|
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. |
|
|
On February 01 2023 00:03 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 00:00 evilfatsh1t wrote:On January 31 2023 23:48 JimmiC wrote:On January 31 2023 22:24 BlackJack wrote:The funniest thing about this is I didn't even bother to the Project Veritas video. I saw maybe like 10% of it at most while skimming through it. + Show Spoiler +On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote:
Last night I came across a Project Veritas video where they purportedly interview someone working in Pfizer R&D that's talking about mutating the virus to work on vaccines or something like that, I was kind of skimming through the video. You know because "or something like that" is a phrase we all use when we really think there's a lot of substance there /sarcasm. So yes evilfatsh1t you are right that I haven't offered my own opinion on the credibility of the contents of the video because I haven't even watched the video. My thoughts are as I described in the OP: I don't think Project Veritas fabricated some Pfizer guy out of a thin air and used a crisis actor. I think whoever was in the video was or is employed by pfizer at some point. The statement that pfizer put out in response to the video didn't even deny that the guy in the video was an employee which you would think would be an obvious thing to do if it was some stooge. The point of the post is to ask why so few in the MSM want to touch this story with even a ten foot pole, despite the fact that it could drive hella clicks to their for-profit businesses. @DPB, I have no problem taking responsibility for this hot take. I don't have to take responsibility for whatever interpretation of my posts you want to invent, and it's not "playing victim" to object to doing so. On January 31 2023 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Why the hell would you post the video and your comment if you thought that PV wasn't worth trusting? I never even posted the video That is not funny it is a concerning pattern. You clearly often just read the titles or very little of your sources then you come guns a blazing in here with how right you are over and over. This is not something to brag about. Please read, watch whatever your whole sources. Might stop the goalpost moving if you knew what youl were arguing for from the start. why would he have to watch the video when the point he wants to make basically has nothing to do with the actual contents of the video, rather the reaction to the video by the media when the video has already been deemed (not by blackjack himself) as controversial? seriously, after a whole bunch of posts just addressing what his first post is actually saying this is what you post? jesus christ. The point he supposedly is trying to make, the exact one that Tucker made before his post, is that "the media" is not covering it. Why would the legitimate media cover something highly edited, from a negatively honest source? "The media" does not cover much fiction, even if way to many conservatives believe it. A huge part of Tuckers schtick is to make up things to get outraged at, that it works on these same/similar people also does not make it "a good point".
because thats the medias job? to investigate the truth?
On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote:
There must be something to the story as Pfizer felt the need to release a statement saying they don't do gain-of-function research in response although they didn't directly address the allegations in the video of the guy working for them. Internet web sleuths supposedly found an archived and now deleted LinkedIn-type page for a Jordon Trishton Walker with the title "Director, Worldwide R&D Strategic Operations and mRNA Scientific Planning at Pfizer." James O'Keefe says that the video has received 16 million+ views so it's obviously something that should have the clout now where it should be investigated and the truth should come out.
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.
welcome to the discussion.
|
On February 01 2023 00:03 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 00:00 evilfatsh1t wrote:On January 31 2023 23:48 JimmiC wrote:On January 31 2023 22:24 BlackJack wrote:The funniest thing about this is I didn't even bother to the Project Veritas video. I saw maybe like 10% of it at most while skimming through it. + Show Spoiler +On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote:
Last night I came across a Project Veritas video where they purportedly interview someone working in Pfizer R&D that's talking about mutating the virus to work on vaccines or something like that, I was kind of skimming through the video. You know because "or something like that" is a phrase we all use when we really think there's a lot of substance there /sarcasm. So yes evilfatsh1t you are right that I haven't offered my own opinion on the credibility of the contents of the video because I haven't even watched the video. My thoughts are as I described in the OP: I don't think Project Veritas fabricated some Pfizer guy out of a thin air and used a crisis actor. I think whoever was in the video was or is employed by pfizer at some point. The statement that pfizer put out in response to the video didn't even deny that the guy in the video was an employee which you would think would be an obvious thing to do if it was some stooge. The point of the post is to ask why so few in the MSM want to touch this story with even a ten foot pole, despite the fact that it could drive hella clicks to their for-profit businesses. @DPB, I have no problem taking responsibility for this hot take. I don't have to take responsibility for whatever interpretation of my posts you want to invent, and it's not "playing victim" to object to doing so. On January 31 2023 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Why the hell would you post the video and your comment if you thought that PV wasn't worth trusting? I never even posted the video That is not funny it is a concerning pattern. You clearly often just read the titles or very little of your sources then you come guns a blazing in here with how right you are over and over. This is not something to brag about. Please read, watch whatever your whole sources. Might stop the goalpost moving if you knew what youl were arguing for from the start. why would he have to watch the video when the point he wants to make basically has nothing to do with the actual contents of the video, rather the reaction to the video by the media when the video has already been deemed (not by blackjack himself) as controversial? seriously, after a whole bunch of posts just addressing what his first post is actually saying this is what you post? jesus christ. The point he supposedly is trying to make, the exact one that Tucker made before his post, is that "the media" is not covering it. Why would the legitimate media cover something highly edited, from a negatively honest source? "The media" does not cover much fiction, even if way to many conservatives believe it. A huge part of Tuckers schtick is to make up things to get outraged at, that it works on these same/similar people also does not make it "a good point".
