|
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 01:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 01:47 evilfatsh1t wrote: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?
naturally. not sure why this is relevant though
|
On February 01 2023 02:12 JimmiC 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. Private have seen the major impacts convenience have on behavior, think skip the dishes, or even walmart having "everything". It only makes sense for public health to do the same. Part of it is the time, part of it is the brain space for organizing and remembering another event and weaving it in between all the other activities.
Speaking of convenience, we may one day be able to have an antiviral nasal spray that helps prevent both flu and covid, instead of needing vaccines in the form of shots:
1. https://hub.jhu.edu/2023/01/12/nasal-spray-prevents-spread-covid-flu/
2. https://covid19.nih.gov/news-and-stories/antiviral-nasal-spray-shows-promise-fighting-covid-19
That would be really cool, if we could just administer such preventative care at home instead of needing to drive somewhere else to have a medical worker do it for us.
|
On February 01 2023 02:20 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 01:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 01 2023 01:47 evilfatsh1t wrote: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? naturally. not sure why this is relevant though
Because this thread is supposed to be about covid-related issues.
|
|
|
On February 01 2023 02:29 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 02:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 01 2023 02:12 JimmiC wrote: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. Private have seen the major impacts convenience have on behavior, think skip the dishes, or even walmart having "everything". It only makes sense for public health to do the same. Part of it is the time, part of it is the brain space for organizing and remembering another event and weaving it in between all the other activities. Speaking of convenience, we may one day be able to have an antiviral nasal spray that helps prevent both flu and covid, instead of needing vaccines in the form of shots: 1. https://hub.jhu.edu/2023/01/12/nasal-spray-prevents-spread-covid-flu/2. https://covid19.nih.gov/news-and-stories/antiviral-nasal-spray-shows-promise-fighting-covid-19 That would be really cool, if we could just administer such preventative care at home instead of needing to drive somewhere else to have a medical worker do it for us. Not to mention a huge cost savings. I remember once reading the cost difference to our system here if the doctor administered, vs Nurse, vs pharmacist vs pharm tech. Also, perhaps storage is easier and they could do more drop ins so not as much scheduling needed. There is also people with needle phobia's and this could help. Bring on the innovation and convenience!
Yeah, I'm trying to figure out potential downsides of something like this. Maybe if buying an anti-flu or anti-covid nasal spray ends up costing too much money?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 31 2023 22:24 BlackJack wrote:
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. It is obvious why they would want to avoid anything that makes Pfizer look bad = super-massive conflict-of-interest, because Pfizer pays their bills: 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.
Nope, the talking points and implicit rules about which opinions are respectable are already set. Once an idea is deemed 'forbidden', the urge to suppress is too strong. Even when there is evidence to support it — who cares, that gets suppressed too. Let's prove that point: On January 31 2023 22:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
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. Challenge Accepted  Project Veritas providing yet more proof that Big Tech are systematically suppressing critical discussion of Covid-related topics (including e.g. questioning the efficacy of lockdowns) : Project Veritas released internal documents explaining "Vaccine Hesitancy Comment Demotion" which shows the "goal" is to "drastically reduce user exposure to vaccine hesitancy." Project Veritas exposing Facebook's CEO for expressing the exact same sorts of concerns that Facebook was actively suppressing. There's plenty more they've done (e.g. exposing CNN's systemic bias against conservatives), I'm just picking the Covid + censorship ones. The issue I want to highlight is the outright hostility towards even a basic discussion of the facts in these cases. I've provided evidence of PV breaking true and important public interest stories, specifically about media bias. To categorically dismiss (this) PV evidence is uncritical and either a sign of laziness ("tl;dr whatever") or demonstrates the automatic censorship-instinct I'm warning to avoid.
User was warned for this post
|
On February 01 2023 01:28 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 01:22 Magic Powers wrote: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.
I'm having trouble finding a way to contact CNN and other American or British news outlets. Maybe someone can help me with that?
Until then, every report I can find regarding the Project Veritas story was published on or after the 25th of January. WalesOnline, which has a "high factual" reporting rating according to MBFC (mediabiasfactcheck) and is left-center, has published the story on the 29th.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/pfizer-denies-claims-purposely-mutating-26100545
Newsweek, having a "mostly factual" reporting rating and being right-center, has published it on the 26th. They rule the conspiracy claims made by posters of the story "unverified".
https://www.newsweek.com/project-veritas-covid-mutations-pfizer-fact-check-1776845
Forbes, having a "mostly factual" reporting rating and being right-center, has published it on the 28th. They also refute the conspiracy claims.
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=1d31c097623d
All the remaining news outlets I can find that have posted the story have received a low factual reporting rating and a high right-wing bias rating by MBFC.
Since I don't currently know how to contact CNN and others, I've decided to look up the question "how do news outlets decide which stories to cover" and found a comment on quora by a self-described writer and journalist.
One of the criteria mentioned says this:
"Credibility. If there’s any doubt, it won’t be published, or it will be published with all kinds of qualifications and warnings."
https://www.quora.com/How-do-main-stream-news-organizations-decide-which-stories-they-are-going-to-cover
tl;dr we have a story that's been published very recently. It contains a lot of information that needs to be dissected before it can be published. The source of the video and the video itself lack any and all credibility. The story has been published mostly by various strongly right-wing news outlets (e.g. Breitbart) as well as a handful of more moderately right-wing ones (see above), with one moderately left-wing exception (see above). This indicates that the story has not been "buried" by reputable news outlets but that there's a readership bias, which can be explained by the severely conspiratorial nature of the video in favor of a strongly right-wing (i.e. anti-vaxx) reader base.
I have absolutely no idea why this would seem suspicious. Not much time has passed, the story lacks credibility, and it aims at right-wing conspiracy theorists. This sufficiently explains why reputable news outlets haven't published anything about it, at least as of yet.
|
|
|
On February 01 2023 03:01 bITt.mAN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2023 22:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
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. Challenge Accepted Project Veritas providing yet more proof that Big Tech are systematically suppressing critical discussion of Covid-related topics (including e.g. questioning the efficacy of lockdowns) : Show nested quote +Project Veritas released internal documents explaining "Vaccine Hesitancy Comment Demotion" which shows the "goal" is to "drastically reduce user exposure to vaccine hesitancy." Project Veritas exposing Facebook's CEO for expressing the exact same sorts of concerns that Facebook was actively suppressing. There's plenty more they've done (e.g. exposing CNN's systemic bias against conservatives), I'm just picking the Covid + censorship ones. The issue I want to highlight is the outright hostility towards even a basic discussion of the facts in these cases. I've provided evidence of PV breaking true and important public interest stories, specifically about media bias. To categorically dismiss (this) PV evidence is uncritical and either a sign of laziness ("tl;dr whatever") or demonstrates the automatic censorship-instinct I'm warning to avoid.
My responses to your 3 links:
1. This is a Fox News article that says "Facebook execs bash leakers after Project Veritas exposé", and their example of that is this excerpt:
""So Project Veritas posted another video based on leaked materials that expose our colleagues' names and also put them at risk," Facebook's internal communications director Melinda Davenport began the conversation during a virtual Q&A session after acknowledging she had seen many inquiries from Facebook staffers on the subject. "So what are we doing to actually stop leakers? And how are we keeping our colleagues safe?""
