan is comical. Fauci has made mistakes regarding the pandemic, while Rogan has actively and repeatedly pushed very dangerous lies and misinformation for several years. This is just not a fitting comparison. I truly do not understand this take. Who has more potential to cause harm : An authority in a field providing medical advice to an entire nation from a national platform, or a former comic with a podcast? If what BJ claims is accurate, it's OBVIOUSLY more harmful in a general sense than any "whoa, bro" Joe Rogan could do, both to the health of people encouraged not to mask, and the general sense of faith people have in science. To be clear, I understand in that situation where the fear of the medical systems collapsing justifies prioritizing masks for medical staff, but that doesn't make BJ wrong for pointing to it as an example. At the end of the day, I'm less interested in who we should blame for sharing wrongthink and more interested in why people embrace wrongthink and what, if anything, should be done about it. Can you name the obviously more harmful things Fauci has done if it's in fact so obvious? Huh? Read what I wrote. If what BJ claims is accurate, a scientist lying to the general public for professional reasons is dangerous, harmful, and uneithical. You're asking me to source these multiple things Fauci has done when I never mentioned multiple. I only referenced one, with the condition of its truthfulness.
If we want to make this “multiple things” I can keep going. How about the time Fauci admitted to making up numbers on false pretenses because he thought it would persuade more people to get vaccinated.
When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, “I can nudge this up a bit,” so I went to 80, 85.
Because nothing says “trust the science” like a dude saying “I can nudge this up a bit” before pulling a new number out of his ass.
My favorite part of that quote is there’s zero reason for him to make a confession that he’s making up numbers to manipulate the public. So why did he do it? Ego? He just wants everyone to know how he was cleverly pulling the strings?
Lemme know if you want me to keep going
|
Birx admitted similar things to Congress, that 2 weeks to stop the spread was a BS precursor for longer lockdowns they already knew they wanted, and that messaging that the vaccines prevented the spread of corona was hopefulness rather than rooted in fact. The FDA got in trouble ("FDA is not a physician") for going on social media going "You are not a horse" without realizing they approved ivermectin for human use. These are not smart or honest people. Network news itself spams disinformation about UFOs being real. They said Hunter's laptop was fake and Russian. They said Drumpf called Nazis good people and that he doctored a video of Jim Acosta karate chopping an intern directly contravening the reality we can all see, these are brazen and shameless liars and gaslighters. It takes no evidence to randomly heckle Rogan "actively and repeatedly pushed very dangerous lies and misinformation for several years." I don't find a successful internet show having the equivalent of the ancient aliens guy or an obvious Area 51 fraud on to be particularly harmful.
If someone already knows the truth value of everything, they should run for God. The rest of us want more flow of information not more control of it.
|
Ivermectin was and is not effective against Covid.
Should it have been called Horse paste? Maybe not, would have stopped the biggest dumdums from getting the actual horse paste and using it. It's a bit of a Chicken/Egg problem.
Joe Rogan was one of the most famous and biggest proponents of it. He did tons of harm.
Trump said plenty of shit like "good people on both sides" and so on. Singing the mantra that there was a bit more context to this, that makes it a tiny bit less bad, doesn't absolve him. He also told the proud boys to "stand back and stand by" and has used plenty of actual 1 to 1 (well, translated) nazi rethoric.
But well, he also tried to coup the goverment and "assholes and morons united" decided to not care.