2 months ago:
On November 30 2022 03:31 JimmiC wrote:Another crap "documentary" about the dangers of the vaccine and global elites goal to depopulate the world is making its rounds. Depressingly it is over 1 million views by the time this article came out. It is a blatant money grab for the people obsessed with this being some sort of grand conspiracy. One my biggest personal frustrations about this line of thinking, is how can it be about getting everyone to "comply" but then also be dangerous for those who comply? Wouldn't this shadowy evil group want the non-compliant gone? How would getting rid of all those, or any of those that listen help them? The stupidity of the movement along with the faith like belief that is true in the face of mountains of evidence and logic is very annoying to say the least. https://www.yahoo.com/news/died-suddenly-film-amplifies-false-154403218.html
JimmiC 2 months ago: here’s a crap documentary with 1 million views and an article from yahoo.com refuting it.
JimmiC today: why should the legitimate media cover this highly edited dishonest video with 25 million views.
Btw I’m sure I can find dozen of reputable media companies refuting that died suddenly movie. What makes you think that all these companies don’t want to be in the business of refuting conspiracies anymore?
Spoiler alert: JimmiC didn’t watch that conspiracy video he posted about 2 months ago even though he’s in the middle of trying to lecture me about watching conspiracy videos you bring up lol
|
|
|
If the more reputable news outlets went down the rabbit hole and started reporting on every single conspiracy theory from anti-vaxxers, they'd be plastering their entire website with these exact conspiracy theories 24/7. They'd be doing the conspiracy theorists a service and they'd essentially become conspiracy theory websites themselves.
|
On February 01 2023 00:23 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 00:10 evilfatsh1t wrote:On February 01 2023 00:03 JimmiC wrote:On February 01 2023 00:00 evilfatsh1t wrote:On January 31 2023 23:48 JimmiC wrote:On January 31 2023 22:24 BlackJack wrote:The funniest thing about this is I didn't even bother to the Project Veritas video. I saw maybe like 10% of it at most while skimming through it. + Show Spoiler +On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote:
Last night I came across a Project Veritas video where they purportedly interview someone working in Pfizer R&D that's talking about mutating the virus to work on vaccines or something like that, I was kind of skimming through the video. You know because "or something like that" is a phrase we all use when we really think there's a lot of substance there /sarcasm. So yes evilfatsh1t you are right that I haven't offered my own opinion on the credibility of the contents of the video because I haven't even watched the video. My thoughts are as I described in the OP: I don't think Project Veritas fabricated some Pfizer guy out of a thin air and used a crisis actor. I think whoever was in the video was or is employed by pfizer at some point. The statement that pfizer put out in response to the video didn't even deny that the guy in the video was an employee which you would think would be an obvious thing to do if it was some stooge. The point of the post is to ask why so few in the MSM want to touch this story with even a ten foot pole, despite the fact that it could drive hella clicks to their for-profit businesses. @DPB, I have no problem taking responsibility for this hot take. I don't have to take responsibility for whatever interpretation of my posts you want to invent, and it's not "playing victim" to object to doing so. On January 31 2023 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Why the hell would you post the video and your comment if you thought that PV wasn't worth trusting? I never even posted the video That is not funny it is a concerning pattern. You clearly often just read the titles or very little of your sources then you come guns a blazing in here with how right you are over and over. This is not something to brag about. Please read, watch whatever your whole sources. Might stop the goalpost moving if you knew what youl were arguing for from the start. why would he have to watch the video when the point he wants to make basically has nothing to do with the actual contents of the video, rather the reaction to the video by the media when the video has already been deemed (not by blackjack himself) as controversial? seriously, after a whole bunch of posts just addressing what his first post is actually saying this is what you post? jesus christ. The point he supposedly is trying to make, the exact one that Tucker made before his post, is that "the media" is not covering it. Why would the legitimate media cover something highly edited, from a negatively honest source? "The media" does not cover much fiction, even if way to many conservatives believe it. A huge part of Tuckers schtick is to make up things to get outraged at, that it works on these same/similar people also does not make it "a good point". because thats the medias job? to investigate the truth? On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote:
There must be something to the story as Pfizer felt the need to release a statement saying they don't do gain-of-function research in response although they didn't directly address the allegations in the video of the guy working for them. Internet web sleuths supposedly found an archived and now deleted LinkedIn-type page for a Jordon Trishton Walker with the title "Director, Worldwide R&D Strategic Operations and mRNA Scientific Planning at Pfizer." James O'Keefe says that the video has received 16 million+ views so it's obviously something that should have the clout now where it should be investigated and the truth should come out.