Three things come to mind with this first link:
i. How is this bashing?
ii. Project Veritas putting other people's lives at risk might actually be a serious deal.
iii. This does absolutely nothing to increase the credibility of PV. You asserted that "Big Tech are systematically suppressing critical discussion of Covid-related topics", but this source shows no evidence of "critical discussion"; for all we know, it could be a bunch of random trolls posting anti-vaxx misinformation/disinformation.
2. This PV article simply states that Mark Zuckerberg said something stupid and false about covid back in July 2020 (he thought the covid vaccine was changing people's DNA), and then a few months later he stated that he has since learned that he was wrong about that. That's the entire article lol. Copy/pasting two conversations isn't exactly hard-hitting journalism. Did you think I was going to insist that Zuckerberg is infallible or something?
3. This NewsTarget article links to PV leaking some information that the CNN president was shit-talking specific conservatives like Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump. I don't understand why you think this is important. Everyone shit-talks Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump; they're absolutely terrible people. And the two of them shit-talk liberals and others too. Are only conservatives allowed to belittle others? This is not particularly news-worthy, but I don't really care if PV points these things out; what I care is that you think pointing out something like this should make us trust that source when it comes to something as substantive as covid conspiracy theories.
So yeah, I still don't trust Project Veritas, and as you can see, it has nothing to do with the fact that BlackJack was the one posting about them. I read, analyzed, and rejected your PV references too (whether or not you agree with my assessment of them is besides the point, for the purpose of this assertion that we only scrutinize PV when BJ brings them up). I'm sure that evil will apologize now for jumping to conclusions about how all of us criticized BJ simply because BJ was the poster and we're all biased against him
This is the last I'm going to contribute to the current topic of Project Veritas. I'd much rather talk about the other topics recently posted in here 
|
On February 01 2023 03:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 02:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 01 2023 02:29 JimmiC wrote:On February 01 2023 02:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 01 2023 02:12 JimmiC wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Private have seen the major impacts convenience have on behavior, think skip the dishes, or even walmart having "everything". It only makes sense for public health to do the same. Part of it is the time, part of it is the brain space for organizing and remembering another event and weaving it in between all the other activities. Speaking of convenience, we may one day be able to have an antiviral nasal spray that helps prevent both flu and covid, instead of needing vaccines in the form of shots: 1. https://hub.jhu.edu/2023/01/12/nasal-spray-prevents-spread-covid-flu/2. https://covid19.nih.gov/news-and-stories/antiviral-nasal-spray-shows-promise-fighting-covid-19 That would be really cool, if we could just administer such preventative care at home instead of needing to drive somewhere else to have a medical worker do it for us. Not to mention a huge cost savings. I remember once reading the cost difference to our system here if the doctor administered, vs Nurse, vs pharmacist vs pharm tech. Also, perhaps storage is easier and they could do more drop ins so not as much scheduling needed. There is also people with needle phobia's and this could help. Bring on the innovation and convenience! Yeah, I'm trying to figure out potential downsides of something like this. Maybe if buying an anti-flu or anti-covid nasal spray ends up costing too much money? Most here are either covered by the government or by health plans, since people missing work is way more costly. My guess is these wouldn't be that much more to change the math but that is assumption. I also know a lot of offices bring a pharmacist or nurse on site for free flu shots currently. This would seemingly make the practice easier and administratively less expensive. Right now you are asked to wait for 15 mins after to make sure there is no reaction, I'm guessing that part would be the same so you would only really need a meeting room and maybe a person there to track who got and took it?
The 15-minute waiting period is a good point; I wonder if that could transition into at-home life easily. In other words, I wonder if it would be too risky to simply recommend the nasal vaccine user to chill for a few minutes at home before jumping in the car and driving, or only take it when you're with another adult to supervise, etc. I wonder how much safer it would need to become to switch from "a medical professional needs to be nearby" to "a layperson needs to be nearby". If it's a much lower dose and taken, like, once a month or week or day or something, then maybe side effects (if any) would be much lower too?
|
|
|
|
|
On February 01 2023 02:11 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2023 18:43 BlackJack wrote: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. 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. Show nested quote +That the Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't suppressed by the social media companies? It was. RIGHTFULLY. There was no story. Show nested quote +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.
+ Show Spoiler +Thanks for actually giving a worthwhile post to read instead of another rant about Project Veritas
"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."
Now I'm no big city detective, but it seems to me that if you declare that everyone that gives credence to the lab-leak theory is a xenophobic crazy then it goes without saying that you get to declare that only xenophobic crazies believed in the lab-leak theory. Fantastic little piece of circular reasoning there.
But let's actually fact-check this claim based on what the world's leading virologists were saying at the time behind closed doors.
https://denvergazette.com/news/fauci-shut-down-lab-leak-theory-despite-scientists-lending-it-credence-emails-show/article_908df8b6-2161-5b7e-b7ed-003be942e341.html
Emails that contain the notes of a conference call on Feb 1 between Dr. Fauci and 11 other scientists in the field about the origins of the coronavirus
Dr. Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust, sent an email to Collins, Fauci, and Lawrence Tabak (then the principal deputy director of the NIH and now its acting director) on Feb. 2, 2020, summarizing the conference call and indicating that some of the scientists believed the lab leak theory was viable. Farrar noted, for example, that Mike Farzan (dubbed the "discoverer of SARS receptor" and a professor of immunology at Scripps Research) found a key aspect of the virus "highly unlikely" to have developed outside a lab.
Another scientist on the call, Tulane Medical School microbiology professor Robert Garry, said he could see no "plausible natural scenario" for key amino acids and nucleotides to have been inserted into a bat virus to make it the virus that would go on to kill more than 5 million people worldwide.
But in another email from the same day referenced in the lawmakers' letter, Ron Fouchier, the deputy head of the Erasmus MC Department of Viroscience, seemed to embrace the theory that the virus occurred naturally and warned that lab leak discussions could "do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular."
A day before the teleconference, Kristian Andersen, an expert in infectious disease genomics at the prestigious Scripps Research Translational Institute in California, had told Fauci first by phone and again later by email that the genetic structure of the virus looked like it might have been engineered in a lab.
“The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered,” Andersen said in an email to Fauci on Jan. 31, 2020. Andersen added that he and University of Sydney virologist and evolutionary biologist Edward Holmes, plus a handful of other top scientists with whom Fauci was on a first-name basis, “all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”
God damn xenophobic crazy scientists! Silence them!! Fortunately most of them just decided to stop being crazy xenophobes that day.
You should be able to see that the whole "you're a xenophobe unless you believe the natural origin theory" was foisted upon everyone. It basically wasn't until Jon Stewart had the massive fucking balls to go on the Stephen Colbert show and give credence to the lab leak theory that things really started to change. Cause then everyone was like "Wait a second, I know Jon Stewart and I don't consider him xenophobic or crazy!" And now it's perfectly acceptable to question where sars-cov-2 originated.
------------------------------------------------------
Onto Hunter Biden laptop story:
The story was suppressed, according to Facebook/Twitter because it was believed to be Russian disinformation and the FBI had primed them to be on the look out for Russian disinformation. We now know that it wasn't Russian disinformation and yet you are still saying that they were right to suppress it? Even facebook and Twitter acknowledge that they were wrong to suppress it and yet you are still carrying the water for them and telling them they did the right thing? Doesn't that give you any pause at all?
