EPTCoronavirus and You - Page 680
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control. It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you. Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly. This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here. Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Sadist
United States7205 Posts
On January 31 2023 03:35 JimmiC wrote: The people who believe this kind of stuff will disagree, but this is why people who put themselves out as journalists or news need to be regulated and have some accountability that what they are saying is fair and honest. Most professions have this, and most countries (the US used too) have these rules for traditional media. There is lots of proof that reading, watching and consuming all this nonsense changes people minds, even those that think they themselves are reasonable. It is not reasonable to trust anything that comes from PV. They are purposefully and obviously manipulating the truth and as you point out they do it over and over and over again. It would be more reasonable to believe the opposite of their message than their message and at the very least completely discount it. If this is something you stumble upon, through your news feed, or people you watch and listen too are talking about this in anyway other than that it a horrible source famous for misrepresentation, you need to change your news feed and who and what you listen too. Or you will be influenced and not by facts or truth. Ya i mean its like fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me. Project Veritas has less than 0 credibility. Id argue Alex Jones has more credibility than them because at least his presentation was a schtick and easily recognized. The doctored videos/audio is forever damning. Even on the odd chance they proved to be honest about something in the future it would take an indefinate amount of true articles to even consider them trustworthy. News/journalists occasionally get things wrong but no reputable news source does what Project Veritas does. | ||
|
bITt.mAN
Switzerland3691 Posts
On January 30 2023 06:51 Simberto wrote: Project Veritas has very clearly shown that nothing they produce is worth interacting with. Thus, you shouldn't. Also, i want to note that you are very close to falling into a massive conspiracy theory rabbit hole with the way you deal with information. "I cannot find anything, thus it must be surpressed and thus legitimate" is one of the worst lines of reasoning you can possibly apply. Do you actually believe there is no censorship, no conflict of interest, no political favoritism, no suppression going on? I find that very hard to believe because it is strongly disproved by the world we live in: the US Government (using its agencies to lean on big tech companies e.g. FBI priming Twitter with false information, as revealed by The Twitter Files) systematically suppressed true-but-inconvenient information about Covid (and other legitimate things Hunter Biden's Laptop). People live in their own filter bubbles that systematically exclude plenty of narratives and facts from their view. The information gatekeepers primarily work by attacking the credibility of competing narratives & data sources. If none of my people see or say that thing, it isn't a respectable concept, so I can successfully ignore it. A great example of this was the treatment of the Lab Leak theory. It was initially dog-piled, shamed, and suppressed as being 'debunked'. But now it's taken seriously by those same outlets and tech companies' censorship boards that tried to delegitimize it. We know that things are getting suppressed, systematically, skewed in favor of persevering the optics of those in power. That isn't arguing from ignorance - its arguing from evidence. The harder challenge is knowing which things are being deceptively suppressed. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17919 Posts
On January 31 2023 17:30 bITt.mAN wrote: Do you actually believe there is no censorship, no conflict of interest, no political favoritism, no suppression going on? I find that very hard to believe because it is strongly disproved by the world we live in: the US Government (using its agencies to lean on big tech companies e.g. FBI priming Twitter with false information, as revealed by The Twitter Files) systematically suppressed true-but-inconvenient information about Covid (and other legitimate things Hunter Biden's Laptop). People live in their own filter bubbles that systematically exclude plenty of narratives and facts from their view. The information gatekeepers primarily work by attacking the credibility of competing narratives & data sources. If none of my people see or say that thing, it isn't a respectable concept, so I can successfully ignore it. A great example of this was the treatment of the Lab Leak theory. It was initially dog-piled, shamed, and suppressed as being 'debunked'. But now it's taken seriously by those same outlets and tech companies' censorship boards that tried to delegitimize it. We know that things are getting suppressed, systematically, skewed in favor of persevering the optics of those in power. That isn't arguing from ignorance - its arguing from evidence. The harder challenge is knowing which things are being deceptively suppressed. The only thing you missed in that rant is something about democrats eating babies in a pizza joint. Other than that, keep listening to Alex Jones, it's clearly got you thinking straight! | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10340 Posts
On January 31 2023 18:10 Acrofales wrote: The only thing you missed in that rant is something about democrats eating babies in a pizza joint. Other than that, keep listening to Alex Jones, it's clearly got you thinking straight! What exactly do you dispute? Do you think the lab leak theory wasn't dogpiled on in the beginning? That the Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't suppressed by the social media companies? That the Biden White House hasn't leaned on the social media companies to delete things it deems as misinformation/disinformation? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44051 Posts