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. welcome to the discussion. They do not troll every video to look for truth, they are not infinite monkeys on infante typewriters. Look if BJ had watched the video his first post would have been different. It would have been the correct reaction, holy shit this is edited garbage no wonder it is getting no media coverage. Or wow "the media" is in on "it". It is not hard to read/watch your own source material. You really think is a bar too high? Are you sure you are not just arguing for its sake? Can I just post links of articles I think are interesting based on the title form opinions, talk down to people with differing ones and then the next day go. Well I didn't even read it so... I mean come on man. I have to deal with getting warned for following TL traditions and real things (shout out to the mods who took the warning away without me asking) and he gets to purposefully start fights on shit he won't even bother to watch himself, be a dick, then just say he didn't watch it and claim victimhood. And this earns him "special consideration". It is bullshit, the special treatment is what keeps this thread in constant fightmode, he starts most of them, which would only be half as bad if he didn't claim victimhood and it did not work, over and over.
even if blackjack did watch the video and came to the conclusion that the video was complete fabricated garbage, his original question would be completely unaffected.
for arguments sake if we say a month has passed since the video, not 5 days (which many including bj has accepted is probably too little time), if the msm continues to not address the video then it doesnt matter whether or not bj thought the video was legit. with the video having garnered that much attention, both by view counts and the fact that pfizer actually addressed it themselves, it would be incredibly irresponsible for the msm to not say a word. reporting on stuff like this is literally their job.
again, whether or not bj watches the video and what his opinions are of its content are completely irrelevant to his point of concern; why are the msm sitting by whilst allegedly controversial content is receiving attention and the general public could benefit from proper fact checking articles from reputable media outlets?
the argument that the msm dont have the time to sift through all the conspiracy crap is weak. the fact that pfizer officially addressed the video and the videos view counts were highlighted in previous posts for a reason; this isnt some random 10k view vid floating on the internet somewhere. this isnt something you miss when youre working at a massive media outlet. heck, bj just quoted you on a post you made about how even a measly 1m view video got a yahoo article about it.
|
I'm fascinated by the claim that reputable news outlets not covering a complete BS conspiracy theory just because it went viral means they're not doing their job right. The obvious explanation that they're reputable news outlets that do their best to not fill any part of their websites with garbage gets immediately dismissed as invalid argumentation.
|
heres a sample article:
"<MSM NAME>
THE FACTS ABOUT PFIZER MUTATING COVID VIRUS
hi guys! we fact checked the video so you guys wouldnt have to! here are the facts!
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
so in conclusion, the video is complete garbage and our fact checking corroborates pfizers press release! youre welcome!"
yeah, wow that sure looks like a garbage article. i dont see how this article even generates any clicks for this media outlet. im so glad this article isnt taking up space on my browser because my browser space is so scarce and needs to be saved for real quality articles, like what kim kardashian has been doing lately. /sarcasm
On February 01 2023 00:44 Magic Powers wrote:
I'm fascinated by the claim that reputable news outlets not covering a complete BS conspiracy theory just because it went viral means they're not doing their job right. The obvious explanation that they're reputable news outlets that do their best to not fill any part of their websites with garbage gets immediately dismissed as invalid argumentation.