|
|
|
On October 15 2024 13:36 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2024 12:37 Magic Powers wrote:On October 15 2024 12:35 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 15 2024 12:16 Magic Powers wrote:On October 15 2024 11:50 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 15 2024 11:20 Magic Powers wrote:
Naming a scientist who arguably made a small but significant number of mistakes such as Fauci and claiming he poses as much of a threat as Joe Rogan is comical. Fauci has made mistakes regarding the pandemic, while Rogan has actively and repeatedly pushed very dangerous lies and misinformation for several years. This is just not a fitting comparison. I truly do not understand this take. Who has more potential to cause harm : An authority in a field providing medical advice to an entire nation from a national platform, or a former comic with a podcast? If what BJ claims is accurate, it's OBVIOUSLY more harmful in a general sense than any "whoa, bro" Joe Rogan could do, both to the health of people encouraged not to mask, and the general sense of faith people have in science. To be clear, I understand in that situation where the fear of the medical systems collapsing justifies prioritizing masks for medical staff, but that doesn't make BJ wrong for pointing to it as an example. At the end of the day, I'm less interested in who we should blame for sharing wrongthink and more interested in why people embrace wrongthink and what, if anything, should be done about it. Can you name the obviously more harmful things Fauci has done if it's in fact so obvious? Huh? Read what I wrote. If what BJ claims is accurate, a scientist lying to the general public for professional reasons is dangerous, harmful, and uneithical. You're asking me to source these multiple things Fauci has done when I never mentioned multiple. I only referenced one, with the condition of its truthfulness. I'll ask again: what exactly did Fauci do? I'm not denying that he did something that he shouldn't have done, I'm asking you to provide the actual example. Not just "he lied". Provide the actual example so we can determine how harmful it was. Btw it's unusually late for me, so I'll go to bed and respond after I get up. You're better off asking yourself that. Show nested quote +On October 15 2024 11:20 Magic Powers wrote:
Naming a scientist who arguably made a small but significant number of mistakes such as Fauci and claiming he poses as much of a threat as Joe Rogan is comical. Fauci has made mistakes regarding the pandemic, ... I haven't cited any claim outside "If what BJ said is true", so I don't know what 'the actual example' is referring to. Are you asking BJ to cite his claim directly through me, or asking me to cite BJ's claim? If so, I don't care to. Discussing Fauci specifically isn't important to me. A scientist acting in a professional capacity on a large platform knowingly lying to the general public has vastly more potential to harm than a former comic acting in a casual capacity hosting 'alternative theories' or whatever you want to call it. That's what I'm trying to say.
Ok so you don't have any examples that prove Fauci's statements were as harmful as Joe Rogan's. I'll rightfully ignore your claim then until you decide to provide an example.
|
Hint: You should respond to bj’s post that he is referring to, magic powers.
You have some pretty bad reading comprehension sometimes when you talk to people you don’t agree with.
|
On October 15 2024 21:21 Elroi wrote:
Hint: You should respond to bj’s post that he is referring to, magic powers.
You have some pretty bad reading comprehension sometimes when you talk to people you don’t agree with.
Why should I respond to BJ? He didn't provide an example of how bad Fauci is.
|
Northern Ireland24953 Posts
On October 15 2024 21:02 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2024 13:36 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 15 2024 12:37 Magic Powers wrote:On October 15 2024 12:35 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 15 2024 12:16 Magic Powers wrote:On October 15 2024 11:50 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 15 2024 11:20 Magic Powers wrote:
Naming a scientist who arguably made a small but significant number of mistakes such as Fauci and claiming he poses as much of a threat as Joe Rogan is comical. Fauci has made mistakes regarding the pandemic, while Rogan has actively and repeatedly pushed very dangerous lies and misinformation for several years. This is just not a fitting comparison. I truly do not understand this take. Who has more potential to cause harm : An authority in a field providing medical advice to an entire nation from a national platform, or a former comic with a podcast? If what BJ claims is accurate, it's OBVIOUSLY more harmful in a general sense than any "whoa, bro" Joe Rogan could do, both to the health of people encouraged not to mask, and the general sense of faith people have in science. To be clear, I understand in that situation where the fear of the medical systems collapsing justifies prioritizing masks for medical staff, but that doesn't make BJ wrong for pointing to it as an example. At the end of the day, I'm less interested in who we should blame for sharing wrongthink and more interested in why people embrace wrongthink and what, if anything, should be done about it. Can you name the obviously more harmful things Fauci has done if it's in fact so obvious? Huh? Read what I wrote. If what BJ claims is accurate, a scientist lying to the general public for professional reasons is dangerous, harmful, and uneithical. You're asking me to source these multiple things Fauci has done when I never mentioned multiple. I only referenced one, with the condition of its truthfulness. I'll ask again: what exactly did Fauci do? I'm not denying that he did something that he shouldn't have done, I'm asking you to provide the actual example. Not just "he lied". Provide the actual example so we can determine how harmful it was. Btw it's unusually late for me, so I'll go to bed and respond after I get up. You're better off asking yourself that. On October 15 2024 11:20 Magic Powers wrote:
Naming a scientist who arguably made a small but significant number of mistakes such as Fauci and claiming he poses as much of a threat as Joe Rogan is comical. Fauci has made mistakes regarding the pandemic, ... I haven't cited any claim outside "If what BJ said is true", so I don't know what 'the actual example' is referring to. Are you asking BJ to cite his claim directly through me, or asking me to cite BJ's claim? If so, I don't care to. Discussing Fauci specifically isn't important to me. A scientist acting in a professional capacity on a large platform knowingly lying to the general public has vastly more potential to harm than a former comic acting in a casual capacity hosting 'alternative theories' or whatever you want to call it. That's what I'm trying to say. Ok so you don't have any examples that prove Fauci's statements were as harmful as Joe Rogan's. I'll rightfully ignore your claim then until you decide to provide an example.