---------------------------------------------------------
It's the press's job in a free society to investigate things and arrive at the truth. You do understand that by trying to kill all stories in their infancy and ban them from the public sphere you are literally destroying the motive of the press to investigate things and find the truth, right? Like surely this is common sense. Nobody is going to spend their time investigating a story and uncovering details if their reward for doing so is a ban from Twitter, don't you agree?
Lab-leak? Bunch of xenophobes, purge it, silence it
Biden laptop? Probably Russian disinformation, purge it, silence it
Project Veritas video? Not verified, not credible, purge it, silence it
You're trying to kill any incentive for the press to actually do its job. You want to replace journalists with stenographers that will give you the facts that the ministry of truth doles out for you.
You're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy for the unverified stuff to remain unverified and then saying "See I was right to purge that because it was never verified" and patting yourself on the back.
|
On February 01 2023 12:38 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 02:11 Acrofales wrote:On January 31 2023 18:43 BlackJack wrote: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. + Show Spoiler +Thanks for actually giving a worthwhile post to read instead of another rant about Project Veritas Now I'm no big city detective, but it seems to me that if you declare that everyone that gives credence to the lab-leak theory is a xenophobic crazy then it goes without saying that you get to declare that only xenophobic crazies believed in the lab-leak theory. Fantastic little piece of circular reasoning there. But let's actually fact-check this claim based on what the world's leading virologists were saying at the time behind closed doors. https://denvergazette.com/news/fauci-shut-down-lab-leak-theory-despite-scientists-lending-it-credence-emails-show/article_908df8b6-2161-5b7e-b7ed-003be942e341.htmlEmails that contain the notes of a conference call on Feb 1 between Dr. Fauci and 11 other scientists in the field about the origins of the coronavirus Show nested quote +Dr. Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust, sent an email to Collins, Fauci, and Lawrence Tabak (then the principal deputy director of the NIH and now its acting director) on Feb. 2, 2020, summarizing the conference call and indicating that some of the scientists believed the lab leak theory was viable. Farrar noted, for example, that Mike Farzan (dubbed the "discoverer of SARS receptor" and a professor of immunology at Scripps Research) found a key aspect of the virus "highly unlikely" to have developed outside a lab. Show nested quote +Another scientist on the call, Tulane Medical School microbiology professor Robert Garry, said he could see no "plausible natural scenario" for key amino acids and nucleotides to have been inserted into a bat virus to make it the virus that would go on to kill more than 5 million people worldwide. Show nested quote +But in another email from the same day referenced in the lawmakers' letter, Ron Fouchier, the deputy head of the Erasmus MC Department of Viroscience, seemed to embrace the theory that the virus occurred naturally and warned that lab leak discussions could "do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular." Show nested quote +A day before the teleconference, Kristian Andersen, an expert in infectious disease genomics at the prestigious Scripps Research Translational Institute in California, had told Fauci first by phone and again later by email that the genetic structure of the virus looked like it might have been engineered in a lab.
“The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered,” Andersen said in an email to Fauci on Jan. 31, 2020. Andersen added that he and University of Sydney virologist and evolutionary biologist Edward Holmes, plus a handful of other top scientists with whom Fauci was on a first-name basis, “all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.” God damn xenophobic crazy scientists! Silence them!! Fortunately most of them just decided to stop being crazy xenophobes that day. You should be able to see that the whole "you're a xenophobe unless you believe the natural origin theory" was foisted upon everyone. It basically wasn't until Jon Stewart had the massive fucking balls to go on the Stephen Colbert show and give credence to the lab leak theory that things really started to change. Cause then everyone was like "Wait a second, I know Jon Stewart and I don't consider him xenophobic or crazy!" And now it's perfectly acceptable to question where sars-cov-2 originated. ------------------------------------------------------ Onto Hunter Biden laptop story: The story was suppressed, according to Facebook/Twitter because it was believed to be Russian disinformation and the FBI had primed them to be on the look out for Russian disinformation. We now know that it wasn't Russian disinformation and yet you are still saying that they were right to suppress it? Even facebook and Twitter acknowledge that they were wrong to suppress it and yet you are still carrying the water for them and telling them they did the right thing? Doesn't that give you any pause at all? --------------------------------------------------------- It's the press's job in a free society to investigate things and arrive at the truth. You do understand that by trying to kill all stories in their infancy and ban them from the public sphere you are literally destroying the motive of the press to investigate things and find the truth, right? Like surely this is common sense. Nobody is going to spend their time investigating a story and uncovering details if their reward for doing so is a ban from Twitter, don't you agree? Lab-leak? Bunch of xenophobes, purge it, silence it Biden laptop? Probably Russian disinformation, purge it, silence it Project Veritas video? Not verified, not credible, purge it, silence it You're trying to kill any incentive for the press to actually do its job. You want to replace journalists with stenographers that will give you the facts that the ministry of truth doles out for you. You're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy for the unverified stuff to remain unverified and then saying "See I was right to purge that because it was never verified" and patting yourself on the back.
Ok, we can rehash the lab leak theory. You don't really seem to know how science works. Let's move away from something that is polemic and in the news a lot right now, and instead look at nuclear fusion. We know how nuclear fusion works. A rather crude summary: apply enough force, and the cores of two atoms can fuse together. This releases a lot of energy. The problem is applying that force. It's technically difficult and costs a LOT of energy. It's why practical use of nuclear fusion is 30 years away (and will be for the foreseeable future).
Let's call this type of fusion, HOT nuclear fusion. We know it exists, we know it works, and we know why. In the 1970s, Pons and Fleischman published an experiment in which they claimed more energy was released than they put in, and their hypothesis for this was that atoms were fusing... but at room temperature and 1 bar pressure. We'll call this COLD nuclear fusion. It made a ruckus, people tried to reproduce the experiment and explain what was going on. Problem was that nobody could reproduce it (on purpose) and soon there were plenty of alternative theories (about how Pons and Fleischman probably failed to properly isolate their experiment, or other things wrong with the setup). Nevertheless, it captured the imagination and scientists til this day are trying to advance and find repeatable COLD nuclear fusion. So far, no luck. It's basically a crackpot theory based on an almost certainly flawed experimental setup. Nevertheless, every now and then something worth publishing in a scientific journal pops up.
Now, when people cover the science of fusion, do you think they should cover hot fusion, cold fusion, or 50/50 coverage for both?
If you hadn't noticed yet... the correct way of covering scientific progress into fusion research should be to cover hot fusion exclusively. Maybe you could add a footnote that there are also people trying to find alternative methods for harnessing fusion reactions, and leave it at that.
Now back to covid. Obviously it happened in the middle of a shitstorm and anything anybody said about the origin was going to be magnified a billion times by the press. However, there wasn't any credible scientific evidence for a lab leak theory in the same way that there is no credible scientific evidence for the existence of cold fusion. That doesn't mean that at no point in the future there will be credible evidence of cold fusion. Just as, over time, the lab leak hypothesis has gained some scientific credibility (albeit NOT MUCH).
Slate just put out this article on the whole "debate", and I can't say I disagree:
https://slate.com/technology/2023/01/lab-leak-three-years-debate-covid-origins.html
Anyway, just because "some scientists" say something doesn't mean it's right to take a hypothesis at face value. Not even (or actually, ESPECIALLY NOT) when it's political.