if you were an editor at any media outlet and you told your boss that you werent going to include any mention of the incredibly viral topic trending today because "its obviously conspiracy", youd be fired. your journalists' job is to investigate what the topic is about, what the facts are and present them to the public. and from a commercial perspective, you create articles to generate revenue. the literal worst thing you can do as a media outlet is to completely ignore a topic of interest. so if weve established that its actually in the best interests for the msm to have articles on this video, why arent there any? this is bj's post summed up in 1 question
|
On February 01 2023 00:03 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 00:00 evilfatsh1t wrote:On January 31 2023 23:48 JimmiC wrote:On January 31 2023 22:24 BlackJack wrote:The funniest thing about this is I didn't even bother to the Project Veritas video. I saw maybe like 10% of it at most while skimming through it. + Show Spoiler +On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote:
Last night I came across a Project Veritas video where they purportedly interview someone working in Pfizer R&D that's talking about mutating the virus to work on vaccines or something like that, I was kind of skimming through the video. You know because "or something like that" is a phrase we all use when we really think there's a lot of substance there /sarcasm. So yes evilfatsh1t you are right that I haven't offered my own opinion on the credibility of the contents of the video because I haven't even watched the video. My thoughts are as I described in the OP: I don't think Project Veritas fabricated some Pfizer guy out of a thin air and used a crisis actor. I think whoever was in the video was or is employed by pfizer at some point. The statement that pfizer put out in response to the video didn't even deny that the guy in the video was an employee which you would think would be an obvious thing to do if it was some stooge. The point of the post is to ask why so few in the MSM want to touch this story with even a ten foot pole, despite the fact that it could drive hella clicks to their for-profit businesses. @DPB, I have no problem taking responsibility for this hot take. I don't have to take responsibility for whatever interpretation of my posts you want to invent, and it's not "playing victim" to object to doing so. On January 31 2023 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Why the hell would you post the video and your comment if you thought that PV wasn't worth trusting? I never even posted the video That is not funny it is a concerning pattern. You clearly often just read the titles or very little of your sources then you come guns a blazing in here with how right you are over and over. This is not something to brag about. Please read, watch whatever your whole sources. Might stop the goalpost moving if you knew what youl were arguing for from the start. why would he have to watch the video when the point he wants to make basically has nothing to do with the actual contents of the video, rather the reaction to the video by the media when the video has already been deemed (not by blackjack himself) as controversial? seriously, after a whole bunch of posts just addressing what his first post is actually saying this is what you post? jesus christ. The point he supposedly is trying to make, the exact one that Tucker made before his post, is that "the media" is not covering it. Why would the legitimate media cover something highly edited, from a negatively honest source? "The media" does not cover much fiction, even if way to many conservatives believe it. A huge part of Tuckers schtick is to make up things to get outraged at, that it works on these same/similar people also does not make it "a good point".
I would recommend disengaging with evil and trying to switch to a new topic. As soon as evil admitted that direct quotes from BlackJack didn't actually matter when interpreting what BJ said and meant, and that all that mattered was whether or not BJ agreed with his conclusion, it was clear that evil wasn't being a well-intentioned interlocuter with the whole Project Veritas post.
In an attempt to change the subject to something more relevant (and legitimate), here's an interesting Nature article that came out a few days ago about the nuances surrounding annual covid vaccines: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00234-7
The article hits on a variety of topics, such as:
1. Is there value to having annual covid vaccines, even if the covid strain doesn't mutate as quickly as the flu?
2. What is the value of having a "single COVID-19 vaccination composition for primary and booster doses"?
3. When should annual covid vaccines be available (all year long, primarily during flu season / "US autumn", etc.)?
Based on the arguments and counterarguments provided in the article, as well as other conversations we've had in the past regarding other data we've looked at, I don't think I'd mind getting an annual covid vaccine, especially if I can get it at the same time as my annual flu vaccine. Even if the covid strain doesn't mutate every year, there might still be some preventative value in getting an annual covid vaccine if the protection only lasts a few months. That's just my personal preference for myself though.