How does one prove that either way?
As Fleet says, perhaps the more interesting discussion is what, if anything one does to rectify the preponderance of mis/disinformation rather than endless tit-for-tat
I do think it somewhat stretches credulity that the biggest podcast in the world doesn’t have some kind of influence on people’s views. Quantifying it on the other hand is quite difficult indeed!
|
On October 15 2024 21:48 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2024 21:02 Magic Powers wrote:On October 15 2024 13:36 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 15 2024 12:37 Magic Powers wrote:On October 15 2024 12:35 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 15 2024 12:16 Magic Powers wrote:On October 15 2024 11:50 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 15 2024 11:20 Magic Powers wrote:
Naming a scientist who arguably made a small but significant number of mistakes such as Fauci and claiming he poses as much of a threat as Joe Rogan is comical. Fauci has made mistakes regarding the pandemic, while Rogan has actively and repeatedly pushed very dangerous lies and misinformation for several years. This is just not a fitting comparison. I truly do not understand this take. Who has more potential to cause harm : An authority in a field providing medical advice to an entire nation from a national platform, or a former comic with a podcast? If what BJ claims is accurate, it's OBVIOUSLY more harmful in a general sense than any "whoa, bro" Joe Rogan could do, both to the health of people encouraged not to mask, and the general sense of faith people have in science. To be clear, I understand in that situation where the fear of the medical systems collapsing justifies prioritizing masks for medical staff, but that doesn't make BJ wrong for pointing to it as an example. At the end of the day, I'm less interested in who we should blame for sharing wrongthink and more interested in why people embrace wrongthink and what, if anything, should be done about it. Can you name the obviously more harmful things Fauci has done if it's in fact so obvious? Huh? Read what I wrote. If what BJ claims is accurate, a scientist lying to the general public for professional reasons is dangerous, harmful, and uneithical. You're asking me to source these multiple things Fauci has done when I never mentioned multiple. I only referenced one, with the condition of its truthfulness. I'll ask again: what exactly did Fauci do? I'm not denying that he did something that he shouldn't have done, I'm asking you to provide the actual example. Not just "he lied". Provide the actual example so we can determine how harmful it was. Btw it's unusually late for me, so I'll go to bed and respond after I get up. You're better off asking yourself that. On October 15 2024 11:20 Magic Powers wrote:
Naming a scientist who arguably made a small but significant number of mistakes such as Fauci and claiming he poses as much of a threat as Joe Rogan is comical. Fauci has made mistakes regarding the pandemic, ... I haven't cited any claim outside "If what BJ said is true", so I don't know what 'the actual example' is referring to. Are you asking BJ to cite his claim directly through me, or asking me to cite BJ's claim? If so, I don't care to. Discussing Fauci specifically isn't important to me. A scientist acting in a professional capacity on a large platform knowingly lying to the general public has vastly more potential to harm than a former comic acting in a casual capacity hosting 'alternative theories' or whatever you want to call it. That's what I'm trying to say. Ok so you don't have any examples that prove Fauci's statements were as harmful as Joe Rogan's. I'll rightfully ignore your claim then until you decide to provide an example. How does one prove that either way? As Fleet says, perhaps the more interesting discussion is what, if anything one does to rectify the preponderance of mis/disinformation rather than endless tit-for-tat I do think it somewhat stretches credulity that the biggest podcast in the world doesn’t have some kind of influence on people’s views. Quantifying it on the other hand is quite difficult indeed!