On January 31 2023 18:43 BlackJack wrote: What exactly do you dispute? Do you think the lab leak theory wasn't dogpiled on in the beginning? That the Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't suppressed by the social media companies? That the Biden White House hasn't leaned on the social media companies to delete things it deems as misinformation/disinformation? Doesn't seem like the right thread for a lot of this stuff, tbh. There have been plenty of conversations about Hunter Biden and social media in the US Politics thread. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10340 Posts
On January 31 2023 18:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Holy yikes. Probably not the best way to join the thread, bITt.mAN, lol. Excluding narratives is not the same thing as excluding fact-based narratives; not believing something until evidence is presented is a good idea, not a bad idea. We need to have some standards. Remember the time you shared the story that the epidemic of horse-paste eaters was so bad that gunshot victims had to wait outside the ER? This happened a while ago but I think that was disproven by as something as silly as the hospital releasing a statement saying "yeah that guy hasn't worked here in a while." Or what about the time the NYT reported that ivermectin overdoses represented 70% of all the calls to poison control only to correct themselves later with the real number which was 2%. Interesting how that "not believing something until evidence is presented" and having standards only applies to certain narratives. Yet for other narratives they are tripping over themselves to publish before doing the least bit of fact checking. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44051 Posts
On January 31 2023 18:53 BlackJack wrote: Remember the time you shared the story that the epidemic of horse-paste eaters was so bad that gunshot victims had to wait outside the ER? This happened a while ago but I think that was disproven by as something as silly as the hospital releasing a statement saying "yeah that guy hasn't worked here in a while." Or what about the time the NYT reported that ivermectin overdoses represented 70% of all the calls to poison control only to correct themselves later with the real number which was 2%. Interesting how that "not believing something until evidence is presented" and having standards only applies to certain narratives. Yet for other narratives they are tripping over themselves to publish before doing the least bit of fact checking. Remember that time you created a false equivalence between the New York Times and Project Veritas? I don't claim that any particular news source is infallible, but... dude. Come on. You even admitted that the NYT corrected themselves if they made the mistake you're claiming they made, and I'm sure other real news sources did too. Stop trying to bring everything down to the level of "News Source X isn't perfect so therefore we should automatically trust PV". | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10340 Posts
On January 31 2023 18:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Remember that time you created a false equivalence between the New York Times and Project Veritas? I don't claim that any particular news source is infallible, but... dude. Come on. You even admitted that the NYT corrected themselves if they made the mistake you're claiming they made, and I'm sure other real news sources did too. Stop trying to bring everything down to the level of "News Source X isn't perfect so therefore we should automatically trust PV". In what way does my post equate the NYT to Project Veritas? My post doesn't have anything to do with Project Veritas. The conversation has shifted to the MSM and whether they suppress certain narratives or provide equal scruity to certain narratives. I'm refuting your implication that the narratives they don't report on are because they have standards and require evidence by showing that they were keen to report on completely unfounded bullshit when it was the popular narrative. At best you could say I'm making an equivalency to Project Veritas and the random doctor that said gunshot victims were waiting for a bed in the ER, or the level of credulity the MSM had for each of those two. But again, my post didn't have anything to do with PV. | ||
|
justanothertownie
16316 Posts
On January 31 2023 19:42 BlackJack wrote: In what way does my post equate the NYT to Project Veritas? My post doesn't have anything to do with Project Veritas. The conversation has shifted to the MSM and whether they suppress certain narratives or provide equal scruity to certain narratives. I'm refuting your implication that the narratives they don't report on are because they have standards and require evidence by showing that they were keen to report on completely unfounded bullshit when it was the popular narrative. At best you could say I'm making an equivalency to Project Veritas and the random doctor that said gunshot victims were waiting for a bed in the ER, or the level of credulity the MSM had for each of those two. But again, my post didn't have anything to do with PV. The only reason this discussion changed is because you chose to ignore all the backlash you got to your project Veritas story and this other dude came in to casually redirect to the usual conspiracy/censorship topics because staying on topic was not a good look for right wing people. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44051 Posts