|
On February 01 2023 01:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 00:03 JimmiC wrote:On February 01 2023 00:00 evilfatsh1t wrote:On January 31 2023 23:48 JimmiC wrote:On January 31 2023 22:24 BlackJack wrote:The funniest thing about this is I didn't even bother to the Project Veritas video. I saw maybe like 10% of it at most while skimming through it. + Show Spoiler +On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote:
Last night I came across a Project Veritas video where they purportedly interview someone working in Pfizer R&D that's talking about mutating the virus to work on vaccines or something like that, I was kind of skimming through the video. You know because "or something like that" is a phrase we all use when we really think there's a lot of substance there /sarcasm. So yes evilfatsh1t you are right that I haven't offered my own opinion on the credibility of the contents of the video because I haven't even watched the video. My thoughts are as I described in the OP: I don't think Project Veritas fabricated some Pfizer guy out of a thin air and used a crisis actor. I think whoever was in the video was or is employed by pfizer at some point. The statement that pfizer put out in response to the video didn't even deny that the guy in the video was an employee which you would think would be an obvious thing to do if it was some stooge. The point of the post is to ask why so few in the MSM want to touch this story with even a ten foot pole, despite the fact that it could drive hella clicks to their for-profit businesses. @DPB, I have no problem taking responsibility for this hot take. I don't have to take responsibility for whatever interpretation of my posts you want to invent, and it's not "playing victim" to object to doing so. On January 31 2023 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Why the hell would you post the video and your comment if you thought that PV wasn't worth trusting? I never even posted the video That is not funny it is a concerning pattern. You clearly often just read the titles or very little of your sources then you come guns a blazing in here with how right you are over and over. This is not something to brag about. Please read, watch whatever your whole sources. Might stop the goalpost moving if you knew what youl were arguing for from the start. why would he have to watch the video when the point he wants to make basically has nothing to do with the actual contents of the video, rather the reaction to the video by the media when the video has already been deemed (not by blackjack himself) as controversial? seriously, after a whole bunch of posts just addressing what his first post is actually saying this is what you post? jesus christ. The point he supposedly is trying to make, the exact one that Tucker made before his post, is that "the media" is not covering it. Why would the legitimate media cover something highly edited, from a negatively honest source? "The media" does not cover much fiction, even if way to many conservatives believe it. A huge part of Tuckers schtick is to make up things to get outraged at, that it works on these same/similar people also does not make it "a good point". I would recommend disengaging with evil and trying to switch to a new topic. As soon as evil admitted that direct quotes from BlackJack didn't actually matter when interpreting what BJ said and meant, and that all that mattered was whether or not BJ agreed with his conclusion, it was clear that evil wasn't being a well-intentioned interlocuter with the whole Project Veritas post.
lol. why do i bother
|
On February 01 2023 00:51 evilfatsh1t wrote:heres a sample article: "<MSM NAME> THE FACTS ABOUT PFIZER MUTATING COVID VIRUS hi guys! we fact checked the video so you guys wouldnt have to! here are the facts! xxxx xxxx xxxx so in conclusion, the video is complete garbage and our fact checking corroborates pfizers press release! youre welcome!" yeah, wow that sure looks like a garbage article. i dont see how this article even generates any clicks for this media outlet. im so glad this article isnt taking up space on my browser because my browser space is so scarce and needs to be saved for real quality articles, like what kim kardashian has been doing lately. /sarcasm Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 00:44 Magic Powers wrote:
I'm fascinated by the claim that reputable news outlets not covering a complete BS conspiracy theory just because it went viral means they're not doing their job right. The obvious explanation that they're reputable news outlets that do their best to not fill any part of their websites with garbage gets immediately dismissed as invalid argumentation. if you were an editor at any media outlet and you told your boss that you werent going to include any mention of the incredibly viral topic trending today because "its obviously conspiracy", youd be fired. your journalists' job is to investigate what the topic is about, what the facts are and present them to the public. and from a commercial perspective, you create articles to generate revenue. the literal worst thing you can do as a media outlet is to completely ignore a topic of interest. so if weve established that its actually in the bests interests for the msm to have articles on this video, why arent there any? this is bj's post summed up in 1 question
Really? Do you want me to call a few news outlets and ask them about that?
|
On February 01 2023 01:22 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 00:51 evilfatsh1t wrote:heres a sample article: "<MSM NAME> THE FACTS ABOUT PFIZER MUTATING COVID VIRUS hi guys! we fact checked the video so you guys wouldnt have to! here are the facts! xxxx xxxx xxxx so in conclusion, the video is complete garbage and our fact checking corroborates pfizers press release! youre welcome!" yeah, wow that sure looks like a garbage article. i dont see how this article even generates any clicks for this media outlet. im so glad this article isnt taking up space on my browser because my browser space is so scarce and needs to be saved for real quality articles, like what kim kardashian has been doing lately. /sarcasm On February 01 2023 00:44 Magic Powers wrote:
I'm fascinated by the claim that reputable news outlets not covering a complete BS conspiracy theory just because it went viral means they're not doing their job right. The obvious explanation that they're reputable news outlets that do their best to not fill any part of their websites with garbage gets immediately dismissed as invalid argumentation. if you were an editor at any media outlet and you told your boss that you werent going to include any mention of the incredibly viral topic trending today because "its obviously conspiracy", youd be fired. your journalists' job is to investigate what the topic is about, what the facts are and present them to the public. and from a commercial perspective, you create articles to generate revenue. the literal worst thing you can do as a media outlet is to completely ignore a topic of interest. so if weve established that its actually in the bests interests for the msm to have articles on this video, why arent there any? this is bj's post summed up in 1 question Really? Do you want me to call a few news outlets and ask them about that?
go ahead. you really wanna double down on this position?
area 51 is obviously a bs conspiracy right? so surely i shouldnt find any articles on that then.
the moon landing being faked is obviously a bs conspiracy right? so i shouldnt find any articles proving we actually went to the moon then.
i could go on. the only argument here is whether you think 25m views and a pfizer press release is still not enough to categorise this video as a topic of interest. if you accept that then theres no reason why the msm shouldnt have anything on it.
|
|
|
This is the dumbest discussion ever.