As for the other two points, bring them to the uspol thread. It seems quiet and I'm sure it's time for another rehash of the laptop debate.
|
On February 01 2023 12:38 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 02:11 Acrofales wrote:On January 31 2023 18:43 BlackJack wrote: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. + Show Spoiler +Thanks for actually giving a worthwhile post to read instead of another rant about Project Veritas Now I'm no big city detective, but it seems to me that if you declare that everyone that gives credence to the lab-leak theory is a xenophobic crazy then it goes without saying that you get to declare that only xenophobic crazies believed in the lab-leak theory. Fantastic little piece of circular reasoning there. But let's actually fact-check this claim based on what the world's leading virologists were saying at the time behind closed doors. https://denvergazette.com/news/fauci-shut-down-lab-leak-theory-despite-scientists-lending-it-credence-emails-show/article_908df8b6-2161-5b7e-b7ed-003be942e341.htmlEmails that contain the notes of a conference call on Feb 1 between Dr. Fauci and 11 other scientists in the field about the origins of the coronavirus Show nested quote +Dr. Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust, sent an email to Collins, Fauci, and Lawrence Tabak (then the principal deputy director of the NIH and now its acting director) on Feb. 2, 2020, summarizing the conference call and indicating that some of the scientists believed the lab leak theory was viable. Farrar noted, for example, that Mike Farzan (dubbed the "discoverer of SARS receptor" and a professor of immunology at Scripps Research) found a key aspect of the virus "highly unlikely" to have developed outside a lab. Show nested quote +Another scientist on the call, Tulane Medical School microbiology professor Robert Garry, said he could see no "plausible natural scenario" for key amino acids and nucleotides to have been inserted into a bat virus to make it the virus that would go on to kill more than 5 million people worldwide. Show nested quote +But in another email from the same day referenced in the lawmakers' letter, Ron Fouchier, the deputy head of the Erasmus MC Department of Viroscience, seemed to embrace the theory that the virus occurred naturally and warned that lab leak discussions could "do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular." Show nested quote +A day before the teleconference, Kristian Andersen, an expert in infectious disease genomics at the prestigious Scripps Research Translational Institute in California, had told Fauci first by phone and again later by email that the genetic structure of the virus looked like it might have been engineered in a lab.
“The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered,” Andersen said in an email to Fauci on Jan. 31, 2020. Andersen added that he and University of Sydney virologist and evolutionary biologist Edward Holmes, plus a handful of other top scientists with whom Fauci was on a first-name basis, “all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.” God damn xenophobic crazy scientists! Silence them!! Fortunately most of them just decided to stop being crazy xenophobes that day. You should be able to see that the whole "you're a xenophobe unless you believe the natural origin theory" was foisted upon everyone. It basically wasn't until Jon Stewart had the massive fucking balls to go on the Stephen Colbert show and give credence to the lab leak theory that things really started to change. Cause then everyone was like "Wait a second, I know Jon Stewart and I don't consider him xenophobic or crazy!" And now it's perfectly acceptable to question where sars-cov-2 originated. ------------------------------------------------------ Onto Hunter Biden laptop story: The story was suppressed, according to Facebook/Twitter because it was believed to be Russian disinformation and the FBI had primed them to be on the look out for Russian disinformation. We now know that it wasn't Russian disinformation and yet you are still saying that they were right to suppress it? Even facebook and Twitter acknowledge that they were wrong to suppress it and yet you are still carrying the water for them and telling them they did the right thing? Doesn't that give you any pause at all? --------------------------------------------------------- It's the press's job in a free society to investigate things and arrive at the truth. You do understand that by trying to kill all stories in their infancy and ban them from the public sphere you are literally destroying the motive of the press to investigate things and find the truth, right? Like surely this is common sense. Nobody is going to spend their time investigating a story and uncovering details if their reward for doing so is a ban from Twitter, don't you agree? Lab-leak? Bunch of xenophobes, purge it, silence it Biden laptop? Probably Russian disinformation, purge it, silence it Project Veritas video? Not verified, not credible, purge it, silence it You're trying to kill any incentive for the press to actually do its job. You want to replace journalists with stenographers that will give you the facts that the ministry of truth doles out for you. You're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy for the unverified stuff to remain unverified and then saying "See I was right to purge that because it was never verified" and patting yourself on the back.
"[...] it seems to me that if you declare that everyone that gives credence to the lab-leak theory is a xenophobic crazy then it goes without saying that you get to declare that only xenophobic crazies believed in the lab-leak theory."
For someone who likes to claim that people misrepresent you at every step, you're great at twisting people's words the way it's most convenient for you, and then draw them into a continuous long-form debate where you're arguing with a strawman while they think you're talking to them directly.
Acrofales didn't say what you claim he did. No, he did not. He really did not.
Here's what he said:
"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."
Here's how you twisted his words:
"There's a rather large amount of nuance needed here: in the beginning all people giving credence to the lableak theory are xenophobic crazies."
English lesson of the day. Are these two sentences the same?
"The Wuhan Flu may or may not have come from a lab leak."
"The Wuhan Flu came from a lab leak."
Acrofales said something entirely different from what you reworded it into.
|
On February 01 2023 18:24 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 12:38 BlackJack wrote:On February 01 2023 02:11 Acrofales wrote:On January 31 2023 18:43 BlackJack wrote: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. + Show Spoiler +Thanks for actually giving a worthwhile post to read instead of another rant about Project Veritas Now I'm no big city detective, but it seems to me that if you declare that everyone that gives credence to the lab-leak theory is a xenophobic crazy then it goes without saying that you get to declare that only xenophobic crazies believed in the lab-leak theory. Fantastic little piece of circular reasoning there. But let's actually fact-check this claim based on what the world's leading virologists were saying at the time behind closed doors. https://denvergazette.com/news/fauci-shut-down-lab-leak-theory-despite-scientists-lending-it-credence-emails-show/article_908df8b6-2161-5b7e-b7ed-003be942e341.htmlEmails that contain the notes of a conference call on Feb 1 between Dr. Fauci and 11 other scientists in the field about the origins of the coronavirus Dr. Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust, sent an email to Collins, Fauci, and Lawrence Tabak (then the principal deputy director of the NIH and now its acting director) on Feb. 2, 2020, summarizing the conference call and indicating that some of the scientists believed the lab leak theory was viable. Farrar noted, for example, that Mike Farzan (dubbed the "discoverer of SARS receptor" and a professor of immunology at Scripps Research) found a key aspect of the virus "highly unlikely" to have developed outside a lab. Another scientist on the call, Tulane Medical School microbiology professor Robert Garry, said he could see no "plausible natural scenario" for key amino acids and nucleotides to have been inserted into a bat virus to make it the virus that would go on to kill more than 5 million people worldwide. But in another email from the same day referenced in the lawmakers' letter, Ron Fouchier, the deputy head of the Erasmus MC Department of Viroscience, seemed to embrace the theory that the virus occurred naturally and warned that lab leak discussions could "do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular." A day before the teleconference, Kristian Andersen, an expert in infectious disease genomics at the prestigious Scripps Research Translational Institute in California, had told Fauci first by phone and again later by email that the genetic structure of the virus looked like it might have been engineered in a lab.