I'm simply objecting to the equating of the harm done by Fauci's false promises to Rogan's consistent and dangerous misinformation. The former is not ideal, the latter is actively harmful. It can be reasonably argued that Rogan's anti-vaxx podcast may've cost some people their lives. At least one of his episodes was deleted from Youtube for spreading dangerous misinformation about vaccines. Fauci's mishaps are simply not on the same level, not even remotely close. Equating the two is beyond all reason.
|
I wanted to post this in a separate comment to keep the discussion relatively clean.
1)
- Rogan apologized for spreading covid misinformation and promised to change.
- 270 health experts complained to Spotify about Rogan that he's spreading dangerous misinformation.
- Rogan said prior "misinformation" is now considered "fact".
- Rogan recommended to healthy young people that they should not get vaccinated.
- Rogan platformed the well known fraud and fearmongerer Dr. Robert Malone who argued there was an "explosion of vaccine-associated deaths" and hospitals were incentivized to mislabel covid as the cause of death. Malone also spread a conspiracy theory about leaders using people's covid anxiety to "hypnotize the public". Rogan called Malone an expert on this topic.
- Rogan claimed the mRNA vaccines are gene therapy.
- Rogan promoted the use of ivermectin to treat covid.
PS: Neil Young asked Spotify to remove his music in protest of Rogan's anti-vaccine misinformation.
2)
- Rogan said he believes it's better to get the virus. He argued people should get vaccinated first and then deliberately infect themselves with covid to achieve robust immunity.
- Rogan platformed the fraud Dr Peter McCullough who argued on the podcast that health officials withheld covid treatments to spread fear and push for vaccination. He spoke of several millions of unnecessary hospitalizations caused by this alleged conspiracy.
- Rogan pushed a conspiracy theory that Biden didn't get vaccinated live on TV.
- Rogan said he was treated with a "vitamin drip" and ivermectin after getting infected by covid.
- Rogan compared vaccine passports to a dictatorship.
3)
- The fraud Dr McCullough also claimed on the podcast that people can't get covid twice. This contrasts a study that showed unvaccinated people were twice as likely to be reinfected as those who were vaccinated.
1) https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2022/joe-rogan-apologizes-for-vaccine-misinformation-and-promises-to-do-better/
2) https://www.indy100.com/celebrities/joe-rogan-covid-vaccine-comments
3) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-17/fact-check-joe-rogan-experience-covid-19/100835684
|
On October 15 2024 17:16 Velr wrote:
Ivermectin was and is not effective against Covid.
Should it have been called Horse paste? Maybe not, would have stopped the biggest dumdums from getting the actual horse paste and using it. It's a bit of a Chicken/Egg problem.
Joe Rogan was one of the most famous and biggest proponents of it. He did tons of harm.
You have a scientific study demonstrating that? Rogan got corona once and said he got an ivermectin prescription. What's the misinformation? What's the years of it? Being generous there was maybe a year after the vaccines were out that corona could be said to have been dangerous.
On October 15 2024 17:16 Velr wrote:
Trump said plenty of shit like "good people on both sides" and so on. Singing the mantra that there was a bit more context to this, that makes it a tiny bit less bad, doesn't absolve him.
A bit more context? This is fucking embarrassing to be doing in 2024.
They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.
Yeah other than the context that means the exact opposite of what you wish he said, it's pretty bad. You wouldn't want to absolve him of saying neo-Nazis should be condemned, would you? Something that contradicts reality, is demonstrably wrong, or a bald-faced lie, doesn't get more credible just by believing it for a long time. There is no truth by repetition.
On October 15 2024 17:16 Velr wrote:
But well, he also tried to coup the goverment and "assholes and morons united" decided to not care.