Journalists arent covering any Project Veritas story because they are known liars. They have other shit to do (like post click bait articles but i digress)
Project Veritas has less than 0 credibility because they have been caught lying/doctoring videos. Its not even that they are wrong or suck at their job, they operate exclusively in bad faith. They are bad actors.
|
so because you guys cant continue to claim that bj is promoting pv material and attack him, you shift the goalposts to now say its bj's fault he didnt fact check the video because thats not the medias job.
this is the same shit that happened with the censorship debate a while ago. people starting to double down on fucking stupid positions just to continue to be able to say bj fucked up.
the media write about literally anything and everything. if its going to generate clicks, if its going to create noise, if its even remotely interesting to any niche market, a msm outlet has the capacity and reach to justify writing about it. this isnt even a debate, its common sense.
On February 01 2023 01:31 Sadist wrote:
This is the dumbest discussion ever.
Journalists arent covering any Project Veritas story because they are known liars. They have other shit to do (like post click bait articles but i digress)
Project Veritas has less than 0 credibility because they have been caught lying/doctoring videos. Its not even that they are wrong or suck at their job, they operate exclusively in bad faith. They are bad actors.
yeah you just contradicted yourself. good job.
a headline saying "video evidence released of pfizer mutating covid virus" would be a click bait article at the very least.
|
On February 01 2023 01:17 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 01:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 01 2023 00:03 JimmiC wrote:On February 01 2023 00:00 evilfatsh1t wrote:On January 31 2023 23:48 JimmiC wrote:On January 31 2023 22:24 BlackJack wrote:The funniest thing about this is I didn't even bother to the Project Veritas video. I saw maybe like 10% of it at most while skimming through it. + Show Spoiler +On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote:
Last night I came across a Project Veritas video where they purportedly interview someone working in Pfizer R&D that's talking about mutating the virus to work on vaccines or something like that, I was kind of skimming through the video. You know because "or something like that" is a phrase we all use when we really think there's a lot of substance there /sarcasm. So yes evilfatsh1t you are right that I haven't offered my own opinion on the credibility of the contents of the video because I haven't even watched the video. My thoughts are as I described in the OP: I don't think Project Veritas fabricated some Pfizer guy out of a thin air and used a crisis actor. I think whoever was in the video was or is employed by pfizer at some point. The statement that pfizer put out in response to the video didn't even deny that the guy in the video was an employee which you would think would be an obvious thing to do if it was some stooge. The point of the post is to ask why so few in the MSM want to touch this story with even a ten foot pole, despite the fact that it could drive hella clicks to their for-profit businesses. @DPB, I have no problem taking responsibility for this hot take. I don't have to take responsibility for whatever interpretation of my posts you want to invent, and it's not "playing victim" to object to doing so. On January 31 2023 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Why the hell would you post the video and your comment if you thought that PV wasn't worth trusting? I never even posted the video That is not funny it is a concerning pattern. You clearly often just read the titles or very little of your sources then you come guns a blazing in here with how right you are over and over. This is not something to brag about. Please read, watch whatever your whole sources. Might stop the goalpost moving if you knew what youl were arguing for from the start. why would he have to watch the video when the point he wants to make basically has nothing to do with the actual contents of the video, rather the reaction to the video by the media when the video has already been deemed (not by blackjack himself) as controversial? seriously, after a whole bunch of posts just addressing what his first post is actually saying this is what you post? jesus christ. The point he supposedly is trying to make, the exact one that Tucker made before his post, is that "the media" is not covering it. Why would the legitimate media cover something highly edited, from a negatively honest source? "The media" does not cover much fiction, even if way to many conservatives believe it. A huge part of Tuckers schtick is to make up things to get outraged at, that it works on these same/similar people also does not make it "a good point". I would recommend disengaging with evil and trying to switch to a new topic. As soon as evil admitted that direct quotes from BlackJack didn't actually matter when interpreting what BJ said and meant, and that all that mattered was whether or not BJ agreed with his conclusion, it was clear that evil wasn't being a well-intentioned interlocuter with the whole Project Veritas post. lol. why do i bother
I know you meant that rhetorically, but I'm sure other people legitimately want to know why you bother posting what you're posting.