“The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered,” Andersen said in an email to Fauci on Jan. 31, 2020. Andersen added that he and University of Sydney virologist and evolutionary biologist Edward Holmes, plus a handful of other top scientists with whom Fauci was on a first-name basis, “all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.” God damn xenophobic crazy scientists! Silence them!! Fortunately most of them just decided to stop being crazy xenophobes that day. You should be able to see that the whole "you're a xenophobe unless you believe the natural origin theory" was foisted upon everyone. It basically wasn't until Jon Stewart had the massive fucking balls to go on the Stephen Colbert show and give credence to the lab leak theory that things really started to change. Cause then everyone was like "Wait a second, I know Jon Stewart and I don't consider him xenophobic or crazy!" And now it's perfectly acceptable to question where sars-cov-2 originated. ------------------------------------------------------ Onto Hunter Biden laptop story: The story was suppressed, according to Facebook/Twitter because it was believed to be Russian disinformation and the FBI had primed them to be on the look out for Russian disinformation. We now know that it wasn't Russian disinformation and yet you are still saying that they were right to suppress it? Even facebook and Twitter acknowledge that they were wrong to suppress it and yet you are still carrying the water for them and telling them they did the right thing? Doesn't that give you any pause at all? --------------------------------------------------------- It's the press's job in a free society to investigate things and arrive at the truth. You do understand that by trying to kill all stories in their infancy and ban them from the public sphere you are literally destroying the motive of the press to investigate things and find the truth, right? Like surely this is common sense. Nobody is going to spend their time investigating a story and uncovering details if their reward for doing so is a ban from Twitter, don't you agree? Lab-leak? Bunch of xenophobes, purge it, silence it Biden laptop? Probably Russian disinformation, purge it, silence it Project Veritas video? Not verified, not credible, purge it, silence it You're trying to kill any incentive for the press to actually do its job. You want to replace journalists with stenographers that will give you the facts that the ministry of truth doles out for you. You're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy for the unverified stuff to remain unverified and then saying "See I was right to purge that because it was never verified" and patting yourself on the back. "[...] it seems to me that if you declare that everyone that gives credence to the lab-leak theory is a xenophobic crazy then it goes without saying that you get to declare that only xenophobic crazies believed in the lab-leak theory." For someone who likes to claim that people misrepresent you at every step, you're great at twisting people's words the way it's most convenient for you, and then draw them into a continuous long-form debate where you're arguing with a strawman while they think you're talking to them directly. Acrofales didn't say what you claim he did. No, he did not. He really did not. Here's what he said: "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." Here's how you twisted his words: "There's a rather large amount of nuance needed here: in the beginning all people giving credence to the lableak theory are xenophobic crazies." English lesson of the day. Are these two sentences the same? "The Wuhan Flu may or may not have come from a lab leak." "The Wuhan Flu came from a lab leak." Acrofales said something entirely different from what you reworded it into.
Sure, fair point. I should have said that if you declare that everyone that believes in the lab-leak theory is a xenophobic crazy then you get to declare that only xenophobic crazies believed in the lab-leak theory
|
On February 01 2023 17:30 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 12:38 BlackJack wrote:On February 01 2023 02:11 Acrofales wrote:On January 31 2023 18:43 BlackJack wrote: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. + Show Spoiler +Thanks for actually giving a worthwhile post to read instead of another rant about Project Veritas Now I'm no big city detective, but it seems to me that if you declare that everyone that gives credence to the lab-leak theory is a xenophobic crazy then it goes without saying that you get to declare that only xenophobic crazies believed in the lab-leak theory. Fantastic little piece of circular reasoning there. But let's actually fact-check this claim based on what the world's leading virologists were saying at the time behind closed doors. https://denvergazette.com/news/fauci-shut-down-lab-leak-theory-despite-scientists-lending-it-credence-emails-show/article_908df8b6-2161-5b7e-b7ed-003be942e341.htmlEmails that contain the notes of a conference call on Feb 1 between Dr. Fauci and 11 other scientists in the field about the origins of the coronavirus Dr. Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust, sent an email to Collins, Fauci, and Lawrence Tabak (then the principal deputy director of the NIH and now its acting director) on Feb. 2, 2020, summarizing the conference call and indicating that some of the scientists believed the lab leak theory was viable. Farrar noted, for example, that Mike Farzan (dubbed the "discoverer of SARS receptor" and a professor of immunology at Scripps Research) found a key aspect of the virus "highly unlikely" to have developed outside a lab. Another scientist on the call, Tulane Medical School microbiology professor Robert Garry, said he could see no "plausible natural scenario" for key amino acids and nucleotides to have been inserted into a bat virus to make it the virus that would go on to kill more than 5 million people worldwide. But in another email from the same day referenced in the lawmakers' letter, Ron Fouchier, the deputy head of the Erasmus MC Department of Viroscience, seemed to embrace the theory that the virus occurred naturally and warned that lab leak discussions could "do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular." A day before the teleconference, Kristian Andersen, an expert in infectious disease genomics at the prestigious Scripps Research Translational Institute in California, had told Fauci first by phone and again later by email that the genetic structure of the virus looked like it might have been engineered in a lab.
“The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered,” Andersen said in an email to Fauci on Jan. 31, 2020. Andersen added that he and University of Sydney virologist and evolutionary biologist Edward Holmes, plus a handful of other top scientists with whom Fauci was on a first-name basis, “all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.” God damn xenophobic crazy scientists! Silence them!! Fortunately most of them just decided to stop being crazy xenophobes that day. You should be able to see that the whole "you're a xenophobe unless you believe the natural origin theory" was foisted upon everyone. It basically wasn't until Jon Stewart had the massive fucking balls to go on the Stephen Colbert show and give credence to the lab leak theory that things really started to change. Cause then everyone was like "Wait a second, I know Jon Stewart and I don't consider him xenophobic or crazy!" And now it's perfectly acceptable to question where sars-cov-2 originated. ------------------------------------------------------ Onto Hunter Biden laptop story: The story was suppressed, according to Facebook/Twitter because it was believed to be Russian disinformation and the FBI had primed them to be on the look out for Russian disinformation. We now know that it wasn't Russian disinformation and yet you are still saying that they were right to suppress it? Even facebook and Twitter acknowledge that they were wrong to suppress it and yet you are still carrying the water for them and telling them they did the right thing? Doesn't that give you any pause at all? --------------------------------------------------------- It's the press's job in a free society to investigate things and arrive at the truth. You do understand that by trying to kill all stories in their infancy and ban them from the public sphere you are literally destroying the motive of the press to investigate things and find the truth, right? Like surely this is common sense. Nobody is going to spend their time investigating a story and uncovering details if their reward for doing so is a ban from Twitter, don't you agree? Lab-leak? Bunch of xenophobes, purge it, silence it Biden laptop? Probably Russian disinformation, purge it, silence it Project Veritas video? Not verified, not credible, purge it, silence it You're trying to kill any incentive for the press to actually do its job. You want to replace journalists with stenographers that will give you the facts that the ministry of truth doles out for you. You're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy for the unverified stuff to remain unverified and then saying "See I was right to purge that because it was never verified" and patting yourself on the back. Ok, we can rehash the lab leak theory. You don't really seem to know how science works. Let's move away from something that is polemic and in the news a lot right now, and instead look at nuclear fusion. We know how nuclear fusion works. A rather crude summary: apply enough force, and the cores of two atoms can fuse together. This releases a lot of energy. The problem is applying that force. It's technically difficult and costs a LOT of energy. It's why practical use of nuclear fusion is 30 years away (and will be for the foreseeable future). Let's call this type of fusion, HOT nuclear fusion. We know it exists, we know it works, and we know why. In the 1970s, Pons and Fleischman published an experiment in which they claimed more energy was released than they put in, and their hypothesis for this was that atoms were fusing... but at room temperature and 1 bar pressure. We'll call this COLD nuclear fusion. It made a ruckus, people tried to reproduce the experiment and explain what was going on. Problem was that nobody could reproduce it (on purpose) and soon there were plenty of alternative theories (about how Pons and Fleischman probably failed to properly isolate their experiment, or other things wrong with the setup). Nevertheless, it captured the imagination and scientists til this day are trying to advance and find repeatable COLD nuclear fusion. So far, no luck. It's basically a crackpot theory based on an almost certainly flawed experimental setup. Nevertheless, every now and then something worth publishing in a scientific journal pops up. Now, when people cover the science of fusion, do you think they should cover hot fusion, cold fusion, or 50/50 coverage for both? If you hadn't noticed yet... the correct way of covering scientific progress into fusion research should be to cover hot fusion exclusively. Maybe you could add a footnote that there are also people trying to find alternative methods for harnessing fusion reactions, and leave it at that. Now back to covid. Obviously it happened in the middle of a shitstorm and anything anybody said about the origin was going to be magnified a billion times by the press. However, there wasn't any credible scientific evidence for a lab leak theory in the same way that there is no credible scientific evidence for the existence of cold fusion. That doesn't mean that at no point in the future there will be credible evidence of cold fusion. Just as, over time, the lab leak hypothesis has gained some scientific credibility (albeit NOT MUCH). Slate just put out this article on the whole "debate", and I can't say I disagree: https://slate.com/technology/2023/01/lab-leak-three-years-debate-covid-origins.htmlAnyway, just because "some scientists" say something doesn't mean it's right to take a hypothesis at face value. Not even (or actually, ESPECIALLY NOT) when it's political. As for the other two points, bring them to the uspol thread. It seems quiet and I'm sure it's time for another rehash of the laptop debate.