Easiest vote in history. The person everyone is trying to kill, says there are good people on both sides rather than everyone else is Nazis and assholes and morons united, the person Iran wants to kill, who Russia endorsed the opponent of, who every political shit stain from Dick Cheney to the corpse of Jimmy Carter endorsed the opponent of.
|
On October 15 2024 22:30 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2024 17:16 Velr wrote:
Ivermectin was and is not effective against Covid.
Should it have been called Horse paste? Maybe not, would have stopped the biggest dumdums from getting the actual horse paste and using it. It's a bit of a Chicken/Egg problem.
Joe Rogan was one of the most famous and biggest proponents of it. He did tons of harm. You have a scientific study demonstrating that? Rogan got corona once and said he got an ivermectin prescription. What's the misinformation? What's the years of it? Being generous there was maybe a year after the vaccines were out that corona could be said to have been dangerous. Show nested quote +On October 15 2024 17:16 Velr wrote:
Trump said plenty of shit like "good people on both sides" and so on. Singing the mantra that there was a bit more context to this, that makes it a tiny bit less bad, doesn't absolve him. A bit more context? This is fucking embarrassing to be doing in 2024. Show nested quote +They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Yeah other than the context that means the exact opposite of what you wish he said, it's pretty bad. You wouldn't want to absolve him of saying neo-Nazis should be condemned, would you? Something that contradicts reality, is demonstrably wrong, or a bald-faced lie, doesn't get more credible just by believing it for a long time. There is no truth by repetition. Show nested quote +On October 15 2024 17:16 Velr wrote:
But well, he also tried to coup the goverment and "assholes and morons united" decided to not care. Easiest vote in history. The person everyone is trying to kill, says there are good people on both sides rather than everyone else is Nazis and assholes and morons united, the person Iran wants to kill, who Russia endorsed the opponent of, who every political shit stain from Dick Cheney to the corpse of Jimmy Carter endorsed the opponent of.
This is perhaps the most easily exploitable justification for supporting Trump I've ever seen.
|
Then what's the "other side"? The two sides in Charlottesville were the white supremacists, and the people they killed. What does "both sides" mean if you strip the neo-nazis from the equation? The people who got killed and the people who watched people die? What kind of both-sides-ism is that? That doesn't mean anything. He was covering his ass.
It was Trump talking out of both sides of his mouth, like he always does, and you're still defending it in 2024. Which, yeah, is embarrassing. Vote for him if you must, but at least own that you're making the choice to vote for him, and don't pretend other people are making you vote for him.
|
On October 15 2024 22:46 NewSunshine wrote:
Then what's the "other side"? The two sides in Charlottesville were the white supremacists, and the people they killed. What does "both sides" mean if you strip the neo-nazis from the equation? The people who got killed and the people who watched people die? What kind of both-sides-ism is that? That doesn't mean anything. He was covering his ass.
So when you read the sentence "But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists." you took that to mean "But you had no people in that group other than white supremacists." You don't think there were any crystal ball people in that crowd saying yeah let's not go around destroying monuments because it'll be Jefferson and Lincoln next, which is a slippery slope that was borne out in the following years.
On October 15 2024 22:43 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2024 22:30 oBlade wrote:On October 15 2024 17:16 Velr wrote:
Ivermectin was and is not effective against Covid.
Should it have been called Horse paste? Maybe not, would have stopped the biggest dumdums from getting the actual horse paste and using it. It's a bit of a Chicken/Egg problem.
Joe Rogan was one of the most famous and biggest proponents of it. He did tons of harm. You have a scientific study demonstrating that? Rogan got corona once and said he got an ivermectin prescription. What's the misinformation? What's the years of it? Being generous there was maybe a year after the vaccines were out that corona could be said to have been dangerous. On October 15 2024 17:16 Velr wrote:
Trump said plenty of shit like "good people on both sides" and so on. Singing the mantra that there was a bit more context to this, that makes it a tiny bit less bad, doesn't absolve him. A bit more context? This is fucking embarrassing to be doing in 2024. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Yeah other than the context that means the exact opposite of what you wish he said, it's pretty bad. You wouldn't want to absolve him of saying neo-Nazis should be condemned, would you? Something that contradicts reality, is demonstrably wrong, or a bald-faced lie, doesn't get more credible just by believing it for a long time. There is no truth by repetition. On October 15 2024 17:16 Velr wrote:
But well, he also tried to coup the goverment and "assholes and morons united" decided to not care. Easiest vote in history. The person everyone is trying to kill, says there are good people on both sides rather than everyone else is Nazis and assholes and morons united, the person Iran wants to kill, who Russia endorsed the opponent of, who every political shit stain from Dick Cheney to the corpse of Jimmy Carter endorsed the opponent of. This is perhaps the most easily exploitable justification for supporting Trump I've ever seen.