On February 01 2023 01:29 JimmiC wrote:
@DPB that is my hope, that it is either right in there with the flu shot or at least at the same time. As long as the data and science keeping being positive and my doctor continues to recommend it, I'll keep getting it. The same way I listen to my doctor about basically everything else.
I think that makes a lot of sense, and I know that convenience is a big thing for a lot of people. Having to make multiple trips (one for flu vaccine and another for covid vaccine, or maybe multiple ones for multiple rounds of the covid vaccine) can be a serious deterrent for a lot of people.
|
On February 01 2023 01:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 01:17 evilfatsh1t wrote:On February 01 2023 01:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 01 2023 00:03 JimmiC wrote:On February 01 2023 00:00 evilfatsh1t wrote:On January 31 2023 23:48 JimmiC wrote:On January 31 2023 22:24 BlackJack wrote:The funniest thing about this is I didn't even bother to the Project Veritas video. I saw maybe like 10% of it at most while skimming through it. + Show Spoiler +On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote:
Last night I came across a Project Veritas video where they purportedly interview someone working in Pfizer R&D that's talking about mutating the virus to work on vaccines or something like that, I was kind of skimming through the video. You know because "or something like that" is a phrase we all use when we really think there's a lot of substance there /sarcasm. So yes evilfatsh1t you are right that I haven't offered my own opinion on the credibility of the contents of the video because I haven't even watched the video. My thoughts are as I described in the OP: I don't think Project Veritas fabricated some Pfizer guy out of a thin air and used a crisis actor. I think whoever was in the video was or is employed by pfizer at some point. The statement that pfizer put out in response to the video didn't even deny that the guy in the video was an employee which you would think would be an obvious thing to do if it was some stooge. The point of the post is to ask why so few in the MSM want to touch this story with even a ten foot pole, despite the fact that it could drive hella clicks to their for-profit businesses. @DPB, I have no problem taking responsibility for this hot take. I don't have to take responsibility for whatever interpretation of my posts you want to invent, and it's not "playing victim" to object to doing so. On January 31 2023 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Why the hell would you post the video and your comment if you thought that PV wasn't worth trusting? I never even posted the video That is not funny it is a concerning pattern. You clearly often just read the titles or very little of your sources then you come guns a blazing in here with how right you are over and over. This is not something to brag about. Please read, watch whatever your whole sources. Might stop the goalpost moving if you knew what youl were arguing for from the start. why would he have to watch the video when the point he wants to make basically has nothing to do with the actual contents of the video, rather the reaction to the video by the media when the video has already been deemed (not by blackjack himself) as controversial? seriously, after a whole bunch of posts just addressing what his first post is actually saying this is what you post? jesus christ. The point he supposedly is trying to make, the exact one that Tucker made before his post, is that "the media" is not covering it. Why would the legitimate media cover something highly edited, from a negatively honest source? "The media" does not cover much fiction, even if way to many conservatives believe it. A huge part of Tuckers schtick is to make up things to get outraged at, that it works on these same/similar people also does not make it "a good point". I would recommend disengaging with evil and trying to switch to a new topic. As soon as evil admitted that direct quotes from BlackJack didn't actually matter when interpreting what BJ said and meant, and that all that mattered was whether or not BJ agreed with his conclusion, it was clear that evil wasn't being a well-intentioned interlocuter with the whole Project Veritas post. lol. why do i bother I know you meant that rhetorically, but I'm sure other people legitimately want to know why you bother posting what you're posting.Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 01:29 JimmiC wrote:
@DPB that is my hope, that it is either right in there with the flu shot or at least at the same time. As long as the data and science keeping being positive and my doctor continues to recommend it, I'll keep getting it. The same way I listen to my doctor about basically everything else. I think that makes a lot of sense, and I know that convenience is a big thing for a lot of people. Having to make multiple trips (one for flu vaccine and another for covid vaccine, or maybe multiple ones for multiple rounds of the covid vaccine) can be a serious deterrent for a lot of people.
to call out the select few individuals here who continue to misconstrue others' posts due to their own prejudice.