On January 31 2023 19:42 BlackJack wrote: In what way does my post equate the NYT to Project Veritas? My post doesn't have anything to do with Project Veritas. Just stop. This whole conversation stemmed from you posting an unverified Project Veritas video. That's why everyone criticized you. For you to say "what about the time the NYT reported [and then admitted it made a mistake]" is a ridiculous comparison to make. Why do you think no one (even you) bothered to respond to the post right before yours, which was a post I made including an article from politico, the CDC, and an actual medical study showing that the new booster is showing some pretty promising results in the current dominant covid strain? Do you (and, I guess, bITt.mAN) seriously think it's because of suppression and government conspiracies? Or maybe because it's actually well-researched and corroborated by other news sources and experts? It just seems like you're trying to gin up controversy for the heck of it. I have no idea why you thought that promoting Project Veritas was going to be your positive redemption arc after your whole state-mandate implosion, but you're quickly becoming the Project Veritas of this thread, and you could be so much better. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10340 Posts
On January 31 2023 19:59 justanothertownie wrote: The only reason this discussion changed is because you chose to ignore all the backlash you got to your project Veritas story and this other dude came in to casually redirect to the usual conspiracy/censorship topics because staying on topic was not a good look for right wing people. No... the conversation fizzled because we all agreed that "fact checking takes some time" and there was nothing left to say until there's a new development On January 30 2023 23:46 evilfatsh1t wrote: yeah you have to give people more than 5 days to fact check/investigate and come up with their own story at least, no matter how much traction the op is getting. On January 30 2023 21:39 Acrofales wrote: While I'm appalled Tucker Carlson got 25m people clicking on O'Keefe's garbage, I have to agree that refuting something that amount of people are looking at is probably for the best. Luckily, Pfizer put out that presser doing exactly that refutation. As Jimmy pointed out, that Forbes piece is also a lot better than you give it credit for. Not being able to find *anything* on the internet about someone in what sounds like a rather senior position at a multinational pharmaceutical company is weird. I tried googling myself and I find my LinkedIn profile instantly. I also found those of a bunch of friends who work in different industries. I then Googled some research positions at Pfizer and found LinkedIn profiles for a bunch of people. The Forbes article nails it that someone with a high-profile job like the Project Veritas one mentions should not have the same internet footprint as my 80-year-old mother (none whatsoever). Either way, fact checking takes some time. Newsweek got around to posting their take on it today: they couldn't find any corroborating evidence... and obviously PV isn't going to share the unedited video, so we're stuck with their suggestive editing as well as their word that this "director of research" is actually a real person with a real job at Pfizer. https://www.newsweek.com/project-veritas-covid-mutations-pfizer-fact-check-1776845 On January 30 2023 08:58 JimmiC wrote: Creepy how many people are watching this crap given how everything else has been debunked and that it "makes people think". That is a massive problem you would think being consistenly wrogn and self serving would matter. How much does fact checking even help if known liars and manipulators get a clean slate with each new production. When you were considering options did you considee that legitimate journalism and fact checking takes time and that if they do not get ot 100% that will "prove" to people "they" are hiding something. Edit: the forbes article is much better than you gave it credit for, noy shockingly the quotes you chose to pick paint the narrative you want and do acurately represent the source matetial. It also does not shock me that tucker is promoting it, which helps to why it has so many views. Interstingly you and tucker have the exact same view on the "media blackout". https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2023/01/28/no-project-veritas-video-doesnt-prove-pfizer-is-mutating-covid-19-who-is-jordon-trishton-walker/?sh=148e27fc623d If you think I dropped it because I received backlash you must be new to this thread | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10340 Posts
On January 31 2023 20:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Just stop. This whole conversation stemmed from you posting an unverified Project Veritas video. That's why everyone criticized you. For you to say "what about the time the NYT reported [and then admitted it made a mistake]" is a ridiculous comparison to make. Why do you think no one (even you) bothered to respond to the post right before yours, which was a post I made including an article from politico, the CDC, and an actual medical study showing that the new booster is showing some pretty promising results in the current dominant covid strain? Do you (and, I guess, bITt.mAN) seriously think it's because of suppression and government conspiracies? Or maybe because it's actually well-researched and corroborated by other news sources and experts? It just seems like you're trying to gin up controversy for the heck of it. I have no idea why you thought that promoting Project Veritas was going to be your positive redemption arc after your whole state-mandate implosion, but you're quickly becoming the Project Veritas of this thread, and you could be so much better. Your problem is that you want to believe your own ridiculous interpretations of my posts instead of what I'm actually telling you my posts say. It's annoying enough to have people so badly interpret your posts on a daily basis, it's even more annoying when people repeatedly insist their interpretation is correct. "Why is the MSM not covering this video from Project Veritas" "Because the MSM has standards and they only cover things that are verifiable" "Oh yeah? Then why did the NYT report about ivermectin overdoses without verifying it" "So now you're comparing the NYT to Project Veritas." That last sentence is not a logical conclusion. If that's not self-evident to you then I don't know what else to tell you. The fact that "this conversation started about Project Veritas" is also not any kind of evidence that I'm comparing the NYT to Project Veritas either. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44051 Posts