Yeah this is definitely a spot to balance our range and level ourselves at least half the time. Vote for the guy Putin and Cheney endorsed because that's the last thing they'd expect.
|
On October 15 2024 22:30 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2024 17:16 Velr wrote:
Ivermectin was and is not effective against Covid.
Should it have been called Horse paste? Maybe not, would have stopped the biggest dumdums from getting the actual horse paste and using it. It's a bit of a Chicken/Egg problem.
Joe Rogan was one of the most famous and biggest proponents of it. He did tons of harm. You have a scientific study demonstrating that?
Yes. There are plenty of scientific studies and medical articles refuting the assertion that ivermectin is an effective treatment against covid. There are also plenty of refutations for hydroxychloroquine too, for what it's worth.
Ivermectin:
Ivermectin shown ineffective in treating COVID-19, according to multi-site study including KU Medical Center
Results of the study of the antiparasitic medication, once a much-discussed potential treatment for COVID-19, were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Researchers at the University of Kansas Medical Center were part of a multi-site collaboration that found that ivermectin has no measurable effect in improving COVID-19 outcomes. In an article recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the researchers concluded that taking 400 mcg/kg ivermectin for three days, when compared with a placebo, did not significantly improve the chances for a patient with mild to moderate symptoms of COVID-19 to avoid hospitalization. The use of ivermectin also showed no measurable decrease in the severity of COVID-19 symptoms or the length of time these patients experienced COVID-19 symptoms. “The most important takeaway from the study is that ivermectin does not help improve outcomes from COVID-19 infection and thus should not be used as a treatment for COVID-19,” said Tiffany Schwasinger-Schmidt, M.D., Ph.D., associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita, director of the Center for Clinical Research and site director of the study for the KU Medical Center location in Wichita. https://www.kumc.edu/about/news/news-archive/jama-ivermectin-study.html
Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19. Results: There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events. Conclusions: Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869
At a Higher Dose and Longer Duration, Ivermectin Still Not Effective Against COVID-19. A Cochrane meta-analysis of 11 eligible trials examining the efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 published through April 2022 concluded that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19.1 Since May 2022, an additional 3 large randomized clinical trials including several thousand participants have been published, each reaching a similar conclusion.2-4 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801828
Hydroxychloroquine:
Hydroxychloroquine versus placebo in the treatment of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (COPE – Coalition V): A double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. Findings: From May 12, 2020 to July 07, 2021, 1372 patients were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine or placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of hospitalisation between hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (44/689 [6·4%] and 57/683 [8·3%], RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·52–1·12], respectively, p=0·16), and similar results were found in the mITT analysis with 43/478 [9·0%] and 55/471 [11·7%] events, RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·53–1·12)], respectively, p=0·17. To further complement our data, we conducted a meta-analysis which suggested no significant benefit of hydroxychloroquine in reducing hospitalisation among patients with positive testing (69/1222 [5·6%], and 88/1186 [7·4%]; RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·57–1·04]). https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(22)00060-6/fulltext
Hydroxychloroquine doesn’t benefit hospitalized COVID-19 patients. In a final analysis of study data, researchers concluded that the medication hydroxychloroquine provides no benefit to adults hospitalized with COVID-19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/12053/
Hydroxychloroquine is not recommended as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Also, hydroxychloroquine doesn't prevent infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/hydroxychloroquine-treatment-covid-19/art-20555331
Rogan's, Trump's, and anyone else's public push for ivermectin and/or hydroxychloroquine (and/or anyone's anti-vaccine rhetoric) were extremely dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