|
On February 01 2023 01:47 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 01:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 01 2023 01:17 evilfatsh1t wrote:On February 01 2023 01:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 01 2023 00:03 JimmiC wrote:On February 01 2023 00:00 evilfatsh1t wrote:On January 31 2023 23:48 JimmiC wrote:On January 31 2023 22:24 BlackJack wrote:The funniest thing about this is I didn't even bother to the Project Veritas video. I saw maybe like 10% of it at most while skimming through it. + Show Spoiler +On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote:
Last night I came across a Project Veritas video where they purportedly interview someone working in Pfizer R&D that's talking about mutating the virus to work on vaccines or something like that, I was kind of skimming through the video. You know because "or something like that" is a phrase we all use when we really think there's a lot of substance there /sarcasm. So yes evilfatsh1t you are right that I haven't offered my own opinion on the credibility of the contents of the video because I haven't even watched the video. My thoughts are as I described in the OP: I don't think Project Veritas fabricated some Pfizer guy out of a thin air and used a crisis actor. I think whoever was in the video was or is employed by pfizer at some point. The statement that pfizer put out in response to the video didn't even deny that the guy in the video was an employee which you would think would be an obvious thing to do if it was some stooge. The point of the post is to ask why so few in the MSM want to touch this story with even a ten foot pole, despite the fact that it could drive hella clicks to their for-profit businesses. @DPB, I have no problem taking responsibility for this hot take. I don't have to take responsibility for whatever interpretation of my posts you want to invent, and it's not "playing victim" to object to doing so. On January 31 2023 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Why the hell would you post the video and your comment if you thought that PV wasn't worth trusting? I never even posted the video That is not funny it is a concerning pattern. You clearly often just read the titles or very little of your sources then you come guns a blazing in here with how right you are over and over. This is not something to brag about. Please read, watch whatever your whole sources. Might stop the goalpost moving if you knew what youl were arguing for from the start. why would he have to watch the video when the point he wants to make basically has nothing to do with the actual contents of the video, rather the reaction to the video by the media when the video has already been deemed (not by blackjack himself) as controversial? seriously, after a whole bunch of posts just addressing what his first post is actually saying this is what you post? jesus christ. The point he supposedly is trying to make, the exact one that Tucker made before his post, is that "the media" is not covering it. Why would the legitimate media cover something highly edited, from a negatively honest source? "The media" does not cover much fiction, even if way to many conservatives believe it. A huge part of Tuckers schtick is to make up things to get outraged at, that it works on these same/similar people also does not make it "a good point". I would recommend disengaging with evil and trying to switch to a new topic. As soon as evil admitted that direct quotes from BlackJack didn't actually matter when interpreting what BJ said and meant, and that all that mattered was whether or not BJ agreed with his conclusion, it was clear that evil wasn't being a well-intentioned interlocuter with the whole Project Veritas post. lol. why do i bother I know you meant that rhetorically, but I'm sure other people legitimately want to know why you bother posting what you're posting.On February 01 2023 01:29 JimmiC wrote:
@DPB that is my hope, that it is either right in there with the flu shot or at least at the same time. As long as the data and science keeping being positive and my doctor continues to recommend it, I'll keep getting it. The same way I listen to my doctor about basically everything else. I think that makes a lot of sense, and I know that convenience is a big thing for a lot of people. Having to make multiple trips (one for flu vaccine and another for covid vaccine, or maybe multiple ones for multiple rounds of the covid vaccine) can be a serious deterrent for a lot of people. to call out the select few individuals here who continue to misconstrue others' posts due to their own prejudice.
Do you have an opinion on covid-related issues?
|
On January 31 2023 18:43 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2023 18:10 Acrofales wrote:On January 31 2023 17:30 bITt.mAN wrote: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. 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?
Wrong thread for most of this, but we can discuss at least the first one again for the umpteenth time. The rest have also been done ad nauseum in the uspol thread.
Do you think the lab leak theory wasn't dogpiled on in the beginning?
There's a rather large amount of nuance needed here: in the beginning the *only* people claiming the "Wuhan Flu" came from a lab were xenophobic crazies. They don't get a soapbox. Scientists were applying Occam's Razor and basically said: "the evidence so far points to zoonosis, but we're still looking for both patient 0 and the exact origin."
China didn't give access to scientists (for the longest time), which made the xenophobic crazies just go crazier. But that still doesn't mean they deserved a soapbox. In hindsight it turns out they were maybe right (still unknown), but their "rightness" didn't come from any informed position, it came from assuming the worst about people they hated. It's not something that should be encouraged.
That the Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't suppressed by the social media companies?
It was. RIGHTFULLY. There was no story.
That the Biden White House hasn't leaned on the social media companies to delete things it deems as misinformation/disinformation?
I wouldn't know, but everything I read in the "Twitter files" seemed like a totally normal exchange between a government concerned about spreading bullshit and a social media company responsible for its spread/containment. Containment of bullshit seems like generally the correct approach to trash like "stolen elections1111" or anything PV touches. It's unfortunate you don't agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