On January 31 2023 20:35 BlackJack wrote: Your problem is that you want to believe your own ridiculous interpretations of my posts instead of what I'm actually telling you my posts say. It's annoying enough to have people so badly interpret your posts on a daily basis, it's even more annoying when people repeatedly insist their interpretation is correct. When several people immediately show skepticism towards your post, maybe it's not everyone else's fault for misinterpreting what you're writing. Maybe you could be writing clearer. Your post started with "Last night I came across a Project Veritas video" and ended with "Makes you think.", with plenty of unverified assertions in between (e.g., "the people tasked with obtaining the credible information aren't bothering to investigate"... maybe they are investigating and just not finding anything newsworthy?), in the same vein as how Trump poses leading questions and then says "Hey, don't get mad, I'm just asking innocent questions / just putting this out there!" Simberto and Acrofales and JimmiC and Sadist and I (if not more people) immediately cautioned you about using Project Veritas without a corroborating source, as it's notorious for fabricating news and perpetuating conspiracies. Maybe we're all misunderstanding your situation, but in that very post you wrote your own conspiracy theory that "There must be something to the story" even though you "couldn't find much of anything from say NYTimes, Washington Post, Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, etc." I felt you made it clear that you believe there's some story, as you thought it was worth posting, but that doesn't mean we have to take your claims or Project Veritas's claims seriously right now. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10340 Posts
I introduced Project Veritas video thread by saying that although PV is "biased" and "sketchy" I don't think they fabricated the contents of the video out of thin air. Then I was surprised that almost none of the reputable media was covering or fact-checking the story at all. Simberto said I thought the PV video/story was "legitimate" and I responded: On January 30 2023 07:06 BlackJack wrote: I didn't say the story was "legitimate." My big complaint, if you re-read the post, is that I can't find any credible information on it from reputable sources. "Not credible" and "Legitimate" are not the same. In fact, they are a lot closer to being opposite. Acrofales asked why anyone should bother refuting the trash Project Veritas puts out and I said because we need credible people in the middle challenge those ideas: On January 30 2023 07:22 BlackJack wrote: What's your idea? Just let everyone retreat to their own corners of the internet and propagate whatever ideas they want without anyone credible in the middle to challenge them? You think that's going to end well? Simberto then told me O'Keefe has run out of credibility and doesn't warrant any fact checking from the reputable media. I responded in part: On January 30 2023 08:35 BlackJack wrote: I also don't know of any difficulty finding MSM articles debunking any of O'Keefe's previous work. That's actually exactly how we know his work is often dubious: from reputable publications refuting what he puts out. Although I accepted their theory that there was a straw that broke the camel's back as plausible. So in brief, I've said Project Veritas is sketchy, biased, often dubious, non reputable and not credible. Never did I said anything about them being trustworthy, reputable, credible or to be taken at face value. My big ask was for a reputable media company to fact check their claims. But as usual it's entirely my fault for people arguing that I think Project Veritas is trustworthy or legitimate. Afterall those words are so similar to sketchy, biased, and dubious. It has nothing to do with everyone seeing "Project Veritas" and then simply seeing Red and going berserk that the enemy tribe is on their territory. /sarcasm | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44051 Posts
On January 31 2023 21:43 BlackJack wrote: Btw this is another great case study on the tribalism mentality of this thread and everyone's inability to see clearly once they are triggered. So let's run back the transcripts: I introduced Project Veritas video thread by saying that although PV is "biased" and "sketchy" I don't think they fabricated the contents of the video out of thin air. Then I was surprised that almost none of the reputable media was covering or fact-checking the story at all. Simberto said I thought the PV video/story was "legitimate" and I responded: Acrofales asked why anyone should bother refuting the trash Project Veritas puts out and I said because we need credible people in the middle challenge those ideas: Simberto then told me O'Keefe has run out of credibility and doesn't warrant any fact checking from the reputable media. I responded in part: Although I accepted their theory that there was a straw that broke the camel's back as plausible. So in brief, I've said Project Veritas is sketchy, biased, often dubious, non reputable and not credible. Never did I said anything about them being trustworthy, reputable, credible or to be taken at face value. My big ask was for a reputable media company to fact check their claims. But as usual it's entirely my fault for people arguing that I think Project Veritas is trustworthy or legitimate. Afterall those words are so similar to sketchy, biased, and dubious. It has nothing to do with everyone seeing "Project Veritas" and then simply seeing Red and going berserk that the enemy tribe is on their territory. /sarcasm Of course it's your fault. You're the one who posted Project Veritas and used it as a springboard to pitch conspiracy theories about how they're on to something when mainstream media is ignoring or hiding the truth. Why the hell would you post the video and your comment if you thought that PV wasn't worth trusting? We saw that you said that you think PV is biased and sketchy, yet it's apparently not biased or sketchy enough for you to wait for corroborating evidence. Take some responsibility for what you post instead of pretending to be a victim. For the rest of us, there's no need to appeal to PV because actual news would be corroborated by actual news sources (and so, even if PV was right about something, we'd still find out from other sources). In your world, you think it's important to appeal to PV because the real news sources are purposely avoiding the truth about conspiracy X. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8614 Posts
his initial discussion point wasnt that he thought the video was credible. without going back to read everything, i dont believe he actually gave his own assessment on whether the video was credible or not. i may be wrong, but thats not what i recall. his discussion point was clearly a question about why mainstream news outlets were not creating any articles or reports to rebuke the contents of the video if the video was as controversial as people claim it to be. this question itself does not provide his own assessment or opinions of the video. theres no reason for any reader to suddenly infer from his post that he is supporting the video, agrees with the video, or is generally in support of the author. among the responses that completely missed the mark, there were a few responses that were direct answers to his intended question. my response was one of them, because i understood the point of his post to begin with. its too early to hold suspicion about why any reputable media outlet had not even acknowledged the video. perhaps if a month or two passes with a continued lack of addressing of the video from reputable media outlets, then blackjacks' first post and the question he poses would be a more relevant discussion point. as it stands, his question was rather silly but his post overall should mean no harm to any unbiased reader. of course the very fact that im making this post now will lead some people to say im taking blackjack's side. the truth is, i read his post like i read everyone's, with as little bias as i could possibly have. whether or not people believe me, i dont really care, but my assessment is that there are too many users here that wear massively tinted glasses whenever blackjack posts something. its so fucking tiring reading the same back and forth shit flinging any time any regular user posts here because the guys on the "other side" cant read a post without some seriously prejudiced lens. somehow, no matter what the initial discussion point is, the conversation degenerates into some bullshit about right wing conspiracy nutjobs. you all need to take a hard look in the mirror cause the quality of discussion here is shameful | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44051 Posts
On January 31 2023 22:02 evilfatsh1t wrote: its actually laughable how blind everyone gets the moment they see a post from blackjack. seeing the words "blackjack" just automatically triggers some impulse to interpret everything he says in the worst light possible in order to create some justification to shit on him. If you'd take the time to read the immediate responses to BlackJack's post, you'd see that we criticized Project Veritas and BJ's decision to promote unverified conspiracy theories, not just some ad hominem argument about BJ being BJ. If you want to assert that he's being treated unfairly, you'd need to wait for other people to post Project Veritas videos, to see if they're not being equally scrutinized. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8614 Posts
On January 31 2023 22:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: If you'd take the time to read the immediate responses to BlackJack's post, you'd see that we criticized Project Veritas and BJ's decision to promote unverified conspiracy theories, not just some ad hominem argument about BJ being BJ. If you want to assert that he's being treated unfairly, you'd need to wait for other people to post Project Veritas videos, to see if they're not being equally scrutinized. i dont understand how from his very first post, anyone could reasonably conclude that he is promoting "unverified conspiracy theories". questioning why content of a certain political colour is not held to the same degree of scrutiny or accountability does not automatically mean he is in agreement with the content. maybe if another user made the exact same post everyone would have reacted the same way. in that case then yeah, i guess it isnt blackjack's user name that triggers everyone. however, it would still be evidence of the fact that a large number of people in this thread are incapable of reading shit without massive bias tinted glasses. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44051 Posts
On January 31 2023 22:15 evilfatsh1t wrote: i dont understand how from his very first post, anyone could reasonably conclude that he is promoting "unverified conspiracy theories". questioning why content of a certain political colour is not held to the same degree of scrutiny or accountability does not automatically mean he is in agreement with the content. maybe if another user made the exact same post everyone would have reacted the same way. in that case then yeah, i guess it isnt blackjack's user name that triggers everyone. however, it would still be evidence of the fact that a large number of people in this thread are incapable of reading shit without massive bias tinted glasses. I can't speak for anyone else, but I attempted to justify my conclusion here: https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=680#13594 And I cited his exact words. | ||
| ||