Anyway, just because "some scientists" say something doesn't mean it's right to take a hypothesis at face value. Not even (or actually, ESPECIALLY NOT) when it's political.
I think if you and the other people in this thread had confidence in your own arguments you wouldn't find it necessary to repeat this strawman of "We shouldn't accept a hypothesis at face value." Or "We shouldn't accept what Project Veritas says at face value." Nobody has argued that.
The topic is why do you think certain topics should be suppressed or killed in their infancy instead of being fleeced out by journalists. The response "Because we shouldn't accept them at face value" doesn't even begin to answer that question.
Also I don't know what the whole aside about cold fusion has to do with this. Are social media companies trying suppress stories on cold fusion? Are media companies ignoring a viral video on cold fusion that got 50 million views?
Here's a thread on TL.net about cold fusion that got over 1,000 posts
https://tl.net/forum/general/247932-rossis-energy-catalyzer
Plenty of crackpot/conspiracy theories were allowed to be discussed on TL.net back in the day before the right-wing started to corner the market and now you'll get warned/banned.
|
On February 01 2023 19:18 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 17:30 Acrofales wrote:On February 01 2023 12:38 BlackJack wrote:On February 01 2023 02:11 Acrofales wrote:On January 31 2023 18:43 BlackJack wrote: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. + Show Spoiler +Thanks for actually giving a worthwhile post to read instead of another rant about Project Veritas Now I'm no big city detective, but it seems to me that if you declare that everyone that gives credence to the lab-leak theory is a xenophobic crazy then it goes without saying that you get to declare that only xenophobic crazies believed in the lab-leak theory. Fantastic little piece of circular reasoning there. But let's actually fact-check this claim based on what the world's leading virologists were saying at the time behind closed doors. https://denvergazette.com/news/fauci-shut-down-lab-leak-theory-despite-scientists-lending-it-credence-emails-show/article_908df8b6-2161-5b7e-b7ed-003be942e341.htmlEmails that contain the notes of a conference call on Feb 1 between Dr. Fauci and 11 other scientists in the field about the origins of the coronavirus Dr. Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust, sent an email to Collins, Fauci, and Lawrence Tabak (then the principal deputy director of the NIH and now its acting director) on Feb. 2, 2020, summarizing the conference call and indicating that some of the scientists believed the lab leak theory was viable. Farrar noted, for example, that Mike Farzan (dubbed the "discoverer of SARS receptor" and a professor of immunology at Scripps Research) found a key aspect of the virus "highly unlikely" to have developed outside a lab. Another scientist on the call, Tulane Medical School microbiology professor Robert Garry, said he could see no "plausible natural scenario" for key amino acids and nucleotides to have been inserted into a bat virus to make it the virus that would go on to kill more than 5 million people worldwide. But in another email from the same day referenced in the lawmakers' letter, Ron Fouchier, the deputy head of the Erasmus MC Department of Viroscience, seemed to embrace the theory that the virus occurred naturally and warned that lab leak discussions could "do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular." A day before the teleconference, Kristian Andersen, an expert in infectious disease genomics at the prestigious Scripps Research Translational Institute in California, had told Fauci first by phone and again later by email that the genetic structure of the virus looked like it might have been engineered in a lab.
“The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered,” Andersen said in an email to Fauci on Jan. 31, 2020. Andersen added that he and University of Sydney virologist and evolutionary biologist Edward Holmes, plus a handful of other top scientists with whom Fauci was on a first-name basis, “all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.” God damn xenophobic crazy scientists! Silence them!! Fortunately most of them just decided to stop being crazy xenophobes that day. You should be able to see that the whole "you're a xenophobe unless you believe the natural origin theory" was foisted upon everyone. It basically wasn't until Jon Stewart had the massive fucking balls to go on the Stephen Colbert show and give credence to the lab leak theory that things really started to change. Cause then everyone was like "Wait a second, I know Jon Stewart and I don't consider him xenophobic or crazy!" And now it's perfectly acceptable to question where sars-cov-2 originated. ------------------------------------------------------ Onto Hunter Biden laptop story: The story was suppressed, according to Facebook/Twitter because it was believed to be Russian disinformation and the FBI had primed them to be on the look out for Russian disinformation. We now know that it wasn't Russian disinformation and yet you are still saying that they were right to suppress it? Even facebook and Twitter acknowledge that they were wrong to suppress it and yet you are still carrying the water for them and telling them they did the right thing? Doesn't that give you any pause at all? --------------------------------------------------------- It's the press's job in a free society to investigate things and arrive at the truth. You do understand that by trying to kill all stories in their infancy and ban them from the public sphere you are literally destroying the motive of the press to investigate things and find the truth, right? Like surely this is common sense. Nobody is going to spend their time investigating a story and uncovering details if their reward for doing so is a ban from Twitter, don't you agree? Lab-leak? Bunch of xenophobes, purge it, silence it Biden laptop? Probably Russian disinformation, purge it, silence it Project Veritas video? Not verified, not credible, purge it, silence it You're trying to kill any incentive for the press to actually do its job. You want to replace journalists with stenographers that will give you the facts that the ministry of truth doles out for you. You're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy for the unverified stuff to remain unverified and then saying "See I was right to purge that because it was never verified" and patting yourself on the back. Ok, we can rehash the lab leak theory. You don't really seem to know how science works. Let's move away from something that is polemic and in the news a lot right now, and instead look at nuclear fusion. We know how nuclear fusion works. A rather crude summary: apply enough force, and the cores of two atoms can fuse together. This releases a lot of energy. The problem is applying that force. It's technically difficult and costs a LOT of energy. It's why practical use of nuclear fusion is 30 years away (and will be for the foreseeable future). Let's call this type of fusion, HOT nuclear fusion. We know it exists, we know it works, and we know why. In the 1970s, Pons and Fleischman published an experiment in which they claimed more energy was released than they put in, and their hypothesis for this was that atoms were fusing... but at room temperature and 1 bar pressure. We'll call this COLD nuclear fusion. It made a ruckus, people tried to reproduce the experiment and explain what was going on. Problem was that nobody could reproduce it (on purpose) and soon there were plenty of alternative theories (about how Pons and Fleischman probably failed to properly isolate their experiment, or other things wrong with the setup). Nevertheless, it captured the imagination and scientists til this day are trying to advance and find repeatable COLD nuclear fusion. So far, no luck. It's basically a crackpot theory based on an almost certainly flawed experimental setup. Nevertheless, every now and then something worth publishing in a scientific journal pops up. Now, when people cover the science of fusion, do you think they should cover hot fusion, cold fusion, or 50/50 coverage for both? If you hadn't noticed yet... the correct way of covering scientific progress into fusion research should be to cover hot fusion exclusively. Maybe you could add a footnote that there are also people trying to find alternative methods for harnessing fusion reactions, and leave it at that. Now back to covid. Obviously it happened in the middle of a shitstorm and anything anybody said about the origin was going to be magnified a billion times by the press. However, there wasn't any credible scientific evidence for a lab leak theory in the same way that there is no credible scientific evidence for the existence of cold fusion. That doesn't mean that at no point in the future there will be credible evidence of cold fusion. Just as, over time, the lab leak hypothesis has gained some scientific credibility (albeit NOT MUCH). Slate just put out this article on the whole "debate", and I can't say I disagree: https://slate.com/technology/2023/01/lab-leak-three-years-debate-covid-origins.htmlAnyway, just because "some scientists" say something doesn't mean it's right to take a hypothesis at face value. Not even (or actually, ESPECIALLY NOT) when it's political. As for the other two points, bring them to the uspol thread. It seems quiet and I'm sure it's time for another rehash of the laptop debate. Anyway, just because "some scientists" say something doesn't mean it's right to take a hypothesis at face value. Not even (or actually, ESPECIALLY NOT) when it's political.I think if you and the other people in this thread had confidence in your own arguments you wouldn't find it necessary to repeat this strawman of "We shouldn't accept a hypothesis at face value." Or "We shouldn't accept what Project Veritas says at face value." Nobody has argued that. The topic is why do you think certain topics should be suppressed or killed in their infancy instead of being fleeced out by journalists. The response "Because we shouldn't accept them at face value" doesn't even begin to answer that question. Also I don't know what the whole aside about cold fusion has to do with this. Are social media companies trying suppress stories on cold fusion? Are media companies ignoring a viral video on cold fusion that got 50 million views? Here's a thread on TL.net about cold fusion that got over 1,000 posts https://tl.net/forum/general/247932-rossis-energy-catalyzerPlenty of crackpot/conspiracy theories were allowed to be discussed on TL.net back in the day before the right-wing started to corner the market and now you'll get warned/banned.
Clearly I didnt make my point as clearly as I wanted: the place for debate on what the possible origin of Covid was, is amongst virologists, epidemiologists, and maybe other microbiologists who have something insightful and new to discuss. The role of journalists isn't to hit upon some singular publication and yell from the top of the roofs: "LAB LEAK THEORY CONFIRMED!!!". Just as it isn't to hit upon a singular publication and yell "COLD FUSION IS REAL!!!"
Both are clear instances of misinformation and misinformation should be suppressed. Now, if instead the articles you are referring to as being suppressed had instead said something along the lines of
"Science shows that the origin of SARS-Cov-2 is most likely zoonotic. However, there are some discrepancies that cannot be explained. One alternative that is being investigated is that its origin is from genetic manipulation in a lab. However, while it cannot be ruled out, so far no evidence points that way."
Yeah, it would have no clickbait value at all. But it also wouldn't be misinformation. Now note that the idea is NOT being suppressed in the place where it should be discussed. Virologists can continue to publish work showing that novel gene sequencing work points to A or B as more likely. These continued to be published in peer-reviewed medical journals.
But there is NO REASON for Jimmybob who knows nothing about virology to be convinced by Breitbart that "China intentionally released the Wuhan Flu from the lab as a bioweapon", which is exactly the type of misinformation I was talking about that should be suppressed. It has NO purpose other than to spread fear, xenophobia and hatred and has no basis in fact.
As to whether or not TL.net should have a thread discussing a scammer trying to make money off gullible idiots with a cold fusion machine? I am not against mature discussion on topics of fringe science. Whether or not TL.net is the place for that? I'm not a mod. But there's a significant difference between the two which is that the origin of covid was super polemic and political. The chances of having a mature discussion on this topic at the time were approximately 0. So suppressing such a discussion is not a bad idea. It's a bit like how generally speaking, live threads don't allow balance discussions: it's hard to have a mature discussion on the merits of early game protoss and terran units, when your favorite terran is having his face stomped in by a filthy protosser as you talk...
|
So, I jumped in this thread to refute the idea 'things aren't getting suppressed thus its conspiratorial to claim that they are being suppressed'. In my original post I've already disproven this with links from ijr.com, National Review, NYPost, TheIntercept, (and Yahoo News).
I'll take the time to respond, because I respect TL users, I respect their intelligence, and want them to be exposed to important ideas, such as:
Forced preference falsification: When those who speak up in principled opposition to a dictator’s policies are punished and forced into silence, those with similar opinions are forced into silence as well, or even forced to pretend they support policies in which they do not actually believe. Emboldened by this facade of unanimity, supporters of the regime’s policies, or even those who did not previously have strong opinions, become convinced that the regime’s policies are just and good—regardless of what those policies actually are—and that those critical of them are even more deserving of punishment.
Institutional censorship is happening, and its our job to spot and prevent it. This dynamic gets internalized by everyday people and plays out in daily conversations, such as this thread. Here is how denial works (a fun 2min illustration of this dynamic is here), it pivots from:
A. It's not happening.
B. It's happening but it's not a big deal.
C. It's happening and that's a good thing.
Which is it? Should we A. categorically dismiss evidence out-of-hand simply because it comes from PV? That's what was being advocated for previously. But if we do, we miss important news-worthy stories (I'll get back to this).
It seems we're now at B. acknowledge we can't get away with denying the truth of the evidence, but instead downplay its significance. Note that this has entirely changed the topic (Before: their evidence is always false. Now: well they're true, but uninteresting). I've simply been arguing that we shouldn't dismiss PV's evidence out-of-hand. Now that I've provided evidence, the response has been to dismiss PV regardless, thus their evidence is dismissed as collateral.
On February 01 2023 05:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2023 03:01 bITt.mAN wrote:On January 31 2023 22:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
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. Challenge Accepted Project Veritas providing yet more proof that Big Tech are systematically suppressing critical discussion of Covid-related topics (including e.g. questioning the efficacy of lockdowns) : Project Veritas released internal documents explaining "Vaccine Hesitancy Comment Demotion" which shows the "goal" is to "drastically reduce user exposure to vaccine hesitancy." Project Veritas exposing Facebook's CEO for expressing the exact same sorts of concerns that Facebook was actively suppressing. There's plenty more they've done (e.g. exposing CNN's systemic bias against conservatives), I'm just picking the Covid + censorship ones. The issue I want to highlight is the outright hostility towards even a basic discussion of the facts in these cases. I've provided evidence of PV breaking true and important public interest stories, specifically about media bias. To categorically dismiss (this) PV evidence is uncritical and either a sign of laziness ("tl;dr whatever") or demonstrates the automatic censorship-instinct I'm warning to avoid. My responses to your 3 links: 1. This is a Fox News article that says "Facebook execs bash leakers after Project Veritas exposé", and their example of that is this excerpt: ""So Project Veritas posted another video based on leaked materials that expose our colleagues' names and also put them at risk," Facebook's internal communications director Melinda Davenport began the conversation during a virtual Q&A session after acknowledging she had seen many inquiries from Facebook staffers on the subject. "So what are we doing to actually stop leakers? And how are we keeping our colleagues safe?"" Three things come to mind with this first link: i. How is this bashing? ii. Project Veritas putting other people's lives at risk might actually be a serious deal. iii. This does absolutely nothing to increase the credibility of PV. You asserted that "Big Tech are systematically suppressing critical discussion of Covid-related topics", but this source shows no evidence of "critical discussion"; for all we know, it could be a bunch of random trolls posting anti-vaxx misinformation/disinformation. 2. This PV article simply states that Mark Zuckerberg said something stupid and false about covid back in July 2020 (he thought the covid vaccine was changing people's DNA), and then a few months later he stated that he has since learned that he was wrong about that. That's the entire article lol. Copy/pasting two conversations isn't exactly hard-hitting journalism. Did you think I was going to insist that Zuckerberg is infallible or something? 3. This NewsTarget article links to PV leaking some information that the CNN president was shit-talking specific conservatives like Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump. I don't understand why you think this is important. Everyone shit-talks Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump; they're absolutely terrible people. And the two of them shit-talk liberals and others too. Are only conservatives allowed to belittle others? This is not particularly news-worthy, but I don't really care if PV points these things out; what I care is that you think pointing out something like this should make us trust that source when it comes to something as substantive as covid conspiracy theories. So yeah, I still don't trust Project Veritas, and as you can see, it has nothing to do with the fact that BlackJack was the one posting about them. I read, analyzed, and rejected your PV references too (whether or not you agree with my assessment of them is besides the point, for the purpose of this assertion that we only scrutinize PV when BJ brings them up). I'm sure that evil will apologize now for jumping to conclusions about how all of us criticized BJ simply because BJ was the poster and we're all biased against him This is the last I'm going to contribute to the current topic of Project Veritas. I'd much rather talk about the other topics recently posted in here
1. If PV had censored the names, you'd probably dismiss the document as fake & libel. But when they include the names for transparency and verifiability's sake, you also dismiss it... Someone was saying earlier that nowadays it's suspicious if you can't find a Google or LinkedIn profile for execs in these big orgs. Meaning that information is effectively public knowledge anyway... The real harm here is FaceBook perpetuating a knee-jerk censorship mentality that shuts down not only scientific and medical but crucially political speech more broadly (see: Canada protests, and someone's laptop), which exacerbates the risk of group-think, leading to uncritical worse quality public health strategies.
Let's note that you aren't denying that the PV info is a true and actual FB internal document. I'll get back to this.
2. The article showed the undisputable double-standard at play in these Big Tech board rooms, where they suppress members of the public voicing precisely the same speculations and questions that their own execs voice. Let's note that you aren't denying that the PV video is factually true.
3. Let's note that you don't deny that the evidence PV provide (CNN being proudly partisan, not 'mainstream' or 'neutral') is factually true.
So overall you dismiss the stories anyway even though you don't contest the evidence. Maybe the next step you could take is C. brazenly justify the pre-emptive dismissal of PV stories (like a Minority Report style thought-crime pre-crime), even when their evidence is true, and even when their story would be highly significant — simply out of categorical distrust towards PV .
Getting back to the PV Pfizer video: would the story be highly significant if true? Absolutely. Is the evidence actually true i.e. is that guy an actual employee of Pfizer, and are they engineering viruses? Well their official response doesn't deny that the guy worked for them, and concedes that they do engineer viruses. So personally I think the results are undecided and awaiting further development. And I would be quite concerned if my neighbors would willfully ignore a story of that magnitude simply because it was obtained via hidden camera.
|
I want to address the warning my most recent post was given, stating "Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread." Firstly, big respect to the TL mod team, you do tons of important work which doesn't get recognized or rewarded enough. Without sane mods, TL long ago would have devolved into a juvenile faceless cesspool like Reddit.
So what is Conspiratorial or Fear Mongering about the factual claims I've made:
- Many major broadcasts are sponsored by Pfizer, presenting a clear financial conflict-of-interest, a clear incentive for giving Pfizer uncritical favorable treatment
- Excluding narratives includes excluding those narratives' facts, there isn't a functional difference: I've demonstrated this with the 'Stages of Denial' above
- PV story showing Zucc being a hypocrite. PV story showing CNN leadership being partisan (surprise? no. neutral & balanced? also no): proof that PV produces true evidence
- Citing the automatic censorship-instinct I'm urging us to avoid: ironically the post's warning proves that point exactly
But it's probably this that got the warning:
Project Veritas providing yet more proof that Big Tech are systematically suppressing critical discussion of Covid-related topics (including e.g. questioning the efficacy of lockdowns)
That was an allusion to the Great Barrington Declaration (WSJ no less), which is:
a statement by Harvard’s Martin Kulldorff, Oxford’s Sunetra Gupta and Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya against blanket pandemic lockdowns. They favored a policy of what they called “focused protection” of high-risk populations such as the elderly or those with medical conditions. Thousands of scientists signed the declaration—if they were able to learn about it. We tried to give it some elevation on these pages. ... These researchers weren’t fringe and neither was their opposition to quarantining society. ... The media cited Dr. Fauci as an unquestionable authority, and Dr. Fauci got his talking points from the media. Facebook censored mentions of the Great Barrington Declaration. This is how groupthink works.
FaceBook censored that. That happened. Stating so isn't fringe, fear-mongering, or conspiratorial. It's a widely signed document from experts at the highest level.
Here's a quick rundown of other inconvenient truths which have probably been discussed to death in this thread:
- masks (don't wear them, no wait, wear them),
- natural immunity (it doesn't exist, no wait, it does),
- the shots preventing infection and transmission (they do, no wait, they don't),
- the shots providing immunity (you'll be immune, no wait, boost boost boost cuz oh crap it's an influenza virus like the Cold which always changes),
- side effects (there are none, no wait, let's pull J&J)
- long term effects of the shots (we know they have none, no wait, we don't have years & years of safety data like for all other clinical trials so we *hope* they have none)
In brief, the things settled as The Science™ keep changing. Which is fine, that's how science works — through free and open discussion, and careful evaluation & re-evaluation of all the evidence we have available. We should be free to discuss things carefully and considerately, without censorship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
